Talk:Falkland Islands

Why is the Spanish name listed in the opening line?

Resolved

The name of the territory is The Falkland Islands; Spanish is not an official language of the islands - why is the Spanish name listed after the island's name? Surely this should be covered in under sections pertaining to the Argentina's illegitimate claims? The people of the islands are not Argentinian nor do they want to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.200.236 (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to say that Argentina's claims are illegitimate. Indeed, in order to preserve neutrality, we must respect Argentina's claim. Because of that claim, the Spanish name for the islands is significant encyclopædic information. Our use of it in this context reflects Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, and is based on usage by other neutral English-language sources. Pfainuk talk 16:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is supposed to explain what the islands are called not take sides. People who called the islands the Malvinas when they are speaking Spanish use the same name when they are speaking English. TFD (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia has Falkland, and we have Malvinas. Fair is fair. And yeah, whether it's legit, ours or there's claims, is not what we do. Decide yourself. --Nutthida (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does the first line have the words "Las Malvinas son Argentinas" in it ? Thats not the English or Spanish names, it is a propaganda claim by some groups in Argentina. It is NOT appropriate for the first line of the article. It could be included further down the article under Argentine claims, but NOT in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.125.10 (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article anywhere. And it wasn't as of the time you posted your message. There was the usual POV vandalism on the page for about a minute earlier in the day, but it was gone by the time you posted. Pfainuk talk 13:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly nonsense, as I don't see the spanish name of other islands on their pages. Propaganda is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.171.244 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 January 2012‎ (UTC)

WP:NPOV I have just as little patience with English nationalism, as I do with the Argentine variety. We present the neutral facts and if you don't like it tough. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It is okay, that the Spanish name is on the first line. Most people looking up this Island wants to hear about the war and the crisis these days. 188.182.250.218 (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, I don't understand why the Spanish name of the Falklands is a problem, because since 1965 the United Nations used both names at the same time, calling the islands "Malvinas (Falklands)" in Spanish, and "Falkland (Malvinas)" in English until today, every UN resolution an paper use it, why not here? Wikipedia, like the UN, do not take sides. Regards. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 15:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this issue has been resolved now ^___^ --Nutthida (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I'm going to close the issue now. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 03:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is this resolved. Flakland in Spanish is not Malvinas. Malvinas is an Argentinian name not Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.46.234 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is Spanish. What language do you think is spoken in Argentina? Argentinian? 173.196.183.131 (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Las Malvinas is Argentinian Spanish. In Madrid it's still the Falkland Islands. Anyway, if Argentina was so independent why cling on to that old colonial language of Spanish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.154.212 (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, in Spain we call them Malvinas, and now they are called Malvinas Argentinas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.106.153 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda image

A user removed this picture as a propaganda image. I found this to be quite an interesting image, and it seemed perfectly fine with the explanatory caption to me, as well as providing a nice image to show the dispute. I think it should be kept, in lieu of no better images being provided. CMD (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. It IS propaganda - by definition. If someone were to add "LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS" to the article as text it would be reverted immediately - and yet there it is, as a giant image in the middle of the article. I don't think it belongs here. That said, I'm not bothered if consensus is to keep and won't be removing it again. Rettens2 (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a good way of illustrating the dispute IMO, so I think we should keep it. Unlike just putting the words in the article (which would be vandalism), this has a caption that allows us to put the image in context. Signs like this - and more particularly graffiti on a similar theme - are not uncommon in Argentina.

Whether or not it's technically propaganda is beside the point. I do not see that it would necessarily be unreasonable to put images of propaganda in articles where those images help illustrate the text. Pfainuk talk 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw it had been removed and did not revert to re-add it. Personally I would tend to remove it for pretty similar reasons to Rettens2. That said as used to illustrate propaganda I suppose a case can be made for it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is quite obviously an image of propaganda, but I disagree that the image itself was propaganda. It's quite a strong statement to have a sign about some islands in the distant south on your border with a country in the north, and I think shows how seriously the Argentinian government takes the issue. CMD (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The image belongs in Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute but not here. I have hence removed it. Polyamorph (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The large section on the "Sovereingty Dispute" should be somehow included into the history. As Poly mentions, it would be for the good future of this article if the editors separate it as much as reasonably possible from the disputes (Plenty of other articles exist for those issues). Removing this image is a good step forward, and I also suggest removing the Argentinean POW picture. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Polyamorph: it belongs to Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute but not here. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll note that I don't agree with the image belonging in the article but there is a consensus that it remains. I would suggest given this discussion is already here that removing it in the middle of a discussion is WP:POINT as is removing another image in what can easily be construed as retaliation. I don't think the Sovereignty Dispute section should be included in the history either, the Falklands have an interesting and diverse history and whilst the dispute has resulted in distorted accounts it isn't the be all and end all of the place. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that the Territorial Dispute with Argentina can be summarized in one paragraph in the history section. Why have a long section for it (after all, there is a whole article devoted to it already)? Then there is also this article, History of the Falkland Islands, which is the correct place where the history material should be expanded.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The image doesn't belong in this article. It is a powerful image and detracts from the main purpose of this article, which is to describe the islands, not the sovereignty dispute. I do not see consensus for keeping the image in this article at all. We have a perfectly good article where the image belongs, it is unnecessary to duplicate it here, pointless restoring the image since it will not remain here. Polyamorph (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Having an image in multiple articles is not in any way a problem. I feel it adds to that section, by showing an example of argentinian claims. I also don't think the claim should be included in history. Much of the notability of the Falklands is for better or worse from the fact Argentina keeps banging on about them. The claim isn't historical, and in my experience has a lot of coverage in various sources. CMD (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that having the image in multiple articles is a problem in itself - only that the image does not belong here, in an article about the islands themselves - not the dispute. Polyamorph (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We have a section on the dispute in this article, so if the image is relevant for the article it would be relevant for the section here, which is a summary of that article. CMD (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

British paratroopers guard Argentine prisoners of war

I'll bring in this image as well. It isn't a good representation of the conflict, and it's not even in the Falklands War article. Why should this article have such an image?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As you say it isn't a good representation of the conflict so I don't think it belongs here at all. Polyamorph (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any suggested replacements? CMD (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't remove the image unless we have a replacement, even if it's decided the image is unsuitable? Polyamorph (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We could, but I'm unconvinced it's unsuitable. If there was a replacement then the decision would be much easier. CMD (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhpas all images not realted to the Islands themselves should be removed for the sake of comprmise. Althought the imagage of Paras gaurding Argitine prisoners does illustrate a victorious war.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth I wouldn't remove the PoW image as it does illustrate rather well the end of the conflict and its of direct relevance to the section. I do wonder what merit the image of the sign has though. It seems utterly divorced from the text or am I missing something? 13:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My point here is if that the PoW image was so good, then why is it not even on the Falklands War article? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it used to be. I created a photo montage to put in the infobox that used it, so many people liked it and it was moved to Commons so that other wiki projects could use it. Then somebody decided to just delete it from commons as I made a mistake and didn't transfer the licensing details. This is why I refuse to upload to Commons anymore, there seems to be a tendency to delete rather than fix there. I would say the imaged does belong on the Falklands War article. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like commons either. This one here ([1]) is more representative of the conflict and its aftermath. This image here is also pretty strong ([2]). The image and caption can convey important messages to the reader.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion a picture from the time of the war makes for a more engaging illustration than a picture from 2003. Would File:HMS Antelope 1982.jpg be more representative? It was sunk defending the British beachhead. CMD (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The conflict ended in an argentine defeat, thus any picture designed to convey the story of the conflict has to represent that. Any picture of minefields does not convey anything about the conflict, and any picture of British loses only conveys one side, you would also have to have Argentine graveyards or ships being sunk. Also if we do have the picture of the sign do we not also need one representing the other sides attitude?Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The sinking of the Belgrano image ([3]) is the best one, but it has the deletion tag on it (well, possible deletion; the discussion on it seems to involve other images as well). CMD, I thought about the ships/airplane images as well, but they're all just images of the war material (no action). Slater, your paragraph makes me think (1) You're supporting the notion that the PoW image is unbalanced and (2) makes me wonder if you think this is a contest? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he is suggesting it is unbalanced nor does he suggest it is a contest. However, the sole image presented in the dispute section is an Argentine slogan, so by giving it prominence it is giving the Argentine claim undue weight. This is why I have suggested it is removed. Now, opposite the Malvina House Hotel used to be a sign [4] that states:

“

"To The Argentine Nation and Its People. You will be welcome in our country when you drop your sovereignty claim and recognize our rights to self determination."

”

A picture along those lines may be more appropriate for this article. As regards the best image to use in the section on the Falklands War, I would avoid using an iconic image in this context as unfortunatley iconic images tend to have national significance. The controversy over the sinking makes the Belgrano image a poor choice in this context. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Precisly, I am saying that any image must be representative of the nature (and outcome) of the conflict. And no this is not a competition, but thre is a rquirment for balance. So any images must either A. present a neutral aspect (and agrgentina lost so any image of POW's is not non-neutral) or B. must have anoterh corresponding image that reflects the whole picture. Thus iamges of dead have to be both sides dead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the road sign image is unbalanced. As we all know and as the article asserts, the territory is firmly in the control of the UK, the people in it want to be British, and bar a minor period of time in 1982 it has been British for over a century. The dispute is a product of Argentina's claim. The British don't claim the Falklands any more than they claim York. All British/Falkland signs and statements are caused in reaction to the Argentine claim. Because of this I think an image demonstrating the Argentine claim shows the reader where the dispute comes from (and this sign would be far more fun, although not as simple a translation) is quite decent for the dispute section.

If a picture on the war must convey British victory, I can't find any which would seem much better. I dislike the Belgrano image mostly based on its quality, but WCM makes a good point. CMD (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2012

The Versions of Falkand Islands and Islas Malvinas differ to much. They should be merge and translated properly. The Flag of Both countries (and they recognize as valid for that (province or territory) in dispute should be visible in the same way in both versions. A link to the other version should be available. For Example change Falkland Islanders to British Americans Born in the Islands. (As UK gives them strait forward citizenship, and Argentina also in case any citizen of the Island request it as It is not possible for the Argentinean government to have office in the Islands.) Match the order of the titles in both versions. Its clear that the Spanish version is pro Argentina and the English Version is pro UK.

Thanks.

190.139.44.185 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

N Not done There is no specific edit to be made. Polyamorph (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Each language version is entirely different and not supposed to be linked in anyway, they have their own rules and such. "British Americans" well that doesn't really make sense - remember the word "American" here in the UK and the English speaking world almost always used to refer to people from the United States. Both versions are different and that's never going to change (Sadly?) --Nutthida (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Status

We did try and work toward GA status last March but it was eventually aborted following a prolonged campaign of disruptive editing. As the primary disruptive editor is now blocked I was wondering if there was a willing group of volunteers to take up the struggle once more. The peer review is logged Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 10#Peer Review. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All for it. I doubt we actually need much more to make this quite a decent article. In my opinion, the only section that needs a large amount of work is Demographics, which perhaps could incorporate a bit about the Culture of the islanders. The Communications section I think would be better headed Infrastructure and perhaps slightly rewritten, but it's mostly fine. Is there anything else we can add to Politics? CMD (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I'd like to emphasize for improving this article is that of somehow mixing the Falklands War and history sections together. Not to the point where the war itself is no longer important, but where the history is more important than just the 1982 conflict. The best example I can use is that of Peru and the War of the Pacific. Despite the WoTP had so great an impact on Peru, life did go on afterwards, and plenty also before it (hence, there is no need for a "pre-WoTP Peru" and "post-WoTP Peru").

The current style of this article makes it seem like the Falkland Islands had an alarming transformation from one year to the other. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to MarshallN20, yes, by all accounts there was, to use his words, an alarming transformation - the war was a significant part of the history of the islands - it changed just about everything. My understanding is that prior to the war, the UK policy was to make it attractive for the islanders to accept Argentinian rule and possibly to shift the debate to the islanders themselves, a policy that is now totally unsustainable. Martinvl (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

UK policy would go on the "Sovereingty Dispute" section, not history. According to my American colleagues, the US Civil War "changed just about everything" in their country, but I don't see the United States of America article splitting its history into two separate sections (plenty of subsections, however).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is NOT a good article. It's completely unencyclopedic and POV-pushing. It is asserted that Vernet sought authorization from both British and Argentinian authorities, but it is not stated that his settlement was established on behalf of Argentina, not Britain. No mention whatsoever is made of the fact that Vernet was named Military and Civil commander of the Falklands by Argentina in 1829. The British complete abandonment of its sole settlement in 1774 is attributed to financial difficulties, as if to excuse it, but no explanation is given for why the British didn't set foot on the islands for the next 59 years. The British disengagement from the islands is minimized and the Argentinian involvement is also minimized. It is also disingenuously claimed that "Sovereignty over the islands became an issue in the second half of the 20th century," completely ignoring the fact that Argentina first protested a few weeks after the British occupation of 1833, and protested at least 28 times in various fora before the UN was created. There are several other issues. Please CORRECT this or I'll fight "good articleness" with all legal means.Abenyosef (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, "Legal means"? IS that a threat of legal action? Because' that's an instant block offense. I strongly suggest you retract your comment or clarify it, if it was not your original meaning. Also, coming in here with -"POV pushing un-encyclopedic blah blah the whole article sucks" argument is NOT constructive on this topic. If you have issues with the things you have raised, start a discussion outlaying your points in a constructive manner with SOURCES to back up your statements. Also note, your personal opinions don't matter, and neither do MINE (I would obviously disagree with you on the stance of some Islands you and I have never been to, BUT WHO GIVES A CAKE! IGNORE IT! BAH! Don't get angry about it, have a slice of kawaii cake) Encase you didn't pick up, I'm being rather tongue-in-cheek and female-hormonal. BYE. --Nutthida (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant that I'll use all the mechanisms established by Wikipedia ("legal means" was tongue in cheek) to try and prevent this article from being declared a good article, which it is not. I don't believe I expressed my opinions, but facts: Vernet established a settlement on behalf of the Argentinian government (fact, not opinion); Argentina appointed Vernet as military and civil commander of the islands (fact, not opinion); Argentina protested Britain's takeover of the islands in June 1833, not in the second half of the 20th century (fact, not opinion). I believed these omissions to be the result of bad faith... but it is also possible that the previous editors simply weren't aware of these facts. Be it bad faith or ignorance, an encyclopedia should display neither.Abenyosef (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an important behavioural guideline here, and I believe that it would be beneficial if you were to follow it. I note that the changes you have been making are significantly biased and remove useful sourced information. In some cases, you have replaced this with unsourced speculation, which is also not allowed.

It is disappointing that you find the idea of improving this article so that it meets the GA requirements so objectionable, and it is difficult to see how someone apparently so opposed to the notion of improving of the encyclopædia can have a long future here. As such, I hope that you will reconsider this position. Pfainuk talk 13:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I said I'll try and prevent this article (i.e., the article in its current form) from being declared a GA. If the article improves, I'll support its nomination, by all means. But, with all due respect, I believe it's you who are opposed to improving the encyclopedia by keeping childish POV-language like "Despite its defeat." I don't agree that I have used unsourced speculation.

What you call "useful sourced information" is actually POV-pushing material from non-reliable sources. What General Moore says about etymology is completely irrelevant since he's not an etymologist, and it is laughable to claim that the Spanish name for the islands (which is also used with slight variations in French, Portuguese, Italian and Catalan) is a "propaganda name." The fact that he said so is anecdotal and utterly irrelevant. The fact that another non-reliable source finds the Spanish names offensive is also irrelevant. There's no reliable source claiming that Britain re-established its rule over the islands; indeed, prior to 1833 Britain had never ruled East Falkland. With regard to the plaque left by the British, it said "Falkland's Island," in the singular, not "Falkland Islands," and this is very relevant information.--Abenyosef (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I will correct a few of your facts. Vernet's establishment on the Falkland Islands was not an Argentine settlement, it was in fact his personal private enterprise. The fact that he played both the British and Buenos Aires authorities is well established. Further the British were not absent for 59 years as you claim but continued to use the island's resources throughout that time. The facts you assert are correct are not, the version of the history of these islands that is taught in Argentina is highly biased towards reflecting and reinforcing Argentina's sovereignty claim. It omits inconvenient facts, such as the fact Vernet co-operated with the British, or contains outright lies, sich as the claim that the settlement was expelled in 1833. The article is in fact neutrally written.

Oh and I suggest you pause and reflect upon your claim Britain only ever ruled over Port Egmont, Spain did nothing beyond the environs of Puerto Soledad. Follow your own argument, which is WP:OR btw, and Spain never ruled over the archipelago either and Argentina's claim vanishes in a puff of logic.

Further, its not so much the Spanish names that are offensive, its the fact that Argentina will not allow the use of the name used by its inhabitants, as well as the offensive toponymy imposed during Argentina's invasion and occupation of the islands.

The threat that you'll frustrate people from taking this article to GA status unless we capitulate to your demands doesn't impress in the least. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi Abenyosef, you are just taking the easy option when you make such changes: what it calls. The British gov. calls it self-determination. The Falklanders call it self-determination. And the Argentine gov. calls it self-determination. (The latter don't accept it, but they also call it self-determination) So, it is self-determination. Do you agree?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

@WCM: Vernet's enterprise was backed by proto-Argentine government, and that's why reliable secondary sources treat it as an Argentine settlement. Several times I've seen here that support disregarded, but that's fine because none of us are reliable sources (or at least not by our usernames). Further, the British government was actually absent for 59 years. British subjects were not, but neither were the American sealers, and others from many different countries.

Ok, enough forum for today. Cheers. --Langus (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Vernet's establishment received no support whatsoever from the Republic of Buenos Aires, it was done entirely on his own dollar and it bankrupted him. When Vernet attempted to gain support, namely the use of a warship, they declined, instead proclaiming him Governor - and telling him to use his own resources. Vernet also approached the British to set up a permanent garrison in the islands, gave them regular progress reports etc. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Vernet enterprise was approved and allowed by Argentine government (i.e. the Republic of Buenos Aires) and it was fostered with tax exceptions. Later, it was fostered with the appointment of Vernet as Governor. Sure, the few battleships available were assigned to other tasks (there was no material support), but that doesn't mean that there was no Argentine involvement in the settlement. Hell, the settlers even sailed from Buenos Aires! (most of them weren't born there, as many of Argentine inhabitants in those days, but they lived there at the time; same goes to Vernet --he's buried in La Chacarita Cemetery, in Buenos Aires).

But that's ok: you say that all these things are not enough to consider it an Argentine settlement. That's fine, it's your opinion, but it's not a majority view in literature. --Langus (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

So what, Vernet's establishment was also approved and allowed by the British Government, it continued after the British Return in 1833. So whats the argument here - approval and agreement from an illegal Argentine Government makes it an Argentine settlement but approval and agreement from the legitimate British representative doesn't make it a British settlement? I note we simply describe it as Vernet's settlement and don't attempt to make political capital or veer off toward supporting particular POV. A majority view in Argentine literature doesn't make for presenting a NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

British "citizens"

There's no such thing as British "citizens". They are "British subjects". "Subjects of the Crown" if you want to be completely correct. Oivs1976 (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)OIVS

And your sources are? Your information is incorrect, the home office refers to British citizenship: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/ Polyamorph (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe being a citizen is inclusive of all those titles as well? If they are though, I hardly think they need to be mentioned. (Wait, am I "Subjects of the Crown"? I hope not! >_>) --Nutthida (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See British nationality law.

The inclusive term is "British national", and there are several categories, among them British subjects and British citizens. The two terms are mutually exclusive. The term "subjects of the crown" has no legal meaning.

British citizens are essentially anyone who holds British nationality because of a connection with the modern UK, including the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories (except for the Sovereign Base Areas of Cyprus). Those connected to the Overseas Territories (such as the Falklands) are also British Overseas Territories citizens. Pfainuk talk 19:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology Section

I have some concerns that meaning and context was being lost in the rapid changes to this section today, as well as some new material added. This is of course welcome but as we are starting a drive to GA status might I suggest such changes be worked up in a sandpit and agreed first. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandpit

Talk:Falkland Islands/etymology

I've just moved the subpage to the proper slash direction. Hope this is OK. Pfainuk talk 20:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a suggested text for the section to the above sandpit, with detailed comments in red. Pol098 (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Demographics

The article includes the following statement:

The population, estimated at 3,140, primarily consists of Falkland Islanders, the majority of British descent. Other ethnicities include French, Gibraltarian, Portuguese, and Scandinavian

However, the provided source does not support such a statement. According to page 6, currently, the most of the population comes from the Falkland Islands (1339 persons), UK (838), St. Helena (394), Chile (161), Australia (36), Argentina (29), Germany (28) and New Zealand (26). Excluding "British" descent, the main ethnicities right now would be Chile, St Helena and Germany.

When it comes to ancestry (pages 8-10), distribution is pretty much the same. Although it seems to get an accurate picture of the main "ethnic" groups, the sources does not seem to support the aforementioned sentence, especially since the source does not detail the origin of self-called "Europeans". Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As soon as I saw your name appearing, I just knew you were going to start following my contributions trying to find fault. Rest assured I have other sources at home and just as soon as I find a spare moment I will be adding them. In the mean time I suggest you find another area of the project to contribute in a positive manner, rather than continuing to bear grudges and pursue your childish little vendetta. Hugs and kisses. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact remains: a whole section on the current demographic origins of the islanders does not seem to be properly sourced (I haven't analyzed the article's history to see who the author is). Fortunatelly, it seems that you have better sources at home, so once provided the quality of the article will be better. Good!!! --Ecemaml (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC) PS: BTW, is Maria Strange really notable to be mentioned in the demographics section? PS2: BTW, Origins of Falkland Islanders doesn't seem to support the statement either (although it does not focus on the actual ethnicity of settlers, but on a history of the human settlement)

This reference mentions (page 2) people from Scandinavia, Uruguay, France, Finland or Gibraltar. It does not mention Portuguese people. --Ecemaml (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're providing good information Ecemaml, but it would be best to give Wee Curry time to provide the sources he holds. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Portuguese element stems right from the early settlement - FitzRoy, Robert. Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty's Ships Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the southern shores of South America, and the Beagle's circumnavigation of the globe. Proceedings of the second expedition, 1831-36, under the command of Captain Robert Fitz-Roy, R.N. London: Henry Colburn, 1839. Chapter XII, p. 267. I've also contacted the OP from the origins article, whose text I cribbed. I've also a fairly large reference work to trawl through. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That statement seems to be a synthesis. You're taking a 1839 source providing information about the population in the 1830's to make conclusions about the current population of the islands. Proper (and current) secondary sources would be needed instead. For example, in the origins article, it describes how, in the 19th century there was an important South American component (mainly Argentinean and Uruguayan). Does it allow us to include them as current "ethnicities"? I don't think so. On the other hand, the fact that there are Portuguese (or whatever) origins in the current Falklands population does not mean they are currently a "ethnicity". Are people with Portuguese ancestries (or Scandinavian, or Gibraltarian, or whatever) a "group of people whose members identify with each other" right now? --Ecemaml (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh quit with the pedantic nit picking will you, I am not the original OP and that was a source I had. This is a work in progress and if needs be it will be chanegd. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the following statement requires also proper sourcing:

About 70 per cent of the population is of British descent, primarily as a result of Scottish and Welsh immigration to the islands

There's a source, but I don't know whether it supports the whole sentence or just the mention to Scottish and Welsh immigration. The problem with the source is that it's a 1983 source and, as the section clearly describes, since the early 1980's to the current day, population has almost doubled. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Its still around 70% British descent, I have expunged all mention of Portuguese ancestry so now you have nothing to complain about. If the OP comes back with a source I'll put it back in. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 ?? I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just trying to determine whether the article fulfills wikipedia's policies, and providing remedies if not. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Of more important note is that the number of Chilean-born people is exagerate the number of people of Chilean descent - if a Falkland Islander is havign a difficult pregnancy, she will often to to Santiago to have her baby as Santiago has better facilities than Stanley. I don't have the reference to hand. Martinvl (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a table in the census document dealing with such an issue (I'll double check it) --Ecemaml (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

C

Hi, I believe that there is a gross error in this page. Everybody know that the Falkland Islands were usurped illegally to Argentina (or how do you call to take the control of a foreign territory by the force in 1833?).

Please, correct this gross history error.

Thanks! 186.136.142.44 (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, or meat puppet of Alex, still touting that imperialist nonsense are we? Or haven't got to grips with modern Human rights (none of which are being infringed in Argentina over the Falklands, but you certainly want to infringe the rights of the people on the Island who bare no responsibility for something that happened in 1833) or can't understand that the Argentine gov is mearly using the Issue to deflect from Argentina's internal issues? Nice one. And stay off my talk page this time. Nutthida (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

N Not done No specific request Cambalachero (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty silly to argue that in this day and age the Brits have a right to claim the Falklands as British territory any more than Rhodesia or India. But of course, the political discussion / POV one way or the other is inappropriate for Wikipedia to take a position on... =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Requires a response, since the British don't claim anything - the Falkland islands are British territory by virtue of the wishes of the people who live in the Falkland islands. If anything, the Argentine claim is the imperialistic one. Polyamorph (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM please. This is not the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of the dispute. Pfainuk talk 18:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Air Transport

I believe that ship traffic to the Falklands is already banned from Argentinian territory / waters. I thin that Cristina Fernández de Kirchner recently added air transport to that list with respect to Argentine air space? Should that information be worked into the article? =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't happened yet, though it's been widely discussed. Better not to put anything in unless it actually happens and has a significant effect: after all, if Argentina was to ban Falklands-bound flights from its airspace, this would not necessarily mean that the LAN link to Punta Arenas would stop (though it would have to go a more roundabout route).

Remember also that this is the article on the islands, not the dispute, so the minutiae of the dispute are not relevant here. Just pointing this out as such things are frequently proposed. Pfainuk talk 18:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Description of the economy in the Falklands is not up to date.

I just read an article on the BBC outlining the growing problems for islanders to get fresh products like eggs and vegetables delivered. Briefly, Argentina has convinced many south american countries to stop deliveries and has practically blocked the airline connections. More about this topic at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16980747 can someone update the Economy section? It does not reflect the real conditions anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.243.57 (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done per WP:NOTNEWS. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I do edit edit articles every now and then on Wikipedia, although I am a not a registered user. Still I believe that a report from the BBC, with a journalist being sent there, asking questions and reporting facts should be considered as a veritable source. A shortage of some goods is taking place in the Falklands since sometimes. These are facts and not "News", weather Wikipedia like it or not.

Its news, a transient story that will wrap tomorrow's chips. Sorry but that is why WP:NOTNEWS exists. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All that this shows is that in the past it was more economic for the Falkland Islanders to import fresh food - if the embargo continues, they will probably find a work-around - they have enough land and no predators to take their chickens. As Wee Curry Monster says "it is a transient story". Martinvl (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A regular container shipment is now addressing this problem, this is why WP:NOTNEWS exists. It was a transient problem, which can affect any isolated island. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Relations

Diplomatic relations between Argentina and the UK were resumed in 1990 according to this article, but in the wiki page about the war specifically it says 1989. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.82.145 (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone will get back to you once they all stop arguing over who should get the oil, and whether or not a bunch of Islanders today (Who must lead insanely boring lives lalala) should be kicked off or murdered or whatever based on something that happened in 1833. No seriously, It might be to do with two different sources being used that gives conflicting dates. But Idk. ^_^ --Nutthida (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: 19/02/2012

Regarding the photo of Gordon Brown and Cristina Fernández - Perhaps should read "former Prime Minister Gordon Brown" or "then Prime.." essentially making the distinction that he is no longer the British Prime minister.

Done Wee Curry Monster talk 17:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Britain re-established its rule in 1833"

Before 1833, Britain never ruled the Falklands. Its only settlement, at Egmontt, was contemporary with a much larger French, then Spanish settlement. The statement "Britain re-established its rule in 1833" is not supported by a source and appears to be original research. Therefore I'll remove it.--Abenyosef (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The material is sourced, it isn't original research, it is neutrally worded and it is and your allegation of POV editing is unsubstantiated. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to source a material you've got to cite a reliable source, which is done through a reference. There's no reference for the claim that Britain re-established its rule. Therefore, the claim is unsourced and needs to be eliminated.--Abenyosef (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The material is cited to a reliable source, you're simply playing semantics. Every couple of months we have a patriot coming here telling us this is biased as it doesn't reflect the Argentine POV. I suggest you add WP:OWB to your reading list especially No. 1. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WCM is right, in the sense that the material is reliably sourced. Patriots in general come every now and then to voice their position, regardless of nationality. None are as wacky as Gibson.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the source? You've got to put a reference -- the small elevated numbers to the right of a sentence. I see none here. Therefore, the claim is unsourced. Stop beating around the bush and give me the source.

And please note, I've corrected a MAJOR mistake (confusing the Falkland Islands with the Falkland Dependencies), so that already I have made a very valuable contribution to the "goodness" of this article.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually you attempted to remove sourced content that Argentina refused to accept a neutral and binding judgement over its territorial claims at the ICJ; material of direct relevance. Per WP:LEDE sources are not generally used in the lede, since the text is sourced in the text below, which it is. If you care to look at the sandpit where we rewrote the lede, these were were removed. Demanding a source in the lede? I'lll give you what you want, if you really, really want The History of the Falkland Islands, Mary Cawkell, p.57. Have a nice day now.

PS Mel Gibson did worse with Scottish history, utter shite but annoys the Sassenachs. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ To my knowledge, the expression "Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands" is original research. I've been involved in extensive discussions here, here, and here, and not a single reliable source has ever been provided. WP:TITLE indicates that "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles", but the fact is that "Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands" is a compromise title crafted in good faith by WP editors.

A requested move for that article is a pending matter to me. "British repossession of the Falkland Islands" for example is an equally POV title, but at least it is used by secondary reliable sources. --Langus (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be (by source or by consensus), it seems this article is really not the place to discuss the subject. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

http://thailandtimes.asia/thailand-news/falkland-islands-no-negotiations/, http://www.tehrantimes.com/world/95284-argentina-condemns-british-militarization-of-malvinas-?tmpl=component&page= (though they may be using the same press release). http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/02/01/argentina-and-uk-dispute-heats-up-as-prince-william-heads-to-falklands/, http://www.discoveryuk.com/the-loop/falklands-provocation/.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Any consensus to to improve the title on that article was frustrated by Langus' insistence on his own content suggestions, which were rejected by everyone else. Langus also started an RFC, which concluded his claims of POV were unsubstantiated. Its not original research, the article title was just a compromise agreed by consensus by editors who were willing to consider a better alternative. What is interesting is the assertion that the alternative title you name is POV. Why? The nationality of the author? That said, Marshall is correct, this isn't the place to discuss another article. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW thanks Slatersteven, I presume no one is going to claim the Teheran Times is pro-British... :-) Wee Curry Monster talk 17:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree also that this is not the place, but let me reply the last comments as a closure. We can continue in that article's talk page if needed.

• Thailand Times: you must have missed the sentence "The following is an edited version of the information on Wikipedia."
• Tehran Times: if you Google that paragraph ("Controversy exists over the Malvinas' original discovery and subsequent colonization by Europeans. At various times there have been French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Britain re-established its rule in 1833"), you'll end up on this article (Falkland Islands). We are their press release (you really should check this before posting sources: last time was exactly the same)

The other two use the expression "ever since the British re-established rule in 1833" and "Ever since Britain re-established its rule of the islands back in 1833, Argentina has claimed sovereignty". Both are very similar to the old version of the lede: "Ever since the re-establishment of British rule in 1833, Argentina has claimed sovereignty". Slatersteven, do you have any source that uses this expression prior to its inclusion by us in Wikipedia?? I'm telling you, we're doing exactly this, and its atrocious. --Langus (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you willsee I did say the first two sources seemd to be using the same statment. I did not notice that the thailandtimes used wiki as a ource, so thanks for poiting that out. As to Fox and Disscovery, I am not sure that your objection is valid, as we do not use only soources writen befire wikipeida.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can't really prove that the writers looked for information in Wikipedia, but because of the similarities in the expressions and the words used, I truly have that hunch. Cheers. --Langus (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fox is not a reliable source, since it claims: "The two nations have fought over sovereignty of the islands, which are known as the Malvinas in Spanish, ever since the British re-established rule in 1833. The 1982 invasion by Argentina left more than 600 Argentine dead, 200 British troops killed and weakened the Southern Cone nation’s military dictatorship, helping speed the transition to democracy in Argentina." The actual number of British troops killed was 255. If Fox errs in this, it may err in other statements, and therefore is not a reliable source.--Abenyosef (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fox has been deemed an RS on multiple occasions, How about this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wnVXSxs8tTkC&pg=PT2&dq=re-establishment+of+British+rule+on+the+Falklands+%2B+1833&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CoNKT7__CYbF0QXS6t2JDg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=re-establishment%20of%20British%20rule%20on%20the%20Falklands%20%2B%201833&f=false, sorry its not post wikipeida, so I suggest you point to the policy that says this isn’t RS. A non-neutral source http://www.hmforces.co.uk/training/articles/1624-the-falklands-conflict-op-corporate---part-1, http://www.rmg.co.uk/explore/sea-and-ships/on-this-day-in-history.Not sure if this is RS, as I have no knowledge of this paper http://www.argentinaindependent.com/tag/arturo-puricelli/Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't open that one. Care to quote what the text says?--Abenyosef (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Which one?Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean the book.--Abenyosef (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

From thee book: "Argentina has always argued that the islanders are not indigenous and were brought in to replace the Argentinian population that was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833, and therefore have no right to self-determination." The author does not seem to be a certified historian, but has several works on military history. I'd take the source as reliable, but perhaps it would be best if the RS/N took the final verdict.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not sure the behaviours being exhibited here are helpful. You demanded a source, multiple sources have been provided, that should be the end of the matter. Quibbling about sources and trying to construct arguments to ignore or put aside sources is not in the least bit constructive. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The "book" turns out to be a 50-page booklet written by an unknown author in remarkably unscholarly fashion. No footnotes or references are provided. It is not a reliable source; notice for instance the sloppy wording: "Argentina has always argued that the islanders are not indigenous and were brought in to replace the Argentinian population that was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833." This is a tangential reference to the "re-establishment of British rule," not an outright assertion of it; also, it freely mixes Argentina's claims (expulsion of Argentinians) with Britain's claims (British rule).

I'm asking for a reliable source. Can you provide a scholarly source asserting that Britain re-established its rule? There are lots of heavily footnoted academic volumes on the Falklands? Surely you'll be able to find me one in support of this "re-establishment" thing?--Abenyosef (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't only use scolerly sources, so what is wrong with the Museam website, or the argentina independent news paper?Slatersteven (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly sources are the ones that hold most weight in a discussion, but that does not eliminate other reliable sources from being used. Perhaps it might help your case, Abenyosef, if you provided a source which states the opposite (that it was not a re-establishment of British rule). The fact that other sources (mainly news outlets) also make use of the term, regardless of whether they copied it from Wikipedia or elsewhere, adds a few feathers to the balance in favor of the term's usage. Of course, as feathers, the weak sources stand no match against more reliable works. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit iffy (its an abstaract) http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5409248.Slatersteven (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, the Argentina Independent is a sloppy source; notice that it claims that the UN resolution called on Argentina, Britain and Ireland to begin negotiations on the Falklands. Anyone with a minimal knowledge of the conflict is aware that Ireland is not involved.

MarshalN20, you're surely aware that the burden of proof falls on the one making an assertion, in this case that Britain re-established its rule. Since this is not supported by the copious scholarly literature, it is fair to say that sloppily-written journalistic pieces do not suffice, especially when serious mistakes can be detected in their other assertions.--Abenyosef (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, sourced per WP:RS satifying WP:V, seeking reasons to dismiss a source that contradicts you is pretty much the poster boy of disruptive POV editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. WP:RS states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Since the newspaper citations presented here are commentary and analysis pieces, they can't be taken as a reliable source for the statement of fact that "Britain re-established its rule over the islands." Please look for a scholarly source.--Abenyosef (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Barry Gough uses assertion/reassertion of sovereignty, and reoccupation when referring to these events in the paper "The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843". (If anyone wants to read the paper, just drop me an email). --Langus (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourced, cited and has a clear consensus - drop the stick. A game of Pooh sticks is infinitely more productive. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not sourced. There's no reference yet in the article. What reference will you finally use? Clear consensuses are not created by your decree, but by a convergence of opinions and, eventually, a vote.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@WCM: if you're talking to me, I've drop the stick long ago. But you can force me to change my view that it's a bad title and that we should do something about it. To my view, as I said, those sources are contaminated by Wikipedia, and we should use the scholars. --Langus (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't claim its perfect and remain willing to consider alternatives. But again Langus, discussions came to a halt because of your intransigence and denial of the prior British settlement. Consensus is not a vote either - see WP:CONSENSUS and changing CONSENSUS is achieved through reasoned argument not a vote. The WP:BATTLE mentality being shown here is unlikely to shift the existing consensus and would more likely reinforce it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There are two issues with "Britain re-established its rule."

Issue #1: It's not backed by a scholarly source. All we have been given is newspaper articles or nonacademic booklets.

Issue #2: There exists a competing claim. Argentina states that "Britain occupied the islands." In fact, this is the wording used in the Spanish Wikipedia. And this wording does have a wealth of academic sources supporting it. See: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and many other sources.

So that, since scholarly material trumps newspapers, if any of either wordings is to be used, it is "Britain occupied the Falkland Islands in 1833."

However, I'm proposing to use a more neutral tone, such as "In 1883, after a military operation, Britain established its rule on the Falkland Islands, which has continued to this day."--Abenyosef (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see you didn't like my proposal, so here's another: let's stick to the reliable sources.

The situation is as follows. There are two ways to describe the events of 1833. One is "Britain re-established its rule" (the current wording in the article). This description does not enjoy any support from academic sources. We've turned over the cyberspace and we haven't been able to find any scholarly book or paper in its support. Jimbo Wales has stated that if a view is majoritarian, it should be easy to find sources to back it; and if it is a mainstream minority view, it should enjoy the support of prominent people. Neither condition is satisfied by "Britain re-established its rule."

"Britain occupied the Falkland Islands," on the other hand, seems to be the standard scholarly phrasing to describe the events. Above I provided several links to books containing the phrase, and many others can be easily found. The phrase is used both by Argentinian, British and neutral sources.

In view of the overwhelming support that "Britain occupied the Falkland Islands" enjoys from the academia, I'll substitute it for "Britain re-established its rule." The first description is used in books and scholarly papers. The second one appears to be unsupported by any academic sources. Wikipedia mandates balance, true, but between majoritarian and minoritarian views, not between standard and fringe theories.

Please discuss. I'm giving a reasoned analysis for my future edit.--Abenyosef (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not giving a reasoned analysis here. You have pre-determined your desired edit and have selected sources to back it up. The accusation of occupation is very much an Argentine POV and we should strive to present the topic in a neutral manner. Nor is the solution as binary a decision as you imply. There has already been an extensive analysis of how this is covered in the literature and the following were proposed.

1. 1 British repossession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)
2. 2 British possession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)
3. 3 Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland

Thus far, #1 amd #3 had majority support though a clear consensus did not emerge. With a lack of a clear consensus to change, I am unwilling to see a neutral although imperfect title changed to one with clear issues with our policy of a WP:NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In the first place, we're editing this article, not other articles, so let's stick to this one. In the second place, I have asked for scholarly sources backing the POV that "Britain re-established its rule" in 1833, and you have provided none. In the third place, if Argentinian, British and neutral academic sources use the phrase "Britain occupied the Falkland Islands," as proved by my examples, maybe this is the only standard academic POV and we should stick to it. In the fourth place, even if you think that "Britain re-established its rule" is a valid POV, it's not the only one, so we can't use it in a lede without balance.

I'm giving scholarly sources, you're not giving scholarly sources. Please fix that to begin with.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you appreciate that it's difficult to provide the sources you're asking for when you simply brand any that don't support your viewpoint as "non-scholarly"? There are buckets of sources that have been provided in this section, and you're just attempting to filibuster a resolution. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The "buckets of sources" have been four or five online newspapers and a booklet without references. WP:RS establishes that newspaper analyses or editorials are not reliable as a source for statements of fact. It also establishes that books should be peer-reviewed, or published by renowned university presses, to be considered a scholarly source.

But let's not be disingenuous. You and I know what a scholarly source is. It can be the procedings of a congress, symposium or convention. It can be a peer-reviewed journal. It can be a book published by a university. In all cases, it must be the work of authorities endorsed by other authorities. None of your sources satisfies these requirements.

Also, you're not answering my point about lack of balance. The current lede makes a statement of fact that favors the British position. Not only that; it presents an extreme, maximalist version of that position. "Britain re-established its rule" is a fringe statement not endorsed by the academia. In comparison, the Argentinian position ("Britain occupied the islands") is NOT presented in the lede, even though it is widely endorsed by scholars. This is contrary to WP:Balance.--Abenyosef (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Which of those newpaper sources are editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces? Also please refrain for inmserting your own requirments as to what constututes RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How about this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oCWGX18UrhEC&pg=PA372&dq=Britain+%2B+re-established+%2B+falklands+%2B+1833%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qw1NT96KKtHPsgbFs7S9Dw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Britain%20%2B%20re-established%20%2B%20falklands%20%2B%201833%22&f=false, or this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OqUBUgW_Ax8C&pg=PA402&dq=Britain+%2B+re-established+%2B+falklands+%2B+1833%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qw1NT96KKtHPsgbFs7S9Dw&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Britain%20%2B%20re-established%20%2B%20falklands%20%2B%201833%22&f=false, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VvwmkoFaCMAC&pg=PA612&dq=Britain+%2B+re-established+%2B+falklands+%2B+1833%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qQ5NT8qqIcjZsgaxy8WmDw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Britain%20%2B%20re-established%20%2B%20falklands%20%2B%201833%22&f=false says that the British re-established their garrison, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IkiNBQXP65EC&pg=RA1-PA142&dq=Britain+%2B+re-established+%2B+falklands+%2B+1833%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qQ5NT8qqIcjZsgaxy8WmDw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Britain%20%2B%20re-established%20%2B%20falklands%20%2B%201833%22&f=false says the British re-established their colony.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So in the name of WP:Balance, Abenyosef proposes to present only the Argentine position? A strange view of WP:NPOV indeed. WP:NEWSORG actually states Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors. So the claim new reporting is not considered reliable is demonstrably false. In addition, as I pointed out earlier, we have done a pretty exhaustive examination of sources and the claim it is "the only standard academic POV" is also demonstrably false. Point of fact, ignoring that analysis to demand we adopt a POV statement is filibustering. Regarding the claim there is a lack of balance, the usual British nomenclature is to refer to the events of 1833 as the British return to the Falklands, we don't present either viewpoint and came to a term that favours neither side. Imperfect as it is, resorting to a demonstrably POV term, on the basis of a fallacious and unsustainable argument is worse. No thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues here.

1. You selectively quote from WP:NEWSORG. The full quote: News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. All information about the 1833 events is editorial content, because the newspaper is not reporting on those events, but commenting on them. Therefore, that information is "rarely reliable for statements of fact."

2. Your unsourced statement that "the usual British nomenclature is to refer to the events of 1833 as the British return to the Falklands" is irrelevant, since return is not the same as re-establishment of rule.

3. Apart from the above, your statement about British nomenclature is plainly wrong. The Economist, a British magazine, uses the expression "Britain occupied the islands in 1833."[15] So does the British Yearbook of International Law.[16] British professor John Greenaway also describes the events as an occupation[17] (notice the British spelling used in the book). These PROMINENT examples disprove your claim.

4. None of your sources states that Britain re-established its rule. Sovereignty, colony, garrison are not the same as rule. Also, they're two few compared to the scores of sources that say "Britain occupied the Falkland Islands." If any claim based on those sources is to be included at all, we must state that it's a minority view. Otherwise we would be clearly violating WP:UNDUE.--Abenyosef (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking each point in turn:

1. We are sourcing a statement of fact from a variety of sources, many of which could never be described a favourable to a UK POV (eg Teheran Times). These are not editorials as you claim. Another argument that is not sustainable.

2. An irrelevant tendentious argument bearing no relation to the point made.

3. One news source does not disprove a point about the literature; somewhat ironic given your attempt to claim that news sources are "not reliable".

4. Multiple sources establish its a relevant term to use, it is not a minority view. This is simply a red herring.

Echoing the point below, this is the best compromise edit we've managed to achieve and I don't see how changing it to a term that favours any particular national narrative helps. Particularly as it happens when no reasoned argument is being put forward for a change. All I see here is a tendentious editing. Its come to the point where I really don't see the value in continuing discussions with a disruptive editor who simply seeks to impose a solution favouring his own POV. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupied does not exclude re-establishment.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

sov·er·eign·ty    [sov-rin-tee, suhv-] noun, plural -ties. 1. the quality or state of being sovereign. 2. the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royalty. 3. supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community. 4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative. 5. a sovereign state, community, or political unit So yes it does mean 'to rule'.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Occupation" as a term is simply inaccurate in this case. And the fact that people may use it does not make it accurate. We should be accurately describing what went on, even where others make mistakes or oversimplify the position.

Just about the only things that changed in January 1833 were the flag and the Gauchos' pay expectations. The civilian government provided through Vernet's private enterprise, that had first settled the islands in 1829, remained in place until its leaders were killed by a band of Gauchos in August 1833. No British government or military representation and no permanent British population (other than those who had been arrested during the Lexington Raid) was left on the islands at any point in 1833. Pfainuk talk 18:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we coukld change it to "Britain re-established its Sovereignty in 1833", as the sources that use this have not been called into doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OqUBUgW_Ax8C&pg=PA402&dq=Britain+%2B+re-established+%2B+falklands+%2B+1833+%2B+sovereignty&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_SFNT9rgG4ahOv-b1KQC&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Britain%20%2B%20re-established%20%2B%20falklands%20%2B%201833%20%2B%20sovereignty&f=false, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9EWOp_AgxfQC&pg=PA190&dq=Britain+%2B+re-established+%2B+falklands+%2B+1833+%2B+sovereignty&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uiJNT9rNDMKfOunJ_asC&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=Britain%20%2B%20re-established%20%2B%20falklands%20%2B%201833%20%2B%20sovereignty&f=false all say re-establish sovereignty.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, it's not really neutral as it implies that Britain actually had and has legal sovereignty (which Argentina disputes). We've been through a lot of these sorts of discussions before, and every suggestion that has been brought up has problems - most of them involving crossing red lines of neutrality and accuracy. The status quo is the best compromise we've managed to reach.

So far as I'm concerned we don't really need to source "re-establishment of British rule" beyond its factual accuracy (already amply demonstrated here and on the relevant other articles): our articles are not required to be made up purely of direct quotes of sources. But for those who want sources confirming that it is used, sources have been provided. Pfainuk talk 19:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with the status quo we have at present I am just providing alternatives that are RS based.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Pfainuk's point, and having been involved in previous discussions I can understand it, its likely to be disputed as favouring the British POV as Argentina asserts the British have never had sovereignty. I see his comment as not a criticism of your proposal, it is borne from previous tedious and tiresome discussions from editors seeking to favour a particular national narrative. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Britain re-established its rule" implies that Britain formerly ruled the islands. This is disputed. Therefore, the current phrasing of the lede represents a POV, not a fact. Wikipedia mandates that disputed claims be sourced, and that the opposing POV be also presented. Not only that: it requires, as per WP:NPOV, that "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." So that if this viewpoint is in the majority, you should be able to provide reference texts (not Iranian newspapers) in its support, which you haven't. That for one thing.

For another thing, "Britain occupied the Falkland Islands" seems to be the STANDARD way of describing the events of 1833. It enjoys widespread current use: for instance, even in these conflictive times, the British newspaper The Telegraph stated a few days ago: "Argentina has received the backing of Latin American countries for its claim of sovereignty over the remote, wind-lashed islands, which were occupied by Britain in 1833."[18]

Therefore, the events of 1833 are described as an occupation by multiple sources, both Argentinian, British and neutral, both academic and journalistic, both historical and current. Your claim that I want to favor my national narrative is baseless -- if it were a national narrative, British and neutral journalists and scholars wouldn't use the term occupation! Why do you say it's my POV when it's also the POV supported by multiple, prominent Britons, as well as neutral sources? Me no understand.--Abenyosef (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but it seems toi me that there is not a standard (and please don't shout) was of describing the events of 1833. Its also disputes that britian did not rule the islands as well. Yiou asked for sources, they were provided, you then ask for scholerly sources, you diusmissed thos for pedantic reasons, everytime you hacve aksed for something and its been provided you change the goal posts. Yes there are RS that use the term under discusion. Is it neutral, maybe not but then neither is occupation.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OK another go "Britain re-established its settlement in 1833"Slatersteven (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, it's not really accurate because the settlement already existed when the British showed up.

So, while I appreciate the thought, I don't think this proposal is a goer either. As Curry Monster says, we've gone through a lot of suggestions (not these specific ones, but others) before. It seems clear that Abenyosef is just going to go for his term, regardless of accuracy and other concerns. Sources have been provided for the current term (though we don't really need to source it), but he's just ignoring them. You're right: there's no standard terminology for this particular event and most people just use ad-hoc descriptions - and not always accurate ones. We have such an ad-hoc description, it's just that ours is accurate.

FWIW I find the status quo significantly more neutral than "occupation" (because "occupation" can imply illegitimacy). It is also much more accurate. The status quo is far from perfect, but it is the best name for this event that I have seen. Pfainuk talk 22:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would concur with that assessment. Whilst I appreciate the suggestions Slatersteven has put forward in good faith. As Slatersteven notes above, the goalposts keep moving. It seems clear that no matter what the discussion suggests Abenyosef is going to ignore it to insist on his preferred wording. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

@Pfainuk: We have examined two accounts of the 1833 events. One is "Britain re-established its rule." The other is "Britain occupied the islands." Both are POVs, both are disputed, but one has more scholarly support than the other.

Granted, you have presented you sources -- the Teheran Times, the Thailand Daily and the Bollocksville Express (for those of you about to report me, that last one is a joke, for God's sake). I have also presented my sources, which are far more numerous and scholarly.

So that here we have two competing accounts of one and the same event. You may think one is more accurate than the other, and I disagree with your POV, but what really counts is verifiability, not truth. And I have presented a wealth of sources for the concept "Britain occupied the islands."

Wikipedia mandates balance. Either we present both views, or none. The need for change stems from WP:Balance, not from any whim of mine. So if you have a proposal, I'm all ears.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And all the other sources you have chosen to ignore. Moreover (and again I will say it) Occupy does not invalidate re-establish rule, the two are not mutualy exlusive.You soources there fore do not trump the idea that Britian re-established its rule. Now if you accept that "Britain occupied the islands. is not nuetral do you have an alterantive?Slatersteven (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

New material. The British government itself once described the events as "the British occupation of 1833."[19]

I think this closes the case. A wording is neutral when it is acceptable to both sides of a conflict. I have proved that "Britain occupied the Falklands in 1833" is acceptable to the British media, academia and government. It is also acceptable to the Argentinian side. Therefore, it is as neutral as phrasings can get. It's the wording we shall use. If you guys can figure out how to also include the view that it was a re-establishment of British rule (while clarifying that it is a fringe view), we can include that view too.--Abenyosef (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that Foreign office memorandum are not official statements by the government, they are often correspondence between civil servants expressing their own personal views on a subject. You source quotes this without a context, so who was it written by, and under what circumstances? And no its not decided. I also note that I aksed you (as yuo accept that both terms are not neutral) to propopse an alterantive,m and instead you look for more stuff to back up your preferd term. It is therfore clrear that you have no interest in compromise and that you will not accept any solution except yours.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it "doesn't close the case", the comments of a civil servant do not represent an official statement by the British Government. For instance do we claim as an official statement by the Argentine Government that the British claim for sovereignty is "exceedingly strong". I can source a statement by one of your foreign ministers to that effect. You are clearly aware this is not neutral and you're repeatedly demanding the same when editors have made it plain its not acceptable. I take it you don't have an alternative? Does anyone else feel further discussions will be productive? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I feel (as I say above) that there is no posibility of compromise being reached (as none have been susgested), and it will just be tit for tat source roundabouts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘WCM, we are not discussing the British claim for sovereignty. We are discussing what to call the 1833 events. There are two POVs. The current wording supports your POV, which states that it was a re-establishment of British rule. As per WP:Balance, we also need to present the alternative POV, amply documented by me, that it was an occupation. If you can make a proposal, I'm all ears. But we can't keep the current wording which violates WP:NPOV.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That was clearly not my point. The current wording does not violate WP:NPOV, what you propose does however and there is nothing to say we cannot keep the current status quo. I don't see any attempt to discuss you're simply repeating the same dubious claims, they've been rebutted but you keep making them. You're not going to be able to bore us into submission. I don't see the need to continue replying to you as its obvious you're not listening - please note having the last word doesn't mean you get your own way and I do not agree to implement what you propose. Bye. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The article states: "Britain re-established its rule in 1833." Do you think this is a statement accepted by both sides in this conflict? If it's not, it's a POV, and we've got to provide the alternative POV. My claim is that many reliable sources support the view that "Britain occupied the islands in 1833." My claim is about the existence of those sources, not about their truthfulness. How is that claim dubious? And how was it rebutted?--Abenyosef (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What I think is being said is that you rfuse to entertain any idea other then that Britian occupied the Falklands, and that your sources do not trump any otehr source. Both "Britain re-established its rule in 1833." and "Britain occupied the islands in 1833." (you accpet) are laoded terms, as such neitehr should really be used. Do yoou have any alterantive propossals or are you just demanding that one POV take president over another?Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Abenyosef, if you feel that this is a POV problem, please take the matter to the WP:NPOVN. The discussion in this talk page regarding this topic is already done. Consensus has so far been in favor of maintaining the status quo. Considering that the current term "Re-establishment of British Rule" is not only a consensus term but also the title of an article, it may be difficult for your position to succeed (though, arguably nothing is impossible). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

MarshalN20, consensus can change when new materials are presented, as I have done here. Moreover, consensus is achieved through reasoned argumentation. My argumentation is that "Britain re-established its rule" does not enjoy support from the academia, the media or even the British government. On the other hand, "Britain occupied the Falklands" is the description overwhelmingly used by scholars, news outlets and even the British government in its internal documents. We want a high-quality encyclopedia. Are you satisfied with a consensus that runs contrary to all scholarship on the article's topic? I want to discuss this on this page. I don't want to begin a war.

My concern is that "Britain re-established its rule" is practically a Wikipedia creation. We've turned over the cyberspace and haven't been able to find a single reference text describing in that way the 1833 events. The reason is simple: Britain didn't rule the Falklands before 1833; it only possessed a short-lived settlement on an island west of West Falkland, while the Spaniards had a much larger and stabler settlement in Puerto Soledad on East Falkland. While it may be true that Britain claimed sovereignty over the whole Falklands (and even that is disputed), it is plainly false that it ruled them.

When the consensus is not true and, more to the point, not backed by an overwhelmingly majority of the sources, it needs to be revised. It's the quality of the article that is at stake.--Abenyosef (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So you reject my proposals?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You sound surprised, he has pretended mine above didn't exist. Running with scissors is a very silly thing to do! Wee Curry Monster talk 15:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK how about "British expedition of 1833"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Or "Falklands becomes a British Crown Colony 1833" a pure statment of fact with out pushing anyones POV.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe something needs to be said about the military aspect of the events. How about "In 1833, after a military operation, Britain displaced an Argentinian garrison and established a crown colony."--Abenyosef (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Which military operation would that be? There was nothing more than an exchange of notes. How about "In 1833, the British sent a polite note asking the Argentine garrison that had been present less than 3 months to leave, after thinking about it for a bit, they did." Wee Curry Monster talk 15:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be too much detail for a lede. On another note, the garrison chose not to fight, but it was a military operation nonetheless.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal did not mention millitray operation, why do you want it mentioned now? Also its not the lead its the info box, what you prpose is realy fat too long.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK then in "In 1833, a crack British military stationery unit sent a polite but really stern note asking that the Argentine garrison that had been present less than 3 months should leave, after thinking about it for a bit and impressed by the obviously superior pensmanship of the British, they did". Wee Curry Monster talk 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

British writing instruments can be quite deadly, or so I've learned.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets not take the piss. I oppose the mention of a millitary operation as far to much detail, for an info box throw away line.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK I won't make reference to the crack special forces unit from Interflora, trained in silent killing and flower arranging - instant death with floral tribute. A military operation is completely inaccurate, there was no military operation. The mere presence of a warship does not make it a military operation, thats like claiming the visit of HMS Beagle was an amphibious assault. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘OK, here's another: "In 1833, British forces displaced/evacuated an Argentinian garrison and a crown colony was established." And in the info box: "Ruled by Great Britain since: 1833."--Abenyosef (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Except the colony was established in 1841, until that time the only persons present was the naval contingent and the survivors of Vernet's settlement. You've made repeated allegations this is POV, it isn't.

a) It is not POV to say the islands have been ruled by the UK since 1833, whether or not you agree that it is legitimate - it remains a fact.

b) It is not POV to say that Britain had previously exercised sovereignty, whether or not you agree that it was legitimate - it remains a fact.

If you claim that Britain never previously ruled the Falklands, because it only had a settlement on West Falkland, then consider this. Vernet's settlement was on East Falkland and the presence of the Argentine Garrison for the few days before Mestivier's murder was also on East Falkland only. Both were confined to a small area around Port Louis. If we apply this strict narrow interpretation of what constitutes "rule", then by this new strict standard, Argentina has NEVER ruled the Falklands. Is this really the line you wish to take, because I'm fascinated to know the answer. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not accurate. No new settlement, and no crown colony, was established on the islands by any party in 1833. The islands didn't weren't given crown colony status until 1845. The garrison, when asked to leave, did so aboard an Argentine ship - "evacuated" in this context implies otherwise. And "displaced" does rather imply that force was used, when it was not. Pfainuk talk 18:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, of course we can change that to "In 1833, British warships forced an Argentinian garrison to evacuate the islands, and a crown colony was established in 1845." A source using this wording: [20].

WCM, between your points (a) and (b) you change your terminology from "rule" to "sovereignty." They're not the same! As for your last paragraph, we're discussing British rule, not Argentinian rule. I never said anything about Argentinian rule. Also, the British settlement was not even on West Falkland. It was on Saunders Island.

Finally, the word "re-establishment" is tricky, as it has a clear connotation of justice done. Even if you could prove that Britain had previously ruled over the island it occupied in 1833 (which you can't), linking that previous rule to the rule after 1833 would constitute WP:SYNTHESIS.--Abenyosef (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the rules has changed over the course of the last three days that means that we are now required to make up our article solely out of quotes from sources.

Your wording, claiming that the British forced the Argentine garrison to remove the islanders from the islands, is biased and inaccurate. The large majority of the civilian islanders from before 1833 in fact remained on the islands. No force was used.

I do not accept this claim that "re-establishment" has "a clear connotation of justice done". The word does not have any such connotation. At all.

Your suggestion that Britain only claimed Saunders Island as opposed to the islands as a whole remains as much original research as it was three days ago. It is fact, not opinion, that Britain had control prior to 1833 - control to a similar extent to all three other countries (France, Spain and Argentina) during this period. So, would you accept it if we took your argument to its only logical conclusion and altered the article on the assumption that Argentina never controlled the islands prior to 1982? Pfainuk talk 22:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In the first place, notice that I'm not using the wording I would like (i.e. "Britain occupied the islands"), so I'm trying to strike a compromise. I'm describing the expulsion of the garrison using a reliable source. Do you have a competing source that describes it otherwise? Please notice that I carefully use the word garrison. I'm aware that Britain didn't expel the settlers themselves, and I haven't claimed otherwise.

Next, this is an article about the Falkland Islands, not about the settlement of Egmont. If you say that Britain re-established its rule, you have to prove that it ruled over the whole archipelago prior to 1833. It did not. The Spaniards had a relatively large settlement in Puerto Soledad, with appointed governors and all, at the same time that the British possessed theirs on Saunders Island. When the British landed on East Falkland in 1833, they can hardly be said to have re-established their rule, since they had never effectively ruled over that island.

By comparison (not that I want to discuss Argentina's rights at this moment), when the Argentinians established the settlement of Puerto Luis there was no competing settlement from a foreign power on either island.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Abenyosef and Slatersteven, I share your feelings and I support some of your proposals, but this is a discussion that should be about the name of the article Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands, not only this particular case here. I had the same argument once here and requested an external 3O, and he recommended to name the wikilink with the same name that the article. This is only an opinion, of course, but it does make sense to build consensus in one central point instead of having this argument all over the place.

I'd suggest we move this section to Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. I don't think it will make any difference on the outcome, but I believe that'd be the appropriate place.

Cheers! --Langus (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Langus, Wikipedia policy mandates that articles should be self-contained. If an assertion is used in an article, both the assertion and its use must be justified in that article. The assertion that "Britain re-established its rule" has never been made in scholarly texts and is a WP:FRINGE theory. Jimbo Wales has stated:

*If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in

Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

We have not been provided with citations to either reference texts or prominent authors supporting the viewpoint that Britain re-established its rule in 1833. Therefore the claim does not belong in Wikipedia.

In your discussions with WCM, he just muddled the waters by taking the debate to whether it is true or not that Britain ruled the islands before 1833. We need not delve into that. The only thing that matters here is if the reliable sources available support that view. And the reliable sources, by an OVERWHELMING majority (sorry for the caps, but I NEED to stress that), support the view that the 1833 events were an occupation.--Abenyosef (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Britain re-established its rule" isn't a 'Theory', as you so put it, but a description. An occupation could easily fit this description. CMD (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a description that contains a POV, namely that Britain had ruled over the whole Falklands before 1833. That POV isn't backed by either reference texts or prominent adherents. It is held by an extremely small minority, namely a few Wikipedia editors. It doesn't belong in the encyclopedia.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is your own interpretation, not backed up by comments above. Your suggestion that the current wording is not backed up by sources is false (as has been repeatedly pointed out to you) and there is in any case nothing in policy that requires text to be made up solely of quotes from sources. This discussion is going around in circles at this stage. It is clear that no consensus has been or is likely to be reached for change, and as such WP:STICK is now the most appropriate response here. Pfainuk talk 18:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pfainuk, unfortunately you introduce small changes to my words, but unfortunately for you I realize so. I didn't say that your POV, which doesn't enjoy academic support, is unsourced. You've provided sources, true. But policy requires that majority POVs be supported by commonly accepted reference texts, and minority POVs be adhered to by prominent authors. You haven't been able to provide either. Therefore, although sources you do have, they're an extremely small minority of all sources, and not of the kind required. The vast majority supports the POV that 1833 was an occupation.

So that it's not that this discussion is going around in circles. It's that I'm asking for what Jimbo Wales would ask for to support a POV, and you're not providing it. Commonly accepted reference texts and prominent authors that support the POV that Britain re-established its rule in 1833. Per policy you must name them.--Abenyosef (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"The UK offered to submit the case to the ICJ"

It is asserted in this article: Shortly after the formation of the United Nations in 1945, Argentina asserted its right to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. In 1947, the United Kingdom offered to submit the case to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but Argentina refused the offer. A unilateral application by the United Kingdom in 1955 to the Court in respect of Argentine encroachment ended in deadlock when Argentina announced that it would not respect the decision of the court.

There's a small confusion here. The UK never offered to submit the case of the Falkland Islands to the ICJ, as the article asserts. It offered to submit the case of the Falkland Islands Dependencies, which consist of "the groups of islands known as South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, and the Sandwich Islands, and the territory known as Graham's Land, situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th parallel of south latitude, and lying between the 20th and the 80th degrees of west longitude".

Since this article deals with the Falkland Islands, not with its Dependencies, the UK offer and application cited do not belong in this article and I'll delete any reference to it.--Abenyosef (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It remains very relevant, since it relates to Argentine territorial claims. If Argentina is unwilling to have its claims examined by a competent authority, that information should be presented. A simple copyedit clears up any language confusion - and it should not be deleted. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In two minds over this, not sure it is really that relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant, since Argentina offered to submit the case of the Falklands to arbitration on four different occasions. Your claim that "Argentina is unwilling to have its claims examined by a competent authority" is false. What Argentina objected to was separating the Falklands from the Dependencies in an arbitration.--Abenyosef (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant, Argentina claimed the Falklands Islands Dependencies as a derivative of its claims over the Falkland Islands. The somewhat twisted logic is that as Argentina claimed the islands ergo it claimed the dependencies. And the statement is not false, Argentina did not make such an objection, it simply stated it would not accept any outcome.

Your claims about Argentina's attempt to have the dispute in arbitration are similarly false. In 1885-1888 during the Affair of the Map, Argentine resurrected its claim to the Falklands that it had renounced with the signing of the Convention of Settlement in 1850. Unsurprisingly the British declined to have the resurrected claim subject to arbitration by a country of Argentina's choosing. During the entire epoch of the League of Nations for example, Argentina never once raised the subject. The material you edited in is fringe material of little to no relevance for the modern dispute. I've removed it. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

To add, I see that edit as no more than tendentious editing to disrupt this article to make a point. People have responded to your points politely thus far, in the face of some rather unpleasant accusations of bias and POV editing, not to mention a none too subtle threat to disrupt the work of editors seeking to improve this article. This should stop now. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The material I included is used by a contemporary scholar in a book. It is a reliable source. If you have a competing analysis to present, please do so, by all means. Your calling it a "fringe material" is your own assessment. On the contrary, the claim that the Convention of Settlement of 1850 was a renouncement of claims to the Falklands is a relatively recent argument deployed by British propaganda. In its protest of 1849, Argentina explicitly stated that lack of future protests would not mean abandonment of its claim to the Falklands. The Falklands are not mentioned in the Convention, and the "conflicts" mentioned therein are those related to navigation in Argentina's rivers.--Abenyosef (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I support Abenyosef and Slatersteven's edit. The text is referenced and balanced. WCM's objection, Convention of Settlement in 1850, doesn't affect Argentine calims before 1850 and can be included anyway. I (re-)added the text in the article about the dispute, where ut belongs: Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#Sovereignty discussions. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot support the version as presented by Abenyosef as it mis-represents what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That is OK. Please continue the discussion in Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#Laver, Roberto. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Back to the paragraph in question, I believe it would be fair to mention that two cases were filled, one against Argentina and another one against Chile ([21] and [22]). Both Argentina and Chile rejected the arbitration, which included not only the Falkland Islands (on which Chile doesn't have a claim) but also South Sandwich Islands, South Georgia, South Orkneys, South Shetlands, Graham Land and Coats Land. --Langus (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Slatersteven, please read my source, page 89, paragraphs (j) and (k): arbitration is explicitly mentioned.

Wee Curry Monster, Argentina didn't renounce a thing with the convention of settlement of 1950. The text reads: "Art. I. The Government of Her Britannic Majesty, animated by the desire of putting an end to the differences which have interrupted the political and commercial relations between the 2 countries, having on the 15th of July, 1847, raised the blockade which it had established of the ports of the 2 Republics of the Plata, thereby giving a proof of its conciliatory sentiments, now hereby binds itself, in the same amicable spirit, definitively to evacuate the Island of Martin Garcia; to return the Argentine vessels of war which are in its possession, as far as possible in the same state as they were in when taken; and to salute the flag of the Argentine Confederation with 21 guns." This means that both countries desire to put an end to the differences which have interrupted the political and commercial relations between the 2 countries, so that (a) it's a declaration of desires, not a declaration of the end of differences; (b) the differences mentioned are only those that affected political and commercial relations. Also, the concrete measures agreed upon have to do with navigation of Argentinain rivers, not with the Falklands.--Abenyosef (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats two ocasions. My mistake, one offer was made, and then a folow up note was sent. So no four offers of arbitration were not made, Please stop mis-representing sources to puch your POV.Slatersteven (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.

I also note that Abenyosef's above comment about the Convention of Settlement is OR, and interestingly he says he's giving the text but only actually gives a fairly small proportion of it. Notably, when he says that this is a declaration of desires, not a declaration of the end of differences, this is directly contradicted by Article VII of the convention. Pfainuk talk 21:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're allowed to do OR in the Talk Page, not so in the article. (In fact, all decisions regarding reliable sources are original research from Wikipedians.) On another note, Art. VII of the convention says: "VII. Under this Convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality." No relinquishing of sovereignty or abandonment of claims, just as I said. No declaration of an end to differences. Just good understanding and cordiality.

Slaterstevens, I pointed to paragraphs (j) and (k) because they explicitly contain the word "arbitration," but paragraphs (g) and (i) contain two other instances of Argentina offering arbitration, albeit with other wordings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abenyosef (talk • contribs) 22:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(g) says that talks about settling nthe dispute like civilised nations ots OR to sauy this means arbitration. (i) is a floow up to (g), so not there are not foour reuqest form arbitration, there is ne (with a follow up note) and one asking for discusions (with a follow up note). Its now hard to see how this is anything but diliberate mis-representation and I formaly ask for Admin assistance.Slatersteven (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. (I assumed good faith when you mysteriously failed to notice paragraphs (j) and (k) that explicitly mention arbitration.) Notice that paragraph (j) states: "...suggesting again to settle the dispute through arbitration." Since arbitration is not mentioned in any previous paragraphs, it follows that the book's author (not me) interprets the previous offers as offers of arbitration. But if you don't agree, I won't push this point any further.

Do you agree, then, that there was one offer of arbitration? If you do, I will include it in the article.--Abenyosef (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not obvious that the author intended anything of the kind, that is OR. He may have meant only one offer previously made, or indeed offers he did not mention (as the author makes it clear these are only examples). So we can say Argentina made one offer, we might even be able to stretch the point and say more then one (but that is I think not really verfifiable).Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sorry but no, as regards this article, the offer of arbitration in 1885 does not belong in this article. Its a minor detail. As regards the claim that the Convention of Settlement includes the Falklands is a new claim, cobblers to be polite, it was reported in Hansard in 1849 that it marked an end to the controversy over the Falklands. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But why the 1947 offering for arbitration would be relevant and the ones from 1884-1888 are not? It doesn't make sense. --Langus (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Because WCM wants to be the arbiter here. It's not clear, however, based on what.

I'm sorry, WCM, but the 1885 offer of arbitration is sourced per WP:RS satifying WP:V. You simply can't remove it, much less based on your personal opinion that it's a minor detail. My scholarly source says no such thing; why should we believe you? Please don't start an edit war over this sourced material. Edit wars are not good for the stability of an article, and we want this article to be good.--Abenyosef (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah right, the personal attacks start. This is an overview article of the Falkland Islands, not an opus on Argentina's sovereignty claim. The 1885 offer of arbitration is a minor detail from over 125 years ago. It is of no relevance, especially in comparison with the modern UN and ICJ. I note again the not too subtle threat of edit wars. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Abenyosef, it would be better for you to concentrate your efforts at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, not here on an article giving an overall review of the islands themselves. Polyamorph (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's going to be a Sovereignty dispute section at all, it can't ignore that Argentina first protested in 1833, that it continued to protest more than 25 times before 1945 and that an offer of arbitration was made. The article wrongly conveys the idea that Argentina began to dispute British sovereignty after the UN was formed.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Quit disrupting this article. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith. This is not an article about all UK-Argentina territorial conflicts, but about the Falklands. Why do you want to bring up an offer that did not deal with the Falklands?

There's a consensus that the 1947 UK offer should not be included, and that the 1884 Argentina offer should. Let's stick to that consensus.--Abenyosef (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a blank cheque for a disruptive editor, nor is it a suicide pact. As has already been pointed out 1947 is relevant as it stems from Argentina's claim over the islands. There is clearly no consensus that the events of 1884 are of sufficient relevance to be included on this article. Being an overview extraneous details are often pruned. Further the edit you presented did not resemble the source in the slightest. I see nothing more than the classic ploy of adding extraneous detail to justify demanding other material is removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not a disruptive editor. I'm based on scholarly sources. I'll quote now from a scholarly source[23]:

Argentina requested in 1884 that the case be submitted to arbitration. Argentina has been the only nation ever to make this request. Britain offered in the 1940s and 1950s to submit only the Falkland Island Dependencies to arbitration. Britain's refusal to arbitrate weakened its claim. Jennings wrote that "there must be a strong presumption against the validity of such an alleged title where the claimant is not willing to have that claim properly determined in a Court of Law."

This is a book published by the Oxford University Press in which considerable importance is accorded to the Argentinian offer of 1884. You claim that it is irrelevant: do you have a source for that claim, other than your personal opinion? And you have yet to explain why an arbitration offer referring to other territories is more noteworthy than one referring to the territory covered in the article.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually have that book and you're selectively quoting from it, pretty much as you misrepresented the Convention of Settlement. You're also distorting my comment, I said it had little relevance for this article being an extraneous detail. Britain didn't decline to have its claimed tested in a court of law - Argentina did in 1955. In 1885, it declined an offer of mediation by Argentina of a dispute settled 35 years earlier. I've also already explained why the referral to the ICJ is more relevant than an offer made 125 years ago, 35 years after signing a treaty settling the matter once and for all. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If the treaty settled the matter once and for all, why doesn't my scholarly source say as much? In what way am I selectively quoting from that source? How can an offer to resolve a sovereignty dispute be extraneous to a section called "Sovereignty dispute"? Why do you claim that an offer about the Falklands made 125 years ago is less relevant than one made 65 years ago and not dealing with the Falklands? You're not basing your claims on reliable sources.--Abenyosef (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As a side-note, these discussions really serve to back my point that this article should really try to avoid any thorough discussion on the Falklands conflict, and keep things on WP:SUMMARY so that the discussions relevant to the disputes and war go to those specific articles (Falklands War, Falklands sovereignty dispute, and History of the Falkland Islands).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Marshall you are 100% correct, thank you. The discussion is simply not relevant to this page and I have already provided more than enough rationale why this does not belong in an overview article. I have no interest in debating rights and wrongs on wikipedia and my irritation at disruptive editing got the better of me. I will focus on the matter at hand. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that either we entirely drop the Sovereignty dispute section or we present both sides' arguments. What we can't do is present some arguments that are tangentially related to the Falklands (Britain's offer of arbitration over the Dependencies) but not other arguments that are fully related to the topic (Argentina's offer of arbitration over the Falklands themselves). Wikipedia mandates balance.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

On another note, WCM, please stop calling my editing disruptive. You know it is not. I'm a veteran Wikipedian with hundreds of edits to my credit. I've been in different articles, some contentious, some others not, some related to my profession, some others not, and I have been successful in injecting balance where it was lacking. This is precisely the case of this article, where one side is not sufficiently represented. I'm just providing the materials to make it a balanced article.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We must present both resolution attempts, or none.

Noting and agreeing with Marshall's comment, I'd say only a sentence of the text being discussed at Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#RS_versus_OR should be included: "In 1888, Argentina made an offer to have the matter subject to arbitration but this was rejected by the British Government."

Regards. --Langus (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SUMMARY, the ideal outcome would be to avoid any little details and simply present an overview of the topic. WCM has been actively trying to move forward such a situation towards the improvement of this article, but obviously we all have independent things to do outside of Wikipedia (this is a work in progress after all). Arguing over little details is not productive, and trying to impose any such details into this article is counter-productive as well. What we should all be trying to do is work on summarizing the sections so that any major discussions on the topics can be done at their respective articles. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"between 1833 and 1947 Argentina made many offers to negitiate over the status of the Falklands with Britian either ignored or rebuffed".Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really accurate in implication. When you look at the source, it lists no direct engagement at all between Britain and Argentina on the subject during the periods 1850-84 and 1889-1945 (inclusive). I agree with Marshal though that we really need to summarise this to avoid little details. Pfainuk talk 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OK lets try "between 1833 and 1947 Argentina made numerous claims of soverenty over the Flaklands".Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Did they? There is a difference between protests and claims of sovereignty. To be effective a protest would have to be lodged with the occupying power, the lack of such protests would be classed as prescription through acquiesence. Britain acknowledges protests from 1833-1849 and a single protest in 1885, then nothing till 1941 when the matter was raised in the Argentine Congress for the first time in 91 years. Argentina on the other hand claims it protested continuously since 1833 but does not identify them. Various authors have constructed lists of protest but whether they demonstrate that Argentina maintained a claim is debatable since they are often claims made to 3rd parties unrelated to the sovereignty dispute. Do we really need to go into those details here - because to be neutral we would have to.

The article is an overview, it really would require considerable detail to give the matter due consideration and I really wonder is it warranted. We're taking about 125 years ago here and equating an ad hoc proposal to be equivalent to the modern institutions of the ICJ and UN is misleading. This is a minor historical detail and is really of very little relevance to the modern dispute. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes they did, or at least we have soources that claim they did, maybe not the then UK, but certainly to other international bodies. So I think that we should mention the fact that agentina doid in fact make repeated claims of ownership.Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We have an author's opinion that they did but not an official Argentine Government document demonstrating such a claim. If we're being accurate an author made claims of ownerships to 3rd parties. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If I am correct we prefer thirrd party sources to primary ones.Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW that list includes, (q) a protest over the establishment of a wireless station in the South Orkney islands, (s) allowing a Falklander to join the Argentine Army (t) requiring payment of a customs tax on parcels for the Falklands, (v) getting arsey about postage stamps commemorating the Falklands centennial and (w) an Argentine court denying a petition for naturalisation not to mention the claim to be responsible for Venereal Disease that I find so amusing. Come on its really scraping the barrel. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OK lets try "According to Roberto Laver between 1833 and 1947 Argentina made numerous claims of soverenty over the Flaklands"Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think its content that belongs in the article - one authors opinion and not explaining a complex situation to readers is doing them a disservice. We're talking past each other at this point, perhaps a third opinion may help. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WCM, I'm afraid the current state of the article presents arguments referring to arbitration proposals that favor Britain's position, but not those that favor Argentina's. This violates WP:NPOV. Can you suggest how to correct this?--Abenyosef (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am currently working on a tentative summary for the section. If you could allow me some days to finish it, then I should be able to place it here in the talk page so that we can have a foundation from which to discuss further improvements. The good thing about this situation is that sources abound in the section, so the summary should be properly referenced (and should help towards getting this to GA status). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request Feb 27, 2012

The article lists "Latin American" countries which did not support Argentina in the Falklands War. One of the countries listed is Trinidad and Tobago. This is silly, since Trinidad and Tobago is an English-speaking country. The geographic proximity of Trinidad to Venezuela is irrelevant in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.168.8 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a valid point. Generally, T&T is not considered a part of Latin America (especially not in the cultural sense). Sometimes it does get included, however. I don't think the sometimes would just really justify it. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: The again, if the source defines it as such, we do have a duty to use what the sources present.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

From Latin_America: "Particularly in the United States, the term more broadly refers to all of the Americas south of the United States, thus including: English-speaking countries such as Belize, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, Dominica, Grenada, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Bahamas; French-speaking Haiti and Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana; and the Dutch-speaking Netherlands Antilles, Arubaand Suriname. (In the former Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, Papiamento – a predominantly Iberian-derived creole language – is spoken by the majority of the population.) This definition emphasizes a similar socioeconomic history of the region, which was characterized by formal or informal colonialism, rather than cultural aspects. As such, some sources avoid this oversimplification by using the phrase "Latin America and the Caribbean" instead, as in the United Nations geoscheme for the Americas."

But I believe this is not the meaning intended in that sentence. If that's so, we should remove Trinidad and Tobago. --Langus (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I read that too, but what does the source state? Is there even a source? I can't find it. If there is no source, then I agree that removing T&T would be alright.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Source is American, The Falklands Roundtable, I don't think the English language or heritage from the British Empire is germane - Belize for example is considered Latin American. I also find the basis for the request slightly uncomfortable as it seems to be based on racial grounds. How does the UN geoscheme classify matters - take it from there. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WCM, I've searched through the transcription of The Falklands Roundtable and I can't find any reference to Trinidad and Tobago. Am I looking at the correct document? Cheers. --Langus (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I still think the point that the UN geoscheme clarifies matters is the right route to pursue rather than what is effectively WP:OR. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I think that the UN generally tries to call the region "Latin America and the Caribbean". The Caribbean is such a jumble of cultures (African, British, French, Dutch, Spanish, etc.) that it's really difficult to call all of it "Latin". I've done research on Barbados, and know for sure that they consider themselves really close to the UK. Based on that, I assume T&T would have a similar position.

But, let's get back to the sources. I found this 1985 resolution 40/21, which I'm not sure if it's relevant ([24]), and then this other source which talks about a Rio Treaty (Not resolution 502) and this mentions Trinidad, Chile, Colombia, and USA ([25]). This other source talks about "English-speaking members": ([26]). Conclusion: The current structure indicates that Chile, Colombia, Trinidad voted against Argentina in resolution 502, but I cannot find the text. However, a resolution regarding the "Rio Treaty" is the one where all names pop up. What to do? No idea.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ASPds6gT1CsC&pg=PA55&dq=Chile,+Colombia,+Trinidad+voted+against+Argentina+in+resolution+502&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x-xMT8idMuqm0QW46eHMAw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Chile%2C%20Colombia%2C%20Trinidad%20voted%20against%20Argentina%20in%20resolution%20502&f=false, Panama voted against and Poland, Spain, USSR and the PRC abstained. So all over members vote in support of 502.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I can't see the page (copyright thing), which is probably why it didn't pop up in my search either. What we have then: (1) Overall support for resolution 502 & (2) "Rio Treaty" regarding Argentina's position supported by the members except Chile, Colombia, Trinidad, and USA. Given the case, do we really need to include "Latin American". We could just write something along the lines of:

• "The United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 502, calling on Argentina to withdraw forces from the Islands and for both parties to seek a diplomatic solution. The resolution received overwhelming international support with only a few exceptions. A divided United States administration, initially publicly neutral, eventually came out in support of the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, Argentina managed reconvene a meeting of American nations under the Rio Treaty which "condemned Britain, called on the United States to cease supporting Britain, and invited Rio Treaty signatories to assist Argentina individually or collectively". Only the United States, Chile, Colombia, and Trinidad & Tobago opposed the measure."

What do you the rest of you think? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to put your argument here and say I think it's a bit long on relatively small details that would be better put elsewhere. Not outright opposing, but it's a concern. Pfainuk talk 19:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

True, but what other option do we have at the moment? Everyone loves gold, but if all we have is silver...then we make the best out of it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a source for "The resolution received overwhelming international support with only a few exceptions."

I'd say I have the same impressions that Pfainuk... it's a bit long considering the short length of that section. But I'm willing to go with it as a compromise. --Langus (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Despite its defeat"

It is claimed that Argentina continued to pursue its sovereignty claim "despite its defeat." Now the word "despite" indicates a contradiction between two terms, and a military defeat and the pursue of a claim are not mutually contradictory. I'm changing the wording to a more neutral tone.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly neutral in tone and it is becoming increasingly clear you are simply disrupting this article to make a point. Please stop now, you may consider this a warning. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I already corrected a major mistake, so that I have helped improve the article, and I'll continue to do so.

Can you explain to me where's the contradiction between losing a war and continuing to pursue a claim?--Abenyosef (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You are engaging in disruptive behaviour, you lose the right to the assumption of good faith until you stop such behaviour. Polyamorph (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're confusing the presentation of materials that balance the contents of the article with disruptive behavior. Wikipedia mandates that the tone be neutral, and the use of the word "despite" in this context is not neutral. I'll continue to delve into the small POV details of this article, which is completely appropriate behavior.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia also mandates that you do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. You're welcome to discuss the article content in a WP:CIVIL manner but edit warring despite opposition on the article talk page will not be tolerated. Polyamorph (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that Argentine takeover and subsequent defeat weakened its position in the issue of sovereignty. In that sense, "despite its defeat" would be acceptable to me. Cheers. --Langus (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The word "despite" does not indicate a contradiction, and neither does it indicate that Argentina's claim is weakened. Take an example: You have a cookie, and I want to eat it. I take it with my hand, but you slap my hand and I let go of it. Nonetheless, despite you slapped my hand, I still want it.

In other words, I think it conveys more of an abstract logical sense to it rather than a reality. Logic would dictate that getting my hand hurt would end my desire to eat the cookie; but I still want the cookie. Logic would also dictate that if a country loses a war or battle, it would cease its attempts to obtain something. However, history shows that logic does not always play out (which is why several repetitive conflicts continue to this day).

In any case, I suggest we take this to the language board.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

MarshalN20, your comment proves my point. You say that the word "despite" marks the fact that pursuing a claim after a lost war is illogical. But that's a POV, not an established fact! Therefore, the word "despite" is misleading and, to an extent, POV-pushing. Other, more neutral, phrasings can be perfectly substituted for it, e.g. "After the war, Argentina has continued to pursue its claim through diplomacy." What do you think?--Abenyosef (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with your proposal. I think the prior sentence, "the withdrawal of Argentine forces" conveys that Argentina lost in quite a technical term. Alternatively, we could write "the defeat of Argentine forces" (which is more blunt); and then we can include "After the war, Argentina has continued to pursue its claim through diplomacy".

Note: The introduction was established by consensus, so I believe it would be best to first gather the consensus of the other involved editors prior to any changes to it.

Agree: My position is in agreement to change "despite its defeat" to "After the war". Optional Condition: If anybody wishes to change "withdrawal" to "defeat", I would not oppose it either. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the logic. I notice that I forgot to reply to the logic part, for which the reply was: "MarshalN20, your comment proves my point". It's not a POV claim, but rather a matter of common sense applied to all conflicts. For instance: "Despite Bolivia lost the War of the Pacific, it still demands that Chile provide it with a coastline". It's merely the logic of grammar structure, and nothing wrong is meant by it. I actually thought that it was good to avoid using the term "defeat" in the introduction ("lost the war" and "withdrawal" sound more neutral than "defeated" or "defeat"). I'd like to take this to the language board and hear what they say.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've taken it to the language board to see what they understand from it ([27]). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Change

Let's make this simple. Abenyosef's point is not wrong, but it raises the tiny problem as to whether the term "withdrawal" can be understood as "defeated"; or if the article needs to be more blunt. Remember that the point here is to help the readers understand the situation. So, we have two options:

• Option A: In 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands, the two-month-long undeclared Falklands War between both countries resulted in the withdrawal of Argentine forces. After the war, Argentina still pursues its claim; however, UK policy supports the islanders' self-determination to remain British citizens.
• Option B: In 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands, the two-month-long undeclared Falklands War between both countries resulted in the defeat of Argentine forces. After the war, Argentina still pursues its claim; however, UK policy supports the islanders' self-determination to remain British citizens.
• Option C: No change; please explain.

Which option do you like? I have no preference (between A or B), so my vote goes with the majority.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Option B. We have a whole article dealing with the Argentine surrender in the Falklands War. Since the Argentine forces surrendered, "defeat" is the appropriate noun. "Withdrawal" might have been appropriate had they left the islands without surrendering. The text is perfectly clear without "despite". Thus I recommend option B. --Mirokado (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Option B. I fully agree with Mirokado. --Langus (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Option B. It sounds neutral while providing the whole information.--Abenyosef (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Option C. The current version works, there's no need to fix what isn't broken. The prose of the current version flows better than option B. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Option C Ain't broke, doesn't need fixing. The current prose is better in terms of grammar and the use of the English language than any of the alternatives presented. I do not accept the assertion that "despite" implies the claim is illogical. We had a team of editors of multiple nationalities working on the lede together and we've been over the prose many, many times. If there were really a problem with POV it would have been raised long ago. I am happy to genuinely see improvement to the article but unwilling to pander to an editor who comes here making false allegations of POV editing where it does not exist and threatening to disrupt an attempt to drive this article to GA status. WP:DENY suggests we discourage disruptive editing, I reserve the right to change my mind when and if we see a change in the WP:BATTLE mentality displayed so far. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Option C I can't see any reason to change the wording, it reads fine to me - fact is fact, despite losing the war Argentina still makes the claim. Polyamorph (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that, given the drive to get this article to GA status, the quality of prose is particularly important. Option B sounds horribly clunky. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate about the "clunkyness"? It would help me understand the problem. Thank you. --Langus (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem, which is exactly my point. But just to humour the point: "After the war, Argentina still makes the claim" switches tenses, which is crappy. The current sentence reads flawlessly, gets the point across and is neutral. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In good quality prose, words are not used without justification. Also, no original research prevails over good writing. "Despite" is the same as "in spite of," and let's see what a grammarian has to say[28]: Another typical case of meaning change by frequently made inferences is the shift to concessive meaning for the phrase in spite of, discussed in Chapter 8. There we saw that the phrase, whose meaning was earlier ‘in defiance of’, gradually generalized to the point that the object of in spite of could be any sort of opposing force or obstacle. The major inferential change, leading to a concessive meaning, was due to an inference that if a situation was attained in the face of obstacles, then given these obstacles, the situation was not expected to be attained. This meaning is more subjective, in the sense that it provides the speaker’s evaluation of the unexpectedness of the situation described. As can be seen, the use of "despite" in this article conveys the meaning that Argentina's continued claim is unexpected... which is original research from the editor who wrote the sentence.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you have such a problem with the idea that it is surprising that Argentina continued actively pursuing a claim of sovereignty after a military defeat. Historically, many nations on the losing side of a conflict have dropped such claims. Indeed, the whole reason there is still a dispute is because Argentina continued with its claim when it might have simply dropped the issue (which you may also be advised to do). Honestly, this is literally the lamest argument I've ever seen. The sentence reads great right now, and there's no need to change it. You obviously have a bee in your bonnet over the whole dispute and have come to this article for no other reason than to disrupt it to make a point. Take your bitterness to the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article. Actually, don't; you won't be any more constructive there either Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with the idea that Argentina's pursue of its claim is surprising because (a) it's original research, and (b) it's not the only POV. Argentina doesn't think its claim is surprising, and nor do Brazil, Chile, Mexico, China and other important countries, so any word hinting that it is would make this an unbalanced lede, since it wouldn't represent the point of view of one of the sides.

Oh, and thank you for your advice, but I'm a seasoned Wikipedian, so that please respect my judgment.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not original research - it is simply common use of the English language. The prose flows well, it's neutral and factually accurate. Hence my view that nothing needs to be changed. It doesn't warrant this over analysis, it's simply a waste of time for the good editors that have written and maintain this article (I don't really include myself in that list as I'm more of an observer at this time) to the point of disruption. Polyamorph (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you can get so hot under the collar over the most frivolous of alleged semantic errors (such as an argument over a single word) whilst ignoring all of your own (for example, just because other South American countries support Argentina's claim doesn't mean they don't find it surprising. See how annoying it gets when other parties start droning on about the tiniest of semantic details?). Pointy, pointy, pointy. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Polyamorph, you can stick to common use of the English language and still do original research. As per WP:OPED, we must avoid using language that can produce implications not supported by the sources, or that implies a relationship between two statements where none exists. In this case, we can state that Argentina lost the war and in the next sentence state that it has continued to pursue its claim after the war, without trying to establish a relationship between these two facts (i.e. the unexpectedness of the second in view of the first).

Also, I don't agree that the prose flows well. The information that Argentina was defeated is reduplicated in two contiguous sentences, which is not the mark of good prose. Good prose is characterized, among other things, by its economy.--Abenyosef (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No it's not original research - it's nitpicking. Polyamorph (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Option A. The "withdrawal" is in direct response to the "invasion" in the sentence. STSC (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with option A is that it doesn't get the whole point across - it makes it sound as though Argentina invaded, and then the leadership changed their mind and withdrew. This is not what happened; the Argentine forces only "withdrew" because they were forced to after signing a surrender document. That is a defeat, not a strategic withdrawal. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Also they did not withdraw, they were removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Since Argentinas defeat the Argentine government had continued to pursue its sovereignty claim".Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I'd like to note a few points:

1. In the language board, a good point was made about the UK's position to support the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders. The current text indicates that they support their "self-determination to remain British citizens". The UK supports the Islanders' self-determination, and that's it (regardless of what they pick). Should we take this time to change that?
2. Perhaps a good compromise would be to change "withdrawal" to "defeat", and remove the transition phrase in the next sentence? Essentially, the sentence would just start with "Argentina currently maintains its claim;" (note I made some word changes as well).

I still think this is a largely language-related problem. We all agree on what the content should state, but we can't agree on how to express it. It seems we need Webster and his dictionary.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have an issue with this self-determination thing. Not everyone has the right to self determination. Vegetarians don't have the right to self-determination. Snails don't have the right to self-determination. Only peoples have the right to self-determination. Now it's disputed whether the Falkland Islanders are a people or not.

Britain says that the islanders enjoy the right to self-determination, but the United Nations has refrained to endorse that view, even when Britain has asked it to.

By saying "The UK supports the Islanders' self-determination," it would appear that the islanders do have that right, when it's not clear that they do. Therefore, I would instead say "The UK maintains that the Islanders have the right to self-determination." It's just that. A British opinion, not endorsed by the international community.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It concerns me to read that you think "it's disputed whether the Falkland Islanders are a people or not", and that you place them in a list along with snails. It reminds of when Woodrow Wilson mentioned self-determination in his fourteen points, and how most of the world believed his meaning of people encompassed those in Asia and Africa (when he actually just meant East Europeans). I would have guessed that by now remnants of such 19th century ideology would no longer be present, and it saddens me to see otherwise. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Option C is the best description of the facts. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 00:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sovereignty Dispute Summary

If you would please all go to User talk:MarshalN20/Sandbox4, there you will find the tentative summary. The only part which I think the summary needs at this point is the effect of the Falklands War on the discussions. Aside from that, I hope you all agree to implement it. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

One small problem. In attempting to reach a compromise, the sentence about arbitration conveys the idea that both offers refer to the Falkland Islands, which is not the case. Debaters in forums who use Wikipedia will continue to make the mistake of believing that the UK offered arbitration for the Falklands, which is not the case. I propose "In 1884, Argentina offered arbitration for the Falkland Islands, and in 1947 Britain offered arbitration for the Falkland Islands Dependencies (South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, and the Sandwich Islands) only." Clumsy? Yes. That's what happens when someone tries to force into an article something (i.e. the 1947 offer) that clearly doesn't belong in it.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Vernet established an Argentinian settlement

The article currently states: "After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities." This is misleading, since it would appear that the settlement was both British and Argentinian, or even British only. This is not so. The settlement was established on Argentina's behalf, with Argentinian manpower, the currency used was Argentinian, the language spoken was Spanish and Vernet was appointed military and political commander by Argentina.

More to the point, the scholarly sources describe it as an Argentinian settlement: [29], [30], [31], and many others. If there's no objection, I'll implement the clarifying change: "After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established an Argentinian settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both Argentine and British authorities."--Abenyosef (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, absolutely not, no way. This is using wikipedia to advance Argentina's sovereignty claims, Wikipedia exists to present a WP:NPOV. Its clear you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe this. Abenyosef, you're proposing to replace a completely neutral sentence (in that it doesn't ascribe any nationality or identity to the settlement established, dunno how it could be more neutral) with a sentence which is specifically less neutral, by inserting a nationality. If we just strip this back, all you want to do is increase the count for the word "Argentinian" in this article. Just leave it, this sentence doesn't need changing. It doesn't even imply the things you claim it does; you're just making trouble where there is none to try and disrupt this article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If gunpowder was invented by the Chinese, we say it was invented by the Chinese. We don't omit the inventors' national identity for the sake of neutrality. Similarly, if a settlement was Argentinian, we say it was Argentinian and there's nothing "non-neutral" about saying so. It would be non-neutral if there existed a competing claim, but there doesn't. It is a necessary clarification, and it is sourced.

Of course, we could omit the secondary detail that Vernet asked for British authorization (which belongs in a more specialized article), but since you include it here I see no other way of clarifying that the settlement was Argentinian than just saying so.--Abenyosef (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I tohught many of the colonists were German?Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

German and British mainly. The situation is not as black and white as saying the "Chinese invented gunpowder". Vernet played both sides, claiming to be acting for the British and the Republic of Buenos Aires. The fact you seek to censor that Vernet sought permission from the British to establish his settlement clearly demonstrates this is not about writing a quality encyclopedia but advancing Argentine claims of sovereignty. The settlement itself was private enterprise, with Vernet using his own capital, it was not Argentine money. It was a cosmopolitan group with Germans, British, Uruguayans (most came from Montevideo), nor was it using Argentine currency, Vernet paid his employees in promissory notes of his own. Vernet actually denied his appointment to the British, stating to them his interest was purely commercial. You are seeking to change this article to advance modern Argentine sovereignty claims in direct contravention of presenting a WP:NPOV. This is unacceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WCM, my proposal is: "After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established an Argentinian settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both Argentine and British authorities." Why do you say I seek to censor the bit about British authorization? Kindly stop misrepresenting me or I'll have to drop WP:AGF in your case.

Also, if you think that the settlement was not Argentinian, as my sources say, you must show a source of your own, from reference texts or prominent authors, claiming that it wasn't. It's as easy as that. Wikipedia is not about finding out the truth about a certain topic; it's about finding out what reliable sources have to say about it.

Oh, and Vernet's promissory notes were in pesos, not pounds, and were written in Spanish, not English or German. Not that it matters, but please inform yourself.--Abenyosef (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Threatening people is only going to make people less likely to accept your views. Trying to claim that the text on the banknotes in use (which were not accepted outside the islands - this was an important motive in the Gaucho murders) demonstrates anything of significance is pure original research. I would note that we must always be careful to avoid repeating common oversimplifications that sources may contain, this is particularly common when a given source is treating a given point as relatively unimportant background material. The most accurate description of the settlement prior to 1834 is as a private business venture. Pfainuk talk 18:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Et tu, Pfainuk! You completely misrepresent me, too. 1) I didn't threaten anyone. 2) Independently of where the banknotes were accepted, the currency unit was the Argentinian peso; that being said, I clearly stated "Not that it matters." Can you read English? 3) The settlement is attributed to Argentina in texts specifically dealing with the Falkland Islands dispute; e.g. [32]. 4) The "private business" venture was of an Argentinian citizen who was named Civil and Political Commander by Buenos Aires. When the settlement was destroyed by a US ship, Argentina's government protested to the US.

If you guys can't cite reference texts or prominent authors denying that Vernet's settlement was Argentinian, I'll implement the change within the next 24 hours. It's perfectly sourced, and the sources are at least as good as, well, the Teheran Times.--Abenyosef (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Abenyosef, further up this page you described yourself as a "seasoned Wikipedian". If so, you must clearly be aware that changes to contentious articles must be built upon consensus. Threatening editors with a contentious change "unless they find some sources to refute it", when there is a clear consensus against your changes, is the complete opposite of how a collegial editing environment operates, not to mention that such a change will inevitably be reverted. You need to build consensus first; that is how Wikipedia works. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for your advice. I have absorbed quite a lot of aggression on this page, which I would confidently describe as a breach of collegiality. The change I'm proposing is only contentious in the most technical of senses, since in other, closely related articles, with the same editing team, the wording I propose has already been implemented (see Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute). The refusal to implement it on this article appears as completely whimsical and unwarranted. Finally, and as you may have noticed, all my argumentations are built on sources, sources and more sources, which have been met with blanket dismissal and no analysis. If I do introduce a change against the majority's will, it will not be random, it will not be reckless. In order not to get to that point, I hope my sources are discussed and my opponents' sources are presented.--Abenyosef (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• In a UK parliamentary debate it is described as an Argentinian settlement: [33].

• A book about colonies describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [34].

• A book about self-determination describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [35].

• A book about Commonwealth history describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [36].

• The BBC describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [37].

• A book about the Falklands war describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [38].

• The Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [39].

• The Survey of British and Commonwealth Affairs describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [40].

• A book on wars in Latin America describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [41]l

• The Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law describe it as an Argentinian settlement: [42].

• The House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committe describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [43].

• A book on the diplomacy of the Falklands war describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [44].

• The Year Book of World Affairs describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [45].

• ... hey, even Wikipedia is already describing it as an Argentinian settlement: [46].

If it looks like an Argentinian settlement, if it walks like an Argentinian settlement, if it sounds like an Argentinian settlement, it's not a duck, it's an Argentinian settlment.--Abenyosef (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be pointed that this type of arrangement was the usual thing back then, and in fact the system used for the colonization of the Americas. The people who adventured to remote lands did so in the name of their national government, but providing the resources themselves (or most of them). In return, they were appointed governors (or some other title) of the land they secured, and received much of the wealth they may find there; that's the reason why they would do this in the first place. But, as for what politics were concerned, their actions were actions of their country. A non-controversial example: Buenos Aires was established by Spain, not by the individual man Pedro de Mendoza. Even more, their specific nationality is of no concern, but the nation with whom they made the arrangement, which may or may not be their own. Christopher Columbus was Genoese, but he was working for Spain, and so it was Spain (not Genoa, and not a mere man acting on his own) who discovered the Americas. A man acting really on his own, seeking wealth under no nation's authorization, would be just a pirate.

So, yes, it is basically correct to say that it was a private enterprise. It is not correct to suggest that it was not an Argentine settlement because of this. Even more, it may be misleading to the occasional reader that is unaware of the nature of those enterprises. If there are several sources that mention it as an Argentine settlement, and so far none that actually deny it, then there's no reason why we shouldn't say it was Argentine. Cambalachero (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If Vernet was doing this solely for the benefit of a national Government, then why did he A) First seek permission from the British Representative B) Provide regular progress reports to the British, C) Urge the British to establish a permanent garrison, D) continue with the enterprise after the British return and E) look to the British for compensation for the assets left in the Falklands. It is incorrect to baldly state it was an Argentine settlement and no more, just as it would be incorrect to baldly state it was a British settlement as Vernet sought British permission. It is neutral to state that it was Vernet's private enterprise for which he sought permission from both the British and Argentine authorities. Wikipedia presents a neutral point of view WP:NPOV.

Nor is it so simple to state that as Vernet was appointed a Governor by the Republic of Buenos Aires to state that it was Argentine. A) Vernet denied this appointment to the British stating his interest was purely commercial and B) it was the proclamation of an illegal Government that was repudiated by its successor.

As regards Vernet's promissory notes, the language is immaterial.

This article is written to reflect a WP:NPOV at present, it will stay that way.

The claim that Abenyosef didn't seek to censor Vernet's approach to the British is patently false - he clearly states it should be removed above. If you seek to strong arm a POV statement into the article it will be removed. You clearly do not have a consensus to introduce one.

You're seeking to use a description here to infer that Verent's settlement was the product of the Argentine Governement, this is untrue, not neutral and not needed. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice reflections WCM, but they rather belong in the British Journal of History not in Wikipedia that is meant to reflect mainstream academic views. Cambalacheros' examples clealy shows what mainstream thinking on the issue is: that it was an Argentine settlement. Chiton magnificus (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@WCM: OK, this is the situation here: we're editing an article about the Earth, and you won't let me say that it revolves around the sun. It would be non-neutral to those who believe that it is the sun that revolves around the Earth. Give me a break.

But the lede says: "At various times there have been French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements." Exactly what Argentine settlements are we talking about? The only settlement that could be called Argentinian is that in Puerto Luis created by Vernet. So I'm wondering: why can't we say that Vernet's settlement was Argentinian? In fact, as per WP:LEDE, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article," and the significant information that there existed an Argentinian settlement is not covered again in the article. By clarifying that it was Vernet's, that would be corrected.

I'm wondering by what linguistic contortionism you'll manage to claim that the "Argentine settlements" from the lede are something else, but I'm sure you'll come up with some bizarre explanation. Or maybe you'll just delete that phrase.

One last thing, WCM. Your original research above is wonderful, and I encourage you to go to the Oxford University Press and submit it for publication. But up to now, the OUP reference text we have says that it was an Argentinian colony [47]. So please stop flooding me with words and give me SOURCES.--Abenyosef (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WCM, please don't put words on my mouth. "If Vernet was doing this solely for the benefit of a national Government, then..." WRONG. I never said he was doing anything solely for the benefit of a national Government, so the whole reasoning is faulty. As I explained, those enterprises were a combination of state and private initiative. To pretend to install the idea that if it was a private enterprise then it was not national, is WP:SYNTHESIS. Has any source said this? Has anyone actually denied the Argentine nature of Vernet's enterprise by resorting to the details pointed so far? Cambalachero (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I write from a WP:NPOV, if you feel Mestivier's penal colony doesn't qualify as an Argentine settlement you are welcome to remove it.

“

In November 1832, Argentina sent Commander Mestivier as an interim commander to found a penal settlement, but he was killed in a mutiny after 4 days.

”

This amplifies the comment in the lede. Unless of course your feel the need to state Argentina sent Metivier to found an Argentine penal settlement. But most reasonable people would agree that is excessive. Now you've already had a warning about vexatious argument from an admin, I suggest once again you moderate your comments.

Stating Vernet's settlement was established with permission from both authorities is writing from a WP:NPOV and no amount of personal abuse or vexatious argument will change the fact that writing from a WP:NPOV is a core policy of wikipedia.

[48] A diff to your demand to censor the mention of British permission for the endeavour. Are you going to deny it again? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV is a policy, yes, but pointing that is just a tautology. It is not acceptable to "create" disputes where there are none, and attempt to mantain a "neutral point of view" over an inexistent dispute. You say that calling Vernet's enterprise an Argentine one is an opinion, which can not be told as fact because it's disputed. Prove it. Bring references. Who says that it wasn't an Argentine enterprise? Raising verifiable details from here and there and taking a conclussion nobody else has taken before is WP:SYNTHESIS. Point some reputable author that said the things you said, or your whole reasoning would be pointless. Cambalachero (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@WCM: You did come up with some bizarre explanation, just as I said. To back it up, you deleted the reference to Vernet's Argentinian settlement in Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Regarding my "demand" to censor things, here's my wording: "Of course, we could omit the secondary detail that Vernet asked for British authorization (which belongs in a more specialized article), but since you include it here I see no other way of clarifying that the settlement was Argentinian than just saying so." We could. Do you need to be taught the difference between could and should? You're the native English speaker here, although at times it doesn't show. Especially at the level of reading comprehension.

Thank you for stating that Vernet had permission from both British and Argentinian authorities. That's WP:NPOV; we need not clarify that the settlement was Argentinian, as the scholars consistently claim. I'm rushing to the Earth article to change "the Earth revolves around the sun" to "the Earth and the sun have a movement relative to each other." That will be WP:NPOV, since we're not taking sides in the debate of whether the Earth or the sun is at the center of the solar system.

However, have you noticed how the consensus seems to be changing? We have now three editors in favor of "Argentinian settlement" and two against.--Abenyosef (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS - consensus is about strength of argument not how big a posse you can assemble. A reasoned polite response to your comments is not a bizarre explanation and such unnecessary hyperbole does you no favours. I have not created any dispute, the sentence as written presents the known facts in a neutral manner. It is increasingly clear you're disrupting this article to make a WP:POINT. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Vernet's Settlement: 117 Analysis of the literature shows this term is generally used to avoid the term "Argentine settlement" (or interexchangeably)
• Argentine Settlement: 95 hits This one also has a pretty good backing from the literature.

It seems both names are commonly used. Perhaps it would be a good idea to explain the Vernet situation in the sentence following this one. That should turn out better than changing the current sentence, and I imagine that would make everyone happy (well, relatively speaking of course). I'd say a one sentence explanation should be enough (be creative). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, Vernet established an Argentinian settlement, there's no question about it. Even if Vernet was moved mostly by his own economic interests. After all, the Argentine flag was lowered in 1833 and replaced with the Union Jack. People can deny Argentine Government involvement all they want, but that picture talks for itself.

Cheers. --Langus (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WCM, Abenyosef has provided many sources where the settlement is considered Argentine. You have been requested several times to provide sources backing your explanations, but you have given none: just your own formulations, or mere tautologies pointing the existence of policies. You are correct in that consensus is about strength of argument, and that's precisely your problem: that your argument is original research, and you can't point any reference backing it, unlike Abenyosef. Cambalachero (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has denied that the Argentine authorities were involved, the sentence in question says:

“

After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities. emphasis added

”

The proposal, or should I say demand, is that we give even more prominence to the Argentine authorities by inserting a second Argentine in front of settlement, this is giving it undue prominence, or alternatively remove reference to the British authorities to a "specialist article"; the latter is a violation of WP:NPOV by removing relevant information resulting in a sentence favouring a particular nationalist agenda.

The claims here that the current article is WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR are clearly not sustainable by anyone with even a passing familiarity with the subject matter. A cursory examination of the literature would show this to be the case, so I have a hard time accepting such claims as anything other than a demonstration of bad faith. Further the persistent habit of needlessly personalising matter is deeply unhelpful to a collegial discussion.

Sources:

1. Wayne Bernhardson; María Massolo (August 1992), Argentina, Uruguay & Paraguay: a travel survival kit, Lonely Planet Publications, ISBN 978-0-86442-140-1, http://books.google.com/books?id=pC55AAAAMAAJ, retrieved 2 March 2012 
2. Mary Cawkell (January 1983). The Falkland story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. http://books.google.com/books?id=wg8aAAAAYAAJ. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
3. Wayne Bernhardson (June 2000). Chile & Easter Island. Lonely Planet. ISBN 978-1-86450-088-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=Su-n2oxTZP4C. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
4. Ian J. Strange (1987). The Falkland Islands and their natural history. David & Charles. http://books.google.com/books?id=sssTAQAAIAAJ. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
5. Sir Charles Prestwood Lucas; Sir Reginald Laurence Antrobus; Sir Charles Alexander Harris; Sir Henry Charles Miller Lambert (1890). A historical geography of the British colonies. The Clarendon Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=P1NCAAAAYAAJ. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
6. Daniel K. Gibran (March 2007). The Falklands War: Britain Versus the Past in the South Atlantic. McFarland. pp. 36–. ISBN 978-0-7864-3736-8. http://books.google.com/books?id=lzN0hUacI0gC&pg=PA36. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
7. Royal Geographical Society of Australasia. Queensland Branch (1910). Queensland geographical journal: including the proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of Australasia, Queensland. Royal Geographical Society of Australasia, Queensland.. http://books.google.com/books?id=wsVDAQAAIAAJ. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
8. THE SESSIONAL PAPERS PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS OR PRESENTED BY ROYAL COMMAND IN THE SESSION 1856. 1856. pp. 3–. http://books.google.com/books?id=2xdcAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA3-PA38. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
9. Raymond John Howgego (2004). Encyclopedia of exploration, 1800 to 1850: a comprehensive reference guide to the history and literature of exploration, travel and colonization between the years 1800 and 1850. Hordern House. ISBN 978-1-875567-44-7. http://books.google.com/books?id=kfwOAQAAMAAJ. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
10. Tony Wheeler (15 November 2004). The Falklands & South Georgia Island. Lonely Planet. pp. 91–. ISBN 978-1-74059-643-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=GbrCNm1n9D0C&pg=PA91. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
11. John R. Gribbin; Mary Gribbin (11 August 2004). FitzRoy: the remarkable story of Darwin's captain and the invention of the weather forecast. Yale University Press. pp. 146–. ISBN 978-0-300-10361-8. http://books.google.com/books?id=FGUWCppSExgC&pg=PA146. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
12. Andrew Kippis (1844). Voyages around the world: from the death of Captain Cook to the present time. Including remarks on the social condition of the inhabitants in the recently-discovered countries: their progress in the arts; and more especially their advancement in religious knowledge. Harper & brothers. pp. 23–. http://books.google.com/books?id=hDZPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA23. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
13. M. B. R. Cawkell; Mary Cawkell (1960). The Falkland Islands: by M.B.R. Cawkell, D. H. Maling and E. M. Cawkell. Macmillan. http://books.google.com/books?id=x7p4AAAAMAAJ. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
14. Raphael Perl; Everette E. Larson (1983). The Falkland Islands dispute in international law and politics: a documentary sourcebook. Oceana Publications. ISBN 978-0-379-11251-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=cpw6AQAAIAAJ. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
15. Abraham D. Sofaer; Henry Bartholomew Cox; American Bar Association. Steering Committee on War, Foreign Affairs, and Constitutional Power (July 1984). War, foreign affairs, and constitutional power. Ballinger Pub. Co.. ISBN 978-0-88410-956-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=t_UVAQAAIAAJ. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
16. Jimmy Burns (2002). The land that lost its heroes: how Argentina lost the Falklands War. Bloomsbury. pp. 5–. ISBN 978-0-7475-5872-9. http://books.google.com/books?id=5j1_TWwZFNAC&pg=PA5. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 
17. Sir Charles Prestwood Lucas (1905). The West Indies. Clarendon Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=g9ZVAAAAYAAJ. Retrieved 2 March 2012. 

All of the above support the use of the phrase Luis Vernet's settlement or Vernet's settlement as a description. Examination of the literature would show in general it is actually more common to refer to the settlement in this manner. Per WP:COMMONNAME this would then be the preferred epithet. Better still this clearly is a better fit to wikipedia's policy of presenting a WP:NPOV.

Gentlemen, I have never felt a game of look at the width of my sources to be particularly helpful in the discussion of content, macho willy waving contests are rarely of much use in a collegial discussion and the discussion here woefully falls short of WP:CIVIL. You should be ashamed of yourselves and I would suggest if you continue in the same vein you will shortly find yourselves blocked from editing wikipedia. Searching for sources to support an a priori position and shouting the odds, is not looking at the literature to present the facts in a neutral manner and that is precisely what you've been doing.

So again I see no benefit in changing the sentence, since as currently written it fits with our CORE (emphasis added) policy of presenting a WP:NPOV. The proposals here of adding to the description by giving undue prominence by adding another adjective Argentine to the sentence, or by removing reference to the British authorities are simply not acceptable or sustainable under wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia's mission is to inform, educate and promote understanding, it does not exist as a forum to grand stand narrow nationalist agendas. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not ask for sources which do not use the "Argentine" adjetive: I asked for sources that, specifically, say that it was not an Argentine enterprise. The mere absence of the word can not be considered a deliberate negative, just a mere choice of words. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here, that policy is for article names, not for content. Cambalachero (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides, was that comment about blocks a veiled threat? I have not seen anyone making insults or uncivil comments, or suggesting you had a "hidden agenda", or anything like that. Even more, I had not edited this article at all to introduce the change proposed here, I'm just discussing it in a polite manner, pointing the reasons to do so and the flaws of the current wording. Any experienced editor would know that nobody would be blocked because of this (and even if he was, the block would be swiftly reverted). I have not dwelled into the possible motivations for trying to conceal the Argentine nationality of Vernet's enterprise, and I won't, because I assume you to be discussing in good faith, even if I consider you mistaken. Cambalachero (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, look what I've found:

• Argentine player Lionel Messi: 47,400 hits[49]
• Barcelona player Lionel Messi: 418,000 hits[50]

Therefore, we shouldn't be saying here in Wikipedia that Lionel Messi is an Argentine football player. We should say that he's a Barcelona football player, which is the most common descriptor used to refer to him. That way, we would be satisfying WP:COMMONNAME; also, we wouldn't be pushing the POV that Messi is Argentine, as some editors with a nationalist agenda are trying to do.--Abenyosef (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WCM's response was more than adequate and has a fundamental basis in WP:NPOV. Quit pushing this nationalist agenda. Polyamorph (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Abenyosef, please stay focused on the topic. Cambalachero (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Polyamorph, WP:NPOV doesn't mean that when an argument favors one side it shouldn't be cited. It means that if there's a competing argument, both arguments should be shown.

Which is not the case here. The scholarly literature has consistently asserted that it was an Argentinian settlement. There is no competing claim. It is accepted both by Argentinian and British sources; both by scholars and journalists; both by historical and current authors. The argument favors Argentina, true, but it is not contested.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Source were demanded, trying to argue from authority that sources made this edit mandatory. An extensive selection of sources are provided to show different and the goalposts are promptly moved demanding I have to prove something different. No I don't. I have shown the current edit to be reflective of the literature and the sentence conforms to NPOV. Per WP:RS and WP:V, the statement is accurate, factual and written carefully to present a WP:NPOV. That ticks all the boxes in my book. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Abenyosef, WCM has more than adequately satisified me that no change is required. Appropriate action will have to be taken if you continue to push your nationalist agenda. Polyamorph (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should differentiate between how a thing is called and what a thing is. Most times both categories are near to each other and there is no problem, but in this case it isn't. Let's see the case of the Hitler-Stalin pact 1939. The pact was called, by the signers, a non-agression pact. Most of us will agree that in best case it was a still-not-agression or it would be better called an agression-pact. We have a similar case in Spanish imperial claims over Patagonia. This examples have a different history. The first one has been very studied and analyzed, and most people have no problem to call them "non-agression pact" because (almost) every one knows it wasn't. The second one is often only mentioned in the books and the "name" gets a "quality": it was Spanish, although they never hold long there.

The situation is similar here. Abenjosef presents a lot of sources calling the settlement "Argentine" settlement, but there is no source that describe "what" was the settlement. It was a bussiness of Vernet, his money, his worker, his risks and his contract about Pacheco's debt.

In my opinion the text should explain the circumtances and not put the label "Argentine".

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How about "After several abortive attempts to establish a colony, the Argentines appointed Luis Vernet to the governeship of the Falklands, and he established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities."Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have the book "Historia del Almirante Brown" (Spanish: History of Admiral Brown) by Héctor Rato, a book sponsored by the Argentine Navy. Although William Brown is not involved in this, the book have some off-topic sections to talk about contemporary maritime history of Argentina, as in this case. We have talked a lot about the Argentine autorization, but which were actually the terms? The terms were that he would manage Puerto Soledad for 20 years, on the condition to establish a colony. Was he acting on his own there? Let Vernet himself explain it, the day he took possesion: "El abajo firmado, gobernador de las islas Falkland, Tierra del Fuego y adyacencias, en cumplimiento de su deber, como está expresado en el decreto dado por el Gobierno de Buenos Aires el 10 de junio de 1829, encargado de vigilar la ejecución de ley respecto a las pesquerías, de cuyo decreto se agrega una traducción, informa a usted que la transgresión a estas leyes no quedará, como hasta ahora, sin ser notada. El abajo firmado espera que esta noticia, dada oportunamente a todos los capitanes de barcos empeñados en la pesca, en cualquier parte de las costas bajo su jurisdicción, los inducirá a desistir, desde que su repetición los expondrá a convertirse en presa legal de cualquier barco de guerra perteneciente a la República o de cualquier barco que el abajo firmado crea conveniente armar en uso de su autoridad para ejecutar las leyes de la República".

Translated to English: "The undersigned, Governor of the Falkland Islands, Tierra del Fuego and its surroundings, in fulfillment of his duty, as stated in the decree issued by the Government of Buenos Aires on June 10, 1829, to monitor the implementation of law on fisheries, from whose decree is added a translation, informs you that the transgression of these laws will not be, as before, without being noticed. The undersigned hopes that this news, given time to all the captains of vessels engaged in fishing in any part of the costs under its jurisdiction, induce them to desist, since its repetition will expose them to become lawful prize of any vessel of war belonging to the Republic or of any ship that the undersigned sees fit to arm in use of its authority to execute the laws of the Republic".

So, was this an Argentine settlement, or a private one? I believe this quote speaks for itself. Cambalachero (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad the discussion has turned over to the literature. The sources calling the Vernet venture an "Argentine settlement" are not wrong in their position, for primary information does support that Vernet's settlement was Argentine (flying the flag, getting appoint governor, given a national objective). The problem is that these sources don't have to play with neutrality (they don't care who gets their feelings hurt, and as already mentioned have enough evidence to debate their position), and this is something that Wikipedia does have to do as plenty of sources also exist in favor of the settlement simply being Vernet's private venture. Primary information also supports this position (Particularly Vernet's several claims to British authorities and the fact that the venture was financed from his own pocket). In controversial cases such as this, the optimal solution is to present an explanation of the literature.

An explanation of the literature in this case could be one or two sentences (I think one would suffice) which explains why a group of authors refers to this as an "Argentine settlement" and why the other does not. This would help the reader understand the situation without forcing them to believe one point or the other.

Anyhow, nobody seems to be paying attention to my proposals, so this is the last one I'll make on this particular subject. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have explained some messages above the system employed n this case. There was nothing intrinsically special about the Vernet's enterprise when it was arranged, that was the usual way to do these things. If the government wanted to establish a colony at a distant and remote place, this was the way to go: send someone else, with national autorization, national appointment, some help, etc; but who would deal with most of the cost, and in return had the titles and wealth found there. The national military would only be sent if it was actually a war against another contry. Vernet's enterprise was a combination of official and private enterprise, as were all similar enterprises. Pointing just the private aspects, conclude it was a private enterprise, and leave the unspoken suggestion that it was not national because of being private, is just manipulation using half-truths and conveniently unmentioned details. As I said, this type of enterprises were a long used and accepted practice, and nobody ever considered that the states had less autorithy because of using them and not sending the whole national army to do it. That's why we won't find any reputable author openly saying Vernet's was not an Argentine enterprise, but just these tricks to suggest what may not be said directly.

As for Vernet's discussions with the British consulate, it is not a good idea to mention it if (by summary length, by choice of words or whatever) the uninformed reader is left with the idea that both Argentina and Britain had a similar influence on the enterprise. Vernet had official autorization from Argentina to establish an Argentine colony, subject to Argentine laws and with the protection of the Argentine military resources. He did not had a similar autorization from Britain. Cambalachero (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But why ignore what Vernet did with the British? Vernet's own statements are what complicate the matter; he was obviously gaming both sides for his own benefit. This is why I state that it's important to explain the matter. Even in a WP:SUMMARY of the information, the Vernet case is going to be important enough that it will deserve a couple of sentences. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You state that "He did not had a similar autorization from Britain.", except this is untrue he did. Vernet had authorisation from the British to establish a colony and he sought the protection of British military resources. One of the reasons for the British sending a warship in 1833 was the raid of the Lexington upon Vernet's settlement. Vernet sought permission from both British and Argentine authorities, he also reported to both asking each to set up a permanent garrison. This is the problem, his often expressed preference for the British has led some Argentine historians to label him apátrida (unpatriotic) eg Mario Tesler in El Gaucho Antonio Rivero, La Mentira en la Historiografía Académica, Buenos Aires. A letter from Vernet to the British in 1856:

“

the wish, to get my Colony under the British Flag, was in accordance with my own interests and those of my colonists, which required such change of flag; because situated as we were on the Highway of Nations, we could not expect permanent prosperity, unless placed under the sovereignty of a Government capable of protecting us against filibustering or other aggressions. As to the grants of Land, wild cattle, and privileges, these were originally obtained not with the view to establish any claim to the Is lands on the part of Buenos Ayres, but merely to secure the best protection I could for my new colony, from the Authorities for the time being, regardless who they might be.

”

(filibustering in this context refers to piracy) Marshal makes a good point about the need to explain things. Personally I think the current summary is enough but I'm open to adding something extra to explain it better. What I will continue to oppose is proposals to alter the text to favour any national narrative. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Again we're doing WP:OR, mainly consisting of WP:SYNTHESIS. You cite Vernet's letters to the British and you conclude that it was not an Argentinian settlement. If that is the established scholarship, it should be reflected in the literature. It is not. The literature consistently calls it an Argentine settlement. We're doing a summary here, not writing a comprehensive history of the islands, and sources that summarize the situation prior to the 1833 British occupation consistently call Vernet's an Argentine settlement. Keep in mind that we're not attempting to find out the truth here, but to write an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources. Any reasoning of yours is valuable, but if it is not supported by WP:RS it's WP:OR. Try and publish your conclusions in a peer-reviewed journal or university press and we'll consider them for inclusion here, albeit as a minoritarian view.--Abenyosef (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

MarshallN20, you state "plenty of sources also exist in favor of the settlement simply being Vernet's private venture." Unfortunately, the word "simply" is your WP:OR. When sources use the phrase "Vernet's settlement" it may be because they have already provided the information, in a previous sentence or paragraph, that he was appointed political commander by Buenos Aires, and thus deem it unnecessary to stress the Argentinian nationality of his settlement.--Abenyosef (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So why do we need to?Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool down

@Cambalachero, do not confound form with content. Take the case of the 2011 military intervention in Libya. This intervention had the legal protection of the United Nations but it was a US-Europe (and others) intervention. Hence the WP article is called "2011 military intervention in Libya" and not "UN 2011 military intervention in Libya". The bussines was a Vernet's aventure, not an Argentine enterprise. They took the Argentine flag because it was the best one at the moment. Later, as the Argentine "authoryties" were expulsed, Vernet continued his bussines as usual with the British.

El gobernador Luis Vernet había renunciado a su cargo en marzo de 1833 a fin de evitarse problemas con Gran Bretaña; regresó a Buenos Aires, pero siguió desarrollando normalmente, con la autorización inglesa y a través de sus capataces, la administración de sus negocios particulares en la colonia de Puerto Louis. ... La indignación creció cuando luego de la usurpación se comprobó que los explotadores actuaban en perfecta armonía con los extranjeros que izaban la insignia británica. Investigación histórica de Pablo Hernández y Horacio Chitarroni

Hence the text has to reflect this fact. To call it simply "Argentine" would an inadmissible jog trot/muddling through and it would be against WP:NPOV. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that we're writing a summary here. We can't delve into the minutia of Vernet's personal behavior after 1833. Before that date, his settlement was Argentinian, and it is consistently called so by the literature.--Abenyosef (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the present wording mentioning both Argentine and British authorization gives due weight to both actions and is in best keeping with WP:NEU, to remove one or the other may create undue weight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But we're not talking about removing the bit about authorizations. We're talking about adding important information, i.e. the Argentinian nationality of Vernet's settlement, which can't be clearly inferred from the current text. As per the current text, it would appear that Vernet's settlement didn't have any particular nationality, when the sources agree that it was an Argentinian settlement.

If Argentina is to be mentioned twice in the sentence and Britain just once, it's not because we're trying to push a POV. It's because there's just one British aspect to this settlement (the authorization), while there are two Argentinian aspects (the authorization and the nationality of the enterprise).--Abenyosef (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding literature I want to cite Cambalachero: We should dismiss authors making trivial passing-by mentions, and work with those who acknowledge the existence of this dispute and explains their reasons for endorsing one or other side..

The lede is too short for explains?. Then use a neutral wording. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Except Cambalachero didn't say that, not at least here. In this case there's no "dispute": no historian disputes that Vernet's settlement was Argentinian. The "dispute" is purely a WCM invention, as he tries to create two "sides" where there's a uniform academic consensus.--Abenyosef (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you really believe that it was an Argentine settlement?. Was it an Argentine idea?, was there an Argentine mastermind? were there only Argentine settlers?, were there only Argentine money?. The answers for these and other questions is "no". Because it is too long to explain the circumstances, most of the authors write "an Argentine settlement". WP can't use this gap to asserts "Argentine" as a quality of the settlement although the word has been used only as a name for. In many other cases this solution would be accepted, but not here because the issue is highly controversial. Finally, it doesn't matter the name but the quality and that has to be expressed in the lede and in the article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero said that and it fits very well to the issue. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Just to satisfy your curiosity, yes, I do believe it was an Argentine settlement. My reasons are the same that have been provided to you over and over and over:

• Vernet was an Argentinian citizen. His personal life was committed to Argentina. He had a daughter on the islands whom he called Malvina. Despite his French origin, German birth and American upbringing, he signed his name in Spanish.
• His political appointment was made by Argentina.
• The currency unit used was Argentina's.
• The justice system prevailing was Argentina's (e.g. the fishing ships seized were taken to Buenos Aires, not London, to stand trial).
• The diplomatic coverage was provided by Argentina (e.g. after the Lexington raid).
• The language used was Spanish.

Of course, you're right that there are other circumstances too long to explain, but the scholars agree to summarize the situation saying that it was an Argentine settlement, or even colony. And here in Wikipedia we must closely follow what the scholars say. When we tell the whole story, we stick to the whole story told by them. When we summarize, we stick to their summaries. But taking their whole story and producing a summary significantly different from theirs is plain WP:SYNTHESIS.--Abenyosef (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A few interesting and unsourced claims there. For example, you cry OR at anyone who proposes something that doesn't actually quote a source, but then you try and make this change based on the name of the daughter of the person who bankrolled the colony? We have Vernet himself making it clear that he was more interested in his business than what country was involved. Or, you claim that the language used was Spanish - without source (I rather doubt that Matthew Brisbane - Scottish - and William Dickson - Irish - conversed solely in Spanish) - as conclusive proof that this was an "Argentine" settlement? Bearing in mind that a large proportion of the Spanish-speakers were actually Uruguayan? The claim about currency is plain wrong - Vernet had his own currency that was not accepted anywhere other than the company shop on the islands: this was at least a major part of the motive behind the later Gaucho murders. But even if it were true, according to this argument it is clear that Argentina was in fact part of the United States for fully ten years (1992-2002). I could go on.

When it comes down to it, if change is to be made, it seems rather more logical to describe the situation in more detail - as per Marshal, Keysanger and Curry Monster - than to simply announce that it was Argentine. You say you are a seasoned Wikipedian: in that case you will know that we always prefer to give the facts and allow the reader to make their own mind up, rather than telling people what to think as you propose. Pfainuk talk 23:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Kindly stop misrepresenting me. I gave a list of my reasons for believing that it was an Argentinian settlement. But my reasons for wanting to say so in the article is that scholars agree with me. Whenever scholars have summarized the story of the Falklands, they've made reference to the Argentinian nationality of Vernet's enterprise.

Take, for instance, Martin Middlebrook, the British military historian. When he summarizes the Falklands' history, he says: "An Argentinian settlement was established at Puerto Soledad (Port Louis) with Louis Vernet as governor. Britain protested."[51] We are not so conceited as to believe that we know more than a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, are we? Of course, he knows that the story is more complex than that, but when he summarizes he says that, and we must respect the judgment of a distinguished scholar.

As for the language used, what counts is the official language, and it was Spanish. Official Vernet documents were written in Spanish.

As for the money used, you're confusing currency unit with means of payment. Vernet's promissory bills were similar to checks: not actual paper money, but documents that could be traded for money. Those promissory bills were denominated in Buenos Aires pesos, and that was the currency, just like when you write a check for 100 pounds the currency is the pound, not the check you're writing. Inform yourself!!!--Abenyosef (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

While we certainly ought to be using sources, that doesn't mean that we have to quote sources and it does not mean that we cannot evaluate sources for their usefulness for our purposes. For example, most of your sources have been treating this as background information. It is likely that the authors probably didn't look into it in any significant detail. Middlebrook, notably, is writing a book about the 1982 war, and will have concentrated his research on the 1970s and 1980s, not the 1820s and 1830s. We aren't in that situation, and we have to ensure that we are fair to both sides.

I could go on and point out the other holes in the above, but I see little point. From a practical perspective, it is clear that there is not consensus for your proposed change, and the chances of consensus emerging are effectively nil. There is little point in continuing this discussion. But let me leave you with this advice. With every uncivil remark and every insult you have dished out, and there have been many, you have achieved nothing beyond making your task of persuading others to accept your proposal more difficult. If you want to edit productively here, you would do well to arrive at the table with a more constructive attitude. Pfainuk talk 10:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted a list of a number of sources, from a variety of nationalities, historic and modern which demonstrate the current text is supported by WP:RS, is WP:V and most importantly conforms to a WP:NPOV. There is already a reference to the role of the Argentine authorities, it is already given due prominence. I can add nothing to Pfainuk's comments other than to reiterate there is no consensus to make this edit and what you're proposing does not make for presenting a WP:NPOV. Strong feelings do not trump wikipedia's policies on presenting information according to a WP:NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Books citing the 1826-1833 events as background material are precisely what we need to write a summary of those events, since they will have themselves summarized the topic. Now suggesting that a distinguished historian is careless about his background information is an insult both to that historian and to everyone's intelligence. Middlebrook is an excellent tertiary source, the author of some 15 history books. And how is a British author writing a book from a British perspective unfair to the British side?

Consensus is reached through reasoned analysis. I'm suggesting that we mention the Argentinian character of Vernet's enterprise because it is important information, as can be seen from the fact that the scholars, independently of their nationality, overwhelmingly mention it when writing their summaries. You, on the other hand, are not giving a valid reason not to include that information. You've said it would push a POV because in my proposal Britain is mentioned once and Argentina twice, but that is simply not so. If an event like Vernet's settlement of the islands has one British aspect (the authorization) and two Argentinian aspects (the authorization and the nationality of the enterprise), it is not unfair to say so; we would be simply reflecting the scholarly consensus on the topic. Please respond to this argument.

You complain about my "uncivil remarks." I have in a few cases used irony to highlight the weakness of your arguments, which would not be generally considered uncivil. Your side, however, has repeatedly accused me of wanting to push an Argentinian POV driven by a nationalist agenda, which is laughable since I haven't quoted a single Argentinian source and I'm trying to introduce a change that British sources overwhelmingly support; now that accusation is what I would call uncivil. In Spanish we have a proverb about pots and the blackness of kettles -- does it exist in English too?--Abenyosef (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let's get a summary of this discussion. Abenyosef has pointed a list of sources which consider the settlement as Argentine. WCM could not provide a single one denying it, only a group of sources using specific search strings. He came up with elaborate explanations based on verifiable info, but could not point any author who already made such explanations wich such info (the very definition of WP:SYNTHESIS).

By the way, as several users here compensate their lack of sources with accusations of "Argentine nationalism", I must point that the current wording is British nationalism. The British claim on the islands is based on the idea that it was a no man's land before the British arrival. Severing the ties of Vernet with Argentina, treating him as a mere man doing things on his own with just Argentine "autorization", and British "autorization" as well (as if both were the same kind of arrangement) is meant to reinforce such ideas. For that, it's needed to ignore the jurisprudence, and treat the arrangement as a peculiar deal and not as the usual thing done in such circumstances. It was mentioned before that Vernet wanted to switch flags, but again, there's a conveniently unspoken detail: he had no legal right to do so. These people were given considerable leeway in the managment of the colonies they established, but they were not theirs to do as they pleased, they were not a private thing with the full implications of such word. Again, half-truths and word playing: that Vernet could take commercial profit from the settlement as if it was a private thing does not mean it was a private thing, not to the point where him and not Argentina could decide its sovereignty, and nobody could ever provide a specific source detailing Vernet legally having such power. Cambalachero (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Your summary is highly biased and a complete and utter misrepresentation of the discussion. What it boils down is you tried to argue from authority that the sentence was biased as the only description ever used was an "Argentine settlement" and nothing else, it just happened to favour an Argentine POV, but heh, that was "co-incidence". Except this happens to be untrue and funnily enough after demonstrating this, we see a whole lot of vexatious argument trying to deny that Vernet's dealing with the British had any meaning. Who said Vernet could decide sovereignty? That particular strawman is entirely of your own invention. Vernet was aware of the competing claims and played both sides. Vernet did switch flags, he continued under the British as he had before - he had sought British permission after all. At one point Vernet was very nearly appointed as Governor under the British, he was recommended for the position by Parish and Lt Smith. Where do we say this has any meaning? We simply present the facts and let the reader make up their own minds - you're saying we shouldn't give them all the facts just the ones you think favours Argentine claims of sovereignty. This is fundamentally at odds with WP:NPOV and all I have ever argued is that we present the facts neutrally and let the readers make up their own mind. Your entire argument starts with the premise Argentina owns the truth and it doesn't matter that the British gave their permission. If you can't see your own POV is clouding your judgement you shouldn't be editing here. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I susgested this "After several abortive attempts to establish a colony, the Argentines appointed Luis Vernet to the governeship of the Falklands, and he established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities." Which seems to me to meet both sides objections.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a good option, added that it has a good professional sound to it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not factually correct. Vernet was not appointed governor until after he established the settlement, when he asked for a warship. Cambalachero makes several points but it seems to me that he misses the fact that this was the 1820s, not the 2010s, and the way things were done was somewhat different.

I would note that several of us have supported or accepted the principle that we can give a more detailed description of the situation, including most if not all of those who have opposed the proposal. But given the present circumstances our chances of finding consensus for any given text are slim to none. Pfainuk talk 15:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

How about this "After several abortive attempts to establish a colony, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities. in 1829 the Argentines appointed Luis Vernet to the governeship of the Falklands". Common can we setle on this and go home now?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this might be better? It's based on your proposal:

"After several abortive attempts to establish a colony, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities. In 1829, the Republic of Buenos Aires appointed Luis Vernet to the governeship of the islands, and Vernet appeased the British by telling them his interests were purely commercial."

Two sentences to replace the current text, and (I think) explains the matter correctly.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this will be acceptable, and I can see why. Lets keep it as simple as we can. I can see the next susgestion already and by the end of it we will have the whole of the Falklands Islands dispute page here as well.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Technically he was military and civil commander rather than Governor but the general principle you have both put forward I can accept. I would suggest a slightly different set of words:

“

After several abortive attempts to establish a colony, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities. In 1829, he approached the Republic of Buenos Aires seeking a warship to patrol Falkland's waters. Lacking such resources, the Republic instead proclaimed Vernet as military and civil commander of the islands, granting him authority to use his own resources. Vernet provided the British with regular progress reports and expressed the desire for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement.

”

Hows that? I would be reluctant to devote any more page space than this as to my mind, its overkill. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Its a bit too long I think but I can livew with it if all parties can accept this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that "expressed the desire for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement" would need further reliable secondary sources. The quote from Vernet presented earlier is from 1856, more than 20 years after Argentina lost control of the settlement. Vernet (as the smart fox he was) may lied in the face of his position at that time. --Langus (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you'll be claiming a letter from 1828 in Vernet's handwriting as a WP:PRIMARY source and ineligible? Mmm? Wee Curry Monster talk 01:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

WCM, why don't you specify the color of Vernet's underpants when he first came to the islands? We're writing a summary here, not telling the full story. We're leaving out a lot of details -- why would we include other, less important ones? Although to you Vernet's correspondence with the British is the most important event in the history of the universe, others would consider the fact that he seized three US whaling boats and took them to stand trial in Buenos Aires is far more important -- and we're not mentioning it.

But at least you're agreeing to include Vernet's appointment, so that here's my proposal: "After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established an Argentine settlement in 1828after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities. In 1929, the Argentine government proclaimed him military and civil governor of the islands."--Abenyosef (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny that, removing virtually all mention of Vernet's dealings with the British. That proposal is not acceptable, pretty much as Marshall and Steve anticipated. It couldn't be clearer your purpose here is to introduce bias into the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It has been claimed that sources may not mention it was an argentine settlement because its obvious if he was a governor, so why do we need to be any more clear then they are?Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I propse (goiven that there is some doubt over what constitures 'argentina' we word it thus "After several abortive attempts to establish a colony, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities. in 1829 the rebublic of Buenos Aires appointed Luis Vernet to the governeship of the Falklands", as being far nore accurate and allow the reader to judge the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Target page name

End

An Unicef-Football player?

I disagree with Abenyosef, because it wasn't an "Argentine" settlement. Just little as Leonel Messi is an Unicef-Football player. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I domn't think any kind of consensus is possible so move that we close this as no consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Pfainuk talk 14:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing with no consensus will be the most appropriate and productive resolution of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. You can't close a discussion based on the refusal of one of the sides to talk. We have argued that a change is necessary because the current word is misleading, since it fails to mention the fundamental detail that Vernet's settlement was Argentinian. Your answer to this was that it would break NPOV, but you haven't argued why. It is not a "point of view" to state that Vernet's settlement was Argentinian; it's established scholarship. After we proved that with sources, you refused to discuss the issue further. You can't say "we close the discussion because we haven't reached a consensus with the scholars."--Abenyosef (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why are you not asking that the 1764 colony established by commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville is referred to as the French settlement or that the Byron settlement is not referred to as the British settlement? We have not listed the nationality of any of the other colonies that preceded this one, so why do we need to list this ones nationality? That is why thre is a NPOV objection, its the fact that we a treating this coloney in a way different from any of the others.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In the case of the French and British settlement the wording is not misleading; the authomatic assumption is that the nationality of the settlement is the same as that of the founder. However, in Vernet's case there's no authomatic assumption that can be made, since the author is left wondering whether Vernet's settlement was Argentinian, British, both or none. That being said, if you want to clarify that Bougainville's settlement was French, or that Byron's was British, I have no objection.--Abenyosef (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The wording I have susgested doe say that Vernet was appointed governor by Argentina, why do we need to say more then that?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your wording is rejected because it doesn't remove Vernet's dealings with the British.

Proved with sources? You proved no such thing, the sources clearly show it is referred to in different ways and we happen to have chosen one that reflects neutrality. What you have demonstrated repeatedly is a desire to remove relevant information about Vernet's dealings with the British authorities. This is why there is a NPOV objection - you wish to impose an edit that fails NPOV. And you're not prepared to discuss this and people have had enough, its clear there is no concensus for this and its clear NPOV is not your objective. You won't get a consensus to write a biased article. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also some of thee sources are snippets and its not always easy to tell the context of smoe of the comments.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. For the record, this is (as you would expect) something that's come up elsewhere and the (Wikipedia-wide) consensus is that we can't take a source as reliable if the only access we have to it is through Google's snippet view - precisely because we do not have the context available. Pfainuk talk 16:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Pfainuk, my sources include both snippets and full page views. But let me point out this: if a source calls a settlement an Argentinian settlement, that means it won't call it a nationless settlement elsewhere. On the other hand, if a source calls that same settlement Vernet's settlement, that doesn't preclude that source from calling it an Argentinian settlement in some other paragraph.

If Vernet's dealings with the British were of paramount importance, the scholars would mention them in their summaries, and short chronologies would include them. The fact that only in specialized analyses does the Vernet-British correspondence arise proves that it is not material for a summary. What we highlight in a summary shouldn't be different from what the scholarly consensus highlights. Even so, I have agreed, for the sake of compromise, to keep the bit about Vernet seeking authorization from the British. That should suffice.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly a source may be quoting something, or may be discusing one sides view. This does not mean its expresing its own opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This make interesting reading, it says that the colony was not carried out on behalf of Argentina, but the city of Buenos Ayres [52] So whose colony was it?

This http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf says it was a private venture. It was not until 1929 that the settlement was ‘officially’ argentine.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Conversely if one source calls it an Argentine settlement and another refers to it as Vernet's settlement that doesn't preclude calling it Vernet's settlement here; especially where the latter is more common. And in reality given the fact Vernet sought permission from two national authorities it is in fact better to use the latter and to give the information on Vernet's dealings, allowing the reader to make up their own minds. But you don't wish to do that, you wish to impose an edit favouring one POV over another. You've also claimed falsely that sources do not mention Vernet's dealing with the British, they do.

“

Mary Cawkell (31 August 2001). The history of the Falkland Islands. Anthony Nelson. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-904614-55-8. http://books.google.com/books?id=YG8VAAAACAAJ. Retrieved 4 March 2012.  "On this visit he met Woodbine Parish who expressed great interest in his venture and asked Vernet to prepare a full report on the Islands to submit to the British Government. On his side Vernet expressed the wish that, in the event of the British returning to the islands, HMG would take his settlement under their protection."

”

Not to labour the point but if you look above, I've already referred to several Argentine sources that present the same information. I thought it would useful to bring this to your attention before you try to dismiss the above on the basis of nationality.

No wikipedian would allow an edit that is so blatantly one sided and a seasoned wikipedian would be able to put aside their POV. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose another good question here is whether Argentina actually existed at this time. After all, the country was still the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. Wouldn't it be an error of anachronism to even refer to Vernet's venture as Argentine? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

All proclamations were actually done in the name of the Republic of Buenos Aires, rather than the United Provinces for info. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

WCM, when one makes up their mind it's between two (or more) options. You talk about Wikipedia readers making up their minds -- between which options would that be? Please give a straightforward answer.

MarshalN20, historians agree that the Republic of Buenos Aires' actions can be described as Argentinian actions, but in any event, the demonym used by the Republic was "Argentinian." Again, we're not so conceited as to doubt the judgment of prominent historians, are we?--Abenyosef (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We have soources that dispute the idea that the Republic of Buenos Aires and argentina are one and the same.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Republic of Buenos Aires and Argentina are not one and the same, although I do note that the name Argentina used to be associated with the province of Buenos Aires rather than the country as a whole. Argentina as a name was not used until 1836, apart from a six month period in 1826. It was not a popular choice at the time due to its association with BA and was rejected as high centralism. In reply to Abenyosef, my point is perfectly clear, provide the reader all the information and allow them to draw their own conclusions about the nature of the settlement. You seek to dictate it. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

WCM, I'm afraid you're being evasive. What are the different possible "natures" of the settlement the readers must make up their minds about?

Although the name Argentina dates from 1826, the demonym Argentinian was first officially used in 1813, in the Patriotic March, later Argentinian National Anthem.--Abenyosef (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest then we use the historically correct term and change the text to "After several abortive attempts to establish a colony, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities. in 1829 the Republic of Buenos Aires appointed Luis Vernet to the governorship of the Falklands". This is historically accurate and allows the reader to make up their own minds about any connection.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A slight modification:

“

After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and the British consul. In 1829, he approached the Republic for assistance but lacking resources, it instead proclaimed him Military and Civil Commander. Vernet provided the British with progress reports and expressed the desire for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement.

”

I've slimmed down my text above given the feedback but kept essential facts, including Vernet's appointment. BTW could anyone please point to a source verifying that Vernet's appointment was properly gazetted? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I still thinjk its a bit long.

“

After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and the British consul. In 1829, he approached the Republic for assistance but lacking resources, it instead proclaimed him Military and Civil Commander.

”

I think thius is all we need.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I strongly disagree - it is significant that Vernet was also asking for British garrison. I would not support such an edit without it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Surley the place for that degree of detail is the main articel (falklands sovernty dispute), not (what should be) a one sentance byline in this articel?Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

No I don't think so, in the interest of presenting a NPOV the fact that he asked for a British garrison is significant in conveying he was playing both sides.

“

After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from both the Republic of Buenos Aires and British consul. In 1829, he approached the Republic for help but lacking resources, it proclaimed him Military and Civil Commander instead. Vernet also asked the British for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement.

”

Hows that? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I still think its too long, by the way this does not mention hoe Brtiain reacted to the request.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

WCM, as far as I know Vernet didn't send the reports he had promised to the British, which earned him their disaffection. Your links don't work -- could you provide your sources?

As for your edit, it has already been explained to you that we can't include minor details when more important ones are omitted. Just to make it clear to you how complicated things can get if we go down that way, it's not true that Vernet sought authorization from both countries. Argentina granted Vernet land, and the British countersigned that Argentinian document. Vernet's pleas to the British are irrelevant as compared to what really happened (for example, when he seized sealing boats he chose the Argentinian justice system over the British one). Facts speak louder than words.

But let's focus on what we have a consensus about. By now, all of us agree to mention Vernet's appointment as Political and Military Commander. My preferred wording: "... in 1926 Luis Vernet established an Argentinian settlement on the islands, and in 1929 he was named Political and Military Commander by Buenos Aires." My consensus-seeking wording: "... in 1926 Luis Vernet established a settlement in Port Soledad after seeking Argentinian and British support. In 1929, the Argentinian government appointed him Political and Military Commander of the islands."--Abenyosef (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is incorrect. Vernet did send reports, they're in the National Archives at Kew Gardens. Vernet did seek authorisation from both countries - he was aware of British claims and hedged his bets. Vernet's preference for British sovereignty is well documented. What caused a rift with Vernet was his activites with Moreno in the late 1830s and his association with protests from the Government in Buenos Aires. The British maintained his assets and provided regular accounts till 1838. And if we're talking jurisdiction Vernet sought redress in British courts and received a full and final settlement of his account. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It was not argentina it was the republic of Buenos Aires, lets be accurate if we are conteding about histoprical accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain. In 1829, he was proclaimed Military and Civil Commander of the islands by Buenos Aires. Additionally, Vernet asked the British for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement." I think this is good.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets restrict it to two mentions of each nation.Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Marshall's text is almost acceptable, the stimulus for the proclamation was that Vernet asked for military assistance

“

"After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain. In 1829, after asking for assistance, he was proclaimed Military and Civil Commander of the islands by Buenos Aires instead. Additionally, Vernet asked the British for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement."

”

Hows that? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Short, straight, and to the point.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, it's too much detail for a summary, considering that in the next sentence the seizing of 3 boats and their being sent to stand trial in Buenos Aires is boiled down to "a dispute over fishing rights." Also, the detail in this paragraph is lopsided in Britain's favor: for instance, we're not provided the detail that Argentina issued a land grant and Britain merely countersigned it, giving approval to an Argentinian document rather than issuing an independent authorization.

I insist: we all agree by now that a reference to Vernet's appointment by the Argentinian government is worthy of mention. Therefore, why don't we add just that to the current sentence.

On another note, any reference to the Republic of Buenos Aires is misleading to the general public; it was a short-lived polity. We can avoid that by using the demonym Argentinian, which was already in use back then.--Abenyosef (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes the Republic of Buenos Aires was relatively short lived, its successor declared all of its proclamations null and void. Shall we mention that as well? I mean you wouldn't want to mislead our readers would you? As regards your point about the events preceding the Lexington raid, we wrote a summary that summarised events to a short sentence. We've agreed to provide more detail to address your concerns of innaccuracy. So please, why should we mislead by mentioning a different political entity from that which was involved? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Does scholarly consensus agree that the "null and void" declaration has any relevance to the Falklands case? If it does, show me the sources.

As for mentioning a different political entity, I never said that. I suggested that we use the Republic of Buenos Aires' demonym, which was -- Argentinian.

Vernet's pleas to the British would be relevant if the British had granted him what he was asking for. But they didn't. When push came to shove, Vernet chose to rely on the Argentinian authorities, not the British. So that any reference to the man's innermost desires and preferences is extravagant in a summary, since they don't have a direct impact on what really happened.--Abenyosef (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Vernet requested a British garrison, what turned up in 1833? What did the Republic of Buenos Aires provide? As regards your other "demand", so you're denying Lavalle's government was declared illegal? I just want to check that is what you're stating. Oh and I note you declined to answer my questions posed in my previous post. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's see; Vernet requested a British garrison in 1826. The British occupied the islands in 1833, when Vernet hadn't been there for 2 years. Your conclusion: the occupation was in response to Vernet's request. Your gift for WP:SYNTHESIS never ceases to amaze me.

As for the "null and void" declaration, you're asking me if it should be included in our summary. I don't see any reason why it should. My hunch is that historians consider it a bravado with no legal validity or practical consequences, especially as regards the Falkland Islands. Since in scholarly summaries I have never seen it mentioned, I was asking you what the scholarly consensus is, and what your sources are.--Abenyosef (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't understand why we have to follow the summary style of other sources. That is nowhere to be found in WP:SUMMARY. We are the ones who, through consensus, must form our own summary. The only thing we need from sources is the information. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of style; it's a matter of contents. When you summarize, you decide which items are important and which ones aren't. And it can't be that your list of important items is different from the scholars': that would be OR.

Let's suppose you stumble upon an article about the history of African Americans and find that it has been taken over by a cabal of musicians. These editors have written a summary with three paragraphs devoted to Duke Ellington, two to Scott Joplin, one to Nat King Cole and none to slavery. You want to convince them that slavery should be included in the summary, while the names of individual musicians shouldn't. How do you do that? By pointing out that all scholarly summaries and chronologies on the topic mention slavery, while not mentioning individual musicians by their names. How else could you proceed?--Abenyosef (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What is that about?

BTW who mentioned 1826? I didn't mention any date - the quote above stems from 1828, point of fact I was in fact thinking of Vernet's encounter with a visiting RN warship just before the Lexington raid. Nothing to do with WP:SYNTHESIS - which by the way have you ever read because it doesn't mean what you seem to think.

Your hunch is incorrect, several commentators point out the repudiation of the Lavalle Government proclamations is significant. I mean how can you pursue a claim based on the proclamation you have declared illegitimate? BTW thats me reporting what a secondary source says not my personal opinion.

You're still avoiding my questions. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your example doesn't make much sense. Per WP:LEAD, the summary of the introduction has to be based on the information within the article. Per WP:SUMMARY, we summarize the important points of each section. An article on African American History won't only have sections on Duke, Joplin, or NKC. Neither of these concepts require following the summary of other sources, but rather simple common sense established by consensus.

In any case, my understanding of this discussion is that consensus has already been achieved in that of expanding the current sentence to two, providing a description of Vernet's actions and the Republic of Buenos Aires. That to me is a good solution, better than the current text, by providing both the Argentine and British perspectives. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If there's a dispute that a statement is unclear, it makes sense to add information, not remove it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And we get back to square 1. The current wording is unclear in that it mentions both "authorizations" (which is a simplification, as we have seen) but it doesn't mention the nationality of the settlement. I propose to add the information that the settlement was Argentinian, as both Argentinian, British and neutral sources concur. This is not a breach of NPOV because the scholarly literature from both sides agrees that it was Argentinian. And as Basalisk says, it makes sense to add clarifying information to an unclear sentence. So what would the problem be with my proposed edit?--Abenyosef (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Becasue we have sources disputiung it was argentine, and saying it ws set up the the rebpublic of Buenos Aires, what is the prlbloom with calling them by thier corrct name?Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And as I have repeatedly stated, the demonym for that polity was Argentinian. (You do know what "demonym" means, don't you!) Does any source state that the settlement was not Argentinian?--Abenyosef (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So if they are the same why niot use the wording that everyone else finds acceptable (and I provoded a source that says it was not established by the argentne republic).?

Just because some sources use such a demonym does not mean we have to, given that many sources refer to it by other means. As has been demonstrated above, sources that are Argentine, British and neutral refer to it using other descriptions. Why can't we? Why must we do as you demand - especially as by your own admission this favours the Argentine POV? The nature of the settlement was people of multiple nationalities (German, British, Uruguayan, Spanish, Portuguese amd Argentine), with authorisation from two national entities. Given that it avoids any complication of POV attribution the neutral description we currently use is a much better fit. Mentioning both authorisations is not a simplification, it happens to be a documented fact. That Vernet played both sides and favoured British sovereignty is a documented fact. That you don't like it is very much apparent but your personal dislike is not justification for changing a neutral description to one which favours any particular national narrative when we can avoid it quite easily using a description that conforms to WP:V and WP:RS. I note you have avoided multiple times a question as to why are you demanding a description that doesn't accurately identify the political entity involved, instead favouring an out of date description for that entity which in a modern context has a completely different meaning. Please answer, I think we're all waiting to hear it.

At this point I note that people are prepared to compromise and expand the text to included Vernet's appointment as Military and Civil Commander, though it is to my mind overkill, however you appear to be refusing to compromise sticking with your original demands. Are you prepared to compromise or shall we just declare that there is no consensus for this change? At this point talking with you appears to be a dialogue of the deaf. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You state: I note you have avoided multiple times a question as to why are you demanding a description that doesn't accurately identify the political entity involved. What part of "verifiability, not truth" don't you understand? There exist multiple reliable sources (such as Martin Middlebrook or the BBC) ascribing the Argentinian nationality to the settlement, and there's none denying it. The other descriptors used (e.g. "small," "thriving," "Vernet's") do not refer to nationality and are not incompatible with Argentinian nationality. And since the sources quoted are both British and Argentinian, there's no NPOV breach. If you think "Argentine settlement" is not neutral, you have to quote prominent authors disputing that description, which thus far you haven't.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And you've avoided it again; noticeably so, in fact you consistently refuse to answer but simply re-iterate the same tired worn argument. You won't bore us into submission. WP:V does not mean, as you seem to think, that we have to use your preferred description - since there is more than one in the literature. WP:NPOV would in fact suggest we choose one that does not favour one side in a dispute, when a neutral description exists. This does not mean I have to find an author expressing that opinion as you seem to think. Moreover by your own admission it favours Argentine claims so yes it is POV. Fundamentally you're simply restating the same position over and over again and refusing to compromise. Consensus is impossible with that sort of attitude. People have suggested a compromise, you're rejecting it out of hand, you're refusing to budge one iota. I say we close this as NO CONSENSUS TO CHANGE. Its never going to happen. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ My view on this is that the consensus has already been reached, and that is of adding a few additional sentences explaining the matter. As it currently stands, it doesn't reflect much of what Vernet or the Rep. of BA did during those times (the only reason I now know about it is due to this discussion; perhaps the only positive product of it). It is important to show that Buenos Aires had appointed Vernet commander of the islands, just as it is important to show that Vernet pretty much played everyone the fools (until it didn't work anymore). That Abenyosef keeps insisting on additional changes that simply will not achieve consensus is a different matter. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WCM, you state: WP:NPOV would in fact suggest we choose one that does not favour one side in a dispute, when a neutral description exists. No, this is not what WP:NPOV mandates. Think for example about the 1982 war. One way of describing it is "Argentina and Britain fought a war. Britain won." Another way would be: "Argentina and Britain fought a war, which was horrible, as all wars are. Almost the same number of veterans from each side committed suicide in the years that followed." The first description favors the British side; the second description is "neutral." However, we must use the first description, because although it favors the British side, it reflects the academic consensus, and is therefore NPOV. The same is true of the Argentinian nationality of the settlement. It favors the Argentinian pòsition (which is different from POV), but it has broad scholarly support from both sides.

MarshalN20, you recently appealed to common sense, so I'll do the same. When we talk about a settlement, what's the first thing the reader wants to know? That's right, the nationality. The current wording conceals from the readers the fact that the settlement did have a nationality, and it was Argentinian, as all sources agree. So I'm saying, let's fix that to begin with. Then we can discuss further improvements, but let's fix that glaring omission in the first place.--Abenyosef (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The readers may have several questions about the settlement (how many people were in it? what were their ages? how did they live? how many died? etc.), and there is no particular reason as to why we have to answer every single question. The "nationality" of the settlement is particularly dubious given the actual background on the subject. A similar situation happened in the War of the Pacific article, where Keysanger kept pushing for the inclusion that "Bolivia declared war on Chile" because a series of sources repeated the same thing (I called them parrot sources as they only repeated something without providing any insight). Yet, not only did other authors contradict this idea, but actually taking the time to read the literature demonstrated that Bolivia indeed never declared war on Chile. It turned out that Bolivia had only announced a state of war in response to Chile invading their territory; so that is what, by consensus, we wrote (albeit "announcing a state of war" is practically the same thing as declaring war, a slight difference exists).

Similarly, in this case using parrot sources won't get this anywhere. An analysis of the literature demonstrates:

1. Vernet's settlement was a private venture,
2. He played both the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain,
3. Buenos Aires appointed him commander of the islands (which is important to mention, and is currently not in the article)
4. Vernet downplayed the appointment to the British, and even asked them for a garrison.

Mentioning these things not only provides an improved light to the Argentine position (which is why I notice WCM also can't understand your stubbornness in refusing the "compromise"), but also provides a more rounded picture of Vernet as a person and how/why the British continued their claim on the islands.

Ultimately, if this all goes down the drain-hole, no improvement will take place at all. I assume Cambalechero and Chiton would agree with me that such a result would be unproductive. I'd like to assume the same for you, but your grudge against WCM, whatever the reason it may be, seems to have a greater hold over your rationale. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

@Abenyosef, if you think that "Argentina and Britain fought a war. Britain won" is a non-neutral British POV statement, then you don't really understand what neutrality is. That's a perfectly neutral description, favouring neither side. CMD (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, in the sentence that follows I assert that the statement is NPOV. Please do read what I write before going hysterical.

@MarshalN20: Regarding the comparison with the Bolivia-Chile article, the operative phrase is: Yet, not only did other authors contradict this idea. That's the key: if a significant number of authors reject a notion, then there are 2 POV, and further analysis is needed. However, in this case there are no prominent authors who contradict the idea that the settlement was Argentinian.

And for God's sake, if there is a conflict between Britain and Argentina and a settlement is mentioned, it is common sense that the reader will want to know whose settlement it was before wanting to know how many people died or indeed anything else about that settlement. But I'm practically alone defending established scholarship on this page, so you can state that up is down, black is white and round is square with total impunity. But to paraphrase WCM: you won't bore me into impatience or frustration, much less into abandoning the discussion.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, you state that "The first description favors the British side", but that it is only because scholarly sources confirm this that it becomes consistent with NPOV. Whereas in reality it will always satisfy NPOV because fact is fact. As MarshalN20 pointed out, several editors are willing to compromise, either you accept the compromise or continue to oppose it, in which case the stalemate will continue and eventually will most certainly be closed as no-consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What Polyamorph said. That description doesn't favour the British side. Despite your twisting around to say it's actually NPOV, you seem to not understand that a neutral viewpoint wouldn't favour either side. CMD (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

An appendage of that state of Buenos Aires, also states colonists of many nations [53] =, A settlement of mixed nationalities [54] I addition OI have found d a few sources (but they are only snipes that state that the colony venture was a “purely private venture”.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let us put the case of the Bolivian declaration of War straight. The overwhelming majority of authors state that there was a Bolivian declaration of war (BDOW). That has been recognized by all editors involved in the long standing discussion. There are two or three unknown authors, all from Peru or Bolivia, that state that there wasn't a BDOW. There are different dates of the BDOW and this circumstance was used to doubt the existence of it. At this point, Cambalachero said, correctly as I mean, that: We should dismiss authors making trivial passing-by mentions, and work with those who acknowledge the existence of this dispute and explains their reasons for endorsing one or other side. ([55])

What is the difference with the current discussion?. The difference is that there are two English speaking authors, Sater from the USA and Farcau from UK, both have written books about the military history of Latin America and both Farcau and Sater have written a book about the War of the Pacific. i.e. a complete book about the war. His expert opinion can't be mistrust. What say the authors about the BDOW?:

• William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states in page 28 :

Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.

• "The Ten Cents War", Bruce W. Farcau, Praeger Publishers, 2000, states in page 42:

News of the landings reached La Paz whithin few days, but, for reason never quite made clear, Daza withheld any proclamations for another week, allegedlly to avoid putting a damper on the Carnival celebrations then underway, but on 27 February, the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March.

Also, the two most important historians express explicite and clearly that there was a BDOW. But people, like me and you, don't like to accept the facts. Alex, a good guy from Australia, wrote to Mr. Bruce W. Farcau and asked him about that, and the response was:

• Farcau responded again without answering whether or not I can reproduce his correspondence - I suspect he doesn't have too much time to look at this and may not have noticed my question. Clearly he was not even aware that some believe that Bolivia didn't declare war - which I think for the purposes of Wikipedia is sufficient to establish this as a minority, possibly a fringe view. I presented him the four sources Marshal found that support his view and Farcau suggested that those holding this view must think that there needs to be a formal delivery of documents for an act to be a declaration of war. He said, however, there is no such historical requirement. He noted again that there was an act of legislation on Feb 27 authorising a declaration of war and an announcement on March 14 of the same. I have now asked if the text of the Act passed on Feb 27 survives. [56]

So, in the case of the BDOW we have a majority of sources stating that there was a BDOW and the two most important historian state that same there was a BDOW and one of them writes to Wikipedia that there was a BDOW.

Well, in this situation most of us would give up and accept the facts. But some people ... . There was the opinion of an annonymus "Profesor from Texas", an IP-editor that said he had studied the books but he could not name one book he has published, and he could not name a website to corroborate his personal view. It was "profesor" without name, without books, withpout address. He said there was no BDOW. (Of course his contribution wasn't considered as reliable source in the RS board, where I inmediately sent his contribution)

What do say WP now? "Bolivia declared in state of war on Chile" (I mean, it should say, but it could be that MarshallN20 has "improved" the text). And what say the legal experts:The public proclamation of the government of a state, by which it declares itself to be at war with a foreign power, which is named, and which forbids all and every one to aid or assist the common enemy, is also called a declaration of war ([57]) It was a long way to obtain what all historians around the world knows: that Bolivia, trusting in the guaranteed Peruvian help against Chile, was the first country to declare the war at the beginning of the War of the Pacific. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

MarshallN20, you have to respect the opinion of other editors. Do not delete my contribution or I will bring the case to the admin desk and you will be blocked again. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Cry me a river Keysanger. The only person who will get blocked for interrupting discussions with rants is you, not me. If you want to take this to the administrator's desk: Go ahead. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You brought the War of the Pacific to discussion, did you forget it also?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I used it as an example. In any case, you are only reminding me (and showing everyone else) your erratic behavior. I'd like to write something about mental states as well, but perhaps it's not a good idea. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are looking for "examples" to write about mental states I can give you one (Tell me if you need help to translate):

Colegas necesitamos su ayuda, somos Arafael y MarshalN20 necesitamos la ayuda de todos los peruanos para que cambien el título del artículo de wikipedia sobre la chalaca, bloquearon el artículo y quieren dejarlo como chilena no dejemos que esto pase, protesten todos en la página de discusión el mundo tiene que saber que la chalaca es peruana carajo!! ([58])

Write something about that!. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am asking for an admin to close an increasingly accrimonious discusion that no longer has any value. We have no consnsus for a cjange and its just getting nasty.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Keysanger took that text from my userpage, and so it really doesn't bother me. This whole off-topic discussion should be deleted but, alas, who will come forth to save the day? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I didn't bring the BDOW to discussion. MarshalN20 did it. I didn't bring the theme of mental states to discussion, MarshalN20 did it. I only adjust an entry. I wait confident for the admin advice. Please don't delete the contribs. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposals, only proposals

I have noted with concerns that the discussion is still going on without new contributions. It doesn't make sense to write again what we have read a lot of times in this page. I invite anyone with a proposal to write it in this subsection and to hope for support. For discussions, use please the subsection "End". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose WCM and MarshallN20's attempt:

“

"After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain. In 1829, after asking for assistance, he was proclaimed Military and Civil Commander of the islands by Buenos Aires instead. Additionally, Vernet asked the British for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement."

”

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think its a bit too much detail, but will go with it if we get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Additionally, Vernet asked the British for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement" --> the source supplied above says that "On his side Vernet expressed the wish that, in the event of the British returning to the islands, HMG would take his settlement under their protection." It is not the same as asking for a straight change of flags. --Langus (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone else tiring of wasting discussion on a pointless dispute that is not about improving the article but by the sponsors own admission favouting Argentina's sovereignty claim? I'm tired of people playing semantic games, Langus that is exactly what Vernet is proposing - by his own writings he professes a preference for a British flag. I'm happy to go with the proposal but if the intention is to filibuster the discussion further - no thanks. Its not even as if we're trying to put that message in the article, an overly neutral comment is proposed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As I have pointed out several times, my proposal is about introducing scholarly standards to the article. Scholarly summaries of the events cite the Argentinian nationality of Vernet's enterprise; therefore, we should also cite it. On the other hand, scholarly summaries do not accord the same importance to Vernet's overtures to the British. These are very much important to WCM, but the consensus is that they're not important: otherwise, they would always be mentioned in chronologies, which they are not.

WCM proposes a wording that includes a lot of references to the scarcely relevant Vernet-British correspondence while still not specifying the Argentinian nationality of Vernet's settlement. I wouldn't call that a will to compromise.

Once again, therefore:

Why is a change of wording needed: Because the current wording is misleading about whether the settlement had a nationality.

What do I propose: To introduce one word, "Argentinian", that would clarify that the settlement did have a nationality, as confirmed by the numerous reliable sources cited.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly clear from the last 128kB of discussion that that isn't going to get consensus, for reasons that I feel no need to repeat. On the other hand, I believe we do have a consensus for explaining the situation more fully in order to give the reader a more accurate picture of events, by adding another sentence or so. May I suggest therefore that we restrict ourselves to proposals along those lines? Pfainuk talk 18:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with Marshall's text but if there is going to be more filibustering from an editor refusing to compromise, well then I say we'll go with no consensus to change. I see no point in continuing to argue with someone who refuses to budge from what is effectively a demand. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)