Talk:Antonio Rivero

Untitled

I suggest that the sentence

They were jailed at Sherness, but the English Court acquitted them, recognizing that their military actions had occurred outside the boundaries of the crown. They were sent to Río de Janeiro, and they returned to the zone of the Río de la Plata.

be replaced by

They were jailed at Sheerness, but the English Court acquitted them, recognizing that their military actions had occurred outside the boundaries of the crown. They were sent deported to Río de Janeiro, and they returned to the zone of the Río de la Plata.,

otherwise a little Wiki-tidying (and if all Falkland Island articles use UK English, converting from US English to UK English) Martinvl (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rivero's imprisonment at Sheerness while awaiting trial co-incided with the implementation of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (Royal assent on 28 August 1833; came into effect 1 August 1834). Could the judges have taken this into account and by releasing Rivero on a technicality avoided what could have become a political trial. I don't know if a mention should be made of this, leaving it up to the reader to decide. Given that we don't know the real reason for the release, a passing mention of the Act could be made. Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding was that the gauchos were released on purely technical grounds - that an offence committed on the Falkland Islands was under the jurisdiction of the courts of the Falkland Islands, and not the courts of England. Since the Falklands had no courts in 1833, that was the end of that.

The line recognizing that their (military) actions had occurred outside the boundaries of the crown is POV and OR. As indeed is quite a lot of this article, but I've removed that sentence as it has been brought up. Pfainuk talk 16:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's basically the same than what you said. If you did not like the actions being classed as "military", you could simply rewrite that part (but I'm guessing, you say that it's POV but you don't explain why). Removing the line completely reduces the quality of the article, it says that they were not sentenced but not why they weren't. MBelgrano (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The two are in fact completely different. The "boundaries of the crown" doesn't actually make a lot of sense, but it implies British territory as a whole. But ordinary courts in England don't have jurisdiction over all of British territory, or indeed anything like it. They only have jurisdiction in England and Wales. The sentence implied that the British court recognised Argentine sovereignty. It did not. It recognised that the Falklands were not part of England and Wales, a different matter entirely.

And that's if I've got my facts right. Even if I have, this is still OR unless you can source it. Pfainuk talk 18:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I dealt with this a long time ago on History of the Falkland Islands

“ Lt Henry Smith was installed as the first British resident in January 1834. One of his first actions was to pursue and arrest Rivero's gang for the murders committed the previous August. The gang was sent for trial in London but due to a quirk of the British Legal system could not be tried as the Crown Court did not have jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands. In the British colonial system, colonies had their own, distinct governments, finances, and judicial systems.[12][13] Rivero was not tried and sentenced because the British local government and local judiciary had not yet been installed in 1834; these were created later, by the 1841 British Letters Patent.[8] ”

Rescue?

If you're planning on rescuing this heap of nonsense, I suggest it is made an article about the Gaucho murders and how this has been transformed into a myth about an insurrection. Thomas Helsby's account makes clear this was no insurrection, it was a murder/robbery. The individual fails notability guidelines. That would serve a much better purpose. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The suitable title for such an article would be “Port Louis murders” as that is the established English usage for the event. Also, the non-fiction part of the article should be sourced using reliable secondary sources based on primary source documents. And there could be a Fiction section about the heroic freedom fighting too; surely the place of statements like the present “Antonio Rivero was a field laborer who led an uprising against the British occupation of the Falkland Islands in 1833” is in that section rather than in the article’s lead. Apcbg (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The English title is usually termed the "Gaucho Murders", though I can see that is considered POV by some. Other than that I find myself in violent agreement with you. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is already a section for this, albeit a neutral one instead of what you are asking for. I must remind you that having an historical account of something (documents, declarations, memories, etc.) does not mean automatically that any of the things told in it must be true. It's up to historians to study them and assess their accuracy, and detect mistakes, bias or even lies. If there are historians that consider british documents to be biased, then "this account makes it clear" is hardly a reason to reject them, in fact it's a circular reasoning.

As for "fiction" or "non-fiction", the terms that this user insisted so much in placing inside this, they would be completely against NPOV. It would state that "fiction" is something that did not happen, and "non-fiction" what really happened, which is not the way to write controversial articles. There is disputed and undisputed information, which is not the same. The only fiction about Rivero can be found at historical novels, counterfactual history and other such genres.

Finally, I don't want to sound repetitive, but "heap of nonsense" is highly insulting for the editors who worked in it. MBelgrano (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If an article is a heap of nonsense, we don't have to pretend it's all highly useful and beneficial information to spare the blushes of the editors. And we don't have to treat propaganda as fact, as this article does in the lead and "biography" section. This article is so alarmingly full of original research, unverified claims and POV rubbish - starting with the word "uprising" - that "a heap of nonsense" does not seem to me to be an entirely unreasonable description. Pfainuk talk 21:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a better title would be “Port Louis murders” or “Port Louis gaucho murders” at least. “Gaucho murders” would seem too general a title, after all there were gauchos and there were gauchos; as we know some gauchos stayed (Darwin was favourably impressed by his gaucho companions on the Islands) to take part in building the Falklands nation. Apcbg (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rivero betrayed his companions?

"Rivero then betrayed his companions in the hope of a reduced sentence", reads the article.

In the Proceedings of the second expedition, 1831-1836, under the command of Captain Robert Fitz-Roy we can read the account of the capture by Captain M. Seymour himself, of the HMS Challenger. He said that Luna was the betrayer:

“ As his party were not armed, Captain Seymour thought it right to return on board; but after dark, Lieutenant Smith was sent with a party of marines, and two boats, to try and take them, if they should be still about the houses, and to leave with Channon a bottle containing a crucifix, as a signal for Luna (The gaucho who offered to become king's evidence) ”

Page 329. --Langus (t) 04:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I`ve removed it, while I could provide a cite, it seems contradicted by contemporary records. It would be better to simply take it out rather than repeat what appears a mistake. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Captain Seymour's account of the Luna betraying his companions is a classic example of a primary source. However WP:PRIMARY does not prohibit text such as "Seymour, captain of HMS Challenger at the time of the arrest of Riviero recorded in his journal that Luna ....". It is of course possible that both Luna and Riviero betrayed their companions - Luna during the arrest and Riviero in court. Food for thought. Martinvl (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I've gone back and checked where that claim came from. It stems from Lt Smith's report which notes that Rivero betrayed his companions. Lt Smith actually caught the offenders. It appears the primary sources conflict. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In which case both should be cited at neutrally as possible and the reader left to make up his own mind (which is not WP:OR). It might well transpire that Luna led Smith to the hide-out and Rivieiro, to save his own skin, promptly offered his serives to Smith, making Luna beholden to Seymour and Riviero to Smith. Martinvl (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've found another account which seems to confirm that Rivero wasn't the betrayer. It is from the American vessel Antartic, which in 1834 met both Rivero and Lt. Smith:

“ /Feb. 3./ At an early hour this morning six men appeared on the shore

with eleven horses and four beeves. The bullocks were purchased for our vessel, and a bright, active little Spaniard with one attendant came on board to receive the pay. These men are armed with double-barrelled guns, pistols, dirks, and knives. The Spaniard is the evident leader of the gang, and they call him Captain Antook. Having received the pay for the animals, he bowed a polite good-day and was off in trice. His eye was sharp and restless, and his bearing like that of one ill at ease.

”

Antook surely stands for Antonio.

WCM, I'm interested in Lt. Smith's account. Would you have a link? --Langus (t) 02:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antonio Rivero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401100750/http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html to http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Names

Slightly concerned that the names section is using a revisionist Argentine source and is out of place, the comment attributed to Pena et al would be better in the popular culture section. WCM_email 17:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

What's the POV wording that worries you? Boynamedsue (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

At least one of the sources you've added is self-published and of dubious accuracy and classically of the revisionist school. You may not be aware but this has been considered at both arbcom and WP:RSN, since revisionist histories in Argentina are not taken seriously in academic circles in part because they lack academic rigour, exaggerate, omit key information and where they feel appropriate just make stuff up. I also suggested merging it inot the popular culture section. WCM_email 07:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Which source is self-published and revisionist and why? Please could you link to the relevant discussions. Also, the name used to describe a figure is not popular culture, it's hard to understand where you are coming from with this. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I have identified the SPS and have suggested that the sections be merged. The one I identified is revisionist, it repeats a number of common myth from the revisionist school including that the gauchos captured in the Falklands following the Port Louis murders were not tried because the courts recognised the islands were Argentine. I'm sure as you have cited Ware, that you're aware this is, to be polite, bollocks. You will note I prefaced my remarks that I was slightly concerned (emphasis added), I appreciate you added sourcing as I am now less concerned. as a mark of good faith I'll remove the tag and the source I am concerned about. I would suggest this is moved to the popular culture section. WCM_email 08:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, it was the Spanish language website called "Identidad nacional y cultura gaucha" that you tagged that concerned you? The Pena source is actually strongly anti-Rivero and presents the trial and release of Rivero very neutrally. It is difficult to classify it as revisionist. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I've got a copy of Pena, for an Argentine work it is surprisingly objective, until he get to his conclusion and makes a pretzel out of logic. Do you disagree this would be better in the popular culture section? WCM_email 13:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should hold pro-Argentine positions against people, there is nothing wrong with coming to different conclusions when they are presenting the facts in a fair way, even if the logic isn't great. We can't present pro-British positions as fact either, so it doesn't really matter that much. Pena is harsher on the cult of Rivero than any pro-British author, so he's fine by me. I would say the naming thing is better in its own section than popular culture, I am planning on writing a historiography section soon, which will deal with the invention of Gaucho Rivero, presenting the revisionist arguments and their comprehensive dismantling by the likes of Destefani, Fitt, Pena etc. If you look at that and the naming together, we can maybe discuss how you think it should look? Boynamedsue (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

As you actually haven't objected I went ahead and did it. If you want to know about the invention of the Gaucho Rivero myth it starts mainly with Mario Tesler culminating in his 1971 book El gaucho Antonio Rivero: la mentira en la historiografía académica. I wouldn't recommend it, as it's among the worst examples of Argentine historical revisionism that exists. I do wonder if you're giving this more credibility than it deserves as Argentine historical revisionism is considered with some disdain by serious academics. WCM_email 14:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I do object to the move of the content to "name" because the name used to describe Rivero isn't a question of popular culture, it's a separate issue that includes both historical and historiographic information.

The Argentine conception of Rivero is actually the most important part of this page, it's the reason he is notable. Of course we need to be objective, in the sense that the invalidity of claims needs to be pretty clearly highlighted, but the fact that Rivero is an Argentine national hero is much more important than the actual man Rivero, who me, you and most historians agree was just a man in a bad situation who did some very bad things. I think you are also minimising the degree to which the mythical Rivero is accepted by quite serious historians (who should know better, but still). Tesler largely took Pondal whole-cloth, almost every significant detail in Tesler was taken from Pondal: The rubbish about the flag, the idea that the killings were a rebellion, the bizarre supposition that they were waiting for an Argentine intervention. The only significant "detail" that originated with Tesler was possibly the bit that always shows up in the Spanish article about how the gauchos had to murder the victims one by one because they had worse weapons (which is based only on the fact Helsby says Brisbane was shot in the back as he went for his pistols, probably even this was a white lie due to the stigma attached to being shot in the back). Then after Tesler the idea that Rivero died in battle against the British nine years later turned up. All of this is far more important than some sordid little murders 200 years ago.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

No you weren't clear, nor were you clear about what the section is for and the way it was it ended up repeating some of the material in the popular culture section confused me. I would suggest you wait until you've drafted a new addition in a sandbox before adding it. As the moment I would oppose the addition as it's drafted.

I doubt very much Helsby was covering up of Rivero's gang, as to claims of inferior weapons that's palpable nonsense. They were armed with muskets and rifles from American sealers, far superior to a brace of pistols. WCM_email 06:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sigh, I am trying hard to assume good faith but having tried to discuss matters with you I am starting to get irritated by your continued demonstration of bad faith. Really revert warring is not cool, WP:BRD suggest that when a content addition is challenged you discuss it in talk, you don't edit war it back in claiming "removing sourced content which is under discussion is a no-no". Sorry but that's simply not true, if it's still under discussion it's addition should be deferred. WP:NICKNAME rather suggests that sections such as this are not encouraged, it's not encyclopedic content and it should be focused on the common name. I've long felt that this article would be better served to focus on the Argentine myths and started to try and write it as such but gave up at the continued interference from editors more concerned with myth than fact. I suspect we are in agreement over most of this but your lack of good faith is getting in the way of co-operative editing. I will not be indulging you in an edit war but if other editors disagree with you, you should consider your position rather than reverting it back. WCM_email 10:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that deleting sourced content which you know to be factually correct and relevant to the article, is edit-warring and in bad faith. As for WP:Nickname, the relevant section would be "Do not cram multiple hypocorisms and nicknames into the name in the lead sentence; complicated naming should be explained separately." What part of WP:Nickname do you feel to be relevant? Boynamedsue (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually I dispute whether they are relevant and as far as I'm concerned it's just WP:TRIVIA. I don't believe it is relevant to article and whether it is factually correct is dubious. None of those sources quoted were from close associates of Rivero, it's highly likely they are either simple mistakes or a false recollection. I pointed you to WP:Nickname because that clearly states we should be used the name by which he is most commonly known. And you're misquoting MOS here, it doesn't require us to add a section listing different names used by different people. So I would like to see it removed and you're choosing to edit war it in. And again I will not indulge you in an edit war. WCM_email 12:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

So you recognise that nothing in WP:Nickname precludes having a name section, then. Could you point out which part of WP:TRIVIA you feel may apply? It would seem entirely unconnected. The policy relates to lists of miscellaneous information, this section relates solely to the nicknames evidenced in primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I fail to see any good faith application of WP:TRIVIA, but perhaps you could outline one?Boynamedsue (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

We have actually discussed something very similar to this before, I thought the name rang a bell. [1] As I noted there, the combination of a dynamic population and multiple languages has meant that various people have had their name recorded incorrectly. For example Santiago Lopez is variously recorded as Santigo or St Jago. The records are a snapshot in time, with errors introduced by the person who compiled it. Darwin is not recording a nickname for Rivero, that's merely how he thought it was spelled and you can easily see why [2]. I now realise that in compiling this section you have conducted original research in order to synthesise a position. You've noted various names in disparate sources and jumped to the conclusion he was known by different names. Yes it is trivial information and really shouldn't be in the article, however, WP:OR and WP:SYN is a much stronger reason to remove it. I do hope we are not going to have a long and tedious discussion again that you inflicted upon us at Talk:Falkland Islanders. WCM_email 15:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

First things first, this edit summary is a complete misunderstanding of policy. Edits that do not have consensus do not go in the article, no matter how well sourced the editor proposing them thinks they are.

The claim "Several nicknames are recorded for Rivero during his lifetime" does not appear to be reached by any of the sources, so that is WP:SYN. In this era it was not exactly uncommon for words to be spelt using pronunciation spelling, so the suggestion that he had several nicknames is not a trivial or obvious conclusion.

Also, while the source used for the myth attributes the Rivero myth to Pondal, I do not find anywhere where it specifically suggests that he coined the phrase "el Gaucho Rivero". It may be a reasonable conclusion that he was the first to invent the myth and he used the phrase, but in that case it would be more appropriate to make the more general point.

So I conclude that the text is not adequately sourced, and therefore even if it were accurate to say that "removing sourced content which is under discussion is a no-no", this is not what is happening here. The text does not belong in the article. Kahastok talk 16:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The text does not say "Rivero had several nicknames" it says "several nicknames are recorded". To assume that these similar sounding names are variants the same nickname may very well be true, but it is WP:OR, though much less so than inventing the position of British Representative, without a single source to support it, for Dickson. The secondary and primary sources for the nickname variants are all valid for their use, primary sources are acceptable in this case as no interpretation is made of them.

With regards to Pondal, after re-reading Pena, I think you may be right in that he does not explicitly state that "Pondal invented the name Gaucho Rivero" although he heavily implies it, so I will rewrite the passage to reflect simply that Gaucho Rivero is the name used to describe him in modern Argentina and support it with citations. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You are obfuscating, it is WP:OR to assert they are nicknames, the original source does not state they are nicknames. In truth, there is nothing to say in those sources that he was known by that name, only that was how the author perceived it to be spelled. As I showed with Darwin and as noted by Kahastok it is not a conclusion reached by sources, it's a conclusion you have synthesised from your own original research. This section needs to go and what can be salvaged may be useful for the popular culture article. I tend to also agree with Kahastok that the victims section has become a WP:COATRACK. WCM_email 17:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed nicknames, and replaced it with names, as per your comment. I trust you do not dispute that these names are recorded, saying whether they are correct or not would be to engage in synthesis and OR. Popular culture sections are not the appropriate place for names of individuals, recorded in primary and secondary sources. There is probably scope to put the content of the name section into the lead now it is slightly shorter, that would follow precedent in WP:Nickname. BTW, have you found a source which refers to Dickson as the "British Representative" yet?Boynamedsue (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "Several names are recorded for Rivero during his lifetime" is synthesis because this conclusion is not reached by any source. It is entirely possible that they are all the same name, rendered differently by different sources. There is no synthesis in pointing out this possibility, given that there is no proposal to put it into the article.

No, this section just needs to go. There may be room to discuss the historiographic elements elsewhere, but not in this way. Kahastok talk 21:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That is an exceptionally strict interpretation of synthesis, and one which could be resolved with careful wording, given that several primary and secondary sources give two of the variants as names for Rivero. Do you apply the same standard to the claim that Dickson was the "British Representative" in the Falklands? Boynamedsue (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No it isn't, you have made a conclusion from your interpretation of sources and that isn't suitable for inclusion on wikipedia. That Dickson was appointed is a matter of record, cited in multiple sources. You're comparing apples with oranges now. WCM_email 07:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And yet so far you have not provided one source that can support the use of the words "appoint" and "British Representative". As I say, there is plenty of evidence he was given a flag, but I find nothing in Tatham or Cawkill to support your WP:OR that he "held the position" of "British Representative". What is your source? Boynamedsue (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I take it you're not disputing that your edit is WP:OR? Fine, in which case I'll remove it. I'll ignore the rest as I am planning to update the Dickson article, when you stop dangling the sword of Damocles over it. WCM_email 09:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you must have misunderstood. At no point I have recognised my edit is WP:OR. All the names are supported by quotes, it is my position that to use the word "names" to describe "names" is not original research merely because no tertiary source supports all the names at the same time. However a consensus might be possible in which the names are attributed individially to their source in the text. I will revert until consensus can be reached. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I am going to asking you politely to self-revert. Are you willing to do that? WCM_email 10:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you should be blanking a sourced section without consensus. If you can give me a valid reason from wikipedia's policies that it's the right thing to do, I will undo the revert. It might be that I have missed something. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You miss a point, you shouldn't be adding a section whether sourced or not without consensus. Two editors have expressed the view that it is an inappriate addition but you have forced it into the article nontheless by edit warring. I and another editor have pointed out to you that the sources don't support your edit, you have drawn your own conclusions from the sources and synthesised a conclusion. Rather than acknowledging that you've tinkered with the wording, which doesn't remove the problem with the original edit. It is getting tedious to have to continuously repeat the same point to you as you refuse to hear it. WCM_email 11:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I have consistently attempted to discuss, and edit to improve this article. I feel that your actions in blanking the text without a consensus having been arrived at in the discussion to be attempts to aggravate the situation. What was the need for a blanking edit when no consensus had been reached? I naturally assumed that your question "so you admit the name section is OR?" was genuine, and so reverted because I do not. In effect you are stating that because you disagree with a section, I must submit to your preference. That's not how wikipedia works. I simply do not agree with your suggestion that this is WP:OR, especially given the complete inconsistency with which you define the term according to what suits the edit you wish to see. Please, take a more constructive route. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

None of the above, it seems you have acted to force your changes into the article, relying on the fact I refuse to edit war over this. WCM_email 11:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I have repeatedly changed the text to satisfy the concerns of others. I offered to do so again yesterday and I repeat that offer now. Your position seems to be all or nothing, using wiki-lawyering to enforce stagnation on this and other pages. Once again, I invite you to cooperate to improve the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Again no, you seem to be projecting your own motivations onto others, stubbornly insisting we must have this section and unable to concede that perhaps it is not adding to the article. It's clear from your comments you are presuming objections are being made for bad faith reasons. I can assure they are not and I am happy to co-operate with anyone. However, I have to observe you seem to be taking advantage of my refusal to edit war to force changes into the article, which I do not perceive to be co-operative in any way. WCM_email 12:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to cooperate to improve the article. Are you? Given the repeated accusations of bad faith in the above, it appears not.

None of the changes made here ever resolved - or came even close to resolving - the original issues raised with the edit. If there is no consensus to include the section, then it does not go into the article. That applies regardless of whether you think it is sufficiently sourced. You do not have a right to require that your preferred content go into the article irrespective of whether it gets consensus or not.

I do not think a section such as this is useful, given that most of it is clear WP:OR. I think the single claim that may be useful - that the word "gaucho" plays to a particular element in Argentine culture - does not really belong in a "name" section. I note that I view this point as being entirely independent of the separate point that you keep on raising regarding a completely different aspect of a completely different person. Moreover, I find that point to be entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Kahastok talk 16:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge William Dickson (Falklands) into Antonio Rivero. All the content in the William Dickson article is already included in the Antonio Rivero article, and the Dickson article can never be longer than two paragraphs as next to nothing is known about him. There are also concerns that Dickson does not meet the criteria for notability required for his own page, as only one source exists which gives him significant coverage (2 paragraphs) and that is self-published. (see talk page of WD) Boynamedsue (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok: Hi, I have proposed that William Dickson (Falklands) should be merged with Antonio Rivero, we can discuss on the talk page of AR. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, I had planned to expand William Dickson, but I am somewhat discouraged by your obsession in having it removed. Dickson is notable enough for being asked to perform the function of British representative and his role in the Gaucho murders for devaluing the promissory notes produced by Vernet. The latter is noted a key motivation for the Gaucho murders. WCM_email 12:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no valid source for the term "British Representative" on the islands. The only substantial source on Dickson is the self-published Dictionary of Falklands Biography, and it runs to two paragraphs, so the article will never be longer than that. Also, please leave off the ad homs.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you resist the temptation to comment on and rubbish anyone who disagrees with you, it comes across as badgering and I am getting tired of it. As to your comment, it is utter nonsense to deny that Dickson was given the role of British representative and to fly the flag. Every source agrees on that. WCM_email 06:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There is literally no evidence he was given any official charge by the British government, which is what the term "British Representative" implies. If you have such evidence post it. I have at no point doubted that he was given a flag to raise, but that does not justify the term British Representative. Your preferred sources, Tatham and Cawkill do not call him the British Representative, but if a source for this claim exists I am happy to remove the citation tag. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. Even if we accept in full your objections to the article at William Dickson (Falklands), it is highly unusual for the biography of a killer to also serve as the biography of the people they killed. Kahastok talk 13:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest it might be better linking to a page called "Port Luis murders" or "Gaucho murders". Maybe there even used to be such a page, who knows? Linking here is still a better solution than having a stub page dedicated to a non-notable individual.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You are not proposing to merge the Dickson article to an article on the murders. You're proposing to merge it here. An article at Antonio Rivero is an article on Antonio Rivero. Dickson and Rivero were different people.

You've also sent out misleading messages to two separate WikiProjects advertising this discussion, which is at best unhelpful [3] [4]. Kahastok talk 17:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kahastok I am following the procedure outlined for page mergers, in this case notifying users of relevant wikiprojects who may give 2nd opinions. If uninvolved users tell me that Dickson is sufficiently notable, then I will completely drop the matter. I am sorry you feel my summary was biased, I feel it wasn't as my only issue is notability and the possibility of ever writing a better article. If you can suggest a formulation of the question you feel is more neutral, I will happily change my post on the other noticeboards. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

What element of the procedure for page mergers suggested to you that the most appropriate thing to do here was to propose to merge the article on Dickson with the article on the person who killed him? Kahastok talk 21:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"Short text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity (and can be merged there)" Alongside the failure of Dickson to satisfy WP:GNG. In part it was an attempt to avoid a deletion discussion, which unfortunately I see may be necessary. --Boynamedsue (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You know what, I'm fed up with you threatening a deletion discussion, just go ahead and do it. At the moment this is having a chilling effect and it will allow me to get on with improving the article. WCM_email 07:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I note this is being touted as an RFC but I see no evidence of a properly formatted RFC. I only stumbled on the fact it was being advertised as such by accident. This really does not seem to be the right way to go around doing things. WCM_email 10:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you feel 3rd party input is not desirable in a case in which only 3 users appear to be interested? Boynamedsue (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If it is a question of the format of RFC, the procedure for this seems to state they should not be used for mergers, which is why I have made an enquiry at Editor Assistance to see whether this can be done. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal, seems rather peculiar. Best, Apcbg (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reference 8 removed

Reference #8 is a first person account by a participant in the events. Accordingly it is original research and not a trusted source. 216.209.40.180 (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Which is not a reason for removal to replace with citation needed tag. I've restored it. WCM_email 15:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Pictures

[5] Ref the addition of this picture. The image in the mural is an Antonio Rivero, just not this Antonio Rivero. Its Dr Antonio Rivero a minister in the Entre Ríos legislature appointed by General Paz in 1842. He was captured and executed by federal forces commanded by General Manuel Oribe later that year. Its common to mix the two see [6] (in Spanish). Embarrassingly this error is so ingrained in Argentine nationalism it keeps surfacing. WCM_email 12:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Law Officers Opinion

ff 250-279 (30 pages) Opinion of Law Officers respecting certain prisoners including Antonio Rivero otherwise Antonio Antook, Luciano Flores, Manoel Godoy, La Torre otherwise Latorre, Manoel Gonzalles otherwise Manoel Gouzalles and Jose Maria Luna (turned King's evidence), lately brought from the Falkland Islands on the sloop 'Snake' charged the murder of Matthew Brisbane late Superintendant, William Dickson, Antonion Veregar otherwise Antonio Wagner, Don Ventura Pasos and Juan Simon otherwise Jean Simon on 26 August 1833. Opinion sought on the following points. Whether these prisoners are liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of 9 Geo 4 c.31 s.7 [Offences against the Person Act 1828] or by any other means for the murder of all or any and which of the individuals. Whether the evidence will be sufficient to lead to their conviction. Includes a brief administrative history of the Falkland Islands at the start of the case.

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10552866

This record apparently contains transcripts of prisoner interrogations. Would be interesting to see what the man himself had to say.

Unfortunately it hasn't been digitized. Does anyone have any photos of this document? I'm Bolivian, so obviously, traveling there and consulting it myself is not an option — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ookipik (talk • contribs) 10:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ware, Richard. "The Case of Antonio Rivero and Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands," The Historical Journal (1984) 27#4 pp. 961–967 in JSTOR

Richard Ware accessed these and produced the above article. There is essentially a number of reasons why no one was ultimately charged.:So the

1. Individual colonies had their own set of laws, usually initially established by a letters patent, originally based on English common law they usually evolved unique to individual colonies. At the time of the murders the legal framework of the Falklands had not been established.
2. The Charrua indians only spoke their own language, it was felt that a fair trial would be impossible as they wouldn't be able to understand or enter a plea. In addition, as effectively slaves they could not be tried for murder since they effectively freed themselves from bondage. Hence, they could not be charged with murder.

So the only people who would have been interrogated was Luna who turned King's evidence and Rivero. WCM_email 09:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)