Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject South America / Argentina / Falkland Islands (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Argentina (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (marked as High-importance).
 


Things need to be sourced, content has to neutrally describe the conflict without dismissing one side over the other.[edit]

Okay, I looked at some of the discussions. I see this isn't the first time that someone argued that The rules formally allow references in a lede, but that's not how it tends to work in practice. This argument is too weak to stand in the face of WP:VERIFY:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.
Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.

If the dates of Argentine/British/Spanish control are controversial, then they are by definition something that is likely to be challenged, even when setting aside that they have been directly challenged. Right now, everything that's not directly supported by a citation can be removed. __ E L A Q U E A T E 08:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I am struggling to see your point? The dates aren't controversial, in fact the sources are in agreement pretty much. They could be sourced quite easily and I've obtained some books that do so quite readily. I think you need to separate comments from editors who wish to edit to push a particular POV (eg claiming Argentina was in control from 1820-1833, or to claim the British have ruled the islands since 1765) from those who wish to improve the article and its the former you appear to be giving credence to in relation to asserting dates are controversial. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The dates of particular events are sourced, but I'd be surprised if what exactly constituted "de facto control" was uncontested. Would we be better relabelling (and if necessary adjusting) to show a timeline of extant settlements on the island? - Khendon (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe I've noted before that I don't have a major issue with relabelling the table, but I would oppose any fundamental change to it because I feel that this sort of summary of the article is a valuable explanation to the reader. IIRC it was previously called "de facto sovereignty", but that was rejected on the grounds that it was a contradiction in terms. Kahastok talk 19:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted, but the simple fact remains that there are errors in the chart as it stands, and unsourced interpretation on top of it. Look at one example: we have multiple claims that Britain left in 1774, leaving the plaque then, yet our timelines say they didn't leave until 1776. I was told the dates were well-sourced, but this directly contradicts the claim cited by Cawkell, Freedman, as well as claims made by the BBC, the Guardian, others, in favor of a self-published newsletter writer of unknown worth on a defunct website. The 1776 claim is repeated, even where it contradicts other assertions in the same paragraph. I would have been happy to fix other errors like this, but I thought I was being polite by asking for the providence of the dates before doing so, and was only told they should be considered fine or that the sources could be found by hunting through the talk page archives. There are other things that can be considered in error or unduly one-sided, but I was trying to give people a chance to source them before they were removed. The table also seems to reflect only a single version of the two disputants claims. Am I correct that it picks a single and specific interpretation of the dates, rejecting others? 20:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)__ E L A Q U E A T E
No. It's the consistent description from reliable sources. But nobody has said that it is perfect or beyond correction or improvement - far from it.
If you want specific answers, don't ask general questions. If you ask general questions, you will get general answers - you did in fact get general answers. You can't expect people to infer from what you've written above that you're objecting to a given specific date. Because they won't. Editors here are not mind-readers.
If you'd said, Cawkell, Freedman et al suggest 1776 is wrong, and it should be 1774, and I propose we make that change, then I would have pointed out that it was originally 1774, but was changed some years back because the understanding of the sources was that the order was made in 1774 but the settlement didn't pack up until 1776. I would have then suggested that we check to see whether this understanding has merit, and if not, would have agreed to the change to reflect the sources. There are still sources that pull together the dates, so there's no original synthesis or original research in change the date.
Instead of that, because the questions you were asking were so general (to the point where you were saying not, what are the sources, but is it verifiable "yes or no") I didn't say any of that. Frankly, given the ambiguous wording of the above, I'm still not entirely sure that that's even what you're arguing for. Kahastok talk 00:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
That was only an example of the problem. I'll fix the error it describes. But I was only using it to point out that the table is a collection of who-knows-what, from who-knows-when, and a lack f sourcing hides errors for years and obscures who made interpretations for the things that aren't hard facts. We're not reflecting the dispute with it, there are assumptions in the timeline that need sourcing to show who made them. This isn't that hard. You seem to be taking a lot for granted that wouldn't be apparent to a reader or any uninvolved editor. "De facto" control seems to be an arbitrary label, sometimes used to mean general administrative control of the island, at others to control of a single fort despite administrative control by others. There's nothing unusual about asking for sourcing for the interpretive material in this situation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaqueate (talkcontribs)
The sources are already in the article. You objected based on Cawkell and Freedman - both are cited in the body of the article as sources for these dates. But you didn't start by asking for sources, you asked if there were sources - to the point of insisting "yes or no", suggesting you didn't want detail, you wanted a one-word answer.
Frankly, you seem to be expecting me and others to flounder around trying to guess at what you want here. Your argument still seems to be a hand-wavy issue with non-specific dates that you feel might be controversial. I don't know which dates you think are controversial. I don't see what your point is and I don't know what sources you feel are necessary, beyond those already in the article. If you'd prefer a better title to the table, perhaps you could make a suggestion? If not, what are you proposing? Kahastok talk 17:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you haven't considered that, if it isn't the first time that it's been pointed out that references in the lede tend to get removed pretty quickly, it may be because that it is in fact how things work in practice. I can assure you that it is. Kahastok talk 19:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
If they're removed without cause, they can be put back in, as long as they're reliable sources that directly support the point made. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you planning on patrolling this article continuously for the next few years, checking to ensure that nobody removes the references, and having the argument on talk if anyone tries? Doesn't matter, they'll disappear anyway. Truth is, most of the time such sources vanish fairly well under the radar as someone does a bit of clean-up, and you don't notice they're gone for weeks afterward. And don't expect much support - most people generally don't seem think it's worth the hassle of arguing over it when the sources are in the article anyway. Kahastok talk 00:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a no need to put things in such combative terms. The suggestion of adding citations to article material here shouldn't be considered controversial, in itself. You seem to be arguing that we do the wrong thing, just because other editor will do the wrong thing later. This attitude doesn't help build an encyclopedia. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that I see very little point in implementing a short-term fix, full in the knowledge that it has no chance of lasting. It does not improve the encyclopædia to waste people's time by insisting on adding references so that others can remove them. We should be improving the encyclopædia in the long term, and this is the opposite of that. Kahastok talk 17:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I've given everybody about a week to provide any inline citations for the "de facto" control claims. If there are no sources that directly support that all of these dates represented a change in actual "de facto" control. It has to be clear that it's not just something generally thought to be true by a few active editors. Wikipedia:UNSOURCED is extremely clear about what needs to be done with challenged and likely to be challenged material. Just add some citations so uninvolved editors can examine the material. Cheers. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted your change. The table has a long standing consensus and I see an ongoing discussion here about whether cites belong in the lede at all. There is a long standing consensus that material in the lede isn't cited, since the material can be found in the article itself. Importantly I see a broad consensus amongst other editors not to remove this material and a willingness to see it renamed to deal with any reasonable concerns. The final point I would make is that editors have responded to you and ignored that to remove material without properly discussing it. I would suggest you do not make such unilateral changes when editors are prepared to discuss your concerns. I see you've not even waited for my response, you've not discussed it further and just reverted again. Ever heard of WP:BRD? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
This couldn't be clearer: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.
Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.
. I don't think I'm the one who has violated this policy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:LEADCITE is also policy:

Editoral consensus is very much against you on this occason. And whilst cites are not prohibited in the lede, they're generally not encouraged and you will often find them removed by clean up editors. So noting consensus is against you, noting policy does not require cites in the lede are you prepared to self-revert in order to continue discussing in a reasonable manner? Policy clearly does not support the my way or the highway stance you're taking on this.

May I also point you to the essay WP:SOFIXIT, if you perceive there is a need for inline citations, can I ask is it the case you expect others to do the work you demand? You see the stance you're taking at the moment very much gives the impression that you're using policy to get rid of something you for some reason don't like. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE doesn't contradict or supersede WP:V in any way. Look at the first two sentences of what you've quoted to me. ...controversial subjects may require many citations. Are you saying there is no dispute over what these dates might mean to different sources? Khendon and Langus both made comments that the material might, in some way, be challengeable. I agree with this assessment. Are you basing your reading of WP:LEADCITE on the idea that this is somehow a non-controversial subject? A consensus over citation style does not override WP:V, especially when dealing with material likely to be challenged. WP:LEADCITE clearly says there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads
You're making a couple of baseless accusations against me here, and I don't find it civil. You've accused me, twice, of edit-warring, when I've done nothing of the kind. You also accuse me of demanding work from people and I'm not asking anybody to do a thing. I neither demand nor require work from anybody. If somebody wants to re-add material, they have the exact same burden anybody has to add material, that's not my requirement. I said the material was in violation of policy over a week ago. The only person who has acted in violation of policy here is you, when you re-added material without meeting any burden of proof. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I see you've backed off your more combative wording. Thank you, that's appreciated. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The dates are not controversial and the comments from Langus were that he liked the table but that he felt that changing the title would offset any problems with any controversial aspect of the table. It may surprise him but on this occasion I'd tend to agree. You are manipulating what that editor in fact said; he did not agree with the removal of this table.
Further, as I pointed out to you, I have not violated burden of proof, since as has been commented repeatedly, the material in the lead reflects what is in the article. I would request you withdraw that allegation.
You have in fact edit warred. You've removed this material, which you dress up as as based in policy, when it has been pointed out where there is an editorial consensus on non-controversial material not requiring them in the lead per WP:LEADCITE and when challenged you reverted rather than discussing it. That is edit warring in a nutshell.
Furthermore, other than mentioning the edit warring I made no accusations against you, in point of fact I went back and edited my initial post to make it clearer that I was not making any such allegation. As a Glaswegian I tend to speak plainly and I went out of my way to avoid any misunderstanding. I would request you withdraw the accusation of incivility.
If I am to summarise the discussion:
  • You do not intend to add any cites to support that table in the lede yourself.
  • You expect any editor who does add that table to provide cites, despite an editorial consensus they are not required.
  • If cites aren't provided, you will delete it immediately.
  • You will not self-revert to allow the discussion to reach a conclusion.
Have I accurately summarised your position? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
No. You haven't fairly summarized my position. I have no problem adding citations to the article, and have done quite a bit to improve them. I don't need things to happen immediately, Wikipedia has no deadline. I am not required to source and find citations for other people's material for subjective judgements that look unsettled to me. It is silly to expect I would per WP:BURDEN. You shouldn't paint my desire to improve the article and bring it in line with WP:V as somehow being radically outside of policy. Challenged material should have citations to sources that directly support it. Since I didn't write WP:V, it only contains demands that are not my own. Now, if it were a simple chronological listing of dates, the table would be less controversial. It's not a simple chronology. It purports to know who was "really" in control in a given year. This is obviously in dispute between sources, whatever you personally feel to be true. The dates are being used to support an oversimplified description that is not consistently found in any of the sources used for all of the dates contained in the table.
Now, you seem to have double-downed on your baseless accusation of edit-warring. You should attempt to be less confrontational here, as you are wrong. I have made a single revert to my first edit, with discussion and explanation on the talk page, before and after. I already noted that you withdrew your incivility and thanked you for doing so. Here, you are demanding a second "Thank you" while repeatedly accusing me of something I didn't do?
And it's past time to stop citing MOS:LEADCITE as if it overrides WP:V. MOS:LEADCITE is only applicable when material is not in conflict with WP:V. None of my requests for article improvement are based on anything to do with material being in the lead. I'm not asking for material to be cited out of a belief that the lead should always have citations. This is a red herring. MOS:LEADCITE advises that citations aren't necessary or prohibited, but it advises more citation for controversial material and citations if material is challenged or likely to be challenged material per WP:V above all. So are you really saying that specifically-dated periods of de facto control of the Falkland Islands, in the Nineteenth century, is considered "non-controversial"? I'm sure parts of the periods are, but we list all of them as if start- and end-dates are in no way disputed in detail. If you consider that this issue can be repaired with a change of claim in the title, then you should have done that, rather than reinserting the material unchanged. All of your "Are you asking me to do a tonne of work?" complaints would apply to yourself in this case. And if you're admitting the title can change, I could take that as an admission that the title was never based on the sources at all, and represents an interpretation of the sources made by Wikipedia editors.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to draw bad faith conclusions about my motivations in editing from my willingness to consider an alternative title that is entirely your prerogative. They do nothing for achieving a consensus. Again if you wish to base a bad faith conclusion upon my preference for establishing a consensus in talk before implementing a change over making a WP:BOLD edit on what can be a controversial article, then again that is entirely your prerogative but does nothing for consensus building. None of the dates are disputed and the current consensus is that the lead does not need cites for none controversial material. Some editors have suggested the title can be improved but as I see it, any discussion on that is being derailed by this exchange. As such it is my intention to step away for at least 24 hrs and allow others to comment. I would suggest you consider doing the same.
It is not the case I'm arguing that it is a "tonne of work" but your basic premise is as you didn't write it, you don't have to help adding the citations you insist are necessary (against the consensus that they are not) and that is hardly the hallmark of what is supposed to be a collaborative effort. As I see it, you are simply repeating that citations are necessary and you are ignoring that per WP:LEADCITE editorial consensus is they are not. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
1. I never mentioned your motivations, I assume you're trying to make things better as you see it. Compare that with your assertion here that I have done things in "bad faith". Please don't do that while lecturing about AGF. I never said material couldn't be added, but I hoped that it would be added to meet WP:V concerns. 2. This has nothing to do with the lead and I've only said challengeable material must be directly supported, which is based on MOS:LEADCITE and WP:V, not against it. 3. This is not about the accuracy of individual dates, it is about what we are saying those events meant for "de facto control". You repeatedly assert that this is non-controversial, but reliable sources disagree about who was in "de facto control". Our table shows no disagreement. Your whole argument seems based on the idea there could be no controversy over when people had control of the Falkland Islands, which is troubling. Do other people agree that there is no possible controversy over when de facto control started and ended? For all of the dates on the list?__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The term "de facto control" has been re-inserted after we'd decided it could be changed.[edit]

"De facto" control is clearly a subjective concept, and the sources don't agree on what it meant. Concocting a table measuring "control" out of events where sources don't agree on their meaning or significance is the definition of WP:SYNTH. Please come up with a better name or address these concerns. I would do it on my own but I don't have the power to make the sources agree if they don't. Keeping "de facto" means getting rid of one of the British settlements, as we're told in some reliable sources it was only there by non-British permission, which doesn't imply control. This page is supposed to outline and illuminate the dispute, not make it look like there isn't one. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you come up with a better name? You seem to be demanding that everyone do the work to address concerns without doing any of the legwork yourself.
I don't believe anyone is saying that the title cannot be changed. I'm certainly not. But that does not mean that I am willing to accept any change, regardless of accuracy or appropriateness.
By a reasonable definition, there have been countless instances of "military presence on the Falkland Islands" - every time a naval vessel berths, or an air force plane lands, for whatever purpose, and whether or not they attempt to exercise any form of control - there is military presence.
By what I believe is the intended definition, the change made the table very clearly inaccurate. For example, there was no Argentine military presence until late in 1832. There was no British military presence on the islands during the period 1833-1841. Such a wording is far worse than anything I've seen you claim for the current wording - because the resulting table is unambiguously and indisputably misleading. And I suggest that it is not an accurate measure of control of the islands, according to the conventional understanding as found in reliable sources.
So please do not cast aspersions about my motivations, such as your claim that I am trying to "make it look like there isn't [a dispute]". Experience shows that no consensus is possible if editors are not willing to assume one another's good faith. I fixed an erroneous change by reverting to the existing consensus. If you want a better fix, you are welcome to propose one. Kahastok talk 22:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Stop being snotty about "legwork". I've already worked to make this article less problematic and will do more without complaint. The only demands we have here are to verifiability and neutrality. I was giving people time to deal with policy concerns in their own time and way. Your re-insertion of the previously contested "de facto" was your change to justify, not mine. I don't have to make a clearly synthesized table "work" if it's making arguments that exceed the sources. But per your suggestion I'll make changes to improve the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that my good faith attempt to deal with some of the problems I've raised regarding the article has been met with a blanket and indiscriminate reversion by Wee Curry Monster, I'm confused. I feel like WCM has just slammed the door in my face instead of reverting when he had the time to discuss it. This isn't a great response. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a pretty significant difference between not agreeing with some of my changes and rolling back all of them unread. All of my edits were intended to make the article better and I would like them restored or given some reason for why they've been removed.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear E L A Q U E A T E, while I believe that your editing effort is made in good faith and aimed at improving the article, so far the result would seem to have been rather negative and rightly reverted. For instance, could you please explain what might "Some settlement with contested significance and allegiance" mean as applied to the period February 1811– August 1829? Apcbg (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
It's from the article. It seems to be contested whether the use of the islands was more beholden to British, non-British or any authorities at that time. The "none" implies a false certainty that does not reflect the events listed in the article. I don't mind if someone comes up with better wording, but "None" isn't it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
'None' refers to 'de facto control'. You spoke about "some settlement with contested significance and allegiance," and now you are trying to explain the latter in terms of "the use of the islands." These three concepts are essentially different. Taking once again the period February 1811 – August 1829 as an example, what "settlement" could a reader deduce from the article text, and what "use" might be meant by your explanation in this particular case. Apcbg (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to add a {{fact}} tag, it's reasonable to ask you first to make at least some good faith effort to actually find a source that satisfies your concerns. I was able to find dozens of sources for Tordesillas (for example) with a single Google search, and I can't believe you couldn't have done the same: the only reason why you would not have found any is because you did not look. We're all supposed to be improving the encyclopædia, and you can use Google just as well as anyone else can. If you don't, particularly given the above, it looks like you're being WP:POINTy.
I do not believe that the revert was a matter of "rolling back all of [the changes] unread", but a legitimate reaction to said WP:POINT violations.
I note that the standard rule on Wikipedia is that in the absence of new consensus the old consensus stands, and that I do not need to justify the old consensus (and I've said I have no problem in principle with changing it) if I believe a proposed change makes it worse, as was the case with "military presence on the Falkland Islands" and "contested and uncontested settlements": see WP:BRD.
I cannot accept "Timeline of contested and uncontested settlements" for various reasons. Firstly, I find it makes a meaningless distinction: what is the difference between a contested settlement and an uncontested settlement? Are there any settlements that are neither contested nor uncontested? Secondly, I find it implies that each listing marks a fundamentally new settlement, which is not the case: the only point where you could even claim a new settlement since 1829 is the move to Stanley in 1845 (and reliable sources do not treat it as such).
I have the same objection as Apcbg to "Some settlement with contested significance and allegiance", though I find that this also implies new settlement. Again, it appears to me to fail to adequately put the state of settlement across to the reader (this is not a problem at present because the table is not attempting to describe settlement). I suggest that any future proposal is probably best made on talk - that way we can discuss it and come to an agreement to mutual satisfaction. Kahastok talk 10:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
If you'd like to explain what the chart describes, that would be great. It's not "de facto control" because there's no agreement on how it's measured here (it's never consistently military control, nor settlement, nor bureaucratic control) and there isn't agreement on the term in sources. I think as it's written it's closer to an attempt to describe "allegiance" of some sort. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not "Claim of sovereignty", after all that is all any of these periods are?Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A timeline of the claims of sovereignty would be something else again, little if at all similar to the present one. Apcbg (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Removing one of the settlements as it was only there with "none-British permission"? Which one pray? I presume you are of course going to back this particular claim up with a source?
As others have pointed out, I reverted your changes because frankly they did not materially improve the article. In point of fact you took a table that has been an established consensus for years now and butchered it with your own WP:OR and from the discussion above the table itself is not contested or controversial (more later). For someone alleging others are conducting WP:OR, your work was based entirely on your own WP:OR and given your comments here it seemed to be a case of WP:POINT. I also do not care for editors who personalise discussions over content. I've explained why I reverted you, I did not intend to reply further on the reasons for my reverting you. WP:BRD, the D part is not Drama its DISCUSSION (emphasis added). Let me make it plain, if you do this again I will simply ignore your remarks.
As to Langus' change, I saw it earlier in the week but did not care for it much. It was a good first effort but I felt it had some of the problems Kahastol alludes to above. However, I did not feel it was so bad that I needed to revert it but i can see why others might. I'm also willing to consider alternatives.
But to make a few points first:
  • The table has always been intended to provide a summary of the dates of the various times in which a national appointed official was present to assert some measure of De Facto control. It has never been a date of various settlements, for example Port Egmont remained occupied till 1780 when it was destroyed by the Spanish.
  • De Facto does not imply that it extends over the entire archipelago. You will notice there is an overlap with the British and Spanish. We also included the month in which Port Louis was occupied during the raid of the USS Lexington; a key event.
  • For a WP:NPOV we look to how the dispute is describe in (ideally) secondary academic sources. As regards this, the key dates are not controversial and sources are in agreement. This is why I and other maintain that none controversial dates reflecting later content in the article don't need to be cited in the lead. Per WP:LEADCITE this is acceptable.
  • As another editor alludes to above, we often have editors editing with a nationalist agenda changing the British occupation from 1592 or claiming Argentina ruled from 1820-1833. The claims of POV motivated editors do not make an established academic consensus become controversy.
Finally, I was going to make my own suggestion: Summary Timeline of Key Dates in the Occupation of the Falkland Islands Wee Curry Monster talk 11:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
You say the table is a chart is a summary of the dates of the various times in which a national appointed official was present to assert some measure of De Facto control? It's a schedule of effective officials? That is not clear from the chart as it stands, and it's clearly not a simple timeline of key dates in that case. It's making arguments.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
It isn't, though, is it? Aside the fact that I'd lose the title case (because it looks like it's referring to an event called the "Occupation of the Falkland Islands"), it doesn't actually describe what we have, which is the detail of the periods that each country has actually held control over the islands - a useful summary of the details in the article. That list would be a single list of dates, not a list of start- and end-dates. Kahastok talk 21:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Graphic of Timeline[edit]

On an unrelated matter, I see the graphic has found its way back into the article. I've never cared for it, I think I've made my position well known on that previously and think it has POV problems with the rathe large bar showing the British settlement of the islands in comparison with others. Does anyone object if I remove it again? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Since I attempted to remove it, I agree. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep it, but if we can't reach an agreement respecting the caption/title of these events, then both have to leave. I don't see a POV problem, honestly. --Langus (t) 02:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Then put it back, you'll notice the edit summary saying anyone can revert. The nuclear option of removing both is WP:POINT. Not helpful Langus, not helpful at all. Wee Curry Monster talk 06:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't intended to make a point, it is the actual solution to the WP:OR problem. If Kahastok is not willing to accept any proposal and won't make any suggestions either, as usual, effectively dragging this debate for ever, I say let's finish this now and remove the material. Right now Wikipedia is claiming that, for example, Spain had "de facto control over the FI" from 1778 to 1811, something to which not every author in literature agrees with; or that BOTH the UK and Spain had "de facto control over the FI" for a brief period in the 1770s. How is that even possible? --Langus (t) 10:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Quite easy, its an archipelago, with multiple islands and two settlements co-existed at the same time, with both claiming to exert control. And it doesn't state "de facto control over the FI", in fact nowhere is it claimed to be control over the entire archipelago. The title has been a stable consensus for some time precisely because it doesn't claim to be indicative of control over the entire archipelago.
I don't think it is helpful to comment on editors rather than content. You are alleging an editor isn't willing to accept any proposal, and won't make any suggestions either, even though they've indicated a willingness to consider alternatives and explained the problem with your suggestion.. I have also made a suggestion above and you appear to have ignored it. I could easily infer something about your conduct but I would hope you'd realise by now how negative it can get if you comment on editors and not content?
Now do you think you could comment on the proposal I made? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is helpful to comment on editors rather than content. That hasn't stopped you from doing it. These multiple accusations of WP:POINT are toxic. I don't think anyone has made changes they are against in order to harm the article to prove a point. This accusation is being used here as a battlegrounding bludgeon with editors you disagree with about content. Please refrain from using this argument with little cause in the future. I think there's a problem with the table, it's not about the accuracy of specific dates; it's about what it says those dates mean, which is contested. I don't think it currently has a harmonious consensus regarding what it means now, regardless of whether there was consensus in the past. (Looking back over the archives, it looks like this was an issue you battlegrounded over in the past. Maybe it's time to approach it in a new way?)__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The fact that you said the chart measured "nationally appointed officials" shows that it's currently based on strange original research and is still inconsistent within that measurement. Were there clear "nationally appointed officials for all of the early eras? In any case the constant failure to define what the chart is arguing, is a clear sign that we don't have a reliable source we can point to that hard-defined these eras as we have here. We have a laundry list of dates that historians said were important, we've connected the dots ourselves, and now we're trying to decide what the shape should be called because we don't have a source that makes that assertion for us. That's why it's WP:OR. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a bizarre view among some editors here that if someone rejects a particular proposal because of issues with the details of the wording, they are necessarily "not willing to accept any proposal", regardless of the wording. I've seen similar arguments here before - to the point where an editor insisted on his edits being accepted sight-unseen - and they are entirely fallacious.

Failing to accept one particular proposal does not equate to refusing to accept any change. Willingness to accept a good change does not mean you have to be willing to accept whatever change is proposed. I have given reasoned objections to those proposals that I have not accepted, and no-one has disputed those objections. The fact is that I've yet to see a proposal that I think is better than what we already have, which I believe is appropriately backed up by the sources. For all the hand waving, the fact is that no-one has actually managed to identify a specific problem with the status quo.

On the chart, the record I believe shows that I was never entirely comfortable with it for the same reasons as given by Curry Monster: that the very long bar of British control risks putting a key British argument rather too strongly. I don't think it's biased per se, but if used it should be used with care. Kahastok talk 21:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"No-one has actually managed to identify a specific problem with the status quo" -- and here's the proof that this issue is being delayed indefinitely. Kahastok, my "bizarre view" is based on months/years of interaction with you.
As to the graphic, I'll elaborate: I believe that the long bar of British control is balanced out with the unstable first years, and the long period of lone Spanish control. All in all, I think that both British and Argentine arguments are clearly depicted there, and equally visible.
I suggest we submit this matter to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard --Langus (t) 11:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
...and fascinatingly, you do not dispute my objections to any of the wordings. If you feel that my reasons are unfair or unjustified, you do actually have to say so. At the moment, you're insisting that I'm acting in bad faith while at the same time apparently accepting the substance of my objections.
We've had a month of someone telling us that some of the dates are obviously controversial or disputed, but refusing outright to tell us which. We can't resolve the issue without knowing what it is. It may well be that the dates claimed to be controversial actually turn out, given the preponderance of reliable sources, not to be so. Or, it may be demonstrable that there is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. We don't know. Without knowing what's being objected to, we can't really say either way. If you don't like that, perhaps you can persuade Elaqueate to tell us which dates s/he objects to? Kahastok talk 18:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, long on accusation but little of substance behind it, I'm not the only one wondering what exactly is objected to. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I've said multiple times that it's not a specific date that is at issue. The entire chart is not a simple list of dates; it's a list of "control" eras. Let me put it in a different way. As an example, let's take three dates of three events involving "Bob", and let's pretend they're agreed upon and backed up by sources: January 1st - Bought milk, February 2nd - Bought jam, March 3rd - Bought bread. Now let's say I make a chart that says January 1st-March 3rd, groceries were bought by Bob alone. Do you see how that's synth? Now what happens if there is controversy over who bought the jam among reliable sources?
Now if you'd like to show me a Falklands Island historian who's constructed a chart as we have here, parcelling out control with hard beginning and end dates, then I could compare it with ours. Right now it appears to be the Kahastok-Wee Curry Monster hypothesis of de facto control, an interpretation of events not found in the sources, but provided for Wikipedia alone.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
You've also said multiple times that you consider some dates to be controversial - but never told us which. Even in this message, you're telling us that there is a controversy, but do not tell us what it is. We can't help you if we don't know what specifics you are arguing and you refuse to tell us.
There certainly is a parallel to your three events involving Bob on this talk page. But it isn't in this section - it's in the RFC above. In that section, an editor wishes to pull together sources and use them to draw conclusions not made in any of them.
But that doesn't apply to this section. The sources we have - provided in the body of the article - don't just give dates, we have text descriptions and a narrative. It is not OR to summarise or collate information from reliable sources where no original interpretation or conclusion is drawn. That is what this table does. Kahastok talk 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd say it's not so much about the dates but about the description: "de facto control over the Falkland Islands".
You could start by telling us where specifically you get that:
  1. both Spain and Britain had "de facto control over the Falkland Islands" in, say, the period 1767-1770;
  2. Spain had unique and lone "de facto control over the Falkland Islands" from 1774 to 1811 (well actually I know sources for this, but I seem to remember that you had sources to the contrary --maybe I should ask for those instead. Or maybe I should just include this claim in the body of the article, if it is uncontested).
Oh! And I've just remembered a controversial date: starting point of British settlement (Port Egmont). Because British-POVed literature tends to emphasize the date in which Lord Byron landed, claimed the islands, planted a flag and a vegetable garden and then left (25 January 1765, as currently shown); Argentine-POVed literature tends to mark the beginning of this settlement at the date in which the actual ocuppation begun (with a fort erected and permanent military presence deployed), in January 1766, by Capt. John MacBride aboard the Jason. --Langus (t) 22:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
If Kahastok disagrees about the amount of OR in the chart that's their argument to make. But to say I haven't been clear that I'm talking about more than the bare accuracy of specific event dates is, at this point, childish and misleading, especially after I've taken the time to repeat my concern at their request. I've mentioned dates specifically in connection with the interpretation we've made of them, and no, that interpretation is not always in the article itself or interpreted the same way by the listed sources. Sources disagree about when nations had control of these islands, and whether the dates we've included are indicators of "control" or not. That should be indisputable. It's not an oblique point. The chart maintains that we can assert exactly when specific nations had "control" of these islands. If all reliable sources agreed on the interpretation of these events regarding what they meant for "control", we probably wouldn't have this article on the "dispute". Again, if you could point me to a Falkland Islands historian who divvies up history with the same hard dates as we've done, I'd be able to compare our work with theirs. That's what WP:V is all about. If the claim is a simple Foo country controlled the islands from x-month to y-month then it needs to be directly supported by a source saying that for every era in the chart, without us drawing conclusions and without ignoring other interpretations of the meaning of that date from reliable sources. We shouldn't go beyond the sources (removing their qualifications, neutral wording, or disagreement) just to have a chart that gives a decisive single answer to an unsettled question.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A question Elaqueate, could you enlighten me on the sources you are using? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's fascinating to be asked to provide sources when I'm not adding claims to the article, while being stonewalled for weeks when I ask for specific sources for what's in the article. This is more than a little bass-sackwards regarding WP:BURDEN. But assuming that you're asking in the interests collaboration, I can say the shortest answer is that I'm using the sources listed in the article itself. If you're looking for random examples of where our current determination of "control dates" don't jibe with all of our listed sources you can look, for instance, here, or where Gustafson roughly sets Spanish "control" some time earlier than the formal handover in 1767 (if the chart is supposed to cover non-formal control, it sometimes sticks to formal dates regardless of control on the ground), or where this source backs up Langus's claim that British "control" didn't happen precisely in 1765. If you look, you'll find more discrepancies.
But the main thing to remember is that I'm not the one claiming to know what every event specifically meant for who was "really" in charge. This isn't a partisan issue, sources nominally on the same "side" don't agree about what some of these events meant. The problem is that we are giving a more certain and untempered answer to the question "Who was in control?" than any single one of our reliable sources. We're not supposed to be more certain if the sources aren't. I can't point you to sources that will unequivocally state what really happened in the eighteenth century, but it's clear the sources given here aren't as unanimously certain in their interpretations as we've presented. I think the article would be improved if we didn't rely on or present conclusions not made in the sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not an unreasonable question. A NPOV requires access to a range of sources, which enables editors to judge what is the range of opinions in the literature. You are making broad sweeping accusations that this article has problems, I am simply asking on what basis you have made this conclusion? So far from your comments, it appears you were relying for that conclusion on comments from editors who sought to advance a national agenda of one sort or another to infer that there is controversy. If you were to say I have read Source A and it says this, which contradicts what Source B says then I am sure your comments would be taken more seriously. But this isn't what you've done and you're continuing to bad mouth other editors as "stonewalling" and adopting a generally confrontational manner.
Gustafson puts the founding of Port Egmont in January 1765, as does Strange, Cawkell, Destefani and Graham-Yool. There is an academic consensus that the settlement was founded on 15 January 1765. Equally they all report that the fort and Blockhouse was not established till McBride landed on 8 January 1766.
Equally, whilst Port Louis was founded on 5 April 1764, Bougainville left the islands on 8 April 1764, returning in January 1765.
In both cases, there is an academic consensus in sources on the dates. So I ask you to refer to sources independently to confirm this to be these case.
What you appear to be giving credence to, is an attempt to move the foundation of a British presence to 1766 by editors making the distinction between founding and settlement, whilst at the same time ignoring the French colony went through a similar process normal to the establishment of a presence in a remote place of repeated round trips to build up a supply base. This is a case of editors not reporting what the sources are saying but to put their own spin on them and to do in a one sided manner.
You have a copy of Gustafson? Could you point me to where Gustafon makes a claims the Spanish had a measure of control prior to 1 April 1767 when the settlement of Port Louis was handed over? Thank you in anticipation. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Calling the dates of the French "de facto control" into question is a strange thing to point out. I think you've failed to recognize that you're directly conceding my point. The dates are not unanimously agreed on as to whether they represented actual, "on the ground" control (not sovereignty or spoken territorial claim, but "de facto" control, the putative measuring stick for this chart) , or whether they were exploratory but not "controlling". By your own admission, the dates of French occupation, the very first line in the chart are not settled in academic sources by whether they constituted actual "control". I wouldn't dream of holding the French settlement to a different standard than the English one. My standard is "Do sources agree about when de facto control started" and in both cases the answer is "no".
And look, I may not be from Glasgow and I hope I don't offend your sensitivities, but around here a statement like Gustafson puts the founding of Port Egmont in January 1765 is known as full-tilt unsupported, not to be rude, mind you. I'm sure you're making the statement with good faith, but that doesn't stop it from being, well let's use strong words, and call it incorrect. According to Gustafson, Byron's surgeon planted a vegetable garden in 1865 and Gustafson does not place this as a foundational act, he ridicules it. In Gustafson's words, deriding the idea that this is foundational, Showing that nothing can be too trivial in the history of the Falklands dispute, this garden has been mentioned as proving possession. Has the bar for "de facto" control been set? Is this the foundation the chart for "de facto control" was built on? He goes on to say that On 20 July 1765, the secretary of state for the Southern Department, Henry Conway, advised the lords of the admiralty to send a settlement expedition to the islands. A frigate, a sloop, a store ship, military equipment, and twenty-five marines were to go there. The secretary argued that the garden had been the beginning of the settlement. Gustafson mentions that the British government official arguing the claim the vegetable garden represented a settlement, but Gustafson most certainly does not make that argument himself. He does say a geographic feature was named for Lord Egmont, that a garden he calls trivial was planted, and that a settlement of 25 people happened a year later. He does not place the founding of a settlement in 1765. Or I can put in the form you requested: I have read Gustafson and it contradicts what Wee Curry Monster says about Gustafson. The "settlement expedition" did not get there until 1766, but you knew that as I just noticed on the Falkland Islands talk page you're basing an argument that there was no settlement until 1766. Does "de facto" control mean "We said we were going to come back and control it?" Do you see how the definition of "de facto control" has been arbitrarily and inconsistently applied? Are all verbal pronouncements given equal weight? Keep in mind that that my ultimate point is that the claim in the chart is contested; I'm not stating that one side is true or not. But it's certainly challengeable material among reliable sources and that's not how we portray it.
As for your request for where Gustafson makes a claim the Spanish had a measure of control prior to 1 April 1767 I submit that France lost "actual" control before they gave up de jure control, at this point: The French government, not wishing trouble with Spain after having just lost the Seven Years' War to Britain, instructed Bougainville to sail to Madrid to make his terms with the Spanish. In April of 1766 Bougainville accepted just over 618,000 livres for the colony. The French never made claim to the islands after the purchase. This event is the beginning of "The Spanish Intrusion... It's strange to mark a change in "informal" control (where the governor was forced from the island, making terms in 1766) by pointing at the "formal" ceremony that follows it a year later. Again, sources interpret actual control (still only defined by Wikipedia editors here) differently, but our chart suffers no doubt.
Finally, as far as your stated mis-speculations about my motives and access to reading material, I do not care whether one side or the other of this dispute is strengthened. That shouldn't be the goal of the article. We're supposed to outline the dispute, not make stronger claims about it than the sources. What I am "giving credence to" is the sources themselves and Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability and neutrality. I don't personally think that any of these events, pre-1833, will have any effect on actual claim of actual land in today's world. That doesn't mean we should misrepresent them. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Just out of interest but you may not be aware there is a problem with the reference to the significance of the Garden. I would suggest you refer to Goebel (The Struggle for the Falkland Islands, Julius Goebel) the reference cited by Gustafson, as he doesn't accurately report what was in that document. Goebel ridicules a statement made in reference to the planting of the garden, this is made in Dr Brown's account of the Falkland Islands dispute Anglo-Spanish Relationships in America in the Closing Years of the Colonial Era p.387 (I would give you a better reference but Goebel isn't too hot on his Bibliography). Gustafson incorrectly attributes the statement to Conway. The British reference to the founding of Port Egmont is based on the formal ceremony claiming the islands for the King that took place in January 1765, not the founding of a Garden. It is perhaps understandable as Goebel's language is loose but Conway refers to completing the settlement begun earlier. As I said it helps if you have access to a range of sources.
Not to denigrate Gustafson but he got that badly wrong, its an otherwise excellent resource.
And as you refer to the incident in 1766, yes Bougainville received monies and agreed to hand over the settlement then. He didn't do so until the date mentioned in the article. Spain didn't take control till 1767, academic sources don't claim otherwise.
In the three cases, in the summary we ascribe the dates to the same event in each case. The formal date on which control is supposedly founded. Its just intended to be a simple summary and the detail is there in the article. The detail is not being obscured or misrepresented. And no I'm not conceding your point, I am pointing out how it can be abused - which you're leaping upon to imply something else. Your example above is simply another example of spinning sources to shift dates.
I also did not speculate about your motives, my comments referred to other editors (and not specifically yourself) promoting one date whilst denigrating another as an example of how sources were being abused. So whilst there was an academic consensus, this wasn't being reflected in articles. And yes even Gustafson acknowledges Byron claimed the islands in 1765, he doesn't contradict the academic consensus.
Neither did I speculate about your access to material, I asked what you were basing your comments on in an effort to understand what was driving it. Please go and look back as it is far from clear.
Now I have honestly expressed the opinion that the article benefits from this type of summary in the lede, with detail in the article. What is your suggestion for improving it? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't dispute the assertion there was a "formal ceremony claiming the islands". It's a great event to have in the article and is easily sourced. And if the chart was "Timeline of solemn invocations" then it would make perfect sense to include it in the chart. As it stands, some "formal ceremonies" are given the weight of "de facto control" and some are not. The chart is conflating a "Claim of Sovereignty" with physical control, or whatever definition is used on any particular line. You say that Byron "claimed the islands" as if that is supposed to make it clear that Britain now had a measure of "de facto" control, even setting aside they didn't interact with the French who were already hanging out on the island before them. Do you believe the sources are asserting that the French were "controlled" by this formal proclamation? In fact, it doesn't matter if you do, because the sources themselves don't claim that this represented "control", they are clear this is where a demand for recognition was voiced, but not necessarily made good on. I hope you can see where the chart falls apart here. I don't think anyone on the planet would contest that Britain had "de facto control" in say, 1962. I think it's silly to assert we know exactly who "really" had control for the entire period from the first settlement onward. If there is a different set of goalposts for every determination of what "de facto control" means, then the chart cannot stand as is.
As far as looking back, I also invite you to look back at the answers I received to what sources directly backed the claims made in the chart. I was told it's all in the article, or perhaps I could look at other Wikipedia pages, or the subject was changed to focus on MOS considerations. These answers are also "far from clear". I've gotten at least three different and contradictory definitions of how we measure "de facto control", I've investigated and found that no source agrees with every definition all of the time, regardless of their political sympathies, and I've been repeatedly told there is a longstanding consensus among sources on the meaning of events when the same sources say there is often-fierce debate. My honest belief is that the chart would be great if it didn't summarize uncertainty and disagreement about who actually controlled things as agreement on a set of dates. But it does.
I don't think the reader is served by offering a false certainty about what events meant. (As worded, the table shouldn't be there at all.) I especially don't think it's appropriate to not have direct citation when these interpretations are contested. (If the table stays, the reader deserves to be able to look up who's asserting the claim, directly and directly supported, without any whinging that the interpretations of control could never be seen as controversial.) I don't blame any editor for failing at making a chart like this, it doesn't look like any of the sources would commit to a summary as we've created for this page. I suspect the summary was an attempt at "de facto control" because somebody once decided it would be too hard to defend a "formal legal claims" timeline. Well, I think it's also to hard to assert that all sources agree on the meaning of all dates for control. The current chart admits no doubt. No source admits no doubt. If the text of the article adequately and neutrally relates what the sources say, giving all necessary context to maintain neutrality, then a chart that removes any of that needed context or neutrality for the sake of looking simpler is not helpful. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Timeline proposal[edit]

Timeline of de facto control
February 1764
– April 1767
 France[1]
January 1765
– July 1770
 Great Britain[2]
April 1767
– February 1811
 Spain[3]
September 1771
– May 1774
 Great Britain[2]
February 1811
– August 1829
None
August 1829
– December 1831
Argentina United Provinces[4]
December 1831
– January 1832
 United States[5]
January–December 1832 None
December 1832
– January 1833
 Argentine Confederation[4]
January–August 1833  United Kingdom
August 1833
– January 1834
None
January 1834
– April 1982
 United Kingdom[6]
April–June 1982  Argentina
June 1982
– present
 United Kingdom

I would propose some additional notes to the timeline in order to facilitate its understanding by the reader, and help avoid some possible misinterpretations too. The amended timeline looks as follows. Comments and suggestions would be welcome. Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're helping explain the underlying assumptions of the timeline. It's a step forward. Your additions do make it clearer what's being argued, but not who's doing the arguing. I still think that anything based on "de facto control" is still a subjective label that is not in use in the sources we have. It's something cooked up here and not directly sourced. I don't think wikipedia editors should be the ones to say who had "control" at various times when the sources don't always commit to the term.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this is an improvement, and would support it - though with markup changes in that I think we can group some of the identical notes together. Kahastok talk 19:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to congratulate Apcbg for an excellent idea, one that clearly has merit. Rather than referring to De Facto, it can simply refer to the settlement themselves, perhaps amplified by wikilinks to relevant parts of other articles. EG Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Simplified as suggested by Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster. Apcbg (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Much better, I'd also suggest adding the Lexington raid to explain the US flag reference. Perhaps change the title? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I have added the Lexington note, seems a good idea. As for the title, maybe that needs some further separate discussion and possibly a new look at the timeline. Apcbg (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Did WCM just revert me in order to take credit for my earlier suggestion? This was made in good faith, specifically bad-mouthed as unproductive, then asserted here as a new suggestion by the person who removed it. This has happened to multiple changes I've made. This isn't collaboration, some would consider it rude or worse. And this chart still needs to be sourced. Asking for sources for opinions that might be challenged should not be considered an unreasonable request.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't know about the readers, I for one am quite unable to see it as a timeline of settlements. The present version is essentially different from the 'Lexington' one (which I like better) and ought to be displayed separately to keep both of them visible I believe. Apcbg (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I have restored a clean copy of my last proposed version of timeline; the removed subsequent text ought to be displayed separately like I suggested above — with a full new copy of the timeline and its notes if deemed necessary. Apcbg (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The "key settlements" title sounds like they're separate settlements, when for the most part they aren't. I thought of "periods of settlement", but again, that implies that settlement occurred (i.e. people actively arrived from outside in significant numbers) during the periods in question, when that isn't really true for most of the period post-1833. Kahastok talk 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
How about "Key Events", I would agree the Lexington raid, which lasted for nigh on a month is a pertinent event to mention that doesn't correspond well with the title "Settlements". Wee Curry Monster talk 21:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't necessarily mind "key events" - but we'd need to refactor the table into something more like the one collapsed:
That's a long way from the sort of table we have at present, and I think the present table is better because it is clearer what belongs.
We're not going to get away from the fact that the table as it stands is describing the country that was in control on the ground, and I'm struggling to think of any wording that does not use the word "control" that would accurately describe it. "Timeline of control", "Periods of control", work. Kahastok talk 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest alternative titles, I tend to agree with you and would not disagree with changing the table as you suggest. But if we do the graphic goes. Equally remove the title altogether? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand exactly what are we trying to do here (I think it implies the removal of this graph), but even if the list is not intended to be a proposal or final version, I'd like to point out that:
  • British settlement was proclaimed in 1765 but built/populated in 1766;
  • "Jewett reads his declaration" is an euphemism for "Jewett claims the islands";
  • "1850 Arana-Southern Treaty" isn't really a key event to many sources, only to the new British-POVed literature that regards it as having a legal effect over the dispute;
  • Referendum: same as above, it has no meaning to the pro-Territorial integrity literature.
Anyhow, I want to state that Apcbg's attitude in seeking consensus is remarkable, and definitely a step forward. Thank you. --Langus (t) 23:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I thought that the words:
Just to be absolutely clear: I'm describing the structure that "key events" would imply to me, not giving a detailed proposal. I've done this mostly from memory, so I'm not saying that the detail is either neutral or accurate. We would need to agree the details if we went with something like this.
...would have been enough to make it blindingly obvious to everyone concerned that this was not an active proposal in its detail. But apparently it wasn't. I thought that that text made it impossible to fail to understand that the detail did not get enough research to have any claim to being accurate or neutral. But apparently I needed to put more.
Seriously, should I have just filled the entire space next to the table with disclaimers about how the detail wasn't based on reliable sources? About how it was intended as an outline rather than a detailed proposal? About how the detail of the table would have to be agreed on talk? I shouldn't need to, but it looks like that's what you would have demanded. Kahastok talk 18:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Kahastok, if it looks like de facto control, it feels like de facto control, and tastes like de facto control, it is de facto control. If we don't like having a timeline of de facto control in the article, then fine, we remove it. As far as the actual timeline in the article is concerned, I just wonder what might be the reader's benefit from having 'de facto control' replaced by some euphemism of it. Apcbg (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@Kahastok: "Apparently it wasn't"??? Have you missed the part where I say "even if the list is not intended to be a proposal or final version, I'd like to point out that..."? Or are you just being rude at me in the hope I somehow go away?
I hope is the first option, because otherwise your comment is an unwarranted breach of WP:CIVIL --Langus (t) 02:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ French settlement of Port Saint Louis.
  2. ^ a b British settlement of Port Egmont.
  3. ^ Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad, and control of the entire archipelago in some periods.
  4. ^ a b Argentine settlement of Puerto Luis.
  5. ^ The USS Lexington raid.
  6. ^ The former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (practically, until 1922, but the name had been used until 1927) and the current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (practically, since 1922, but the name has been used since 1927).