Talk:Falkland Islands

Template:V0.5

Vernet established an Argentinian settlement

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

More to the point, the scholarly sources describe it as an Argentinian settlement: [1], [2], [3], and many others. If there's no objection, I'll implement the clarifying change: "After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established an Argentinian settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both Argentine and British authorities."--Abenyosef (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• In a UK parliamentary debate it is described as an Argentinian settlement: [5].

• A book about colonies describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [6].

• A book about self-determination describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [7].

• A book about Commonwealth history describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [8].

• The BBC describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [9].

• A book about the Falklands war describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [10].

• The Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [11].

• The Survey of British and Commonwealth Affairs describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [12].

• A book on wars in Latin America describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [13]l

• The Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law describe it as an Argentinian settlement: [14].

• The House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committe describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [15].

• A book on the diplomacy of the Falklands war describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [16].

• The Year Book of World Affairs describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [17].

• ... hey, even Wikipedia is already describing it as an Argentinian settlement: [18].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One last thing, WCM. Your original research above is wonderful, and I encourage you to go to the Oxford University Press and submit it for publication. But up to now, the OUP reference text we have says that it was an Argentinian colony [19]. So please stop flooding me with words and give me SOURCES.--Abenyosef (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

1. Wayne Bernhardson; María Massolo (August 1992), Argentina, Uruguay & Paraguay: a travel survival kit, Lonely Planet Publications, ISBN 978-0-86442-140-1, retrieved 2 March 2012
2. Mary Cawkell (January 1983). The Falkland story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
3. Wayne Bernhardson (June 2000). Chile & Easter Island. Lonely Planet. ISBN 978-1-86450-088-2. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
4. Ian J. Strange (1987). The Falkland Islands and their natural history. David & Charles. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
5. Sir Charles Prestwood Lucas; Sir Reginald Laurence Antrobus; Sir Charles Alexander Harris (1890). A historical geography of the British colonies. The Clarendon Press. Retrieved 2 March 2012. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
6. Daniel K. Gibran (March 2007). The Falklands War: Britain Versus the Past in the South Atlantic. McFarland. pp. 36–. ISBN 978-0-7864-3736-8. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
7. Royal Geographical Society of Australasia. Queensland Branch (1910). Queensland geographical journal: including the proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of Australasia, Queensland. Royal Geographical Society of Australasia, Queensland. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
8. THE SESSIONAL PAPERS PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS OR PRESENTED BY ROYAL COMMAND IN THE SESSION 1856. 1856. pp. 3–. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
9. Raymond John Howgego (2004). Encyclopedia of exploration, 1800 to 1850: a comprehensive reference guide to the history and literature of exploration, travel and colonization between the years 1800 and 1850. Hordern House. ISBN 978-1-875567-44-7. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
10. Tony Wheeler (15 November 2004). The Falklands & South Georgia Island. Lonely Planet. pp. 91–. ISBN 978-1-74059-643-5. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
11. John R. Gribbin; Mary Gribbin (11 August 2004). FitzRoy: the remarkable story of Darwin's captain and the invention of the weather forecast. Yale University Press. pp. 146–. ISBN 978-0-300-10361-8. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
12. Andrew Kippis (1844). Voyages around the world: from the death of Captain Cook to the present time. Including remarks on the social condition of the inhabitants in the recently-discovered countries: their progress in the arts; and more especially their advancement in religious knowledge. Harper & brothers. pp. 23–. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
13. M. B. R. Cawkell; Mary Cawkell (1960). The Falkland Islands: by M.B.R. Cawkell, D. H. Maling and E. M. Cawkell. Macmillan. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
14. Raphael Perl; Everette E. Larson (1983). The Falkland Islands dispute in international law and politics: a documentary sourcebook. Oceana Publications. ISBN 978-0-379-11251-1. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
15. Abraham D. Sofaer; Henry Bartholomew Cox; American Bar Association. Steering Committee on War, Foreign Affairs, and Constitutional Power (July 1984). War, foreign affairs, and constitutional power. Ballinger Pub. Co. ISBN 978-0-88410-956-3. Retrieved 2 March 2012.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
16. Jimmy Burns (2002). The land that lost its heroes: how Argentina lost the Falklands War. Bloomsbury. pp. 5–. ISBN 978-0-7475-5872-9. Retrieved 2 March 2012.
17. Sir Charles Prestwood Lucas (1905). The West Indies. Clarendon Press. Retrieved 2 March 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, look what I've found:

• Argentine player Lionel Messi: 47,400 hits[21]
• Barcelona player Lionel Messi: 418,000 hits[22]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool down

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take, for instance, Martin Middlebrook, the British military historian. When he summarizes the Falklands' history, he says: "An Argentinian settlement was established at Puerto Soledad (Port Louis) with Louis Vernet as governor. Britain protested."[23] We are not so conceited as to believe that we know more than a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, are we? Of course, he knows that the story is more complex than that, but when he summarizes he says that, and we must respect the judgment of a distinguished scholar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. REDIRECT Target page name

End

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion closed as no-consensus

An Unicef-Football player? I disagree with Abenyosef, because it wasn't an "Argentine" settlement. Just little as Leonel Messi is an Unicef-Football player. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I domn't think any kind of consensus is possible so move that we close this as no consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Agree. Pfainuk talk 14:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Agree. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Closing with no consensus will be the most appropriate and productive resolution of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Disagree. You can't close a discussion based on the refusal of one of the sides to talk. We have argued that a change is necessary because the current word is misleading, since it fails to mention the fundamental detail that Vernet's settlement was Argentinian. Your answer to this was that it would break NPOV, but you haven't argued why. It is not a "point of view" to state that Vernet's settlement was Argentinian; it's established scholarship. After we proved that with sources, you refused to discuss the issue further. You can't say "we close the discussion because we haven't reached a consensus with the scholars."--Abenyosef (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Then why are you not asking that the 1764 colony established by commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville is referred to as the French settlement or that the Byron settlement is not referred to as the British settlement? We have not listed the nationality of any of the other colonies that preceded this one, so why do we need to list this ones nationality? That is why thre is a NPOV objection, its the fact that we a treating this coloney in a way different from any of the others.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC) In the case of the French and British settlement the wording is not misleading; the authomatic assumption is that the nationality of the settlement is the same as that of the founder. However, in Vernet's case there's no authomatic assumption that can be made, since the author is left wondering whether Vernet's settlement was Argentinian, British, both or none. That being said, if you want to clarify that Bougainville's settlement was French, or that Byron's was British, I have no objection.--Abenyosef (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC) The wording I have susgested doe say that Vernet was appointed governor by Argentina, why do we need to say more then that?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Your wording is rejected because it doesn't remove Vernet's dealings with the British. Proved with sources? You proved no such thing, the sources clearly show it is referred to in different ways and we happen to have chosen one that reflects neutrality. What you have demonstrated repeatedly is a desire to remove relevant information about Vernet's dealings with the British authorities. This is why there is a NPOV objection - you wish to impose an edit that fails NPOV. And you're not prepared to discuss this and people have had enough, its clear there is no concensus for this and its clear NPOV is not your objective. You won't get a consensus to write a biased article. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Also some of thee sources are snippets and its not always easy to tell the context of smoe of the comments.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Yes. For the record, this is (as you would expect) something that's come up elsewhere and the (Wikipedia-wide) consensus is that we can't take a source as reliable if the only access we have to it is through Google's snippet view - precisely because we do not have the context available. Pfainuk talk 16:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Pfainuk, my sources include both snippets and full page views. But let me point out this: if a source calls a settlement an Argentinian settlement, that means it won't call it a nationless settlement elsewhere. On the other hand, if a source calls that same settlement Vernet's settlement, that doesn't preclude that source from calling it an Argentinian settlement in some other paragraph. If Vernet's dealings with the British were of paramount importance, the scholars would mention them in their summaries, and short chronologies would include them. The fact that only in specialized analyses does the Vernet-British correspondence arise proves that it is not material for a summary. What we highlight in a summary shouldn't be different from what the scholarly consensus highlights. Even so, I have agreed, for the sake of compromise, to keep the bit about Vernet seeking authorization from the British. That should suffice.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Firstly a source may be quoting something, or may be discusing one sides view. This does not mean its expresing its own opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC) This make interesting reading, it says that the colony was not carried out on behalf of Argentina, but the city of Buenos Ayres [24] So whose colony was it? This http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf says it was a private venture. It was not until 1929 that the settlement was ‘officially’ argentine.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Conversely if one source calls it an Argentine settlement and another refers to it as Vernet's settlement that doesn't preclude calling it Vernet's settlement here; especially where the latter is more common. And in reality given the fact Vernet sought permission from two national authorities it is in fact better to use the latter and to give the information on Vernet's dealings, allowing the reader to make up their own minds. But you don't wish to do that, you wish to impose an edit favouring one POV over another. You've also claimed falsely that sources do not mention Vernet's dealing with the British, they do. “ Mary Cawkell (31 August 2001). The history of the Falkland Islands. Anthony Nelson. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-904614-55-8. Retrieved 4 March 2012. "On this visit he met Woodbine Parish who expressed great interest in his venture and asked Vernet to prepare a full report on the Islands to submit to the British Government. On his side Vernet expressed the wish that, in the event of the British returning to the islands, HMG would take his settlement under their protection." ” Not to labour the point but if you look above, I've already referred to several Argentine sources that present the same information. I thought it would useful to bring this to your attention before you try to dismiss the above on the basis of nationality. No wikipedian would allow an edit that is so blatantly one sided and a seasoned wikipedian would be able to put aside their POV. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I suppose another good question here is whether Argentina actually existed at this time. After all, the country was still the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. Wouldn't it be an error of anachronism to even refer to Vernet's venture as Argentine? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC) All proclamations were actually done in the name of the Republic of Buenos Aires, rather than the United Provinces for info. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC) WCM, when one makes up their mind it's between two (or more) options. You talk about Wikipedia readers making up their minds -- between which options would that be? Please give a straightforward answer. MarshalN20, historians agree that the Republic of Buenos Aires' actions can be described as Argentinian actions, but in any event, the demonym used by the Republic was "Argentinian." Again, we're not so conceited as to doubt the judgment of prominent historians, are we?--Abenyosef (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC) We have soources that dispute the idea that the Republic of Buenos Aires and argentina are one and the same.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC) The Republic of Buenos Aires and Argentina are not one and the same, although I do note that the name Argentina used to be associated with the province of Buenos Aires rather than the country as a whole. Argentina as a name was not used until 1836, apart from a six month period in 1826. It was not a popular choice at the time due to its association with BA and was rejected as high centralism. In reply to Abenyosef, my point is perfectly clear, provide the reader all the information and allow them to draw their own conclusions about the nature of the settlement. You seek to dictate it. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC) WCM, I'm afraid you're being evasive. What are the different possible "natures" of the settlement the readers must make up their minds about? Although the name Argentina dates from 1826, the demonym Argentinian was first officially used in 1813, in the Patriotic March, later Argentinian National Anthem.--Abenyosef (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I suggest then we use the historically correct term and change the text to "After several abortive attempts to establish a colony, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities. in 1829 the Republic of Buenos Aires appointed Luis Vernet to the governorship of the Falklands". This is historically accurate and allows the reader to make up their own minds about any connection.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC) A slight modification: “ After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and the British consul. In 1829, he approached the Republic for assistance but lacking resources, it instead proclaimed him Military and Civil Commander. Vernet provided the British with progress reports and expressed the desire for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement. ” I've slimmed down my text above given the feedback but kept essential facts, including Vernet's appointment. BTW could anyone please point to a source verifying that Vernet's appointment was properly gazetted? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I still thinjk its a bit long. “ After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and the British consul. In 1829, he approached the Republic for assistance but lacking resources, it instead proclaimed him Military and Civil Commander. ” I think thius is all we need.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry but I strongly disagree - it is significant that Vernet was also asking for British garrison. I would not support such an edit without it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Surley the place for that degree of detail is the main articel (falklands sovernty dispute), not (what should be) a one sentance byline in this articel?Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC) No I don't think so, in the interest of presenting a NPOV the fact that he asked for a British garrison is significant in conveying he was playing both sides. “ After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from both the Republic of Buenos Aires and British consul. In 1829, he approached the Republic for help but lacking resources, it proclaimed him Military and Civil Commander instead. Vernet also asked the British for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement. ” Hows that? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I still think its too long, by the way this does not mention hoe Brtiain reacted to the request.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC) WCM, as far as I know Vernet didn't send the reports he had promised to the British, which earned him their disaffection. Your links don't work -- could you provide your sources? As for your edit, it has already been explained to you that we can't include minor details when more important ones are omitted. Just to make it clear to you how complicated things can get if we go down that way, it's not true that Vernet sought authorization from both countries. Argentina granted Vernet land, and the British countersigned that Argentinian document. Vernet's pleas to the British are irrelevant as compared to what really happened (for example, when he seized sealing boats he chose the Argentinian justice system over the British one). Facts speak louder than words. But let's focus on what we have a consensus about. By now, all of us agree to mention Vernet's appointment as Political and Military Commander. My preferred wording: "... in 1926 Luis Vernet established an Argentinian settlement on the islands, and in 1929 he was named Political and Military Commander by Buenos Aires." My consensus-seeking wording: "... in 1926 Luis Vernet established a settlement in Port Soledad after seeking Argentinian and British support. In 1929, the Argentinian government appointed him Political and Military Commander of the islands."--Abenyosef (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry but that is incorrect. Vernet did send reports, they're in the National Archives at Kew Gardens. Vernet did seek authorisation from both countries - he was aware of British claims and hedged his bets. Vernet's preference for British sovereignty is well documented. What caused a rift with Vernet was his activites with Moreno in the late 1830s and his association with protests from the Government in Buenos Aires. The British maintained his assets and provided regular accounts till 1838. And if we're talking jurisdiction Vernet sought redress in British courts and received a full and final settlement of his account. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC) It was not argentina it was the republic of Buenos Aires, lets be accurate if we are conteding about histoprical accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC) "After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain. In 1829, he was proclaimed Military and Civil Commander of the islands by Buenos Aires. Additionally, Vernet asked the British for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement." I think this is good.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Lets restrict it to two mentions of each nation.Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I think Marshall's text is almost acceptable, the stimulus for the proclamation was that Vernet asked for military assistance “ After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain. In 1829, after asking for assistance, he was proclaimed Military and Civil Commander of the islands by Buenos Aires instead. Additionally, Vernet asked the British for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement. ” Hows that? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Agree. Short, straight, and to the point.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)  Disagree, it's too much detail for a summary, considering that in the next sentence the seizing of 3 boats and their being sent to stand trial in Buenos Aires is boiled down to "a dispute over fishing rights." Also, the detail in this paragraph is lopsided in Britain's favor: for instance, we're not provided the detail that Argentina issued a land grant and Britain merely countersigned it, giving approval to an Argentinian document rather than issuing an independent authorization. I insist: we all agree by now that a reference to Vernet's appointment by the Argentinian government is worthy of mention. Therefore, why don't we add just that to the current sentence. On another note, any reference to the Republic of Buenos Aires is misleading to the general public; it was a short-lived polity. We can avoid that by using the demonym Argentinian, which was already in use back then.--Abenyosef (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Yes the Republic of Buenos Aires was relatively short lived, its successor declared all of its proclamations null and void. Shall we mention that as well? I mean you wouldn't want to mislead our readers would you? As regards your point about the events preceding the Lexington raid, we wrote a summary that summarised events to a short sentence. We've agreed to provide more detail to address your concerns of innaccuracy. So please, why should we mislead by mentioning a different political entity from that which was involved? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Does scholarly consensus agree that the "null and void" declaration has any relevance to the Falklands case? If it does, show me the sources. As for mentioning a different political entity, I never said that. I suggested that we use the Republic of Buenos Aires' demonym, which was -- Argentinian. Vernet's pleas to the British would be relevant if the British had granted him what he was asking for. But they didn't. When push came to shove, Vernet chose to rely on the Argentinian authorities, not the British. So that any reference to the man's innermost desires and preferences is extravagant in a summary, since they don't have a direct impact on what really happened.--Abenyosef (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Really? Vernet requested a British garrison, what turned up in 1833? What did the Republic of Buenos Aires provide? As regards your other "demand", so you're denying Lavalle's government was declared illegal? I just want to check that is what you're stating. Oh and I note you declined to answer my questions posed in my previous post. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Let's see; Vernet requested a British garrison in 1826. The British occupied the islands in 1833, when Vernet hadn't been there for 2 years. Your conclusion: the occupation was in response to Vernet's request. Your gift for WP:SYNTHESIS never ceases to amaze me. As for the "null and void" declaration, you're asking me if it should be included in our summary. I don't see any reason why it should. My hunch is that historians consider it a bravado with no legal validity or practical consequences, especially as regards the Falkland Islands. Since in scholarly summaries I have never seen it mentioned, I was asking you what the scholarly consensus is, and what your sources are.--Abenyosef (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I don't understand why we have to follow the summary style of other sources. That is nowhere to be found in WP:SUMMARY. We are the ones who, through consensus, must form our own summary. The only thing we need from sources is the information. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC) It's not a matter of style; it's a matter of contents. When you summarize, you decide which items are important and which ones aren't. And it can't be that your list of important items is different from the scholars': that would be OR. Let's suppose you stumble upon an article about the history of African Americans and find that it has been taken over by a cabal of musicians. These editors have written a summary with three paragraphs devoted to Duke Ellington, two to Scott Joplin, one to Nat King Cole and none to slavery. You want to convince them that slavery should be included in the summary, while the names of individual musicians shouldn't. How do you do that? By pointing out that all scholarly summaries and chronologies on the topic mention slavery, while not mentioning individual musicians by their names. How else could you proceed?--Abenyosef (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC) What is that about? BTW who mentioned 1826? I didn't mention any date - the quote above stems from 1828, point of fact I was in fact thinking of Vernet's encounter with a visiting RN warship just before the Lexington raid. Nothing to do with WP:SYNTHESIS - which by the way have you ever read because it doesn't mean what you seem to think. Your hunch is incorrect, several commentators point out the repudiation of the Lavalle Government proclamations is significant. I mean how can you pursue a claim based on the proclamation you have declared illegitimate? BTW thats me reporting what a secondary source says not my personal opinion. You're still avoiding my questions. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Your example doesn't make much sense. Per WP:LEAD, the summary of the introduction has to be based on the information within the article. Per WP:SUMMARY, we summarize the important points of each section. An article on African American History won't only have sections on Duke, Joplin, or NKC. Neither of these concepts require following the summary of other sources, but rather simple common sense established by consensus. In any case, my understanding of this discussion is that consensus has already been achieved in that of expanding the current sentence to two, providing a description of Vernet's actions and the Republic of Buenos Aires. That to me is a good solution, better than the current text, by providing both the Argentine and British perspectives. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC) I agree. If there's a dispute that a statement is unclear, it makes sense to add information, not remove it. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 09:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC) And we get back to square 1. The current wording is unclear in that it mentions both "authorizations" (which is a simplification, as we have seen) but it doesn't mention the nationality of the settlement. I propose to add the information that the settlement was Argentinian, as both Argentinian, British and neutral sources concur. This is not a breach of NPOV because the scholarly literature from both sides agrees that it was Argentinian. And as Basalisk says, it makes sense to add clarifying information to an unclear sentence. So what would the problem be with my proposed edit?--Abenyosef (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Becasue we have sources disputiung it was argentine, and saying it ws set up the the rebpublic of Buenos Aires, what is the prlbloom with calling them by thier corrct name?Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC) And as I have repeatedly stated, the demonym for that polity was Argentinian. (You do know what "demonym" means, don't you!) Does any source state that the settlement was not Argentinian?--Abenyosef (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC) So if they are the same why niot use the wording that everyone else finds acceptable (and I provoded a source that says it was not established by the argentne republic).? Just because some sources use such a demonym does not mean we have to, given that many sources refer to it by other means. As has been demonstrated above, sources that are Argentine, British and neutral refer to it using other descriptions. Why can't we? Why must we do as you demand - especially as by your own admission this favours the Argentine POV? The nature of the settlement was people of multiple nationalities (German, British, Uruguayan, Spanish, Portuguese amd Argentine), with authorisation from two national entities. Given that it avoids any complication of POV attribution the neutral description we currently use is a much better fit. Mentioning both authorisations is not a simplification, it happens to be a documented fact. That Vernet played both sides and favoured British sovereignty is a documented fact. That you don't like it is very much apparent but your personal dislike is not justification for changing a neutral description to one which favours any particular national narrative when we can avoid it quite easily using a description that conforms to WP:V and WP:RS. I note you have avoided multiple times a question as to why are you demanding a description that doesn't accurately identify the political entity involved, instead favouring an out of date description for that entity which in a modern context has a completely different meaning. Please answer, I think we're all waiting to hear it. At this point I note that people are prepared to compromise and expand the text to included Vernet's appointment as Military and Civil Commander, though it is to my mind overkill, however you appear to be refusing to compromise sticking with your original demands. Are you prepared to compromise or shall we just declare that there is no consensus for this change? At this point talking with you appears to be a dialogue of the deaf. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC) You state: I note you have avoided multiple times a question as to why are you demanding a description that doesn't accurately identify the political entity involved. What part of "verifiability, not truth" don't you understand? There exist multiple reliable sources (such as Martin Middlebrook or the BBC) ascribing the Argentinian nationality to the settlement, and there's none denying it. The other descriptors used (e.g. "small," "thriving," "Vernet's") do not refer to nationality and are not incompatible with Argentinian nationality. And since the sources quoted are both British and Argentinian, there's no NPOV breach. If you think "Argentine settlement" is not neutral, you have to quote prominent authors disputing that description, which thus far you haven't.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC) And you've avoided it again; noticeably so, in fact you consistently refuse to answer but simply re-iterate the same tired worn argument. You won't bore us into submission. WP:V does not mean, as you seem to think, that we have to use your preferred description - since there is more than one in the literature. WP:NPOV would in fact suggest we choose one that does not favour one side in a dispute, when a neutral description exists. This does not mean I have to find an author expressing that opinion as you seem to think. Moreover by your own admission it favours Argentine claims so yes it is POV. Fundamentally you're simply restating the same position over and over again and refusing to compromise. Consensus is impossible with that sort of attitude. People have suggested a compromise, you're rejecting it out of hand, you're refusing to budge one iota. I say we close this as NO CONSENSUS TO CHANGE. Its never going to happen. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC) My view on this is that the consensus has already been reached, and that is of adding a few additional sentences explaining the matter. As it currently stands, it doesn't reflect much of what Vernet or the Rep. of BA did during those times (the only reason I now know about it is due to this discussion; perhaps the only positive product of it). It is important to show that Buenos Aires had appointed Vernet commander of the islands, just as it is important to show that Vernet pretty much played everyone the fools (until it didn't work anymore). That Abenyosef keeps insisting on additional changes that simply will not achieve consensus is a different matter. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC) WCM, you state: WP:NPOV would in fact suggest we choose one that does not favour one side in a dispute, when a neutral description exists. No, this is not what WP:NPOV mandates. Think for example about the 1982 war. One way of describing it is "Argentina and Britain fought a war. Britain won." Another way would be: "Argentina and Britain fought a war, which was horrible, as all wars are. Almost the same number of veterans from each side committed suicide in the years that followed." The first description favors the British side; the second description is "neutral." However, we must use the first description, because although it favors the British side, it reflects the academic consensus, and is therefore NPOV. The same is true of the Argentinian nationality of the settlement. It favors the Argentinian pòsition (which is different from POV), but it has broad scholarly support from both sides. MarshalN20, you recently appealed to common sense, so I'll do the same. When we talk about a settlement, what's the first thing the reader wants to know? That's right, the nationality. The current wording conceals from the readers the fact that the settlement did have a nationality, and it was Argentinian, as all sources agree. So I'm saying, let's fix that to begin with. Then we can discuss further improvements, but let's fix that glaring omission in the first place.--Abenyosef (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC) The readers may have several questions about the settlement (how many people were in it? what were their ages? how did they live? how many died? etc.), and there is no particular reason as to why we have to answer every single question. The "nationality" of the settlement is particularly dubious given the actual background on the subject. A similar situation happened in the War of the Pacific article, where Keysanger kept pushing for the inclusion that "Bolivia declared war on Chile" because a series of sources repeated the same thing (I called them parrot sources as they only repeated something without providing any insight). Yet, not only did other authors contradict this idea, but actually taking the time to read the literature demonstrated that Bolivia indeed never declared war on Chile. It turned out that Bolivia had only announced a state of war in response to Chile invading their territory; so that is what, by consensus, we wrote (albeit "announcing a state of war" is practically the same thing as declaring war, a slight difference exists). Similarly, in this case using parrot sources won't get this anywhere. An analysis of the literature demonstrates: Vernet's settlement was a private venture, He played both the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain, Buenos Aires appointed him commander of the islands (which is important to mention, and is currently not in the article) Vernet downplayed the appointment to the British, and even asked them for a garrison. Mentioning these things not only provides an improved light to the Argentine position (which is why I notice WCM also can't understand your stubbornness in refusing the "compromise"), but also provides a more rounded picture of Vernet as a person and how/why the British continued their claim on the islands. Ultimately, if this all goes down the drain-hole, no improvement will take place at all. I assume Cambalechero and Chiton would agree with me that such a result would be unproductive. I'd like to assume the same for you, but your grudge against WCM, whatever the reason it may be, seems to have a greater hold over your rationale. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC) @Abenyosef, if you think that "Argentina and Britain fought a war. Britain won" is a non-neutral British POV statement, then you don't really understand what neutrality is. That's a perfectly neutral description, favouring neither side. CMD (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC) On the contrary, in the sentence that follows I assert that the statement is NPOV. Please do read what I write before going hysterical. @MarshalN20: Regarding the comparison with the Bolivia-Chile article, the operative phrase is: Yet, not only did other authors contradict this idea. That's the key: if a significant number of authors reject a notion, then there are 2 POV, and further analysis is needed. However, in this case there are no prominent authors who contradict the idea that the settlement was Argentinian. And for God's sake, if there is a conflict between Britain and Argentina and a settlement is mentioned, it is common sense that the reader will want to know whose settlement it was before wanting to know how many people died or indeed anything else about that settlement. But I'm practically alone defending established scholarship on this page, so you can state that up is down, black is white and round is square with total impunity. But to paraphrase WCM: you won't bore me into impatience or frustration, much less into abandoning the discussion.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC) That's not true, you state that "The first description favors the British side", but that it is only because scholarly sources confirm this that it becomes consistent with NPOV. Whereas in reality it will always satisfy NPOV because fact is fact. As MarshalN20 pointed out, several editors are willing to compromise, either you accept the compromise or continue to oppose it, in which case the stalemate will continue and eventually will most certainly be closed as no-consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC) What Polyamorph said. That description doesn't favour the British side. Despite your twisting around to say it's actually NPOV, you seem to not understand that a neutral viewpoint wouldn't favour either side. CMD (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC) An appendage of that state of Buenos Aires, also states colonists of many nations [25] =, A settlement of mixed nationalities [26] I addition OI have found d a few sources (but they are only snipes that state that the colony venture was a “purely private venture”.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Let us put the case of the Bolivian declaration of War straight. The overwhelming majority of authors state that there was a Bolivian declaration of war (BDOW). That has been recognized by all editors involved in the long standing discussion. There are two or three unknown authors, all from Peru or Bolivia, that state that there wasn't a BDOW. There are different dates of the BDOW and this circumstance was used to doubt the existence of it. At this point, Cambalachero said, correctly as I mean, that: We should dismiss authors making trivial passing-by mentions, and work with those who acknowledge the existence of this dispute and explains their reasons for endorsing one or other side. ([27]) What is the difference with the current discussion?. The difference is that there are two English speaking authors, Sater from the USA and Farcau from UK, both have written books about the military history of Latin America and both Farcau and Sater have written a book about the War of the Pacific. i.e. a complete book about the war. His expert opinion can't be mistrust. What say the authors about the BDOW?: William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states in page 28 : Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. "The Ten Cents War", Bruce W. Farcau, Praeger Publishers, 2000, states in page 42: News of the landings reached La Paz whithin few days, but, for reason never quite made clear, Daza withheld any proclamations for another week, allegedlly to avoid putting a damper on the Carnival celebrations then underway, but on 27 February, the Bolivian legislature issued the authorization for a declaration of war, although the formal declaration would not be forthcomming until 14 March. Also, the two most important historians express explicite and clearly that there was a BDOW. But people, like me and you, don't like to accept the facts. Alex, a good guy from Australia, wrote to Mr. Bruce W. Farcau and asked him about that, and the response was: Farcau responded again without answering whether or not I can reproduce his correspondence - I suspect he doesn't have too much time to look at this and may not have noticed my question. Clearly he was not even aware that some believe that Bolivia didn't declare war - which I think for the purposes of Wikipedia is sufficient to establish this as a minority, possibly a fringe view. I presented him the four sources Marshal found that support his view and Farcau suggested that those holding this view must think that there needs to be a formal delivery of documents for an act to be a declaration of war. He said, however, there is no such historical requirement. He noted again that there was an act of legislation on Feb 27 authorising a declaration of war and an announcement on March 14 of the same. I have now asked if the text of the Act passed on Feb 27 survives. [28] So, in the case of the BDOW we have a majority of sources stating that there was a BDOW and the two most important historian state that same there was a BDOW and one of them writes to Wikipedia that there was a BDOW. Well, in this situation most of us would give up and accept the facts. But some people ... . There was the opinion of an annonymus "Profesor from Texas", an IP-editor that said he had studied the books but he could not name one book he has published, and he could not name a website to corroborate his personal view. It was "profesor" without name, without books, withpout address. He said there was no BDOW. (Of course his contribution wasn't considered as reliable source in the RS board, where I inmediately sent his contribution) What do say WP now? "Bolivia declared in state of war on Chile" (I mean, it should say, but it could be that MarshallN20 has "improved" the text). And what say the legal experts:The public proclamation of the government of a state, by which it declares itself to be at war with a foreign power, which is named, and which forbids all and every one to aid or assist the common enemy, is also called a declaration of war ([29]) It was a long way to obtain what all historians around the world knows: that Bolivia, trusting in the guaranteed Peruvian help against Chile, was the first country to declare the war at the beginning of the War of the Pacific. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC) MarshallN20, you have to respect the opinion of other editors. Do not delete my contribution or I will bring the case to the admin desk and you will be blocked again. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Cry me a river Keysanger. The only person who will get blocked for interrupting discussions with rants is you, not me. If you want to take this to the administrator's desk: Go ahead. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC) You brought the War of the Pacific to discussion, did you forget it also?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I used it as an example. In any case, you are only reminding me (and showing everyone else) your erratic behavior. I'd like to write something about mental states as well, but perhaps it's not a good idea. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC) If you are looking for "examples" to write about mental states I can give you one (Tell me if you need help to translate): Colegas necesitamos su ayuda, somos Arafael y MarshalN20 necesitamos la ayuda de todos los peruanos para que cambien el título del artículo de wikipedia sobre la chalaca, bloquearon el artículo y quieren dejarlo como chilena no dejemos que esto pase, protesten todos en la página de discusión el mundo tiene que saber que la chalaca es peruana carajo!! ([30]) Write something about that!. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I am asking for an admin to close an increasingly accrimonious discusion that no longer has any value. We have no consnsus for a cjange and its just getting nasty.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Keysanger took that text from my userpage, and so it really doesn't bother me. This whole off-topic discussion should be deleted but, alas, who will come forth to save the day? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Again, I didn't bring the BDOW to discussion. MarshalN20 did it. I didn't bring the theme of mental states to discussion, MarshalN20 did it. I only adjust an entry. I wait confident for the admin advice. Please don't delete the contribs. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I did not bring this topic into discussion. It's completely absurd to accuse me of such things. An administrator blocked you for disrupting the talk page. Again, this whole off-topic discussion should be removed.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC) I would strongly, strongly suggest you stop communicating with each other on this, and back off from each other or you might find yourselves both blocked. This isn't productive. Also, {{od}} is cool. Hugs and kisses ~ --Nutthida (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RESTART

Abenyosef has been blocked for sock puppetry and disruptive editing. Shall we adopt Marshall's suggested text? Please indicate your thoughts below. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposals, only proposals

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

I propose WCM and MarshallN20's attempt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, therefore:

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

:::::What do I propose: To introduce one word, "Argentinian", that would clarify that the settlement did have a nationality, as confirmed by the numerous reliable sources cited.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)(PS: Striking out comments from a BLOCKED/BANNED editor or better explained as someone unwelcomed, that usually happens after SPI and can be done by anyone with regards to the total well-being of an article page. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

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

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

There wont be consensus in a million gazillion years. I think you need a break, all of you. Hugs and kisses~ --Nutthida (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I can live with the susgested text.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I can go with this. Pfainuk talk 21:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but you can safely ignore me. If someone feels like, please drop me a reliable secondary source for the statement that Vernet "asked the British for a permanent garrison". I'm truly interested in knowing about this. But as I said, I won't oppose to its inclusion, I'm frankly tired. --Langus (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I find the proposed text acceptable too. Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Langus, once again you're claiming the text is unsourced. This is quite obviously untrue when there are plenty of sources presented above. I wouldn't care but its on the same page, its not as if you have to look hard. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you re-present a source that we would us inline?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

References added. 17:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

With all due sincerity of the case, I appreciate that most of you attribute the text as mine, but in reality it's a mixture of the ideas from several editors (including the now-banned Abenyosef). Ultimately, the result is a text which effectively presents the dynamic character of Vernet, the actions of Buenos Aires, and the involvement of Britain (and all in just two sentences!). Such is the purpose of the encyclopedia: to present, as best as humanly possible, a complete picture of the situation without forcing the information to agree with one side or the other. When someone reads this text, they'll end up knowing more about the Vernet problem than us telling them what to think and how to interpret it (and, if they want to know even more, they can go to the appropriate article for it). Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Malvinas" is not a literal translation of "Falklands"

It is an alternative name. FactController (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The use of "Falklands"/"Malvinas" is contraversial. As a result, the MOS has, in conjunction with the Falkland Islands Team, laid out exactly how to present the Spanish/alternative names. The article follows the MOS convention. If you feel that this is incorrect, then by all means lobby to have the MOS changed, but I don't think that you will get much support. Martinvl (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the "MOS" and who are the "Falkland Islands Team"? FactController (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NCGN is relevant.

Your argument based on "literal translations" is meaningless, unless you define exactly what you mean by a "literal translation". Would, for example, you consider "Deutschland" a literal translation of "Germany"?

You propose that we treat Malvinas as though it was used by a significant number of sources as a standard English-language word without partisan connotation, in preference to "Falkland Islands" or "Falklands". Please provide evidence for this contention. Kahastok talk 19:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Malvinas" is an alternative name, not a Spanish translation of "Falkland Islands". The Spanish translation of that is "las Islas Falkland", as seen in Spanish language press and literature[31]. "Malvinas" or "Malvinas Islands" is used in the Encyclopædia Britannica[32] and by the US Department of State[33] and even in the UK's Independent newspaper[34]. FactController (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you say that the name is the same one in both English and Spanish? No. There is a name in English, and a name in Spanish. The thing is that there's not a single convention, at either the English or Spanish languages, about wat to do with foreign names: in some cases they are translated, in others they are kept in their original form. I have seen Brazilian cities mentioned in Spanish texts under their portuguese names, and that does not change anything. Cambalachero (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The name used isn't determined by the language used, but by the political sympathies of the author. It is disingenuous to suggest that all Spanish speakers use "Malvinas" or all English speakers use "Falkland". See the web pages referenced above and here[35][36]. FactController (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really, no. English-language usage has "Falkland Islands" as the standard neutral term while Spanish-language usage has "Islas Malvinas" as the standard neutral term. We have provided evidence that these may be considered translations of one another in form of a reference in the article.

On your sources, so far we've had a wiki, diplomatic usage (which is patently not the same as common usage), the Daily Mail as "Spanish language press and literature" and a source from 1773 as evidence of current usage. Suffice to say, they are not exactly persuasive. And in any case none of them support the claim you wish to make, that "Malvinas" is used by a significant proportion non-partisan English-language sources in preference to "Falklands". Kahastok talk 20:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the language, the neutral form includes both "Falkland" and "Malvinas", those sympathising with the Argentinian view tend to use just "Malvinas" (both in English and Spanish literature) and those with the British just "Falkland" (both in English and Spanish literature). Here are some more examples[37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. There is not a clear Enlish/Spanish divide - no matter what one dictionary reference says, but there is a clear political divide. FactController (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The article in MercoPress is translated from an article in the English Daily Mail and keeps the term "Falklands". EB says "Falkland Islands, also called Malvinas Islands, Spanish Islas Malvinas". The U.S. State Department source says, "U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands". While the phrasing "Falklands/Malvinas" does appear in the Independent, it is in an opinion piece by an Argentinian journalist discussing the war from the perspective of her country. Can FactController find a neutral English source where the writer uses the term Malvinas instead of Falklands? TFD (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, he did just cite the Argentine Embassy in Australia for that purpose. Because that's clearly neutral, right... </sarcasm> Kahastok talk 20:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the neutral form, in either language, is to use both "Falkland" and "Malvinas" side by side. As in Derry/Londonderry. Either single word use betrays an implicit political sympathy with one side or the other. And that is supported by all the web sites I cited. FactController (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands. There is clear guidance in place as to how to use this. Could you stick to it please rather than creating unnecessary conflict. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC) (aka Fucking Argie Loving Wanker aka hardcore falklander aka british agent) - also with a streak of pro-Argentine bias and an abusive, british POV pushing wiki stalker)

Is that convention set in stone, as it currently misrepresents the usage of the terms as being a language rather than a political split. As we see in the web sites referenced above, Spanish literature uses "Islas Falkland" if pro-UK, "Islas Malvinas" if pro-Argentina and "Islas Falkland/Islas Malvinas" if neutral. Similarly English literature uses "Falkland Islands", "Malvinas Islands" or "Falklands/Malvinas". To say that "Malvinas" is the Spanish equivalent for "Falklands" is not only incorrect, but inflammatory. FactController (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but if you resort to ridiculous hyperbole like that, then I'm afraid people are simply going to ignore you. It isn't inflammatory in the least. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

To suggest that "Malvinas" is simply the Spanish equivalent of "Falkland", rather than the pro-Argentina term for the Islands is misleading and has the potential to be inflammatory if naively used that way rather than using the neutral form "Falkland/Malvinas" combination in either language. As with Derry/Londonderry. FactController (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The terms "Islas Falkland" (Spanish) and "Malvinas Islands" (English) are valid terms used for the islands. However, after learning more about this topic, now I have to conclude that these terms do have some kind of political-bias purpose. Although I still think that they should at least be mentioned somewhere in the article, I can understand why the editors do not want to include them (However, by including them, they could explain the problem with those terms and save themselves these kind of discussions).

However, the original terms "Falkland Islands (English) and "Islas Malvinas" (Spanish) are non politically-biased terms. These have been the names of the places in their respective languages, regardless of their support for either the Argentine or British position. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment. This whole topic is a moot point, as there is no such thing as a "literal translation" of a proper noun. The islands are called the Falklands in English and Malvinas in Spanish (or at least in Argentina; the Spanish-speaking country that is most relevant to this article). It is perfectly acceptable to describe "Malvinas" as a Spanish translation of "Falklands". Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Malvinas is not a translation of Falklands. It is a different name, and both names are used in many different languages. The "translation" would be something as "Tierra de Falk" (kinda like Tierra de la Reina Maud and Queen Maud Land). Just like the "Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf" issue, this is about different parties calling a certain geographical feature by different names, as even when speaking English the Argentinians call the islands "the Malvinas islands" and when speaking Spanish the British call the "las islas Falkland". So it has nothing to do with language. Uirauna (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So, what exactly is the purpose of this discussion? If this is not meant to improve the article in any form or way, then per WP:NOTAFORUM this discussion is irrelevant. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The purpose is to decide whether we remove the impression, currently (incorrectly in my opinion) given in the article, that "Malvinas" is Spanish for "Falklands". Also we could decide whether we add the fact that the choice of term isn't based on language but on political sympathies and that the neutral way to refer to the islands is to use both names equally, "the Falkland/Malvinas Islands (Spanish: las Islas Falklands/Malvinas)", for example. FactController (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not the correct function of a wikipedia article to define what the "neutral way to refer" to the islands is. Regardless of whether we describe "Malvinas" as the Spanish word for "Falklands" or as just what the Argentines call them, it is up for the reader to assess the facts and decide for themselves what the correct way to refer to them is. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where the article is stating that "Malvinas" is Spanish for "Falklands". There is no "neutral" way to refer to the islands. In English they are called Falklands, and in Spanish they are called Malvinas. Just like in Spanish the country to the north of Italy is called "Suiza" and in English that same country is called "Switzerland". A literal translation from English to Spanish would be, "Switzerterra" or "Tierra de los Switzers". Just like in the case with the Falklands, the choice of the term used depends on language (not only "political sympathies"). In fact, as I wrote in one of my previous posts, the only terms which can be deemed as political POV are "Islas Falkland" and "Malvinas Islands". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Malvinas Islands is always political POV in nature, it is usually used as either a translation of the Argentine name, in Argentine documents they refuse to use Falklands or its used by groups with an anti-British agenda. Islas Falkland is not so clear cut. Yes its used by groups who refuse to use Malvinas but it was also in relatively common use in Argentina and other Latin American states until the 1930s and the resumption of Argnetina's sovereignty claim by Palacios and the new conquistadores. Until relatively recently it was still common in Chile but now Argentina has successfully lobbied Mercosur to ban the term.

However, I don't see the name squabble as meriting a major discourse in this article. As it stands we have a perfectly neutral compromise of referring to both favouring neither and this is the best approach in my opinion. What is proposed to change that existing consensus I don't accept. The choice of name depends on the language, except as I note above where there is a political agenda. Well wikipedia presents a WP:NPOV and rises above that crap. We should continue to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the use of "Islas Falkland", one does have to be aware that Chile had extremely close diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom during the 19th century (and even the 20th century, if we consider Pinochet). So, using Chile as an example in support for the term "Islas Falkland" is like trying to use an outlier to explain a statistical analysis. Other than that, I agree with your view.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It was also in common use in Argentina, even in official text books, right up to the 1930s. See [43]. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any of that, "Islas Falkland" or "Malvinas Islands", mentioned in the article and what about the false impression given in the article that one is the English and the other the Spanish term? FactController (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We have already explained that "Malvinas" is the Spanish name of the islands, while "Falklands" is the English name. At no point are they stated to be translations of each other. No reason exists to use your suggestions.

The "Islas Falklands" usage may also have to do with the Atlantic side of the Americas (particularly Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina; maybe also Venezuela). The Western Latin American countries (including Mexico), I'd imagine would have kept using the same Spanish name ("Islas Malvinas") given that they did not have to really deal with the situation in the Falklands (it was not an "item of business" at least until Argentina made it a regional topic). Are there any other studies on this subject, or is Escude the only one so far to have done them? I think such information would be good in a separate "Etymology of the Falkland Islands" article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And we have already explained that "Malvinas" isn't the Spanish language name of the islands, it is merely an alternative name used by, amongst others, some Spanish speaking countries. Oxford Dictionaries give an even narrower definition, they define it as "the name by which the Falkland Islands are known in Argentina".[44] FactController (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, Spanish, unlike English but like French and other languages, has an Academy of Language, the Real Academia Española, which is responsible of regulating the Spanish language. "Officially" Islas Malvinas is Spanish - though Islas Falklands has minority usage it is officially discouraged.

In reply to Marshall, as far as I'm aware Escude is the only person to have looked at it, though there may be other Spanish language papers. Although I'm half-Spanish my Spanish language skills are not good enough to find them. You will often find usage in older works in Chile, Argentina and Brazil (can't remember the exact Portuguese phrase). Wee Curry Monster talk 15:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We need to balance the views of the available reliable sources. Oxford Dictionaries say Malvinas is just the Argentinian (it doesn't say Spanish) word for the Falklands. What other references do we have? FactController (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information WCM. To be honest, I have never read Spanish papers even remotely touching on this subject (although that probably has more to do with the fact that most Spanish-speaking countries feel they have lost territory; some with historical truth, and others simply out of nationalist rethoric).

FactController, no need exists to "balance the views" of sources. Oxford Dictionaries in this case is wrong. Argentina is not the only country that uses the name "Malvinas". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries is a reliable source, so although it may offer an alternative view, it isn't "wrong", so its view needs to be included in any NPOV mix. BTW, it doesn't say Argentina is the "only" place that uses that word, it says it is the word that Argentina uses. We also need reliable sources for any other views inclued, do we have any? FactController (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of sources varies depending on the subject that they are being used on. "Alternative views" are only valid when the matter in question is actually something for which a definitive answer does not exist. The Real Academia Española, which holds a greater reliablity on this topic, clearly defines "Malvinas" as the "traditional Spanish form for the name of the islands situated in the South Atlantic [...]." (source: [45]). What you are quite obviously trying to do is pass the term "Malvinas" as an Argentine POV, and I am sure consensus in this page will not support your request. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)