Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 → Archive 28

a sentence in "sovereignty dispute"

This sentence - Argentina recognises the UK government as the only legitimate partner in negotiations. - represents a tenuously paraphrased construction of two separate sources that does not adequately encapsulate the Argentine position and misrepresents it through a process of simplification. I would like to respectfully ask for a discussion about a possible change of this sentence to a short phrase or two that more adequately demonstrates the robustness of the Argentine position, to wit, that negotiations must occur on a state-to-state level. As currently worded it simply makes the Argentine position with respect to the #a##### Islands sound dully obstinate. I'm not suggesting specific wording at this time as I'd first like to see if there is even a chance people would be amenable to considering a change, which may be a high hurdle in itself. Thanks, kindly, in advance. BlueSalix (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the word you are looking for Falklands? I don't understand why you can't just type it out instead of doing "#a##### Islands". Personally I don't see anything wrong with the statement as it was reported as such in response to the Falkland Islanders holding their own referendum and wanting to have a say in discussions over their islands. Argentina doesn't want to acknowledge their right to self-determination in the pretense of maintaining the illusion of British Imperialism over the islands hence the statement that the only legitimate partner in negotiations is the UK government. Maybe it just needs put into context. Ironically Argentina is the state acting all Imperialistic.Mabuska (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Right. That's probably not an appropriate, constructive, or topical response. BlueSalix (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the statement as it was reported as such.... I don't see where it uses this phrasing or reports that idea. The newspaper article makes it clear that Argentina isn't going to act based on that referendum, and states they reject its legitimacy, but I don't see the phrasing that matches, "Britain is the only legitimate partner." It doesn't say they want Britain as their one-and-only. The current phrasing seems like it's saying something different than the sources. If all that's in the source is "Argentina doesn't want x" then it shouldn't be reported as "Argentina doesn't want x, must want y." even if you have strong feeling about what "not wanting x" means.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Um ... Argentina recognises the UK government as the only legitimate partner in negotiations. is how the article currently reads. Based on your above comment, it appears you agree with me that this is not accurate to the sources and should be changed? BlueSalix (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If I say newspaper article I'm not talking about the Wikipedia article. I said I didn't see where it's in the sourced Guardian article, and we shouldn't have a sentence that says something beyond what's reported. I agree that someone saying they don't like bananas is not saying they think oranges are the only legitimate fruit. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Correct, neither the Guardian article, nor the Terra article say Argentina recognises the UK government as the only legitimate partner in negotiations, nor anything approximating that. So, it appears you agree with me that this is not accurate to the sources and should be changed? BlueSalix (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry but I'm really not 100% sure I've understood your last few messages. To clarify, I have not made *any edits* at all to this article at any point during the last 3 years. You and Kahastok are the only two editors who have edited this entry today. But it sounds like you just unilaterally deleted sources that have been in this article for the last several months because you thought I added them? Why would you do that? BlueSalix (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Calling them the #a##### sounds WP:POINTy and will achieve nothing but irritating people here. In English they are the Falkland Islands. If you doubt that, read the RM in the section above this one.Argentina recognises the UK government as the only legitimate partner in negotiations is Argentina's position, repeatedly expressed. We might put "considers" instead of "recognises", but only for flow. If you think that makes Argentina's position regarding the islands sound obstinate, then that's your conclusion. I'll agree that the sources there aren't suitable, but it's not exactly tricky to find others e.g. [1][2][3], all of which refer to an incident this time last year, in which the Argentine foreign minister present in London refused any discussions with the British if Falkland Islanders were to be present, and announced that Falkland Islanders "do not exist". Kahastok talk 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
response to Kahastok that BlueSalix moved, regarding the edit I made If there were better sources, you should have put them before I removed it. Don't expect all editors to understand when you're using a source that doesn't say what's in the article because there are plenty of sources from last year that say it. Put sources that directly support your conclusions, not sources that only somehow imply them by degrees of separation. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Kahastok - I noticed you just went ahead and started making substantial WP:BOLD edits to the very section we have been discussing over the last few minutes. I have opened a discussion on changing a single sentence. You've just neutered this entire discussion by deleting and overwriting the only sentence being discussed, as well as all its attendant references, so that no one now knows what we're talking about. Could you please undo your edits so we can work on this article collaboratively and allow everyone to have the opportunity to express an opinion? Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
BlueSalix I was clearly responding to Kahastok in this edit and you wildly refactored it to make it look like I was responding to you. Don't mess with the order of responses; they're timestamped and it's in the log when you do it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You know, I'm sorry and it really wasn't intentional. I'm so perplexed by this entire discussion that it's easy to get confused, even in the editing of the Talk page. I've kindly asked for a temperate and moderate discussion on changing a single sentence and you and Kahastok have, within minutes of this discussion opening, overwritten the entire sentence this section was intended to discuss and deleted the original sources. Could we work together, calmly and collaboratively, please? Thank you! BlueSalix (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix: no idea what you're talking about. Elaqueate's removed the text at hand and I put it back again. I put my new sources in, sure - I think we all agree the old ones weren't good enough. But the text itself is unchanged over the two edits. Do you actually have a problem with the new sources? This edit suggested you were happy with them.

Elaqueate: your message assumes that I know what you are thinking and that I can stop time. We got crossed wires. That's OK. It happens. Telling me that I should have changed the sources before you removed them, in the period between 22:56 and 22:56, is ridiculous. I didn't know that the sources were unsuitable until I looked at them. I do not own this article, I don't think I added these sources, and I can't really be expected to know that you're going to make an edit before you make it. Kahastok talk 23:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

To add: I don't see any reason why this needs to go to RFC just yet. We haven't yet failed to come to an agreement of our own accord. Kahastok talk 00:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Kahastok, I'm sorry, I'm generally so confused by this whole thing I'm just going to quit. The last 25 minutes have been unlike anything I've ever experienced at WP. I get the feeling this is the anything goes Wild West underside of WP that's like 50% Las Vegas and 50% Baghdad. Also, I may have done something offensive or made an ill-directed accusation - I'm really so confused right now that I'm not sure, though I think I did - but to cover my bases I issue a blanket and universal apology to anyone and everyone. Good luck. BlueSalix (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
To Kahastok. I didn't see your comment when I made my original edit (until after I made it). I didn't mean that you should have added the source in that five minutes, I meant that when anybody adds claims to contentious pages then you should have sources that directly support. I'm sorry if it came across as saying you personally should have. Otherwise, BlueSalix requested a change. I took a look at the sources, saw that they didn't support the claim, and for that reason, agreed it could be Synth. Then I was Bold and removed it, before seeing your comment. You saw that you could support the sentence with other sources and Reverted. This is all fine and no problem at this point. It's reasonable because there are good faith attempts to make the article better. I do think the original sources could usefully support the sentence that starts "Moreover, in 2013" as those sources specifically refer to the most recent walkout. But this all would have been so much easier if someone hadn't moved my comment around. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, lord. You know, frankly, if you two could learn how to properly indent your comments so that they were nested appropriately, people wouldn't move them in an effort to make some sense of it all. Even the above two comments are totally out-of-sync but, you know, whatever. I give up. BlueSalix (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This. Indenting. Was. Fine. Please stop while you're ahead. No harm or ill will, but please consider some kind of meditative breather. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No, your indenting is off - you're addressing Kahastok but nested into my comment. This has been a consistent and persistent issue throughout this thread and may be the source of much of your frustration. That's okay, just please try to slow down, take a bit more time, and pay better attention to your edits. WP is not a race and deliberation avoids future confusion. Also, I'll AGF that "consider some kind of meditative breather" is well-intentioned but - as a friendly suggestion - you really should avoid comments that could be seen as making accusations about the mentality of others. Thank you, Elaqueate! BlueSalix (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No harm or ill will meant or felt. Good luck. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So, friends, is the problem with the text resolved?--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess. Apparently I was the problem and I gave up. Any attempt at improvement just wasn't worth getting the Union Flag shoved into my eye socket, as per the above car wreck. The text is still not supported by anything contained in the sources, but c'est la vie. Not all of WP is going to be perfect. BlueSalix (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Well Argentina's position is obstinate so I wouldn't be surprised it it comes across as that. Though obviously if the sources do not back up the phrasing then they should be replaced with ones that back up what is stated. My earlier response was simply stating that what is stated in the article (which I have nothing to do with) is true, regardless of what sources where there.
I would like to point out however that when an editor can't even state the proper name of a place without osbcuring it with hashes and makes ill-informed accusations of having a Union Flag shoved in his face when they haven't, it does little to garner good faith with them.
Also the above is tame, if you want a car wreck, trust me there are FAR worse on the site, and as I and many others have been told when we started: learn to take it, it helps :-D. Mabuska (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

National Anthem

Can I have a reliable source that states the official national anthem of the Falkland Islands is "God save the Queen"? Otherwise, as its inclusion is contended by myself, it will be removed per WP:NOR. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 21:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This matter seems more like common knowledge than something that needs to be cited. Nonetheless, per request, I suggest you take a look at Will Wagstaff's Falkland Islands, where he lists (on page 2) "God Save the Queen" as the national anthem of the Falklands. Thank you for raising your concern in the talk page. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
And how exactly did Will Wagstaff arrive at that conclusion? For this matter, a travel guide definitely does not constitute as a reliable source. See WP:RS. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Wagstaff's work was deemed reliable by the RSN for non-controversial parts of the article. The CIA World Factbook also notes: "National anthem: name: "Song of the Falklands" lyrics/music: Christopher LANHAM note: adopted 1930s; the song is the local unofficial anthem; as a territory of the United Kingdom, "God Save the Queen" is official (see United Kingdom)". Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I would class this as a controversial part of the article, as it affects how the territory's sovereignty is portrayed. The CIA World Factbook claims all British overseas territories official anthem is God save the Queen, which is of course a valid reference. I will however, further query, as for something to be a official, there must surely be an official declaration. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 00:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as I remember God save the Queen is not "official" in the United Kingdom either (that is it has never been declared official by law). MilborneOne (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

After looking at the United Kingdom article, it has a footnote that states "No law was passed making "God Save the Queen" the official anthem. In the English tradition, such laws are not necessary; proclamation and usage are sufficient to make it the national anthem." I suppose, then, that these anthems are unofficially official? Also, is there perhaps another way to distinguish "God Save the Queen" from "Song of the Falklands" (in terms of usage), and is a distinction even necessary? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of British law, and those of its former colonies, seems to rely on customary law. Language is an example, and it leads to some confusing situations. Welsh in Wales, and Maori in New Zealand, have been declared official languages on par with English, despite the fact that there was no equivalent law for English. The general tradition with the colonies was God Save the Queen being pushed out by the more specific national song. This is probably what's happening with the Falklands, and the Factbook seems to reflect this position. CMD (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Very interesting. Thank you CMD. I guess this resolves the matter concerning finding an official government source to support the anthem's official status. The Factbook is the best option we have to work with.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal of God Save the Queen as national anthem, per Rob. BlueSalix (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources say God Save the Queen is the national anthem. TFD (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, let's remember WP:DEM. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 08:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, unless a more reliable source contradicting the CIA World Factbook is provided, then this is not debatable. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
If nothing contradicts what is available then I am happy to back GStQ remaining in the article. Mabuska (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep God Save the Queen It is the anthem per sources. IJA (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes section

What's the point of the notes section? It makes sense for a book, but not for an article where more information can be accessed through wikilinks. If the information is important for the reader, it should be in the main text. CMD (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi CMD. Plenty of FA and GA articles have notes sections. The purpose is to expand on important topics without breaking the prose.
Is there perhaps any particular note that requires attention? Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Usually they're few and far between, but the note section here seems to exist just to squeeze in historical arguments. The historiography for example, seems quite out of place in an encyclopaedic summary. CMD (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I think we can agree that, due to its contentious nature, this topic is a bit unusual.
I'm unable to find the mentioned historical arguments or historiography. Could I please be directed to a specific note?--MarshalN20 Talk 14:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to the various notes which go "According to X, Y", and similar, which make up most of the notes. We've got notes saying "Historian Daniel Gibran posits that..." and "Roberto Laver argues this is likely the result of government policies...". The contentious nature of the area is part of what makes me wary of this section. We've reached consensus many times that the history is a summary here, and thus we miss out on a bunch of points raised by some Argentine and British arguments. Given this, it is strange to have a section which is half devoted to noting the claims of individual historians. CMD (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I understand the problem. The confusion is caused by the format of the notes.
When the notes were written, the format was meant to provide a voice to the authors of the material. Perhaps these quotes should be changed to paraphrased text.
If any other equally reliable information is available that disputes the material by Laver & Gibran (or others), only then can we discuss whether the information is suitable for NPOV discussions.
Do you think we should perhaps make a formal copy-editing request (from the Guild of Copy-Editors) to fix these issues (including perhaps reducing the amount of notes)?
Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Paraphrasing would be useful. However, even with that, I feel like the footnotes could be better placed. If the information in these notes is important enough and relevant enough that we'd want the reader of this summary article to be aware of it, it'd be better served in the text. If they're about novel viewpoints or theories, I don't think they belong on this page at all. The note of Buenos Aires declaring Vernet as governor seems like it shouldn't be hiding out in the notes, while the information about the looting and about Chile's flight policy seem rather oddly detailed for this page.
The sort of note that does seem useful to me is the one pointing out Argentina's UN protests, as this does explain a quoted statement in the main prose. In an ideal world I suppose we'd have a wikipedia page on the United Nations and the Falklands, which would include Argentina's protests and which we could link to instead of a short footnote, but we don't seem to have one of those at the moment.
I agree with you that unless information disputes the footnotes there seems little need to attribute each statement in the prose. No objections to the GOCE if you want to ask them. I also think we should copy the information in them to History of the Falkland Islands, as from a quick glance they're not all there, and presumably if they're acceptable for this page, they're acceptable for that one. CMD (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have filed a request with the GOCE. They have a two-month backlog, which is OK assuming we can try to start the paraphrasing of some quotes by ourselves. Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. For a start, is there an objection to moving the Vernet note into the main text? CMD (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Vernet is mentioned in various notes. Which one of them?--MarshalN20 Talk 17:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the one mentioned above, but perhaps both current F (Vernet stamp from British and encouragement from Buenos Aires) and G (Vernet further endorsement from Argentina)? For example, adding to the end of the sentence with something like this: "...re-established the old Spanish settlement under its former French name (Port Louis)[F] in 1826, after obtaining permission from both Buenos Aires and Britain." CMD (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea; we could then get rid of both notes F & G, and move the information to the "History of the Falkland Islands" main article.--MarshalN20 Talk 06:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe that "after obtaining permission from both Buenos Aires and Britain" is inaccurate, or at least not crystal clear. For starters, Cawkell herself has doubts about Vernet's intentions: "By [the end of 1825] it would appear Vernet become aware of Britain's interest in the islands as before sailing in January 1826 he took his grant to the British Consulate where it received their stamp". And in any case, the situation would be better described as an Argentine grant/licence/concession with a British validation/endorsing. --Langus (t) 12:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I would concur with the proposal from both MarshalN20 and CMD.
May I call editors attention to this RFC on Talk:History of the Falkland Islands. Specifically the conclusion by neutral 3rd party editors to the arguably non-neutral question:
The response:
It is relevant to note given the comment above that this is not the first time that the editor User:Langus-TxT has wanted to contest this same information and he already has had a direct answer from the wider community that he is wrong. It is also relevant to note that this is not the first time that he has sought to reprise an identical discussion across multiple pages over the same information. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@User:Chipmunkdavis A minor point but Vernet's settlement was established in 1828, the two previous expedition (1824 & 1826) ended in failure. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Langus, the "it would appear" part is directed at Vernet's realization that the British had an interest in the islands; the other part (about him getting a stamp from Britain) is presented as a fact by Cawkell. However, I agree that elaborating on the type of approval Vernet received from Argentina and Britain is worthy of a few more words. I think we can all agree that it's an improvement.

WCM, I trust that, as you note, the settlement was established in 1828. The problem is that both of the sources write that Vernet established it in 1826. If I recall correctly, this is the "dating game" issue of the article; multiple authors present multiple dates on when the settlement was established in the Falklands. Might you have a suggestion on how to address this matter?

Taking into account the recent comments, perhaps the following sentence is of everyone's approval:

Owing to Jewett's inability to enforce control,[34] coupled with little emigration from Buenos Aires to the islands,[32] the Falklands remained ungoverned until Luis Vernet re-established the old Spanish settlement under its former French name (Port Louis) in 1826, after obtaining a grant from Buenos Aires and an endorsement from Britain.[35][39]

Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It was slightly more than an endorsement from Britain. Vernet requested British protection for the settlement and he also provided regular reports to the British. Vernet was playing both sides, buried in the RFC above are links to Shuttleworth, which includes some of the original correspondence. And again the RFC established the principle that CMD's proposal is acceptable wording. Are you suggesting that we ignore the RFC and reprise the same discussion here? It seems rather a waste of time, given the whole purpose of an RFC is to provide neutral input from uninvolved editors, to then ignore it and start again.
Other points, Jewett made no attempt to enforce control, he simply made a declaration and left. I would object to the wording on that basis and there was no emigration from Buenos Aires to speak off. Vernet's main effort in terms of immigration to the islands was based on settlers from his native Germany, the Gauchos he had there were employees.
In addition, the 1826 date refers to Vernet's second expedition, this was a failure due to the combination of a Brazillian blockade that delayed matters, which meant the weather frustrated the effort. He did not establish a settlement during this expedition and this didn't happen till the 3rd expedition of 1828, which used what he learnt from the earlier expedition. Do the sources you're using state explicitly the settlement was founded in 1826, or merely refer to the expedition that failed. Do you not think it odd that he would mount a 3rd expedition if he'd established a settlement in 1826? As you refer its a classic example of a dating game by trying to pretend the settlement was there longer to bolster modern claims by referring to an earlier expedition and implying it established the settlement. Rather like referring to Byron in 1765 but forgetting to mention that there was a long period of absence until McBride in 1766. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you talking about this RFC? It's the one that says The onus is on Wikipedia authors to report the sources neutrally; they may of course throw light in the article on the veracity of the sources, but in the absence of further reliable evidence (such as, for example, government archives), they must convey to the reader that any definitive conclusions must be left open. I'm confused how anyone can read that we therefore should convey a single definitive conclusion from this advice. That's intense cherry-picking to remove the actual text of the close. Here's the non-cherry-picked text:

__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The RFC which I gave an explicit and direct link to, so fundamentally a serious fail on the cherry picking accusation. Seriously, please find something productive to do. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misinterpreting Kudpung's intent. We could ask them. I thought it meant that we shouldn't give definitive conclusions. You seem to be arguing that we should go with Cawkell alone. (And telling me to just go away is blatantly rude, you might want to redact that as someone might read it as a personal attack.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I would still say that if you quote a close that says The general consensus is that it should. However... as simply The general consensus is that it should. then you've left out something important. i.e. the actual closing argument.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Please, point me to a comment where I suggested going with one source, specifically Cawkell? In the RFC, it was falsely alleged to be based on solely one source specifically Cawkell, one of the findings was this was simply untrue. Maybe I'm misinterpreting Kudpung too but the close seemed to be the requirement was to mention all significant views, not find reasons to ignore one such as setting up the strawman that a source could be ignored on the basis of WP:OR and WP:SYN that his visit was simply for the purpose of a consular legalisation; no source was mentioned that supported that assertion.
My specific comments are aimed at ensuring all significant viewpoints are mentioned. It was relevant to mention the RFC and relevant to mention the same argument was being reprised as the same point was being raised again. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:MarshalN20 I have a suggestion, which may avoids some of the issues of date wars:


What do you think? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

WCM, I didn't remember there was a RFC on the matter, why do you need to assume bad faith? And even if I did, why do understand that it forbids me to repeat my opinion if the matter is raised again by another editor?
Moreover, the RFC went in fact against your proposal, as gracefully demonstrated by Elaqueate. This is hardly the first time you distort RFC's conclusions and uninvolved editor's opinions...
As to your proposal, I'll agree to it if we can reliably say that Vernet actually reported anything to the British Consulate, beyond the initial promises to do so. --Langus (t) 23:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Friends, please let's leave the RFC matter to the side. It concerned another article and took place under a different context. I get the sense that it's also bringing back somewhat uncomfortable memories, so it's best to look forward and continue with this task of improving the notes/prose of this article.
I think Wee's text is a good foundation from which to work on. My main concern is with the referencing. The material I have asserts that the settlement was founded in 1826. Jewett is also mentioned as having tried, but proving himself unable to establish authority over the people in the Falklands. If we are going to do away with it, we need other reliable references that can at least make the material disputed. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Port Egmont was founded in 1765 by Lord Byron but the article currently makes the distinction that is was not ultimately settled by Captain McBride until 1766. Whilst you might have sources to state the settlerment of Puerto Luis was founded in 1826, the 1826 expedition failed and it was not settled until 1828. I would contend my suggestion is in fact more neutral in that it notes that the first expedition was mounted in 1824.
Do you have a source that states what action Jewett took in asserting control or do they just claim that he did? The sources I'm aware of simply state that he made the declaration and passed a couple of letters to ships captains. I am aware that based in Vernet's report for Moreno in 1834, Vernet later claimed that Jewett supposedly warned sealers to stop but there is no evidence to support this claim and several authors suggest this was purely because Vernet was attempting to link his own attempts to impose a control on sealers with those of Jewett. I question whether this disputed material belongs in a summary text in this article and is better treated in the more detail afforded at History of the Falkland Islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with MarshalN20 about the importance of reliable referencing. If there's a disputed claim, then we need to cite the sources of the views. The suggested sentence Whilst acting as... links two events in a way that forwards an argument about their connection and relative weight, rather than listing events that happened. If it said Vernet acted as the Argentine representative. He reported progress to the British Consulate. it would be more neutral. "Whilst" and "simultaneously" mean the same thing, and show that something is being editorialized here regarding the events.
As far as Jewett, I've been repeatedly told that his declaration was used to legitimize a maritime salvage rights, enforcing a claim over all others based on the declaration of sovereignty. I don't know if that interpretation is accurate to non-recorded history myself, but it seems to go against a single interpretation that Jewett only said a few words and left.
The other example given here of a statement that Jewett attempted to exercise control is enlightening. Are you saying we have solid sources that state Vernet commented on Jewett's actions, and we've removed mention of this from these articles? This should be remedied. If his motives for saying it are disputed we can also mention that neutrally, but how did we get to the point where we omit the statement from and about the subjects of discussion entirely?__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Sources
  • Graham-Yooll (p. 48): In January 1820, the government of Buenos Aires sent David Jewett, a North American with the rank of "army colonel in the Buenos Ayres navy," to the islands, "commissioned by the Supreme Government of the United Provinces of South America to take possession" of them, which he did on 6 November. He found fifty ships there, registered at places such as Liverpool, Leith, London, New York and Stonington, sheltering in the islands' coves. Jewett was unable to establish his authority over this hard-living crowd and he returned to Buenos Aires.
  • Martin Sicker (p. 32): Don Luis Vernet established a colony there in 1826, with Argentine encouragement, and in 1828 Vernet was granted a monopoly of the fisheries in the archipelago, of which he became governor the following year.
  • Gordon Smith (p. 14): Following independence from Spain in 1816, the future state of Argentina laid claim to the previous colonial territories, and in 1820 sent a frigate to take possession of the Falklands. In 1826, Louis Vernet of French origin established himself and a number of colonist at Puerto Soledad to develop fishing, farming and trade, and as governor from 1828 attempted to control the widesprad sealing.

The Marley source that had the information about little immigration from Buenos Aires does not seem to be properly working. It should probably be removed. Based on the sources, perhaps the following text is suitable:

I think the prose of the history section benefits from this simple mention (and follows the summary guideline). I consider that we should instead be discussing how to improve the footnote. I propose a footnote along these lines:

I consider this is an improvement from the current format (which has two footnotes in the same sentence). What are your views?--MarshalN20 Talk 20:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A couple of comments.
It is getting better and really i don't have strong objections to what you suggest but as regards the 1826 expedition, Cawkell p.49 notes:


Cawkell p.50 notes:


1826 was not successful for reasons of weather, the conditions, the lack of trained horses and the Brazillian blockade, it took till 1828 for him to establish a sustainable enterprise. And it was not till 1828 that settlement began.
If you were to state he began to establish his business in 1826 and took settlers in 1828, with some comment on the difficulties encountered I would suggest that as a more accurate way of describing the formation of Puerto Luis.
I also feel you're rather downplaying Vernet's dealings with the British consulate. This was not just getting a stamp, Vernet actively expressed a preference for the British over Argentina (I have somewhere a copy of a letter where he states that himself verbatim). At one stage Vernet was even recommended as a potential Governor for the British in the Falkland Islands by Lord Parish. Would it not be more accurate to state he expressed a preference for the British if I can dig out that cite. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you asking to use a primary source because you personally feel it's important? Don't you have a secondary source? Without secondary source vetting, that letter could have been written to flatter or get better trade terms. If it was written to someone British it could have been a politeness. How would we know the context or due weight to give a primary source as Wikipedia editors?__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.
I suggested using a primary source as it comes straight from the horses mouth so to speak and yes I could cite a secondary source - which I'll have to dig out. The rest of what you're suggesting is simplu interpretation of a primary source, which as a wikipedia editor we shouldn't be doing. Simply because its a primary source doesn't mean it can't be used, especially if backed up by a secondary source.
BTW is there a particular reason you're singling me out for these helpful comments? I have been editing since 2007, I do know the policies on wikipedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
1. I didn't say Primary sources couldn't be used, although they've been misused in the past on these topics of course. A misuse of primary sources in this topic area was what brought these articles to my attention. It's not wrong to prefer secondary sources over primary sources, the mouth of the horse notwithstanding. 2. I was contributing and commenting on these pages before you were given a reprieve on your topic ban for battlegrounding behavior. It shouldn't be surprising if I have a few still watchlisted, or that I might have an opinion of my own. 3. You may assert that you know the policies, but that doesn't mean that you weren't just suggesting the use of a primary source over a reliable secondary source. It doesn't hurt to mention, I hope, and I'd give the same advice whether you know the policy or not. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would stop giving me helpful comments and refer you to the part of WP:CIVIL that indicates it improper to bring up the past when an editor has changed their approach. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mention that it was specifically you misusing primary sources in the past. If you don't in the future I won't bring it up. However, Wikipedia is edited collaboratively and if you suggest something that skirts a common policy, your suggestion might be questioned. It sounds like that letter might or might not have issues that wouldn't have been apparent from a look at the bare text.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm very interested in Lord Parish's comment on Vernet as a possible British governor. It would be a nice close to the footnote.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: the letter to which WCM refers to, was written IIRC after Vernet had lost its settlement to the British Navy. Also, Cawkell doesn't indicate exactly when Vernet expressed his wish that "in the event of the British returning to the islands, HMG would take his settlement under their protection", and this is a relevant detail, because (again, IIRC) it was expressed after 1829 (year in which Vernet was appointed Civil and Military Commander and the British Consulate issued its first protest). Without temporal references, it gives the impression that this wish was expressed at the time of the stamping at the Consulate, which is not the case.
I will dig for the exact dates, but I wanted to warn you about these facts. Nonetheless, I'm keeping in mind Elaqueate's point about WP:PRIMARY. --Langus (t) 01:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:MarshalN20 The original correspondence around the events in 1829 is in British and Foreign State Papers, which you can download from Google. I think you should look for Vol.20 but will check. Shuttleworth wrote an autobiography of Lord Parish, which includes some information here. Langus' recollection is faulty, Cawkell (2001) dates the conversation (p.49) with Parish to January 1828 and an identical conversation with Langdon (please check with your copy Langus and confirm). Pepper and Pascoe indicate that this meeting is not 100% confirmed, but that Vice-Consul Charles Griffiths countersigned the granted on 30 January 1834. Pepper and Pascoe also note that [4] this was communicated to Lord Aberdeen in a dispatch in April 1829 over a year later in response to an announcement of the intention to set up a penal colony being made in an Argentine newspaper. On the basis of the April despatch, Parish was instructed to proestst. This predates the announcement of Vernet as Military and Civil Commander in August 1829. In Cawkell's first book (1960), p.51 she notes the correspondence with Lt. Smith offering advice on settling in the Falklands. Also noted is that Lt. Smith suggested Vernet return to the islands. On p.42 of her second (1983) she notes Lord Parish's personal recommendation "that if the islands were to be colonised, Vernet was the person to do it." Cawkell also notes the whole deal was handled badly by the Admiralty and that Vernet ultimately got a raw deal when the Adrmiralty made the link with Vernet's contributions to the Moreno protests from 1833-1849. Vernet's letter to Parish is dated after the British return.

Cited in [5], its in AGN, Buenos Aires, Sala VII, F.131, doc. 46; letter from Vernet to Lord Harrowby dated 5 May 1856. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Okay, we haven't dealt with this directly, but you're attempting to rely even more heavily on the non-academic papers of "Pepper and Pascoe"? Isn't that the source that plagiarized both Wikipedia and yourself? This page currently has better sourcing than most of the Falkland Islands pages, and I don't want it to risk slipping into extra dodginess.
2. As for the letter, am I correct in understanding the order of events was that British officers wrote advice and offers of position to Vernet in 1829, but the only clear mention of Vernet saying he wanted to be British was decades after the British warship deposed him while writing to a British lord? We can't say Vernet secretly wanted to be British all along on this evidence. We might mention the letter in context, but it's a direct apology to the British, written in some kind of exile in 1856, not a signed confession written during the time he wasn't under British control. The context is not neutral and I can see why most sources just say he was the governor and leave his possible secret motivations alone. So should we.
3. Shuttleworth is a source from 1910 and has clear errors of fact in it (I note it gives an unusual date regarding about when the Clio arrived, for instance, and seems to rely on a pre-1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica for its facts. I don't think Shuttleworth is relied on heavily by contemporary scholars is she?__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
1. I am not relying on Pepper and Pascoe but simply pointed they suggest that Cawkell may be in error about the meeting in 1828. Even if she is wrong Parish's dispatch of April 1829 still predates Vernet's appointment, which shows Vernet expressed a desire for British protection prior to the announcement of August 1829. The discussion came first. Fine date it to Cawkell in January 1828 - that is a WP:RS.
2. You are incorrect, the sources above clearly document Vernet's dealings with the British prior to the British return. And point me to where did I say the letter shouldn't be mentioned in context? But finding reasons to exclude the fact that Vernet openly expressed a preference for British in a letter is simply censorship. If you wish to speculate on his motives for doing so, that is WP:OR and WP:SYN you need a secondary source to comment on his motives but you can't suppress that it was said because you speculate on his motives.
3. Did you just airily dismiss a source? The Clio is only mentioned once (p.360) as I see it and he is correct in that the Clio visited Port Egmont in December 1832, prior to proceeding to Port Louis arriving January 3 1833.
I note that instead of discussing content all you've done is try to A) Criticise by speculation and B) diss sources based on speculation. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
"Censorship"? "Suppression"? Calm down. I suggested the possibility of mentioning the letter with context. I ask for clarification of the timing of the letter and you jump down my throat. I don't "airily dismiss" anything, but a source from 1910 that isn't used very often shouldn't be seen as unquestionable. I don't think Shuttleworth's biography would generally be seen as an clearly usable source at this point for our article on Woodbine Parish himself, without question. This is all a matter of due weight. You are putting in a lot of research to find material that doesn't seem to be broadly important to many sources. I recognize how ardently you're digging, but that doesn't put my mind to rest that we're going to give these wisps of history the right amount of weight, compared to the better sources. I think anyone looking at your comments can see that you've moved away simple repetition of what the sources say and have moved a bit more into mounting arguments for your own interpretations. I don't think Vernet's non-public suggestions of what he might have liked to have happened, depending on how things might have went, are all that relevant in the summary of the Islands history. And quoting Pepper and Pascoe, after you know they have plagiarism, does not fill me with confidence that you're choosing the best sources available for the material. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Good news. I found the Marley tex (p. 714): "Capt. David Jewett appeared in November 1820, informing the more than 50 ships at anchor that sovereignty was being reasserted. However, the first Argentine governor was not able to appear at Puerto Soledad until three years later, and so few people were willing to emigrate from Buenos Aires that the French entrepeneur Louis Vernet was allowed to bring in 90 colonists in 1826. When Argentina appointed him as their governor three years later, few governments recognized his title and the stage was set for a confrontation."--MarshalN20 Talk 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Back to drawing board

Attempt 1

Let's go step-by-step. We can use Cawkell's information (from the pages provided by Wee) in the citation.


Is this good enough to reach consensus? Up next we can more formally discuss the footnote. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 00:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Owing to Jewett's inability to enforce control, the Falklands remained ungoverned until 1826, when Luis Vernet re-established etc. — This wording leaves the wrong impression that (1) after 1826 the Falklands were governed; and (2) that Vernet had the ability to enforce control.
Vernet governed only his settlement, and was unable to enforce control over the rest of the Islands occupied by a greatly superior number of British and American sealers that (supported by their governments) complied with no Argentine pretensions.
Vernet tested his ability to impose control by force, which attempt failed and backfired due to the US response by using force too.
Argentina had never had control of the entire archipelago until the 1982 occupation.
Sorry; far from being good enough to reach consensus, the proposed text is factually inaccurate and misleading as it is. Apcbg (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Apcbg on this one IJA (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, good points. Please allow me another opportunity:

Gordon Smith's (p. 14) quote should also be good to cite both of the sentences since he also mentions Vernet's attempt at controlling the sealers.

@Apcbg and IJA: What do you think? Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Owing? Who says Jewett had any intention — or indeed mandate — to try enforce control? Apcbg (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
According to Gustafson, Jewitt's attempts to regulate fishing were very minor.... I'm sure people can debate about whether they were small, or minor, or moderately successful, or almost non-existent, or whatever, but I don't think that it supports that sources unanimously would believe in "totally ungoverned" or complete "inability" to enforce a thing. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
@Apcbg: Graham-Yooll and other authors (such as Gustafson above) indicate that Jewett attempted to enforce control. Graham-Yooll specifically writes "[Jewett] found fifty ships there, registered at places such as Liverpool, Leith, London, New York and Stonington, sheltering in the islands' coves. Jewett was unable to establish his authority over this hard-living crowd and he returned to Buenos Aires".
@Elaqueate: The sources do make it clear that the islands had no government until 1826. Gordon Smith also does mention that Vernet attempted to gain authority over the sealers, which agrees with what Apcbg & IJA mentioned up above in "Attempt 1".
This second proposal conforms with what is presented in the sources. If we want to dispute the material, we need equally reliable sources that present a different viewpoint.--MarshalN20 Talk 17:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Do Gustafson, Graham-Yooll etc. cite any primary source confirming Jewett attempted or indeed intended to enforce control? If not then those authors could be no reliable secondary sources in this particular respect. Apcbg (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Professor Gustafson (PhD. Foreign Affairs) and Andrew Graham-Yooll are reliable sources. Are there any equally reliable sources that dispute them?--MarshalN20 Talk 18:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Reliability is not a universal personal quality. The respected authors in question cannot be reliable primary sources for 1820 events (for obvious reasons), nor could they be secondary sources for those events without having relevant primary sources. Apcbg (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The reliability of the material (the books of these academics) cannot be placed in question without equally reliable evidence that contradicts them. We cannot solely rely on anecdotal evidence to reach conclusions, even if it does prove helpful in developing a hypothesis that we can corroborate or disprove with careful research of the literature.
On that note, Sir Lawrence Freedman writes that "Jewett ordered them to cease their fishing activities and leave the Islands" (from Official History of the Falklands, Vol. 1). This again indicates that Jewett attempted to enforce control.
Therefore, this perspective is in the mainstream.--MarshalN20 Talk 00:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Nope, the burden of proof is upon you. Reliability should be demonstrated in a verifiable way, not to be assumed until the opposite is proven. You have failed to do that in the case of Gustafson and Graham-Yooll. Naturally, the same applies to Freedman – there must be some primary source for his extraordinary assertion that “Jewett ordered them to cease their fishing activities and leave the Islands.” Otherwise, it is based on anecdotal evidence. Nevertheless, although such an ‘order’ would be quite incompatible with the relationship between the sealers and Jewett reported in great detail by Weddell, I would be prepared to reconsider my position on the beginning of your proposed text once you provide some first-hand testimony or direct evidence for that alleged expulsion order of Jewett’s. Apcbg (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
This is backward. It's a demand for original research in place of reliable academic research. It's a request to place the editors' interpretation of primary sources over reliable sources' interpretation of primary sources. Clearly academic, reviewed, reliable sources make the claim. (Example from the academic journal, Northern Mariner.) There is too much focus here on creating a standalone argument about history from primary sources that satisfies random Wikipedia editors, than neutrally reporting what reliable academic sources say. WP:V is clear here. Third-party reliable sources for historical material with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy should be preferred over Wikipedia editors' interpretations of primary sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Dickinson's claim that Jewett "sent a letter to the masters of at least fifty American and British sealing vessels, prohibiting them from hunting" is supported by a reference to Jewett's invitation letter to Weddell which however makes no reference to sealing at all, let alone prohibiting it. Apcbg (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Apcbg, I am sure Weddell is an important primary source, but it cannot be held as having equal (or more) weight than three notable academics. Elaqueate is right. Moreover, I honestly cannot even understand how this action from Jewett is controversial to either the Argentine or British perspective. Ultimately nothing resulted from it.
I apologize if I am sounding blunt or unkind, but we must keep a strong stance on this matter so as to avoid opening Pandora's box on primary source material. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually if we're to report what reliable secondary sources say, then we need to separate two different events. There are the actual accounts of what Jewett actually did; he made a declaration and he delivered letters to several ships claiming sovereignty, he claimed salvage rights. The letter to Orne is on Wikisource [6]. None of those accounts claim that he imposed restrictions on sealing, this certainly is not what was reported in either the Times of the Salem Gazette. In 1834, Luis Vernet prepared what is referred to by Goebel as the Vernet paper in which he claimed that Jewett had tried to enforce restrictions on sealing. Its the latter paper that is the source of most assertions that Jewett sought to impose restrictions on sealing. And you will find that reliable sources comment that Vernet made the link in part to justify his own attempts to stop the Americans from sealing. Vernet is also the source of the claim that there were 40-50 ships in Port Louis, compared with the 12-16 reported by other sources. In other words there are differing accounts in sources as to what Jewett actually did and to report only that he tried to impose control on sealing is not to reflect the range of views in the literature. In this case WP:PRIMARY sources should be used with care but are useful in guiding editors as to what is appropriate to include from secondary sources. The problem often faced on any account of Falkland's history is there is a great deal of revisionist accounts, which are more concerned with advancing modern sovereignty claims than reporting accurate historical accounts and sometimes these are reported by other secondary sources without any serious checks on their provenance. Marshal, whilst I respect what you're saying about those three sources, there are other sources that portray a somewhat different account and the bald statement you propose doesn't reflect the range of views in the literature. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting Wee, I was hoping you'd appear soon.
Yes, I understand the details of the matter are varied. But, the statement I am citing is a minor phrase: "Owing to Jewett's inability to enforce control".
The phrase is neither claiming that Jewett tried to enforce restrictions on sealing nor that he actually tried to enforce control at all.
For example, if I'm unable to reach the rooftop of a building, it doesn't mean that I tried to reach it. I could have simply walked to the building, looked up, and then said "I'm not climbing that".
It doesn't mean I tried (or did not try) to look for a ladder, or that I tried (or not) to do a Spiderman climb to the top.
A definition from Google is: "unable: lacking the skill, means, or opportunity to do something." Synonyms include "powerless, impotent, at a loss, inadequate, incompetent, unfit, unqualified, incapable, etc."
Basically, my point is that the phrase "owing to Jewett's inability to enforce control" is nothing more than just that ("Owing to Jewett's lack of skill, means, or opportunity to enforce control").
Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll add that perhaps I contributed to the confusion by playing into the sidelines debate of "he did enforce v. he didn't enforce". My opinion is that Jewett did try to enforce control, but the phrase in question is not reflecting my opinion. Graham-Yooll and Gustafson provide different viewpoints on why Jewett was unable to enforce control, but the NPOV conclusion is that Jewett simply was unable to do it. And, as defined above, the term "inability" does not give credence to one viewpoint over another.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The sensitivity I suspect is that Gustafson et al are referring or confusing a specific phrase in legal terms effective control, which is relevant to the establishment of sovereignty. As I noted above, the actions of making a declaration are relevant to an attempt to establish effective control but whether Jewett went beyond that is disputed in the literature.
I would suggest a solution is found in agreeing which Jewett's actions are uncontroversial and which are disputed. Like Apcbg I consider the sources are in conflict as to whether he attempted to govern sealing, and my personal opinion tends to side with the view he didn't as no reliable eye witness account describes him doing so, as opposed to what is uncontroversial ie the sovereignty ceremony, the claim of the Uranie and the letters sent to masters of ships in the vicinity. A minor issue is the number of ships involved is unclear.
I rather suspect the vagueness in what you suggest is an issue, since it allows the interpretation that the uncontroversial acts are not contested. If we can identify what is agreed upon, where there are areas of controversy then it is possible to generate an edit that represents a suitable compromise Wee Curry Monster talk 17:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
If reliable sources are in conflict, report how the sources are in conflict, as judged by other reliable sources. Personal interpretation of primary sources should not be given primacy over better second-party sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Wee, I removed the ship numbers from the text. The specific number is also too much detail for a paraphrase. Thank you for pointing that out.
My impression from Gustafson is that he minimizes Jewett's fishing regulations to the point of non-importance. In fact, the quote provided by Elaquate is within a context that places emphasis on fishing regulations that took place in 1829 (well-past Jewett).
I honestly don't know what else to use other than the phrase "Owing to Jewett's inability to enforce control". I really do think that the problem here is on how it is being read. It's also not an absolute, but more of a cause-and-effect point (Jewett did not enforce control, so Vernet stepped in for the venture). Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Except its not a cause and effect point. Jewett's declaration of 1820 has no real link to the venture pursued by Vernet, which was entirely Vernet's iniative. The key fact agreed upon is that Jewett's actions had no effect, since whether there was an attempt to enforce regulations is disputed and given we are talking about the net effect we can simply state that Jewett's actions had no effect. I have a suggestion:
How is that? Feel free to improve but I feel there is a need to avoid words that have emotive connections. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I like your writing style quite a lot. The more I think of this, the more it seems to me that this matter over Jewett does not merit all this long discussion. Gustafson certainly doesn't given much importance to his actions (aside from the declaration), and the other sources also make a brief mention of him (at least when making a summary). The text here already mentions his declaration on the prior sentence. Hence, to build from your foundation, maybe the following is better:

I like that this gives more information on Vernet (his origin & trade) and the formation of his settlement. What do you think?--MarshalN20 Talk 21:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WCM, I agree both with your proposed text and with your excellent analysis elaborated above. The subsequent wording proposed by Marshal is not an improvement, leaving the fallacious impression that the Islands were no longer "without government" after 1826 which was not the case; as pointed out before, Vernet governed his settlement only. (Marshal's earlier proposal "Port Louis also sought to extend its authority over sealing operations elsewhere in the archipelago" is in the right direction though.) I also believe that any account of that period ought to stress the strong presence of British and American sealers which, in the British case, was unchallengeable due to the international legal regime introduced by the Nootka Sound Convention. (Because of which Vernet's attempt to expand his authority outside Puerto Luis targeted only the Americans not the British.) Apcbg (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The sentence that follows after this one is where the event between Vernet and the Americans takes place. It makes more sense to discuss the sealers on that sentence than on this one.
If the issue is the word "government," simply changing it would solve it, right? Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Slight tweak suggested:
Whether he reverted to a former name, or named the settlement after himself is disputed and a minor detail for a summary. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Good. If the name is controversial, perhaps again excluding it would be a good idea. Such as in:

The hunting of feral cattle also seems like too much detail. Maybe calling it a "hunting base" is also a good alternative, but "base" should be good enough. Everything else matches what is in the sources, so I have no objection to it.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Marshal, reference to the 1829 appointment was removed ("In 1829, Buenos Aires proclaimed Vernet as the military and civil commander of the islands"). I think this shouldn't be omitted in any summary of the Island's history. --Langus (t) 13:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Langus. The 1829 appointment is still mentioned in the notes (as it was prior to the copy-edit). It's actually the first sentence of Note F: "Vernet's venture received permission and encouragement from Buenos Aires, which proclaimed Vernet military and civil commander of the islands in 1829." WCM had also previously suggested this text:
At this point we can either (a) discuss how to include this into the text, or (b) keep it all in the footnote. What are your thoughts?--MarshalN20 Talk 15:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I am open to either option. I have noticed an issue with some text attributed to Gustafson regarding the significance of the Garden planted in 1765. I would suggest you refer to Goebel (The Struggle for the Falkland Islands, Julius Goebel) the reference cited by Gustafson, as Gustafson doesn't accurately report what was in that document. Goebel ridicules a statement made in reference to the planting of the garden made in Dr Brown's work (Falkland Islands dispute Anglo-Spanish Relationships in America in the Closing Years of the Colonial Era p.387) (I would give you a better reference but Goebel isn't too hot on his Bibliography). Gustafson incorrectly attributes the statement to Conway, a British official making a statement in Parliament. The British reference to the founding of Port Egmont is based on the formal ceremony claiming the islands for the King that took place in January 1765, and has no relation to the founding of a Garden. It is perhaps understandable as Goebel's language is loose but Conway only referred to completing the settlement begun earlier in 1765. We appear to be giving a somewhat undue prominence to an error made in Gustafon. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Stop. There was no actual settlement in 1765. Byron's expedition did not leave a settlement. If a formal ceremony is touted as more important and significant here than just a ceremony, in the face of actual scholarly sources, (while, coincidentally, Jewett's better attended formal ceremony is given decreasing significance) then we've gotten into OR territory. NPOV would suggest mentioning the formal ceremony, but not extrapolating meaning from it ourselves. I've heard your arguments about these events before, but you can't toss academic sources based on your own interpretations of texts from a hundred years ago. We're not making history from scratch here, like soup, we're supposed to be reporting sources. Here you're making a suggestion that this page take a less neutral stance on the history than the Falkland Island Government which agrees the settlement happened in 1766. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The comment I made simply pointed out that Gustafson did not accurately report what the source he refers to said. He was wrong, it was a mistake, it was an error, which is being repeated here. I'm confused, is your suggestion that we ignore basic WP:COMMON sense and simply because a source makes a mistake we must repeat it?
And please, point me to where I was suggesting that we change any dates? I simply suggested we remove the erroneous reference to the planting of a garden having any relevance to statements regarding the early settlement. I suggest you read and comprehend statements before making accusations of POV editing, thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Our article doesn't mention Conway at all, we aren't attributing anything to him, it just says the garden was later used as proof of possession. To be clear, are you saying that Gustafson introduced the idea that the garden was later used as proof of possession? Are you saying that Goebel didn't say the garden was later used as proof of possession? __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
No the article does not say that it says "Britain" did and that is incorect, Goebel attributes the comments to a certain Dr Brown in the reference work stated. The article is currently attributing a claim made by a individual to represent the position taken by the UK. Really you find this a difficult point to appreciate ???
Still waiting for you to point to where I made any suggestion to make any other change other than correcting an obvious error. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I do think Goebel intimated that the only "settlement" was the garden, and that he made specific fun of the secretary of state for equating that garden as somehow being a "settlement". You said this was Gustafson's idea, but are you sure you've looked at the source closely enough? Is it possible that it was Goebel all along (and not Gustafson) who introduced the idea (and from reading Conway's comments directly) that it was curious that the British Secretary of State (and not just Dr Brown) was equating the planting of a garden with the beginning of a settlement? __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Goebel mocks Conway on the basis of Brown's statement but the Secretary of State made no reference to the garden as being relevant and Conway's statement is repeated in Goebel as you well know. This article reports this erroneously as a British statement, it is incorrect. I'm simply going to remove it. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Goebel's words:
This has nothing to do with Brown's words. Goebel is saying here that the only "settlement" in 1765 was the garden. These aren't the words of Gustafson (although Gustafson repeats them). Looking over your earlier assumptions makes me feel better about your multiple personal attacks about "reading comprehension". __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a secondary source that makes this claim. Other secondary sources repeat it, from Gustafson, to John Dunmore, to W. Michael Reisman of Yale, and others. You can't just flick it away because you think you understand the material better than all of them. Goebel cites the original letters, we cite Goebel or others if you want. But we don't cite us. You can't say they're all incorrect based on your own reading.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
We're supposed to be repeating the views of better, neutral, reliable sources. WP:V is clear. As Goebel looked at the letters and we didn't, we have no way of knowing what was in the letters or other material beyond the snippet quoted in the book. We're not here to interpret snippets of Primary sources while disagreeing with and disparaging what the relaible and academic Secondary source states about them. Goebel directly cites the letters, and saw them and other material in full.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

When I made the original c/e of the history section some months ago, I also considered removing the part on the garden. Not because it was an odd position, but because it seemed like too much detail for the history summary. Unless my memory is wrong, one of the UK editors disagreed and so that's how it remained in the article. I still consider its removal valid per WP:SUMMARY. I'm sure the Argentine editors also wouldn't mind (again, if my memory serves me well, I recall they opposed its inclusion due to, well, the silly nature of it). But reaching consensus now might be a good opportunity.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The note is Note 39 of Goebel, which refers to Brown on p.233. The full quote on p.234 preceding this comment is "The commanders of the ships were instructed "that they do immediately compleat the settlement begun last year at Port Egmont which they are to accomplish in all events."". There is no clear and unambiguous reference to a statement by Conway referencing this garden, Goebel simply mocks Conway in reference to Brown's note. The statement fails verification as the secondary cite (Goebel) does not reliably make the claim that Conway made any reference to this garden. Each of the tertiary cites referred to cites the same passage in Goebel on p.233-234. Its not reliably cited, it is not a common view in the literature and has no place in the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: I understand your disagreement with Wee. Nonetheless, placing that matter on the side, do you consider there is a reason to keep this detail in the historical summary?--MarshalN20 Talk 16:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: if you have additional consensus reasons to remove it, unrelated to sourcing, I won't stand in the way of you adjusting it.
I'd still oppose giving credence to any idea that there was an actual settlement in 1765, sans actual settlers or sourcing; or that Goebel wasn't ridiculing the ideas of the secretary of state specifically, and not at that moment Dr. Brown, when he spoke of what was considered by the secretary of state as the beginning of a settlement. (No matter how many times the argument is repeated, it will never make that sentence a complaint directed toward Dr Brown.)
But a flawed interpretation such as that helps illustrate that dismissal of reliable secondary sources in favor of "common sense" and subjective editor interpretation is dangerous. This is especially so if the assertion with local consensus ends up being completely unsourceable because of its originality. It should be seen as a red flag when the attitude is "All of the sources foolishly interpreted it wrongly, but we'll write what we as editors almost agree is meant by the primary sources." Some of the historical theories presented here may be considered "true" AND "commonsense" to some, but they also have to be verifiable as theories found in reliable sources as well.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Good. I'm glad we could reach a solution to this matter.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Vernet, Buenos Aires, & Britain

Langus added a text from a footnote, which I copy-edited afterwards, into the history section which now looks as the following:

I consider that the text is good, but it maybe needs to point out that Britain protested Buenos Aires' proclamation. Anyhow, we should also now return to the footnote discussion we were having above. "Footnote E" is the one we need to specifically discuss.
Personally, I consider that this footnote should either (a) be moved to the middle of the next sentence, (b) incorporated into the text perhaps as the final sentence of the paragraph, or (c) remain where it is at. In any case, it should be improved by showing that the British also had some interest in Vernet. As it stands, the text is only presenting Vernet's interes, but not that of Britain.
My personal suggestion would be to improve the above sentence by mentioning the British protest, and placing Footnote E directly after this mention (still as a footnote) with the improvements suggested by WCM.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with either that it all remains as a footnote, or is promoted as you suggest. As you allude to above, moving only part of the note leaves the material unbalanced. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The balance is also important. As it stands, the main text does not accurately reflect Vernet's actions with Britain. Britain's perspective of Vernet is not even mentioned, and I again emphasize that this is an issue.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
My point about including the appointment is that it was a critical event for what happened later. Without Vernet being given this official powers, he would have never captured the American vessels because he wasn't entitled to enforce fishing regulations. It follows that without the Lexington raid, with a population of 100+ individuals, the British intervention may have never happened or certainly would've been different. That is why I consider it important in a summary, not because of a POV but because it is relevant to the islands' history.
The issue of Vernet courting Britain while at the same time officially responding to Argentina is a separate idea, relevant to the dispute but ultimately not so much to the FI's history. It belongs to Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, but here it is (IMHO) too much detail.
However, if it is decided that we should include it, I won't oppose. Note however, that we must be careful on how we present this information, ditching away analysis of primary sources and our own analysis of secondary sources. The section above already shows big red signs, suggesting that this is not going to be an easy task...
I've reverted my changes for now as it is clear that we need to discuss this further. --Langus (t) 19:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I liked the improved sentence, with the information on Vernet as governor (which I agree is important, especially with the USS Lexington's actions). Nonetheless, even with the text inside the footnote, I still consider that the information is not accurately reflecting Britain's perspective on Vernet and the governorship proclamations made by Buenos Aires (there were 2, unless I'm mistaken, which the British protested). The tricky situation here is finding out how to include all of this without going into excessive detail.--MarshalN20 Talk 07:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree that the issue of Vernet courting Britain is a separate idea. It is fundamentally entwined with the circumstances that lead to the Lexington raid and the British Return in 1833. If Vernet hadn't courted Britain, then his settlement would likely have been expelled along with the garrison. Equally it was because of Vernet's dealings with the British consul that re-awakened British interest in the Falklands; it was Vernet's visit to the consulate that triggered Parish to send dispatches to London regarding the settlement. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_23&oldid=1136279539"