Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the paragraph in question, I believe it would be fair to mention that two cases were filled, one against Argentina and another one against Chile ([1] and [2]). Both Argentina and Chile rejected the arbitration, which included not only the Falkland Islands (on which Chile doesn't have a claim) but also South Sandwich Islands, South Georgia, South Orkneys, South Shetlands, Graham Land and Coats Land. --Langus (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not a disruptive editor. I'm based on scholarly sources. I'll quote now from a scholarly source[3]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request Feb 27, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, let's get back to the sources. I found this 1985 resolution 40/21, which I'm not sure if it's relevant ([4]), and then this other source which talks about a Rio Treaty (Not resolution 502) and this mentions Trinidad, Chile, Colombia, and USA ([5]). This other source talks about "English-speaking members": ([6]). Conclusion: The current structure indicates that Chile, Colombia, Trinidad voted against Argentina in resolution 502, but I cannot find the text. However, a resolution regarding the "Rio Treaty" is the one where all names pop up. What to do? No idea.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Despite its defeat"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Regarding the logic. I notice that I forgot to reply to the logic part, for which the reply was: "MarshalN20, your comment proves my point". It's not a POV claim, but rather a matter of common sense applied to all conflicts. For instance: "Despite Bolivia lost the War of the Pacific, it still demands that Chile provide it with a coastline". It's merely the logic of grammar structure, and nothing wrong is meant by it. I actually thought that it was good to avoid using the term "defeat" in the introduction ("lost the war" and "withdrawal" sound more neutral than "defeated" or "defeat"). I'd like to take this to the language board and hear what they say.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've taken it to the language board to see what they understand from it ([7]). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

I'd like to note a few points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sovereignty Dispute Summary

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

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

Vernet established an Argentinian settlement

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

More to the point, the scholarly sources describe it as an Argentinian settlement: [9], [10], [11], 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. [12]. 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: [13].

• A book about colonies describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [14].

• A book about self-determination describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [15].

• A book about Commonwealth history describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [16].

• The BBC describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [17].

• A book about the Falklands war describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [18].

• The Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [19].

• The Survey of British and Commonwealth Affairs describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [20].

• A book on wars in Latin America describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [21]l

• The Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law describe it as an Argentinian settlement: [22].

• The House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committe describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [23].

• A book on the diplomacy of the Falklands war describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [24].

• The Year Book of World Affairs describes it as an Argentinian settlement: [25].

• ... hey, even Wikipedia is already describing it as an Argentinian settlement: [26].

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 [27]. 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.

[28] 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[29]
• Barcelona player Lionel Messi: 418,000 hits[30]

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."[31] 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 [32] 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 [33] =, A settlement of mixed nationalities [34] 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. ([35]) 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. [36] 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 ([37]) 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!! ([38]) 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.