Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

About the oil

The lead describes the economy and says "Oil exploration, licensed by the Falkland Islands Government, remains controversial as a result of maritime disputes with Argentina". Do those controversies have an actual impact on the economy, or do the islanders just do their business as normal while Argentina protests? If it is the second, perhaps the line should be moved to the paragraph about the dispute, and explain the economy as its own thing. Or just removed: the sections "Economy" and "Sovereignty dispute" do not mention the protests about the oil exploration.

Besides, I remember that some years ago the islands announced that they found oil reserves (or something similar to that, it was many years ago), and the newspapers exploded with protests. But is there a formal and legal dispute somewhere about the oil, or was it just the usual political bickering? There's the sovereignty dispute itself, right, but at this moment and unless something changes it is the Falklands who have the sovereignty, and that includes the legal right to the explotation of everything within that territory, including the oil. Unless the oil dispute goes through another path, unrelated to the main dispute, we could also say that the controversy has simply died down. Cambalachero (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Only if RS say it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the topic in much detail, that's why I'm asking those questions. Cambalachero (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's normal for the dispute (and relationship with South American politics, culture, geography, etc.) to appear in other parts of the article besides the SD section. It's a part of the reality of the Falklands. Since we are also bringing up the economy, it might be good to update any recent economic developments, perhaps related to the COVID pandemic? Are there any updates to the oil situation?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Plural or singular?

If anyone is interested, I mentioned this article on the talk page of New Zealand outlying islands regarding the use of 'is' or 'are'. It seems we here are in a minority among similar articles in using 'is'. I recall the discussion arose here when the use of 'is' was preferred. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

There are others, e.g. Cayman Islands or Pitcairn Islands. I assume it's because the first sentence describes the subject as "an archipelago", which is singular. Hut 8.5 18:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Edits reverted

@Roger 8 Roger - You are correct for reverting my edit as I just realised that they were the same company. I deleted the link too fast without looking properly. But I think the "Falkland Islands Company" link should be replaced with the actual link for the Falkland Islands Company, instead of it linking to its parent company established in 1997. It would make more sense to link it to the 1851 company since that section of the page is talking about 1851. DDMS123 (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave it up to you. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the link. DDMS123 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023

The spelling in Spanish. Change Spanish: Islas Malvinas [ˈizlaz malˈβinas]) for Spanish: Islas Malvinas [ˈislas malˈβinas]) 85.57.198.23 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Not done, can you cite a source for that change? WCM_email 09:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The phoneme /z/ doesn't exist in standard Spanish, and is unsourced here. The IPA page for Spanish does not even include /z/, though I think it might be possible as an allophone of the first /s/ for some dialects. Other island groups on here have /islas/ see Galapagos, although Balearic Islands has /izlaz/. I think the IP is correct here.Boynamedsue (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Having checked various linguistics texts, many pronunciation guides give /s/ > /z/ as the correct pronunciation before a voiced consonant like /l/ and /m/, which would mean /izlaz malBinaz/ is correct. I'm fairly sure that this is not universal, more complicated across word boundaries, and that a strong case exists for using /s/ in line with our own policies on English /t/ and post-vocalic /r/. But I am no longer confident enough to change this without a source.Boynamedsue (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

[z] was removed from the Help:IPA/Spanish key a few days ago following a talk page discussion. The request wasn't correct in view of MOS:PRON when it was made, but it is now. Nardog (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Summary of European settlements

The top section very briefly discusses that the islands have had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Nevertheless, the mention of a date begins with the year 1833, which is the year the British took over the islands for the second to last time. I say it is arbitrary to start at the year 1833; this was not the first European settlement, and it wasn't even the first British settlement. Including a concise summary that starts with the very first European settlement (French one in 1764) is a more neutral POV than the previous version. Themidget17 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw this from the dispute resolution noticeboard. It seems like the current consensus is contrary to Themidget17's proposal, primarily because 1. this is an article on the current Falkland Islands, which indeed begin in 1833, and 2. the details before the current establishment are nebulous. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The established version is Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans.

At various times, the islands have had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands.

Themidget17 wants this version: Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. The islands were first settled by the French in 1764, then by the British a year later. The French agreed to leave the islands in 1766 after pressure from the Spanish, who settled East Falkland the next year. British forces retired from the islands in 1776; their colony was destroyed by the Spanish in 1780. The islands remained under Spanish control until their forces withdrew in 1811. In 1820, the flag of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata was planted by David Jewett under orders from the Buenos Aires government. The British returned to the islands in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands. In April 1982, Argentine military forces invaded the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War. In a 2013 sovereignty referendum, almost all Falklanders voted in favour of remaining a UK overseas territory. The territory's sovereignty status is part of an ongoing dispute between Argentina and the UK.

I think we run into problems when we go back before 1833 because exactly what happened isn't clear, leading to opinions. I think you might have a point about meantioning 1764 but what was already there isn't misleading in any way and 1764 can easily be first mentioned in history. Why not start with a date when the islands were first discovered trodden on by people?Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The blow by blow is far too long for the lead. CMD (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

What happened before 1833 is as clear as what happened around 1833. The events before and after the year 1833 are discussed in similar veins in the history section, with no reservations regarding the verifiability of the events prior to 1833. In my eyes it's still arbitrary to start at 1833, 69 years after the first European settlement. If I at any point thought it misleading and not just arbitrary to start at 1833, it's because this leaves out three relevant developments: the first European settlement in 1764, the British retirement from the islands in 1776, and the attempt by the United Provinces to colonise them in 1820 (which was the Argentine government's very "justification" for their invasion in 1982). I think it's equally valid to summarise this section using no dates at all, or a succession of dates which includes at least these three distinct and historically relevant events (although Spain's undisputed rule over the islands during 1776-1811 is arguably just as important, albeit irrelevant to the current sovereignty dispute). It's not NPOV to bring up dates that start at 1833: either start by the beginning or do not mention dates. Since CMD found my earlier one too lengthy a revision, I propose the following version, which would take the established version:

Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. At various times, the islands have had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands.

and make it into:

Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. The islands were first settled by the French in 1764, then by the British a year later. The French turned their colony over to the Spanish in 1766. The British retired from the islands in 1776; they remained under Spanish control until their forces withdrew in 1811. In 1820, the islands were claimed by David Jewett at the behest of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. The British returned to the islands in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands.Themidget17 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This is still far too much detail for a lead, which is meant to be a very very short summary. I'm not understanding how including the 1833 date is somehow misleading, it's very clearly preceded in the current text by other events, but if you think it works better without the date, then propose that. CMD (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The text is plain wrong. The British didn't leave in 1776, they withdrew the garrison in 1774 as part of a general retrenchment related to the War of Independence in America. But the British remained in the islands concentrating as the British did on commerce; namely fishing, sealing and whaling. It seems to me this is an attempt to introduce the false narrative that the British were absent for 59 years. Plus the claim that Jewett acted on behalf of the United Provinces is controversial, we know he certainly claimed to be doing so but there is much to suggest this was a ruse to claim exclusive salvage rights over L'Uranie. I prefer the current lede as neutral and a simple summary, the expansion isn't needed IMHO. WCM_email 07:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There is an article by Peter Calvert in which, I think, he claims that France never handed over its sovereignty to Spain in 1766. All the French did was withdraw, acknowledging a prior claim by Spain. Some money was given to the French in goodwill for their costs, not to buy the French claim. Therefore, the question is simply, was the basis for the earlier Spanish claim valid? If not, the first people to claim and confirm that claim by settlement, and not withdraw that claim, were the British in 1767. So the French didn't 'turn their colony over to the Spanish', they just left and the Spanish moved in. This might not be exactly correct but I think it is close. The point is there is a risk in stating something that might look to be obviously factual because on closer examination it will become less obvious. I have never been keen on the phrase 'reassert its sovereignty' but nothing else is better. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The French did not relinquish sovereignty, France and Spain were joined in the Pacte de Famille, with France agreeing to remove Bougainville's Acadians and allowing the Spanish to take over Port St Louis. France continued to harbour a desire for a base in the South Atlantic and petitioned the British to return to Port St Louis during the negotiations for the Treaty of Amiens in 1801. Another reason for why the less is more approach taken with the current lede is appropriate, it avoids all these details and nuances, which get bogged down in nationalist disputes. WCM_email 11:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm taking a two-line segment and making it into four lines, CMD. In other words, I'm adding a grand total of two lines to the lede. If that's "far too much detail for a lead" then I don't know what sort of improvement to this lede wouldn't be. On the other hand, WCM and Roger 8 Roger bring up items like "the British didn't leave in 1776" or "France never handed over its sovereignty to Spain in 1766", that deviate from the established version of this article. Those perspectives are not canonical. What I did with the lede was simply take what is on the History section of this established version and make it into a summary that includes all major events instead of starting arbitrarily at 1833. How does that not make the lede objectively more informative than before? I keep thinking it reads curt without these changes. Themidget17 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you considered Themidget17 that 1833 is not arbitrary? Working backwards from now, that is when the current established situation began, so it makes perfect sense to use that as the starting point, much the same as 1066 is sometimes treated as the starting point for the current England/UK system, or 1776 in the USA. If we don't do that we can go backwards in a exponential curve to an unknown point in the past. If you use 1764 as the start it gives an impression that the current UK settlement is somehow shared with others which it isn't. What happened before 1833 fits well in the history section. Anyway, the muddied history before 1833 is referred to in the established lead, at a level I think is appropriate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to unpack a few things here, Roger 8 Roger:

-"1833 is when the current established situation began". That's debatable. The first European settlement was in 1764. "Established situation" could mean European colonisation to some people. On the other hand, if one takes the meaning of "established situation" as continuous British sovereignty, then the current situation started in 1982, not 1833. If one takes the meaning to be simply British sovereignty, uninterrupted or not, then the current situation started in 1765, and was interrupted twice, during 1776-1833 and in 1982.

-"If we don't do that we can go backwards in a exponential curve to an unknown point in the past". I don't see how that would make it an unknown point in the past. The islands don't have a native population, which helps make the history before the European settlements nebulous, but the point at which they were first settled is a definite point in the past.

-"If you use 1764 as the start it gives an impression that the current UK settlement is somehow shared with others which it isn't". Firstly, there isn't anything in my proposed version of the lede that makes it seem like sovereignty over the islands is currently shared. It's a concise, linear sequence of events. Secondly, my counter-interpretation to "starting at 1764 raises a POV issue" is that the present lede makes the current situation seem more "natural", because non-British settlements prior to 1833 are crammed into a passing mention. If somebody was trying to write this lede from a British-friendly POV, it would make the most sense to start precisely at 1833. Such a starting event gives a first impression of the Argentine invasion as dumbfounding and historically baseless; it implies that the historical standing of European settlements prior to 1833 is below that of the British colony that formed in 1833. I agree with your calling the history "muddied", but I disagree that because it's muddied it ought to be written about in a terse maner.

At the end of the day, a NPOV is only as neutral as the people who agree to call it neutral. If you check out the Spanish language version of this article, the NPOV over there reads very different from this article's NPOV. Neither version is fully neutral, but the change I'm proposing here would make this version a tad more neutral in my honest opinion. Themidget17 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I will assume good faith that you are not the proverbial xxxxx your post implies. This is a talk page, not the article, so don't treat it as such by nit-picking at every word written when the meaning is totally clear. You would do well to swat up on what sovereignty means, especially during a war. UK sovereignty was not lost in 1982; although unlikely it is possible humans lived on the islands before 1765; a better alternative to 1833 for the established situation would be 1840, not earlier; who says there isn't a native population? Those living there now might have something to say about that? I never said the pre-1833 detail should be left in the history section because the facts are muddied. The lead is a summary of key facts in the article: it refers to pre-1833 European settlement and that, IMO, is all that is required. The detail is in the body. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that by native population, the user you replied to is talking about indigenous people of the Falklands 2800:560:20:1F88:9967:D820:7DE7:7D19 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes User:2800:560:20:1F88:9967:D820:7DE7:7D19, so am I. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not mean to flare any tempers, Roger 8 Roger, I'm only trying to articulate a perspective on things. As regards the question of a native population, a British defence expert has stated there weren't humans on the islands prior to the European settlements, while others have suggested South American natives may have visited the islands intermittently without establishing a permanente presence. Modern-day Kelpers are, naturally, native to the islands, but by talking about a native population earlier I was talking about pre-European inhabitants, like the Ona or Tehuelche peoples of Patagonia for instance. Now when I said I agreed with you that the history is "muddied", I meant prior to European settlements, not prior to 1833. 1833 is still arbitrary. We know very convincingly when the French settled the islands, when the British first did, when the Spanish left, etc., and these events seem glossed over in the lede. The lede would read more neutral if it were made informative about these events. Themidget17 (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I was more concerned about my morning coffee getting cold while I wrote my reply. This is what is there now: At various times, the islands have had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands. There is disagreement about each of the pre-1833 settlements. I don't mean the actual dates of landing and leaving but about the detail surrounding those dates and interpretations of what those detail mean both to each party involved and in terms of international law, past and present. That is why it is muddied. If we give any more information in the lead than what is already there we risk giving an opinion on that muddied detail, which can best be dealt with in the article below. I am not adamantly opposed to tweaking the lead a bit but I think your suggest is too much. I don't think 1833 is arbitrary. It is the start of the current situation there, one that has lasted considerably longer than the pre-1833 settlements. If it is changed, I think there might be room for mentioning 1764 as the first settlement date but that is all, no elaboration. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the heat death of the universe while I wrote my reply. You point out there's disagreement about what earlier settlements meant in terms of international law, and that is why my proposed change doesn't involve an interpretation of what those events meant, but rather a mention of the relevant ones. As I was saying in an earlier comment, by not giving more information about pre-1833 events we are "giving an opinion on that muddied detail", the opinion that those events are historically less relevant than what came after 1833, the opinion that earlier settlements are somehow inferior or even–god forbid–illegitimate. The POV emerges just as much from what's stated as from what isn't, and a NPOV isn't always the most concise one possible. Themidget17 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps some other editors could give an opinion on this? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The pre-Vernet settlements are less relevant to this article than the Vernet settlement, because the settlements on the islands today all directly descend from the Vernet settlement. The current text does acknowledge prior settlers, including Argentine settlers (i.e. the Vernet settlement as it existed before 1833). But the lead isn't the place for a fully-detailed blow-by-blow account of the history of the islands.

This is supposed to be an article on the Falkland Islands, not on the dispute, nor even on the history of the islands. The article (and hence the lead) should concentrate on what is important to understand the Falkland Islands, which is not necessarily the same as what is important to understand the dispute or what is important to the history of the islands. Kahastok talk 17:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Kahastok that "the lead isn't the place for a fully-detailed blow-by-blow account" like I agree with CMD who raised identical concerns. But like I said before, that's not the sort of lede I'm proposing.

I don't disagree that pre-Vernet settlements may in some fashion be less relevant, the thing is, are pre-Vernet events that much less relevant so as to be omitted from the lede? You are raising valid but tangential arguments about how earlier settlements weren't as relevant, about how the lede shouldn't be extensive, about how the point of this article isn't the history. I have expressed agreement with these and as a result revised my proposal to a shorter version. But the point I'm raising here is about NPOV: the lede doesn't appear neutral so long as it omits an arbitrary selection of historical events. Themidget17 (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The lede is neutral, you're alleging a neutrality issue when none exists. The lede is supposed to summarise the article and it does, albeit arguably giving too much attention to prior settlements that have no lasting influence on the islands. This is also a featured article, which has already gone through significant scrutiny by the community and was worked on by a multi-national group of editors. You're welcome to try and convince the WP:NPOVNB there is an issue but I fear you'll be disappointed. WCM_email 08:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

WCM, the fact that this is a featured article should make it a more pressing matter to improve upon it! Featured articles fulfill a set of criteria that renders them more encyclopedic than the other articles, now does that make them perfect? Ought such articles to become calcified by virtue of being featured? Another suggestion from the guidelines is MOS:LEADREL, where the weights assigned to events in the lede and the body should be similar. This is not the case with this article as it stands. We could diminish the History section by making the discussion of pre-1833 events less detailed, or we could augment the lede by adding an appropriately concise mention of them. I honestly don't understand where this kerfuffle is coming from. Themidget17 (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The History section devotes a paragraph to each of the following periods: 1764-1771, 1774-1811, 1820-1831, and 1832-1844. The lede devotes a seven-line paragraph to the history, two lines of which cover pre-1833 events; the remainder concerns itself with the British settlement, the war, and the referendum. Yes the lede summarises the History section alright, but in what manner? Is this summary adequate, is the threshold that low? Like you said, this is a featured article. How does a referendum from 10 years ago merit a mention more detailed than that of the earliest settlements combined? Themidget17 (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You imply that the history section has four paragraphs. It has ten - including two long paragraphs devoted to the period 1845-1945, which you don't seem nearly so keen to expand upon.

MOS:LEADREL does not mean that we have to count the number of words and make sure that they are in precise proportion with the article. If it did then it would be impossible to write a coherent lead.

MOS:LEADREL means the weight given to points in the lead and the article should be the same, i.e. that the lead should summarise the article. This one does. This is unlike the article History of the Falkland Islands, an article explicitly discussing the history of the islands, whose lead reads as though nothing of significance happened after 1833. Kahastok talk 20:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You raise a valid concern about the 1845-1945 period, Kahastok. I propose the following revision:

Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. The islands were first settled by the French in 1764, then by the British a year later. The French turned their colony over to the Spanish in 1766. The British retired from the islands in 1776; they remained under Spanish control until their forces withdrew in 1811. In 1820, the islands were claimed by David Jewett at the behest of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. The British returned to the islands in 1833; economic activity began to thrive around 1851 with the advent of wool farming. The islands played a role during World War I and during World War II. In April 1982, Argentine military forces invaded the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War. In a 2013 sovereignty referendum, almost all Falklanders voted in favour of remaining a UK overseas territory. The territory's sovereignty status is part of an ongoing dispute between Argentina and the UK.

This change would append four lines instead of the two I proposed earlier. If anybody would suggest a more concise phrasing that'd be appreciated. I am also going to log a dispute resolution request given all the friction we've been having. Themidget17 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Themidget17, that paragraph is not at the preferred standard, both in style and fact. Every sentence is questionable. For example, what does 'turn over to the Spanish' actually mean? Unless there is a suggestion to amend what is currently there without extending it further I think this discussion should be ended because it is going nowhere.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You could very well revise the mention of Port St. Louis's takeover by the Spanish if you find it's ambiguous, or else propose another sequence entirely. I don't think it's fair for me at this point to entertain an argument such as "every sentence is questionable". At every turn, you and fellow editors have done nothing but bash my every proposal. Themidget17 (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No WP:CONSENSUS is very much against you, because you allege a neutrality issue when none exists, proposing a text that introduces neutrality issues. A number of editors have patiently explained their issue with your content proposal, you continually present the same content albeit rehashed and the issues remain. This being a featured article, people are concerned to maintain article quality. I've suggested a route by which you could obtain a 3rd opinion, instead you forum shop to DR prematurely. This is a behavioural issue, a classic example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. WCM_email 07:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

A third opinion has already been summoned by Roger 8 Roger, WCM. Plus, my concern is both about NPOV and MOS:LEADREL, as I outlined in my DR request, so the NPOV board might be insufficient for the challenge. I am disappointed in seeing my actions interpreted as "forum-shopping" after after having acted in good faith. Themidget17 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a reply to your summary of the dispute on the DRN, WCM. You allege that there isn't a POV issue and I want to restate why I think that there is. The History section of this article is rich and balanced. There is significant treatment of the activity on the islands prior to 1833; the section is fairly detailed for 1764-1982. The lede, on the other hand, glosses over all pre-British-settlement events and highlights the war and the referendum. This is a British-friendly lede rather than a neutral one about the Falkland islands. Yes the islands are part of British sovereignty, but the article is about them, not about how and why they belong to the British, as there's an article devoted to that dispute. The lede appears to emphasise events that are reassuring of British sovereignty, while the History section is more informative and neutral. Themidget17 (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This is like saying the United States article emphasizes American sovereignty but instead it should be more neutral and present both the possibility of American and British sovereignty. When the people living there unanimously vote to remain British, it becomes a fact and there is no need to prevent a "British-friendly" lede. Chamaemelum (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That is a poor comparison. The islands aren't a country. The US isn't subject to a sovereignty dispute. I could go on. Themidget17 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like an intentional time wasting joke. What about the established lead is not neutral? Nothing! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Port Egmont

This article says founded in 1766, the Port Egmont article says 1765. I'm adding to the John Perceval, 2nd Earl of Egmont article. Help!? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipeida is a not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of founded. Argentine nationalists have a habit of slipping it to 1766, which is when Captain McBride arrived to formally set up the colony. It was founded by Byron in 1765 who laid the ground work, then slipped away. Similarly the French settlement is backdated to 1764 when Bougainville laid the ground work, not 1765 when he came back with colonists. Its a bit of a double standard, should be 1765 and 1764 for both. WCM_email 08:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)