Talk:Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

In a spirit of co-operation (En un espíritu de cooperación)

Wikipedia is a multi-language encyclopaedia [sic] with, as far as I know, similar core content policies applicable to each language. For example, the English version uses these core content policies and the Español version uses these política similar policies, but in this case four. Both these versions contain a policy for verifiability although, unless Google is translating the Español version incorrectly, it seems consensus is more important in the Español version compared to the English version. Such differences will naturally cause difficulties when cultures clash as editors from different countries appear to be doing whilst working on this particular article.

English language editors, particularly in this context British editors, are attempting to write articles that are verifiable and in so doing, will naturally prefer English language sources. Español language editors, particularly in this context Argentinians, are attempting to write articles that (if I understand correctly) are a consensus of editors. The relevant (Google) translation of No son parte de la enciclopedia is "It is therefore not necessary to provide reliable sources , check Wikipedia rules or make the rules in a neutral or include an external authority to determine their own rules and procedures of Wikipedia. Instead, the content of this site [Español Wikipedia] is controlled by the broad community consensus and style should emphasize clarity, sincerity and usefulness for other publishers". Nevertheless, an Español speaking editor will naturally prefer Español sources. I am fairly certain that in the context of this article British and Spanish sources will disagree.

Therefore, these differences in both policy and sources will naturally cause editors from different countries to disagree with each other. We should all attempt to recognise these differences and try very hard to abide by our own language version policies and sources whilst giving all respect, support and encouragement to editors from other countries. By the same token, editors from other countries should not attempt to enforce their own policies and sources on Wikipedians writing in a different language.

See also: WP:Multilingual coordination

Please be aware that I am not a Spanish speaker. Therefore the Spanish links I have used and the Google translations I have provided have all been in good faith. Any errors are mine and I apologise in advance if I have made a mistake. I have certainly not wished to cause offence to any English or Spanish speaking people

--Senra (Talk) 14:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that section refers only to Wikipedia [ES] policies and guidelines, not articles. It starts with "Wikipedia tiene muchas políticas y convenciones sobre contenido enciclopédico. Estos estándares requieren verificabilidad, neutralidad, respeto por las personas vivas y más." -> "Wikipedia has many policies and conventions about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more". It goes on then saying that "Instead, the content of these pages [Wikipedia policies and guidelines] is controlled by the broad community consensus and style should emphasize clarity, sincerity and usefulness for other publishers".

Difficulties between editors here it's solely a matter of human psyche.

Would you share your thoughts with us about the article name? If you feel comfortable with it, of course.

Thank you once again for taking the time to help us. --Langus (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more concise? Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for cultural differences that might help editors find common ground. I am sorry if I added to the confusion due to my inability to read Spanish --Senra (Talk) 16:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, your effort is very much appreciated :) --Langus (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Which title do you prefer?

It is proposed to rename the current article: Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. There are currently two titles being suggested differing only whether re is prepended to possession—see #1 and #2 below. If you support one of these titles, please take the time to cite and quote your source(s). Use {{cite}} in full for a citation that has not appeared in this thread before or use the shorter form author (year) if it has. If your support can additionally be reinforced by (a) short quotation(s) from the citation(s), all the better. If you support neither, please cast your oppose below this introduction but above the first title suggestion, stating the reason for your oppose --Senra (Talk) 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Added #3 Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands to be clear to any passing uninvolved editors --Senra (Talk) 13:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

#1 British repossession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)

• Accept For the simple reason it acknowledges earlier settlement. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As an aside, noting Pfainuk's point below, I feel this is better as it doesn't imply possession over a time period. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. I don't think I can support it outright because I am concerned about the inaccurate alternative meaning of repossession, but I will accept it as a way forward given use by Cawkell. Pfainuk talk 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• support Neutral for the following narrowly researched reasons

1. OED "repossess, v. 1.a. To recover or regain possession of (a thing); to seize or occupy again (a place). Also fig."

Further reasons for support converted to neutral --Senra (Talk) 16:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Darwin, Charles (1913) [1860], A Naturalist's Voyage Round the World, London: John Murray, p. 199, retrieved 1 November 2011 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |Edition= ignored (|edition= suggested) (help) "After the [prior] possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Ayres then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right an[d] seized them"—Note that I would contend that this 1860 writing of the word sieze (OED etym. 1290) compares well with the more recent term repossess (OED etym. 1513) Gough, Barry M (1990). "The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843". Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. 22 (2): 261–287. Retrieved 27 October 2011.—due to reoccupation in the title Gough (1990) p. 261 "In December 1832 and January 1833 the British reoccupied the Falkland Islands or the Malvina" Gough (1990) p. 262 quoting Langenheim, Gómez A (1934), La Tecera Invasión Inglesa, Buenos Aires{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) "... one Argentine historian has called the recoccupation 'the third English invasion,' in reference to two previous occupations by the British in 1765 and 1771." Gough (1990) p. 267 quoting Captain FitzRoy of the Beagle, " ... when he anchored in Berkeley Sound [1831]. 'One may pause to consider,' he wrote, 'what nation is at this moment the legitimate owner of the Falklands. Do the discovery, prior occupation, and settlement of new and uninhabited countries give a right to possession?" OED "Occupation n. 1. a. The action of taking or maintaining possession or control of a country, building, land, etc., esp. by (military) force; an instance of this; the period of such action; (also) the state of being subject to such action" Note: Gough (1990) is more generally based on British documents although he seems to have sourced Argentinian documents too Note: Of course I have left myself open to being accused of selectively choosing my sources and quotations. Accepted. --Senra (Talk) 20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Some comments, if I may:

• re. point #2: I believe Darwin was using the word 'possession' generically, without implying it belonged to Great Britain. Otherwise he wouldn't mention 'England' in that list of contestants;
• re. point #5: I'm pretty sure Gough misunderstood his sources. Every Argentinian knows there was two British invasions: it's one of the main themes in Argentina's primary education. That's what the Argentinian historian was referring to.
• re. point #6: Fitzroy was purposely leaving aside the French in his analysis. Gough should point this out too, to fully transmit Fitzroy's opinion.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong Gough is quoting Destefani who claims the British have invaded Argentina 6 or 7 times. He classes this as the 3rd invasion. As regards the rest, Darwin is not using posession generically, he is using it quite specifically and the language use is very clear. As to the Gough paper, have you read it? Criticism by speculation about Gough's analysis is not helpful at this juncture. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants a copy of the Gough (1990) paper let me know via email --Senra (Talk) 19:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the reasons previously stated. --Langus (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC) NOTE: I am willing to accept this title if no further opposition arises. I believe it has the same flaws that current title, but at least is used by some sources. --Langus (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1) "Re" is reduntant when years are indicated 2) "re" gives the taste of that Britain at some previous point fully controled the archipelago and thats not true. Chiton magnificus (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

#2 British possession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)

• Oppose Fails to portray a NPOV by not acknowledging earlier settlement. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose because it implies to me a period of British control beginning in 1832 and ending in 1834. (By the way, if you want to move my comments to a more appropriate place, by all means do.) Pfainuk talk 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #1 has the same structure... weird thing how the mind works. --Langus (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I can see where you're coming from: you appear to be working on the basis that "repossession" means a second or later instance of possession. This would be logical, but isn't how the language works. Rather, possession refers to a continual state of ownership, whereas repossession refers to a single act of taking ownership.

In this case, proposal 2 implies that the state of ownership begins in 1832 and ends in 1834. Proposal 1 implies that the act of taking ownership starts in 1832 and ends in 1834 (and the state of ownership lasts for an unspecified time after that).

That said, "repossession" in proposal 1 has other implications that mean that, to my mind, it is not ideal. Pfainuk talk 20:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, after instructing myself a little bit, it seems you're right on this point. How would you use the term to make a title grammatically correct? I think it would be "British taking of possession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)". --Langus (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer is that I probably wouldn't try. I'd find another way of putting it. Chances are in this case, I would change the context around so that I didn't need to put a noun phrase in at all. The issue with "taking of possession of" for me is that it doesn't sound like the sort of thing that you would naturally say. It may be technically grammatically fine, but it just sounds really clumsy to me. If I came out with it, I'd probably say it with a bit of a wry smile to acknowledge that I could have put it better. You can find it used in Google, but all the examples I found were citing the text of laws and not using the phrase naturally.

One of the frustrating things here is that there are plenty of simple verb phrases that are fine and cover all the bases - such as (Britain took possession/control of the Falklands in 1833) - but none that we've yet come up with that easily and naturally converts to the noun-phrase required by policy without circumlocution (the status quo) or potentially unintended implications. This is partly why I thought a switch to History of the Falkland Islands (18xx–18xx) and altering the scope of the article appropriately might be a good idea. Pfainuk talk 23:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. --Langus (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• oppose neutral People seem to be voting in each of the three alternatives so I had better maintain my balance by being clear. I have now voted in each of the three alternatives. As I have said elsewhere, I am perfectly willing to remove myself from the voting entirely if directly requested by one or more of you --Senra (Talk) 19:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, this "re" is redundant if years are indicated. The "re" is also not technically accurate since Brittain had previoily not had full control on the islans which they de facto shared with Spain. Chiton magnificus (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

#3 Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands

• Oppose neutral retaining this existing title for the reason that there has been long discussion and it is my belief that there is strong consensus against this existing title. Anyway, I voted support for #1 above :) --Senra (Talk) 13:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I am prepared to change but if nothing better emerges then I prefer to keep this. It is not neutral to choose a title that does not reflect the history of the settlement of the islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Accept as a neutral but imperfect solution. I'm unwilling to support it for reasons already detailed: I think we all agree it's a bit rubbish. The whole preposition thing is, IMO, technically fair but too small a detail. The whole thing is rather unwieldy. (As an aside, I would suggest that in any case, instances elsewhere where the title is used elsewhere should probably be replaced with descriptive verb phrases such as "Britain took control of the Falkland Islands".) Pfainuk talk 20:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as no sources are provided to support this title. --Langus (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: "re" implies an understanding that the islands were at some point fully British. Chiton magnificus (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, and as I am not contributing directly to the article, I feel I should not vote here. I have therefore withdrawn my votes --Senra (Talk) 16:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I Suggest Reestablishment of British settlement on the islands, as British had never before Ruled the islands nor has complete possesion of them, as their previous presence in the islands was contemporary with French or Spanish, so they certainly didnt rule and if they possesed anything it was the small island where they where installed and not the rest of the island, which were in parts ocupied by France or Spain or empty land. The fact that the spanish expelled them and they returned to port Egmont after the Spanish agreed to allow The British to return (with or without a secret agreement to abandoning the islands later as they did) would seem to suggest that if anyone ruled the islands at that time it was the spanish. 190.229.17.23 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

I plan to set up auto-archiving of this article talk page.

I will set it to auto-archive discussions that are older than 90 days but to retain at least 8 threads, and to add appropriate links at the top of this page.

If anyone objects, please say so, here. If there's no objections after about a week, I will implement this. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  10:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Support This is a good idea that will help us focus --Senra (Talk) 11:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Was planning to try and set it up myself but better you do it as I've never done it before. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Thank you! --Langus (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

 Doing...  Chzz  ►  07:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done [1] - of course, the params could be changed via agreement. Active editors may wish to change;

|minthreadsleft = 8
|algo = old(90d)

...but it's a start. HTH.  Chzz  ►  22:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Should I remain patient or is there something wrong? I checked the archive code and it seems fine to me. However, I don't think the archive has happened as there are still at least three old threads on this page --Senra (Talk) 11:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Having examined the documentation for the parameter |minthreadsleft= within User:MiszaBot/config I feel able to suggest, that in this talk page at least, we should set the value of minthreadsleft to 5 not 8 --Senra (Talk) 16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me.  Chzz  ►  16:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like nobody objects, so I've just changed it, to 5. Let's see how that goes.  Chzz  ►  17:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

USS Lexington

Wee, as you must remember some passages of the text you added[2] from the main article were once contended over NPOV concerns. I'd like to see if we can work on it to reach an agreement.

New text:

"In 1831, Luis Vernet seized three American vessels (Breakwater, Superior and Harriet) hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the mainland, bringing senior officers of the American vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. The American consul protested violently against the seizure of American ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US Government for compensation (rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885) Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo, where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers."

Problems I still find with the text in bold:

• Vernet never returned to the islands after the incident (and he wasn't there either), so he wouldn't know firsthand the amount of damage the Lexington inflicted. He's not the best source for this;
• noting that the claim was rejected tends to discredit Vernet's version;
• the reader may think that Vernet had reasons to lie in a trial (i.e., money)

I suggest we use Matthew Brisbane account (corroborated by other settlers) that Capt. Fitzroy collected in his diaries: [3]

"but the Lexington ruined it: Captain Duncan's men did such harm to the houses and gardens. I was myself treated as a pirate—rowed stern foremost on board the Lexington—abused on her quarter-deck most violently by Captain Duncan—treated by him more like a wild beast than a human being—and from that time guarded as a felon, until I was released by order of Commodore Rogers."

Fitzroy writes: "I afterwards interrogated an old German, while Brisbane was out of sight, and after him a young native of Buenos Ayres, who both corroborated Brisbane's account."

It could be something like "The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though remaining inhabitants told of damage to private property as well".

Thoughts? --Langus (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. If you'd wanted to add the Fitzroy and Brisbane quote thats one thing - I in fact quote it on History of the Falkland Islands, that I would have agreed with. Reverting wholesale as you repeatedly do is not acceptable. I have reverted you for now and will edit the Brisbane quote in later. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen. Let's not start another battle. I have no access to these sources so I cannot help on the content but I do recall from the policy verifiabilty (neutrality) that "All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ... Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: '[Duncan (Lexington log) records] that X, while [Matthew Brisbane] maintains that Y,' followed by an inline citation.... Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say". At this moment, I would suggest that neither of your content additions achieve this. One or both of you please feel free to tell me to butt-out here, as I had previously declared I only wish to help on the title renaming issue --Senra (Talk) 09:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Senra, the text I added was lifted and copy edited from Falkland Islands there was no need to revert it at all - its already accepted . I have no problem including the Brisbane quote and have done so [4]. As it happens it provides a neat way to introduce Fitzroy's concern over the gap in the rule of law in the settlement. All he had to do was change/add a few words not revert wholesale. Eliminating Vernt's later claims is suppressing information for which there is a clear reason to include. Whats worse is he reverted to a version that did not present all the facts. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's a WP policy saying that consensus on one article can affect or have influence on another one, I'm going to defend my stance here. Please lets not turn this into edit warring. I reverted the whole paragraph for the sake of coherence and because that's what one is supposed to do when there's disagreement on new text (WP:BRD, and I stress 'D'). Note that I didn't touch a word from the rest of your contribution.

Senra, the source for Brisbane is in the reference I provided, you can find it here.

I'd be of course in favor of an inline citation like you propose ('[Duncan (Lexington log) records] that X, while [Matthew Brisbane] maintains that Y'). In fact, I'll just be BOLD and put that in right away.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I take it you missed I'd included that information and an extensive quote in the article already? I have reverted as you had included the same information twice. Your stance as you put is not defendable, you're making accusations of POV editing to justify an edit, when the fact that the information is verifiable is enough. What is POV editing is removing relevant information such as Vernet's later claims stemming from the incident. Wikipedia is collaborative and you don't collaborate by justifying your actions the way you choose to do. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Before this gets out of hand I recommend that ...

List of events

At 03:13 on 2 November 2011, Langus-TxT (talk · contribs) made a comment on the talk page concerning Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs)'s recent edits to Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands followed two minutes later by a partial revert Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs) came along at 08:18 on 2 November 2011 and fully reverted Langus-TxT (talk · contribs)'s partial revert followed three minutes later by a short comment (compared to Langus-TxT (talk · contribs)'s) on the talk page. Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs) then made a few more edits to the article [5],[6] and[7] At 09:21 on 2 November 2011 Senra (talk · contribs) saw what was happening and attempted to get you both focussing on content rather than each other At 12:39 on 2 November 2011 Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs) defended himself on the talk page At 04:08 on 3 November 2011 Langus-TxT (talk · contribs) defended himself on the talk page At 08:02 on 3 November 2011 Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs) made some changes to Langus-TxT (talk · contribs)'s edits followed six minutes later by an explanation on the talk page --Senra (Talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

... you should both (for the moment) stop editing the article and discuss any proposed changes here on the talk page --Senra (Talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points. Langus needs to stop making allegations of POV editing and nuances about the text I write that don't exist. I'm fed up with it, its been going on since his first edit. He also needs to read comments on the talk page before he goes ahead as its clear above I'd included the quote he wanted. As regards Senra's comment, you could have added that prior to this Langus edited [8], which I merely copy edited to correct a few errors [9],[10]. Thats an example of collaborative editing, his approach is combative. And btw his "partial revert" was a full revert of one of my edits for info. I will stop editing for now. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WCM you're once again taking this personally. WP:BRD <-- I know for a fact that you know very well how this works, in fact I think you've introduced me to the system. Why aren't you playing by the rules?? I don't want any quote to be included, I just want the two versions presented with the same weight, as WP policies suggest. And I can say the same about collaborative editing: the text you corrected was an expansion of an edition of yours: [11] [12].

I will revert to last consensus version now. Please note that this doesn't constitute "editing" the article, it's just the application of WP:BRD.

My proposal, following Senra's formulation: "Captain Silas Duncan records in the Lexington log that only arms and a powder store were destroyed, while Matthew Brisbane, who was in charge of Puerto Luis at that moment, maintains that private property was also damaged", with the rest of the paragraph as proposed by WCM. The only extra information that the in-text citation has is to introduce Matthew Brisbane, but nothing further. WCM please refrain from re-introducing your paragraph and work with us. --Langus (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I kept my promise not to edit and I will stick to it. What did was revert again, wholesale, not a partial revert at all. You broke the requested moratorium on editing, I did not.

I do not agree with this proposal, the problem with Vernet's claims was a major sticking point in US/Argentine relations for nearly a century. To suppress mentioning they exist is nothing more than CENSORSHIP. I have already included the information requested, together with an extensive quote. Far more extensive than asked for above and your position here is completely and utterly illogical. Worse still by mentioning it twice as you are demanding is giving undue prominence to certain nationalist claims and is distinctly POV. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

The first sentence of the reliable sources guideline informs us that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)". I believe discussions on this talk page generally take this approach. However, further within WP:RS we have a brief discussion on the types of sources. This is expanded in the policy document Wikipedia:No original research in the section: primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The Wikipedia articles on primary sources and secondary sources, whilst not policy nor guidelines, may also be worth consulting.

My concern is the possibility that we may be straying into primary source territory when discussing the log of the Lexington and the recollections, via his diary, of Captain FitzRoy. The way I interpret the above policy and guideline material, we should take care that such primary sources are backed-up by reliable secondary sources: if no such secondary sources are available, I suggest we cannot use those primary sources.

Compared to involved editors, I am not as familiar with the sources for this event and I am not really familiar with the nuances of primary vs secondary sourcing. This paragraph, from WP:RS may be useful: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors".

--Senra (Talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. Referring to secondary sources to see how they treat the log of the Lexington and Vernet's account may resolve the issue in the above thread. I see that The Dictionary of Falklands Biography was used as a source for Vernet's statement, but how was the conflict with the Lexington's log explained? To this end less general sources may need to be consulted. Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of interpretations in the literature about the difference between Vernet's later claims and the log of the Lexington. Argentine sources almost exclusively portrat Vernet's account of the complete destruction of the settlement. Other sources comment about the tax incentives for Vernet in setting up his settlement, it would be tax exempt if established within 3 years, and that it formed a convenient excuse. Personally I feel it better to simply state the two opposing views and not get drawn into discussion/interpretation. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If the secondary sources do not agree on the interpretation of the primary documents that's precisely the type of information that should be included. If those views are equally represented in the literature, the best solution would be to concisely explain the position of each party with reasons. That way the reader is made aware of the issues of historiography surrounding the incident. Nev1 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well you could do that but then every article on the Falklands becomes an essay on Argentina's sovereignty claims. There is more to the place than that. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A sentence or two on the differing approaches doesn't seem like too much to ask, and would avoid discussions such as the one above which centres on weighing up the primary sources. Nev1 (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you edited in an area like this before? My experience on these articles over the last 4 years tends shows that there is a tendency to turn every article into an opus about the dispute. The usual cry is that its just a few words or just a couple of sentences. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not edited in this area before, but I have edited in disputed areas before. Presenting both viewpoints was my suggestion, but I am open to others. Nev1 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Have you edited in an area like this before?" doesn't look like a WP:CIVIL response... neither does your personal attacks on me, but I'm used to them.

"Well you could do that but then every article on the Falklands becomes an essay on Argentina's sovereignty claims." --> Slippery slope fallacy. --Langus (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I was having a perfectly reasonable conversation with someone else Langus, if you think it was uncivil then take it to WP:ANI, in fact I positively urge you to do so. As to your comments about "slippery slope fallacy", you might like to read WP:PETARD when ponitificating about incivility. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought asking if I'd edited in a similar area before was a reasonable question. Good intentions rarely outweigh experience. While I think calling it uncivil is wide of the mark I can see how it would be possible to contrue it as such. When faced text alone it can be difficult to guage the meaning behind a question or statement (in the real world we have facial expressions, tone of voice, and even posture to help us decide the meaning which we lack on Wikipedia). Nev1 (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If Nev1 didn't see anything wrong with the expression, then I guess I got the tone wrongly. Sorry about that. Still, I sustain my point about the way you treat me and the fallacy you're using to call for intransigence. Instead of focusing on the contributors and their experience/alleged intentions, you should be addressing the problem at hand. --Langus (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Langus, you were just plain wrong, none of that was even written with you in mind. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we have secondary sources that endorse Duncan's account?

For the pillage of the settlement, I have found:

Sources for destruction of buildings and private property

Barry M. Gough, The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843. Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2 (1990). Page 268. (citing FitzRoy but not mentioning Duncan's version): "In these circumstances, Vernet could not ward off the many sealers, most of them American. In 1829 he warned some of them and in 1831 his deputies confined several persons, took them to Buenos Aires, and delivered them to the government. 'This act, and various circumstances arising out of it,' wrote Fitz-Roy, 'drew upon him [Vernet] and his unfortunate colony the hasty indignation of Captain Silas Duncan of the United States corvette Lexington. On his own responsibility, and without waiting to communicate with his government, Duncan sailed from the Rio de la Plata to the Falklands, where he surprised, assaulted, and made prisoners of many offending people, and unwarrantably destroyed both property and buildings.'" Reisman, W. Michael, The Struggle for The Falklands (1983). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 726. Pages 299-300: "The Lexington arrived at Puerto Soledad at the end of December 1831; its crew arrested nearly all the inhabitants, seized all the weapons, sacked the houses, and seized some seal skins. They took seven Argentinians in irons to Montevideo and released them to the Argentinian government only on assurances that they had acted under governmental authority. Goebel reported that the Lexington's commander did not record any of these transactions in his logbook. There seems to be no substantial controversy over the basic facts of the intervention, although President Jackson transformed them substantially in his Annual Message to Congress" Lowell S. Gustafson, The sovereignty dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press, 1988. Page 24: "On 28 December 1831 Duncan arrived in the Lexington just off Port Soledad. He and his men went ashore, took the colony's weapons, burned its powder, razed the buildings, seized some sealskins, and arrested most of the inhabitants. He declared the islands res nullis and left with six Argentines in irons. The Argentines were freed in Montevideo." Harold F. Peterson, Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960. SUNY Press, 1964. Page 106: "During this epistolary bout in Buenos Aires, Commander Duncan and the Lexington had reached the Falklands, where late in December the vessel entered Berkeley Sound allegedly flying the Fench flag. Duncan proceeded to disarm the island, loot the settlements, and arrest some of the inhabitants. He declared the island government at an end and carried away as prisoners Matthew Brisbane, one of Vernet's aides, and six other persons".

Regards. --Langus (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

Tatham p.544 "There is no evidence that Duncan's men did any significant damage to the houses. Accounts saying that the settlement was sacked or "razed" are untrue." Some extra quotes from Gustafson: p.35 When Argentina revived its claims against the Lexington raid in 1884, President Cleveland said in his 1885 annual message that Duncan did no more than break up a piratical colony And from Peterson p.115 Alvear learned for the first time that the American government had long since approved of Commander Duncan's conduct. p.117 In view of the ample justification for the act of the Lexington and the derelict condition of the island before and after their alleged occupation by Argentine colonials this Government considers the claim as wholly groundless Though I do not Cawkell supports the comment of the destruction of the settlement. Duncan's report is here [13], this also includes some quotes from Goebbel that give the Argentine version of events. Some others [14],[15],[16] This is a contemporary account that paints a rather different picture [17].

Some additional quotes and links above. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It has been adviced that we avoid Tatham's Dictionary of Falklands Biography altogether when dealing with controversial/disputed facts.[18] Also, remember[19] we should always cite that book referencing the author of the particular passage we are dealing with, as many of them have no expertise on the field.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tatham is a reliable source and the experts therein are noted in the field. The fact that others, including the now banned disruptive editor Alex79818, lobbied at RSN to have it excluded from wikipedia does not mean it cannot be used in discussions. It is not being used as a cite in the article. I also noted your "bump" earlier, I also realise that I have left the Brisbane quote in the article and so now the article is completely unbalanced. I am self-reverting much of that material for now. In addition, I saw your bump my opinion has not changed and I had already responded. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

...I honestly don't know what to respond to this. FiachraByrne (talk), Elen of the Roads (talk), AerobicFox (talk) et al are uninvolved editors who in any way were forced or co-opted to support anything. Also note that this 'discussion' is about including content in an article, so we're effectively talking about using this source as a reference.

You may want to ask for advice on your stance here. --Langus (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The article in question was written by Professor John B Hattendof D Phil FRHist S., at the time of publication he was the Ernest J King Professor of Maritime history, US Naval War College. Are you claiming this isn't a reliable source? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I'm noting that Tatham was discussed at WP:RSN and uninvolved editors suggested that we avoid using it on disputed matters. --Langus (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Brisbane's quote & Fitzroy's impressions

If we're to include what Fitzroy & Darwin reported during their visit to the Falklands, I don't understand why Fitzroy's impressions about the state of the settlement after the Lexington are to be removed. We're echoing his "concern for the settlement with its lack of regular authority", and Darwin's view on Falklands history ("Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual", "England claimed her right", etc.), yet were taking away from the article a passage because it makes the article "completely unbalanced"?
a) I just don't see it;
b) Fitzroy's account is interesting and is properly attributed, sourced information that IMO adds to the article.

Despite this last point, as noted before this is a primary source. We're pretty much basing half of the 'Aftermath' section on primary sources, which doesn't feel right. I'm open to suggestions that involve the whole Fitzroy's and Darwin's accounts, but I'm against selectively picking those impressions.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That was my edit, which I self-reverted as the article was wholly unbalanced by presenting solely one side. It still is. Do not restore that material until this is resolved. At present we have a stalemate where you won't allow me to edit to reflect the range of views as you simply veto everything and claim there is no consensus. I had included the quote you demanded and yet you still reverted the part of my edit that YOU and solely YOU don't like. If you can't see the article is unbalanced by presenting only evidence that backs up the Argentine version of events then really should you be editing here as your POV is clearly clouding your judgement. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion particularly closely, but if I may make some comments:

The article is currently very unbalanced in that the aftermath section and background section are each significantly longer than the discussion of the event itself. The part of the article that is actually in scope is the Arrival of the squadron section. Everything else - the bulk of the article - is only there to put that section into context.

It seems to me that this can be fixed by reducing those sections, or by expanding the scope to include the immediate background and aftermath. For example, we might choose to consider the entire period from the Lexington Raid to the installation of Lt. Smith to be part of the "re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands". We'd do this by changing the section headings and possibly the the lede, with the text reworded as required.

Langus' suggestion that we use Darwin's entire account or Fitzroy's entire account is a non-starter. Darwin's account certainly runs to many pages, and I can't imagine that Fitzroy's is exactly short. I don't see anything wrong with taking pertinent quotes from those (with the standard provisoes), but the whole thing is obviously better based on reliable secondary sources.

I'd finally note that much of that part of Fitzroy's account that Curry Monster removed is actually Brisbane's account of the Lexington Raid. I would suggest that this is rightly removed, because it's off the topic of the aftermath of Britain's taking control. Pfainuk talk 19:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, I agree with you about the imbalance between the aftermath/background sections and the main one, but not on a POV imbalance as expressed by WCM. Yet, if you two think that the quote is rightly removed, for whatever reason, then I won't push it further on a trivial matter like this.

WCM, I suggest you stop talking about ME when we should be addressing article content. Notes on contributors are not helpful here. You may open a request for comment on me (or any other measures) if you want to. --Langus (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a POV imbalance, at this point we don't mention facts about the Lexington raid are disputed. And the problem is one editor blocking progress with a veto. I might just do that. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is N-NPOV Wee Curry Monster is arguing against? Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations with the US

...diplomatic relations with the US remained ruptured till 1839.

Francis Baylies was the United States Chargé d'Affaires in office 15 June 1832 – 26 September 1832, preceded by John M. Forbes, succeeded by William Brent, Jr.

You'll note the very short term in office. This was because the officials of the Republic of Buenos Aires refused to recognise his status. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I can get some expert advice here with Edmund Roberts (diplomat), which is a mess because I keep haring off to post factoids in other articles, like Peacock's and Baylies's; and perhaps next, in Hail, Columbia's. My interest isn't really in him, but that he arrived on USS Peacock (1828) with Roberts, who wrote:

Having replenished our partially-exhausted stock of sea-stores, and the commodore being with the squadron at La Plata, we were compelled, reluctantly, to proceed to that place and set sail accordingly, on the twentieth of May. The situation of our squadron at La Plata, arose out of difficulties which existed between the Argentine Republic and that of the United States, consequent upon the unlawful and unfriendly capture of American vessels, sealing among the Falkland islands, by order of Vemet, the governor; and from the proper and spirited conduct of Captain Duncan, commander of the Lexington, in removing the colony to Montevideo, and thereby, most effectually cutting off all further depredations upon our commerce. [26] We received the customary assistance of boats, from the various men of war, in towing the ship out of the harbour. As we passed the British line-of-battle ship Plantagenet, the band of musicians struck up our national air of "Hail Columbia." On the thirtieth, we made St. Marys, being the northern cape at the entrance of the river. A brisk breeze the day following, accompanied with misty weather, wafted us, at midnight, within four miles of the isle of Flores, on which we found an excellent revolving light; and the weather clearing up, we saw the dull light which crowned the hill called Montevideo. Sail was then shortened to maintain our position until daylight; but in the course of three hours, a strong current running out of the river had forced us into four and a half fathoms of water, on the edge of the English bank. We anchored, on the second of June, in the roadstead of Montevideo, near thee United States’ ship Lexington. On the next morning, we again sailed, with a strong easterly gale, for Buenos Ayres, and at noon anchored in three and a half fathoms of water, off Pinta de India, in thick weather and a bad sea. In the afternoon, it became sufficiently clear for us to obtain a glimpse of the tops of some trees; sail was again made and on the fifth, we came too, in the outer Balissas, near to the United States’ ship Warren, under the command of Acting-Commodore Cooper, and the schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant-Commodore Downing. Having landed Mr. Baylies and family, and taken in provisions for our voyage across the South Atlantic and Indian oceans, we sailed on the nineteenth, and in four days arrived at Montevideo. As we passed to our anchorage ground, H. B. M. frigate Druid, A. R. Hamilton, commander, complimented our flag by her musicians playing "Hail Columbia," which cheered our hearts and created a kindly feeling in us towards our English brethren.

The "English brethren" likely recognized Peacock has having been previously commissioned in 1812 and fought the last naval engagement of the War of 1812, despite protests by the British captain that the war was over. --Pawyilee (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: Would predecessor John M. Forbes be one and the same as John Murray Forbes, or did I make too much of a leap? Was he the "consul" who ordered Duncan's raid? And was successor William Brent, Jr., the son of William Leigh Brent? --Pawyilee (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-establishment?

The name of this article is incorrect, the British only occupied a small island between 1765 and 1774, where they established Port Egmont, while other parts of the archipelago was occupied successively by French and Spanish. Before 1833 there was never a British government over the Falkland Islands, but on a small island of them. There can be no re-establishment of something that was never established. Greetings.Nerêo (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this seems like POV, at least. I'd support a move to, say, UK occupation of the Falkland Islands (1833) (or a better suggestion if anybody has one) Khendon (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the extensive discussion in the archives. There have been a regular progression of editors coming here alleging this is POV, whilst at the same time promoting names that establish a particular national narrative, for information its an established term used in neutral 3rd party sources. Whilst willing to consider alternatives, we should be wary of the sensitivity around anything on this topic, and also that everyone who has come here with that comment has been unable to suggest a better alternative. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the regular challenge to this title by occasional editors passing by should hint you that this is not a neutral statement but a political charged one. Nerêo has correctly pointed out its historical inaccuracy, as myself noted more than a year ago. It's the British equivalent to the Argentine expression "British invasion of the Falkland Islands".

The last time we discussed this can be found here.

Regards. --Langus (t) 18:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, its politically charged because being neutral it offends certain nationalist sensitivities; who will only accept their nationalist POV. The current title is used by neutral 3rd party sources. You of course forget, so I shall remind you, this is not a BRITISH term, it is not a BRITISH equivalent, which is why it was chosen in the first place. Please in future, get your facts straight. And as I recall, though others were willing to consider changes the failure do so was down to the fact you frustrated a consensus position. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As usual, you recall incorrectly. It's all there in the archives. The fact remains that "re-establishment" is factually incorrect, at least when applied to "the Falklands Islands". If the 3rd parties are neutral, then they must be very misinformed, don't you think? --Langus (t) 01:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is very interesting to me. You state its "factually incorrect"; in your personal opinion. Err, not so long ago, I pointed out Lopez attributed a claim to Goebels that Goebels did not support, you were singularly hostile and deeply unpleasant in the manner in which you adamant we had to repeat the claim in Lopez, even though its "factually incorrect". So now neutral 3rd parties are "misinformed" based on your personal opinion. I find the double standards you employ simply fascinating.

Reviewing the archive, its clear my memory is not faulty, you were very singular in pursuing the one line and were usually in the minority of any suggestion. Whilst singly mindedly advocating the Argentine POV MUST be represented, you seek to remove something alleging (falsely I might add) that is British.

Whatever, yelling its not neutral but not offering suggestions as usual is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wee, my conditional support is right there in the archive:

NOTE: I am willing to accept this title if no further opposition arises. I believe it has the same flaws that current title, but at least is used by some sources. 04:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So again: as usual, you recall incorrectly.

Which in turn reminds me something I had forgotten: current title is not supported by secondary sources. That's a big no-no, but of course this doesn't bother you at all.

Regarding "factually incorrect": I have enough humility to not try to outsmart or correct secondary, reliable sources. I was trying to be ironic about your "neutral" sources. --Langus (t) 23:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, as we found the last time the current title is supported by secondary sources, the written record shows this. So its simply ludicrous to claim otherwise. And the personal attacks are rather wasted space, since as has been pointed out before, there is a willingness to change the name as no one is entirely happy with it. This doesn't mean we'll change it to a non-neutral name. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Khendon, Nerêo and Langus (that's four editors Wee), the title needs to be changed. I like Khendon's proposal very much: UK occupation of the Falkland Islands (1833) and would definitely support its usage instead of the current POV title. What do the rest of the editors say? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever Gaba, I suggest you stop following me around, it is getting easier to demonstrate a clear case of WP:HOUND. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wee in case you haven't noticed by now, much like yourself (and quite a number of other editors) I follow several Falkland-related articles. If you want to accuse me of "hound" every time I comment on an article you commented on that's fine. Do keep in mind it's a ridiculous accusation though, but you're totally free to make them (you'll keep making them anyway so... no point in me getting mad) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As has been discussed in detail in the past, "occupation" is inaccurate and biased. It is inaccurate because no occupation of any kind actually occurred in 1833. The British did not leave any new settlement or settlers, or military presence, on the islands in 1833. It's biased because to the modern ear "occupation" in this context tends to imply a military occupation of foreign territory: the British would argue that the Falklands were British at this time and this is the sort of matter of opinion that we should not be prejudging.

Incidentally, Langus' claim that the current title is the British equivalent of the Argentine-biased "British invasion" is simply false.

The issue claimed that the current title refers to prior British rule over the entire archipelago is addressed by the use of the preposition "on" rather than, say, "over" or "of". It's a fine distinction and it's fair to say that no-one is completely happy with it. But we can't neutrally imply that there was no British control on the Falklands before 1833, and it is reasonable to argue that no power before the mid-nineteenth century genuinely controlled the entire archipelago (other than by default). The only genuine control during this period would have been over the immediate vicinity of settlements.

The key thing here is "a better suggestion if anybody has one". I don't think anyone genuinely thinks that the current title is genuinely good, and all of these issues have been cogitated at some length. If we had a better suggestion that accurately and neutrally reflected the events that occurred, we'd be using it. But we don't. While we have had several people coming along and calling POV, ultimately most such arguments have come down to telling us that we should be using terms that are inaccurate, biased or both - such as "British occupation" or "British invasion". The exception was the change that resulted in the current title: the previous one was Re-assertion of British sovereignty of the Falklands. Kahastok talk 17:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

British expedition to the Falkland Islands (1833)? Khendon (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my english. The name I propose is Establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. This name is according to the story, and does not carry the burden of the word propaganda "Re-establishment", which seeks to impose the falsehood that the British dominated the Falkland Islands before 1833. Greetings.--Nerêo (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry no, Britain had a prior establishment on the Falkland Islands, so a reference to a prior establishment is neither propaganda nor a falsehood. Denying that it existed in reference to a nationalist view point is both. The use of "on" is carefully crafted to signify that no one is claiming that prior British rule did not extend over the entire archipelago. For that reason, ie that is is not neutral, the name you suggest is not acceptable and has already been rejected. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd accept Nerêo's proposal with a slight change: Establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (1833) or Khendon's previous one: UK occupation of the Falkland Islands (1833). Remember that no editor has a veto power over any edit so if there is broad consensus to make an edit, we proceed with it. Langus, Nerêo and Khendon, would you accept one of the titles I presented and if so which one? (I'm not asking Wee and Kahastok because I know they are against them, which is noted) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither do you have a mandate to impose a change which removes the existing consensus. And you will also have to establish a move request. Stop being utterly confrontational in every aspect of your edits on Falklands topics Alex please. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Both ideas are biased and "occupation" is also factually incorrect. The fact that you, Gaba (and apparently only you), persist with "occupation" even after it's been pointed out that it will mislead the reader is concerning.

As to British expedition, I'm a touch concerned it sounds like Amundsen's South Pole expedition or the 1953 British Mount Everest Expedition, but I'm happy to listen to other opinions on it. Kahastok talk 18:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that Britain ruled the Falklands before 1833, the UK had a base that was in command of a commander, not a governor. That military base in Port Egmont was hidden and was not known to other countries until it was discovered by the Spanish who sought because they assumed their existence because the French colonists British ships had been sighted. Today the United States has bases in Antarctica and that does not mean that rules over it.--Nerêo (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty one-sided version of history, and even given that you're splitting some pretty minor hairs. The fact is that there was British rule on the Falklands. That rule may have covered a small part of the Falklands - but the same would probably apply to just about every settlement on the islands before the mid-nineteenth century. That's how these things worked in this period. The only rule over the entire archipelago was by default. Kahastok talk 19:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How about British settlement on the Falkland Islands (1833) then? Khendon (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

From WP:TITLE:

"Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable."

More detail can be found in section WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.

What I'm saying is that I won't support any title coming solely from WP editor's opinion and research. Please include secondary sources in your propositions.

@Kahastok: do you know of any reliable source that refers to this event as "Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands"? --Langus (t) 18:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Kahastok and Sweet Nipples only you have "dismissed" the term occupation so far, I've seen no other editor do so. Also, you will notice I'm not fixated on a single idea and I am in fact supporting several titles, like British settlement on the Falkland Islands (1833) which I also find acceptable. It is you who are against any change being made to the current POV title. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think that particular piece of incivility is going to improve relations here.

British settlement again is factually inaccurate. No British settlement of any kind was established, founded or otherwise created on the Falklands in 1833. No new British settlers of any kind, including military personnel, were left on the islands in 1833.

The current title is as NPOV as we can make it. I would like to see an improvement. But change is not the same thing as improvement. And I will not endorse just any change if the change is not an improvement. If the change is biased or gets its facts wrong, then it is not an improvement. No proposal that you have made is an improvement on the status quo. Kahastok talk 19:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The title "Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands" could refer to 1982. From that point of view alone it has shortcomings. Martinvl (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I made rather the same point when the change was made in 2010 (the rationale was "unnecessary dab"), though there are rather better names to describe the British response in 1982 (not least Operation Corporate). I have no problem with "Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (1833)". Kahastok talk 23:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the only thing we can say about secondary sources in this particular case is that we shouldn't have a title containing a fact disputed by reliable sources. I'm not an expert in the history, but "re-establishment" certainly seems to be disputed. "Establishment ... (1833)" would be an improvement (if probably not the best solution), as the year makes it clear there has been more than one such event. Khendon (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Establishment" rather implies that there was no prior settlement, which is not accurate. There was a prior British settlement on the islands in 1765-76. Kahastok talk 23:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The title is not "Re-establishment of British settlement" so no, there's no such implication. Also, you can refer to an establishment as "establishment" even if it is the second, third, fourth one, etc. You can not refer to an establishment as "re-establishment" if it is the first one. And we're talking about "a rule" (a: the exercise of authority or control : dominion; b: a period during which a specified ruler or government exercises control)[20], not a settlement. A settlement alone doesn't imply control over an area except perhaps the very same boundaries of that settlement.

Regarding the argument of the value of the "on" preposition: while grammatically correct, it is misleading, imprecise. E.g.: "Re-Establishment of British rule on Latin America" would be acceptable under your argument.

May I ask you again for secondary sources for this title? Otherwise I'll just assume from now on that it is original research. --Langus (t) 15:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Kahastok don't worry, Wee and I have an agreement: if he calls me anything but my user name (specially "Axel") I'll call him Sweet Nipples. It's a tearm of endearment kind of thing :)

Let's all try to come up with a reliable secondary source to see what this event could be named shall we? I think we all agree the current title is at least misleading and at worst factually incorrect, so it needs to be changed. If no secondary sources are availavle, I say one of the proposed titles:

• British settlement on the Falkland Islands (1833)
• Establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (1833)
• UK occupation of the Falkland Islands (1833)

would be better than the current one. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no benefit in moving from a neutral name to a made up version reflecting the propaganda of any national narrative. There has been a good logical reason against the use of certain terms, hence, to continue to present demands to use them does not show good faith to achieving a consensus position. This is not a British term, its not an Argentine term but as Langus well knows is not used by neutral parties; unless Langus is claiming the Iranian national news agency is favourable to the British position. The archive presents a number of alternatives I'd be happy to contemplate but for the reasons already stated I reject the ones suggested here as they are clearly non-neutral. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There are currently four editors here that do see a problem with the title. Your opposition to any improvement made to it is noted. Also your previous comment was somewhat confusing, specially this part This is not a British term, its not an Argentine term but as Langus well knows is not used by neutral parties... (?). Do you have secondary sources that refer to this event as named in this article? If so please present them. Regards. Gaba p (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, such sources have already been produced, which you haven't. As User:Antandrus notes in his essay observations on wiki behaviour those demanding changes asserting something is not neutral, rarely have either neutrality or the interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"such sources have already been produced" I say you're wrong. Please, prove me wrong. --Langus (t) 20:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, here's a proposal backed by multiple secondary sources: "British seizure of the Falkland Islands". Another option, which would eliminate the controversy over the title: "Falkland Islands Crisis of 1831-1833"; we would have to add the events of 1831 and the USS Lexington. I got that idea from here. --Langus (t) 20:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Even your contention that there ware no sources was accurate, the rules do give us the leeway to describe events accurately, concisely and neutrally in the title if, as in this case, there is no clear common name. The current wordings do this. The fact that a particular wording is used by one or two sources to describe these events shouldn't necessarily be a gamechanger. I don't think "seizure" is accurate in implication, given that no force was used.

I did a survey of sources previously and found that most actually use a verb phrase such as "Britain took possession of the islands" or "Britain took control of the islands", where as Wikipedia prefers noun phrases for article titles. I don't see why such verb phrases shouldn't be used elsewhere. But you can't generally convert these verb phrases into noun phrases, because the phrases produced don't sound natural. We did seriously discuss "British repossession" before, though I have my doubts because it sounds to me like that would suggest (inaccurately) that the islands were taken as a response to a failure by Argentina to pay its debts.

I don't think, if we're expanding the topic, it shouldn't merely be expanded from 1831-33. Rather, it should be expanded much further so that it charts how the islands evolved from the site of multiple failed settlements in the mid-1820s to a full-blown British territory with governor in the 1840s. I have previously advocated History of the Falkland Islands (1823-1841) as a reasonable and clearly neutral name, if we're going in that direction. I feel that such an expansion would, if we can achieve the changes required, improve the reader's understanding of these events as a continuum. Kahastok talk 20:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Gustafson argues that force was indeed used, as a dissuasive element. And if "seizure" implicates force, then all those sources are agreeing with him.

History of the Falkland Islands (1823-1841) is a good idea. The only issue I see is that the arrival of the Clio and the departure of Pinedo is a very important event that is probably worthy of its own article. Falkland Islands Crisis of 1831-1833 has the same problem, but it's narrowly focused. All in all, both can can put an end to this recurring theme. --Langus (t) 21:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Force was of course used in the 1833 incident, multiple sources agree on this (even Gustafson) Given this British seizure of the Falkland Islands (1833) would also acceptable, even more considering the existence of sources referring to that event as such. At this point we should list all the possible titles proposed and cast a vote, there are quite a few acceptable options already. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Both of you must realise you are trying to impose a singular view when in fact the historical record shows no force was used. We're not going to accept anything that reinforces and entrenches the POV of any side here. WP:CONSENSUS is not a WP:VOTE. In polarising discussions between the neutral and reinforcing Argentine claims consensus will be impossible. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

[21] I will take that challenge Langus, do I win £5. Remember you tried to wikilawyer away the sources claiming one referred to wikipedia and the other post dated the article. Mmmm, how many times do I have to prove you wrong before you take the hint?

Was that the 8th or 9th time you lobbied for a none neutral title, I lose count. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article currently says "In December 1832, two naval vessels were sent by the United Kingdom to re-assert British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands" and seems to have said that or something similar for a while. On that basis, it seems like Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833) ought to be easy to get a consensus for. Khendon (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, that was the previous name of the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wee, no pay for you yet: that book is, in my opinion, largely based on Wikipedia. And, if I recall correctly, its author wasn't exactly a "reliable source". I'll repeat what I said to Slatersteven at that time:

[the books] use the expression "ever since the British re-established rule in 1833" and "Ever since Britain re-established its rule of the islands back in 1833, Argentina has claimed sovereignty". Both are very similar to the old version of the lede: "Ever since the re-establishment of British rule in 1833, Argentina has claimed sovereignty". Slatersteven, do you have any source that uses this expression prior to its inclusion by us in Wikipedia?? I'm telling you, we're doing exactly this, and its atrocious.

"Reassertion" looks like a good compromise solution to me. Barry Gough uses assertion/reassertion of sovereignty, and reoccupation when referring to these events in the paper "The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843" (If anyone wants to read the paper, just drop me an email). --Langus (t) 14:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As was pointed out the last time, the use of that phrase predates wikipedia, so wikipedia and the sources mentioned reflect that. Yes there are sources that use that expression prior to its use on wikipedia, as wikipedia is a secondary source it reflects expressions used in other sources. On the link I posted above, they're mentioned. This is classic WP:IDHT. How can a book be based on wikipedia when its written before it existed? Every time you demand a source and one is provided you seek to justify ignoring it, if its inconvenient to your agenda. Yet equally you'll defend a less than reliable source if it reinforces your own prejudice. Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A Damn Close-Run Thing: A Brief History of the Falklands Conflict, by Russell Phillips, published by Russell Phillips, 13/09/2011. I'm tempted to comment about your behaviour but I believe that the problem is plain to see. --Langus (t) 19:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes kudos, you got me, my mistake. That book was published later. The point that the phrase is reliably sourced remains, that you also seek to discount sources remains. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Btw the point that you were aware this is sourced but denied it remains. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sourced with an unreliable source? With newspapers who copy-pasted from Wikipedia?

I suggest you take some fresh air. --Langus (t) 21:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you allege that is the case, to justify ignoring it. Criticism by speculation does not get rid of inconvenient references. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not worth getting into an argument over Wee's childish actions Langus, his behaviour in WP makes his agenda more clear every day. I can only imagine what he would have accused you or me or any other editor of if we were trying to use such a source. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as an outsider this whole discussion seems to be a bit Forumy and has increasingly diverged from discussion of the specific topic. That is not to take sides - but just to point out that talk pages of articles are not the place for airing personal greviances. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Propose move to "Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)"

As discussed above, I'd like to propose this article be moved to Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833). What are your views? Khendon (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd support this. It seems to cover all the bases in terms of neutrality/descriptive clarity. Obviously its a bit long and clunky, but that is true of the current title as well. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As would I, though I think the current title is better from a neutrality perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have major objections to the current title as it also appears to be pretty neutral. Its signiciant use of the word on rather than over acknowleding a) there was a previous British settlement that did rule over some of the Falklands b) this rule was contested, and could hardly be claimed to extend over all the islands. But I think the proposed title might best describe this intentions of the British in the 1830s. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support --Langus (t) 00:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Curry Monster that the existing title is more neutral. IIRC a major reason for the change away from the proposed title was that we wanted to avoid the word "sovereignty" and the potential for non-neutral implications arising from it. I won't oppose a change, but I do think the current version is better. Kahastok talk 11:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It's not the title I would choose but at least it's slightly better than the current one. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- As almost everyone involved in the discussion above has already expressed opinion, I've mode the page and its talk page, two archived pages[22][23] (I trust MizaBot will know how to handle them), and fixed one double redirection.[24] If I missed a spot I'll happily accept a wet WP:TROUT. --Langus (t) 22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Categories

I am going to restore the previous category of South America which was removed without discusion, The categories are not POV, but a geographical fact if the continental shelf is included.

1. There was no country called Argentina in 1833;
2. The FI category is logical, but as a sub-category cannot be included along side a parent category this implies that the FI are not part of Argentina, which would upset the 'Greater Argentina' supporters South America covers both categories. Bevo74 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: The issue here is that I included this article in Category:1833 in Argentina and Category:1833 in the Falkland Islands, but Bevo74 prefers Category:1833 in South America Cambalachero (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

First: whatever this incident is called, it's an incident that involves two countries. It is not something that the British did on their own and without involving others. It was not placed in the category "1833 in Argentina" because it happened at a territory that may be Argentine or not, but because Argentine politics were involved in the event and in the immediate aftermath.

Second: Both categories are being used, one for Argentina and one for the islands.

Third: Categories "(year) in (continent)" are parent categories, always empty, articles are meant to be placed at specific subcategories. What does Uruguay, Bolivia or Peru have to do with this article?

Forth: Check the 1826 Constitution: there it says, very clearly, "Constitución de la República Argentina". And, as of 1833, the country was the Argentine Confederation. In any case, the government style (republic, monarchy, confederation, centralism, etc) does not change the nationality. England did not cease being England when Cromwell took power and established The Protectorate, Brazil is Brazil either if as an empire or as a republic, and nazism belongs to the history of Germany, not to the history of an extint and unrelated country named Weimar Republic. Cambalachero (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cambalachero; however I understand that the proposition in may be understood in the way Bevo does. How about the following:

Category:History_of_Argentina

Category:Military_history_of_Argentina

Category:History_of_Argentina_(1880–1916)

Category:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute

Category:Military_operations_involving_Argentina

Cheers. --Langus (t) 00:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Argentina know as such since the 1826 constitution

Wee Curry Monster reverted an edit that corrected the use of the names United Provinces and Argentina. The name Argentina was instated with the 1826 constitution and even though this constitution was rejected shortly after, the name was used from there on in one of its variants (Confederación Argentina, República de la Confederación Argentina, Federación Argentina) [25]. Even more two of its variants (República Argentina, Confederación Argentina) were used along with United Provinces since 1810 as the 1853 constitution states in its 35th article. It is inaccurate to say that in 1833 the name used by the country was United Provinces which is why I made the edit. I'll await comments. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 11:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the previous discussion (here), in 1832/33 the name was the United Provinces, the diplomatic protest by Moreno was done in the name of the United Provinces, the primary name of the pre-cursor state was the United Provinces. The 1826 Constitution lasted barely 6 months and the name of Argentina was not adopted till much later. So the suggestion this is inaccurate does not stand up to scrutiny. We note the name at the time, we indicate it was a pre-cursor state of the modern state of Argentina and it has been a long standing consensus. I see no compelling reason to change it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above, the name used was some variant of Argentina from 1826 onward (Durante el Gobierno de Juan Manuel de Rosas, se emplearon entre otros los nombres de Confederación Argentina, Estados Unidos de la República Argentina, República de la Confederación Argentina y Federación Argentina. [26]). The 35th article of the 1853 constitution makes it clear that as early as 1810 two out of three commonly used names included Argentina (the other one being United Provinces)

Wee Curry Monster, do you have a source for Moreno's diplomatic protest? Because this is a British document, not an Argentine one. Note that an article written about the 1833 incident (the incident this very article is about) in a newspaper of the time refers to the country as Argentina twice [27] never using the name United Provinces. I'll await your sources. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the link to the previous discussion. See also [28], which notes that until 1836, the name United Provinces was predominant, which was changed by User:Cambalachero to remove that information [29]. As we noted previously, several names were used interchangably but the predominant name was the United Provinces, this was why we wrote the article as we did. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Argentine Confederation was established in 1831, with the Federal Pact. As of 1832, with the defeat of the Decembrist revolution, all the Argentine provinces were part of it. As of the Name of Argentina article, it was largely unreferenced except in details here and there, so I rewrote it according to a reference Cambalachero (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand Wee Curry Monster. You are pointing me to a two year old version of an article to prove what? Furthermore that old version of the article is contradictory since it says first that United Provinces of South America was used until around 1836 but below says that:

• During the second government of Juan Manuel de Rosas Confederación Argentina (Argentine Confederation) (founded in 1832) was the main name used for the young country, but others were also used, including República de la Confederación Argentina (Republic of the Argentine Confederation) and Federación Argentina (Argentine Federation).

which proves precisely my point. In any case none of those assertions are sourced, as Cambalachero noted, so I see little value there. I've presented numerous sources that back my edit Wee Curry Monster, you've referred to one (Moreno's letter) but have not presented it here. Would you be so kind as to do so please? Otherwise I'd appreciate it if you could re-instate my edit. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Note as well that letters are primary sources, and only represent the opinions and perspectives of whoever wrote it. Moreno may have mentioned the country as "United Provinces..." out of tradition, conservatism, slow news or mere personal preference; his letter alone does not allow to extrapolate a generalized usage. Cambalachero (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite so Cambalachero. In the interest of completeness I tracked down Morenos' letter where it can be seen that both names are used, United Provinces and Argentine Republic. Taking into account Cambalachero's comment on primary sources, here's a fragment of Laver's Breaking the Deadlock referring to this incident (emphasis added):

• ...On January 22, 1833, the Argentine foreign minister submitted to the British government a formal protest against its occupation of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)... on June 17, 1833, a protest note was sent from Mariano Moreno, the Argentine ambassador in London, to Lord Palmerston. The British minister refused to accept the Argentine claim...

I believe the sources presented are more than enough to support the edit. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been a stable consensus since 2008 per the talk page discussion referred to and I was simply pointing to that revision to show where it came from. The Name of Argentina article is there to explain where the modern name came from, not what the country was in 1833. Moreno's protest is in British and Foreign State Papers (1833-1834), a convenient online copy is at [30]. That reference by Laver does not establish what the name in use at the time was. I have repeatedly pointed out that both names were used but predominantly the United Provinces was used as the official name of the country in diplomatic correspondence; indeed I pointed this out 5 years ago. We explain in the article it was a pre-cursor state and to be honest I'm bemused why there is such a fuss being made. This is not a good way to get a consensus, your own source above supports the status quo, Moreno refers to himself as representing the United Provinces, and your habit of shouting my edit MUST be inserted NOW, NOW, NOW just puts people's backs up and entrenches positions. Similarly your habit of demanding a source immediately, without giving anyone a chance to actually provide it and simultaneously demanding your edit is restored is unhelpful.

The current status quo has been stable for some time and I've seen no compelling reason to change it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE Wee Curry Monster. I had already presented a link to Moreno's document which, just like the one you presented, proves that Argentina was clearly used at the time. Even more, in the document you point us to (strangely the documents are not the same) the word Argentine is used more times (3) than provinces of Rio de la Plata (2). United Provinces is never used, which proves my point even further.

The only one making a fuss here is you Wee Curry Monster. Cambalachero and I have explained the reasons as to why the mention of United Provinces is historically incorrect and I have presented more than enough sources to back it up; even the only source you presented backs the edit. Your dismissal of a reliable source as Laver is baffling, the author never mentions United Provinces when talking about the 1833 incident. How is this not relevant to an article about the 1833 incident?

I asked you for a source and then presented it myself since I had found it, does this upset you? This statement you make "predominantly the United Provinces was used as the official name of the country" needs a source to stand, you know this. I have no rush in making the edit, I just don't understand your need to drag every discussion ad infinitum repeating the same things over and over again.

The reasons (and the sources) have been laid out clearly by Cambalachero and myself. You oppose changing the status quo even though you have no source to back your position. So what's next? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged that the term Argentina was also used, there is no need for further argument on that point. The English language source I referred to looks an accurate translation of the Spanish source you found on wikisource. Both sources support the current status quo that the state now known as Argentina was known then as the United Provinces.

I didn't dismiss Laver, I pointed out it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Your assertion that the current article is not sourced is not sustainable - the very source you dug up contradicts you.

Yes WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE but there has to be a good reason for it and I simply see no reason to change it. I am avoiding commenting on your conduct, I would appreciate if you would restrict your comment to content. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk

Actually if you look at both sources they are quite different [31][32] right from the start. I'd venture they are either different protests or the one in english was not written by Moreno. Would be interesting to check this.

The fact that the name United Provinces was also used at the time by some is not being contested here. As Cambalachero correctly pointed out, basing our editing in the analysis of primary sources is not recommended, we should be basing it in reliable secondary sources instead. I've presented a number of those already, the most relevant being the book by Laver. Why do you say that a book dealing with the 1833 incident is not relevant to an article about the 1833 incident? Do you not believe that Laver referring to the country as Argentina repeatedly instead of United Provinces has any value? If so, would you explain your reasoning? Also, you have not presented a single secondary source backing your statement that United Provinces was the name commonly used. You know that sources are needed so I'll ask you again to please present your sources Wee Curry Monster. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

To add more secondary sources:

• Cawkell refers to the country as Argentina when mentioning the 1833 incident (p. 36): ..next day 3 January 1833 when Pinedo was requested to haul down the Argentine flag and withdraw his force...
• So does Gustafson, see page 25 The Incident of 1833 where every mention of the country is Argentina, never United Provinces.

Do you oppose this sources as not relevant too Wee Curry Monster? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on content not editors. Apologies you are correct in that the online version referred to appears to be significantly different, [33], is a straightforward translation. The official name in 1833 was the United Provinces as noted in the official protest by Moreno. Yes, authors will sometimes use Argentina in such contexts referring to what the modern state is now called. But you even acknowledge United Provinces was used and we acknowledge in the article it became Argentina and it is sourced to an official document from the period. I see no benefit in an edit which removes any mention that the United Provinces existed and refers only to a modern state [34], which is precisely the edit propsoed. Its removing historical context for no benefit and your argument is we should parrot what lazy authors who don't explain historical context is not a compelling one. Now what say we allow other editors the chance to comment, you are of course welcome to have the WP:LASTWORD as usual. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

So, to summarize: you accuse me of making comments on editors (where??), you again presented no sources to back your statement, you disregarded completely the fact that Moreno's protest mentions both names and even more importantly that that is a primary source as Cambalachero correctly pointed out and finally you referred to three established historians (even Cawkell who is your go-to author) as lazy authors and dismissed them completely. Ok.

That United Provinces was used is not contested. What you are saying on the other hand (that "in 1832/33 the name was the United Provinces") is completely disproved by the sources presented. Since you are complaining that the edit proposed would remove the information that United Provinces was a name sometimes used at the time, I've made a change to my proposed edit to mentions this. Is this edit better Wee Curry Monster? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaba and Cambalachero are right, and it is illustrative that they were forced to write so much to make this basic point. A few (redundant) notes to add to what they already said:

(1) The closest thing to a constitution back then was the Pacto Federal (1831), which used the term "República Argentina" exclusively.

(2) The same term was used in the preliminary treaty of friendship and commerce celebrated with France in 1834.

(3) This denomination was common in solemn communications. A light example: The inscription on a plate given to Woodbine Parish on his departure.

(4) Nevertheless, "Confederación Argentina" (also "Confederación de la República Argentina") was commonly used. E.g., in p. 375 of the previous book you can read a communication from Arana to Parish in 1839, where he uses "Confederación Argentina" to refer to the state and "República Argentina" to refer to the nation.

(5) "United Provinces" had not been discarded completely, but it was definitely not the preferred or "official" term. It would be odd to read historiography that referred to the country as such in 1832. The so-called "United Provinces" period was over.

(6) "Argentina" and "Argentine Republic" are terms that predate the 1816 independence. It is incorrect to say that they "refer only to a modern state" (WCM dixit).

(7) Why so much fuss about this? If we write about France in 1900, we can properly refer to the country as "France", not necessarily to "the Third French Republic, part of it would ultimately become the current Republic of France". It seems to me that once again WCM is disregarding the concept of state succession, like if all of these were different countries.

To offer context, the article could use "Argentine Confederation" (or something similar) once, although "Argentine Republic" would be correct too. But using "Argentina" in the remainder of the text is perfectly reasonable. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.falklandshistory.org/getting-it-right.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

The article as currently written is not presenting all viewpoints in the literature. One version of events has the settlement of Puerto Luis totally destroyed in 1831. The log of the Lexington notes the destruction of the powder store and spiking of guns. It is perfectly acceptable though the log is a WP:PRIMARY source to refer to this. Removing it and including additional text to back up the Argentine claim is a violation of WP:NPOV.

One editor has been conducted a slow revert war, returning periodically to undo work done in the mean time. The text he demanded be included was, this was Matthew Brisbane's account of the events of 1831. BTW from a primary source, the accounts of Darwin and Fitzroy. However, the proposal that this replaces the comments based on the log of the Lexington also violates WP:NPOV since it removes a significant viewpoint to replace it with text backing up the Argentine claim. This becomes doubly one sided.

My initial edits were to correct a POV imbalance on this article, using text accepted elsewhere on wikipedia to express the range of opinions in the literature. Edit warring to prevent the inclusion of text perfectly acceptable by consensus on another article is preventing a POV problem being addressed. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how a settlement being destroyed can be convoluted to support any particular argument, and for now would rather not. WCM, are there secondary sources that agree only a few buildings were destroyed? If not, it would seem the Lexington's log was incorrect (which I'm perfectly willing to believe, with the military being the military and all that), and suggest instead text along the lines of "The settlement was destroyed/pillaged/more-detailed-description, although the USS Lexington's log says this", with perhaps primary sources about the destruction in between those two statements if it helps inform the reader. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Plenty, see below. The destruction is part of the conspiracy theory that the British tricked the US into destroying the settlement in order to facilitate the later "seizure" by the British. In looking at the sources below its worth noting that many of the sources Langus quotes above that both positions are considered but he selectively quotes from them to support only one. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Tatham p.544 "There is no evidence that Duncan's men did any significant damage to the houses. Accounts saying that the settlement was sacked or "razed" are untrue." Some extra quotes from Gustafson: p.35 When Argentina revived its claims against the Lexington raid in 1884, President Cleveland said in his 1885 annual message that Duncan did no more than break up a piratical colony And from Peterson p.115 Alvear learned for the first time that the American government had long since approved of Commander Duncan's conduct. p.117 In view of the ample justification for the act of the Lexington and the derelict condition of the island before and after their alleged occupation by Argentine colonials this Government considers the claim as wholly groundless Though I do not Cawkell supports the comment of the destruction of the settlement. Duncan's report is here [35], this also includes some quotes from Goebbel that give the Argentine version of events. Some others [36],[37],[38] This is a contemporary account that paints a rather different picture [39].

BTW on Falkland Islands with an RFC [40] Langus unsuccessfully lobbied to have the same content removed. This is an issue that was already raised and settled. I just want to quote one comment in that RFC:

“ Langus' behavior is a bit unsettling and reverting cited edits without rationale certainly does not create an atmosphere where an RFC can function properly. I'm not privy to Falkland disputes and don't have a vested interest in the topic but reading through Curry's edits it seems his contributions are fair and meticulously sorted. Informal mediation is probably a better route to solve this dispute because an RFC will get you nowhere at this point IMO. ”

Its a classic example of disruptive and tendentious editing, raising the same issue time and time again. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I was about to search for some quote of someone judging you (and believe me, there are plenty of sources), but then I decided to not step down to that level.

At that time, we were discussing about how to present Duncan and Vernet's versions; now we're way ahead of that. Those are not "perfectly acceptable": primary sources are not historical scholarship -- see WP:HISTRS.

As for Brisbane account, I no longer wish to do that since I learned that primary sources were to be avoided. It's worrying that you refuse to acknowledge this, specially on historical articles. You're basically advocating for WP:OR.

As for the sources:

• Tatham: quite explicit, but even tho I know you refuse to accept this, that source has been discouraged at WP:RSN when dealing with controversial matters. See this thread.
• Gustafson: I don't understand the point of this. Anyways, break up it's an interesting description. More context would be needed.
• Peterson, p115: Duncan's conduct?? Not relevant, we're talking about the damage caused by the raid.
• Peterson, p117: same as above. Besides, that's President Cleveland speaking.
• 'Chronological list of Antarctic expeditions': I have my doubts about what "dispersed the colonists" stands for...
• 'Lives at risk': it just says that the Lexington "entered Soledad (East Falkland) harbor several months later and took temporary military control of the islands". It says nothing about actions taken.
• 'Gold braid and foreign relations': it says explicitly: "and looting occurred"!
• 'Weekly register': that's an interesting piece, though I have the feeling that it is indeed a primary source too. From WP:HISTRS: "Historical scholarship is generally not: a) Journalism".

--Langus (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• breaking it is right I guess. Xi387 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, any editor editing in a controversial area usually attracts a few brickbats. My personal favourite was on Talk:Falkland Islands when simultaneously I had a Brit labelling me pro-Argentine and an Argentine ranting about my streak of pro-British bias. For everyone I can equally point to plenty showing the exact opposite, however, on every article you edit you create conflict.

Every source that contradicts you and confirms the narrative of the Lexington log is being dismissed as a WP:PRIMARY source. You're finding excuses to exclude content to promote a pro-Argentine version, not to present all significant viewpoints as demanded by NPOV. And its content that you already created created an RFC to lobby against and failed. This is tendentious and disruptive. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What is your point, besides that I am a piece of s***? Do you believe that the Weekly Register is a valid secondary source? --Langus (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have given you the benefit of the doubt regularly and even extended several olive branches. Where sources contradict your content proposal you strive to have them disqualified rather than editing to reflect the range of opinions. My point is that you do not edit collaboratively and I don't think the hyperbole is helpful either. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The content proposal is yours, not mine. You're talking about a range of opinions that seems non-existent.

You don't seem to have a point except defaming me. If this is your idea of "collaborative editing" then I guess I must be missing something. --Langus (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The content is directly lifted from the Falkland Islands and was underwritten there by an RFC you started. Claiming there isn't a range of opinions is clearly specious as they are present in the literature. I am making clear wikipedia's policy of portraying a WP:NPOV. I have no wish, need, desire or agenda for defaming anyone. Was the RFC not a wake up call that you editing was problematic? Look at the quote above, does that not tell you something. This was the view of someone completely independent who had no agenda or axe to gring. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not enough to be present in the literature; it has to be present in RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES. If we don't respect that, we are bound to fail WP:NPOV. You posted that selectively picked bad comment about myself in two different talk pages, as well as accusing me of SP ("I think this is a sleeper account for the blocked disruptive editor User:Alex79818"). What do you expect from people to think that you're doing? It's completely outrageous. --Langus (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"It's not enough to be present in the literature" - QED Wee Curry Monster talk 18:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WCM and others: please discuss the content and not the editors. As some of you might have experienced accusation wars leads nowhere and are largely a waste of time. Chiton magnificus (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• The reason why WP:HISTRS restricts the use of primary sources, is that the use of primary sources to create interpretations is the job of historians. If an editor has found an interesting sequence of findings in primary sources relating to this topic, they should seek publication in a suitable scholarly or amateur historian venue. Primary sources are far easier to bend to a narrative, to misconstrue facts, to take as facts things historians would take to be mere lies present in the source. We also use secondary sources, preferably scholarly secondary sources for history, as history is the narrative written by historians. History is not the past itself, but the map of the past made by scholarly authors. I understand that this topic has a problematic history, made worse by potentially informative amateurs publishing in non-scholarly modes. Good luck, respect each other, and write using the best sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

English and Spanish Titles Don't Match

I know the POV issue has been beaten to death, but I do want to point out that the Spanish and English articles have different titles. One uses "Reassertion" while the other uses "Occupation." Shouldn't those two agree if there is a NPOV? Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You're assuming the Spanish version follows NPOV, try editing there with any information other than official Argentine sources and you'll find out why. The Spanish Wikipedia even uses Photoshopped versions of historical documents. WCM_email 07:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, please suppress those unfounded accusations towards Spanish Wikipedia and its editors, per WP:UNCIVIL, or I would have to report this to a sysop. Keep the discussion about the article. --Zerabat (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Go for it, please do. Every comment is accurate. WCM_email 07:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

When someone asks why en.wiki coverage and es.wiki coverage are different, I see no reason why editors here should not be allowed to tell them. WCM's answer is on topic, legitimate and entirely accurate. If you are offended by such accurate explanation, I can't see that that's anybody else's problem but yours. Kahastok talk 09:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality and weasel words

I did not expect any objection to inserting a weasel tag, WCM, but I agree that I perhaps should have raised it here first. I note that the neutrality of this article has been questioned before on this talk page. One of the main references is from falklands.info which is a site run by a couple of local Falklanders. It is effectively a blog and as such unreliable, even though I think it contains useful information. It seems that much of the text in this article is copied directly from that blog site, which might explain some of the slightly one sided slant on several points of history. In short, it reads as 'bad guy Argies making a mess of everything and good guy Brits there to put everything to right (with help from the trusted US friends). I changed a couple of what I see as mildly slanted phrases and inserted a new reference. I do not dispute the facts of what happened, just the way they are stated. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The text isn't copied from the blog, most of it I gleaned from Mary Cawkell's book, augmented with the book on the Falklands by Ian Strange. I don't object to the changes you've made but it was rather a presumption of bad faith on your part the slant you put on what I originally wrote. Most sources, even Argentine ones such as Caillet-Bois, suggest that Vernet seized three American ships - hence I don't see what you seem to see there. falklands.info was only ever used to source uncontroversial facts as it used to be a convenient online reference but it's a source I no longer use due to its WP:SPS nature.

If you look back, the neutrality of the article has been questioned several times not for problems in the article but by editors seeking to put a nationalist slant on events. Argentine editors seek to use terminology from revisionist texts that WP:RSN discussions and arbcom have noted as unreliable for historical fact. Happy to go through that with you if you wish. WCM_email 08:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I did not realise you wrote most of this article. I would have been a bit more tactful if I'd realised. Or perhaps it was better I didn't know - pros and cons both ways. No offense meant, if indeed any was taken. I do agree with the "seize" word though. When I look through different sourses I did come across it a lot. I also thought that it isn't really a problem anyway. Seizing a ship can cover all sorts of ways to take control of a ship, peacefully included. I too would enjoy a discussion on the facts but I probably need to gen up on the detail and sources more first. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I'm not upset. However, I do take WP:NPOV seriously and even though it's over a decade since I wrote a lot of this stuff, I'm interested in feedback if you think I've gone wrong. WCM_email 21:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is a complete embarrassment

To begin with, Argentina was already called Argentina in 1831, see the wikipedia article in Spanish. Is extremely complete, with historical evidence and more information. This article is garbage compared to Wikipedia in Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.44.215.205 (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

See United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata – your embarrassment is understandable. . . dave souza, talk 22:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

French colonisation in 1764 missing

Hi, I think it would be fair to mention the fact that the french were the first ones in colonize the islands in 1764. Thanks. --190.225.240.184 (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

There seem to be dispute about the use of the "military conflict infobox" in this article. Currently this infobox has been modified as to be also available to cover military events that are neither wars or battles, for example coups. The 1833 events were of military nature. There was threat of use of force, so use of this infobox seem legitimate so far. Dentren | ^Talk 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussed in detail in the previous section. Kahastok talk 17:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Its usually better to discuss things by part, its less messy and its easier to get agreements on specific point than on a bulk edition. You reject the infobox because "the entire infobox treats this event as a war. There was military conflict here. There was a polite exchange of messengers in which the British asked the Argentines to leave and the Argentines agreed to do so.". I answer you that this infobox is not limited to wars, its about military actions. What the British Empire did there was a show of force that coherced the settlement into submission. No much differente than the failed show of force some years later at Battle of Vuelta de Obligado. You don't send a fully armed squadron for pacific exchange. There is reason on why articles about events without combat like Great Stand on the Ugra River use this template. Dentren | ^Talk 18:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"Fully armed squadron" implies something quite a lot more than we're discussing here. Squadron (naval) says that "[t]oday, a squadron might number three to ten vessels", and notes that until 1864 there were only three squadrons in the Royal Navy - each more powerful than most full-blown navies. This event involved a single brig-sloop, later joined by a small ship.

And the evidence is that the settlers didn't much care either way. It was a private colony, whose goal was principally to make money for its founder.

You say it isn't just for wars and point to a 100kB talk archive. I say it is, based on the first line of the documentation which says it should be used "to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars)". This instance does not describe a battle, nor a campaign, nor a war, nor a group of related wars. If it's used wrongly elsewhere then that is not an excuse to bias this article by using it wrongly here as well.

And to add, the entire text of the infobox you have edit warred into the article without consensus is biased. Kahastok talk 16:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox as it is now is inappropriate. However, it is also inappropriate to claim or imply that this encounter was not military in nature: there was a warship and marines involved and a threat used - if the Vernet flag was not taken down. Classic gunboat diplomacy? Can the military infobox be used in a way that creates a fair neutral balance? If not, is there another infobox that would suit? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

What about using this infobox template? [41] Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

That link has over a thousand infobox templates, so you'll have to be a bit more specific? Kahastok talk 21:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(To avoid any doubt, the proposed edit, containing the infobox being discussed, is here). Kahastok talk 21:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Try this [42] Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Now about your latest edit tag comment on the main page, it is you who is edit warring by your frequent reversals while a discussion is ongoing. You are also bordering on a personal attack by questioning my ability to maintain a cohesive line of argument by accusing me, strongly implied, of changing my mind and agreeing with you by not replying to your opinion given on this talk page within 24 hours. If not a PA it is certainly a failure to assume good faith. Your defensively aggressive approach throughout the Falklands articles has been mentioned before in the way you handle other editors input. Your edit pattern of always trying to have the last word is not acceptable, and weakens the credibility of any view your might hold, which is unfortunate coming from an experienced editor with so much to offer. Please remember you do not own this or any other related Falkland articles. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It is, and always has been, the rule on Wikipedia that - in circumstances such as this - the consensus holds until it is changed. It is not a personal attack or an assumption of bad faith to note that you edit warred a text in to the article, only to then disclaim it by saying "I have never said I want that or any of the recent additions put in" and "I agree that the infobox as it is now is inappropriate." It is also not a personal attack or an assumption of bad faith to note that the discussion had moved on to questions not related to the edit, that editors had been active in the discussion without discussing the substance of the edit, and that the edit as it stood was clearly not going to get consensus.

Now, it appears that you want me to not answer your questions, to ignore your arguments, and to otherwise refuse to engage in any form of discussion. I don't believe that would be constructive. So I intend to continue to engage in discussion in the hope that something more constructive will emerge from this. Kahastok talk 07:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)