Talk:Falkland Islands

Template:V0.5

History Section

1. Mestivier was sent to form a penal settlement. 2. Pinedo did not immediately restore order as the edit implied. There was anarchy for months after, Pinedo had only been there a few days before Onslow arrived and Pinedo was only able to restore order with the assistance from the British ship Rampart. 3. It is distinctly POV to assert the garrison was forced to leave, Pinedo was handed a formal written request to remove the garrison. There was no use of force whatsoever. Please note that when I rewrote the history section, I have access to written sources with far more information than the online sources. In some cases, the cite is the book not the online source. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, so I must take your word for it? I did all those additions because they were in the cited online sources. They were all there before I get here, I didn't pick them. So if we have Source A saying one thing and Source B saying EXACTLY the opposite (as in Pinedo story), and we're taking both as reputable sources, the least we must do is point out the two versions and the disagreement, don't you think? Or are we going to take down one source to satisfy you? Langus-TxT (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To clear my name and respond to the accusation of POV, this is a quote from reference "history3": "Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands." http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Langus-TxT (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh and would you please explain what's the problem with replacing the word "although" with a semicolon? I did that as a separate edit in the hope it could survive to your revertion storm... Langus-TxT (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF Saying that text is POV is not a personal comment but a comment on content. The two sources are not in conflict, Pinedo had been away in the ARA Sarandi for a couple of months and returned to find the settlement in uproar following the mutiny. You are creating a clash in sources that does not actually exist. I note the brief history document doesn't cover this aspect in detail, nor does it say that he took command immediately.

Neither are we obliged to use exactly the same words as a source and it is often better not to, instead using neutral langauge and avoiding WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL. Online sources are not superior to written sources and if you don't have access to written sources, then presumption of bad faith in the comment "so I must take your word for it?" is not ameliorated by prefacing it with "With all due respect,". As to the rest, I disagree with your point and please note that the text was established by WP:CONSENSUS above, consulting all involved editors at the time. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry if I was out of line but I couldn't believe that you can't see my point. I'll accommodate to WP:AGF now. Let me try again:

falklands.info says: "The British commander, Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag. Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands."

• Don Pinedo refused to comply to the British request. I'd say is safe to assume he was against the idea of British control over the island (he was an officer of an Argentinian ship)
• The Argentine flag was removed by the British
• Finally, "he and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands". The only interpretation I can get from this phrase is "he left the island against his will". Do you agree with me?

It doesn't matter if he was physically attacked or not. I can say to you "Please sir, leave this room now" and at the same time show you the gun in my belt. I would be forcing you out, even if I don't put a finger on you. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/force_5

What you say about he being away and needing the assistance of the Rampage to bring order, is of no importance to my point, which is: "Why and how did he leave the island under British control?"

What does your source say about this? And also: what book/material would that be?

I'll leave aside the wording issue for the moment, as is not as important. Regarding consensus, I don't know why you mention it but at any case I want to note that "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions (extracted word by word from WP:CONSENSUS section 1.3 Consensus can change) Langus-TxT (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what policy says on consensus, so your lecture is not entirely appropriate. You may also care to note that changing consensus requires a compelling argument from your good self. Consensus changes as a result of the strength of argument, it is not an excuse for blocking content, equally "consensus can change" is not an excuse for trying to impose it. i mentioned consensus to simply point out I wrote the current summary in full consultation with all editors and did not put it into the article until I had agreement.

Three sources. Two by Mary Cawkell (Falkland Islands (1960), Falklands Story: 1592 to 1982). Julius Goebbel (The Struggle for the Falkland Islands). Most sources say that Pinedo complied with the British request under protest.

The problem with your simplistic analysis is that the British protested against the appointment of Mestivier, requesting that the Republic of Buenos Aires remove the garrison but did not receive a reply. The squadron was sent with orders from the British perspective to expel an illegal garrison. Although there were 2 ships in the squadron, only the Clio went to Port Louis, it is also worth noting that unlike the Argentine claim she was a Frigate (a major warship at the time), Clio was a Brig-Sloop, one of the smallest ships in the Royal Navy, on a straight comparsion with the ARA Sarandi the two ships were evenly matched there was no superior firepower as you imply. The garrison also significantly outnumbered the 8 Marines on the Clio. The reason Pinedo chose to withdraw was that his crew were British mercenaries.

I've summarised the history appropriately for an overview, writing for NPOV to give equal weight to all viewpoints.

The other problem is you're applying deductive reasoning, which is essentially WP:OR and editing per your conclusions and deductions. And it was Rampart btw, the reason I mention this is that Pinedo had neither the resources, nor the wherewithal to put down the mutiny. The latter point is important as he was unable to assert control without outside assistance. However, there is a risk here of simply adding too much detail. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW I responded to your point on the Lexington visit above. There is also more to that than the simplistic edit you proposed. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"I mentioned consensus to simply point out I wrote the current summary in full consultation with all editors and did not put it into the article until I had agreement" If you read again WP:CONSENSUS you'll see that the process of reaching consensus usually starts with a edit in the main article (which I did and got us here).

Regarding your objection to deductive reasoning, I guess you're referring to what I thought aloud about the reasons of Pinedo. You can disregard them: they're not important and I don't intend by no means to include them in the article. What it is important is the phrase "he and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands", on which I do not deduct anything, I just try to use reading comprehension with you to see if we're both understanding the same.

Getting back to the point, it struck me as contradictory that you call my additions "simplistic" and the same time refuse to include Pinedo in the story. I don't think that adding one sentence would be too much detail, at least regarding this event. It NEEDS that level of detail because the events in those months are important for the Argentine sovereignty claim over the islands. I say it again: the events in those months are important for the Argentine sovereignty claim over the islands. That would be the "compelling argument from my good self". Langus-TxT (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That the events are "important" for the Argentine sovereignty claim is not a good argument. All that means it is all the more important to treat these in an objective manner per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. More importantly to address verifiable facts and not present opinion as fact. Again you proceed based on the presumption that I refuse to include Pinedo for some nefarious reason. We are writing an overview here, of necessity this will be brief and certain details omitted for brevity. The salient points are addressed and there is a link to History of the Falkland Islands should anyone wish to read further. I think we have struck the right balance at this point. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with User:Wee Curry Monster. If you look further down the article you will see a short summary of the British and the Argentine points of view regarding the sovereignty dispute alongside each other. In writing that summary, I did my best to give a WP:NPOV. Martinvl (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin, I find that section unobjectionable, but I believe the History section needs some work towards NPOV. I don't know who wrote what, so I ask to please don't take it personally and analyze what I say with humility and also presuming good will from myself. I do have feelings about this subject as some of you do too, but one of the virtues I'm most proud about myself is the ability to be objective (when not mad, of course). If you don't want to add more details to the section, at least some words and expressions need to be replaced or removed. I find these passages problematic:

• "This became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later following the publication of the proclamation in the Salem Gazette" -> Why is this relevant? Is it more important than Pinedo and Onslow's interchange?
• "The seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy" -> Were they judged? Were they guilty? Why the word "piracy" (Captain Duncan's version) is used here but at the beginning of the paragraph Vernet's actions against US ships are described as a "fishing and hunting rights dispute"? (neutral version). Wouldn't be more appropriate and shorter to just say they were arrested and taken to Montevideo?
• "British forces requested the Argentine garrison leave. Vernet's settlement continued..." -> It mentions the British actions, but not the Argentine response. It may induce readers to think that the Argentine garrison agreed to leave. Even if Pinedo did it under protest as WCM's sources say, it wouldn't hurt anyone to add "which they did under protest" (this would be an short addition but I see no other way of solving this). Langus-TxT (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the text has been written neutrally based on fact not opinion. You seem to equate the nationality of source, with POV, this is not acceptable.

"This became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later following the publication of the proclamation in the Salem Gazette" Yes, this is an important point. There is a difference between what actually happened and what Argentina claims now. Note I report the facts and not anyone's opinion. "The seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy" This was the reason why they were arrested, this is a verifiable fact. I do not claim they were guilty. This is reporting a fact not anyone's version. About the only point you make of relevance would be to note that they left under protest. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A text can be very well be based on facts and yet be biased, by selecting the things you include, the things you don't, and how do you tell the story, the words you use. All the modifications I'm trying to introduce are based on facts too, the only opinions I'm sharing are about the things that should be said and how.

"Yes, this is an important point" Would you mind to elaborate? I may be very well missing something, but if you just answer with "yes" you must understand that's not enough to make a point.

"This was the reason why they were arrested, this is a verifiable fact" I'm not saying it isn't; read above. In the same line of thinking, Vernet arrested the American ships for illegal fishing, yet it is referred to as "a dispute".

About Pinedo, then if no one is against it we could include the protest note and close that matter. Langus-TxT (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I do hope you're not accusing me of selective editing, its rather irritating to constantly have to respond to allegations of bad faith rather than discuss content in a mature manner. I disagree fundamentally with your comment as so far you seek to cite the opinion of authors rather than the facts they present. Equally you can be biased by selecting only opinions you agree with.

Its an important point as Argentina in the modern context happens to claim Jewett was sent by them. He wasn't, they weren't even aware he was there. I make no comment on the modern claim, just the facts.

They were arrested for piracy by Duncan, I make no comment on the veracity of the allegation. That there was a dispute is also describing matters neutrally as the authorities in BA made a declaration that was immediately disputed by both Britain and the USA.

My only comment is that any note on Pinedo should be brief, we are writing an overview. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Taking a look at this:

• I'm inclined to think that the "Sovereignty dispute" section is too long and should be shortened. Better that we properly direct people to Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.
• The important point re. "[t]his became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later following the publication of the proclamation in the Salem Gazette" is that we avoid the implication that Argentina outright sent Jewett to take control of the islands (they did not). We should neither report nor refute any point that is significant to either side in the sovereignty dispute out of proportion with its significance to the history of the islands as demonstrated by reliable sources. I could be swayed, but I'm not convinced that this is not what we're doing here.
• Do we know what happened to those arrested for piracy? I mean, if they were arrested, it seems to make sense to explain why, but it might be worth saying whether they were released, tried, convicted, executed, or what. (I believe that they were released, given that they included Vernet and Brisbane, who were still both sufficiently living and free to take part in later events).
• The Argentine garrison did agree to leave. They weren't happy about it, but left without a fight. I don't have a problem with "left under protest" if that can be sourced.
• I note that Curry Monster cited text sources. If that's what it's based on they should really be mentioned in the article. This may save some of the issues here (re: Langus' comment With all due respect, so I must take your word for it?) Pfainuk talk 17:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pfainuk that the "Sovereignty dispute" section is too long. I know that I added quite a bit of material, but my objective was ultimately to shorten it by reducing the post-war section to about the same length as the pre-war section. This is on my "to-do" list. Martinvl (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

They were released in Montevideo, ultimately. It didn't include Vernet btw he had left some months earlier and never returned. One of the reasons being he feared bearing arrested for piracy himself. I will look at sourcing that they left under protest. Sorry but deep in probate now, so just dropping in occasionally. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wee Curry Monster: "Its an important point as Argentina in the modern context happens to claim Jewett was sent by them." So basically it is important because of a sovereignty claim... both you and Martin have told me that "that the events are 'important' for the <country> sovereignty claim is not a good argument". So your argument is not good, according to you.
• I am not accusing you of anything WCM, I just want to improve the article. And when you ask me why I want to do this or that, I'm forced to explain why I think some parts are not completely appropriate. It is not an attack on anyone as I'm not fully aware of who wrote what.
• "Equally you can be biased by selecting only opinions you agree with". I totally agree. Facts, not opinions, but I agree.
• "That there was a dispute is also describing matters neutrally as the authorities in BA made a declaration that was immediately disputed by both Britain and the USA." It wasn't a declaration what led the Lexington to the islands, but the arrest of an American fishing ship. According to Paul Groussac, a French-Argentine historian: The Breakwater, the Harriet y the Superior were chased by Vernet. The Breakwater escaped, the Superior was released and the Harriet was brought to Buenos Aires with Vernet and his family, allegedly for trial. They arrived on November 19th, 1831. The master of the captured ship (Davison) spoke to the American Consul in Buenos Aires, George W. Slacum. He formally asked the government if they would release the Harriet, and he got a negative response. Then he declared that Argentina had no rights over Falklands, Tierra del Fuego (southern state of Argentina) and other islands, and called for the USS Lexington who was in Montevideo at that time. Captain Duncan and his ship arrived to Buenos Aires on November 30th, and told to Buenos Aires government his intention of visiting the islands to protect American citizens and economic rights. On late December 1831 Duncan arrived to the Falklands and took the prisoners. Once in Montevideo, he sent a letter to Buenos Aires government saying that if those men were acting under their command, he would handle them, which happened a few months later.
• I second the petition of including WCM's sources in the article, and I apologize again for being rude. Langus-TxT (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No its important for historical accuracy and to correct a common misconception. Tell me, why are you so keen to have it removed?

Again no, the declaration was disputed by both the British and American consuls, which is why we mention it as a dispute. Are you now claiming this isn't the case?

With respect Paul Groussac is not the most reliable of sources for a number of reasons. The account it not correct, Vernet had no ship to chase any of the American sealers, the ships were seized whilst in harbour whilst provisioning. Vernet's intention was to outfit the seized ships to enforce his claim, this is why Duncan accused them of piracy. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've realised that there was a significant ommission, the gap between Vernet's settlement and the establishment of the colony. I made a quick correction this evening. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I thank you the calm writing and the inclusion of Pinedo in the history section. I don't have any particular urge to remove that sentence, as I already said. I only brought that about because you told me that including Pinedo would lengthen the article too much for an overview, given the fact that relevance in a sovereignty claim is not enough reason to include it. So I pointed out the same concerns regarding this event, as it would be of everyone's interests to keep the section reduced to the strictly necessary length.

Regarding the "dispute" figure, I have to make a break here: which declaration are we talking about exactly?

Regarding Paul Groussac, I'm aware of none. What I summarize as important from this source is:

1. Vernet took the American schooner 'Harriet' and his captain to Buenos Aires;
2. The USS Lexington was mobilized to the island with the master of the Harriet on board;
3. Duncan offered the prisoners to Buenos Aires if they were acting under their instructions;
4. The alleged pirates were handled to the Argentinian government at its request.

How Vernet captured the ships is trivial, and I admit that the figure of a "chase" is here because of a quick interpretation of mine which could be wrong. Langus-TxT (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well you illustrate why I don't particularly rate Groussac that highly as a reputable historian. The first 2 points are correct but Duncan didn't offer the prisoners to Argentina and they weren't handed to the Argentine Government at its request. This is pure fantasy, the prisoners were released in Montevideo (along with the settlers who accepted his offer of transport) and the US Government's position that Vernet's settlement was illegal, that the acts in seizing American ships were piracy have never been repudiated. This position is actually in a state of the union address; ie the state historical record is the opposite of what Groussac claims. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, lets suppose for a moment that Groussac's account is "pure fantasy". Lacking of good historians, would you share with us when, how and why they were released? I mean, they were pirates (supposedly), there must be more to it that just a release to the streets of Montevideo.

"The US Government's position that Vernet's settlement was illegal, that the acts in seizing American ships were piracy have never been repudiated." Forgive me, but this is absurd. I don't want to open a new line of discussion, as this already has become lengthy enough, but I just want to note that Argentina repudiated these actions since the very moment they were known (just do a Google search about Anchorena & the Lexington).

I remind you I'm still waiting to know which declaration you were referring to.

But let's put all history aside for a moment and do an exercise of common sense. Suppose you are an editor in a newspaper. And suppose someone (hopefully not me) gets arrested because he was accused (just accused) of rapist. Would it be professional to print in the paper "John Doe arrested for rape"? Wouldn't it be too reckless and even ethically questionable without knowing if it's true? That's my concern when I say that it would be more appropriate to just say they were arrested and taken to Montevideo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langus-TxT (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you misunderstand the meaning behind certain phrases, or language use you ask before dashing off an angry missive. Again I find myself wasting time having to explain something again and respond to accusations of bad faith rather than discussing content. I never said anything about Argentina, I said the US had never repudiated its actions, moreover, the president of the USA justified them in the state of the union address. By Anchorena, I presume you're referring to the expulsion of Slacum? And again these are not suitable details for this article. A whole load of irrelevant material of no relevance to the matter at hand.

As to what happened to the people, the prisoners and settlers removed were simply dumped on the dockside in Montevideo on February 4 1832 at the instructions of Commodore Rodgers. This was nothing to do with actions of the Argentine Government, who only became aware of what happened after they were released. Duncan made no such offer and there was no request from the Argentine Government. But again this veering into the too detailed territory again.

If you're referring to declaration(s). There are two that resulted in British/American protests were the appointment of Vernet in 1829 and appointment of Mestivier in 1832.

As to the rest are you aware of WP:OR and WP:SYN and WP:NOTCENSORED? At this point I'm left wondering as to what your content proposal is, do you wish to remove certain terms and on what policy grounds? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• My last comment is not by any means an "angry missive". And for the second time: I am not accusing you of bad faith. Please tell me which content in my last comment leads you to think that. And please note that sometimes my tone is similar to yours.
• I am not referring to the expulsion of Slacum, I'm referring to the Lexington incident. Material is not irrelevant as that was the content of some of them. But if you were only talking about US repudiating his own actions, then the point itself becomes irrelevant.
• About the alleged pirates: whether it was Duncan or his superior, by request of Buenos Aires or not, the important aspect of both versions is that Brisbane et al were never found guilty of piracy.
• Regarding declarations: the USS Lexington was not mobilized because of Vernet or Mestivier appointments, as you imply here. Slacum was precisely the one who directly or indirectly called for the battleship, immediately after the Harriet incident, and not immediately after Vernet or Mestivier's appointment.
• As to the repudiation, excuse me if I misunderstood you but you have recognize that expecting for a Government (any of them) to repudiate his own actions, it's far from usual. Therefore, I took for granted you were talking about other countries. I do encourage you to use more precise expressions for clarity sake. So, to the fact that the US Government never repudiated "that the acts in seizing American ships were piracy", all that I can say is that it makes sense.
• As to my example: as I've clearly stated, it is only an exercise of common sense. I'm not sure how those policies affect that.
• Finally, and more to the point: my proposal is (and I quote myself) "to just say they were arrested and taken to Montevideo", that is, to remove the expression "for piracy" in the phrase "the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo". I claim this on the grounds of WP:NPOV, as there is asymmetry in the fact that actions and accusations of the US Government against Vernet/Brisbane are included in the text ("arrested for piracy") but Argentina's actions and accusations against the Harriet are not there ("confiscated/arrested for illegal fishing"). -- Langus-TxT (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Brisbane et al were never found guilty of piracy. I NEVER SAID THEY WERE (emphasis added). Why are you raising it?
• You're actually incorrect, the USS Lexington was sent as a result of what the US perceived as interference in its right to fish in those waters. Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960 By Harold F. Peterson P.107 Why are you raising this?
• I disagree on your final point. There is no asymmetry here, any perception of bias on your part is just that a perception. The text is written neutrally and to expunge as you demand why they were arrested is to censor the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, I know you didn't. We were talking about the prisoners' fate because Pfainuk asked what happened to them here.
• The USS Lexington was sent to South America as a reinforce for the Brazil Squadron; she headed to the Falklands only after learning about the Harriet incident from the mouth of US Consul George W. Slacum in Buenos Aires. Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960, by Harold F. Peterson, page 105 (the same source); Key to an enigma: British sources disprove British claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, by Angel M. Oliveri Lopez, page 22; Gold braid and foreign relations: diplomatic activities of U.S. naval Officers 1798-1883, by David Foster Long, page 152. I've brought this up to inform the editors about the events that lay below the expression "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights", because this is relevant in my claim of unbalance in the paragraph about the Lexington raid. The Harriet story is also a key part of these events, and it was previously discussed.
• Therefore, to round up my point, to my understanding the paragraph contains an WP:EUPHEMISM to soften Argentine claims, not fully mentioning them (i.e. that American ships were fishing illegally) versus a full assertion of charges (never proved), or the other party's POV, on the other hand. This constitutes to me a fault to WP:NPOV. A possible solution would be reducing the pro-American POV by removing "for piracy", and another one would be to elaborate the expression "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights" so it mentions Argentina's POV.
• If you don't agree with me then we've come to a dead point... We won't be able to solve this on our own. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all pray tell me, do you actually have access to any of the sources you just quoted, or did you pick them out from Google Books? It appears that you've selected sources to back up a pre-determined point, so all we see there is Confirmation bias. It is far better to read multiple sources to establish the majority view in the literature.

Again the sending of the USS Lexington to re-inforce the Brazil squadron was as a result of the US disputing Argentina's declaration. Had there been no dispute, the Lexington would not have been there. You seem unwilling to acknowledge a very basic point, which does not bode well for your ability to write with a NPOV.

There is no euphemism to soften Argentine claims, we're reporting the matter in a neutral manner and being careful to do so. What seems to be the problem here is your inability to recognise your own POV is skewing you opinion, witness you repeatedly ignoring a basic point. Also note your repeated claims that the article is pro other viewpoints, when it clearly is not (though accusing me of a pro-American viewpoint is a new one on me, having been accused of being both pro-Argentine and pro-British) Wikipedia isn't censored and it appears that you seek to censor the article to remove terms you don't like. This is nothing to do with NPOV IMHO. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice, personal attacks and accusations... so much for WP:NICE.

Do I have access? They are on Google Books, I don't understand your point. The Lexington was sent to South America because of the dispute, but the decision of heading to the Falklands was made by Captain Duncan after meeting with Slacum and learning about the Harriet. Had there not been a ship capture, the Lexington may have never struck the settlement. And it can't be a confirmation bias because I even use your own source.

Oh, and I have never claimed that the article itself is pro other POVs. My concerns were always very focused, and always regarding content.

I won't say no further; my points are already stated. I ask other editors who may still be reading this to please step in and give your opinion about the Lexington paragraph, as required per WP:DR. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

They're available as snippets on Google Books, if you care to refer to the WP:RSN, google snippets are not considered a reliable way to source material. The tortured logic by which you claim it can't possibly be Confirmation bias doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You've repeatedly raised accusations of bias but pointedly you cannot accept a basic point, that the presence of the USS Lexington resulted from the dispute over fishing rights, which is why it was sent to re-inforce the Brazil squadron. Had there been no dispute, it wouldn't have been there in the first place to be sent. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Guys, this is getting TLDR-y, and I'm not convinced that the signal-to-noise ratio is particularly good.

Langus, could you repeat your proposal please? I appreciate you've probably already provided it, but it'll save trawling through the above. I suggest you describe it in terms of a specific change to the article, to avoid any confusion. It needn't be a final version - if between us we can improve it then that's all to the good.

I believe it is worth mentioning that Snippet view in Google Books - as a source taken alone - is not considered reliable, primarily because of the difficulty of ensuring that the text is not being taken out of context. If we need to know what the sources say, let's get proper quotes from those sources. You can use the templates {{collapsetop}} and {{collapsebottom}} to collapse lengthy quotes as needed. Let's avoid the you-said-this and suchlike and concentrate on what the article ought to say. Pfainuk talk 17:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposal appears to be that the article should state the Harriet et al were fishing illegally in Argentine waters, that there wasn't a dispute over fishing rights, that the Lexington was sent as it just happened to be in harbour and to remove any reference that members of Vernet's settlement were arrested by Duncan on charges of piracy.

I oppose this on the grounds that the majority of sources document that Argentine claims over fishing rights were disputed, that the documented historical record shows Lexington was sent to re-inforce the Brazil squadron to protect American fishing rights and it is recorded that Brisbane et al were arrested on charges of piracy. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Curry Monster, please leave the straw man alone and stop putting words in my mouth. Thank you Pfainuk for stepping in.

The paragraph in dispute currently reads: "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. Although Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo."

My concerns are at the beggining and the end of it:

1. That the phrase starts with an WP:EUPHEMISM to soften Argentine POV, not fully mentioning the actions that led to the raid. Right now, the texts suggests that 1. there was a diplomatic dispute about fishing rights; and therefore 2. a battleship was sent directly to the Islands to attack the settlement. When in fact, the decision of striking the settlement was made after discovering that the schooner Harriet was captured and brought to Buenos Aires ^[1]. Duncan learned about Vernet in Montevideo ^[2], and chose to attack the settlement in Buenos Aires ^[1]. Also, and this is a matter of readibility, because it doesn't mention the incident readers end up a bit confused as to what happened to Vernet (he traveled with the Harriet ^[3] and never returned to the Falkands);
2. That saying "arrested for piracy" and nothing further, is asserting exclusively the American POV, sharply in contrast with the phrase "a dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in..." for the reasons I exposed in point No. 1. Moreover, it doesn't address the fact that they were never put on trial ^{[4a] [4b]} and were treated with reservations in favor of the government of Buenos Aires. ^[5]

For this, I think that there is unbalance in the fact that actions and accusations of the US Government against Vernet & Brisbane are included in the text, but Argentina's actions and accusations against the Harriet are not there. This of course would constitute a fault to WP:NPOV, as the second viewpoint does have due weight .

As I've said before, I believe that a possible solution would be reducing the pro-American POV by removing "for piracy", or else to elaborate the expression "a dispute over fishing and hunting rights" so it mentions the Harriet incident and Argentina's POV. I believe this last one would be the best course, to avoid any risk of euphemisms.

(References at at the bottom of the page. If there's a way to get them up here, please do so)

References for the Lexington paragraph

Using Google Books as an appropiate reference [1] Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960, by Harold F. Peterson. Page 105, title "The Lexington Retaliates" Google Books "This exchange of notes, revealing Slacum's open hostility and Anchorena’s subtle intimations, made good tinder for a heated diplomatic controversy. At this critical moment the USS Lexington sailed into the harbor of Buenos Aires. It was commanded by a fiery, high-spirited young officer, Commander Silas Duncan. The arrival of the warship in the hands of the aggressive Duncan was hardly the restraining influence with which to temper a tense situation. Upon learning the facts of the seizures, the officer decided his duty lay in the protection of American citizens and commerce in the Falklands. When on December 6 Slacum reported Duncan's decision to Anchorena, he laid down a virtual ultimatum. Within three days, he said, unless the government of Buenos Aires promptly suspended the right of capture and promised immediate restoration of the Harriet and other captured property, the Lexington would proceed to the Falklands. To buttress this position Commander Duncan also communicated with the Foreign Minister. He accused Vernet of piracy and robbery and demanded his immediate trial in the courts of either the United States or Buenos Aires. <one paragraph about British role skipped here, as is not important to this point> When Anchorena failed to comply with Slacum's intemperate demands within the three-day limit, Commander Duncan and the Lexington sailed for the islands." [2] Gold braid and foreign relations: diplomatic activities of U.S. naval Officers 1798-1883, by David Foster Long. Page 152 Google Books (Context provided in small font): "Arriving there on 20 November, Davison was able to elude his guards and make his way to the home of George W. Slacum, the resident U.S. consul, who aided him in lodging a protest with Foreign Minister Tomás Manuel de Anchorena, asserting that Argentina was responsible for "all loses" suffered by those in the Harriet. Meanwhile, Woodbine Parish, British chargé in Buenos Aires, informed the Americans that Argentina had no valid claim to the Falklands, for Britain had never relinquished its title to them. Undubtedly this stiffened Slacum's decision that somehow the Argentines must be forced into compliance with his wishes. On 29 November the firepower to accomplish this appeared with Silas Duncan's Lexington, the commander having heard about Vernet's actions while cruising off Uruguay. By this time the Breakwater had returned to the United States with the tidings (which Jackson had learned from earlier newspapers) that Argentina was claiming the Falklands and as a result the nation's shipping would probably be threatened. Therefore, months before Americans knew that their sealers were being imprisoned, Secretary of the Navy Levi Woodbury had dispatched Duncan in the Lexington to reinforce the Brazil Squadron under orders "to protect the commerce and citizens of the United States and maintain the National character by all lawful and honorable terms. The arrival of the Breakwater and information about Vernet impelled the president to take additional measures. In his message of 6 December 1831 he said, "In the course of the present year, one of our vessels engaged in the pursuit of a trade which we have always enjoyed without molestation has been captured by a band acting, as they pretend, under the authority of the Government of Buenos Aires." He added that he was sending south another man-of-war and that he would soon appoint "a minister to enquire into the nature of the circumstances and also the claim, if any, that is set up by that Government [Argentina] to those islands." The ship selected was the sloop Enterprise, under Commander George W. Rodgers, and the diplomat chosen was Francis Baylies, a former Massachusetts congressman." [3] Gold braid and foreign relations: diplomatic activities of U.S. naval Officers 1798-1883, by David Foster Long. Google Books Page 152: "Within a month the Breakwater, another ship out of Stonington, showed up and was apprehended by Vernet's men, although 48 hours later some of her people regained control of the vessel an headed for home with their tale of woe. Almost simultaneously with the Breakwater, the Superior, a New York city ship, shared the fate of the Harriet. Her crew was incarcerated and her cargo of 900 sealskins expropriated by Vernet. Most of the Americans were forced to accompany their captor in a British vessel to Buenos Aires for trial." [4a] http://www.ussduncan.org/silas_page13.htm - "Duncan's superior, Commodore George Rodgers, flag officer of the Brazil Squadron, arrived in Buenos Aries in May, 1832 to take charge of the risky situation. Rodgers returned the seven prisoners to the government in Buenos Aries, but protested the violation of American fishing rights." [4b] Gold braid and foreign relations: diplomatic activities of U.S. naval Officers 1798-1883, by David Foster Long. Google BooksPage 152: "Despite its diplomatic rupture with Buenos Aires, Washington continued efforts to achieve its ends, by this time well hamstrung by Duncan's bellicosity. During April 1832 Commander George W. Rodgers came there in the Enterprise, returning as a pacifistic offering the seven men whom Duncan had removed from Port Soledad. It did not matter, for Rodgers could get nowhere, because Argentine public opinion was still too much in arms to permit friendly relations." [5] Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960, by Harold F. Peterson. Page 106 Google Books (context provided in small font): "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 French 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. When on February 3 the Lexington returned to Montevideo (rather than Argentine port), Duncan advised Slacum that he would hold the prisoners until the government of Buenos Aires made arrangements for their disposition. Reaction in Buenos Aires and in Washington. News of the Lexington's raid aroused sharp reactions in Buenos Aires. Popular resentment flared. La Gaceta Mercantil and El Lucero reprinted a letter of Vernet's exposing the details of Duncan's acts and defending his own position in the Falklands." |}

-- Langus-TxT (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A link regarding Google Snippets, not Google books.

Frustratingly, I note again the refusal to get the point, that the Brazil squadron had been re-inforced as a result of the dispute. Peterson p.107 He had already despatched an armed vessel, he said, to protect trade in the South Atlantic and would send a minister to examine Argentina's claim to the islands. A point made in one the references you cited, which I've already pointed out to you.

Talking of straw men, the text doesn't say the Lexington was sent directly at all. There is no euphemism in saying there was a dispute over fishing rights, as all of the sources you quote re-inforce this point. At this point all I'm seeing is a tendentious repeating of the same argument, which doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny and a refusal to get the point.

I really do not see the need to mention all of the details that lead up to the seizure of the 3 ships, we're writing an overview here and the details in question are in the History of the Falkland Islands. Of necessity an overview will be pruned of extraneous detail.

Similarly all of the sources you mention the accusation of piracy, there is no logical reason for not mentioning it. To do so would be censoring the article. Where you've made a reasonable point I've accommodated you by changing the text to suit. I don't see any merit in your arguments regarding content, they simply don't stand up. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, please note that my sources are pages and pages of Google Books (not snipets as Curry Monster seems to imply). I will say no further as I don't want fuzz up this again. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A proposal: Fishing and hunting rights disputes arose between governments of the United States and Argentina. In 1831 Vernet seized a US schooner and arrested her to the port of Buenos Aires, which resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington. <Although Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store>. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested and taken to Montevideo charged with piracy.

<> = to be corrected for accuracy -- Langus-TxT (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I reject this proposal for the following reasons.

A) Its inaccurate. Vernet seized three ships, Harriet,Breakwater and Superior.

B) I don't see the need to include this information, its a detail of the dispute but not an essential detail. More properly that should be included on History of the Falkland Islands. The essential facts are that there was a dispute and there was a raid by the Lexington as a result. Which is what we currently have. We are writing an overview.

C) It is not a personal attack to note that you refuse to get the point. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that the Brazil squadron was re-inforced as a result of the dispute. Your own references support this - directly.

D) The sources give a reason for why they were arrested. All of the sources you quote support this - directly. I do not agree with removing verified information. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

After reflecting, if it is the reason for the arrest that is really the issue, then this better countered by including the information that they were released in Montevideo on the orders of Commodore Rodgers rather removing verified information from the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's see.

Prior to the Lexington Raid, I don't see that the sources actually suggest that there was it a fishing/hunting dispute between the governments of Argentina and the US, as opposed to a dispute between the US and Vernet's private enterprise. Vernet was acting on his own initiative to protect his own commercial interests by enforcing his own proclamation. He had some Argentine backing, yes - as evidenced by the Argentine reaction post-raid - but I don't see evidence of any involvement from Buenos Aires before the raid.

In this respect, it's worth considering historical context. For most of the period 1828-34 the Falklands can best be described as a private commercial colony - a concept that rather died out in the early part of the last century. While such colonies were often under the nominal rule of one country or another, in practice that country's government didn't necessarily have much to do with running the place. So it was with the Falklands, which had no government independent of Vernet's business during this period.

Given also that Curry Monster's point about the three ships is fair, I suggest:

Following Vernet's seizure of three US sealing vessels as part of a fishing and hunting dispute, Puerto Soledad was raided by the US warship USS Lexington. Although Vernet later stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington only reported destruction of arms and a powder store. The islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested, charged with piracy, and taken to Montevideo, where they were released.

Probably not perfect, but I hope it resolves the issues noted.

Puerto Luis, not Puerto Soledad. It had reverted to the original name by that point.

I am still of the opinion that this is longer than desirable, includes more detail that strictly necessary for an overview. In that way its unbalancing the history section by giving more weight to the incident than, for example, the founding of the colony, which is of far greater historical significance. If we stick to the facts of significance, these are the existence of the dispute and the raid. The details are superfluous in this context and better left to the more detailed history article.

Whilst I am not entirely dead set against this proposal, I invite you to consider less is often more in this context. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a fair point, and it is worth considering how we can make it shorter to give a more appropriate level of detail. Pfainuk talk 21:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.

"On June 10, 1829, a new decree created a Civil and Military Command under a governor with headquarters in Isla Soledad (East Falklands) and jurisdiction over the Malvinas and the adjacent islands all the way to Cape Horn. Vernet was designated governor, becoming thus an official of the new Republic "with the obligation of enforcing its laws" (Julius Goebel, The Struggle for the Falklands Islands, pp. 436-437)." Key to an enigma: British sources disprove British claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, by Angel M. Oliveri Lopez, page 21.

"It took the appointment of political and military Governor, Louis Vernet, on 10 June 1829, to revive British interest. The Creation of the Argentine colony was largely free enterprise on Vernet's part. He was granted exclusive rights of the fisheries and endowed with 'all the authority and jurisdiction necessary to fulfil his job' as Governor. When the decree became known in Buenos Aires the British Chargé d'Affairs delivered a formal protest on 19 November 1829, noting that: 'the Argentine Republic, in issuing this Decree, [has] assumed authority incompatible with His Britannick Majesty's rights of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands'." The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: The origins of the Falklands war, by Lawrence Freedman, page 7

It should be clear that Vernet's actions were not an entirely private endeavour. The government of Argentina made him a Governor, a public officer invested with powers, so it follows that anyone having disagreements with Vernet, is having disagreements with Argentina.

If we understand otherwise ("a dispute between the US and Vernet's private enterprise") then we're disregarding Argentina's POV right off the bat, and so it would be doubious we could ever get to balance this paragraph.

The proposed text has some moderation of US POV at the end, by using the expression 'charged with' and telling they were later released, but including that Vernet seized three ship and no further data (like that one of them escaped, one was released and the Harriet was brought to Buenos Aires for trial because it was the second time it was caught) could sound as a justification for Duncan's action.

Nonetheless, I think we have an easy way out of this, that would fulfill both your need for briefness and our concerns regarding NPOV. If the paragraph is unbalanced towards US POV, we can take out those notions and obtain an unbalanced, shorter text. And would be no need of adding details to compensate for the other party viewpoints.

If that path suits for you, I thougth of two versions that sound fair to me:

• "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. Although Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. The seven senior members of the settlement were arrested and taken to Montevideo."

• "Vernet's seizure of US sealing vessels resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. Although Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. The seven senior members of the settlement were arrested and taken to Montevideo."

To Wee Curry Monster: please learn that even if a piece of information is a verified fact, it doesn't mean that it must be included or that it can not be excluded: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." WP:NPOV#Impartial_tone. This wouldn't constitute "censorship", as you accuse me of. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As someone who is uninvolved in the history debates here could I suggest a slight change in one of the versions above:

• "Vernet's seizure of US sealing vessels resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. The Lexington reported destruction of arms and a powder store and that seven senior members of the settlement were arrested and taken to Montevideo. Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed."

By putting it round this way both accounts are presented fairly and in a way that does not suggest that they necessarily contradict each other. Michael Glass (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, I agree with you Michael that the word 'although' may have implications, and our view is backed by this guideline: "Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second.".

But I think that a semicolon is the simplest and shorter way of fixing it. (Edit: I've created a new section at the bottom, as it seems there is people opposing to this minor change in format...) -- Langus-TxT (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, short simple and sweet is better for an overview. More detail is being added than is necessary. One of the activities in going for GA status was to slim down the overview of history to a level commensurate with the rest of the article. The allegations of POV are nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations of a problem that doesn't in fact exist.

Vernet's settlement was a matter of private enterprise he received no financial or military assistance from the Government of the Republic of Buenos Aires. The declaration naming him Governor arose because he asked for military assistance, to whit, a warship to patrol the islands. That was refused and instead they proclaimed him Governor, basically telling him to do it of his own recognisance. If we're talking of Government endorsement, we should also remember that Vernet also sought endorsement from the British, provided them with regular reports and also asked the British to establish a permanent garrison. If you'll remember the Americans complained that he did not molest the British ships, just the American vessels.

This article in the Telegraph, Freedman acknowledges errors in the official history, which in fact you're relying on above. Moreover Freedman points out "The creation of the Argentine colony was largely free enterprise on Vernet's part". The very source you're quoting directly contradicts the claim you make citing it as a source and not for the first time.

But all of this and the quotes and the wall of text resulting are immaterial. Langus-TxT wishes to expunge from the article that the 7 senior members were arrested for piracy and to give greater prominence to Argentine proclamations on the Falklands in the 1820s. This I don't accept as desirable since it means we discuss the sovereignty dispute twice in the article, we start giving more prominence to this issue than other significant events and finally it is skewing the POV of the article. If the real reason is as he states, that they weren't tried or convicted for piracy, please note that I offered a compromise on that point with a minor edit but Langus-TxT has rejected that.

Finally, with frustration I note you ignore the very basic point, confirmed in your own sources that the USS Lexington was sent to re-inforce the Brazil squadron as a result of the USA disputing Argentine proclamations over the Falklands. Post all the carefully edited quotes you like, this is a verifiable fact per WP:V and WP:RS. The arrival of the Lexington stemmed from that dispute, the seizure of the ships was the catalyst for the raid but the dispute was why she was there. I really don't see the need for extraneous detail to be added here.

So I ask taking things one bite at a time, a very simple quesiton. Langus-TxT do you acknowledge that the USS Lexington was sent to re-inforce the Brazil squadron to protect American trade in the South Atlantic as a result of the USA disputing Argentina proclamations on fishing/sealing in the Falklands? Yes/No (no wall of text please). Wee Curry Monster talk 09:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(Here we go again) Yes Curry Monster, and I already responded that last week . Fortunately I see you know recognize the Harriet incident as having a role, and that's an improvement. In this context, it's ironic how you keep on accusing me of "not getting the point".

• Your link to the Telegraph is irrelevant. Do you realize that it doesn't talk about what we're talking here? At this point, AGF is getting every day harder...
• I didn't reject your edit, I undid it because we were still discussing the changes here. I doesn't mean anything about its contents.

You can write and write all the words you want. It doesn't change the fact that me (and others) find NPOV objections here, and that Argentina issued a decree naming Vernet governor of these territories. Undermining this fact doesn't change it. You just can't say it was a private endeavor after that point.

Did you even note the stripped down proposals? If you answer, please keep it short and to the point. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the various rabbit holes anymore and I would appreciate you stop putting words in my mouth. Taking things one issue at a time.

OK you acknowledge that the Lexington's presence stemmed from the dispute. The article currently states "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831." This is accurate but doesn't include a lot of extraneous detail, which you wish to add. You repeatedly assert that there is a "euphemism" here to soften the Argentine POV. Where is it? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Giving you the same treatment: I'm not responding you. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You keep taking the discussion of down rabbit holes, raising a numeber of side issues that result in the discussion going nowhere. Please focus on one issue at a time. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The word 'although'

It reads right now: "Although Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store". Alex, Michael and myself have expressed that it would be best to remove it on the grounds of NPOV, as described in the 'Word to watch' guideline. My proposal, backed by Alex, is simply using a semicolon between the statements. Wee Curry Monster disagrees on the grounds that now it's sweeter, which I believe doesn't stand to an official Wikipedia guideline about bias. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I observe that you don't wish to take up my offer to go through things one thing at a time. Morevoever I note, you have chosen to misrepresent my position and not for the first time. The comments on sweetness refer to my desire not to add a great deal of extraneous and unnecessary detail. I have specifically requested that you don't do this.

You assert there is a euphemism in the sentence "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831." This alleged euphemism is to soften the Argentine POV. Where is this alleged euphemism please?

You also changed claimed to stated, the current text doesn't say that at all. This is something you suggested but it isn't in the article yet. Just for the record.

And the alleged violation of the MoS by the use of the word "although" as a conjunction. Read the guideline again, this isn't a word to be avoided as you allege. It is suggested that care should be taken in its use as "although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second."

So taking the above. Is there a relationship between the two statements, yes there is so its use as a conjunction is perfectly valid.

Is the statement intended to undermine the first or give undue precadence to the credibility of the second? No it doesn't, moreover as written it gives more weight to Vernet's claims over a primary source, namely the log of the USS Lexington. And if you read the History of the Falkland Islands, where I expanded it, I go further by giving the testament of Brisbane who did witness these events.

As to claim v stated. One the source didn't say stated, it said claimed, a reasonable approach given that Vernet never witnessed the exents of 1831 he could not be considered a primary eye witness source giving a statement.

So once again, I offer to discuss things in a reasonable manner with you. But again I request you stop raising multiple side issues and stop misrepresenting what I say to you. We can start with you identifying the alleged euphemism you find so objectionable. Please. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I won't be dragged into the mud again, as I said before. If someone else picks up on your misrepresentations, then I will answer them. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

These edits speak by themselves: [1] [2] If you want to keep the questionable 'although' structure, and the order doesn't affect the meaning/implications of the phrase, then why don't we leave it like your first edit? -- Langus (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do don't they, they demonstrate the premise that the order doesn't affect the meaning/implications of the phrase most effectively. That is why I did it. As to why I left it as it was, that was how it was when it had consensus - the written record is here. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It would prove that you really think that if you'd leave it in reverse order. By reverting it immediately, it's only a statement. I remind you (for the second time) that consensus can change. In fact, as far as I know you're the only one who wants to keep that phrase unchanged, while three editors are actively looking for an alternative. So I'd say you're the key to reach consensus on this matter. Regards. -- Langus (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The guy changing citizenship

[3] I think this is noteworthy in the context of the sovereignty dispute. Argentino (talk/cont.) 13:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This article covers all aspects of the Falkland Islands. Ideally no Wikipedia article should exceed 60,000 bytes and once it gets to the length that this article is, excess material has got to be moved to subsidiary articles. The Falkland Islands Team has been working through this article - the one section that is still being worked on is the section on the Sovereignty Dispute. I split the section into two - one that discusses the dispute before the war of 1982 and one afterwards. I reduced the pre-1982 subsection to a manageable length, but have yet to reduced the post-1982 section. IMO James Peck's citizenship is a minor incident that might possibly warrant a mention in a more detailed article, but certainly not here. Martinvl (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Martin per WP:NOTNEWS, this is not encylcopedic content. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree; in any case the article would be Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute. News can be of encyclopedic interest tho -- see WP:NEWSEVENT. -- Langus (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can be but this doesn't meet the criteria set out there. Its little more than a publicity stunt, nothing more. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Publicity Stunt" care to give a citation? What exactly do you base this on? The man is married to an Argentine woman, it might very well be a personal choice for family reasons. I agree with Langus, news can be of encyclopaedic interest.Alex79818 (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: USS Lexington paragraph

There are concerns about impartial tone when describing a military raid in the Falkland Islands (1831). More details inside. -- Langus (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph in dispute currently reads: "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. Although Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo." My concerns are at the beggining and the end of it:

1. That the phrase starts with an WP:EUPHEMISM, not fully mentioning the actions that led to the raid. The decision of striking the settlement was made after discovering that the schooner Harriet was captured and brought to Buenos Aires ^[1]. Duncan learned about Vernet in Montevideo ^[2], and chose to attack the settlement in Buenos Aires ^[1]. Also, and this is a matter of readibility, because it doesn't mention the incident readers end up a bit confused as to what happened to Vernet (he traveled with the Harriet ^[3] and never returned to the Falkands);
2. That saying "arrested for piracy" and nothing further, is asserting exclusively the US POV, sharply in contrast with the phrase "a dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in..." for the reasons I exposed in point No. 1. Moreover, it doesn't address the fact that they were never put on trial ^{[4a] [4b]} and were treated with reservations in favor of the government of Buenos Aires. ^[5]

For this, I think that there is unbalance in the fact that actions and accusations of the US Government against Vernet & Brisbane are included in the text, but Argentina's actions and accusations against the Harriet are not there.

I believe that a possible solution would be reducing the pro-US POV by removing "for piracy", or else to elaborate the expression "a dispute over fishing and hunting rights" so it mentions the Harriet incident and Argentina's POV. I believe this last one would be the best course, to avoid any risk of euphemisms.

Also, there is concern about whether or not the use of the word 'although' when presenting the two opposite accounts can lead the reader in favor of one argument or another, as described in Wikipedia:Words_to_watch#Editorializing. For that, it has been proposed to eliminate it.

References:

[1] Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960, by Harold F. Peterson. Page 105, title "The Lexington Retaliates" [4].

[2] Gold braid and foreign relations: diplomatic activities of U.S. naval Officers 1798-1883, by David Foster Long. Page 152. [5].

[3] Gold braid and foreign relations: diplomatic activities of U.S. naval Officers 1798-1883, by David Foster Long. [6] Page 152.

[4a] http://www.ussduncan.org/silas_page13.htm

[4b] Gold braid and foreign relations: diplomatic activities of U.S. naval Officers 1798-1883, by David Foster Long. [7]Page 152.

[5] Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960, by Harold F. Peterson. Page 106 [8]

-- Langus (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Three proposals:

• "Fishing and hunting rights disputes arose between governments of the United States and Argentina. In 1831 Vernet seized a US schooner and arrested her to the port of Buenos Aires, which resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington. Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed; the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested and taken to Montevideo charged with piracy." <presents both POV but it's possibly too long for an overview>
• "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed; the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. The seven senior members of the settlement were arrested and taken to Montevideo." <more neutral & short>
• "Vernet's seizure of US sealing vessels resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed; the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. The seven senior members of the settlement were arrested and taken to Montevideo." <more neutral & short>

-- Langus (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I ask again, if you could actually point to this euphemism that you allege is there?

And again, all sources, even the Argentine ones acknowledge that the 7 senior members were arrested on charges of piracy. You allege it is POV to mention a documented historical fact, yet have given no reason in policy as to why you wish to remove it. Cherry picking from sources that quite clearly contradict the point you make doesn't augur well for a neutral proposal. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Langus. Now, to the mutton:

1. "Euphemism" - WCM, for the millionth time, the euphemism referred to is the phrase "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid". This is neither neutral nor accurate. It is presumptuous because of the qualifier "a dispute of over fishing and hunting rights".

---

> *****The euphemism is the word "dispute", as used.**** <------

According to bilateral sources, the Argentine position was that Vernet prohibited seal hunting, while the US position was that the islands were free of government such that Vernet's actions lacked force of law. A "dispute" would take place if one party maintained the position that a certain law was applicable while the other party maintained the position that said law was not applicable.

Rather, in this case, according to all sources, was not that the US said Vernet's law wasn't applicable - for the US simply maintained Vernet had no jurisdiction to enforce any law at all. That is more than a mere "dispute over fishing and hunting rights". If you want to have the word "dispute" there, say what the dispute was really about: a dispute over sovereignty and jurisdictional authority, without which Vernet's actions would rightly have been deemed piracy.

2. "Piracy" - Again the issue here is not with the content, but with the wording. A documented historical fact can indeed be worded so as to present or imply a POV, and that is exactly what is going on here. "..the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo"......AND THEN??????

Were they tried? Were they found guilty??? Did they hang?? Were they set free??? Were they given a state dinner and made kings for a day??? Who knows. But the WORDING leaves the reader with the taste of PIRACY in his/her mouth. It suggests, very subtly, the conclusion that they were arrested for piracy so they must have been pirates. Not exactly NPOV.

3. "Although" - above and beyond what Langus said, I object to this wording. Consider this sentence structure:

"Although the defendant stated his house was burned down, the police report indicates only his car was on fire."

That doesn't mean the house wasn't on fire too - but sure makes it look like the defendant is a liar. There are two narrators, one is apparently being accused of a crime, the other is an officer of the law - the effect is one of suggesting bias that discredits one source and credits another. By the same token, the sentence...

"Although Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store."

...also specifically creates in readers the image that Lexington's report is more accurate than Vernet's, when coupled with the accusation of Piracy. The effect is cumulative, the text as is fails to meet NPOV in any conceivable way, and therefore must be changed.

I propose the following text:

"A dispute over jurisdictional authority arose between governments of the United States and Argentina. In 1831 Vernet seized three US schooners for illegal seal hunting, releasing two and arresting the crew of the third and sending them to Buenos Aires for trial. The US Consul, George Slacum, did not recognize Vernet's authority or Argentina's sovereignty claims. A diplomatic row ensued, resulting in a raid on Vernet's settlement by the US warship USS Lexington. Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed; the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. Following the raid, the Captain of the USS Lexington declared the Islands were free from all government, and in turn arrested the seven senior members of Vernet's settlement on charges of piracy."

I would also be willing to add statements as to the legal disposition of BOTH parties of accused.Alex79818 (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And that says exactly what the current article says but with 3 times as many words on extraneous details. This is an overview, the details are in a linked article. You're both constructing a mountain out of a molehill. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I accept that change would be beneficial here, but I'm not convinced by the suggestions made. Alex's is far too long and too detailed for an overview article. Langus' first is also too long, and I do not accept the accuracy of the claim that there was any significant dispute between the government of Argentina (independently of Vernet) and government the United States prior to the Lexington Raid, as both imply. I fail to see how Langus' second resolves his objection. His third, and the status quo, are the basis for the below. On the "although", I do not see the basis for the objection here, and I feel that the sentence structure needs some joining word. But I'm happy to consider alternatives since I do not see that specific word as essential.

This would be better worded, IMO, as:

Following Vernet's seizure of three US sealing vessels, the USS Lexington raided Puerto Luis in 1831. While Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington reported destruction only of arms and a powder store. The Islands were declared free from all government, and seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy, taken to Montevideo and released.

This is only marginally longer than the status quo, and contains all of the same information (I think), plus some useful extra details. I do rather think it would be an improvement to mention that they were released in Montevideo even if there is no other change. Pfainuk talk 17:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe you're labouring under the impression that the dispute followed the Lexington raid but this is not the case. The US consul had disputed the pronouncement of fishing/hunting restrictions in the Falklands as did the British consul, and the US had re-inforced the Brazil squadron as a result; ostensibly to protect American commericial interests. The presence of the Lexington was propitious as a result of the pre-exisiting dispute; the US consul and Argentine authorities had been exchanging notes for some time. Hence, I venture the current text is more accurate. The details of the ships that were captured and Vernet's return to Buenos Aires are tangential and as such not necessary for an overview.

The central allegation that there is a "euphemism" and the text is "POV" is not sustainable.

I have no objection to adding they were released in Montevideo but I would just draw your attention to the fact that I did add this to the article only to have Langus, the originator of the RFC, revert my addition almost immediately. I believe that simple addition would have resolved any neutrality issues with the current text. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again we see a consideration of the facts solely from the perspective of every entity but Argentina's. I ask, in the above reasoning, is there any consideration of the fact that, from Buenos Aires' viewpoint, the matter had been settled when no objection was filed in Buenos Aires, from either Great Britian or the United States, regarding the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, its taking control of former Spanish dominions in SA under "uti", and the widespread international publications of the same in 1821 followed by recognition? Is there any consideration given to the fact that Buenos Aires received no British objections to the matter of the Islands passing into UP's hands later in 1825 when Britain and the United Provinces signed the treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation? Where were the objections then?? Where was the frenzy of British and American notes denouncing the United Provinces' intentions as to the islands and assertion of sovereingty insofar as dispatching Jewett??

Sources, please - otherwise it's WP:OR.

Also, to say that the US decision to reinforce the Brazil squadron was prompted by a need to secure US interests in or near the islands completely ignores the fact there was a shooting war between Argentina and Brazil. Again - where are the sources?

Whether or not the current text is accurate is not what is in contention here. What is in contention is whether or not the WORDING, NOT THE CONTENT, BUT THE LANGUAGE, suggests the suppression of the Argentine position. The details that are "tangential" seem to be the ones on which the Argentine position is based. Suppressing them violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR unless you cite sources that also qualify such events as "tangential".

Again...tangential? Ok - sources, please. Says who? You? WP:OR says unless you've got sources, it doesn't matter whether you think any pertinent events are tangential, conic, parabolic, or any geometric shape you want to assign as an adjective. It happened, one party believes its important, and if you suppress it you violate WP:NPOV.

As far as the central allegation being "sustainable" or not, well, let's see if the same holds true when the sentence structure you support applies to you:

"Although User:WCM claims to be an impartial editor, several editors commented in the recent ARBCOM request that he regularly violates WP:NPOV".

Do you really believe the above sentence is just as neutral as, for example,

"User: WCM calims to be an impartial editor; several other editors commented in a recent ARBCOM page that he regularly violates WP:NPOV".

Of course you wouldn't. Why the need for "although"? Why the comparison? Just state what one party alleged, then state what the other party alleged. In fact, I'll propose a compromise: since you believe the sentence structure to be neutral given the accuracy of the context, which you apparently believe holds primacy over all other aspects, I therefore suggest the following change - that you KEEP the sentence structure EXACTLY AS IT IS, just REVERSE the order of the subjects, to:

"While Lexington reported destruction only of arms and a powder store, Vernet stated that the entire settlement was destroyed."

After all, we both agree the content is ACCURATE and the content is UNCHANGED and you seem to think there is no euphemism and the

selection of words used doesn't matter one way or the other. So change it to what I just posted, unless you object, although I do wonder why you would.Alex79818 (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't read that. Perhaps a little less shouting and little less verbiage, please?

Uninvolved editor input

I'd be happy to provide some input. But to do so, I'll need some quotes from secondary sources on this topic. Can some editor familiar with the topic provide some quotes (ideally 3 to 6 sources)? That would help me provide some feedback on the issue. You can either put the quotes right here, or in a sub-page of this Talk page. Just type-in the paragraph(s) from each source that discuss the topic. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

... also, I see that History_of_the_Falkland_Islands#USS_Lexington_raid has some text on this topic, but it has no citations. --Noleander (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Noleander, thank you for your interest. As a start you can read the quotes I provided in a green collapsible textbox above, "References for the Lexington paragraph". It's in the Talk:Falkland_Islands#Arbitrary_break section. Regards. -- Langus (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Langus' quotes above is that they don't tell the full picture. Even when the source quoted contradicts his edit, he simply ignores it. I would suggest Peterson for background reading on the matter, [9], p.104 Peterson notes the first diplomatic exchange on the matter pre-dates both the Lexington raid and the seizure of the Harriet, Breakwater and Superior and that the Lexington was present as it was sent to re-inforce the Brazil squadron to protect American commerce. Good Luck. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've already replied about that two times.[10][11] -- Langus (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, my last revertion was because we were still proposing changes for that paragraph when he went on and introduced them. I thought it wasn't ok to modify it when we had finally got a third opinion. Bear in mind that if I want to change a semicolon (literally) I have to give pages and pages of explanations, with three editors of the same opinion not being enough.

I know WCM has contributed a lot and he's been here a long time. But that shouldn't automatically lead you to think he's right. And because I'm new, that I'm wrong (or a troll, or a socket puppeteer).

I'll take into account the advice about informal mediation. Regards. -- Langus (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said I don't have a vested interest in this topic. I did not mean to infer your actions were unlawful, but based on my quick assessment I see WCM as more right than wrong. The sensitivity of the Falkland's is quite intense so I encourage a request for informal mediation. You guys seem to have a genuine interest in moving the article forward. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree - yet arbcom seems to want to see a more thorough attempt at editors working things out before resorting to additional steps. Their first encouragement was that of RFQ and this is what's happening now. I will also note this article has been to mediation before and mediators ended up being no-shows. As for all editors, length of contribution by any editor means nothing if their contributions seem to consistently violate NPOV, albeit subtly. This is an attempt to put that aside and discuss the facts, please let's not steer the conversation back to editor's actions and instead focus on the facts. There are many, many issues to review and this is only the first.Alex79818 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Curry Monster above says "The problem with Langus' quotes above is that they don't tell the full picture. Even when the source quoted contradicts his edit, he simply ignores it." well I do remember quite recently when Curry Monster wrote that "the acts in seizing American ships were piracy have never been repudiated. This position is actually in a state of the union address". Hey WCM I'm still waiting for your citation. I've read through every single one of Jackson's SOTU addresses and he has said NOTHING OF THE SORT. So unless you're sourcing a book from a parallel dimension, I'd say your assertion of Langus is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. May I remind you based on the last ARBCOM proceeding that numerous editors have dirt on you mate. If this discussion page is again going to devolve into "who did what" then I can assure everyone the road ahead will be much longer and harder than if we choose to discuss the FACTS - yes, perhaps with spirited discussion sometimes, but maintaining the focus on the facts instead of accusing each other.Alex79818 (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Reset

At this stage, I think it might be a good idea to drag this back on to content matters.

Controversial points, based on the above:

• Whether the words "dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid" are sufficient and appropriate to describe the events in the build-up to the Lexington Raid in an overview article, and if not, what they should be replaced with.
• Whether "although" introduces bias in discussing the two contradictory statements as to the result of the Lexington Raid, and if so, how it should be mitigated while maintaining a reasonable sentence structure.
• Whether the fact that it was piracy that Brisbane et al were arrested for is relevant.

I believe that it is generally accepted that we should mention that Brisbane et al were released in Montevideo, though if someone objects to that then that can be a fourth bullet point as well. Pfainuk talk 10:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I have altered the phonetic rendering in the first para. ˈfɔːlklənd is never heard, ˈfɔːklənd is most common, but ˈfɔlklənd is also heard.

Boynamedsue (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations in lede

I have removed the citation in the lede in accordance with WP:LEDECITE. A few months ago, as part of improving this article, all citations were removed from the lede into the body of the article. Once the overhaul of the article is compelete, it is proposed to rewrite the lede. Please do not reinstate this citations (which is repeated anyway) unless consensus is obtained. Martinvl (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. --Langus (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Spanish name - why?

Can anyone point me to the discussion that provided the consensus that it was appropriate to put the Spanish name in the lead please. FactController (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See [12], more in Archive 4. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Archives 1 and 2 also have a fair bit on it. Suffice to say, the topic's been fairly well covered. Pfainuk talk 19:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, a fair bit of material to read through then, all from four or five years ago. Can anyone briefly summarise why this English article has the name used by some Spanish-speaking countries too whereas say, the articles for the Pitcairn Islands or Turks and Caicos Islands don't? FactController (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because a number of English-speaking sources, such as the CIA fact book, also have the Spanish name. Martinvl (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And the ISO designation includes the Spanish name. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Claimed vs. stated

Guys, could we stop with the edit warring and discuss this here on talk, please? Pfainuk talk 11:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Vernet's description of the situation arose from a claim that he made against the US for damages, so the word "claimed" is the corrected word. Martinvl (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely why it is used, thank you Martin. I've made this point before and the edit warring to remove a word combined with the accusations of bias are irritating. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The use of the verb 'claimed' is clearly discouraged in WP guidelines, it astonish me how much resistance I find to this change. If there's no bias of your part (all of you) then why in God's name won't you let me change this??? Honestly, it looks like you're constantly looking for excuses. When I first came here it said "Argentina claimed that...". Then WCM wrote the current version. Then WCM applied a ref tag to the sentence, asking himself for sources. Then the tag was reverted but I committed myself to improve/correct the expression, so I found Brisbane and other islanders statements collected by Fitzroy and put that here. It was reverted, because WCM finally remembered what was the source for this. Ok, no problem, but the word 'claimed' is clearly problematic and needs to be corrected, as well as the Although structure (and I'm not the only one who had expressed these concerns). These are minor changes, yet it seems I need to find Jimmy Wales and bring him down here for you to accept them. What's the big issue with using another verb? What's the big problem of using a semicolon? I remind you I'm trying to achieve a NEUTRAL text, so if in doubt, you shouldn't deny those minor changes in the name of "good prose" or the alike, which is (according to WP) far less important. --Langus (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the Concise Oxford Disctionary, the most relevant meaning of the word "claim" is "demand recognition of the fact that; contend; assert". This definition probably explains why the WP guidelines discourages the use of the word "claimed". In this instance, it is entirely appropriate to use the word. Martinvl (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I remind you that only we talking here know about the claim that Vernet did against the US, but the casual reader only knows what we show to him. As that is the most relevant meaning, that is what they'll understand, if no clarification is made. --Langus (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a wikilink there to explain it, your "minor" changes are always to detract from the quality of the article. You remove terms that reflect what the source says, or introduce changes and they do not improve neutrailty. You are the only person to express this concern, you started an RFC and the comment you got was your edits and conduct were problematic, whilst my edits were well sourced (i think the correct phrase was impeccably sourced). Whether this is a language confusion or not I don't know. But there isn't a problem with the way its phrased and it is neutral. You're constantly alleging problems that do no exist and accusing other editors of misconduct. You are the one creating problems and conflict here and its completely unnecessary. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about "problematic behavior" take a look at your talk page history (since you revert every complaint about your behavior). I am not the only person that has expressed concern about this. This kind of false premises you state is one of the reasons why people gets so mad at you.

Getting back to the point, I repeat: it is just a minor edit and the article could become more neutral, by eliminating the possibility of misunderstandings about WP taking a stance on the version disagreement. --Langus (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To "claim" can easily imply that the author is doubts the accuracy of the claim. Contrasting "Vernet claimed" with "the Lexington... reports" would seem asymmetric, in that it uses a wording that could be taken to cast question on the accuracy Vernet's point but not the Lexington's. While I'm not arguing that the sentence is biased, I can see how others might come to that conclusion.

While I do not think that "stated" is necessarily a good word to use (it sounds clunky to me), I do not have any particular objection to a rewording of the sentence to remove the potential for bias that I can see being read into the existing sentence.

As to Martin's argument, I don't entirely agree. When we refer to Vernet's claim in the context you describe, it's a claim for compensation for the damage to his settlement. The point being made here relates to the arguments made by Vernet in support of this claim, not the claim itself. These arguments may separately be described as "claims" themselves, but the two kinds of claim are slightly different things. A fine distinction, maybe, but I think it's one that's worth drawing.

Finally, could I ask, without aiming this at any particular editor, that we all take care to avoid any kind of personal remarks and discussion of past conduct, except where it clearly relates to the current dispute and where such comments are in full compliance with behavioural guidelines such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 21:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Routinely house cleaning my talk page is not a problem. See WP:UP#CMT, if you infer otherwise, that is entirely YOUR problem Langus. Pfainuk I disagree, claim is used because it is related to Vernet's claim, report is used because the Captain of the Lexington reported. It isn't a minor edit when it changes the meaning compared with what the source says. I will listen to a reasoned argument but when the premise is to accuse anyone who disagrees as promoting a POV edit, when an RFC has stated the contrary, then no. WP:AGF does not sit well with accusations of POV editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

"The extent of damage is not clear: Vernet declared that the settlement was destroyed, while the Lexington only reported destruction of arms and a powder store."

Feel free to propose modifications. Thank you. --Langus (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree --Langus (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• AgreeAlex79818 (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree Wee Curry Monster talk 07:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Better to put into chronological order and not to give false testimony; Vernet made a claim as a result of this action.

"The extent of damage is not clear: the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, Vernet later claimed the settlement was destroyed."

• Agree Wee Curry Monster talk 07:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree. It uses again the verb 'to claim' which could be misunderstood. I also prefer to just connect the ideas with a 'while': it's 100% even. --Langus (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Did Vernet lodge a claim against the US? Do you dispute this fact? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. Read the talk above. --Langus (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In which case, claimed is appropriate is it not. QED Wee Curry Monster talk 12:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, because the reader doesn't know about such claim and may get a wrong message. Really, it's discussed above. --Langus (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You really don't have a sustainable objection here, it was a claim, claimed is appopriate and there is a wikilink anyway. You've wasted months over a word that does not have the meaning you attribute to it and diverted people away from creating content. Not only that but made a whole lot of unfounded accusations of bias that never existed and eroded good faith in your intentions. Walk away from the deceased equine and drop the stick. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You sure know how to put horses to death, don't you? Right now you are filibustering this decision. Lets take Pfainuk's advice and leave accusations and personal attacks aside, ok? --Langus (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Accusations and personal attacks? Do you mean like accusing anyone who disagrees with you as biased and any edit you don't like as POV? Like just now accusing me of filibustering? Yes please do stop the personal attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. WCM, you don't seem to understand the reason why WP frowns on the use of the word "claim" as a verb. When saying an historical figure "claimed" that such and such took place, the use of that verb inherently indicates the possibility that the statement is false. Further, when you connect the two ideas with a "while", and the second idea is contrary to what said individual "claimed" in the first idea, it gives the impression that the latter is a more accurate version of events - thus further discrediting the individual who "claimed" otherwise in the former.

The obejction here is therefore not a factual objection. The objection raised is that of an WP:NPOV violation, albeit a subtle one, in that the specific wording of a phrase gives the impression to the reader that Vernet's claims are false. The verb "claim" is not appropriate, WP believes it should not be used, and Vernet's statement could just as accurately be conveyed in saying he "declared" or "reported". I also favor the removal of "while" in favor of a more distinct grammatical separator, such as a period or semicolon.

However if none of my objections above carry weight, I certainly do agree with your comment about chronological accuracy, and to that end if there is no consensus to the objections raised here, I propose:

"The extent of damage is not clear: the Lexington claimed only the destruction of arms and a powder store, while Vernet later reported the settlement was destroyed."

I'm certain, since in your opinion there is nothing wrong with use of "claimed" as a verb or the use of "while" to separate ideas, that you will be in full agreement with the above.Alex79818 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I don't think that 'while' is problematic. 'Although' and 'but' are another matter... --Langus (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced Opinion Tags

MartinVL reverted my unbalanced opinion tags saying no explanation had been given for them. So here's my explanation for them, that each of the statements I tagged represent only one interpretation of historical events - the British interpretation - and does not give equal weight to the Argentine interpretation. The British POV is presented to the reader as fact without any counterbalance from Argentine POV, as follows:

-"Spanish name is offensive" tag: this is unbalanced because only the viewpoint of the islanders are represented. Argentines find the "Falkland" name offensive just as much as islanders find the name "Malvinas" offensive, yet this is not represented at all.

-The assertion that Buenos Aires learned of Jewett's declaration is only indicative of the British POV and ignores Argentine viewpoint that such a proclamation was pronounced and published in Buenos Aires prior to Jewett's departure. The characterization of Heroina as a privateer vessel is correct, but Jewett should be identified by his proper rank of Colonel. The text currently gives readers the impression that Jewett was also a privateer during the 1820 mission, and not a commissioned officer. Therefore the text is unbalanced.

-The assertion that Argentina's establishments were "abortive attempts" only represents the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The wording of the "Although Vernet.." sentence is already being discussed however I will restate this is unbalanced insofar as its wording is concerned, which seems to present Vernet as a liar.

-The sentence following asserts the senior members were arrested for piracy and mentions nothing about them being freed at Montevideo, this is supportive of the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The characterization of Mestevier being an "interim commander" represents only the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The characterization that Mestevier's only duty was to found a penal settlement represents only the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The characterization that British forces "requested" the Argentine garrison leave represents only the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The characterization that Rivero's actions were criminal and not resistive of British leadership represents only the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

Please leave the tags in place, or rewrite.

Also, regarding the opener:

Why was the sentence about the islands being on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories almost a paragraph behind the end of the first paragraph which states the islands are a self-govening BOT? That location makes no sense as that sentence becomes somewhat "orphaned" down there. It seems to me the subjects should be adjacent to each other given the close proximity of the subjects they address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.36.57.10 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alex. Let's not pretend that we don't know it's you.

Per my edit summary, neutrality does not mean and has never meant that we have to "counterbalance" neutral fact taken from reliable sources with the POV of either side in a modern dispute. We do not censor neutral fact if some people don't like them. That goes regardless of what the POVs are and how well they are sourced as being the POVs - but in this case I note a total lack of sourcing, and that in most of those cases where you actually bother to raise an objection, the position you say should be given directly contradicts reliable sources.

I would finally add that tagging things like this does nothing to aid the ongoing discussion above and are thus totally pointless. Pfainuk talk 17:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind your stating "neutral" facts taken from reliable sources. Of course, this is not what you are doing, because there are reliable academic and historical sources from both sides, and you ignore one side and only present the other. So you are not answering what I said.

What I said is that you are taking non-neutral facts and presenting them as if there was only one interpretation, the one you find in sources that you pick and choose that you think are "reliable". Your response above blows the whistle on you, because it seems you think there are no reliable sources from Argentine academics. Is this why you ignore them? Because if so, then the decision you make to include a source or not has nothing to do with them being reliable or not, is have to do with them having an Argentinian interpretation of events or not.

This shows you think the only reliable sources are the ones which support your POV, and that these sources are the only neutral ones. Why don't you for once put aside your bias and let's see if we can come up with sources we both agree with, and failing that, at least acknowledge the fact that there are reliable sources on both sides that come to different conclusions? But no, you're not interested in debate, or compromise, and anyone reading the talk history knows this. Because that history shows, if I or someone else present sources that go against the statements I cited above, wouldn't you dismiss them outright because you think they're not "neutral"? Or "reliable"? Of course you will.

So instead of honest discussion, you want to play the name game, once again. You know, a while back WCM accused me of being a number of possible users and it seems you're willing engage in similar accusations. Must be something at stake that makes you guys so paranoid, and for good reason.

So, tell me, are u talking about the "ongoing discussion" where you and other pro-British POV editors accuse any editor with an opposing viewpoint of the very things you are doing?

Or instead are you talking about the "ongoing discussion" in which you simply collude with other pro-British POV editors to shut down any dissenting voice, taking turns on your attacks and reverts to prevent a 3RR violation?

Guess what, I came here this time to discuss and not vandalize and you instead make accusations, fine. I don't say a position should be given, I say there are reliable sources that come to conclusion A and there are other reliable sources that come to conclusion B and you can't ignore one and always put the other, which we both know is what you do and always done. I don't know how long you think you can continue this little game you're playing, but I do know what the outcome will be. Case in point is the discussion above, you are well aware the use of the word "claim" as a verb is strongly discouraged yet you say nothing. You are not impartial and you don't care about WP guidelines.

Understand - every objection raised by us is raised about WP:NPOV violations, not only do ask for honest debate and reform, but also given your history, to specifically intended to document your side's unwillingess to play by the rules. We are documenting, everything you say, on every issue, and the more you break the rules, the more ammo you give us to eventually go back to arbcom. Based on your attitude this seems to be inevitable, and we're just going through the motions. I wish you'd change your mind, but it looks like you wont. Too bad for you when the hammer falls.

But for now the situation is this. If you want this match to play out let it play out. I've stated my reasons and you don't want to discuss because only the British and Islander sources are "neutral" and "reliable", and not the Argentinian ones. You say potatoe, I say potato. I put the tags back. Do not take them out again unless you're willing to cite and reference to other neutral and reliable sources that maybe don't jive with your POV. We get admins involved, they can read this talk page, and the whole shebang can start again.

Or, for once, you can discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.36.57.10 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's why I put the tags: the insinuation that any source, even if reputable, should automatically be considered "propaganda" simply because it doesn't agree with Pfainuk's understanding of how historical events should be interpreted, is against WP:NPOV. Any text based on excluding an entire set of reputable sources, because a user considers them "propaganda" when their conclusions contradict the editor's views, is text that denotes an unbalanced opinion, and merits the tag I put on. Without additional text that represents conclusions of all major reputable sources, instead of one particular conclusion, the tags are merited. I am posting this to comply with WP:BRD, per Chipmunkdavis, and I am still waiting for a response or objections to what I said. If none are posted then I'll revert and restore the tags, which should stay in place until changes to the text are agreed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.36.57.10 (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to say I concur with many of the points raised above, even tho I don't think they're done on purpose. I understand the feeling, specially seeing how the "ongoing discussion" about the verb 'claimed' has fallen into oblivion (Pfainuk and Martin seem to have moved on). It's not the first time this happens: an editor would understand my concerns about a particular word or expression, but then when it comes to voting or coming to a conclusion in any way, they'd remain silent. If you want to show you're committed to be neutral, you don't have to put so many force against changes, and you have to support any of them which could improve it in that way. Even if you're not 100% sure about it but you can see that the change is not detrimental the other way around. --Langus (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, why do you resort to personal accusations? So much for WP:AGF. I believe the best way to ensure people will not play games with you is to not play games yourself. You above all should know that I am not the only editor whom this anti-NPOV cabal of your has run afoul of. Now you and I might be free to post whatever personal opinions you want to in other discussion sites - but here, there most certainly are rules. If you will not abide by them or attempt to game the system then don't expect other editors to be silent about it. I fully support the placement of the tag in every single one of the stated text locations and I wholeheartedly agree with the reasons given for them. I am yet to see any objection to the tags. I am willing to wait a few more days, after which I encourage 209.36.57.10 to restore the changes if there are still no objections. If other users engage in EWing I will escalate the issue accordingly.Alex79818 (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Editors may wish to note that this discussion has been taken to WP:ANI here. Pfainuk talk 20:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

when in any doubt

Use "said" instead of "claimed" or "reported" or the like. When dealing with history, use the terminology found in the references cited when writing in the language of the reference used. When quoting, do not alter any words or spelling. [13] The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion, is least likely to be correct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, noting that in this particular case the reference refers to a "formal claim" against a Government. This is taken out of context here, and as Martinvl noted, the most usual meaning for the verb 'to claim' is "to assert in the face of possible contradiction"[14]. And since this is not a quote, it shouldn't be a problem to re-phrase it, just to be sure. Yet it seems impossible. Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, and note that the cited source (Tatham) is not a treatise nor a historical textbook but rather a collection of essays by various authors. Therefore, a more specific citation is required, one that discloses both the author of the essay used as well as the specific verbiage as stated in that source.Alex79818 (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal claim backed up by a wikilink to relevant text that explains it further. Claimed is perfectly neutral in this instance, since it refers to Vernet's claim against the US Government, a claim that is still extant. Changing to a different verb such as "stated" for example distorts what the original source is saying. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of "Claimed" with regard to destruction of something is not a formal "claim" against a government or "claim" of territory or the like - it refers to a statement, and it appears consensus is that "said" is quite sufficient. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Vernet did make a formal claim for damages against the US for this incident for which there is documented historical evidence. Hence, I consider claimed is more accurate since it reflects the source. As regards your claim of consensus, respectfully I disagree, if you look above the consensus was to stay with the existing wording, though that is hidden with reams of tendentious and argumentative text. I am quite prepared to listen to a reasoned argument but I refuse to submit to reams of personal abuse and personal accusations of POV editing. Further giving in to editors who resort to disruptive editing when they fail to get their own way will only encourage them to continue in the same vein. When this blew up there was a concerted effort to take this article to GA status, now that is forgotten. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is regard to him "claiming" the settlement was destroyed, and not to "Vernet filing a formal claim" against a government. Simple English - and the consensus here is that the simple English version works. If you added "Vernet filed a formal claim against the US governemnt" or the like, that would use a different meaning of "claim" than was present in the sentence which I emended. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC) As a result, I strongly suggest you re-revert yourself, and, if you wish, add a specific sentence using the correct usage of "claim." Else any other editor here is quite free to edit in accord with consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, Vernet claims the settlement was destroyed, which was expanded by wikilink for the curious. Can I ask which source you were basing your wording on? I am amenable to changing the wording, provided its accurate, reflects the source, results from consensus and is not imposed by disruptive editing. Please stop encouraging disruptive editing, your last comment is an invitation to impose new text by edit warring. Is that your intention? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And the usage you cite is a synonym for "said". I fear you conflate "Claim" as in "making a legal demand" with "Claim" meaning "say." The difference is substantial - and the way the sentence is phrased admits of no interpretation that it was a "legal calim" rather than a "statement" that the settlement was destroyed. As for accusing me of encouraging "disruptive editing" -- kindly apprise yourself of WP:NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Appending: I can not confirm any cite from Tatham - it is not available online in any form, and is not found in any local libraries at all. [15] shows copies in Cape Town and in Germany (total of 2). Nor can I find any use of it in Google Scholar (as in zero cites by others). In point of fact - the entire book is "self-published" and fails WP:RS to boot! Cheers - I think all of Tatham goes. Collect (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No the source from memory states that Vernet claimed the settlement was destroyed, my edit merely reflects the source. Again I ask you what sources you're basing your edit on? The relevant phrase in the guideline is when in doubt, I'm not in doubt as to any problems with the wording and your own edit seems based on a presumption of my understanding. Its a guideline not an absolute and in this case I feel it is not appropriate. With respect if your conduct either directly or inadvertently encourages disruptive editing, then to point this out is not a personal attack. As regards WP:NPA, I refer you to your own comments on your talk page and remind you of WP:DTTR.

Secondly Tatham is not self-published, I even include a google books link in the cite so your research is rather obviously not that thorough. It is a [WP:RS]] and it stays but quite brilliantly you've opened another avenue for further disruptive editing. Cheers for that. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not self-published?? Note: Publisher D. Tatham, 2008 Who is "D. Tatham" then if not both publisher and editor? Another "D. Tatham" is around to be a different person? Sorry -- the book is self-published, and all claims based on it should be deleted if others at WP:RSN agree with that "claim. Meanwhile note that I have not "templated" you at any point - I think a cup of tea is quite called for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh grow up, you're not being at all helpful the book is not self-published take it to WP:RSN, I would relish it and am not in the least bit intimidated by the empty threat. Tatham is the editor, the books has a myriad of contributors and resulted from a project to create a definitive biography of the Falkland Islands. So tell me what source do you use for your edit? You're trying to denigrate mine but won't reveal yours. Or is it the case you don't have a source? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It was published by the author http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6136120 So its not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, you're both wrong it does not meet the criteria by which it should be removed. I have commented already at WP:RSN and will revert your edit presently. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

David Tatham is the chair of the editorial board of that book not its author. The book is a reliable source, reviewed by the Polar Record Journal as linked above. Apcbg (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

He is the publisher and editor of the book, and the "board" only exists for the book. The review, in fact, makes it clear that most of the book is autobiographies not fact-checked otherwise, and "embellished" in some cases. Tatham has the credential of having been appointed by QE II as Governor - which does not make him an "historian" of great repute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No he is the chairman of the editing board, and I did list his credentials at the WP:RSN#Falkland Islands thread you started, which I will also note you didn't have the courtesy to inform other editors about. Tatham is an Oxford graduate who read history at Wadham College and has written a number of articles on Falklands History published by third party sources. He also holds positions on a number of bodies including being Chairman of the Shackleton Scholarship fund. As I understand it, your edit was based on Webster a dictionary and not on any reliable source for the history of the Falkland Islands. So thus far your days work seems to be a dedication to win a sematic argument on the use of the word claimed, backing two disruptive editors and trying to rubbish a source to win this semantic argument when you have no basis or reliable source for the edit you made. Have I got it about right? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but none of those(with the possible, can we have more information) establish him as RS. He needs to be a recognised and published expert on history. Can you actually provide some evidence (such as example of articles he has written. I have found one http://www.historytoday.com/author/david-tatham, one article would not be sufficient to my mind to establish any level of expertise.Slatersteven (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)}

That sole article is just about how he wrote the book <g>. Not much of a "history" article for sure, and gives zero notability to Tatham as an historian of any repute. Collect (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(od)(ec) Being an "Oxford graduate" does not confer notability as an historian. Being Chairman of a scholarship fund does not make one a recognized historian. Your accusation about me is absurdly off-base, and is not proper in any article talk page. Your desire to make this a claim that I am seeking disruption is also improper on an article talk page. My goal is that each article conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. One of which says we should not use self-published sources. [16] does not appear to show Tatham as much of an author as far as the historical community is concerned. The sole review you rely on states that people wrote their own entries and that where there was "undue modesty" he asked others to "embellish them." Tatham prepared fifty of the 476 entries (thus he is definitely an author and not just editor of the book). So we remain with a non-notable historian self-publishing a book. The Magic 8 ball says "try again." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No there is more to his qualifications than that, there are more reviews, there is a great deal more to the qualifications of the authors how contributed to the book than you allege. This is not a SPS in the accepted meaning of the term, Tatham is the simply the editor of an editing board - you just have to look at the list of the contributing authors to see that. A moderately different search [17] turns up a great deal more use of Tathams work than the search you crafted. And this is very much a niche topic so you would not expect huge numbers of hits. And that magic 8 ball and your unnecessary use of sarcasm clearly shows this is more about you winning an argument than improving the article. This is not about following wikipedia's policies, if it were your first action would have been to justify your edits from a reliable source. You've still failed to produce a reliable source and are expending prodigious efforts to rubbish a source in order to win a semantic argument.

So far you claimed the book was not readily available. Untrue, it is available on Amazon.

You claimed you had to go to Germany or South Africe to get it. Untrue, it is in the British Library and freely available from any public library on request.

You claimed it wasn't widely cited on the basis of an ill formed google scholar request. Anyone with an academic background would know not to use the first name in a search, as papers usually use initials in citations. A first year undergraduate knows better. A properly formed search provides much better results. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And the array you get shows not a single outside place using his work as a cite. Some simply state his title, or that he wrote a book, but nothing else. Almost all of them, however, have absolutely nothing to do with the author at hand. Such "cites" weaken the case for the book being RS enormously - they do your argument no favours at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What complete and utter nonsense, having the book cited as a reference by 3rd party publications is a cast iron case for WP:RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you two need more opinions or a third person to come in on this, as it currently stands a 1v1 discussion, which is bordering on an argument now, is not very productive. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Only one other person defended the self-published source while three here did not, and another two on RS/N found the source to be not usable. Seems to me the consensus on this is now five to two. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not true, you're over stating your case. One editor made a comment it appeared not to be usable based on the information you gave, information it has to be said that was misleading. Another commented that SPS did not always apply when it was an acknowledged expert. You're also claiming two disruptive editors as supporting you as well. And consensus is not a vote, its about strength of argument and as I've shown above, each and every one of your claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Who are these disruptive editors?Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect he's referring to me once again, or the number of other IP's I'm supposed to be. This is once again devolving into personal accusations. I agree with Slatersteven and Collect, Tatham fails WP:RS and should go. Proposal on both the use of "claim" and Tatham are forthcoming.Alex79818 (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And I'm the other one, of course.

(I hope you get to realize which behavior is really the disruptive one).

Regards. --Langus (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

1. Removal of Vernet's "claim" for plain English "said" and re-arrangement to correct chronological order of events (feel free to propose modifications).

"The extent of damage is not clear. The Lexington reported destruction of arms and a powder store, while Vernet said that the settlement was destroyed."

• AgreeAlex79818 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• MOOT Already removed genius. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree And note that the "Already removed genius" is a clear personal attack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No a sign of frustration, borne of seeing good work undermined by you backing a disruptive editor who has plagued this page for months. Thanks for that. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Change it if you wish, although "claimed" is better than "said" as far as my knowledge of English goes. He did make a claim before certain authorities. Otherwise, "said" to whom? To his nextdoor neighbour? At a public lecture? Apcbg (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment totally and the energy expended by some in having it changed and the lengths they have chosen to go to, including having trying to have a valuable reference work banned is beyond belief. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• The article does not currently say that Vernet "claimed" that the settlement was destroyed, so this is a moot point. Is there a cite for the specific point that the extent of the damage is not clear, or is this an original interpretation based on the fact that we have apparently (though not necessarily) contradictory evidence? Pfainuk talk 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the second point, there isn't a cite for that at all. It is essentially WP:OR, not an unreasonable conclusion but WP:OR nontheless and in a controversial subject area WP:OR is always to be avoided however trivial. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Very well, thank you. Nevertheless, WCM, the second point is YOURS, where in the first proposal above you stated:

"Better to put into chronological order and not to give false testimony; Vernet made a claim as a result of this action."

Are you saying your own suggestion was WP:OR?? Given that this is your claim the responsibility for sourcing it is on you - although if you no longer wish to, I'd be more than happy to oblige. Are you now disagreeing with your own previous position? If so, I see no impediment and will proceed to change the order of events forthwith.Alex79818 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The second point in this case being that it is OR to suggest that the extent of the damage is not clear unless there is a source to back that point up. Your comment does not appear to make sense in this context. Pfainuk talk 20:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Chronological order would be better but thats nothing to do with the discussion on OR. I'll change it myself if it bothers you that much. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Tatham to be removed altogether for failing to meet WP:RS. All content with this citation to be removed.

• AgreeAlex79818 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• No Despite Collect's lobbying the discussion at WP:RSN concluded that it was a reliable source. And if you remove that material you'll remove Argentina's claims. Didn't think that one through did you? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree The claim that RSN consensus was that it is RS is not true. The source is SPS and thus can, at best, only be used by citing it as the opinion of the author, not as fact. The author is not a recognized historian, and the claim that the Polar Review "republished:" the work is errant. As the review states that the material is deliberately "embellished" it is clear that it is not a proper source for anything remotely approaching a contentious claim. Cheers. Also note te PA of "Collect's lobbying" which is now apporaching WQA territory, abnd from which I expect you to desist forthwith. Ask Elen if you think such posts are proper on an article talk page. Again Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again I find you misrepresenting the conversation, as to why you have such a hard on for having such a valuable worked banned as the use of a source I have no idea. Backing an editor who has been disrupting this page for years tells me you have poor judgement on this matter. What you repeatedly and misleadingly describe as "embellishment" consisted of asking an expert to expand upon the information provided by an individual. After I have wasted my time explaining it to you, I have to ask are you calling me a liar? Why are you resorting to tactics such as providing misleading comment. And I will take this issue to WP:WQA if you continue to hound me I am getting very fed up with it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WCM, there is no need to take the issue to WP:WQA. Since you seem to think it's ok to continue your veiled references to my contributions as 'disruptive', I've already taken the issue there for you. I've also RFC'd on this point.Alex79818 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree, with reservations RSN seems to have made some points that this might be RS for invididaul authors vies, and not for any contovershal facts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note it is not used for any controversial points and in many cases it is the only source for a number of points. Individual articles most definitely are and I have taken those comments on board. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. Tatham is surely a RS. Apcbg (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose consensus at WP:RSN does not support such a position. Pfainuk talk 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that WP:RSN does not support such a position, the majority of editors at that discussion clearly oppose the use of this source, either conditionally or not.Alex79818 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A point that would not, of course, suggest that what I said is in any way inaccurate. Pfainuk talk 20:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is about strength of argument not a count of editors. The consensus leans toward it being a WP:RS but not for contentious issues that reflect the author's opinion. Something I wouldn't have a problem with as I long ago learned not to present an author's opinion as a fact. Something you clearly cannot separate. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of Tatham as a source

RFC on whether use of this source, Tatham, violates WP:RS in and of itself and also as used in the Falkland Islands article and related articles.

The book is a self-published collection of biographical essays and editor-solicited autobiographies. The author of the essay used as reference is not given by proponents for this citation. The author of the book is also its publisher. It is not peer-reviewed, it is not referenced by outside citations, and it has never been reprinted (although it has been reviewed).

By itself that's bad enough, but it's being used to support a contentious characterization of a historical event in which two parties reported two different interpretations - highlighting the difference between the two versions, with a subtext of lending credibility to one source and discrediting the other within the framework of the ongoing Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.

Both the article's talk page [18] as well as in WP:RSN have devolved into personal accusations. This talk page comes fresh off WP:ANI in which this forum was suggested. Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Falkland Islands where this is being discussed and please note the comments above in the thread entitled "Claimed vs. stated" regarding the claim that it is being used to support anything contentious - it clearly isn't the facts are not disputed. Summary at WP:RSN, suitable as a source for non-contentious, individuals authors should be named and opinions attached. RFC is being used for disruptive purposes ie pursuing multiple forms of dipute resolution when in reality there is no dispute. There is nothing to see here folks. What was disputed and, it really was ridiculous, was whether the text "Vernet claimed the settlement was destroyed" was POV and instead the demand was to substitute "Vernet stated the settlement was destroyed". Wee Curry Monster talk 20:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818 checking the IP contributions here will be most illuminating. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Pfainuk talk 20:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is not the facts which are in dispute, but the characterization of the facts, which lends a subtext of credibility to one report and not to the other, which is what the citation is being used for. Not to mention all of the factors that cast doubt on the source's credibility irrespective of how it's used. As for the personal attacks, I've already referred the issue to WP:WQA.Alex79818 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that I should be informed of any WQA thread but you didn't, just commented there after I saw this. Surprised I am not. There is nothing wrong with the source either and the facts are neither contentious nor controversial and cited. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my late notice, I was temporarily distracted. If you check your talk page you'll find it there.Alex79818 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)