Talk:Falkland Islands

Template:V0.5

Edit request from Fsmallmann, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In order to make this article not so biased towards the British point of view on Falklands/Malvinas, I think that were it reads "The archipelago, consisting of East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 lesser islands, is a self-governing British Overseas Territory.[5]" it should read "The archipelago, consisting of East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 lesser islands, is claimed by Great Britain as a self-governing British Overseas Territory.[5]"

Also, the claim "In pursuit of this claim, which is rejected by the islanders,[7] Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982." cites as a reference ([7]) a biased source: a British Government site. Thus, in order to make it less biased, it should read "In pursuit of this claim, which is (according to British Government) rejected by the islanders,[7] Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982."

Thank you! Fsmallmann (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid inserting weasel words won't help the article much. The first change you propose won't work at all, especially since if only defacto it is a self-governing BOT. The second change may be more valid, but I doubt you'd get a source conflicting this claim, even by Argentina. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I rather suspect this request is a sockpuppet of either the banned user user:Generalmesse, or alternatively User:Alex79818 who has been disrupting Falklands articles with a variety of IP socks. From the date of registration I'm guessing Alex. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this one fits the pattern of one of the usual Falklands socks- course of action: ignore; if disruptive file a request for checkuser - that will anyway yield another trove of socks... as usual... noclador (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, I do not know the users you mentioned above and I have no association with Argentina in any way. I was born and live in Brazil. I just made some suggestions that I believed would help making the article look more unbiased. Feel free to ignore / not implement them. Too bad wikipedia is turning into the playfield of wannabe experts/"lords of the truth in the world". If someone makes a suggestion you don't agree with then s/he must be a socketpuppet of someone you have a dispute with? Disappointing.

Fsmallmann (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. -Atmoz (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't do any harm in finding a second reliable source on the islanders rejecting the Argentine claims *Shrugs* --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I cited a few in the section #According to the British Government above. Thought I'd put one into the article, but apparently not - I've done it now. The point isn't disputed by the Argentine government, but it's not a difficult thing to cite in any case. Pfainuk talk 18:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and for improving the article!

Fsmallmann (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

We have had the results from a peer review. Looks like we have some work ahead, I'll post my thoughts later and if we have agreement on priorities we can get to work. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an important article and I am glad to hear a group plans to improve it (and thank you for your work. However, I), but think it needs a lot more work before it would pass at WP:GAN, let alone WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The biggest problem I see with the article is that it is missing references in many place. There are some paragraphs with no refs and other places where there is a ref in a paragraph then one or more sentences after that without refs. These need refs (there is one citation needed tag too).
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The refs need to be consistently formatted and provide all needed information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
• There is a tool box in the upper right corner of this PR which has a tool for checking external links. This finds at least three dead links, and several possible problem links. All of these will need to be fixed before it could pass GAN or FAC.
• The same toolbox has a dab link checker which finds several disambiguation links that will also need to fixed.
• The lead is not really a great summary of the whole article. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
• I wonder if the Relations with Argentina and Landmines and ordnance sections could be combined as subsections of an aftermath of the war or Legacy of the war section. I imagine the Military section could also be included here.
• This is a WP:WEIGHT concern, but I was surprised that the War section was so brief. The Landmines section appears to be longer than the section on the war, which also seems odd since the article says the landmines do not much affect the everyday lives of the inhabitants.
• The article has quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections, which impedes the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• There are at least two places where images sandwich the text, which is not allowed under WP:MOSIMAGE
• I thought there should be more on Ecology and animals
• I assume the whale bone arch relates to a history of whaling associated with the island - if this is so, it should be in the article.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Lots of agreement with the PR. Do we want to tackle this section by section, discussions about each section on the talkpage? I'm not sure if there's any high-class articles of similar territories around, but we could loosely base it off some of the FA country articles (Australia, Indonesia, etc.). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with much of the PR. Before we start a detailed program of changes, may I suggest the following changes are made in the article layout:

1. “History” becomes “Pre-1982 History”
2. “History#Falklands War” and “Landmines and Ordinance” be merged into a single section “Falklands War and its aftermath”.
3. “Broadcasting and Telecommunications” be merged with “Transport” under a single heading “Communications”
4. “Sport” be moved into the article Falkland Islanders.
5. “Military” be merged into “Population and Government”, but the section on Prince William be moved into the article Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (it never happened).

The rationale for these changes has been the merging of small sections so that each sec tion is about the same size. Once these changes are agreed, we can then work through the article. I am of the view that there should not be any references in the lede – WP:MOS allows that on grounds that everything in the lede is repeated in the article anyway. Martinvl (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of those I'd agree with. May I suggest we dump the section on Prince William. It never happened and per WP:DUE it is no more than an isolated incident. Anyone object if I have a stab at re-writing the lede - drafting here first?

Would a no edit (see WP:NOEDIT) notice be appropriate during the process? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've transferred the peer review comments to here. May I suggest we tackle the problem of referencing first. I propose we place references into 3 categories. These being footnotes (inline citations), Bibliography (books used in prepared the article) and External links. Is that OK?

This is a handy tool for google book references [1], I also find this tool useful [2]. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The section "Geography and Ecology" needs quite a bit of work. I suggest that the article "Geography of the Falkland Islands" be resurrected (it currently does a redirect to this article), that this section be copied there as it stands and then the section in this article be reworked. Comments? Martinvl (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. The History section is also quite unsourced, but as it's very long I think it could probably be chopped to half it's current size. May be worth then making Falkland War a subsection of history. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

History is my main area of interest, I could take that on if you like. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that since the Falklands War was such a major and that is links history and Argentine relations, it deserves its own section (along with a description of its aftermath). Moreover, since the war is in living memory of many readers, it provides a good break-point as to where the history ends and the present begins. Martinvl (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that argument, not much of an issue either way. I do however agree with the PR that either way landmines having their own very long section is UNDUE. Wee Curry Monster, go ahead and work on History if you want. Maybe with no subsections there'll be no more edit wars over the titles, like the previous Argentinian settlement one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A good article that we could use as a reference is Svalbard - it has an area and a population not too dissimilar to the Falklands. Martinvl (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good find. Martinvl, can you explain the new Government setup? I'm not sure that the small bolded subsections are a good idea. I also don't think Education and Health belong there, as those sections should be general information about education and health rather than summaries of the government responsibility. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved Education and Health to the section on Government as they are Government departments. If the Falklands are amnything like the United Kingdom, then both health and education are paid for thorugh taxation. Martinvl (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that although they are funded through the government, information about the health and education in the Falkland islands does not belong under a government subsection. Both sections could be well improved by general information, life expectancy in health and literacy rates in demographics for example, which may be out of place in the Government subsection. Note United Kingdom currently has them under demographics. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That is why I initially grouped Population and Government under one heading. They are major areas of Government, especially since many other aspects of government are handled by the UK. Martinvl (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if no other editor has an opinion, we can just see how the article develops. Can you explain the reason for the tiny bolded subsections? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That isn't quite correct Martin. UK Government is responsible for defence and foreign relations, the rest is handled by the FIG. I would tend to agree with Chipmunkdavis in that these would be better grouped elsewhere. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The text in the Merco Press is "But the new Constitution will also enshrine a power for the Governor not to act upon Executive Council's advice "in the interests of good governance", or in relation to external affairs, defence, internal security, the administration of justice, audit, and management of the public service." This maps onto Para 67 of the Constitution (I checked). I will look into reworking the section on Government to reflect this. Martinvl (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Except those are reserve powers that can only be invoked in the event of corruption or malpractise in the FIG and the Governor would only act on the direction of the British Government. In day to day terms, they are actually irrelevant, could we see what you have in mind before you add it to discuss relevance. I would hate to see undue weight given to reserve powers that have no impact in normal circumstances - in which the British Government acts only for defence and foreign relations. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see you'd already done that, I've reverted it with a request that you discuss the changes in advance. Your edit implied these reserve powers were in use, this is misleading and gives a false impression. I did make this point before your edit, so it is slightly disappointing you went ahead and did it anyway. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi User:Wee Curry Monster. May I make a few suggestins regarding the section on government. Firstly, I suggest that we incorporate the existance of the reserve powers into the article by writing "... defence, foreign affairs and ensuring good governance". The term "ensuring good governance" also includes the issue of currency. As I understand it, whenver the FIG issues new coins they have to deposit an equivalent amount (+10%) into a bank account to back up the issue. They get interest on the amount that they have deposited. I have enlarged on that in the article Economy of the Falkland Islands.

The second point that I would like to make is to have separate paragraqphs for the executive council and the legislative council. The degree of overlap between the executive and the legislature gives constitutional scholars scope for endless debates. In the UK, members of the executive (the cabinet) must be a member of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords; in the US members of the Executive may not be a member of either the Senate or Congress and in the EU, members of the executive (EU Commission) may not be a member of either the Council of Ministers or the EU Parliament. The Falklands appear to have a half-way house. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I copy edited your comments to correct wikilinks. That seems a reasonable approach, could I also suggest you work this up in a sandpit akin to what I'm doing with the history? I have a vague recollection of the discussion over the constitution, I believe the term is unicameral. The FIG situation reflects the small population, with good governance guaranteed by the the UK Government. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am more than happy for you to have corrected the WIkilinks. For the record, the FIG is unicameral because it has a single legislative chanmber, unlike the UK, the US or the EU, each of which a bicamermal - House of Commons & House of Lords; Congress & Senate and Council of Ministers & EU Parliament respectively. The other issue that should come out is the power of the Governor - does it resemble the Queen's power or the Prime Minister's power.

Meanwhile I have created a sandpit for future changes User:Martinvl/Falklands.Martinvl (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The Governor is the Queen's representative as head of state and as such the power resembles that of the Queen as head of state ie not very much at all. For the Governor to intervene would require direction from the British Government, which can only invoke any powers in the event of corruption or malpractise by the FIG. Your comment on ensuring good governance would probably cover it, this being an overview after all. A query, why did you create a sandpit in your userspace rather than here? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the page - see section on sandpits - meanwhile real life is getting in the way. Martinvl (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a slight problem creating a sandpit page - my proposed changes have ended up at Talk:Falkland Islands?Government rework. Would those who are interested please have a look before I update the article. Once I have moved things, I will ask for a speedy delete of that page. Martinvl (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Units

Metric first or imperial? There's currently instances of both orders, we should pick one and standardise. Does the Falklands have a preference/official system? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a convention delineated on the project page. My preference is to use largely Imperial first per the usage on the islands but there has been a consistent push to metricate the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

At the moment there is an uneasy compromise reagarding units of measure. For the record, I would prefer metric units to predominate, but in order not to rock the boat, I suggest that the units of measure be those as they appear in the article at the moment. Martinvl (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Both should appear, the issue is that we now have a mix of both. Eg. "total land area is 4,700 square miles (12,173 km2)" and "the highest point being Mount Usborne, 705 metres (2,313 ft)". Both of those are from geography. I don't really mind which one comes first, and this being a UK article both are acceptable. Anyone want to make the judgement call? Count all current uses and go with majority? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:FALKLANDSUNITS its a reasonably comprehensive guideline produced for the Falklands Working Group. We should probably highlight what we're up to at WP:Falklands. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Made the change to imperial first, as that seemed to be the general gist of the examples there, even though it said metric first at the start... Anyway, yes, noting it would be useful. In addition, Wee Curry Monster should edit participants list! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd forgotten, appreciate the heads up. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis - If you must change units of measure, please follow WP:FALKLANDSUNITS to the letter, otherwise a civil war will erupt. As I said, a very uneasy compromise has been reached. Distances are in imperial units, but rainfalls and heights are in metric. That is why I asked you to please retain the units as they are. Martinvl (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: while I can see the point of switching the mountain height at least, this is one of those arguments that is very much best left in the past. I have reverted for this reason. Pfainuk talk 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, I did try my best to follow. Anyway, as long as it's sorted, i have no issue being reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the present uneasy compromise on units is holding. Let sleeping dogs lie. Michael Glass (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandpits

/history rework /lede rewrite Wee Curry Monster talk 20:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done a preliminary copy edit on the history section. Could I get some feedback on what I've done so far. I haven't touched the Falklands War section yet. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously sourcing still an issue, but I suppose that will come. In terms of content, I think that something should be included from earlier, perhaps changing the first sentence to say "The islands were uninhabited when first discovered by European explorers, although evidence exists that Patagonian Indians may have reached the islands during earlier periods." I also think that the 1820 and 1828 incident details can be shortened somewhat, and perhaps combined into one paragraph. It may also be worth avoiding wording such as "positive result". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing won't be an issue I will tackle that before I put it into the article. I'll take those comments on board. Cheers Wee Curry Monster talk 11:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks for those comment, I've done a further copy edit. If there are further comments I will address those before formatting and adding sources tomorrow. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding a "Reflist" at the end of the of the sandpit - it will enable references to be checked. I suggest that the heading "Landmines and ordinance" be replaced with a heading "Aftermath" and that the paragraph that currently precedes the heading (establishment of Mount Pleasant) be moved into the subsection "Aftermath". Martinvl (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pls note whilst I have inline cites ready to hand, I haven't added them yet as I was being fairly ruthless in editing the text. Thats tonights job. I'll incorporate those suggestions later. Ta for the input. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The visit by Patagonian Indians. I did some work last night looking for a better source. I'm not happy with the sourcing. As anyone got access to a more reliable source, I may remove it if I can't find one. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK added the updated history section as dicussed, still not sure about the opening paragraph and the sourcing of it. Comments?

Secondly if anyone is happy I'll make a start on rewriting the lede. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me - I think that on the reworked history is in place, the article balance will be a lot better - maybe we still have to do some work on the section "Relations with the Argentine" and I want to go over the section on broadcasting and maybe add a sentence about shipping. Then we need a second pass ensuring that everything is properly referenced, polish up the language and maybe trim a little bit. My pet hate regardign the languge are sentences that start "There are .... ". Martinvl (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have created a sandpit at Talk:Falkland Islands/Government rework - still working on the text. (The slash came out as a query! when I was creating the article) Martinvl (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am ready to replace the existing section "Politics and government" with the text found here. Any comments before I do so? Martinvl (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done a minor CE, good work but it needs to be sourced better per the reviewer's comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional sources found - OK if I add it as it is now? If sources are still lacking, they can be done on the main section. Martinvl (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

looks good to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "Arms of Government" needed as a subheader? It seems to me that it would be implicitly part of the Politics section, and if it's removed then there isn't a random two lines at the top of the section.

I'd also like to ask if the length of the Flora and Fauna section is good. I tried to make it around the same length of the equivalent Svalbard section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The flora and fauna section looks the right length - if anything at the upper limit. Can I ask the same question about the the first part.

Some years ago I worked as a technical author on a DEC computer manual (DEC are now part of HP). Their style guide emphasised that there should always be some introductory text between a principal header and a subheader - hence the "two lines" that Chipmunkdavis refers to. Furthermore, no section should have a single subsection, subsections should be comparable in length and the introductory text should lead into, not dominate the subsections. I plan to see how the section on Geography and Geology can be modified in this way or whether the section that is there serves as an introduction. Martinvl (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The two lines there don't serve for much though, and the introduction being shorter than the subsections is weird. That's why just deleting the subheader and making the arms of government part of the introduction would be my preferred style. I actually think that relations with the UK would be a useful and expandable subsection there.

As for geography, I think a paragraph on topography wouldn't go astray, although I'd hesitate to give it it's own subheader. Is it worth making Climate of the Falkland Islands (Currently a redirect) to provide a link and a basis for the Climate section? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Navigational templates

{{English dialects by continent}} is appropriate for the Falkland Islands English article, not this one. {{Geography of South America}} and {{South America topic}} are similarly better placed elsewhere. None of these have a direct link to this article, and someone looking at this article is unlikely to want to go to other areas provided in this template, and if they did would go to the relevant subpage first anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with {{English dialects by continent}}, but not with the others as both climate and geography are dealt with in this article. Martinvl (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

By that argument we should include templates for everything that is covered in this article, which would end up with a massive glut of templates. There's no purpose for them here. If someone was browsing through articles on the geography of various south american countries, they would look at Geography of the Falkland Islands and access it from there. It's unlikely that they'd use this article as the stepping stone to geography articles of other countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing "Broadcasting" to "Media"

As a result of overhauling the subsection "Broadcasting", it became apparent to me that the press also deserved a mention, so I included them in the subsection and renamed it "Media". I also dug up some rankings to put the freedom of the press in teh Falklands into context in South America. Pleae check to ensure that I have not been involved in any WP:OR in this respect. Martinvl (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Admiralty Charts

Concerning this edit. The edit is does not comply with WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, which says that there should be conversions and that geographical distances should use either nautical miles, statute miles or yards as primary units.

But also, were the details taken from text or read from the chart? If the former, could we have a quote please? My concern is that reading from the chart would be WP:OR, which would mean that the article would fail on point 2c of the Good article criteria. It would be best, given the nature of the source, to avoid this by quoting the text in the reference. Pfainuk talk 09:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Admiralty Charts use either nautical miles, cables or (kilo)metres for distances. They do not have yards or statute mile scale. Moreover, on pre-metric maps depths were shown in feet up to 30 feet, thereafter in fathoms. None of this is in WP:FALKLANDUNITS. Furthermore, in pre-metric days tidal ranges were not given in feet and inches, they were given in feet and decimals of a foot. Making these elementary mistakes the article look amateurish.

Which part of my comments do you believe is WP:OR?. Martinvl (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an Admiralty chart, so there's no reason why we have to follow their conventions. On the other hand, we do have our own conventions. These include the use of conversions between units and the consensus on Falklands articles to use WP:FALKLANDSUNITS.

But, as I say, this may be irrelevant. When you got the information to source the following:

The two islands are separated by the Falkand Sound which is approximately 3000 metres at its narrowest point (which is also its northerly entrance). It provides a natural shelter to shipping with a 20 metre clearance at its northern entrance. Much of the northern part of the sound which is clear water, is 30 metres in depth, but the southern part, choked with an archipeligo has a number of passages that are much deeper.

which is referenced to two Admiralty charts, was this based on text beside the chart, or based on your reading of the chart itself? If it was from a written description, that's fine - though I'd like to see a quote so that we can satisfy a Good Article reviewer that no original research is present. If it came from reading the chart, then I believe we've established before on this article that this is original research and cannot be included on Wikipedia articles, regardless of what units are being used. Pfainuk talk 18:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not recall ever having agreed that Admiralty Charts were not suitable sources. Martinvl (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not. I don't think it's something that requires your agreement: either they are OR or they are not. But I note that reading distances from Google Earth or using a Great Circle Calculatior between the FI and various landmasses was ruled to be OR in previous discussion here. I can't see that putting a ruler to a map, or similar, is likely to be different. But we can ask again, if you like. Pfainuk talk 17:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I read the section that you highlighted. It was not a case of whether maps were a reliable source, but how they were used and in particular one should be measuring distances between principal airports or closest off-shore islands when measuring the distnace between the Falkland Islands and South America. In the current case the meaning of the distance that I was quoting is pretty unambiguous. Martinvl (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it? It seems to me that it might be not be very easy to put a ruler to a map and be sure that you are measuring the correct distance for the "narrowest point". Can you be sure that the narrowest point is the northernmost entrance? From looking at the map in Google (which I accept is not an Admiralty Chart), it looks to me like there's a potentially shorter distance from Swan Island. It also appears that there are two points on West Falkland that could be taken to be the northernmost entrance, and that the narrower one is actually the more southerly of the two (the southern headland of what Google calls White Rock Bay).

Is the text that "[i]t provides a natural shelter to shipping" your own deduction or actually stated by the map? If the former, I'd say it's definitely OR.

My inclination would be to say that maps would at the very least come under the primary source point of WP:PSTS - in other words, we can't "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material" found there.

I note with interest that you are changing WP:NOR to fit your interpretation here. I will mention this discussion, without further comment, on that talk page. Pfainuk talk 18:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The nearest distance between the two main islands is at the second northernmost narrows indeed, but it is 4.28 km (by Google Earth, accuracy must be more than adequate) and not 3,000 m at all. Apcbg (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be consensus yet in the current discussion on the noticeboard. I argue there that the appropriate criterion is Can a reader with no special skills look at the map and have it be obvious that the description is accurate? (Accurate as a description of what's shown on the map, that is, not as the truth about the islands themselves.) And that question should be settled by argument on the talk page. On the Noticeboard, I'm on the side in favor of allowing very straightforward map-reading. But here I have some reservations as to whether this really is that straightforward. It's not obvious from a map what does or doesn't provide useful shelter to shipping, for example. And with the narrowest point there's disagreement about the facts, so apparently the map isn't that clear. On the other hand, just reading a depth off the chart seems ok. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Timezone

[3] The FIG has anounced that the Falklands will remain on summer time this year. Should we update? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I would suggest adding the text "2011 - UTC-3 for the whole year" (or something of that ilk). If it becomes a permanent fixture, then next year the timezone can be changed to UTC-3 with no mention of DST. Martinvl (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The USS Lexington incident

"A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a visit by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. Argentina claims the settlement was destroyed, although the Lexington reported destruction of arms and a powder store."

Judging for what I read in http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html (which already is used as a trusted source for this article), I would say that this paragraph is biased towards US actions. I'd like to propose replacing "visit" for "raid" (as used in that source), and "Argentina claims..." for a more correct assertion, since all sources which talks about property destruction are written in English by British sources (see http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html for sources of that website). Langus-TxT (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If nobody replies, does it means that no one challenges this? If so, can an administrator please apply the changes? Or do I need to wait until article is unprotected to do them myself? Excuse me if I'm being pushy, but I see talking going on in other sections and not here, and I'm not sure what does it mean or what should I do. Langus-TxT (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to edit the article yourself! I see no reason to oppose raid, as it is used in the source. As for Argentina claims, it would be good to balance the claims. Citing one statement as fact is in my opinion nota good idea. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The recorded history tends to indicate the impact of the raid, in terms of property damage, was exaggerated by Vernet. He had a vested interest in that he was promised a tax exempt status if he achieved a sustainable settlement within 3 years. As the sources indicate two sides of the coin that is what I tried to indicate in the text. ie follown NPOV by presenting all relevant opinions in the literature. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Israel allegedly supplied arms to Argentina during the Falklands conflict

I'm not sure if this is relevent to the article or not but I thought I would mention it incase it is. There have been a few reports recently about Israel supplying Argentina through Peru with arms during the Falklands conflict. see the follow sites for more information

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8463934/Israel-supplied-arms-to-Argentina-during-Falklands-War.html

and

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4059254,00.html 94.168.210.8 (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It is much too detailed for an overview IMHO but thank you for the suggestion. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Sound

User:Pfainuk removed some additions that I made concerning the Falkland Sound, charging me with "reading them form a map". The items removed were:

• The depth of the sound which was in the reference that I gave
• The fact that the southern end of the sound was an archipelgo - anybody with a modicum of knowledge of maps can see that - they only need look at the maps in the article
• The fact that the channels through the archipeligo are deeper than the sound as a whole - identifying this from the isobaths on a map is GCSE level stuff - if this is OR, why does Wikipedia have a template for maps?

If you visit WP:Scientific_citation_guidelines#Examples.2C_derivations_and_restatements, you will see the statement Wikipedia's no-original-research policy allows routine calculations based on data from reliable sources. In my view, the sources cited are reliable and the test "A > B" is a routine calculation that yeilds a boolean rather than a numberic answer. Martinvl (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The reference you gave says: "and has depths approaching 40m". The text you're calling for contradicts this, by citing depths greater than 40 metres. It says nothing about it being "choked" with islands in the south, and nothing about it being clear water in the north - both of these are original interpretations from the map. A brief look with Google Maps would seem to suggest that the narrowest channels in north and south are comparable in width, and also that the southern end of Falkland Sound is rather clearer than much of the north. As a generalisation, this seems quite poor.

I'd also say that the islands in the south do not appear to me to unambiguously form a single archipelago, as the edit claims - an argument could be made to split it into a Swan Island group, a Tyssen Islands group and a Speedwell/George/Barren island group, for example. That's all aside the issue that reading isobaths from a map would appear to be original research.

Why Wikipedia has a template for maps? If you need a cite for where a city is, or was at certain period in history, then a map would seem a good source. This does not require the original interpretations that you are introducing here. Pfainuk talk 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am happy to replace "choked by an archipelago" with "has numerous islands".
• The nautiacal charts show sandbanks as land - Google Maps show them as water.
• I reject that the statement concerning clear water in the north and islands in the south is OR - it is there on the map for a junior school kid to see.
• Is the reading of isobaths OR or not? Likewise, is the use of Spanish language sources without a full English translation OR - I don't read Spanish, but I read maps.
• The nautical charts showed that the "clear water" part of Falkland Sound exceeded 30 metres, but did not reach 40 metres, however there were deeper channels between the islands in the south.

Martinvl (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking you don't read maps in the same way that you can translate text. One is a literal transliteration from one language to another, the other is interpreting a map to provide a textual description and this is WP:OR territory. If you can provide a source that makes that statement that is one thing but generating it from your own interpretation is WP:SYN. Sorry but I would agree this is not a suitable edit, particularly as we're going for GA status.

If you want outside opinion, I would suggest asking for comment at WP:NORN but I fear you will be disappointed. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Are there really that many sandbanks in the southern third of Falkland Sound (south of Fox Bay), in seas that are frequently more than 10 miles from the nearest dry land marked by Google? And surely the fact that sandbanks are dealt with in one way on Google maps and another on an Admiralty Chart demonstrates how this is OR - that there are different ways in which the same information can be interpreted, and you are interpreting it in one way and others might not come to the same conclusion?

I would note that Admiralty charts are designed for a specific purpose: to guide shipping. A sandbank does not need to be permanent or even exposed to be a hazard to shipping, so they need to mark them all. On the other hand, we are not trying to point out specific hazards to shipping in this paragraph, but trying to give a general description of the islands' landforms. A submerged sandbank would seem to be rather minor in this regard, and is not necessarily a type of island.

I endorse Curry Monster's suggestion that you take it to WP:NORN. Pfainuk talk 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a querry on WP:NORN. Since then I have gone back to basics and found the follwoing in the WP:OR; "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented". In this case I think that Admiralty Charts are a reliable source and that they would directly support my assertion. If that is not the case, what are they used for? Martinvl (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please post a link? As of 12:45 BST I don't see any query. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OK I found it. That is not the right place, see WP:NORN. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 11:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wee Curry Monster. I have removed it (along with your comment - I trust that you do not mind) and will post in the correct place, but after my posting above, I will probably reword it. Martinvl (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Restatement of Proposal

Let me start by saying I will "tone it down" and attempt to engage in honest discussion. I will not yet pursue the recommendations of the committee regarding further action on the disputes I've raised. Nevertheless I retain the right to do so if I feel editors are engaging in WP:GAME and will not hesitate to do so. That being said, I'll put these issues to rest and call all parties to renewed dialogue.

To the point: I completely disagree that the text, as written, complies with WP:NPOV. I will WP:AGF and not question the motives of "certain" editors but I do suggest in the strongest possible terms that they at once answer some questions regarding their statements in this discussion thread - if for no other reason than to remove the spectre of NPOV violations from their previous contributions. I still hold that the article, particularly the history section, does indeed need work to get to being truly NPOV.

To correct that, I propose the group answer the following questions, focusing on the FACTS:

1. Was there EVER an Argentine settlement, however brief - by which I mean someone sailed from the mainland with orders from Buenos Aires and established a settlement. What kind of orders? Where, if there was a settlement, was it located? What sources can be cited to support or discredit this viewpoint? If sources point to such a settlement existing, it deserves equal mention and stylistic prominence in the article as any other settlement under any other sovereign power mentioned in the article.

2. Irrespective of the answer to #1 above, as to whether Pinedo's activities constitute a "settlement", to answer the question: EXACTLY how and why did Pinedo leave the island under British control? Was it willingly or against his will? Was it by force, or threat of force? Was it circumstancial? Was it with a smile on his face? Etcetera. And, of course, what sources point to the time, circumstances, and nature of his departure - and the consequences thereof.

If we are focused on facts, not opinion, then let us not allow our opinions to dictate which facts are included and which are excluded. This means answering tough questions in favor or against certain sources. To wit:

• Why is the printing of the proclamation in the Salem Gazette relevant, or more relevant than Pinedo and Onslow's interchange?

• What are the sources cited for said interchange? Are they snippets or actual digitized full versions?

• Why is CAPT Duncan's report the only one mentioned regarding the piracy charges, without mention of the judicial outcome of said charges?

(editor's note: That WCM makes "no comment on the veracity of the allegations" is not the point; the point is that the representation of the Argentine side is negative whereas the representation of another side is neutral in comparison. Vernet arrested US-flagged vessels for what all sources cite as "illegal fishing", yet this is only mentioned as a simple "dispute", not a crime. Two parties were arrested and charged with crimes, two parties were taken to port and tried, yet the text mentions the arrest and the crime for only one party, and does not mention the arrest and crime for the other. Or, also in the threads above, WCM first states "Its an important point as Argentina in the modern context happens to claim Jewett was sent by them" then "that the events are 'important' for the <country> sovereignty claim is not a good argument". Which is it?? I won't accuse WCM of violating WP:NPOV but unless these questions are answered, the text as written being NPOV-compliant simply does not hold water due to the unequal treatment of sources that seem to stem from WP:OR).

• Why is the Argentine response to the British request not mentioned?

(editor's note: If there was a protest, and the protest is not mentioned, it makes it seem as if the Argentines agreed to leave without protest, which all sources deny ever happening.)

• True, Argentina in the modern contect happens to claim Jewett was sent by them. WCM posits "they weren't even aware he was there". Where did the privateer license come from, then? Did it materialize in his back pocket out of thin air? For example, "With respect Paul Groussac is not the most reliable of sources for a number of reasons" - care to list any that aren't WP:OR? This seems to be taken for a fact and yet no sources are cited for this conclusion.

Other than the above, I specifically take issue with WCM's assertion that " that the acts in seizing American ships were piracy have never been repudiated. This position is actually in a state of the union address" - I assume WCM is referring to Andrew Jackson's state of the union address. I'd like to hear which one he thinks contains such content. According to the US Library of Congress, Jackson mentioned Argentina in several addresses, NEVER ONCE mentioning the word "piracy". What those sources do quote, in Jackson's SOTU speech of 06DEC1831, is

"...acts injurious to our commerce and to the property and liberty of our fellow citizens..."

and

"...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 Ayres. I have therefore given orders for the dispatch of an armed vessel to join our squadron in those seas and aid in affording all lawful protection to our trade which shall be necessary, and shall without delay send a minister to inquire into the nature of the circumstances and also of the claim, if any, that is set up by that Government to those islands."

Needless to say, cherrypicking facts to support a POV based on someone's specific language - language that is nonexistent in the original alleged source - and offering no citations for such language, is not consistent with maintaining a NPOV. User WCM repeatedly says he needs no lessons regarding WP policy yet my due diligence behooves me to point out that failing such citations - or, as it were, putting words in Jackson's mouth - I would say, without accusing anyone in specific, would constitute a mischaracterization of sources and is an outright violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Any editor that attributes statements to historical figures on historical documents would do well to avoid any accusations of non-conforming with WP policy by providing the proper citations, or else withdraw the comments altogether.

Lastly, I invite editors to comment on whether or not there is a disagreement between the sources (WCM's contention is that there is not, I believe there is and agree with Langus in that respect). I further would like to hear comments on the problem with replacing the word "although" with a semicolon, as suggested above.

In summation, I don't dispute that the text may have been written based on fact. The question here is whether or not all facts are represented - and given the issues I've raised above, it seems to me that the facts mentioned and the ones not mentioned were decided based on opinion and WP:OR. While I won't accuse anyone of NPOV violations, I must point out that WCM 'does not claim they were guilty' yet is quite content with leaving the reader with the taste of "piracy" in his mouth and not mention the outcome of the case. I'll leave up to other editors to decide what that resembles.Alex79818 (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Alex, a few thoughts:

• This is not the place to talk about editor's behavior, even if Curry Monster has spent the last few days attacking me openly. He's just burying himself further down. I suggest we keep those concerns for User talk pages and the tools described in dispute resolution.
• I won't address your points here because they are a lot, and this is prone to soon turn into a section full of screaming editors. I invite you to create new sections for every issue, and to propose in each one a precise change.
• In line with the previous, it would be good if you could keep the words to a minimum and be concise. I know, I know, I'm trying too. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are well-received and I will do my best to comply. My intent was not to speak about behavior, rather to try to swing the focus back to the facts, and the sources that support them. Neither is my wish to have screaming editors. Pending comments, I will create new sections and do my best to be pithy.Alex79818 (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 02:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the above is rather too long for you to reasonably expect a detailed response. I will not provide one, and would encourage others not to do so either. I would suggest that given your history it would be a good idea to adopt a significantly less combative tone and to ensure that you fully comply with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. The above did not do so. Pfainuk talk 19:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how much less combative I can be when a user puts words in a historical figure's mouth that according to the documents cited were never said. How many times do I have to write "not accusing anyone" in order for a response to be considered non-combative by, as another editor so eloquently put it, "the law"? Frankly, reading other users' comments on the Arbcom page regarding their interactions with you it would seem others would consider you somewhat combative as well (irrespective of my own experience) so I would also say that given your history it would be a good idea for you to do the same. To wit; I have a proposition: let's BOTH fully comply with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and stick to the facts.

As to the format, I agree with Langus' comment above as well as yours regarding the length and, will follow Langus' suggestion to create new sections for every issue I've listed, if there are no objections, so....."speck naw ur furever hold jur pis".Alex79818 (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

History layout

The history is divided in two top-level sections, "History to 1982" and "Falklands War and its aftermath", with a "Aftermath" subsection. Some days I renamed this: a top-level "History" section, and level 2 sections "From discovery to 1982", "Falklands War" and "Aftermath". It was reverted as the current layout was discussed before, but I could not find the discussion, in which archive is it?

Or, better yet, which are the reasons for this layout? All countries, provinces and other political divisions I have seen so far have a main "History" section and then subsections; and a section "Falklands War and its aftermath" seems redundant if there is an "Aftermath" within it. If this article is nominated for GAN or FAC, I suspect that this layout would be one of the things that an uninvolved user may point Cambalachero (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually read this page? I only ask as the discussion is above starting 14 March. It followed the peer review. There is a concerted effort to take this to GA status but I fail to see how the layour would be an issue? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Status

I've removed the template and I suggest giving up on trying to take this to GA status. There is zero chance of meeting the criteria at this point in time. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(Where's your British SPIRIT man??? We never give up! Wait, I'm not even British) I mean...yes, I somewhat agree. It's not a bad page though. Is it ever possible to get a controversial article up to GA/FA though? Yes. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and believe it or not maybe "annoyances" such as myself are a key ingredient to get there. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with you. To get GA status the article has to be free from disputes. We have an editor raising a frivolous arbcom case and two editors using that as an opportune moment to relaunch their campaign for "source based units" aka metrication. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

As you have raised the issue here, I'll outline the problems I have with WP:FALKLANDSUNITS: It is different from WP:MOSNUM in several respects. It is rigid and inflexible whereas MOSNUM is flexible. It causes inconsistencies,especially in the shorter articles. I believe that the policy could be modified to make it more compatible with MOSNUM, more compatible with the sources, and more compatible with contemporary British usage. And it needn't affect any application for GA status for this article. Michael Glass (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Here we go again, just because you do not like it, let's not go round this loop again. Keith D (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Keith, you expressed my feelings somewhat more directly than I would have done but I do share the sentiment of "oh no, not again". Michael just to point out the flaws it what you're claiming. No it is not different, it simply formalises contemporary British usage per WP:MOSNUM. Its based on the Times guidelines. No it is not rigid and inflexible but it does provide for clear guidelines to avoid ambiguities. Again this this is the Times guidelines. Now I really don't wish to rehash the reasons why (that smacks of flogging a deceased equine long after the remains had crumbled to dust and blown away in the wind) but there arose a need to avoid ambiguities. It most certainly does not cause inconsistency, that is the very reason for it. I really don't wish another 18 months of lame argument over what is a dead issue. Re-raising a settled dispute will mean we cannot meet GA criteria. You pushed "source based units" repeatedly, re-raising every 4-6 weeks after failing to gain concensus, you still can't get consensus at WP:MOSNUM and I don't see any indication that you're prepared to stop. For that reason I'm just going to give up on working for GA status. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Endorse this. There being no benefit to the encyclopædia in repeating the same arguments for the umpteenth time, I am collapsing this section. Pfainuk talk 17:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we finally have something we can agree on. You say frivolous, I say central. Potato, Potatoe. Here's my end - I will "loosen up" but we are here to DISCUSS. Pfainuk, please uncollapse. All issues with all articles are on the table for WP:CONSENSUS at all times and I invite all previous editors who have been frustrated by the discussion process with other editors in this article to participate and WP:AGF. I for one support Keith's assertion and having reviewed the discussion history I also agree the article should be modified to make it more compatible with WP:MOSNUM and contemporary British usage. For those not keeping track, in addition to units of measurement, the other issues on the table are names, status of the government description "self governing British Overseas Territory" with or without the qualifier "internal", claims by the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, Nootka, and the use of the words "Re-Establishment" vs. "Invation" by ANY party. Please WP:AGF and do not stifle or prevent discussion, the quicker this is settled the quicker we can move on. Obstructing the process of discussion between editors will only drag this out, and given the archive history I'd venture to say it will take a lot longer than 18 months. Just lay it out on the table and hash it out.Alex79818 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

People are allowed, of course, to bring up issues on talk. But what they are not allowed to do is bring up the same issue, with the same arguments, repeatedly for months on end. If they do, they cannot reasonably expect people to pretend that this is not what they are doing. And calling up Arbcom for a spot of mudslinging when there's no ongoing dispute is not exactly creditable either. Pfainuk talk 19:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

See, this is what I'm talking about - you proceed from a POV that these issues have been put to bed for months and I'm bringing them up all over again in order to disrupt, when in fact a resolution to those disputes was never agreed upon. As the Arbcom comments have shown, the only thing achieved has been frustration on the part of some editors that has caused them to stop participating. That is not consensus. Furthermore, if there were no disputes, there'd be no reason to forego GA status - and I would have had no "mud" to sling, as you say. Yet the record speaks for itself and we all now know this article is under the magnifying glass.

Pfainuk, these issues must be discussed. It's one thing to present sources and say "the facts are X" or "the facts are Y" but to continue to attempt to sweep discussion under the carpet, when disputes haven't been settled, will only prolong the contentious debate environment and will also reflect negatively on those editors and admins who continue to seemingly stifle open discussion. Mind you, this isn't Sarah Palin's ridiculous version of Paul Revere's ride - this is about bona fide sources that have been cited by numerous users, which have not been given the proper weight. Sources that speak on Vernet, Pinedo, Onslow, Duncan, Jewett, and whether or not there was an Argentine settlement. This is about two parties being accused of a crime and one accusation is labeled as a crime while the other as a dispute. This is about silly punctuation disputes that must stop. This is about selective formatting of subsections and headers. This is about units of measurement and uniformity in general. This is about the meaning of "islands adjacent" in Nootka. This is about what Andrew Jackson said in his speech. This is about FACTS. They are not all represented, some have been suppressed, I and other editors believe they should be given their proper weight, as failure to do so results in an anti-Argentine POV.

Again, I am willing to WP:AGF and discuss. If some editors and interested admins are not willing to discuss, then perhaps I should simply follow Arbcom's suggestions and continue the process. But if the article is to go for GA status in the future, it would be beneficial to play it my way. I want to focus on facts, not editors' actions. It's your call.Alex79818 (talk) 20:07, 8 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)

The guy changing citizenship

[4] 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

Template:Rfcid 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" [5].

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

[3] Gold braid and foreign relations: diplomatic activities of U.S. naval Officers 1798-1883, by David Foster Long. [7] 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. [8]Page 152.

[5] Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960, by Harold F. Peterson. Page 106 [9]

-- 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)

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, [10], 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.[11][12] -- 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)