Jump to content

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22

Timeline of de facto control

Apcbg just reverted an edit of mine saying "no Argentine control in 1820–1829". According to The Falkland Islands (1887) by George C. Hurlbut:


I believe it's pretty clear that 1820 is the year the United Provinces re-established de facto control of the islands. I'll await your comments. Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not when there was no Argentine presence it isn't. There was no permanent Argentine presence on the islands during this period and you can't have de facto control (i.e. control in practice as opposed to control in theory or legal control) without that. And I note that your cite does not back a claim that there was de facto control. Kahastok talk 16:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The source I've presented clearly states that the United Provinces reassumed dominion in 1820. Are you saying that a source stating verbatim the words de facto is needed? Ok Kahastok, then please present your sources that say verbatim that there was no de facto control by the United Provinces at the time. Thank you. Gaba (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this issue can be resolved objectively. A permanent presence is not necessarily a requirement for de facto control. That concept refers to the source of the operational decisions that apply to the domain in question. It is generally applied to modern territories or de jure persons (e.g., corporations) where such decisions can be clearly identified. For the islands during the period in question they cannot, like for much of South America at the time. We could argue that performing an unopposed ceremony such as Jewett's, followed by granting land, appointing Areguatí as governor (denied by Pepper and Pascoe but confirmed by several reliable sources) and attempting a permanent settlement in 1824 were sufficient operational decisions to constitute "de facto control". I do not think it would be unobjectionable to claim so, but it would be more informative than dating it in 1829.
Even if we require permanent occupation, I see no reason to date it in 1829. Several reliable sources concur that Vernet's attempt in 1826 was the successful beginning of his post-1829 settlement. In 1828 he was granted more land and permissions, and many of the settlers presumably arrived then, including Vernet's family some months later. But I think that we can confidently date this settlement from 1826 onwards. Several reliable sources concur with that.
Moreover, it is quite dubious to attribute "de facto control" to the US only from ransacking the buildings and harassing the population for a few days. Or to negate Argentine control thereafter, given that the settlement continued and there is no reason to believe that they stopped considering themselves as being under Buenos Aires. It is also far from clear that the UK exercised control in 1833.
When I placed those tags, I did it because that is not encyclopedic fact but dubious information. I was waiting for a proper moment to deal with that issue. I would appreciate that reverts were not so indiscriminately done. E.g., the article tag stating that it required cleanup due to extensive usage of WP:SPS was reverted twice on false grounds. It is important to warn readers when an article is not reliably grounded. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
You treat de facto control almost as a legal concept, I find - as though you can have de facto control in theory. This is a contradiction in terms.
De facto control means control in practice, on the ground. If we were dealing with an island a couple of miles off Mar del Plata then you might have a point, but during this period the islands were several days' travel from any European (or non-indigenous) settlement. Without the presence of some authority structure on the islands - beyond that provided by a ship over that ship's company - it takes a bit of a logical leap to infer practical control without there being anyone on the islands to exercise it. I imagine the people who were on the islands at the time (and I believe there were some) would not have paid much attention to Buenos Aires during this period.
The wording was chosen to avoid any notion of theoretical or legal control, to deal purely with the situation as it existed in practice on the islands at the time. Otherwise we start getting bogged down in a number of debatable situations and totally lose the point in having a timeline.
Now, if we can demonstrate that the timeline is inaccurate in the terms intended, I don't mind getting into that. If we can think of a better encyclopædic way of putting those terms, I don't mind getting into that. But I do not feel that we would benefit from trying to interpret de facto control to mean anything other than actual control on the ground, because this is the point at which the distinction is easiest to make while putting meaningful information across to the reader.
I note finally that I do not believe that Gaba's source reasonably comes anywhere near demonstrating de facto control even in the sense that you seem to be describing, let alone in the sense intended and used by the article. Kahastok talk 14:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole timeline of de facto control is WP:OR and WP:SYN. It was apparently made up by analyzing several sources and deciding in the talk page what constitutes de facto control (like Kahastok did in his comment above) As it stands the timeline is highly tendentious and, unless we can find a reliable source for it, should probably be removed. Looking at the history of the article one sees:

  1. The original state of the article assigned de facto control to Argentina starting from 1820[1].
  2. On June 2006 Apcbg changed it to 1826 claiming "Argentine settlement established in 1826" [2] (while assigning the period 1811-1826 to "UK/US sealers" [3], later changed to Uninhabited)
  3. That remained in the article for a year until in July 2007 the timeline was re-factored and Argentina's de facto control moved first to 1828 and then to 1829 [4]. Who refactored it? Well, Wee Curry Monster, Kahastok and Apcbg of course (the first two under their respective previous names) [5]

That form of the timeline pretty much remained, with minor modifications made, until today. Once again: this is a crystal clear case of original research. Seeing that every little edit that anybody attempts to make to it will be met with endless discussions attempting to analyze history rather than simply quoting a reliable source, I propose to remove it and let the reader go through the sections which rely (or should rely) on actual sources to obtain the information. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

De facto control seems to be just a highfalutin way to say 'occupation'. A change to the title might reduce opportunity for misinterpretation. Petecarney (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea, a priori it would appear to reduce the chances of engaging in WP:OR removing the necessity of editors of assigning de facto control by their own standards, but I'm afraid it will lead to a similar pattern of endless discussions about what constitutes occupation. It might be worth a shot though, what do others think? Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
"Occupation" can imply illegitimacy or a military occupation. The first would be POV in all cases and the second inaccurate and POV in most. As I said above, I am happy in principle to see a change in title, but I feel that the current title adequately puts the point across well enough. I feel that having a timeline benefits the reader and thus that it should be kept. I reject Gaba's standard OR and SYN argument since I cannot see how it applies to this situation; most of the rest of his points are ad hominem and I see little reason to respond to them. Kahastok talk 20:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Kahastok, it is very simple see how WP:OR and WP:SYN applies to this situation: could you point me to the sources that back the timeline of de facto control in this article please? No further discussion nor elaborated argumentation needed. Simply present the sources that back the periods of de facto control as stated in the article. As you know, we need sources which clearly state that a given period corresponded to a given country's de facto control to unequivocally source it (completely absent from the article), as to avoid depending of our own analysis (like we did above).
I'll await the links and please if you will, just the sources. Let's try to avoid an unnecessary long discussion. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The timeline is part of the lede, and for the most part we don't put cites in the lede (even if policy accepts them they tend to get taken out again after a few months, so the exercise is pointless). The sources you request are dotted through the history section. It is not a violation of WP:SYN, nor any other part of WP:OR, to provide factual information from multiple sources where no original conclusion is drawn or implied. This is the case here.
If you object to calling it a "timeline of de facto control", when the sources for the most part are dealing with the dates of arrival and departure, then, as I have indicated, I would have no objection to changing the heading of the list appropriately. But I remain strongly of the view that the information provided is encyclopædic and that a simple rendering of the key dates is of great benefit to the reader's understanding of the topic, and as such I oppose any removal or radical alteration of the basis of the list. To try and restart the naming discussion, how about Timeline of local administration on the islands? I think we can do better. Kahastok talk 17:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The sources present in the article deal indeed with dates of arrival and departure. With that in mind, naming it Timeline of local administration on the islands would also be controversial since we would then argue about who administered the islands in times of conflict (and there's quite a lot of those) How about Timeline of presence in the islands? I believe this is the least controversial term since it requires no interpretation on our end, simply sources. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What precisely is wrong with De Facto, which means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established.". It acknowledges who had some measure of control in practise but side steps the issue whether it was officially recognised by other parties. If its a sensitivity about the military dicatorship in Argentina please say so. Timeline of Presence makes no sense and Timeline of local adminsitration makes little sense either. I don't think its broke personally. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"If its a sensitivity about the military dicatorship in Argentina please say so", uh?? o_O
The problem is that we have precisely zero sources to back the de facto timeline which was crafted entirely by a group of editors and their own analysis of sources. As you can see above with Kahastok's comment, we immediately run into problems when we try to decide what constitutes de facto control. So if you have sources (or a source) stating unequivocally the de facto control of the islands then please present it.
What we can currently source is presence in the islands with no interpretation on our side required. Hence the proposed title Timeline of presence in the islands. Would you explain what makes no sense to you? Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Gaba is presenting the case well. The problem here is that there is no objective criteria to determine if certain countries had de facto control in old times. Therefore, several parts of the timeline are the product of the WP:OR of editors who applied criteria of their choice. In other words, the problem (this time) is mostly not with the historical events but with establishing if some of those events constituted "de facto control" or not. I like Petercarney's proposal of using "occupation". @Kahastok, the term contemplates unlawful occupations just as "de facto control" does. I find Gaba's "presence at the islands" to be worth considering too. I think other changes would be needed, such as including the pre-1829 Argentine settlements, dating the US "occupation" (if we must) in January 1832 alone and from then on the resumption of the Argentine one. That is if we decide to keep the table & diagram, which look pretty but should be kept only if fairly-neutral versions can be achieved. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've now protected this page for two weeks as many editors are continuing to perform editors that they know will be contentious rather than discuss them here - hopefully this long break will lead to some useful discussion although unfortunately I doubt that. Both the main protagonists are, in some way at fault here. Gaba_p needs to remember that other people can have different opinions to him and just because it's obvious to him that a source doesn't support a statement that others may disagree. Hence I don't find the short comments in the edit log sufficient explanation for a tagging that was obviously going to be contentious and feel that a discussion should have been started here with a longer explanation. Likewise Wee Curry Monster's action of simply removing the tags and accusing someone of being pointy is not the best way to keep the situation calm. You now have two weeks to discuss edits you'd like made to the article and to reach consensus on those edits. Please use this time well. Simply waiting the two weeks and then going back to this sort of editing is only likely to lead to longer protection or blocks. If the two of you really can't discuss things then I suggest that you consider mediation. Otherwise this could well end up at ArbCom and that will probably end up badly for everyone. Dpmuk (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

@Dpmuk, I find it hard to believe that the situation will change unless someone who is deemed neutral by some editors here is more assertive about what is going on. For the last six or seven weeks, almost everything I contributed was reverted, generally on no grounds or doubtful grounds, and often with unnecessarily-harsh comments. Discussion here is so difficult that it impedes advances towards a scholarly grounding of this article, which currently relies heavily on tendentious WP:SPS instead. I made this point several times but I feel unheard, and the process of indiscriminate reversals and obfuscation of this talk page continues. I understand that you are trying to keep things calm, but I don't believe it helpful to represent these attitudes with an euphemism as in the above. We need more assertiveness. I would appreciate some feedback. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I can only echo Andrés' comments with the difference that what he's been going through for the last month, I've been experiencing for about a year and a half.
Just a small clarification in case you didn't notice Dpmuk but I did only one reversion [6] and then immediately opened a new section here in the talk page to discuss (after Wee Curry Monster teamed with Kahastok to make the same revert). I find it hard to believe Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster can come up with reasonable arguments as to why they reverted things such as the obvious tagging of a site for WP:SPS, when no one contests it is an WP:SPS.
Anyway, I'm always open to discuss all matters; the problem is that with these two every edit, no matter how small, is a battle uphill quickly turned into a WP:BATTLEGROUND when they run out of sensible arguments. We'll see where this one goes. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the major problems here is indeed the fact that you treat the page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.
The major reason why we have been so unable to get consensus on almost anything here are your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you must be lying or editing in bad faith, and your dismissal out of hand of any argument or position that does not accept your POV in full.
Right now, once again, the page is being bombarded with new discussion points and new objections and new changes. There are, what, four or five separate discussions going on now? It hasn't been less than two for months. And you've started just about all of them. This badly needs to slow down so that all editors have a chance to give with each of the issues the attention that they merit. You cannot reasonably claim a solid consensus when there are so many concurrent discussions. And tag-bombing the article makes this worse, not better.
We cannot and will not reach a consensus that includes you on a point of disagreement unless you are willing to engage properly in building one. This is not a threat, it's a fact. I will do what I can to get consensus on topics, but unless you are willing to do your bit, no consensus will ever be possible. Kahastok talk 14:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Kahastok for that perfect example of what I mentioned above. Kahastok has complained several times of too many discussions but he will nonetheless revert any edit not made by Wee Curry Monster or Apcbg from the article. So if, after being reverted, I come here and try to open a discussion, Kahastok complaints about it. These three editors need to either: a- stop reverting absolutely any edit, no matter how small, that doesn't come from either of them, or b- engage in a sensible discussion, not with the clear goal of maintaining the status quo as they do now, but aiming at establishing a consensus.
I note also that Kahastok has also rejected mediation by an established editor (Marshal20) for one of the discussions going on above. So to sum up: he will revert all edits, then complain when the discussion is opened and finally refuse mediation when it is offered. But I'm the disruptive one. Sigh.. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I think a big problem here is that there are a number of what I would call "activist editors" who are essentially single-purpose account editors focused almost entirely on this sovereignty dispute. That's not healthy for any article, because it leads to entrenched positions and battleground tactics. I dipped my toes in these waters a few times, but I've been reluctant to contribute in such a hostile environment. I think Kahastok makes an excellent point about multiple discussions. In an environment like this, it is better to focus on a single issue and see it through to its resolution before moving onto the next one. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I am (or was) a regular editor and I have difficulty following all the threads. I have asked before that restrict ourselves to one topic at a time (given the length and rambling nature of most of the now), but it seems that the warriors don't want to create an inviting atmosphere.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no issue in concentrating in one discussion at the time and of course that would be a much more reasonable approach. But when every single little edit is met with an immediate blanket-reversal by default, what else can you do? If you look at the opened discussions currently in the talk page (4) at least 3 of them are no-brainers. The first one I just can't believe we're still arguing when the edit proposed is so thoroughly sourced and simple. The second one was created by Langus after one of Wee Curry Monster's on-sight reversions and again, what is being asked is so simple that a thread wouldn't be necessary if it werent for the immediate-reversion policy. The third one is the simplest of them all. What Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster reverted twice were completely justified tags removed based on accusations of WP:POINT instead of simply addressing the issues.
These three editors I've mentioned are hell bent in maintaining the article in a perpetual state of status quo which in a big part (really big) they themselves created. The only reason so many discussions are opened is because no one seems to be able to edit anything in the article without the written permission of mainly Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok. Anything else is instantly removed and forced to be discussed ad nauseum until valuable editors like Slatersteven and Scjessey are turned away. There's an easy fix to this problem: address the clear sense of ownership these editors have with the article. I'd challenge anyone here to look through the history of the article and find an edit not made by either of those three editors that wasn't almost immediately reverted by one of them. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Given the accusations (and counter accusations) of boas I think we need admin action, I would suspect this is all taken to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Gaba seems to think that I and others revert his edits just for the hell of it. I would really like to see consensus on the discussions we have, and to see the number of concurrent discussions reduced. But that does not mean that I (or anyone else) am going to automatically, unquestioningly and uncritically accept whatever he wants to put in the article, even if it is inaccurate, non-neutral or both. He has no moral right or policy right to expect such special treatment, which would not be afforded to any editor on any page on Wikipedia.
If Gaba genuinely did not know that edits like this were going to be contentious then it's difficult to see what he thinks would be likely to be contentious. Anyone with a quarter of the experience that he has from dealing with this topic just on Wikipedia would see immediately how contentious this is likely to be.
If Gaba (and everyone else here) really wants to reduce the number of discussions here, the onus is on him to avoid making contentious edits until discussion on his previous contentious edits has finished and to work constructively with other editors to ensure that it is possible to finish those discussions, preferably with consensus - in particular noting that it is much harder to agree with someone who continually accuses you of bad faith and who continually attacks you personally. Kahastok talk 20:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Couple of corrections Kahastok: I of course do not expect an automatic acceptance of any of my edits, but neither should I expect an automatic opposal (which is what currently happens) Also, it's not just me who you keep blanket-reverting by default: it's pretty much everybody except the three of you (read Andrés' comment above please). Again I invite anybody reading to go through the article's history to chick this.
This was a bold edit which is precisely why I left it out of my no brainers list. No comment on those Kahastok? By the way, I'm waiting for your sources on this issue.
The ones that keep the article in a perpetual status quo are the three of you, a painfully obvious fact to any editor that spends a couple of months here. The way to reduce discussions is to accept that you do not own the article. If you regard this statement as a personal attack I'm very sorry Kahastok. There's no other way to put it. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Curry Monster, please: Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#British_"permission". I won't accept your references if you refuse to quote them. WP:AGF has a limit...


Please help me resolve this before the deadline (two weeks from now on).
Regards. --Langus (t) 21:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Some more comments from me. I'm trying not to get involved in the content issue as once that happens I won't be able to act in an admin capacity and this page is in desperate need of an admin looking over it so as to limit the edit wars etc. I have suggested WP:MEDIATION which would involve a senior editor helping guide the content discussions and I suggest that someone start the process and all parties agree to it, else, as I say above this could well be heading to arbcom and no one wants that.
The biggest issue here, as far as I can see, is that both "sides" blame the other and see nothing wrong with what they've done. Gaba_p - you're just about the worse at this. I'm singling you out in part because rather than use the protection period to discuss the issue you immediately used my statement as an excuse to comment on other's people's actions. You accuse other people of ownership, and that is undoubtedly true, but you're at least as guilty of ownership if not more so. Tagging an article repeatedly to make your point is as much ownership as changing the text to make your point. Yes, I've singled Gaba_p out in this instance as it was his comment that seems to have started a long back and forth about the other parties actions but most parties are guilty. Instead of commenting on other people's action try looking at your own and see if you are guilty of the same thing you're about to accuse other people of - most of you are.
Discussion should be about what should be in the article not about other editor's actions. Failure to do this seems likely to end in a topic ban, either community or arb-com enacted, for all the main players here and then none of you will be bale to contribute to this topic. Dpmuk (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Dpmuk, I'm sorry but I have to ask what do you mean by me not using this period to discuss the issue? I opened a new section regarding the revert that prompted your protection of the page 3 days ago and so far none of the editors that reverted (Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster) have commented [7]. How am I the one not discussing the issue? I used your comment as an opportunity rather than excuse to comment on some of the editors' behavior because it seems like the appropriate thread to do so, instead of opening yet another ANI or discussing it in a section about an article issue. How can I be guilty of ownership if no edit I make remains?
You are being unfair Dpmuk. Please go through the talk page and see if you find any discussion I don't contribute to. Would it be better to just engage in edit-wars instead of discussing the issues? Please go through the article's history and see if any change (not just mine) that wasn't made by any of these three editors remained in the article. I understand that we should focus on content not editors, but something needs to be done. If I can't edit the article because I am immediately reverted, I can't tag the article because I'm also either reverted or accused of tag-bombing and I can't open discussions for the issues that need to be addressed because I'm accused of discussing too many things, what can I do? Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dpmuk, Gaba p and I agreed not to comment, to avoid cluttering up the page and allowing others to comment. I have largely kept to that promise. I will add a comment on content later, I don't find commenting on editors to serve any purpose. I have frequently suggested that comments on content rather than editors to be desirable. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaba has been discussing content all the time. Don't take my word for it, just read the log, bearing in mind that we are human and may lose some patience occasionally, particularly when confronted with what the Argentine minority had to go through here. I support Gaba's words above and strongly disagree with putting a staunch opposition to any changes at the same level with the placement of a few tags that serve a needed purpose (of informing readers that they should take what they are reading with a pinch of salt, and of informing editors that there is work to do on those particular points).
Please try to apply some introspection before concluding that the problems are caused by other people. Scjessey, I don't want to point fingers but it's inevitable that I illustrate the point with this case. We had few interactions, perhaps none other than the following one. In March I commented on an issue, you made an observation and I replied. Gaba also commented and finally agreed with my point. In the process I brought up sources and arguments that were not considered previously. For 7 days there were no further comments so I made the corresponding edit. WCM reverted immediately. A discussion started (see comments in [8] starting on March 25). There, Gaba and I restated the initial arguments and addressed WCM's observations, which were embellished by his customary hassle. At one point I restored my edit, probably due to Gaba's agreement and the sole opposition of WCM who, as I understood, was failing to address the points that were presented. Then you reverted on the sole grounds of no consensus, and commented on this talk page to simply "concur absolutely" with WCM and qualify my contribution as a "shameless pro-Argentine" "POV" that "butchered" the editing of that section. To reply to this, I summarized my points and asked you what was wrong with them. I had also written an expansion of the argument for the "Commonwealth Secretariat" part, including references, but didn't copy it into the talk page to avoid writing too long. You didn't answer, nobody else did, the section went straight to the archive and it has been waiting there for a month and a half, just as the "Commonwealth" part is waiting in my PC.
I am surprised to read now that you claim that the troubles here are caused by "behavioural problems" from editors who are focused exclusively on this article (I feel alluded) and have created a hostile environment that is not inviting for others like you. Was there something reprehensible in my behaviour or Gaba's in the above case? Was it the reason for your failure to justify your reversal with a discussion on content, as when you left the points unanswered? What should I have done differently? (BTW, if your answer is that WCM had responded sufficiently, please point out exactly where he addressed those points properly.)
I will try not to feed many discussions just as I have been trying to, but if you guys find it hard to follow several threads, may I suggest that you focus on one or two, and when doing so try to improve its effectiveness. We need a way to improve this process in a way that enables a proper cleanup of the article before we die of old age. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
On a previous note, Dpmuk, you wrote in the OP that you "don't find the short comments in the edit log sufficient explanation for a tagging that was obviously going to be contentious and feel that a discussion should have been started here with a longer explanation." The longer explanations were waiting as per other editors' requests to deal with one or two issues at a time, however stagnated. For example, a citation-needed tag of mine was the subject of a complaint on your talk page, which led to your warning on mine, where you referred to the complaint as having been informed of "what was happening". That tag was placed on a point that contradicts two academic papers (of US authors and journals) that I would be happy to refer. In the meantime, other editors could have prepared their sources if they had some that, they believed, supported the fact, while readers could have been warned that there was validation pending. After all, the burden of proof should fall on those making the claim. But the tag had been almost-instantly reversed citing a text that does not support the fact. This last judgement is not a matter of differing opinions that people should accept and regard evenly, but a contradiction that needs to be resolved with a scholarly approach.
I'm very happy to listen and debate in a respectful, open-minded climate. But I don't think it was right to quickly disregard my observation, among other ones, without any prior inquiry, or to warn and ban users who make these kinds of observations. Even where there are open discussions (i.e., the timeline and the British permission) the tags were removed. Isn't this owning the article? I am saying this, as well as my previous remark, to try to improve this process, because it is going to be impossible to bring reliability into these articles if contributions that work towards their proper grounding are badly seen as they have been. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

New relevant sub section

Seeing as there is a sub section in the Argentine claims for The Nootka Sound Convention, I think it would also be relevant to have a similar sub section in the British claims for the 1850 Convention of Settlement. It is after all Britain's biggest claim to the islands. Do you agree this idea is relevant? --Truthsir789 (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

@Truthsir789, please correct me if I'm wrong, but if we require reliable sources, there is very little to say about the presumed relationship between the Arana–Southern treaty and Falklands/Malvinas. Arana-Southern Treaty#Relation to the Falkland Islands dispute is obviously derived from Pascoe and Pepper's pamphlet, and as such it copies its defects. E.g., it disregards Rosas's annual message to Congress dated between the signature and ratification of the treaty, which contradicts P&P's interpretation, makes a blatant out-of-context quotation of Palmerston's message to Moreno (a more-complete verbatim is available in Hope, plus Rosas refers to the message in the aforementioned address to Congress), and lacks a proper analysis that considers certain passages in the treaty as well as relevant principles of law. I'm confident that this is not Britain's biggest claim.
This article (I mean "FI sovereignty dispute") is also ridiculously biased in the paragraph that mentions the treaty. I will be happy to discuss this matter in due time, but for the time being I am following the advise to deal with one or few matters at a time until they reach some degree of completion. Many issues I have opened and cared to discuss with good sources have gone straight to the archive, and keep going there. We can discuss the 1849 treaty on my talk page or a sandbox if you like, or even better at "Arana-Southern Treaty", but please let's advance with the pending matters before opening another controversial discussion here. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Very well we will discuss this in sandbox in due time, sorry for any inconvenience --Truthsir789 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That you might not like the facts does not make them not factual. We have reliable sources, even apart from Pascoe and Pepper. And I note that Pascoe and Pepper do generally cite their sources - their fact-checking is generally not bad. They take a position, but that does not mean that they are lying or unreliable, particularly given their record of fact-checking.

That said, Britain's most important argument is that the islanders have the right to self-determination, and that this overrides any considerations arising from nineteenth-century history (while at the same time they argue that the nineteenth-century history demonstrates that the modern settlement is legally constituted). Kahastok talk 21:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The facts that I don't like being...? If you want to check P&P's fact-checking instead of simply proclaiming it, look into Palmerston's quotation that I mentioned above. There is little value in citing sources if they are misrepresented and many other relevant facts are omitted. Providing some references is not enough for scholarly rigour. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

British "Permission" II

I see that the tag on the following statement, about Vernet requesting permission, was removed based on the inclusion of a reference to Cawkell:


As we were disussing here, that's an odd statement, given that it is absent from so many scholarly studies and contradicts primary sources. Truthsir789, could you please provide the passage that supports the statement?

The article continues:


Parish (British Consul at Buenos Aires) stated that Vernet requested protection, but I am not sure that a mention by Cawkell is enough to put that request as fact, instead of merely something said by Parish. I think I can provide other secondary sources though, but we should see if Cawkell and those other authors put the statement in their own voices or in Parish's voice.

More importantly, the (hypothetical) request should be dated. According to Shuttleworth (p. 359), it happened in 1829 after Vernet colonized the islands "with great success" and got permission from Rosas to do so, with no mention of any British permission. Shuttleworth also describes Parish's reaction to Argentine plans to install a penal colony, which happened earlier that year and was when his "attention was first called to the question" of sovereignty over the islands, and that Vernet's request was due to him "hearing that England claimed the sovereignty" (due to Parish's reaction, I presume). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


Actually, I got access to Cawkell and the claim is there:


Page 48, no inline notes or citations given, so it is not clear to me where this information comes from.
Then in pages 49 & 50 it says:


As noted, this latter meeting with Parish happened in 1829, not 1828. Cawkell doesn't explicitly say that either, only that Vernet approached BA Government in 1828.
I have no clue about what the first request (1826) refers to. --Langus (t) 03:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Langus. Those must be the passages. However, Cawkell is not saying there that the British Consulate gave permission to Vernet. "Received the stamp" evidently refers to consular legalization, which means authenticating a document, so that it becomes enforceable under a foreign country's legal system. That was a common procedure in consulates before the Apostille Convention, and Vernet had several reasons for requesting it. Pascoe and Pepper say in their pamphlet that the Vice-Consul countersigned the 1828 grants, which is basically the same thing (please don't assume that I'm endorsing P&P by saying this).
Regardless of the accuracy of this reference to a countersignment, such an act does not mean asking for permission or giving it. Neither does placing a stamp on a land grant issued by a foreign country. Unless we are arguing that the consulate "gave Buenos Aires permission", by means of recognizing its authority to grant land on the islands. But I guess it was just authenticating the document.
No wonder why the permission hypothesis in not present in any of the scholarly studies that I have read, and contradicts them in several cases. However, at least the following WP articles give it as fact: Falkland Islands, History of the Falkland Islands, East Falkland, United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, Puerto Soledad, Luis Vernet, Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833) and Events leading to the Falklands War. All but two of these other instances lack a source. One offers this self-published webpage (link to archive image, the account is currently suspended), which uses the same expression as Cawkell, "received the stamp", and another one offers a chapter by Pascoe and Pepper in Tatham (2008), in which I assume the authors refer to a countersignment as they do in their pamphlet of the same year. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think the Cawkell quote from Langus is quite clear and supports the current text. I note that the text does not ascribe the text saying that Vernet asked for British protection to Parish, so that objection appears entirely unfounded. It seems clear to me from the text, taking account of your comments and your links, that the effect of counterstamping the land grant was to give British approval, or to put it another way, British permission, for Vernet to settle on the islands. Kahastok talk 19:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kahastok, initially I made 3 separate points, but in my latest comment I was only referring to the first one, the issue of British "permission". By interpreting that the effect of the stamping was to give British approval to Vernet's settling (yet not to Argentine title), you are disregarding (why?) the possibility that the Consulate was simply acting in its traditional notarial function instead, offering the aforementioned consular legalization. If they believed that Britain should co-grant or be the sole granter in virtue of sovereign rights, they would not express so by stamping a grant issued by Buenos Aires. Besides being odd, this interpretation seems to be novel, as we have not found any reliable sources that advance it.
My second point, about surveying further into the hypothetical request for British protection, is less important and can be dealt with later. The third point was that I recommend that we date this alleged request, because the article sort of presents it as if Vernet had done it before settling. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The British consulate was giving formal British approval for Vernet's settlement under UK law. Why on Earth else do you think he would take it to the British consulate? For a giggle? In your case, your own source makes it clear that the notarisation is only relevant - in this case - "within the jurisdiction of the United States". Even if we accept your arguments in full, the only reason why Vernet would take the thing to the British is to cover his back if the British took over - by ensuring that he had British permission for the settlement to begin with.
We have sources to back up the points made, they are in this and other articles.
I would also suggest that Langus' Cawkell quote settles your question of dates firmly as 1828. Kahastok talk 19:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Kahastok, as I said, consular legalization (a.k.a. "authentication", like in the US link) is meaningful and I can imagine Vernet wanting it for several purposes. I agree with Cawkell that it would have been useful for him had the British taken over, as he could then use the grants from Buenos Aires in front of British authorities and courts of law, to defend his private property. Even if there was no British takeover, it must have helped him with potential investors and settlers to have this statement from Britain meaning that the grants were authentic and delivered from a government recognized by her. If he really requested this, he did not go for a giggle.
Legalization indeed makes a document legally enforceable within the jurisdiction of the consulate's country of origin, but that generally does not imply that they approve the content, much less part of it while rejecting the rest (like if they agreed with Vernet receiving rights but not with Buenos Aires being entitled to give them). It is an everyday, useful procedure. I have requested it several times, mostly through the simpler apostille method that exists nowadays.
As jingoistic as Pepper and Pascoe's work is, they use the word "countersign", which implies authentication and not a permission, thus concurring with the notion of legalization. You can verify this by consulting dictionaries such as [9] [10] [11] and [12]. Cawkell and P&P are the only sources that were provided for this statement throughout WP.
Your alternative interpretation, that he went for a permission and got one via the stamping, is uninformed. Why would a consulate stamp on a grant from Buenos Aires manifest that they gave Vernet permission to settle while they denied recognition of the right of Buenos Aires to award such a grant? It is absurd. You might be relating this to stamping of passports, but that is a completely-different thing.
In summary, you are disregarding that, via her succinct verbatim, Cawkell meant an everyday, reasonable procedure, stating instead that she surely must have meant some kind of odd and unprecedented permission. I can understand it if someone who does not know about law makes that wrong assumption after a quick read, but I am asking you to think it over and providing you with links and explanations. Please consult someone more knowledgeable about this if you must.
This is a simple issue. How can we not work straightforwardly here at least? I would appreciate hearing other editors' opinion. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing in your message or your argument that suggests that we are not dealing with a process of attaining approval, under British law, for Vernet's settlement. We can either have that the settlement was endorsed by the UK, was operated with UK permission, was accepted under UK law - or that there was no such approval in which case there was no point in Vernet's going to the British consulate. If as you suggest the entire process was a purely Argentine matter, then there would be absolutely no need to get the British consulate involved. British law cannot simultaneously be crucial and irrelevant as you seem to be claiming. Kahastok talk 09:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, I don't think you are understanding what consular legalization (a.k.a. authentication) is. It is a process of certifying that a document was really originated by the official source (e.g., government office or notary) that appears to have originated it, so that it can be used at another country's legal system. If Vernet presented these grants without consular legalization to British courts, the judges would refuse them, because it was not their job to verify that a foreign government really issued those grants or, in other words, that they are not fraudulent. That job was for the consulate to do. So they called it "consular legalization".

Besides, consular legalization would provide better proof to potential European investors and settlers that Vernet was really granted those lands and benefits by a government recognized by Britain.

Legalization is a very common process. E.g., if you have a son in another country and you need to present your birth certificate to their authorities, you first need to get it legalized for use in that other country. Nowadays, this is most frequently done via a simpler apostille process, instead of doing it at consulates and embassies. That is another pointer that may help clarifying this issue (I mean the relation with the modern apostille).

Legalization does not imply approving the content. (Some countries may refuse legalization if there is a flagrant defect in the content, but it does not mean that there is a thorough verification of it. This is akin to the ethical imperative that notaries have to follow when they certify signatures.) E.g., see this passage from the US-government link that I provided before:


Arguing that legalization implies approval would be mildly uninformed. You are not only doing that, but claiming that it meant approving part of the content (Vernet having permission to settle) while rejecting the rest (Buenos Aires granting land and other rights to him). That is more than uninformed, it is absurd.

Could other editors please help? I guess this will need a RFC. Pity to have to do it on such a simple issue, when there is much more-complex work to do. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're arguing simultaneously that this was significant and irrelevant. You're arguing that it was vital that go to the British consulate, but at the same time that going to the British consulate was totally irrelevant. You can't have it both ways. Either you're arguing that he got approval, acceptance, permission for his settlement under British law, or that he went to the British consulate for the fun of it. Which will it be? Kahastok talk 21:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not "to receive a stamp" means consular legalization or British authorization, one issue remains: Cawkell is, to my knowledge, the only source we have for this. If we could find more, we wouldn't need to dwell into these grammatical discussions. --Langus (t) 21:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Langus, I agree on the noteworthiness of there being no more than one source, but to me it is explained by the alleged act being clearly no more than a routine authentication (a.k.a. legalization), akin to a notary certifying a signature. I never said it was irrelevant; it was vital if Vernet wanted to present the papers at British courts in the future, and useful to convince investors and settlers, but it is absurd to claim it to be a permission/acceptance/approval of part of the document while another part was rejected.
If an author writes that someone went to the supermarket, I assume she means he went for groceries, not to deliver a speech on freedom of religion. If a person gets a random official document stamped at a consulate, it means authentication. A complex process such as allowing Vernet to settle while condemning the sovereignty assumed by Buenos Aires would be described differently. Plus it would probably appear in other sources, instead of apparently contradicting them like with the passage in Shuttleworth (p. 359) that I gave above. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Your source would actually rather confirm my point - that Vernet went to the British to get British protection, permission, approval for his settlement - it's all the same thing. Not as you describe, some simultaneously vital and useless mission to say hello to the Britsh. Kahastok talk 21:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Welcoming protection is certainly not equal to requesting permission. As I repeatedly said, a consular legalization would not be useless. I saw this going nowhere so I started a RfC. I give further details in the threaded discussion there. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay

I know that this is a highly controversial article, and that any substancial inclusion of information is likely to generate a huge mess. Still, I will leave some info for your consideration: the Uruguayan Broad Front, the political party that is now in government, is discussing their own sovereignty claim over the Falklands. Yes, that's right: there's a third claim now, that the Falkland Islands may be Uruguayan. See here (english) or here (spanish). Cambalachero (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would be far too late to make any claim, with well over one century without any Uruguayan protests against the non-Uruguayan possession of the Islands; besides, it's just an intention to make a study and not necessarily to make a claim, and finally it was a proposal put forward by some politician not an official position of the Uruguayan Government which supports the Argentine claim instead. That said, if such an initiative persists and gets some further development, then it might of course be mentioned in suitable proportion and wording. Apcbg (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.falklandshistory.org/getting-it-right.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Dec 1833

The "Timeline of de facto control" table says the Argentine Confederation had control from December 1832 to January 1833. It's not clear to me from the "Argentine settlements" subsection further down what event corresponds to that start date of Dec 1832. Could somebody explain? - Khendon (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm having a little trouble not thinking of the "de facto" charts and tables as being exactly the same kind of synthesis complained of in the above thread. Where did these charts come from? Were they assembled by editors? __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The Argentine soldiers who arrived on the islands in October 1833 mutinied pretty much immediately; by definition Argentina was not in control of the mutineers. In December Pinedo returned and took control, only for the British to arrive and take over within a couple of weeks.
As to the Elaqueate's point, I do not agree. If each date was supported by a separate and independent source, where there was no source that attempted to draw the dates together to come up with any coherent narrative or point, then the parallel would be very close. There is no such source that attempts to draw together countries that support each side in the way that is proposed above. OTOH there are numerous sources that draw the dates together - history books on the Falklands - and we're doing nothing but summarise them. One thing that that means is that we can be sure that the list is complete (at least to within the limits of reliable sources), whereas this is impossible in the case above. Kahastok talk 23:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You're saying that sources agree on every date? Of non-formal defacto control? __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You're missing the point. The point is that there are sources that do similar things to this table. Most sources on the dispute spend a large proportion of their time discussing the history, and we can easily find sources that present these dates in order as important dates in the history of the dispute, where control changed hands. There isn't just one, there's plenty.
In the case above, no source does anything similar to the table proposed. What's being produced is a oompilation of completely new research, each source coming from a single source.
An example of the difference: anyone reading a history book or a book about the dispute can verify the dates. They can look through them and see that there are no more that should be added and none that should be removed. The table is a summary of others' research. Anyone looking at the sources for the proposed section above cannot do that. They have to repeat the research and when they're done there's nothing to suggest that nothing crucial has been missed. The table is a result of a Wikipedia editor's own research. Kahastok talk 07:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Do the reliable sources agree on the dates included in the charts and what they meant for "de facto" control? Yes or no? Are you asking me to repeat the research? __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe I already answered this. But to avoid any doubt, yes, the table is verifiable to the appropriate standard, and does not contain original research. Kahastok talk 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think you answered many of my questions at all. anyone reading a history book or a book about the dispute can verify the dates is not an appropriate answer when asked to verify something about the interpretation present in the timeline. And there is interpretation. The chart is not about dates of specific events, it goes further to make claims about who was exerting active control. I think that's still in dispute for many of the times listed, and I don't think reliable sources agree. The chart makes it look like disputed claims are settled facts, and that's original research. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
We don't have references in there because it's in the lede. The rules formally allow references in a lede, but that's not how it tends to work in practice. There's a large number of editors who will simply remove any references they find in a lede on the basis that the lede should not have references - to the extent that even if we try and add them now, you can practically guarantee that they'll be gone within a couple of months.
If you want references, I refer you to those in the article as a whole, which more than adequately cover the points at hand. But if you do want more, articles like History of the Falkland Islands, Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833) and Falkland Islands also contain numerous references that will assist you. Kahastok talk 20:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Some sources seem to dispute what the events listed mean for who was exercising de facto control. Who (specifically) decided which reliable sources (specifically) to use to build the graphical timeline and table? This is not a rhetorical question and deserves better than handwaving that everything's adequate. Pointing at other Wikipedia articles is also not appropriate for verification {setting aside that I don't see that unanimous agreement about de facto contol, as shown in the timeline, in those pages either). Now you may think the timeline adequately represents what happened, from whatever you POV is, but a reader needs more than that, and disputed claims should be shown, and sources given for interpretive claims beyond simple facts.
And you seem to be confusing this with the lead, which it's not. In any case, the lead isn't supposed to have tables and charts in it, even if that was an accurate description of what was happening here. Nothing we've been discussing is part of the lead. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
It appears to me that you are shifting the goalposts with each message you send - you started by claiming one part of the article was original synthesis, but you're now objecting to a different part of the article based on a totally different argument.
I do not see why I should feel the need to do your research for you. If you wish to know the history of this table, I suggest you look through the history of the article and the talk page and you can find the discussions that took place in detail. You will note that it was compiled based on reliable sources, and that sources are available that connect up the dates to produce a coherent narrative, cited in the article (so, there is no original synthesis). I note that despite your claim I can find nothing in policy suggesting that there is anything wrong with placing this in the lede.
You tell me I am handwaving, but it appears to me that your entire point is a based on handwaving. Nobody is saying that any of this is not subject to improvement in the same way as every other part of Wikipedia. But so far as I can tell, right now you're complaining that it isn't a WP:COPYVIO. Kahastok talk 22:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
How is a timeline that is below the table of contents and first heading part of the lead? You're not making any sense. (I see that this kind of thing could be part of the lead, I was incorrect about that, but certainly not for matter below the TOC) This isn't "shifting goalposts"; it seems there's disputes about whether all of the early settlements represented "de facto" control or not. The graphic states the "eras of control" as agreed upon things. You don't have to do research for me; you don't have to do a thing. But if sources are not cited in the article for the interpretation of historical events, then it's challengeable, and should be sourced or removed. I don't see that sources unanimously agree that some of the early settlements represented de facto control. If Wikipedia "settled" a question that is not unanimously settled in reliable sources, then it's original research. I'll take a look at earlier discussions, but it doesn't change what's missing here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

...and, if the table is right then it should be reasonable to say in the lead how long the Argentinians controlled the islands for before 1833 and avoid the weaselly "a period". If it's not then we should still be able to come up with something more specific - Khendon (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if the table's right. It has no sources. But you're illustrating an interesting aspect of this. The farther away from actual sources these tables get, the easier it is to treat them as settled fact, because you can't see what decisions were made about the points that are in dispute. Right now the "three weeks" that was going to be added is even less time than the Falkland Islands Government estimates. I don't think it's appropriate to say we know the specific time if it's disputed. That's WP:Original research. We're not supposed to be more specific than our sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 08:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see "three weeks" in the text you reverted. It said "a few weeks", which amply deals with your concern. Incidentally, it previously said "a brief period" [, which is also appropriate, but you removed the "brief" for some reason here. Kahastok talk 19:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I really like this timeline, but as it is right now, I'm inclined to say that Elaqueate is correct...
Here's an idea: how about considering the "military/official presence on the Falkland Islands"? I'm sure there's no controversy in those dates. And it wouldn't refer to "sovereignty" or "control", which is in itself open to interpretation. --Langus (t) 23:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how you've figured that Elaqueate is correct. I haven't worked out what s/he's arguing for yet - it's changing too quickly to keep track of. Kahastok talk 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute/Archive_19&oldid=1051985833"