Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should WP say, as it currently does in 9 of its articles ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]), that Louis Vernet sought permission from the British consulate in Buenos Aires before starting a settlement at Falklands/Malvinas in the 1820s?

Following requests for a reliable source ([10] [11]) only a book by Mary Cawkell was rendered, where the author states that Vernet took some grants, issued by the government of Buenos Aires, to the British Consulate where they "received its stamp". These grants awarded land and other privileges to Vernet on the condition that he formed a permanent settlement. User:Kahastok argues that Cawkell's statement implies that Vernet sought and was given British permission to settle. But User:Andres Djordjalian argues that it most probably refers, instead, to a consular legalization of the grants, a.k.a. "authentication", which is a common procedure for certifying the official origin of a document. Their discussion is here.

Cawkell doesn't elaborate and it is not clear what her source is. No act of legalization or permission at the British Consulate is mentioned in scholarly studies on the subject ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] etc.) or in a narration of the enterprise written by Vernet himself ([20]). (More in the threaded-discussion section.) Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Threaded discussion

The grants mentioned by Cawkell could be one or several issued in 1823 by the government of Buenos Aires to Louis Vernet and Jorge Pacheco (Vernet later purchased Pacheco's part), plus another one dated Jan. 5, 1828 where that government awards Vernet further land and other privileges on the condition that he formed a permanent settlement.

Apart from the article that now refers to Cawkell, two of those 9 WP articles refer to a website (currently suspended) that uses her words, and another one to a SPS that states that the consulate "countersigned" the 1828 grant in January 30, 1828 (no source given). Nevertheless, "countersignment" means authenticating the source of a document (see [21] [22] [23] [24]), thus concurring with the concept of consular legalization. The remaining 5 articles offer no source.

Granting land and privileges is a tacit expression of sovereignty, plus the grants included explicit manifestations from Buenos Aires, like saying (in the 1828 grant) that if those lands were not granted for such an enterprise, "an opportunity of doing a great national good would be lost, and even the right of sovereignty over them".

User:Langus-TxT quoted the passages by Cawkell here. I copy the relevant parts (my underlining):

“ [I]t would appear Vernet had become aware of Britain's interest in the islands as before sailing in January 1826 he took his grant to the British Consulate where it received their stamp. He might have done better to have sought an interview with the head of the Consulate, Woodbine Parish, but it is clear that at this stage he did not view his enterprise as one with political content. [...] In January 1828 he approached the Buenos Aires Government. They could not help: the Administration was again in a state of turmoil. Instead they extended his grant to cover the entire islands and Staten Island and exempted his enterprise from all taxation provided he established a colony within three years. As he had done before with the earlier grant, Vernet took the document to the British Consulate where it received its stamp. On this visit he met Woodbine Parish, who expressed great interest in his venture and asked Vernet to prepare a full report on the Islands to submit to the British Government. On his side, Vernet expressed the wish that, in the event of the British returning to the Islands, HMG would take his settlement under their protection, a wish Parish duly passed on to London. ”

I find it absurd to interpret that a consulate stamp means approval of part of the the document (i.e., the tacit permission to build a settlement) while there is a rejection of the manifestations of sovereignty contained in it. If Cawkell meant such an odd interpretation, she would have been more precise. A common consular legalization, which would merely have certified the genuineness of the document and is the direct interpretation to make from the phrase "[the document] received the [consular] stamp", makes sense and would have served Vernet several purposes.

I think WP is clearly making an erroneous interpretation of Cawkell's verbatim and emphasizing those wrong conclusions. As I see it, this alleged stamping either didn't exist or was a mere consular legalization that most authors do not see worthy of a mention. However important to Vernet's business, it would be, after all, just a certification.

The singularity of Cawkell's passage is not limited to this unique and apparently-unsourced mention of a consular stamping. Leaving aside the stamping, I find five dubious points in those paragraphs, each leading to believe in an apolitical Vernet either by the author's speculation or by possible misinterpretation. As I see it, Cawkell may have pushed the limits too far to present this singular theory. This leads me to consider that all of her statements there should be taken with a pinch of salt. For a detail of those 5 points, expand the following section. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

The first of the 5 points is her disputable statement when she says that, in 1826, Vernet knew about Britain's interest but believed that his enterprise had no political content. In 1823, Vernet and Pacheco petitioned for land to the Buenos Aires authorities (AGN Sala IX 24-5-7, translated in FO 6/499 pp. 13-14). In this petition, which carries their signatures, they wrote that it would be advantageous for the interests of that state to name an authority at the islands, therefore requesting the entitlement of Pablo Areguatí (the captain of their enterprise) as governor, adding that "in that way the Province gets possession of that abandoned island" and that they would "defend that territory as a sacred property of the state." In 1832, Vernet presented a memo with a clear description of the political relevancy of his actions in favor of Buenos Aires; the 1823 petition suggests that from the start he had at least some of those views. According to Shuttleworth, Woodbine Parish's biographer (Parish was the British consul in Buenos Aires at the time), the consul's attention was called to the Falklands/Malvinas case for the first time in early 1829. Primary sources show that the first dispatch in which he mentions Vernet (or rather "a Mr. Charles [sic] Vernet" who had obtained grants from Buenos Aires) is dated April 25, 1829 (FO 6/499 pp. 6-17). The dispatch includes English translations of Vernet's grants, which Parish says he has procured from Vernet himself, who had past three winters at the islands and told the consul that he had sent, in that year and the previous one, about a hundred colonists. In that dispatch, Parish writes that Vernet "would I believe be very happy if His Majesty's Government would take his settlement under their protection." From this statement Cawkell apparently derives that Vernet "expressed the wish" for British protection. That is an ambiguous statement can be taken to mean an explicit request (this ambiguity is the second of the five points). But the consul would not have written "I believe" if Vernet had actually requested protection. Moreover, in Cawkell's text, this wish is conditioned to "the event of the British returning to the Islands", a clause that would be significant coming from Vernet but is apparently no more than Cawkell's addendum (third point), at least judging from Parish's dispatch, which includes no such conditional. As a side note, welcoming protection can mean different things and is certainly not equal to asking for permission. There is one prior dispatch from the consulate on the subject of the islands, dated March 15, 1829 (FO 6/499 pp. 3-5), where Parish informs of plans to install a penal colony there, with no mention of Vernet but rather of Buenos Aires granting, to some "individuals", privileges to form "temporary settlements" (my underlining). This temporary adjective, which does not fit several aspects of the grants such as the above mentioned, is not used in the April dispatch and subsequent ones. It thus appears that the consul studied the grants for the first time during the lapse between these two dispatches (i.e., between March 15 and April 25, 1829), when he also met Vernet. This interpration concurs with Shuttleworth's. Cawkell is not precise about timing (fourth point) but her words do not contradict this version, because she states that Vernet went to the consulate with his 1828 grants but does not say when. However, in WP, the British-permission hypothesis is enforced by saying, with no source claimed other than Cawkell (and a dubious SPS in one instance), that the meeting took place before Vernet departed to the islands in 1828. The fifth and last point is that she presents the meeting between Vernet and Parish as almost a matter of coincidence, arising from Vernet's visit to the consulate for the purpose of getting his grant stamped. If the meeting took place between March 15 and April 25, 1829, wouldn't it be too much of a coincidence that Vernet decided to stamp his grant 14 months after obtaining it but right after the consul became concerned about the islands? If they had discussed these matters before, why did the consul fail to offer information in his first dispatch, where he even used the "temporary" adjective? I find greater plausibility in Shuttleworth's version, where Vernet is said to have approached the consul upon hearing that Britain claimed sovereignty (presumably as a result of the consul's inquiries beginning in March, 1829). Unlike Cawkell's narrative, this version discourages her idea that Vernet knew beforehand that the British intended to revive their claim but considered his enterprise to be apolitical. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I note my strong objection to the introduction to this RFC, which fails completely to live up to WP:RFC's requirement of a "brief, neutral statement of the issue". I note that the point at hand wasn't even discussed on this talk page - the discussion seemed to come to its natural conclusion two weeks ago at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. It is very difficult to see why Andrés would have chosen not to keep it there.

Andrés' argument boils down to the claim that, for no apparent reason, Vernet absolutely had to go to the consulate of a country whose nearest settlement was several thousand miles away in order to get a stamp that was totally irrelevant to his settlement. Andrés never adequately addressed this apparent conflict between its being absolutely vital and totally unnecessary to go to the British consulate in the previous discussion.

I note with interest that Andrés' introduction completely failed to mention this source. In the previous discussion, Andrés viewed it as vital - he pointed it out repeatedly - but as I noted at the time, it actually confirms that Vernet went to the British consulate for not just British permission but British protection. The whole point (and the sources are clear on this) was to ensure that the colony was approved by the British, so that any putative British takeover would respect his rights. This did in fact happen when the British took control in 1833. When we get down to it, the reason Vernet went to the British consulate was to get the British to approve, protect, accept, give permission to, his colony. That's what the sources say. Whether Andrés likes it or not. Kahastok talk 22:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

1. The arguments regarding that source (Shuttleworth) are elaborated in the collapsible section above. They were never "vital" to my point and the source doesn't say that Vernet went for British permission.
2. Welcoming protection is not equal to asking for permission. Moreover, in that collapsible section I cite a primary source that suggests that "applied for protection" may not be the right words.
3. A consular legalization would not be meaningless for Vernet. I have clarified this point several times.
4. I moved the debate to this other talk page, linking together both discussions, because I found this article to be the main one for this issue.
5. I think I kept the RfC call neutral. What may not be neutral is the opinion I gave in this threaded discussion. As I understand it, that's alright. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

In the following collapsible section I discuss why, to my understanding, a legalization at the British consulate would not have been unreasonable, even though I'm not convinced that it really happened. My point is that, right or wrong, the claim is not silly. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Reasons for desiring a consular legalization with a world power: The state of Buenos Aires was new and its government was unstable. To convince European settlers and investors, Vernet could make good use of a certificate from the British government saying that his grants were authentic and from a government recognized by Britain (before the United Nations, recognition from world powers was the utmost source of legitimacy for a nascent state). Vernet could be anticipating a transmission of sovereignty via a high-handed act or a cession from Buenos Aires. According to international law, private property had to be respected under such circumstances. So a legalization would be necessary to present the grants as proof of private title to foreign courts (British or not, as he could reach other authorities via a chain of legalization that recognized the British seal). Reasons to choose the British consulate: Britain was the greatest economic and naval power in the world. The only other important country to run a representation in Buenos Aires was the United States as far as I know. France, which was perhaps the second greatest power in the world, open hers shortly afterward, in 1829. Other powers took longer. Britain was a sort of protector for the nascent state, with close political and economic ties. Its consul was highly regarded. The U.S. had at that point pretty much given up on Buenos Aires and its ambassador was generally disliked. Britain was a great place to look for settlers and investors, as it was a country with numerous seafaring people and vast capital. Less-numerous Americans were focused on opportunity at their homeland. Britain had a higher standing with other European powers. Britain and France were competing for outposts around the world to protect their increasing commerce with their colonies and the Americas, thus being likely candidates for desiring the islands. Perhaps Vernet legalized the grants with both the British and U.S. representatives. I don't discard that Vernet speculated that Britain or France would resurface their old claims, as Cawkell infers. I don't mean to say that Vernet thought it was likely that they would (and, worst still, that they would expel the authorities from Buenos Aires). In that case, he probably would have been more careful before investing, because, as suggested by Shuttleworth and the primary sources mentioned in the previous collapsible section, he talked to the British consul only after having sent about a hundred colonists. One possibility is that he did not anticipate a transmission in 1826 and 1828 but did after that meeting, stamping his grants at that time. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You used the introduction to your RFC to argue your case. If you think that was neutral, then that raises wider concerns about your conception of neutrality.

You're coming up with all sorts of WP:OR to try to explain away why he went to the British consulate, but the sources tell us straight out. The point remains unrefuted: the sources agree that Vernet went to the British because he found out that Britain maintained a claim and wanted, if the British returned, to be able to say that he was there with British approval. It's quite clear that he was concerned that a British takeover would have negative consequences for his settlement and understandably wanted to avoid them by ensuring that the British were happy with his being there. In other words, he got British permission, approval. The difference is semantic.

In general, you seem to be taking the facts and giving them the most pro-Argentine gloss possible, to the point of avoiding inconvenient points where they don't fit that gloss. For example, when you refer to the British expelling "the authorities from Buenos Aires", outside commentators should be aware that what you mean is a garrisonful of mutineers who were headed for the gallows regardless of what the British did, and their military commanders who left when asked to do so without a shot fired. Kahastok talk 22:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, the sources are not saying that. Going to ensure that the British were happy is not Going to the consulate because he heard of the British concerns is not exactly the same as going to ensure that they were happy, and none of these is equal to going for permission. Moreover, Shuttleworth, primary sources and at least one more secondary source place that meeting after the British consul's initial concerns, in 1829, a version that Cawkell doesn't contradict (in what regards to the "wish for protection" meeting; please see the first collapsible section, I cite some interesting stuff there). But the WP articles arbitrarily date it in 1828 before Vernet's heavy investment. As if he believed, since the beginning, that the Britons had to be consulted. Regarding the alleged WP:OR, I was just trying to show that the theory a consular legalization is not ridiculous as you were arguing. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources certainly aren't making the case for any of your theories as to what he was doing there. Nowhere close. You can argue semantics all you want - fact is they actually tell us outright what he went for and that is reflected in these articles. Whether you like it or not. 21:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, after months of mutual interaction, I welcome your not adding your nick to your signature on replies to me, because "Whether you like it or not" at this point works as such. I don't think you're following my argument. There are two events being discussed here: (1) Vernet having his grants stamped, (2) Vernet discussing them with Parish (the British consul) and "expressing the wish" for British protection.

Event #1 was claimed by Cawkell alone, who apparently didn't provide a source, and wrote it in the middle of a questionable passage, as I discuss in the 1st collapsible section above. More importantly, her claim doesn't imply a request for permission, an interpretation that I find to be absurd, because a consulate stamp cannot mean an acceptance of part of the grant and a rejection of the rest. Instead, as I see it, the alleged stamping clearly refers to a consular legalization. You argued that this interpretation is absurd (when you wrote that "Andrés' argument boils down to" etc.) but I indicated that, considering the context (described in the 2nd collapsible section) it is absolutely not. Please observe that I am not saying that Vernet did have the grants stamped, or that he went for all those reasons, or that the cited sources back those reasons.

Event #2 happened in 1829 after Vernet had invested heavily. It most likely happened as a result of the consul's inquiries, and Vernet "expressing the wish for protection" at that meeting was, at most, a tacit expression, given the consul's summary "he would I believe be very happy if [he got it]". I discuss above how primary and secondary sources support this, despite some of them using ambiguous or doubtful words. None of them says that he requested permission.

Please note that I brought up only Shuttleworth (which, as Cawkell, appears to be rather pro-British to my judgement) and primary sources because it is difficult to find a discussion of this visit to the consulate in reliable sources, which supports my point of it not being as relevant as WP and you imply. The only other secondary source that I could find simply says that "[The consul] examined government archives in Buenos Aires dealing with the Falklands, and interviewed Vernet in 1829 just before he was appointed governor" [25] (Vernet was appointed in June), which somewhat supports my point too.

To justify the current text of these 9 WP articles, you're making a string of unsupported assumptions, beginning with placing that meeting in 1828, which even contradicts several sources as stated above. I hope other editors will share their thoughts. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The premise of the RFC and subsequent comments from the originator don't present a coherent logical argument for what is claimed. In addition, it is disturbing that the presenter is trying to discredit and on that basis ignore what a reliable source is saying.

If Cawkell observes that Vernet went to the British consulate to get their stamp that is what we should be reporting. Wikipedia operates on the basis of WP:V. Cawkell is also widely cited as a reference in academic papers [26] and the little bit of research I was able to do indicated she was a respected historian and acknowledged expert on the history of the Falkland Islands. The suggestion she should be ignored as "Pro-British" is directly in conflict with a policy of WP:NPOV, which requires us to reflect all relevant views. It is not acceptable. I also observe that the originator is ignoring that Cawkell's comments are directly supported by the reference brought by Kahastok.

None of the sources presented describe this as a "consular legalisation". Andres' claim this was simply such a "consular legalisation" is entirely WP:OR on his part. Even were that claim made, "consular legalisation" is not simply certifying the genuineness of a document but notarising a document so that it is recognised in a legal sense in a foreign country. If indeed that is what Vernet was doing, then it is clear that Vernet recognised British sovereignty and legal jurisdiction over the islands and was seeking to legalise what he was about to do. The suggestion it was simply about certifying the genuineness of the document is yet another example of WP:OR and a fundamental misunderstanding as to what consular legalisation is about.

After looking through the sources presented, I am of the opinion that the premise of the RFC is entirely without foundation and I'm disturbed that the originator is basing it almost entirely on rubbishing sources to remove content. As editors on wikipedia we reflect what sources say not our personal opinions and to paraphrase Kahastok, whether we like it or not. BedsBookworm (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi BedsBookworm. I'll comment in bulleted-list fashion for the sake of organizing thoughts, but please don't interpret it as stiffness. :)

1. The premise of the RFC is to determine if there is support to the claim that Vernet sought and got British permission to build a settlement, as WP states in 9 of its articles. Cawkell's "stamping" was presented as apparent support but I argue that it doesn't imply permission.
2. Kahastok stated that Cawkell's "expressing the wish for protection" plus Shuttleworth's "applied for protection" is the support we're looking for, but I replied that:
   1. It doesn't imply a request for permission, particularly if we consider that, as (British) primary sources indicate, the wish for protection was, at most, conveyed merely tacitly.
   2. The date of the meeting doesn't suit the argument (plus it is given wrongly in WP)
3. I have all along addressed the purpose of a consular legalization in regards to a foreign legal system (British in this case), beginning with my first mention of legalization in the prior discussion that I link in the RFC statement, and including the 2nd "reason" in the 2nd collapsible section above. However, no request for permission or recognition of British sovereignty follows from that fact. I can elaborate on this point if needed, but please read the prior discussion first.
4. When you write "If Cawkell observes that Vernet went to the British consulate to get their stamp that is what we should be reporting", you are sort of agreeing with my point of not reporting, instead, a far-fetched interpretation of this statement, as it is currently done.
5. That being said, I doubt that a sole and unsourced mention in Cawkell is enough justification for entering a stamping event in WP. Certainly not one presented in WP's voice as if it were a majority view. This is a secondary point where the reliability of that passage becomes relevant, as well as the noteworthiness that is implicitly suggested by the author. Regarding these issues:
   1. I didn't suggest that Cawkell "should be ignored as 'pro-British'", but gave detailed arguments about her passage in the 1st collapsible section above. My comment about her hypothetical bias was a side note with another purpose. Tendencies in authors do not imply that their work is not useful. It would be simplistic to believe that work in social sciences is either completely neutral or useless.
   2. Likewise, I don't think that I have read a single history book that, however good, did not include some factual mistakes and a degree of subjectivity, as well as ambiguity left to interpretation in certain passages. Not surprisingly, good research isn't cherry-picking singular statements but a more comprehensive process where reliable sources are contrasted with one another. WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT reflect this when they refer to majority views and such. What I'm doing above is analyzing Cawkell in the light of other sources. WP:OR is not synonymous of thinking and using published knowledge, but refers to advancing novel theories in the body of articles, which is not what I'm doing.
   3. In case it is not clear by now, my argument is not an ad hominem attack on Cawkell. However, I will observe that stating that she was a "respected historian" who is "widely cited" is an overstatement. If you use Google Scholar correctly, you will find only two works by her, both about the same subject, and citations are rather few, particularly if we leave aside those referring to other topics such as biology and her impressions from living in the islands.
   4. Shuttleworth (which, by the way, wasn't brought by Kahastok but by me) doesn't support Cawkell's comments as you say. It doesn't say that the grants were stamped, among other points in Cawkell not present there. In the last paragraph of the 1st collapsible section I also present a discrepancy between the two sources.
6. I have brought other sources that show contradictions with the picture that WP is presenting of Vernet's visit to the consulate. Let's not disregard them.
7. I don't think that stating that my case is based almost entirely on rubbishing sources is anywhere near accurate. Perhaps a closer look will help with that disturbance.

Have a nice weekend. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is important information not presented here so far, I think there is enough evidence to state in the articles that Vernet sought and received permission from the British consulate before he started a settlement on the Falkland Islands.

I have to reject the view that stamping doesn't imply permission. There is no purpose to an official stamp other than to express approval, and I can think of no circumstance in which the British consulate would approve of a document that permitted actions they disagreed with. Giving Vernet's grants an official stamp is at the very least an explicit statement that they approved of him being given the grants.

If the source is reliable then we should include the statement. The only potentially valid argument that the statement shouldn't be present would be if we can demonstrate that the source is unreliable. As far as I can tell, the argument that the source is unreliable consists solely of WP:OR, so at this point I have to reject it. Maybe the source is unreliable, but at the moment nobody is able to demonstrate that it meets any of the criteria for being WP:NOTRELIABLE.

As well as the problem mentioned in the RFC, I think it's also worth noting that the 9 articles cited in the RFC do not currently agree with each other.

• The Falkland Islands article states that the 1828 settlement was authorised by Britain.
• The History of the Falkland Islands article seems to suggest that Vernet learned of British claims to the islands after his initial expeditions, but sought permission from Britain before he left for the islands, which doesn't make sense.
• The Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article says Vernet approached Britain for permission twice, in 1826 and 1828.
• The East Falkland article says Vernet asked for permission from Britain before "both expeditions", but doesn't specify what expeditions it's talking about.
• The United Provinces of the Río de la Plata article says Vernet asked for permission before the 1826 expedition.
• The Puerto Soledad article says Vernet sought permission before the 1828 expedition.
• The Luis Vernet article says he sought permission before the 1826 expedition and again before the 1828 expedition.
• The Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833) article says the 1826 expedition was sanctioned by the British and that Vernet sought permission again for the 1828 expedition.
• The Events leading to the Falklands War article says Vernet got British permission for his 1828 settlement.

Maybe we could fix this while we're on this subject? Feraess (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Feraess, there is one issue that I think you've missed: Cawkell seems to be, so far, the only source for the 1826 application. She may be a WP:RS (and I think she is) but when the rest of the literature skips this info you can't just go ahead and depict it as the only possibility. At least we would need attribution.

Furthermore, note that Shuttleworth only mentions the 1829 request (the year that Vernet was appointed Governor), and Cawkell apparently says it happened in 1828 (or she is again refering to another unkown event). --Langus (t) 12:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Langus. Yes, I've seen that Cawkell seems to be the only source on that issue. However if she is a reliable source on the issue then WP guidelines don't require us to seek extra justification to include the RFC statement. I agree that from the perspective of a historian we're right to be suspicious if we only have one source to support something, but I can't find justification in WP policies for ignoring it. Would you accept a similar sentence if it was prefeced with "Historian Mary Cawkell writes ..."? I can see no reason to object to that extra clarification if you want to avoid implying that it's the only possibility while we have just the one source.

I only have your Cawkell quotes to go on, but I can't see where she says that the meeting, the one that Shuttleworth dates as 1829, happened in 1828. As far as I can tell, Cawkell is perfectly consistent with Shuttleworth.

Cawkell states that Vernet met with Parish and requested protection from the British, and that this request occurred some time after January 1828. Shuttleworth dates this request as early 1829, which is fine.

Cawkell says that Vernet took his grant to the British consulate before he sailed in January 1826, but also says that Vernet didn't speak to Parish during that visit. Shuttleworth doesn't mention this visit, but there's no reason why a biography of Parish would mention it if Parish wasn't involved. Feraess (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Langus and Feraess, good to see you around.

Feraess, you wrote "I can think of no circumstance in which the British consulate would approve of a document that permitted actions they disagreed with". Exactly! The grants said that Buenos Aires was awarding property rights on the islands, that if it didn't grant this land "an opportunity of doing a great national good would be lost, and even the right of Sovereignty over them" [27], that Buenos Aires was to decide on the administration of the colony, etc. A consulate approval of these statements wouldn't be consistent with a rejection of Buenos Airean sovereignty over the eastern island. This apparent inconsistency is solved when we consider that, as a closer look into the concept of consular legalization indicates, a consular stamp does not imply approval of the content of the document.

I realize that you wrote that "There is no purpose to an official stamp other than to express approval", but consular legalization (a common process) implies stamping without implying approval of the content. This is apparently not the first time that legalization is confused with approval of content, to judge from clarifications in some consular webpages. E.g.:

What is an Apostille or Authentication? An apostille or an authentication certifies the authenticity of the signature, seal and position of the official who has executed, issued or certified a copy of a public document. [...] The apostille or authentication does not validate the substance, contents, and/or legal effect of the document, nor that the document has been approved and/or endorsed by the Oregon Secretary of State. [28]

We only legalize Canadian documents. We legalize the signatures of the documents and we do not review or approve the content of those documents. [29]

Please note that the Consular Section of the Cyprus High Commission only authenticates signatures on documents and it does not review or approve the content of the documents. [30]

Moreover, if stamping did imply approval or permission, why does none of the consulted studies that cover this history (plentiful) say that Vernet sought and got British permission? If real, it would be a remarkable fact. Why did only Cawkell pay attention to this apparently all-important stamping? Why didn't she state more clearly that Vernet sought and got permission if she believed it to be so? WP:V states:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources [...] claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions.

Now, although I have been discussing that approval/permission is a poor interpretation of what "received the [consular] stamp" means, WP policy doesn't require us to evaluate the quality of this interpretation. We simply need to establish if it is a novel one. WP:OR states (bold words as in the original):

Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research.

The primary sources that I have brought shed light on Vernet's visit to the consulate, but they are apparently being ignored on the basis of WP:OR. However, WP:OR doesn't say that primary sources have to be rejected. If the reason to reject my arguments based on primary sources is a sheer rejection of such sources, I will be happy to address this issue.

Just to clarify, the 1829 "wish for protection" is a distinct event from the hypothetical stampings. Cawkell is a unique source only for the latter. In this note I comment solely about those because I'm replying to the latest comments.

Regarding the inclusion of the stamping claim with a proper attribution prefix, I agree with your appreciation that we're right to be suspicious if we apply the perspective of an historian. There is no reason not to apply the same rigour here, as it simply follows a need for objectivity that WP aspires to attain too. WP policy deals with this particular issue in WP:UNDUE, which states:

Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

The uniqueness of Cawkell is aggravated by the contradictions that her passage presents with other sources, as I described in the first collapsible section, and by its avoidable ambiguity. Besides, I doubt that she can be regarded as a historian, whereas the authors of the other publications, which do not mention any stamping, are mostly professional social scientists. I haven't found any publications from Cawkell other that those two books on the islands. Gustafson (Dean of Vilanova U., book published by Oxford U.) refers to her as a "British author" and Freedman (Official British Historian for the Falklands Campaign) mentions her book as "a history of the islands reflecting the view of the Falklanders".

Needless to say, it is not WP:OR to contrast sources and evaluate pertinence, concurrence, etc., in order to determine inclusion or lack thereof. If that were the case, any rational activity behind the WP articles would be WP:OR. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll do my best to respond, but we seem to be straying from the subject of the RFC somewhat.

Myself, I would agree that Vernet might have been seeking consular legalisation of a document rather than express permission to settle. However, I am aware of no reliable sources which make this point and so that point itself is WP:OR. We cannot use that specific point to argue that Mary Cawkell's view is unreliable on WP. We can compare sources with each other to determine reliability, but we cannot determine reliability by comparing with WP:OR. If we accept that Vernet went to the consulate to receive a stamp then we have to accept Cawkell's interpretation of it until we can find another interpretation in a another source.

It is also worth noting, I think, that legalisation applies to documents from one state that have to be produced in the territory of another state. Even if Vernet was just after consular legalisation, that would still support Cawkell's statement that the stamping indicated Vernet was aware of British interests in the Falklands. Maybe we can find a better word than 'permission', perhaps 'recognition'?

As I've said already, I feel Cawkell and Shuttleworth are consistent with each other (at least so far as the quotes from Langus go), so I don't agree with your assessments in the first collapsible section. I also don't think, at this time, that Cawkell's view constitutes an exceptional claim.

The only way we can demonstrate that Cawkell is unreliable is by finding sources that contradict her views. You listed 8 sources in the RFC that do not mention the requests for stamping. The last two were the same, I couldn't find a relevant section in the 4th, and a couple of others didn't seem to attempt to cover the time period in question in any detail. In any case, omission isn't quite the same as contradiction. You refer to sources which shed light on Vernet's consulate visit. Which sources are these? Are there any sources which you feel directly contradict Cawkell? Feraess (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Andres, I am at a loss to understand why you believe I agree with you, it should have been plain that I consider you completely in the wrong on this.

Feraess makes a good point, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, simply because a number of sources don't mention the subject does not mean they contradict Cawkell. Further the repeated assertion is made that is the only source to mention it, it isn't Cawkell's account is corroborated by Shuttleworth. It is also corroborated by a paper referenced in this article see [31].

"… from a conversation I had with Mr. Vernet upon the subject, I am authorised in saying no objection would be made to the occupation of it by the British Government, provided private property would not be interfered with."

I found it interesting that this paper asserts that Vernet's dealings with the British is suppressed in Argentina:

"But neither of the pamphlets mentions Louis Vernet (1791-1871), who spent several years in the islands and who founded the permanent settlement which still exists today. It is through Louis Vernet that Argentina acquired any basis for a claim to the Falklands in the first place, but his role is nevertheless suppressed – his often-expressed preference for British sovereignty (see sections 15 and 28) leads some Argentine historians to consider him “unpatriotic” (“apátrida”)."

So it is perhaps unsurprising that sources don't mention it.

In addition, as I previously mentioned. None of the sources assert this to be simply a consular legalisation. This appears to be Andres' own conclusion, as such it is entirely WP:OR and completely unsuitable for inclusion. It is certainly not grounds for removing supported claims in the article.

As to the question of the RFC, I agree with Feraess and Kahastok, there is more than enough material to justify the claim that Vernet sought British permission. It reflects what the sources say, they do not on the other hand suggest this is explained as consular legalisaton. Unless sources are produced to suggest there is doubt about Vernet's dealings with the British then there is no compelling need to change the articles, other than the general tidying suggested by Feraess. Further I would argue that there is a compelling reason for continuing to include it, as Vernet seems to have played both the British and Argentine authorities it does offer an insight into the origin of the dispute. BedsBookworm (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys. My point is that deriving a request from permission from a consular stamping is an interpretation that no author is making, not even Cawkell. Consequently, it is unacceptable WP:OR. It has been said that it is the only interpretation possible, but I argue that it isn't, due to the possibility of a consular legalization. Actually, I could argue that a consular legalization is the obvious direct interpretation to make (I invite you to consult with lawyers about this) but that is not the point I'm putting forward.

Feraess, I can imagine that you're trying to mediate by searching for an acceptable noun to replace "permission", but bear in mind that we should reject all novel interpretations. A stamping neither implies recognition of a British claim, for reasons stated in my second collapsible section above.

Sorry about the last paper, I meant to link this one, to which Muffty replies, and I see now that Greenhow skips the 1820s. I was trying to list some of the plentiful sources that I have read that cover Vernet's enterprise, all of which don't mention a consular stamping. I can add more and review them more closely if necessary, plus let's bear in mind that requests for such a source remained unanswered on WP for weeks.

However, if you're looking for one that states that Vernet didn't have the grants stamped, I don't have it, which is not surprising because it would be an odd statement to make. When I referred to contradictions between Cawkell and other sources, I meant basically the 1st and 5th point in my first collapsible section above. I can explain if necessary, but please let me know first if you have read that part. The contradiction with Shuttleworth stems from the fact that, according to Shuttleworth, Vernet met the ambassador when he heard about the British claims in 1829, whereas Cawkell argues that Vernet knew beforehand but considered it not necessary to discuss these matters with him, and went to the consulate just for one more stamp. Cawkell's version doesn't fit the March and April dispatches as well as Vernet's 1823 letter, while Shuttleworth's does (except for the "applied for permission" part). Likewise, the other sources mentioned before don't present Cawkell's picture of an "apolitical Vernet". Regarding the stamping and this peculiar reading, Cawkell is exceptional at least in the sense that it is unique.

That passage is thus a piece of a puzzle that doesn't quite fit the rest. To add to this, Cawkell makes a disguisedly opinionated and unnecessarily ambiguous summary of the April dispatch, as I explain in the 2nd to 4th points (she is evidently referring to that dispatch because she says that Parish passed the wish to London). All of this leads me to believe that it is a poor passage. To recap, the uniqueness of Cawkell's stamping and "apolitical Vernet" interpretation would be reason enough to exclude these claims from WP based on WP:UNDUE. As I see it, the weakness of the passage provides additional reason.

This is not just a matter of determining if the grants were really stamped or not, but of knowing if it was as important an issue as to appear in a historiographical summary. There were lots of bureaucratic events in history that are not mentioned in books. If we mention this particular one, it will lead readers to believe that it had special relevance. The "request for British permission" reading will be thus implicitly suggested, as will a chauvinistic pro-Argentine reading of British acceptance to Buenos Airean sovereignty. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons for my inclination to believe that there was no consular stamping is that Argentine revisionists would have made use of such an event for their customary anti-imperialist harangue. Given the text of the grants, if there really was a British consular stamp on them, they could easily publicize a version of Britain explicitly accepting BA sovereignty and then changing its mind.

BedsBookworm, that "paper" is actually an unreliable WP:SPS pamphlet. However, it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. The referred conversation is from a posterior meeting, in late 1831, as is stated there. After Britain resurfaced its sovereignty claim, Vernet maintained conversations with British officers with the protection of his investment as a priority. His colony was at that point in its highest stage of development. Argentine sources presenting Vernet are abundant (there's a national remembrance on the day of his entitlement as governor, several stamp series, etc.), including detailed ones that describe these developments (e.g., they cite Caillet-Bois there as a source for the passage you quoted). The omission referred by the pamphlet corresponds only to two flyers. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of things being discussed here, so I've tried to separate out all the points to make it easier to understand. If I've missed any, please feel free to add others in. The issues seem to be:

1. Is the Cawkell source reliable?
2. Did Vernet visit the British consulate to get a British stamp on his grants?
3. If Vernet did visit the consulate to get a British stamp on his grants, when did he do this?
4. If Vernet requested consular stamping is that indicative of him respecting a British claim on the Falklands?
5. If Vernet requested a British stamp for his grants, is that the same thing ask asking the British for permission to start a settlement?
6. Did Vernet request protection from the British for his settlement?
7. Did Vernet's actions contain political intent on his part? On anyone else's part?

After we've solved those issues we have two further questions. How much information about Vernet should we include in the article? What is the best way to phrase a description of Vernet's actions?

Here's a quick list of sources I've seen mentioned so far.

Extended content

a) The History of the Falkland Islands, Mary Cawkell b) British and Foreign State Papers, Volume 20, Foreign Office c) A life of Sir Woodbine Parish (1796-1882), Hon. Nina Shuttleworth d) The Sovereignty Dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, Lowell S. Gustafson e) The Struggle for The Falklands, W. Michael Reisman f) Sovereignty and Decolonization of the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands, Adrián F. J Hope g) The Merchants' Magazine and Commercial Review, Volume 6, Freeman Hunt h) Las islas Malvinas, Paul Groussac i) The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843, Barry M. Gough j) Reflexions on ‘The Case of Antonio Rivero and Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands’, John Muffty k) The Case of Antonio Rivero and Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, Richard Ware l) Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas, Pascoe and Pepper Not all of them are relevant, and I tend to agree with Andrés Djordjalian that the last of those sources isn't of high quality, so I'd prefer not to reference it directly in this article.

1. Is the Cawkell source reliable? The fact that it is a third-party, published source means that the default position on Wikipedia is that it is reliable. At the moment I don't agree with the assessment that Source A and Source C (Cawkell and Shuttleworth) are inconsistent. Shuttleworth uses imprecise language, but doesn't explicitly state anything with regard to the timing of Vernet hearing about British claims to the Falklands, and so doesn't invalidate Cawkell's assessment of when it occurred. I also don't agree with the idea that Vernet had a political agenda. Although I've seen he used a political argument to try and persuade Buenos Aires officials to award him the grants, his 1832 memo says of the 1828 grant (source B, p379) "By this it appears that the character of my undertaking to colonize the Malvinas was exclusively and essentially mercantile." At best he shows inconsistent views on the politics of his settlement, and I think the most accurate assessment of the information I have seen so far is that he was a businessman trying to do whatever he could to get help from whatever government he could find.

The Cawkell source contains some unique information, but that in itself isn't reason to disregard it. None of her claims seem unreasonable, based on the information in the sources I've seen so far. Lacking any significant evidence to the contrary, we are left with the default position for a third-party, published source, which is treating it as being reliable.

2 Did Vernet visit the British consulate to get a British stamp on his grants? Source A (Cawkell) says Vernet did. No reason to disagree

3 If Vernet did visit the consulate to get a British stamp on his grants, when did he do this? Cawkell says he went before January 1826, and after January 1828. Again, no reason to disregard Cawkell.

4 If Vernet requested consular stamping is that indicative of him respecting a British claim on the Falklands? Cawkell says that it is. We have our own opinions, but reliable sources come first. Again, no reason to disregard Cawkell.

5 If Vernet requested a British stamp for his grants, is that the same thing ask asking the British for permission to start a settlement? There are no sources of which I'm aware that comment on this specifically. Some people think it does, some people think it doesn't, but if we can't support either case with reliable sources then I think we should find alternate wording that we can support.

6 Did Vernet request protection from the British for his settlement? Sources A and C say yes, he did. Source C (Shuttleworth) says he did it in 1829. If it's mentioned in other sources as well it's slipped my memory as to which ones precisely, but perhaps someone more familiar with the sources can add in more references.

7 Did Vernet's actions contain political intent on his part? On anyone else's part? Source A (Cawkell) says Vernet's expeditions didn't have political content. Source B (p379) shows Vernet himself stating in 1832 that his motives were purely mercantile. Although Vernet apparently made a political argument when appealing to politicians in 1823, I have no information as to how prominent a part it was in the overall application. Sources A and B also indicate that he received no actual assistance from the Buenos Aires government, and if there was no political involvement then it suggests to me that there could not have been a big political content. There also seems to have been a mixture of nationalities involved in these expeditions. The only conclusion I can draw is that Vernet had no political intent himself. I don't have enough evidence to draw any conclusions as to what political content anyone else might have thought attached to the expeditions.

Then the final two.

How much information about Vernet should we include in the article? Sources vary hugely regarding how much information they include about Vernet. I suggest we decide what information to include based on what we think will prove useful to a reader's understanding of the subject. Vernet was an active figure in the history of the Falklands, so I think that we should try and include all the available information regarding his interactions with the islands, at least in this article. We can summarise for the other articles.

What is the best way to phrase a description of Vernet's actions? To avoid WP:OR I also suggest we stick closely to Cawkell's wording at the crucial part. Rather than saying Vernet sought permission, we could say simply that "he took the documents for a stamp from the British consulate."

Comments/feedback on these suggestions? Feraess (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have always understood, based on the sources I have seen over the last six years here, that Vernet's settlement was primarily a private business that he wished to continue after the event. I have never seen a source that flat-out contradicts this and have frequently seen sources that confirm it. It is worth mentioning that Vernet's settlement did in fact continue after the British took over, until its leaders (not including Vernet, who was away from the islands at the time) were killed by one of the Gauchos in their employ. Many islanders today descend from Vernet's settlers.

Vernet himself never received concrete assistance from Buenos Aires, even after the (USS) Lexington Raid. There was an abortive attempt at an Argentine penal colony in late 1832 the led to the aforesaid mutiny, but it was a separate issue, which had little to do with Vernet.

As to the suggestion, the sources make it clear that Vernet went to the British to ensure that there would be British protection for the colony in the event of a British takeover. This he received when the takeover did in fact take place early in 1833, until its eventual bloody collapse eight months later. It is clear from the sources we have that Vernet was present with British consent, and we shouldn't be afraid to say so. Kahastok talk 20:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's more or less my assessment so far too. The only difference is that with my limited involvement with this subject I only have the short quotes Langus provided from Cawkell to support the idea that Vernet had British support before 1828, so I have a fairly narrow range with regards to wording for WP. Do you know of other sources which describe British involvement with Vernet pre-1828? Feraess (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Feraess (and everyone), we are still talking about one sole reliable source. Shuttleworth doesn't contradict her but neither does he support her point about the 1826 stamping. Not in its actual existence and, of course, not in the interpretation that Cawkell makes of that theoretical action (please forgive my skepticism but I've read quite a bit about the subject).

I'm not against its inclusion if we clearly attribute the statement to her.

Regarding Vernet, yes, he was a skillful businessman and a very diplomatic, smart person. He took a commitment with Buenos Aires (the Argentine flag waved there, and May 25th was celebrated as holiday) but he was prepared to switch sides if necessary. He was ultimately a businessman, not an idealist. --Langus (t) 01:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems the best solution to me, unless/until more sources are found on the subject.

How about we remove the sentence that currently says "Vernet was by now aware of conflicting British claims to the islands and sought permission from the British consulate before departing for the islands" and the part that says "and before leaving once again sought permission from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires" and replace that second part with a new sentence in the second paragraph which says "Historian Mary Cawkell describes how these grants, and previous ones, were taken to the British consulate to be stamped"? Feraess (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Feraess, that verbatim would qualify Cawkell as a historian and present the stampings as a fact. A proper attribution would go along the lines of "According to author Mary Cawkell, Vernet got his grants stamped at the British consulate in Buenos Aires."

I find this solution to be much more acceptable than the current claims of a British permission. However, this inclusion is still discouraged by the uniqueness of the view (i.e., it is the view of a "tiny minority" regardless of Cawkell not being a WP:SPS). Vernet is definitely noteworthy in this history, but we are not entering everything we have about him, certainly not in all of these articles, and a legalization of his grants is doubtfully a fact to highlight. This inclusion would be innocent, and I wouldn't mind about it, if it didn't encourage chauvinistic misunderstandings as I explained before. It won't be useful for readers to induce them to misreadings via a doubtful attribution of relevance. Aggravated by the inclusion in WP of one of these misreadings, for years, in nothing less than 9 articles...

Thank you for your 7-point analysis. I agree with the proposition that Vernet was basically a businessman who wanted to earn money, and that the purpose of his political arguments was to persuade the authorities at Buenos Aires. Vernet himself doesn't go to great extents to hide this fact, starting with his first petition to the Buenos Airean government in 1823, which begins (as translated by the British consulate) with "Lewis Vernet respectfully presents himself before your Exc. and says That [unintelligible] of the prosperity of this country and of my own increase of Fortune I have thought it convenient to exert myself in the establishment of a Colony on the island of Soledad of the cluster called Malvinas".

But when I referred to Cawkell claiming that Vernet was "apolitical", I was trying to summarize her idea of his enterprise not having political consequences as per when she writes "He might have done better to have sought an interview with the head of the Consulate, Woodbine Parish, but it is clear that at this stage he did not view his enterprise as one with political content," which I find to be an odd statement.

Cawkell is neglecting the possibility that Vernet simply thought that there was nothing to discuss with Parish, in virtue of an apparent renouncement of rights by Britain. Vernet makes that case in the 1832 memo, as part of his defense of Argentine sovereignty that starts in page 401. Besides, an interpretation of abandonment (at least a tacit one) has been supported by many scholars since. Vernet's reference to a purely-mercantile character in the part that you quoted is circumscribed to the dispositions of the 1828 decree and it doesn't deny that Vernet believed (knew) that private endeavors could also constitute use of the land as required by international law to maintain sovereignty. There are arguments regarding the effects of occupation and abandonment in the memo, and he also writes (p. 420) that the formal colonization, as he undertook it in 1828, would secure great advantages for the Republic.

Cawkell is also disregarding statements from Vernet such as those given in the 1823 petition that I mentioned before. The petition is fairly short, so the statements are not a minor part. Even if they were, I wouldn't see reason for disregarding them.

The fact that Vernet spoke with Parish shortly after the consul's first dispatch on the issue of the islands, and after Vernet had invested heavily, additionally supports these possibilities disregarded by Cawkell, such as believing that Vernet thought that Britain had given up on sovereignty until, rather late for him, the consulate woke up on the subject. My main source for dating things this way is the folder with dispatches from the consulate to the FO, which is available from the National Archives at Kew. I gave details in my first collapsible section above. Shuttleworth and Reginald et al. [32] are compatible with this dating. Bear in mind that Vernet's "wish for protection" happened during (or near) that meeting (see the collapsible section).

Shuttleworth states that the meeting happened after Vernet heard that "England claimed the sovereignty of the Islands" in early 1829, thus concurring with the possibility that I have just mentioned, but Cawkell affirms that Vernet became aware before 1826 and that his visit to the consulate after 1828 was just for another stamp. How are they compatible? When Shuttleworth refers to an "English" claim, he doesn't mean an official protest, because that happened months later. Are we to assume that Vernet thought before 1826 that the British claim was alive but considered his enterprise a politically-harmless one, then heard of the consul's inquiries in 1829 but again didn't mind, casually went to the consulate some days later to stamp grants that he had gotten 14 months before, and Shuttleworth means no causality between the events when he states that one happened after the other? Isn't it more plausible that Vernet went to the consulate because of the inquiries and that's what Shuttleworth means?

For these reasons, plus others given in my 1st collapsible section above, I conclude that Cawkell's passage is a poor one. In my view, we are now discussing the addendum of part of a very minoritarian view given in no more than a poor passage, which contradicts policies that I quoted on Aug 10 even if the text is properly attributed. Let's bear in mind that, as explained before, the accuracy of the stamping claim is not the only question, but there's the more-subtle issue of noteworthiness too.

Oops, I wrote a lot and didn't address the issue of the "request for protection". This issue is quite clear from the primary sources. Did you guys read the second and third points in my first collapsible section above? What is wrong about them? Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the 'according to X, blah' bit. It is weasel wording for 'we don't agree with this person but can't work out why not to include them' and wikipedia doesn't view us as qualified to make those calls. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrés Djordjalian, you've stated yourself that history books generally contain some errors, so I don't believe that describing Mary Cawkell as a historian automatically makes anything attributed to her into an established fact. However we shouldn't forget that at the current time, as far as WP is concerned, the statement in question is a fact. In any case, she has written published history books and I think can be fairly called a historian.

I don't think that we should include every piece of information about Vernet, only the parts concerning his interactions with the Falkland Islands. These grants describe the foundation of modern settlement on the islands and so I think they are an important part of the history of the islands, that merits inclusion in the article. We don't have any information about how many people agree with the statement so I don't think we can state it to be a minority view. The only information we have about it is that it featured in a published history book, and barring any other information from secondary sources we assume it to be true.

I think it would be interesting to discuss the possible political implications of Vernet's expeditions further, however this is not the place for it. The situation as things stand, is that we have a reliable, secondary source in Cawkell, who has analysed the primary sources on this issue and reached a conclusion. If we can find other reliable secondary sources which provide a different analysis of the primary sources then we can present that analysis too. However we can't disregard a secondary source based on our own analysis of the primary sources. This is explicitly stated in WP:PSTS. Whatever our own conclusions may be, WP articles have to reflect the secondary sources.

This also applies to the issue of Vernet requesting protection. We're not allowed to use our own interpretation of primary sources to disprove secondary sources. We accept what the secondary source says. For the record, I don't think there's a lot of substance to the second and third points you make in the first collapsible section. It's the nature of the English language that there's ambiguity in someone's words, but in my view "I believe" in that context means the exact opposite of a guess, that in fact Parish was sure that Vernet wanted protection. I likewise fail to find any significance in the phrase "the event of the British returning to the Islands", which seems to just state the obvious conclusion that you can't provide protection to someone if you're not there.

Narson, I too do not like the phrase "accoring to x", but I think the phrase "Historian Y states that..." is neutral. I don't see that particular wording as implying either agreement or disagreement, just stating fact. Do you have a strong objection to this alternative? Feraess (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've not looked into her credentials - but, if it is a reliable source (and we accept that it is from what I've read) then its facts are facts and its opinions are valid opinions. Historian Y believes, According to Z etc phrases, to my mind, have a use on opinions or extrapolation. If someone is saying that Vernet went to go get British stamps, that would be something I think we could easily put in just like that with a source. If it said 'As Vernet went to get stamps we see he believed that the British controlled a giant spaghetti monster who could devour him whole, and he knew he had no time for that', then we'd have to qualify it in such a way, because it is an extrapolated point so the who presenting that viewpoint is a valid tid bit. That is just my two cents on the matter, of course. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Shuttleworth makes it clear that it was not just a case that they "were taken to the British consulate to be stamped". He says outright "[Vernet] now applied to Great Britain, through their Chargé d'Affaires, for the protection of his colonists" (emphasis mine). It wasn't just a stamp on a bit of paper he wanted. He actually wanted the British to endorse and protect his colony. I don't think a wording that does not mention this adequately reflects the sources we have. Kahastok talk 20:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Andres, you just airily dismissed another source as an WP:SPS, without considering what value of what it added to the debate. The paper I referred to might be self-published and generally such sources are not preferred in wikipedia. However, there is an exception they are published by people who are acknowledged experts. [33] As noted in this article, the authors are recognised experts in Falklands history, the noted historian Sir Lawrence Freedman has issued an errata slip for his work correcting his own mistakes. Also in a series of articles published in the Buenos Aires Herald and Mercopress [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], Peter Pepper is engaged with Andrés Cisneros in a debate over Falkland's history (and btw Pepper gives a good example of how to debate the topic, in the vernacular of my students he pwned Cisneros). I feel you dismissed it all too lightly.

I would also characterise your attempt at discussion as nothing more than speculative criticism, the facts are relatively clear from the sources brought forward. Vernet approached the British, he sought their help, he urged the British to establish a garrison and his settlement was his own initiative and financed by himself. I think its also clear that he played the Government of Buenos Aires for what he could get. The research I have done shows that at the same time Vernet was writing the paper tha Julius Goebel refers to as the Vernet Paper setting out the claims of Argentina, he was also advising the British as to how to exploit the Falklands and receiving accounts from the British resident Lt Smith. The fact he was duplicitous is something that needs to go into the articles as it helps explain the origin of the dispute.

Speculative criticism, whilst it has value in areas where there is doubt but where the sources are very clear, then it is nothing more than an instrument to attempt to rubbish unpalatable facts. It seems to me as someone who just happened to drop into this out of curiousity about the RFC process that the original poster is trying to use the wiki system to argue for the removal of facts for the simple reason he doesn't like them. From what I understood the purpose of an RFC is to get outside opinion and to tap into the expertise of those with specialised knowledge. I note that instead of considering the points put to him, Andres has attempted to lobby those who responded into agreeing with him, with nothing more than speculative criticism. Andres it is clear to me that as an Argentine you hold very strong opinions about Argentina's sovereignty claim, as such I wonder if you are in a position to write dispassionately on the topic, which is what is needed for a truly neutral point of view.

As regards the suggestion of the use of attribution. I would be opposed to its use in this case. It has been put forward as a means to suggest doubt about what happened, when it is clear from multiple sources it did happen. Attribution should only be used in those cases where there are contrasting opinions. Frankly its use here is as a device to play down unpalatable facts, having failed to convince other editors they should be removed. This is not intended as a criticism of Faeress, who I have to say has made a valuable contribution to the topic, as far as I can see it was a suggestion made in good faith with noble intentions. I feel it is simply inappropriate. BedsBookworm (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, there is already a sentence in the article that mentions Vernet's request for protection. I think it sticks closely to the sources so I'd be happy to keep it largely intact with minor rephrasing. With the adjustements I mentioned earlier, the first paragraph would remain the same but without the final sentence:

"In 1823, the United Provinces of the River Plate granted fishing rights to Jorge Pacheco and Luis Vernet. Travelling to the islands in 1824, the first expedition failed almost as soon as it landed, and Pacheco chose not to continue with the venture. Vernet persisted, but the second attempt, delayed until winter 1826 by a Brazilian blockade, was also unsuccessful. The expedition intended to exploit the feral cattle on the islands but the boggy conditions meant the gauchos could not catch cattle in their traditional way."

...and the second paragraph would now read:

"In 1828, the United Provinces government granted Vernet all of East Falkland including all its resources, and exempted him from taxation if a colony could be established within three years. Vernet took with him settlers, including British Captain Matthew Brisbane (who had sailed to the islands earlier with Weddell). Historian Mary Cawkell describes how the grants, and previous ones, were taken to the British consulate to be stamped. The head of the British consulate asked for a report on the islands for the British government, and Vernet asked him for British protection should they return."

BedsBookworm, I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'm only aware of the one source which describes the 1826 stamping. If there are more sources that describe Vernet's consular visit in 1826 then I agree there would be absolutely no need to mention Cawkell by name in the artcle, but at the moment there does appear to be just the one. It appears to be a factual statement, which is why we include it, but it appears in just one source, so we can mention that too. I don't think that attributing the information to Cawkell in the article detracts significantly from the factual nature of the statement, but it does seem to get past all of the objections. Of the possibilities mentioned so far, and the discussion of this issue has been lengthy, this seems to be the most acceptable to most people. Without further sources becoming apparent, I don't think there's likely to be a better solution for all involved. Feraess (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Feraess, what I meant is that you were attributing the description, leaving the claim unattributed, thus presenting it as fact. It is not the same to say "X affirms that Y happened" than to say "X describes how Y happened". I suggested "according to", but I think that a phrase like the one you proposed afterwards, "X states that Y", also works. Narson, these kinds of expressions are frequently used by historians, not to suggest their disagreement but to indicate that, to their understanding, evidence is not conclusive. WP mirrors this practice when it requires attribution for certain cases. I can see that this policy is apparently constrained to "views", "ideas", "theories", etc., but, to my understanding, those words are used in their ampler meaning, which includes more than the author's speculations. Otherwise, all beliefs expressed as indisputable facts would be left out of the reach of WP's requirement of mainstream support.

I don't agree with the rejection of my usage of primary sources. Firstly, one thing is to use sources to support assertions edited into the articles, and another one is to use them for analyses in talk pages. When we argue here about relevance, reliability, possible contradictions, etc., it is better if we ground our arguments on good sources, regardless of the conclusions not being acceptable material for the article verbatim. The arguments can be disputed, but not rejected solely on grounds of WP:OR because that policy matters something else. WP:PSTS doesn't contradict this. I don't mean to write into the article that Cawkell is unreliable or my speculations based on sources of any kind.

Moreover, even for article text, WP policy disavows rejecting primary sources altogether (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). What it says is that they require special care. Primary sources are prone to biases and lack the comprehensiveness that good studies normally have. If we find a letter from X where he praises Y, there are possibilities that may contextualize this assertion (e.g., hypocrisy, change of mind, apocryphy), which a scholar would normally explore when writing on the subject. Primary sources have a different nature and I am taking that in consideration. WP:NOTGOODSOURCE states:

Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary".

In conclusion, let's use primary sources for our evaluations here when common sense dictates that they are useful. We are not breaking any WP rule by doing so. As I said some days ago, I am using them only because secondary sources regarding this issue seem to be scarce and, as I see it and I'm trying to explain why, two of them are doubtful.

Regarding the alleged request for protection, I wasn't talking about Parish's confidence. I meant that saying that we "believe X would be happy if he got Y" doesn't imply that X requested Y to us. If Vernet had requested protection, it was Parish's duty to clearly communicate this to his superiors, to let them know what he replied or ask them what he should do next. But there's no such communication in the folder of dispatches from him regarding the islands. All that he says is that he believes that Vernet would be happy if he got British protection for his settlement, and he writes this in the report of the famous meeting (or closely-dated meetings). This concurs with Vernet "expressing the wish" in those meeting(s) (Cawkell dixit) if we understand that expression as a tacit one.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to interpret that Cawkell meant an explicit expression and draw conclusions from that, as it is done here. But that interpretation would be expectable from someone who doesn't have access to the other sources. That's why I criticized Cawkell's ambiguous choice of words, as I did for the inclusion of the conditional "in the event of the British returning to the Islands", which appears to be part of the wish communicated by Parish but is merely Cawkell's addendum. Meaning can be attribute to that phrase, it is not trivial. An accurate narrator would have expressed things otherwise. But not one who was trying to convey the idea that Vernet was expecting the British to assume sovereignty and was indifferent about it. This adds to matching observations that I have made about other parts of Cawkell's passage.

Readers aware of the content in Parish's dispatches, Vernet's grants and 1832 memo, of the dating of the events, etc., would probably form a very different picture in their minds from the one suggested solely from Cawkell's synthetic narration. By inducing uninformed readers to believe in peculiar interpretations, Cawkell is engaging in biased history-telling. Not surprisingly, Freedman defines her work as a POV narrative and, though I looked into the citations, I don't see anyone calling her a historian. Tendentiousness aside, her work is short: a third of a 223-page book, and a 90-page book on the same subject (because I think the 190-page latest edition was expanded by ex-Falklands-governor Rex Hunt) with a publisher that doesn't transmit much authority [39]. I wouldn't consider it neutral to elevate Cawkell to the category of historian and showcase a singular statement from her, while all the signs against the quality of her work (including Freedman's remark) remain untold.

Shuttleworth does say that Vernet "applied to Great Britain [...] for the protection of his colonists". She also says, one paragraph before, that Spain evacuated and restituted the whole archipelago to Britain in 1771 (evidently confusing Saunders Island, or the western half, with the totality), suggests that the English were the first to occupy it (but we know it was the French) and affirms that Davis discovered the islands (although discovery is undecided according to modern scholars). Should we enter all that she wrote? Isn't it more plausible that an innacurate use of the word "applied" was just another mistake from her? A small one, considering the scope of her book.

I have some things to say about minority views and I would also like reply to BedsBookworm, but I will do it later because this is too long already (sorry about that). Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick reply (will try to get back to the computer tomorrow to answer more fully). With the kindest of respect, Andres, I am well aware of historical writing styles. This is, however, different to an academic essay in several crucial ways - the first of which is that this, unlike an academic paper, is not seeking to advance a position. The other crucial one is that this is not about showing off how much you, I or others might know, but about informing the reader in a manner most agreeable to them. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note, I've asked for a formal closure and admin review of this expired RFC. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.historyofnations.net/southamerica/falklandislands.html

  Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.falklandshistory.org/getting-it-right.pdf