Jump to content

Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Recent Revert

When adding text eg [1] do not copy verbatim from the source, this is a copyright violation. See the source for confirmation [2]. Please also don't bite the newcomers [3].

Aside from anything else these were two separate sentences, one did not imply the second. WCMemail 12:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on WCM, don't you have anything better to do?
  1. Claiming that "a group of imported gauchos and their families" is a verbatim[4] copy of the source is spurious. On page 58 your link confirms that the author says "a small imported force of armed gauchos and their families". How many other expressions can you use to refer to them? Certainly not "the remaining rump of Vernet's settlement"
  2. I condensed those two sentences into one in lieu of style. The second one was obviously accurate; the first one, unsustained.
  3. The "newcomer" aggressively confronted me in my Talk page. To judge me properly you should inspect those "revertions" to see whether or not I remained civil. And while you're at it, you should inspect your own revertions too, because they tend to be blunt.
I'm reverting to the version prior to the addendum of Lt. Smith's period because I'm strongly suspicious about a) Smith relying on the remaining of Vernet's settlement; and b) Smith relying on help and advice from Louis Vernet and providing him with regular accounts. This is because, for starters, I can't find such assertions in my 2001 edition of Cawkell, and also because these assertions raise eyebrows when they are not mentioned in the 145 pages-long worke cited, which focus precisely on this period.
Would you be so kind as to transcribe the relevant text here? Thanks. --Langus (t) 21:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you want to tell us what the 2001 version of Cawkell's book says of Vernet's dealings with Lt. Smith, the relevant reference is p66 - 68. Because the edits you just removed would equally well be supported by those citations as the reference to the 1960 edition. And the information in the thesis is not contradicted by Cawkell, who cites that the Gauchos (eg Coronel and his sons) came from the Vernet settlement.
From the 1960 edition p.51
"But Smith was a man of resource and energy. When Vernet wrote offering his advice he accepted in greatefully and carefully followed his suggestions"
The footnote:
"Lieut. Smith was instructed to see that proper care was taken of Vernet's property and accordingly he appointed his son agent for Vernet's affairs, and accounts of his custodianship were rendered from time to time to Vernet."
On p.52
"There was only a handful of people at Port Louis. Besides Smith and his boat's crew, there were the fragments of Vernet's establishment-the old German Russler, the three women, two children and the three faithful Gauchos, Coronel, Diaz and Lopez."
On p.53 the Lowcay period.
"At the settlement the good work begun by Smith was allowed to deteriorate".
None of this is controversial, disputed or contradicted by the academic paper cited. The decade after the British take over was one of neglect and stagnation, we have a new editor trying to make a contribution and you're reverting them wholesale. For no good reason from what I can see. They're not particularly good at adding cites yet but their contributions are well written and can be supported by sources. As I comment above, the same material can be sourced to the 2001 edition and you claim to have a copy of that. WCMemail 00:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the edits made by WCM and BedsBookworm are accurate based on the sources. I have changed it slightly because I haven't found anything in the above that implies anything as strong as "heavily reliant". He was guided, yes, and advised - but if he was "heavily reliant" I would expect something a bit stronger than taking advice when it was offered. Kahastok talk 20:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thats a fair point, I don't have a problem with that. WCMemail 22:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, it is getting a bit unsettling that Langus-TxT has systematically reverted every edit I've made on this topic. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
What is getting increasingly unsettling is the way you single me out and exaggerate about our interaction. I have nothing against you BedsBookworm, and it's alarming to see how you take my edits so personally. You need to understand that they are not about you, they're about content. --Langus (t) 16:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
No whats alarming is you're constantly reverting mine and other people's edits for no good reason. The latest section may have had a few flaws, fixed by Kahastok but you simply reverted it wholesale. That wasn't about content, it was about imposing what you want on articles. I have to blunt about this, from what I see its not content you're interested in but promoting a one sided view and I'm not the first to notice. BedsBookworm (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Pages 66-68 of Cawkell 2001 do indeed address the Lt Smith's period, but I can't find any of those 1960 quotes. Moreover, one of those quotes says that "Smith was instructed to see that proper care was taken of Vernet's property and accordingly he appointed his son agent for Vernet's affairs, and accounts of his custodianship were rendered from time to time to Vernet". In the 2001 edition, this takes a 180 degrees turn:

"As a result of Hammond's injuction not to indulge in trade, Lt Smith passed the management of Vernet's affairs to his son. This action also did not meet with the approval of Hammond who told him he would still be responsible for his son's management". (p.67)
"At this time Hammond was also sending conflicting communications to Vernet alternatively informing him that he could not allow Lt Smith to manage his affairs on the islands and if he wished to continue his enterprise he should go there in person or send someone to act on his behalf. When however Vernet made arrangements to act in the matter he was informed he would not be permitted to land as settlers were no being permitted. It is clear that at this time Admiral Hammond was unfamiliar with the terms of the re-take-over. It was not until Admiral Grey informed him after his visit (note from Langus: 1836 visit) that without the use of Vernet's hunting horses and his horse gear there would have been no 200 tame cattle feeding around the settlement that this attitude towards Vernet changed to such a extent that he wrote to the Admiralty requesting that Vernet be handsomely rewarded for the use being made of his property".(p.67-68)

Long story short, they didn't, "as Vernet was a tresspaser" (p.68)

The 2001 edition also says that Smith followed written instructions from Vernet but originally intended for Brisbane, and nothing more than that:

"Lt Smith had been fortunate in finding the instructions Vernet had written out for Brisbane which the murderers in their rampage through the settlement in search of money had left untouched". (p.66)

On the other hand, it does confirm that the gauchos on which Smith relied upon were in fact those remaining of the Vernet settlement:

"He had also been able to assemble a small gaucho posse comprising Luna, the elderly Coronel who had taken no part in the murders, two others who had been absent from the settlement at the time and one of his boat's crew who had been a butcher on board a man-of-war". (p.66-67)

Given these contradictions between the first and newer editions of Cawkell, added to the fact that this reliance and interchange with Vernet is not mentioned in academic works such as the one introduced by BedsBookworm, Gough,[5] or Royle[6] convinces me that we should avoid these assertions about Vernet. After all, for all I know Mary Cawkell was an amateur historian from the Falkand Islands (I couldn't find much info on her to be honest).

Also, as I've said in one of my edits which got reverted, "failure of Vernet's settlement" seems a bit odd, as it could be understood that the settlement failed because of its management. It was actually more of a termination than a failure. --Langus (t) 16:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


You're incorrect, Cawkell does not make a 180° turn. In the 1960, she notes:
"The Admiralty handled the Vernet "problem" and handled it extremely badly. Lieut. Smith was instructed to see that proper care was taken of Vernet's property...Then abruptly this attitude ceased."
Vernet did write to Lt. Smith offering advice, in turn both Lt Smith and Woodbine-Parish recommended Vernet as Governor. The initial attitude toward Vernet was positive but as Vernet's name was increasingly linked with the claims of the United Provinces the attitude changed from one of co-operation to ignoring him. I note you're also selectively quoting. The very next paragraph covers Mandeville, the British Minister in BA lauding Vernet suggestion of returning. The two books are 100% consistent, the 1960 version focusing on the mishandling of Vernet, the 2001 edition also covering it but focusing on the mistreatment of Lt. Smith. All entirely consistent with the premise of the thesis quoted by Bookworm of a decade of neglect and failure to colonise. Both books are entirely supportive of the edit you tried to remove for no good reason.
The supposed conflict you're claiming between the two books is a figment of your fevered imagination; it doesn't exist. Its just yet another example of you trying to rubbish sources in order to justify removing material. WCMemail 20:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
"Selective quoting" does spring to mind after the further context you have provided above. However, I'm sure you realize that the paragraph about Mandeville is tangential to whether or not Smith received advice from Vernet. Moreover, it further shows that, despite Mandevielle's opinion, his superiors did not allowed Vernet to continue his enterprise.
I note also that you're beating a straw man: "All entirely consistent with the premise (...) of a decade of neglect and failure to colonise". That was not my point and that is not what I'm challenging. "He received advice from Louis Vernet in this regard and in turn continued to administer Vernet's property and provide him with regular accounts". <-- this is what I challenge. And so far the only quotes supporting that are found on the 1960 edition of Cawkell but not on the 2001 edition.

Mary Cawkell was born in Wigtown, Scotland in 1907. She remained there until her early 20s when she moved to Africa, travelling extensively in both South Africa and Zimbabwe. During the war she worked in the Lebanon where she met her husband. After the war her husband joined the Colonial Service and was posted to the Falklands as Superintendent of Education.

She and her family first went to the Falklands at the beginning of the 1950s and lived there for seven years. This was a start of a lifelong interest in, and affection for, the Islands. Mary became a respected author on the Falklands which provided her with endless material for many articles and broadcasts covering all aspects of life there, from past to present and from peat to penguins. The extensive research she had done led her to writing the authoritative standard history of the Islands, The Falkland Islands, published in 1960. Later a shorter book The Falklands Story 1592-1982 based on additional material, concisely covered the story of the Falklands until the Argentinean invasion.
From the Falklands the family moved to West Africa, to The Gambia where Mary continued with her journalism. After she returned to England she carried on with travelling and writing, spending time in eastern communist countries then little visited. In her later years she lived in Sussex and worked on updating her history of the Falklands.
Given the amateurish nature of her work, and the fact that the 2001 edition differs from her first book, we should either avoid talking about this or confirm it from another reliable, secondary source. --Langus (t) 22:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thats utter nonsense, the very article you've quoted states she wrote the authoritative standard history of the Islands. Also as I've pointed out, its bullshit to claim there are differences between the two books since there isn't. The commentary in both is identical. As usual you're seeking to rubbish sources, for no valid reason. WCMemail 20:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Got to agree, the very source you've dug up states she wrote the authorative history of the islands. How that kind of endorsement translates into your demand to remove content alleging her work to be amateurish is utterly illogical. BedsBookworm (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not an article folks, it's the back cover of the book. As I've said, I can't find anything about her online.
WCM please don't use the word "bullsh*t" when talking to me, this is the second time I ask you. Specially since I can read both your quotations and the 2001 edition and see clearly it's not the same text by far. So much they diverge, they no longer carry the same meaning. Both text are quoted above, the 1960 edition (your quotes, totally absent in the new edition) and the 2001 edition, so I suggest we stop this futile exercise and let passing editors to decide by themselves if books are the same or not.
Why don't you both try instead of throwing mud at me (WP:NPA) to go find some respected opinions about her? --Langus (t) 15:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I think Bookworm makes a point, you're always reverting them [7], [8]. In that case, they made a perfectly valid point there was no need for two copies of the declaration both in text and in the image. WCMemail 15:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I usually revert and edition I don't agree, period. BedsBookworm takes it personally and you, a seasoned editor I might note, instead of calming them down choose to fan the flames. No wonder why you keep on losing credibility.
Have you noted that in one of the editions he both added the image and removed the declaration? --Langus (t) 18:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
No you just revert. You fail to understand whether you agree with it or not is immaterial, its what the sources say that matter. You revert on the basis of your personal opinion and will edit war to keep material out of articles for no valid reason. Perhaps Bookworm has responded as they have as they see the way you operate. I did nothing to fan the flames, I just suggested you stop it. And you misrepresented Bookworm's edit, on David Jewett they left the image and removed the text. They made a good point but you didn't listen or take it to talk, you just steamed right in and reverted. I looked at their editing pattern, you're always following them on Falklands topics and then reverting. We desperately need new editors but you're driving them away with your confrontation attitude. Please stop it or find something more productive to do. WCMemail 15:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
My disagreement was about interpretation of the source, of course. But you're mixing our disagreement here at History of the Falkland Islands with the recent editions at David Jewett and Heroína (ship). In the David Jewett article he acted as you described, but in the Heroína (ship) he both added the image and removed the text (proof: [9]). I believe I'm entitled to disagree over such a change. Moreover, these latter editions are not a matter of source interpretation but personal opinion about the article itself.
I suggest that we continue those discussions there, and if you want to accuse me of harassing BedsBookworm then by all means just do so at WP:ANI or wherever someone can do something about it. Doing so here it's just using this Talk page for mud-slinging instead of improving of the article. --Langus (t) 19:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

IP Vandal had a point

[10] I concur with the revert, however, in a spot of plain vandalism the IP does make a point. It was colonial Spain that did this not Argentina, which did not exist. Would it not be better to refer to the Viceroyalty of the River Plate? WCMemail 17:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of the Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of the Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

16th century

The first references to the Falklands archipelago are inextricably linked to the geographical discoveries made by Amerigo Vespucci in 1502 (Lorton, 2016); he reported their existence in the ship’s logbook after reaching the southernmost point of his journey across the Atlantic. Other traces of their existence are found in the writings of the Portuguese captain Esteban Gomez, participating in Ferdinand Magellan’s expedition, who in his 20 November 1520 entry called them the Magellan Desert (Lorton, 2016). Five years later, a note about the Islands can be found in Pedro Veza’s writings; with another mention by the bishop of Plasencia in 1540. In later years, the credit for discovery of the Falklands became the subject of dispute between Portugal, Great Britain, the Netherlands and France.

— M. Bodziany, A. Kotasińska The Falklands Conflict – History and Predictions for The Future, in Historia i Polityka, Jan 2018

No references about this historical part are provided in the current WP article. Eventually, they can be integrated. Regards, Theologian81sp

Not this again, the claim of discovery by Vespucci has long been debunked. It's based on the Soderini letter, which was identified as a forgery long ago. The issue around the Gomez claim is in the article as well as noting that noted historians eg Destefani attach no credence to it. By the way if your source is citing Roger Lorton, they are seriously misrepresenting his views. WCMemail 11:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated see also

I wish to make it plain that I am refusing to indulge Sietecolores in an edit war and kicking off the talk page discussion per WP:BRD, its worth noting that they have simply reverted with no attempt at discussion [11]. I don't believe the link added via a See Also is appropriate, simply because it has no direct relation to the topic. Bringing it here for discussion. WCMemail 16:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Before I reverted Sietecolores I took a look at the linked article being added. I could not see any connection between Spanish settlement on the Falklands and around the Strait of Magellan, or anywhere else in the deep south of the continent. I don't claim to be an expert on the relevant history though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Colonization of the Strait of Magellan is related by being one if not no the closest colonization project in colonial times in the South Atlantic. If Roger 8 Roger claims "Geographical location is not a good enough connection" he or she should provide any WP policy showing that, which I strongly suspect does no exists. Proximity in time-space has always been relevant when suggesting more reading. Sietecolores (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Its not related and that is the issue, WP is not a repository of links whether internal or external (WP:ISNOT). Links should be directly relevant and not obliquely as you have tried to do; Six degrees of separation rather implies you can always generate an oblique link. At the end of the day, use common sense and follow WP:BRD. The argument "I'm having this link as there isn't a policy" doesn't wash. Further edit warring without discussion and abusive posts in talk pages is completely unacceptable behaviour. WCMemail 08:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
You are correct that edit warring is not the way to go, but remember it applies to you. To begin showing good examples is a good idea. Regarding your straw man argument I will leave it there; its evident is just a straw man. Besides I recommend this reading WP:Civil POV pushing. Persistent problematic behaviour, whether yours or someone elses, does not go unnoticed. Sietecolores (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Let's keep on track. Relevance is the key. The Magellan settlement attempts were 200 years earlier than the Spanish settlement on the FI; Magellan was according to the article to prevent non-desirables access to the Pacific, the FI was a penal colony; M failed immediately, FI did not; besides both being cold, the geography of both is distinctly different; one had a native population, the other did not; travelling between the two was difficult, and so on. Where, Sietecolores, is the relevance of one to the other? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I will not insist more on this issue. If you both deem the "see also" link in the subheader out of place, can see other less contentious pages to link the topic of the historical settlement of the South Atlantic together. But it has been good have hear the arguments. Besides, Falklands-related articles have more important and serious issues than this one. Sietecolores (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I take it from what you say that the connection linking the two is they are both part of the settlement of the south atlantic. I see your point but I still think that link is pretty tenuous. I am not sure I would class the Magellan strait as south atlantic - it is borderline. Based on that general connection, the whaling stations on south Georgia should be linked as should tristan da cunha, both being more obviously south atlantic and both being successful settlements. But, their historiesb are quite different and it is IMO difficult to find anything to justify a commonality (certainly with TDC). I don't expect a reply, assuming you are reading this. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Last to be settled

The NZ article claims it is the last landmass to have been settled. By definition a landmass is large and although that is open to interpretation I thiat excludes small islands like the Azores. What about the Falklands - a landmass? 1765 is later than NZ's AD 1250-1300. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The claim in the lead of the NZ article, The islands of New Zealand were the last large habitable landmass to be settled by humans is wholly subjective and wholly unsourced, and not something a Wikipedia article should be claiming without backup. Because, it depends on how we define "large", "habitable" and "landmass".
I am more comfortable with the claim in the article body, New Zealand is one of the last major landmasses settled by humans, which avoids the specific claim while making the point that the lead is apparently intending to make.
I more general terms, I'm not sure we can answer your question intelligently other than to note that the habitable landmass of the Kerguelen Islands is over half the size of the Falklands and has never been permanently settled. I note your discussion on Talk:New Zealand, where it is argued that if a landmass has not been settled it does not count. Well, the claim is last large habitable landmass to be settled, not most recent large habitable landmass to have been settled. That rather strongly implies that there aren't any more large habitable landmasses that are not settled. Kahastok talk 21:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks that is helpful. I have mentioned your post on the NZ site. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

suppression of Argentine colonisation attempt from the introduction

I had added a mention of David Jewett's presence on the islands, which is mentioned further down in the text, but it was removed. It is salient to me how the colonisation attempt by the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata is the only one not mentioned in the introduction, while European colonisation attempts are mentioned both in the introduction and in the rest of the article. When you suppress from the intro that the flag of the United Provinces was hoisted over the islands, at a time when no other state had presence on the islands, it makes Argentina's 1982 invasion look like it came out of nowhere, while there was in fact a historical precedent. Themidget17 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Your edit was not neutral and by your own comments here you're editing the lede to favour a national narrative. WP:NPOV is a core policy
A) "Eventually withdrew its presence from the islands in 1776."
Adds weasel words "eventually" and gives the false impression the British left the islands. They didn't the 59 year absence is an Argentine myth.
B) "In 1820, the flag of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata was hoisted over the islands by David Jewett taking orders from the government in Buenos Aires."
No other nationality had presence? We only know of Jewett's flag raising thanks to James Weddell, a British captain, one of some 40-50 ships already there ahead of Jewett. There is no evidence of any orders in the national archives and there is much evidence to indicate that rather than acting on orders, Jewett put into the Falklands to repair storm damage.
Nothing is suppressed, the full narrative is included in the article. You might also wish to add WP:BRD to your reading list. I will shortly add a brief mention of Argentine colonisation attempts, a neutral one. WCMemail 06:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, after giving my previous edit a second read, that it did not seem neutral. Thank you for fixing that. Nevertheless, you did add something that was lacking before (the 1832 attempt), and that's an improvement in my book. Despite all that, I think Jewett's claim in 1820 should too be in the lede, given it's well established he spent around 6 months on the islands and claimed them for the United Provinces. I'll await a response before carrying out a change. Themidget17 (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in the lede, since it is controversial whether or not he claimed the islands. There is much to suggest not, there has never been any orders produced to demonstrate he was sent by the provinces, he arrived there after first patrolling the North Atlantic for 8 months, the only reason he put into the Falklands was to repair his ship (as per his report) and he made no mention of claiming them in his report. And 1820 was a chaotic year in Argentine history with over 20 government, 3 in 1 day alone; in that chaos I find it difficult to believe that one government chose to deploy a resource like Heroina to claim what many thought were worthless islands only useful as a stop over for the fishing fleets. That and the Heroina was a privateer sponsored by a group of businessmen not to mention Jewett's piratical acts. We know he made his declaration but Weddel thought this a ruse to gain exclusive salvage rights over the L'Uranie a famous wreck in the Falklands. My personal opinion is that after a failed voyage, where the only ship taken, the Portuguese merchantman Carlota had been lost Jewett was desperate to have something to placate his employers as he'd failed to provide a return on their investment. But you don't put personal opinions in the lede. The simple edit you propose is POV and favouring one narrative over another, whereas the text covers all the differing viewpoints and covers them with due reference to the literature. You appear to have a WP:LEDEFIXATION common in editors seeking to ensure a particular viewpoint is given prominence. You might care to consider that your personal opinion is very evident from your edits, whereas a good editor will not put personal opinion but reflect the prevailing views in the literature. WCMemail 12:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
MOS:LEADREL says that the relative weight given to topics in the lead and the rest of the article should be approximately the same. Relative to the article, the lead here puts far too much weight on the period 1764-1833 and not nearly enough weight on the period since 1833. I would thus oppose giving even more weight to the 1764-1833 period. I would note that this is supposed to be an article on the history of the Falkland Islands, and that non-dispute-related historical events are important as well as those argued as part of the dispute.
The lead as written is clunky and awkward stylistically, but this is a easier problem to fix. Kahastok talk 17:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Falkland_Islands/Archive_3&oldid=1256460307"