Talk:Luis Vernet

Name

After searching the Internet I found that in most places Vernet's name is spelled "Luis", not "Louis". Since he was an Argentine governor and I couldn't find any conclusive source either way I changed the name to the Argentine (and most common in Google) spelling and all the links accordingly. I'll try to provide some sources for this (other than google searches). Worst case scenario, we'll rename them again. :)

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: I know he was french, and kinda contradicts my changes... maybe I should've discussed first... Anyone wants to go back, let's talk. sorry for rushing into this

In fact he was born in Hamburg and was of French - Huguenot descent, according to this source [1] his birthname was Ludwig, but off course he's known as Luis. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

French-born Hamburg merchant, not born in Germany

A user has changed his birth place to Hamburg Germany, and posted this site as a reference. That site clearly states he was a "French-born Hamburg merchant". Unless reliable sources are posted showing he was not born in France, it will be reverted. -- Alexf⁴² 18:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's a fast response, these sources (sorry it's German) state clearly he was born in Hamburg [2],[[3]] and here's someone searching for his anchestor Luis Vernet, born in Hamburg [[4]], I used the liverpoolmuseum because it's the only english source I could find, sorry I didn't read it properly. I'll try to find something more about him, but it seems he wasn't French (just his name) HerkusMonte (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As France isn't really a birthPLACE and several sources claim him to be born in Hamburg I deleted the "born in France" sentence, until we have exact informations about the town he was born in, I think it's not necessary to add a whole country as a place of birth. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already reverted that information because it was wrong, I believed at the time it was a good faith edit based upon misunderstanding the Liverpool Museum article; which by the way does have some inaccuracies so as a source its not brilliant. All the information I have to hand indicates Vernet was born in France, moved to Hamburg in infancy, initially emigrated to the US to pursue business interests and thence to Argentina (at the time the United Provinces of the River Plate). I can back up with better and more authorative sources than the Liverpool museum.

And his birth name was Louis, he later changed it to Luis to reflect his adoptive country. Justin talk 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I found this: "The Falklands War" by Daniel K. Gibran [5] calling him "a (Hamburg) merchant of French extraction" and Encyclopædia Americana [6] "a native of Hamburg". HerkusMonte (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Something more: "Vernet was of French Protestant (Huguenot) descent, born in Hamburg in Germany, and he spent some years in the United States before settling in Buenos Aires." [7]. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources to confirm that he was born in France.

For instance The Falkland Islands by Ian Strange has him a French born Hamburg merchant. Julius Goebel. The Struggle for the Falkland Islands also has him as a French born Hamburg merchant. Goebel will confirm the name change I believe but I can't find my copy to be sure. Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960 By Harold F. Peterson "French origin" Signals of War by Lawrence Freedman and Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse has him a "Frenchman" [8] "Frenchman"

I could go on, most sources i've seen indicated he moved to Hamburg at a young age but he was born in France. Having said that the authors of your final reference have spent 10 years of impeccable research in preparing that paper; so I would give it some weight. I think the best compromise is to state that his birthplace as Hamburg but indicate that the exact birthplace is confused and some sources indicate it was France. Is that acceptable? Justin talk 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why nobody seems to know his exact birthplace in "France" as it is a real large country. He was of French (Huguenot) descent and probably that's why a lot of people call him French. I found his name in a small broschure about notable people from Hamburg (Hamburgische Geschichts- und Heimatblätter, 1982) describing his role in South American politics. Just as a minor point, the Huguenots were discriminated a long time before 1790 (and left to Germany), so it's not really presumable that his parents left France after his birth (but that's just my opinion). However, I think your proposal is just fine, will you do it? HerkusMonte (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would normally but I'm having great difficulty accessing wikipedia this evening. Its a co-operative project please feel free to make the edit yourself. You make a good point, in my own research I've tried to pin down his birthplace in France but can't find one. Justin talk 22:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that Germany didn't exist at this point in time. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

At that time Hamburg was part of the Holy Roman Empire - Btw did Europe exist before the EEC was founded? HerkusMonte (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Europe is a continent, a slab of land. Germany is a country. This is a category error. Germany didn't exist in the sense you claim.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Now seriously, you think nobody who was born before 1871 should be called German? Goethe and Schiller, Bach and Beethoven or Martin Luther are wrongly categorized? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a different issue. German people, and Germany are not quite one and the same. Nor indeed is the German language contiguous with Germany. Pre-unification, there would have been a case for calling certain people in Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Alsace, and various parts of the Prussian and Austrian Empires "German", but that does not mean that Germany existed as a concrete entity. Goethe was German, but the nearest thing to a German state at that time was the misnamed Holy Roman Empire. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are we discussing? The current version doesn't say anything about "born in Germany". There's only a single category (you created it) "Germans of Huguenot descend", do you think that category is wrong? HerkusMonte (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"born in Hamburg in Germany" - look up above...--MacRusgail (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That was (my) first version, now it's only "merchant from Hamburg", so the dispute is resolved already.HerkusMonte (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

After some further research I've found that this is indeed correct and Vernet was born in Hamburg. The confusion over his birth place appears to have arisen out of his attempt to persuade the French Government to act on his behalf in his dispute with Britain in the 1850s. Justin talk 09:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, that's the fascinating thing about wikipedia, we all learn new surprising things. Should the article be changed? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say so, I have a fairly major edit planned to put in a lot of new material. Justin talk 19:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Events of January 1833

"In September 1832 a new interim military and political commander, Juan Mestivier, was appointed and a gunboat, the ARA Sarandi, was dispatched to support him. The British objected that his appointment infringed British sovereignity over the Islands. More problematic for Mestivier was that his own forces would not accept his authorithy and two months later, when the Sarandi sailed away from the Islands, the garrison mutinied and killed him. The Sarandi returned and attempted to rout the mutineers. Just as it was doing so, on 2 January 1833, the Clio under the command of Captain J.J. Onlslow, appeared in Port Louis. Onslow told Don Jose Maria Pinedo aboard the Sarandi that the Islands belonged to no one, and that the British flag would replace that of Argentina the next day, 3 January 1833. Pinedo protested but in the face of superior force he did no resist. To Britain this demonstrated that the transfer control was a matter of persuation, for no shots were fired. Argentina points to the coercitive nature of persuasion." From The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: The origins of the Falklands war by Lawrence Freedman, page 8.

"In early 1832 Argentina sent to 'Las Malvinas' a new Governor, Don Juan Esteban Mestivier, but he was murdered shortly after his arrival by mutineers. Don Jose Maria Pinedo, officer in charge of the Argentine warship 'Sarandi', took command of the settlement. [...] In December 1832 the British returned to the Falkland Islands, concerned by the unlawful activities of the Americans and by the Argentine assertions of sovereignty. [...] The British commander, Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag. Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands." From falklands.info

Before my change, the article read: "This left the islands in a state of anarchy, occupied by escaped convicts and pirates. Attempts by the Argentine government to re-establish the settlement as a penal colony failed when a new Governor (Juan Esteban Mestivier) arrived in the islands in November 1832, only to be murdered by a mutiny. In January 1833, the United Kingdom sent a naval task force, regaining control of the islands."

I've fixed it on grounds on NPOV and correctness, as it can get people to believe that Argentine settlements just "failed" and British task force more or less landed and planted a flag. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes but, this is an article about Luis Vernet, not the events of 1833. Luis Vernet did influence the Falklands after 1833 but played no part in these events. This is not an article about Mestivier or Pinedo. You're introducing information of tangential relevance.

If you wish to collaborate on a project I've had in the offing since 2008, then fine happy to do so. Tangential information no thanks, I've been researching this for 3 years. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• After going through this Biography article, it is my conclusion that we should be focusing on writing about the actual person's life and not about an event that he had no further partake in. Can we please be more clear and concise, don't confuse the common reader by introducing a historical event that has/ought to have an article page of its own. Strongly suiggest Langus-TxT to read WP:Assume clue first before commenting further (and yes, you are editor B). Gentlemen, anybody can edit on Wikipedia but what we really need is compentency in editors with minimal intervention from other Admins and Reviewers alike. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Tell me Dave, since you happen to be here: is it ok for Wee Curry Monster to recklessly say that I am introducing information about the events of 1832/1833 when it was everything there when I got here? How should I react to this? Where and to whom should I ask for help? Mind you this is not the first time he lies about my actions (nor the second, nor the third).
2. I read the essays you suggested, thank you for that. I remind you that I started as an editor about a month ago, and I know I didn't acted by the policies on my firsts encounters with WCM. I was new, what can I say... After all, that's what I should do according to WP Policies.
3. More to the topic: I agree that these events should not be described on this level of detail in the Luis Vernet page, since he never set foot on the islands after the Lexington, but as I said, it was all here before me. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I actually agree 100% with removing the details you did. My comments relate to the fact you introduced additional tangential information. Moreover I specifically identified that you were adding information about Mestivier and Pinedo. I was neither reckless, nor did I lie and both of those comments are a personal attack and contrary to policies on civility. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. I still claim my innocence. Cheers. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Introduction to the article

Last version before my additions read: "Luis Vernet (born Louis Vernet in 1791 - died in 1871) was a merchant from Hamburg of Huguenot descent." I believe this introduction needed to be expanded, since it didn't mention the most relevant aspect of his life (and the reason why it is included in WP), which is his relation to the Falkland Islands.

Proposal: Luis Vernet (born Louis Vernet in 1791 - died in 1871) was a merchant from Hamburg of Huguenot descent. As a governor of Argentina he leaded a settlement in the Falkland Islands between 1829 and 1831.

I believe this short addition remedies this problem and rises no controversial issues. -- Langus (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, he wasn't governor of Argentina. Secondly, through his company he was in control of the colony right the way through from 1828 to 1833 - including for over seven months after the British takeover. All in all, I would say that it is his leadership of the company and colony, not the title given to him by Argentina, that is more significant point.

I note that your edit actually removes quite a bit of text. Was this your intention? Pfainuk talk 16:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to outline my objections to that proposal.

A) Being blunt, its gibberish, the grammar spelling etc is appalling.

B) It is inaccurate, he was never a Governor of Argentina.

C) It states a single POV, it isn't neutral and does not convey even all of the view points in Argentine literature, never mind other viewpoints. Thus is fails WP:NPOV by failing to reflect the major viewpoints in the literature.

I did not remove your content but I have cleaned it up and expanded it, this is what collaboration is about. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@Pfainuk: if I removed text, it was unintentionally. I'm not sure of what you're referring to. Re. Vernet, he had no "company" whatsoever at the time of these events; if I'm wrong I ask you for sources. The 'governor of Argentina' thing was obviously a grammar mistake from myself...

@Wee Curry Monster: A) You're supposed to be WP:POLITE, not blunt. B) True, he was Argentina's Governor of the Falkland Islands. That could have been easily corrected. C) I strongly disagree.

Your expansion was reverted because it failed WP:NPOV and, more importantly, it was excessively long and detailed for an introduction.

Proposals? Remember this is an introduction... -- Langus (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I did correct you and counter balance the seriously POV nature of your edit. If you write gibberish, it is not impolite to describe it as such. You can disagree as much as you like but presenting one of many opinions in the literature demonstrably fails NPOV. My expansion was clearly in accordance with NPOV, your edit wasn't. Your removal of text was clearly deliberate, as was your removal tonight. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I left the article like it was in last consensus. Your last revertion took it back to your proposed introduction, which I don't agree. Check the revisions, self revert now and please be cooperative. -- Langus (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You can see cites for all of my comment in the article.

Vernet did not go to the islands for the climate. As with most new European settlements since long before Columbus sailed, Vernet's primary motivation was profit. He wanted to make money from the feral cattle left over on the islands from the previous settlements, so he took some employees to the islands and settled there.

For the period 1828-33, including after the British takeoever, Puerto Luis existed primarily to make money for Vernet. The colonists were there working for Vernet (and paid in Vernet's own currency). For most of this period there was no government of the islands other than as provided by Vernet and his representatives (such as Brisbane and Dickson). This should be unsurprising: the Falklands at the time were a few weeks' journey from any other European settlement. Day-to-day governance from outside would have been absurdly impractical. This was a private colony - a concept that was once commonplace but is now very virtually non-existent thanks to modern communications technology - and understanding that is fairly crucial to the understanding of events of this period. Pfainuk talk 17:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

When a non-native speaker of English comes to English language wikipedia introducing (apparently) useful and sourced content from another language wiki not just WP:POLITE but helpful and friendly grammar/spelling-fixing is called for. Given that the visitor will certainly be better at our language, than any English-speakers are at their's.

As for POV charges, there's no substantiation of POV charges in the above. Which makes a third party reader suspicious that there isn't too much POV. I should also note that the German article appears well written and well sourced, so if bits of it are being moved here, good. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For info, it was I who moved material from de.wiki not Langus, the current lede is lifted directly from material there. Secondly the lede as edited by Langus was distinctly POV as it only presented one of several comments in the German language version. My rewrite introduced all. And I did delineate why his edit failed NPOV above, in reply he alleges my rewrite is POV but does not substantiate why. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This was my lede translation from German WP: [9]. If it's no longer there is because WCM replaced it with a text I still don't agree.

I must clarify (and correct my sayings in a moment of anger, I admit) that what I felt POV was the fact that the German lede was discarded as not neutral (why? what other view points?), and forcibly replaced for a text which, in my own view, doesn't serve the purpose of a lede. -- Langus (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's POV and appears to be largely inaccurate:

• We've been through "Governor of Argentina" already.
• Vernet founded the settlement in 1828, not 1829.
• Vernet's efforts to found a permanent settlement did not end with the Lexington Raid. Or rather, they had ended, but only because the settlement he had already founded had proven to be fairly permanent. He continued to try to get back to the islands even after his administration had been killed in the Gaucho murders. There is still a settlement at Port Louis, and it was the main settlement on the islands until 1845.
• Vernet's economic interest in the islands did not end with the Lexington Raid: his representatives continued to exercise some level of control for just over eighteen months or so afterward - until the Gaucho murders. Those murders were committed in part because the Gauchos were being paid in Vernet's own currency (which was not accepted outside the islands).
• The Argentine sovereignty claim did not end with the Lexington Raid. Mestevier and Pinedo were later sent to the islands, and Argentina continued to claim the islands after the British showed up in 1833.

It is POV because it overemphasises the title given to Vernet by Argentina (when what he actually wanted was an Argentine warship) and underemphasises other aspects of the settlement and Vernet's involvement in it. It is also POV because it inaccurately claims that Argentina gave up its claim to the islands in 1831. Pfainuk talk 19:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem is you're getting most of it wrong:

• Regarding "Governor of Argentina": I thought you were able to identify simple grammar mistakes. Rest assure I'll be extra-cautious next time.
• Regarding dates: you're correct, but that could have been changed if we felt so. 1829 is the year when he was made Governor.
• Regarding "Vernet's efforts", to any practical effect, they did end there. He insisted on this, yes, but final result is that they ended there (for him). Not the settlement, but his attempt.
• "Vernet's economic interest in the islands did not end with the Lexington Raid": indeed, they didn't. His efforts to establish them ended. Read above.
• "The Argentine sovereignty claim did not end with the Lexington Raid." Same case that last point. His attempt came to an end, as it advanced no further.

Nonetheless, I can understand your point about the Argentine title, and it could have been discussed here. It doesn't state that Argentina gave up its claim, tho: you're mistaking the expression as explained above. -- Langus (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the recent changes for a number of reasons. First of all the English grammar was incorrect and changing well written prose for poorly written prose is not improving the article. Secondly, it removed a lot of information. Vernet is a controversial figure and removing this is removing a significant fact, especially in the context of the sovereignty dispute. Thirdly it was inaccurate, Vernet's control over the settlement at Port Louis ended as a result of the Gaucho murders in August 1833, it continued even after the Lexington Raid and the British return. Note I explained the reason - and I did not revert to the version you demanded as you have given no good reason to do so. Simply asserting neutral prose is POV is not a good reason, nor is WP:NOCONSENSUS. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) While I am certainly able to identify simple grammar mistakes, there's a difference between a simple error in grammar and totally changing the meaning to something unrecognisably different from what was apparently intended.

It's certainly possible that I have not properly understood what you (Langus) were intending to write. Unfortunately, it is difficult to make sense of a point being made when it is so entirely shorn of punctuation and when what it says is something different from what it is intended to say. I can try to understand what you write, and gloss over grammatical errors or failures in punctuation, but I don't believe I can be expected to read your mind.

That said, it was not Vernet's practical efforts that ended there but only his personal physical presence on the islands. The islanders continued to be his employees and he continued to pay them for another eighteen months. The only sense in which your point makes sense to me is inasmuch as Vernet did not need to continue to put effort into establishing something that had already been established. Which is not something that logically belongs in the lede. Pfainuk talk 09:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Luis Vernet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 15:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• Reference titles shouldn't be in all-caps; fix that.
• A few refs cite a book but do not provide an individual page number; if a book is used once make that a priority over the total number of pages.
• There are several unsourced paragraphs, and the Falkland venture section is almost entirely unsourced, and in fact emigration is completely unsourced.
• "On the one hand he is considered as a national hero in Argentina as he was proclaimed Governor of the Islands by the Republic of Buenos Aires in 1829, on the other he is perceived as an unpatriotic merchant who acted in his own interest and made a pact with the British." This isn't really delved into the article at all, and if that's going to be a key part of the lead, it needs to be.
• The article needs a copyedit throughout, as I'm finding things like "Lt Smith the first British resident set about making the buildings habitable." where there should be commas after Smith and resident.

Based on the above points, I don't think it can realistically become a GA soon, so I'm unfortunately going to fail it outright. After the concerns are addressed, I would suggest trying WP:PR to get another pair of eyes relatively quickly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

'Gained/regained control over the Falkland Islands'

We've been here before, but: why exactly "regained" would be more appropriate than "gained"?

Some definitions:

• To gain: to get something that is useful, that gives you an advantage, or that is in some way positive.[10] (Note that there's no reference to whether or not you had it before)
• To regain: to take or get possession of something again. [11] (emphasis mine; note we're talking about "the Falkland Islands", not just a part of it)
• To get/take possession of sth: to start to use and control a building or piece of land, whether you own it or not. [12]

If "gained control" is somehow problematic, I'm open to other options. --Langus (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes we have been here before, regained is more appropriate because the British had previously had control over the Falkland Islands. Recognised by the Treaty of 1771 for example. This does not imply abosolute control over every square inch as in reality the British did not full gain control until much later; no nation other than Britain has ever controlled the entire archipelago. You're blocking an edit with the strawman argument that to regain control it has to be control over the entire archipelago. Its a semantic argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Unless you come up with a convincing argument I will be reverting presently. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I had a better idea, I changed it to reflect the current article title. Much better. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me but I am not making up a strawman here, that's why I'm backing my interpretations with English definitions, which it would be an awesome thing for you to do. So, if we want to know what "control" means:

1 [uncountable] control (of/over somebody/something) the power to make decisions about how a country, an area, an organization, etc. is run

• The party is expecting to gain control of the council in the next election.
• The Democrats will probably lose control of Congress.
• A military junta took control of the country.
• The city is in the control of enemy forces.
• The city is under enemy control.

(From the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

If the British would have had "control over the Falkland Islands" in 1770, then it would mean that Spain was there at that time under British authorization. (Remember we're talking about the Falklands as a whole, not about a particular settlement).

As for "re-established British rule over the Falkland Islands", I'm surprised you don't remember my impressions in Talk:Re-establishment_of_British_rule_on_the_Falkland_Islands#"Re-establishment"? and Talk:Re-establishment_of_British_rule_on_the_Falkland_Islands#Which_title_do_you_prefer?. To put it simple, "re-established British rule over the Falkland Islands" has the same problem as "regained control of the Falkland Islands": the British never had before that event "the power to make decisions about how <the Falkland Islands> were run" (i.e., control/ruling over the FI).

I'm reverting to the previous version (on which we had agree before). I have a few alternatives to "gained control" but I'm not really sure about what's the problem with the expression... could you enlighten me? --Langus (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, you're following me from article to article, reverting my contributions and using WP:BRD to spin out discussions. You're not giving a valid reason here for a revert, rather WP:BRD is being used to frustrate progress by spinning discussions on forever. This is filibustering not a rationale discussion. You were offered compromises on the other article and you obstructed every one, insisting on your preferred wording. You have not given a valid reason for your revert and I have yet to see a constructive edit coming from you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you're out of arguments and you're turning ad-hominem. My reasons are all above, anyone with a pair of eyes can see them. I have yet to understand yours. I'm opening a request for a third opinion; in the meantime please refrain from pushing your version into the article. --Langus (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, guys, I'm here from the 3O noticeboard. Given that the disputed wording is a wikilink to another article on Wikipedia, I'd imagine the best wording in this article would be to reflect the wording of that title. If it's inaccurate so say that the British "re"-gained control/possession/whatever, then that article's title should be changed first (after a consensus is reached through discussion, of course). Since it appears that there has already been extensive discussion of this issue on that article's talk page, and since it (presumably) has reached a consensus in the article's present title, we should reflect that consensus in our wording here, as well. Thus, I'd say that the wording of this diff, as worded by Wee Curry Monster, is probably the best, since it is the most directly related to the title of the other article. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Writ Keeper, my point precisely, which was why I changed it to reflect the other article. If you look at the discussion on the other article, there was a willingness to consider alternatives. None of these have proceeded as everyone is opposed by Langus, with the insistence on his preferred wording. I would point out my comments are not an ad hominem attack. If you can name one edit on this topic in which Langus hasn't repeatedly reverted one of mine I would be amazed. Per 3O I'll restore it now. Its not inaccurate to say the British regained control, there were previously British settlements in the islands and the semantic argument is has to be control over the entire archipelago just doesn't wash. If we apply that gold standard then neither Spain nor Argentina ever had control over the Falklands. Do you really want to go down that route Langus? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, we'll take that path. The problem with that article's title is that, despite the extensive debate in its talk page, nobody likes it entirely. Consensus over it is pretty weak. Moreover, it's a dubious name as it is not backed by reliable sources using it to describe these events; that's why I indicated that I would support one of the last proposals because at least it was an expression used by RS. But despite that, nothing happened and the title remains. It wasn't my fault really.

WCM, according to the definitions above, Spain had control over the Falklands as a whole when the British were expelled from Port Egmont in 1770, or when they left in 1776. Argentina had control over the Falklands from 1828 to 1833, and again in 1982.

Writ Keeper, thank you for your help! --Langus (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No thats not correct, everyone supported 2 out of 3 proposals except Langus, who insisted on a preferred wording in the 3rd proposal. It hasn't changed because you frustrated consensus by holding out for your preferred wording. If there isn't consensus for a change it doesn't happen. So whilst there is a willingness and desire to change it, you have so far frustrated it.

As regards your comments above you are plainly incorrect. The 1770s and 1780s saw a massive expansion of whaling and sealing around the Falkland Islands. British, American and French sealers roamed the islands at will using the natural resources with impunity. The only area controlled by Spain was the penal colony at Puerto Soledad; if you were to check the Argentine national archives there is correspondence from the Governor of Puerto Soledad complaining bitterly that Spain was missing out and he was powerless to stop it. Spain did not have effective control at all over the islands.

As regards Argentina, no in 1828 it was the United Provinces a pre-cursor state of Argentina and in fact was done in the name of the Republic of Buenos Aires. And it was somewhat debatable that Argentina was in control as Vernet claimed to work for both the British and the Republic. The only time Argentina has had effective control was for a few months in 1982 following its military invasion. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If we're talking about effective control, neither the British had it in 1833. This only happened years later. As late as 1840 the Royal Navy was still struggling to control the activities of American vessels and their crew. [B.Gough, The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843, p.276]

Regarding the "willingness and desire to change" that title, I'll just link again to my conditional consent for a change, and I note that those conditions were met. --Langus (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Even there you're wrong. The US didn't accept the British rule of law until the 1850s. It only became effective as the American Civil War meant the suspension of American sealing and whaling activities. Further, the British had not intention of establishing more than the notional control conferred by the annual visit of a warship in 1833. It was only because of the Gaucho murders of August 1833 a permanent station was established. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly. --Langus (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Argentine Governor of Puerto Luis?

My edit summary was maybe unclear. My point being to have the disambiguation sentence calling him Argentine implies his nationality was Argentine, was this the case? Undoubtedly he was appointed governor by Argentina (even if it was known as something else then). Is there a sentence that shows the governor for Argentina that does not imply nationality, such as Argentine Appointed Governor of Puerto Luis. If a non-Argentine citizen was now appointed Governor of the Islands by Argentina it wouldn't make him/her Argentine without other actions. Bevo74 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, in the infobox you can see his nationality classed as "Argentine" and properly sourced (The Falkland Islands: by M.B.R. Cawkell, D. H. Maling and E. M. Cawkell, 1960).

Under current law, for an individual to be appointed in a public charge (specially a Governor), he or she is required to have Argentine citizenship. I don't know exactly how it was back in those early days, but it is clear that Vernet spend most of his days in Argentina and died there, leaving descendants. --Langus (t) 00:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it would be useful if the source was online, but I haven't found anything from a NPOV source. Bevo74 (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Proper sources

First, [13] the "handy" online reference. It should be noted that falklands.info is self-published and authored by two Falklanders without any credentials, Jason Lewis and Alison Inglis: [14] Are we seriously arguing to keep this?

Secondly, WCM's comments inside a cite are erroneous and disruptive. I quote: "Discussed at length in RFC Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 2#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling? Person challenging the cite has previously tried to remove this information. Consensus of RFC was that these citations established this fact." This is erroneous because a) I didn't get involved too much in that discussion, b) the RfC was closed noting that: "this discussion largely fails as an RfC due to the non-neutrality of the debate proposal. What ensues is an extension of the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#British "Permission" II with the same participants", and even that "in the absence of further reliable evidence (such as, for example, government archives), they must convey to the reader that any definitive conclusions must be left open". Plus c), consensus can change. In fact, I have changed my view on Mary Cawkell since then which leads me to my next point...

I no longer consider Mary Cawkell to be capable enough to bring into literature a novel interpretation of what Vernet's "stamps" means. IMO, Cawkell confused an act of document legalization carried by the British Consulate with "a permission" from the British Government. Cawkell says this "stamping" of "a grant" happened in January 1826. She might be referring to the facade contract by which Pacheco simulated to to cede his share to Mr. Green & Mr. Hodgson, British merchants in Buenos Aires, as a precaution for the impending war between the United Provinces and Brasil:

“ El 31 de Diciembre de 1825 [Vernet] celebraba un arreglo con Pacheco. Para esa época había tomado sus precauciones en vista de la inminente guerra entre los Imperiales [en Brasil] y Buenos Aires. En primer término, el propio Pacheco simulaba, por un convenio celebrado el 10 de octubre de dicho año, ceder a los señores Green y Hodgson "del comercio inglés en esta plaza" todas las concesiones recibidas del Gobierno. ["cuio documento --dicen los señores Green y Hodgson-- es nulo de ningún valor ni efecto pues ni ha hecho tal donación ó enagenación, ni por consiguiente, ha recibido tal cantidad; pues por fines particulares y temerosos de la guerra que se aproxima..."] Luego, y antes de iniciar la gran aventura, hipotecaba las tierras que, en virtud de ser el primer poblador o por concesiones que en adelante le hiciese el gobierno, llegasen a pertenecerloe. Con este acto, bien característico, Vernet deseaba poner a cubierto a sus descendientes y acreedores de cualquier contingencia que le pudiese sobrevenir de la guerra que, por largos meses, desangraría al Brasil y a las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, o de la navegación no exenta de peligros por los mares del Sur. ”

Caillet-Bois, Ricardo (1948). Las Islas Malvinas. Peuser. pp. 199–200.

As noted, this was denied by these British merchants in a counter-document.

It is not unthinkable that a housewife condensing history for the local Falklander radio station could have seen more in this act of what really meant... specially if she based her investigations on books in Spanish, not being a native speaker.

And finally, regarding Shuttleworth... I've repeated every time it was brought up that the author is talking about 1829. This is getting borderline WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT, so I expect an explanation for the insistence with this source to reference something that allegedly happened in 1826. --Langus ^TxT 01:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Falklands.info is a handy online source that is backed up by other sources, it just so happens being online it is a convenient reference source. Seeing as its backed up by other sources and is verifiable, I see no harm in referring to it. I am aware that it is loathed by nationalists in Argentina and there has been a DDOS attack against the site intended to use up its bandwidth allocation. Lets put online the real reason for its none availability.

My comments on the RFC were accurate, I put that hidden comment in precisely because Langus insists on having the same discussion again and again and has a record for filibustering any discussion to prevent consensus. See Talk:Self-determination/Archive_3#Falkland_Islands_NPOV_Dispute for an example.

Langus has been trying for years to assert Cawkell is unreliable, inventing excuse after excuse after excuse. This is classic behaviour of someone seeking to ignore sources that don't fit within their own world view and on wikipedia not acceptable. This opinion is immaterial and criticism by speculation and reference to another separate contract is WP:OR and WP:SYN on his part; not a suitable reason to decide content.

I'm simply ignoring the rest I see nothing to reply to. WCM_email 16:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Self-published sources by unkown persons, even if "backed with sources", is the same as the opinion of Wikipedia editors, backed with sources: unacceptable as a reference. Pretty basic. As for the reason why it is always offline, your theory doesn't make sense from a technical point of view. You see, a Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) works by firing up multiple false connections that the web server has to respond to, not having a way to know beforehand if the requests are valid or not. Only after a few seconds have passed, and the server didn't receive any further interaction from that false IP address, it is clear to the web server that the connection was false. Relevant here is that the attacked server only had to reply one or two packets per false address, and with a very tiny payload. There's no way to consume much bandwidth in this manner. A server under a DDOS attack doesn't respond at all, because is being too busy answering thousands of false connections per second. It is not what we are seeing here.

Help:Hidden_text WCM is breaking the rules again,[15] using hidden text "to tell others not to perform certain edits to a page" (innappropriate use #3). I suggest a review of the valid reasons to use hidden text.

Moreover, you can see in this diff that 2 years ago I though of Cawkell as reliable; WCM's suprious accusation is evidently false. At Talk:History_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Recent_Revert I realized Mary Cawkell was an amateur local historian, an therefore to be used with care. Her book was published with the support of the British Government, in fact Sir Rex Hunt wrote its foreword. Cawkell, says my 2001 edition, passed away on January 8, 2001, with no other publication or academic achievement since first edition in 1960.

Direct question to Wee Curry Monster needing a yes/no answer: are you willing to submit this particular case to the WP:RSN and abide by their conclusion?

I note that you re-added the claim that the request was "refused", yet that wording is not found in Caillet-Bois. Which BTW is just a respected historian: califying him as "Argentine" screams distrust. I'm adding two more sources about the cannons and rifles to remark that attribution is unwarranted, as this is not contested.

To sum it up, the "handy" source is not only blattantly unreliable, but also not handy at all, since it has been mostly offline since at least a year. One wonders why WCM needs to include it. This insistence reinforces the idea that Mary Cawkell is the only real source that claims Vernet to have looked for "British permission" in 1826. So does WCM's refusal to explain Shuttleworth's inclusion ("I'm simply ignoring the rest I see nothing to reply to"), re-adding it without explanation.[16] WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT confirmed. --Langus ^TxT 22:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked what was the harm, its not used to cite anything controversial, its simply handy. A case for WP:IAR not WP:IDONTLIKE.

The comment in hidden text is merely alerting anybody passing by that the previous discussion exists. It is not saying what you can or cannot do.

The book was not produced with any support from the British Government, unlike the Argentine Government the UK doesn't sponsor such things. Sir Rex Hunt wrote the foreword after his retirement as private citizen not a Crown employee. Simply more examples of you inventing excuses to ignore a source from someone who is acknowledged as an expert.

Vernet's request for a warship was refused and the phrase is accurate. This is a flawed argument, he asked for a warship and didn't get one. I've added the fact that he got a token response of a few guns - this is not what was requested. Your edit suppressed that information and this is becoming quite common that your edits remove information and you filibuster an argument on an irrelevant tangent. The fact I referred to his nationality is not relevant and does not scream distrust. I suggest you refer to WP:AGF before I point to my use of the phrase "British Historian Mary Cawkell".

I don't see any need to explain shuttleworth's inclusion, it stands on its own merits. WCM_email 18:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You're attempting to use falklands.info to source that Vernet had British permission in 1826.. nothing controversial? Hardly. On the other hand, if Mary Cawkell is such a reliable expert, why is editor so reluctant to ask at WP:RSN?

Regarding Shuttleworth, here's the direct link to the pages on the subject. I'll transcribe the relevant text:

“ In the course of the year 1829 the Consul-General first called the attention of the Foreign Office to the question of the Falkland Islands. [] Parish's attention was first called the question early in 1829, when the Buenos Ayreans proposed a scheme for detention of prisoners and convicts in the Islands. Parish at once communicated the intention of the Buenos Ayres Government to the Foreign Office, but before writing his next despatch a new development had arisen. A certain Mt. Louis Vernet had obtained permission from Rosas to colonise Solidad and Staten Island; he had done so with great success, finding the soil suitable for potatoes and other vegetables, the climate excellent, and the prospects for cattle-breeding most promising. Hearing that England claimed sovereignty of the islands, he now applied to Great Britain, through their Charge d'Affairs, for the protection of his colonists. ”

Indeed, 1829; not 1826.

Regarding Vernet's request, saying that it was "refused" is your own assertion, not the one of a reliable source, and I rightfully disagree with that interpretation. It's not so hard really.

I'm reverting to the stable version of May 27; I suggest we sort this out through a RfC or at RSN. A revertion like this one can make you lose your WP:ROLLBACK permission (see WP:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback). --Langus ^TxT 14:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No I'm not using it to cite something controversial, its not being used to cite Vernet's requests to the British thats a strawman of your own invention. The fact is Vernet asked for a warship and he didn't get one. I will look for the original cite and add presently, its another case of moving the goalposts as you never asked for one. BTW do you wish to check Caillet-Bois as from my recollection I'm sure he mentioned it. The Shuttleworth cite is perfect for citing the fact that Vernet had sought British protection (and I'm pretty sure 1829 is before 1833). I note again you're reverting to remove any mention of Vernet's dealings with the British. So I'll be reverting you presently and adding that quote as well. And anyway you have one source who doesn't mention the earlier dealings, that doesn't mean they didn't happen. Its WP:V remember.

Please note I'm not impressed by threats, so if you want to go squealing to an admin and get my rollback rights taken away you go and do so. I'm sure being a snitch and getting one over on me will give you immense satisfaction. But I simply misclicked and missed the undo button by mistake. Thanks for the lecture, thanks for not WP:AGF, you have a nice day ya hear.

If you wish to waste the communities time on yet another RFC on the same subject, you go right ahead. WCM_email 15:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

1829 is before 1833 but after 1826. Is it so obscene to ask for accuracy when talking in Wikipedia's voice? I suggest you calm down, have a cup of tea, and then read thoroughly the text and note exactly where you're trying to insert Shuttleworth and the history blog with fancy name. --Langus ^TxT 19:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I am inviting you to self-revert, seeing as it is rather obvious you didn't look at the edit and that I'd moved the Shuttleworth cite and the other cite. I also informed in my edit summary I was intending to add a further cite. You're just being silly now. WCM_email 20:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You did many things, but I don't agree with all of them. That's why I simply took the code of May 27th and reverted to that point. It also included self-revertion of the correction about the cannons and rifles, which you refactored in a manner I can't deem acceptable.

If you want to include Shuttleworth as a source for the 1829 encounter that's fine, but don't attribute to a single historian something that's widely accepted (the cannons and rifles). And given that our level of disagreement is in crescendo, we should work on a sandbox. --Langus ^TxT 01:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

So, you ask for sources, sources are provided and you revert them? If you don't want sources, don't ask for them. If you want sources, don't revert them. Kahastok talk 21:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This is getting moronic. I refer you to my points above:

1. WCM inserted a "scare comment" against WP:HIDDEN. You seem to be endorsing this misbehavior. I don't accept it.
2. Caillet-Bois is not the only historian to point out that cannons and rifles were provided: this is widely reported in literature (I've provided 2 more sources in one of the reverted editions). Therefore, attribution is unwarranted.
3. falklands.info is a self-published source (WP:SPS) by two Falklanders who gathered information from all around. It's not different than a blog or our own opinion. It doesn't belong to this place.
4. Mary Cakwell is the only source that claims that Vernet in 1826 "took his grant to the British Consulate where it received their stamp" (note she doesn't even talk about "permission"). At the very best, this needs a) attribution and b) stricter wording in accordance to what the source really says.

If you two are willing to discuss any of these points to reach a text that's satisfactory for everyone, I'm all in. However, if your intention is to simply edit-war to impose whatever you two want against Wikipedia's policies, I will keep on reverting to last stable version. ----Langus ^TxT 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Tag Comment

I have added a NPOV tag to the article for two reasons.

First of all, [17], copies of correspondence between Luis Vernet and British authorities has been removed under the guise of WP:BRD. The same editor has been denying for years there was any correspondence, now direct proof has been produced back up by a WP:RS he is simply removing it.

Secondly, an editor Prof Favelli, has removed British sources simply based on their nationality, he is then claiming the content is uncited. WCM_email 19:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Vernetizar

Cawkell notes that Vernet made a fortune from a process of preserving hides. However, I cannot find any reference to any process known as Vernetizar outside of wiki, other than the WP:SPS site [18], which I do not consider reliable. The source given Historical Dictionary of Argentina London: Scarecrow Press, 1978 doesn't appear to exist [19]. The edit that added this [20] was done by an editor who has been blocked for serial sockpuppetry. I am concerned this is false information. WCM_email 23:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you got the right title? I think this might be the book, though the existence of a book with the right title is clearly not definitive. I also found a reference in here, but it appears to be part of a dialogue. Google ngrams found nothing at all in its Spanish corpus, and Google Books is often skewed toward older sources for copyright reasons. Sounds fishy to me, though maybe our Argentine friends can shed some light? Kahastok talk 17:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I remember reading about it in several sources; I'll look it into it shortly. ----Langus ^TxT 18:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You might have found it, I tried last night and failed. The passage in the other book reads:

“ Un señor de apellido Vernet inventó una fórmula química para que los cueros soporten las largas travesías. Por eso se habla de "vernetizar" (A Mr. Vernet invented a chemical formula that cures hides for long voyages. That is why we speak of "vernetizar") ”

I really struggled to find anything on it at all. WCM_email 20:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I never get tired of praising the work of Ricardo Caillet-Bois:

"La vida de Vernet después de la pérdida de su colonia en 1891-33, continúa siendo ejemplo de laboriosidad y constancia. Así, preocupado desde 1822 por los inmensos perjuicios que experimentaba el comercio por la pérdida de cueros y toda clase de pieles, consiguió dar, después de múltiples ensayos, con un valiosísimo inmunizador. En 11 de Septiembre de 1841, el ministro fiscal aconsejó se le acordase la patente, lo que así se hizo, dándole el monopolio por el plazo de seis años. Posteriormente, el activo hamburgués se presentó ante las autoridades solicitando patente por una invención que consistía en forrar el interior de las pipas con una especie de tela emplástica incorruptible e impermeable, con lo cual evitaba las mermas que sufrían los "aceites y espiritus fuertes" al ser envasados (19 de septiembre de 1850). Verificado y comprobado lo que decía, se le concedió patente por 8 años. La patente también fue registrada en la República Oriental del Uruguay, dándosele allí un monopolio por doce años (27 de enero de 1854). Vernet es autor, asimismo, de un "Proyecto para la mejora del puerto de Buenos Ayres" (25 de abril de 1845), y de un proyecto de "la Compañía del Río de la Plata para el fomento de la inmigración a todos los payses que formaban el antiguo Vireynato [sic] de este nombre" (17 de julio de 1861). Falleció en San Isidro, a los ochenta años de edad, el 17 de enero de 1871."

Taken from Las Islas Malvinas, pages 191-192. It seems that there was also a second invention that turned out profitable, the method for better storing oil and spirits. Caillet-Bois was the first historian to have access to the Vernet archive, the Vernet family's private collection of letters and documents of Luis Vernet.

Also, I included the last sentence because it disagrees with the information currently on the infobox. It seems he calculated the age by simply subtracting 1871-1791, because on page 188 he reports his birth date as March 6. I'll be correcting the date in the article tho. ----Langus ^TxT 20:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes but it doesn't corroborate the name, which I still think is false information. Since you're so fond of Caillet-Bois, care to enlighten us about the Vernet correspondence with the British and the settlement in Port Louis that he reports? WCM_email 23:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really related to this issue, and we're a not a WP:FORUM. However, I'll go through it, to be better informed. I assume you're looking for references to correspondence between Vernet & Lt. Smith (as opposed to Hammond or Seymour). --Langus ^TxT 21:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You're playing semantics. Here you are lauding Caillet-Bois as a source, whilst claiming only Cawkell reports on Vernet's correspondence with the British. So does Caillet-Bois. Hence, your insistence on qualifying the information is an abuse of process. This is not the first time, you claimed also that Cawkell was the only source for Vernet's request for a warship. Caillet-Bois corroborates this. WCM_email 22:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, you're mixing too many issues and also talking about past discussions from which I've learned. I suggest we focus on current disagreements because past ones may very well be obsolete.

This request of yours stems from the addition of the Letter to Hammond of a few days ago. It is simple: you added the letter presenting it as a "letter to Lt. Smith", when it clearly isn't. You changed the text so now I have no objection, other that perhaps redundant material. Why are we still going back and forth on that?

However, I would still propose we use a formatting similar to the one on this diff, using Template:Gallery. --Langus ^TxT 22:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have access to Caillet-Bois I can source material myself. WCM_email 23:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear that. I see you are putting it to use. --Langus ^TxT 06:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hidden text

It's being "proposed" that a comment be included at the mention of the alleged 1826 "British authorization" for Vernet settlement. It reads:

Discussed at length in RFC Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 2#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling? Consensus of RFC was that these citations established this fact.

This usage is against WP:HIDDEN. I strongly suggest everyone to read it in full. There's a section, Inappropriate uses for hidden text, where we are told that "Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus".

The invoked RfC was closed by an admin noting that "this discussion largely fails as an RfC due to the non-neutrality of the debate proposal. What ensues is an extension of the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#British "Permission" II with the same participants about the reliability of Cawkell's and Shuttleworth's chronicles of historical facts and whether Vernet went to obtain permission or simply to get a document certified".

Therefore, because consensus never existed and the idea never stopped being challenged, I consider this hidden comment unwarranted and detrimental to the building of a real consensus on this matter. --Langus ^TxT 22:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Its worth noting that the reason the closer noted it failed as RFC due to the none-neutrality of the debate proposal was because of the leading question posed. This sought to disqualify the source and to offer the proposer's own interpretation based on WP:OR and WP:SYN. The usage isn't against hidden, its purpose is not to prohibit making an edit, its there to inform the debate exists. You know what I trust community members to use that link wisely. WCM_email 23:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, hidden text points to a RfC and talks about a "consensus" that never existed as a real community input. You may very well just point to the discussion at Talk page archives and not to a tainted RfC. Wording is unfortunate too, hinting editors not to discuss the issue further. --Langus ^TxT 05:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It was judged to be a consensus, despite the biased nature of the RFC request and received community input. However much you would like to ignore it, there was a consensus as the close noted. Its not hinting at anything. WCM_email 11:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Letters

I've reverted the addition of three letters, for a total of 7 pages/images, in the face of them being an excessive amount of pictures, and honestly not adding much to the article.

May I ask Wee Curry Monster why the need for them? Also, if you had to choose, which one of them would you propose for addition? Bear in mind MOS:IMAGES and WP:IUP. --Langus ^TxT 06:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll be adding them back. This disruptive and POV laden behaviour of yours is getting ridiculous. For months you've been trying to claim these didn't exist and "only Cawkell" mentions them. Well guess what, we now have the originals, so you can no longer deny they exist and use attribution as a scare tactic. Please stop editing for POV reasons, the fact that you're editing for POV reasons is very clear by the material you're removing. And for information there will be more. WCM_email 10:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

[21] This edit was wrong. It didn't correct the chronology it distorted it, the events described took place before Vernet made a second approach to the United Provinces for a warship. WCM_email 11:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

[22] I didn't restore this edit as Cawkell directly contradicts it. Schofield was too ill to travel due to chronic alcholism. WCM_email 11:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, you'll just add them back and I'm supposed to be the one with disruptive behavior. Disruptive of your absolute will, perhaps? WP:OWN rings any bell?

I insist, they are too many and clutter the article. If your insistence has to do with making a WP:POINT, you don't need to because, I can now say that they did exist. I didn't know back then, but I do now.

So I ask again: can we reduce it to a gallery of 2 or 3 pages? Any of them.

Regarding your other points:

1. Not according to Caillet-Bois or even Shuttleworth; the only source in literature for this is, again, Cawkell's brief summary. We either accomodate to Shuttleworth and Caillet-Bois, or we remove Shuttleworth as a source and attribute the statement to Cawkell;
2. If Cawkell and Caillet-Bois contradict each other on this, isn't our job to report all views in literature, instead of selecting which one is right? --Langus ^TxT 20:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No I'll add them back because they're relevant and interesting historical documents. I've uploaded a fraction of what I could have done.

As regards WP:POINT, you were the one removing them wholesale, every time I try to add images you find an excuse to remove them. And you are being disruptive, OK I try to focus on content but seeing as you want to talk about user conduct:

1. You tried to remove any mention of Vernet's request for a warship, yet even the source you used (Caillet-Bois) corroborates it. You even tried to deny that it did. Really why would you do that?
2. For years you've tried to remove any mention of Vernet's continued dealings with the British after 1833. Funnily enough Caillet-Bois also mentions this. Why would you do that? Deny something thats in the very source you're using.

If it was one occasion, I would be generous enough to acknowledge this as a simple mistake but this has been your modus operandi for years. You're always trying to remove historical content that contradicts elements of Argentina's sovereignty claim.

And any time I start work on an article, there you are, constantly removing anything I add.

As regards your supposed points:

1. You're simply wrong, Vernet made frequent trips to the mainland and visited the British consulate on more than one occasion. There is a great deal of correspondence between Vernet and Woodbine Parish. I don't actually subscribe a date to this meeting but all 3 sources agree that it took place. But I do put it in the correct chronological order that predates the warship request.
2. Vernet and Pacheco finalised their agreement with Schofield whilst the expedition was in the Falkland Islands. Tell me how could Schofield do that, if he were in the Falklands? Sometimes sources contain mistakes, we are allowed to use WP:COMMON sense and are not compelled to repeat them simply because we have a source. Now are you going to use a little common sense or do you simply want to have an argument as you see getting your own way more important than improving the article. WCM_email 21:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It is not actually that uncommon for sources to make mistakes, and there is no reason why we cannot choose to not cite sources' mistakes as though they were fact.

I think the persistent complete removal of this information, several times with misleading edit summaries, is becoming troubling. I suggest everyone stop editing the article now, and discuss the point on talk, and not change it until there is agreement.

We should put information in chronological order and we should include relevant sources. Removing sources and then using the article to suggest that they don't exist does not seem reasonable or sensible. Where something is backed by more than one source, we should not be attributing them to only one source.

I think the letters are useful as additional sources. There are other ways in which the same information could be put across - could they be transcribed to Wikisource, for example, with a link to it from here? Add the image to that page on this one and it serves the same purpose. I would leave them here until the transcription is complete. Kahastok talk 08:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think what is really troubling is there is no valid reason for removing sources and image content. For years Langus has been claiming that "only Cawkell" mentions Vernet's dealings with the British and his preference for British administration of the islands. He has been using attribution as a scare tactic. Now I find that his assertion he could only find mention of Vernet's dealing with the British in Cawkell to be deeply troubling because it is even mentioned in serious Argentine works like Caillet-Bois - a source he claims to be using. And now that direct proof has been provided, we see WP:TAG team edit warring to remove it. I am perfectly willing to have a reasonable discussion with anyone who is serious about improving the article but what we're seeing here is tactics that are about removing information for reasons that are completely at odds with Wikipedia's core policy of presentin a WP:NPOV. WCM_email 11:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, the suggestion that this point is only made by Cawkell is false, as is clearly demonstrated by the sources provided and the letters. The attempt to try to have the article pretend that the sources and the letters do not exist - which is the effect of the removal by Langus and PF - goes directly against WP:NPOV. We should present the facts as they are, not as some of our Argentine friends might like them to be. Kahastok talk 11:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Really, Kahastok? The sources provided are a) Shuttleworth, who explicitly talks about 1829, and b) John Fowler as reported by Buenos Aires Herald, a Falklander former Superintendent of Education of the FI and Manager of the Falkland Islands Tourist Board. If this is a reliable source to you, then Cristina Kirchner, Daniel Filmus, Hector Timmerman, must be so too, when printed by BA Herald. Utter nonsense. Regarding the letters, they are dated 1835 and depict exchanges between Vernet and Hammond, Smith and Vernet, etc.; none of them are between Vernet and Parish and certainly not from 1828 or older. Do you know what we are discussing about? Have you inspected those letters? Because otherwise you are being WP:DISRUPTIVE.

@WCM: You keep on focusing on my past (now obsolete) standings. I want to discuss content; you divert to talking about editors. Would you stop doing that, please?

1. It did took place, but in 1829. You put it before the warship request, that's correct, but also before the second expedition. That is wrong, or at least only found in Mary Cawkell's book. This is presenting minority views (being generous) as the only opinion in literature. You can't do that. At best, use it with attribution. At worst, it's a WP:FRINGE theory.
2. I think I've sorted it out: there were two expeditions in a short period. See, from page 195: "A fines de 1823, en el mes de Diciembre, Pacheco dirigió un nuevo pedido al Gobierno, en el que anunciaba la próxima partida de la expedición, y que en la misma partía el capitán de milicias retirado, don Pablo Areguati, con quien tenía celebrado un convenio... (...) El Gobierno consideró atendible la solicitud de Pacheco y por decreto del 18 de diciembre le otorgaba los terrenos... (...) Los asociados en el interín preparaban una nueva expedición a Malvinas, para lo cual alistaban al bergantín Antelope, el cual solo estaría en condiciones de hacerse a la mar en el mes de febrero."

Then, the letter from Arguati to Pacheco arrives, written on February 12, 1824, as can be seen on the footnote of page 197. It says: "hemos llegado a esta el 2 del que corre sin novedad alguna con solo cinco caballos flacos". I.e., the expedition arrrived February 2, Areguati wrote the letter on February 12. Then on page 197 Caillet-Bois says: "La expedición preparada por Schofield estaba en vías de terminar en un desastre. (...) El 14 de Febrero de 1824 se firmaba el contrato definitivo con Schofield."

So far, you're correct: Arguati was on the islands while Schofield, Vernet and Pacheco signed the final contract. However, in this contract it was stipulated that "En calidad de representante de los asociados, Emilio Vernet pasaba a la isla. (...) Antes de que la expedición zarpase, se les proveyó de las correspondientes instrucciones a Emilio Vernet a P. Areguati, y en ella se les especificaba particularmente que, cuando hubiesen llegado a puerto, reuniesen a todos los que allí hallasen y..."

From this we can see that Emilio Vernet was going to the islands after the final contract. It would seem that Areguati got there first, followed by Emilio Vernet and Schofield on a second trip. I include Schofield because on page 198 it is explicitly stated: "Vernet tardaría un año antes de volver a ver Buenos Aires. Schofield, en cambio, abreviará su permanencia en Malvinas, entrando al puerto [of Buenos Aires] en agosto de 1824 (...) En las islas quedaban abandonados a su propia suerte 22 de los 60 caballos enviados y 8 de los hombres transportados." How could there be 60 sent horses on the islands if P. Areguati says in his letter to Pacheco that only 5 survived? A second trip is the answer.

Further, on that page's footnotes (198) we have Vernet himself describing Schofield's conduct on the islands: "Refiriéndose a Schofield, Vernet aporta las siguientes noticias: "la conducta de Schofield fue tan extravagante que, de haberse propuesto arruinar la empresa, no lo hubiera hecho mejor. Al mes escaso de estar en la isla se hizo a la vela llevando consigo todos los efectos y provisiones y dejando a su gente en la imposibilidad de hacer nada, por falta de medio... [Schofield] estaba siempre bebido, pero aún en sus momentos de lucidez, su partida de las islas se le aparecía tan extraña como un sueño del cual tenía un vago recuerdo. No pudo responder a ninguna de mis preguntas y confesó francamente que no sabía nada del asunto." -- i.e. Schofield spent just a month on the islands, and when he returned he didn't remember having left them, such was the degree of his problems with alcohol.

We must bear in mind that Caillet-Bois is probably the very place from where Cawkell informed herself to write The Falkland Islands. She didn't had access to primary sources, to Vernet's archives; Caillet-Bois did. --Langus ^TxT 14:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Schofield didn't travel in the expedition, a second relief mission left later was to rescue the people on the islands in response to Areguatis letter, I acknowledge he travelled with it; Cawkell states that both Emilio Vernet and Schofield led the relief expedition. But crucially as I stated he didn't go with original expedition he left it to Areguati. We also have a source saying it was a relief mission and very soon afterward they're back in the mainland; as you acknowledge they spend less than a month there and come back with nothing to show for it. In their haste to leave two were left behind and were rescued by a passing ship months later. You are simply speculating about it being a resupply; it wasn't and do you really feel it is an absolutely vital detail to note that Schofield accompanied the relief expedition, spent a month there and was permanently pissed?

And yes I will keep going on about it, because of your conduct you have totally eroded any trust in your editing. You were denying material that could have been sourced to the very sources you're using, yet instead of assisting in a co-operative manner you hid it and claimed it didn't exist. Even now instead of accepting it, you're trying to quibble about it.

Further are you able to read and comprehend the English language? The sources don't conflict, I dare say Vernet did visit the British consulate in 1829, Cawkell also notes him visiting in January 1828. Vernet had quite extensive dealings with the British - HE MET WITH WOODBINE PARISH MORE THAN ONCE and they corresponded for years. You're inventing a conflict where none exists. The only reason it seems you're inventing fake conflicts in information is a vain attempt to expunge any mention you can of Vernet's dealings with the British or at the very least to reduce it by insisting it can only be attributed to Cawkell; this is an abuse of attribution as a scare tactic. Shuttleworth corroborates Cawkell's assertion that Vernet reported progress to the British and expressed a preference for British administration. Even Caillet-Bois corroborates his dealings with the British.

Speculating about where Cawkell obtained her information is completely WP:SYN and WP:OR. We don't have to beat that in mind at all, you're simply using criticism by speculation to justify removing material. If you had compelling information to suggest Cawkell was mistaken thats one thing but you don't, all of the accounts corroborate each other. You're continuing to erode any trust in yourself as an editor by continuing to suppress and censor material. And it seems you're desperate to remove actual proof in the form of the letters themselves. WCM_email 15:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Re-addition of NPOV tag`

I have again added a NPOV tag to the article for two reasons.

First of all, [23], copies of correspondence between Luis Vernet and British authorities has been removed again. We've had years of the same editor has been denying for years there was any correspondence, now direct proof has been produced back up by a WP:RS he is simply removing it.

Secondly, an editor Prof Favelli, is continuing to WP:TAG team to remove content for nationalist POV reasons. WCM_email 07:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Too many correspondence; article gets cluttered by it. I would agree to include 2 or 3 pages at WCM's choice; instead, he ignores me and keeps whining about past discussions. And BTW WP:PRIMARY sources are usually not WP:RS.
2. Usual WP:AGF failure: mud slinging and tag teaming accusations, alongside with alleged mind-reading capabilities; I'll just ignore this point. --Langus ^TxT 14:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since there are one or two points where we seem to be speaking different languages (or reading different material), can we agree to revert to stable revision of May 27th (this one) to stop the edit war? I would do it myself but I already tried it more than once[24][25][26][27] without success... --Langus ^TxT 14:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

(As a first step, of course. Then we can start including the text on which we have already reached agreement, using Talk page previously to confirm consensus.) --Langus ^TxT 14:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

We've seen this too many times, you insist we revert to a version and then filibuster any attempt to introduce material until people just give up. I think I'll take the route of getting wider community input via an RFC instead. WCM_email 16:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty of material I introduced myself which I want to see added to the article; you're not considering that. In the meanwhile, an edit war is ensured, and I hereby put it on your shoulders. Let's try the RfC once again but I cannot see how this time could be different. --Langus ^TxT 16:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added to the RfC my vision on the subject, because it only reflected yours which I deem tainted. It's done in a clear way, with another color. It's that or else consensuating a new, neutral text for it. --Langus ^TxT 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of material related to Luis Vernet's relations with British authorities

I would like to get wider community input on a matter that is preventing an effort to improve wikipedia's coverage of the role played by Luis Vernet in the Falkland Islands. There are two key areas I feel community input would be helpful:

1. Luis Vernet had multiple dealings with the British and visited the British consulate on more than occasion. He corresponded regularly with the British consul Woodbine Parish for a number of years. We have one source Cawkell, definitely referring to a meeting in January 1828. The second Shuttleworth also refers to a meeting but the date of the meeting is unclear in this account and the only date definitively given is to 1829 in reference to a scheme to form a penal colony. It has been inferred from this that the date of the meeting must be 1829. Both sources agree that Vernet had recognised the British sovereignty claim and requested British protection for Vernet's own settlement. A corroborating factor is that Cawkell refers to the grant given to Vernet by the Government of Buenos Aires was raised in the meeting, which can also be dated to January 1828. We have one editor asserting there is a conflict between sources, insisting he changes the chronological order of the article. He is moving the meeting with the consulate to after a later event when Vernet was appointed Military and Civil Commander in mid-1829, which is actually contradicted by the sources; the scheme referred to was suggested in early 1829. Further he is insisting we must use attribution to infer that only Cawkell mentions Vernet's approaches to the British for endorsement of his venture. This is an almost exact reprise of an earlier RFC Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 2#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling. Rather than actually dealing with and reporting on what sources say, the effort is focused on challenging their reliability and using attribution to infer doubt.

2. The same editor has also challenged Cawkell's references to Vernet's correspondence with Lt Smith, first British residence, and that both Lt Smith and his son provided Vernet with regular accounts. Again he asserted only Cawkell mentions this, I have obtained images of some of the original correspondence from the archives which confirms this exists. One example is accounts provided by Lt Smith to Vernet, one example is Vernet writing to the British C in C praising Lt Smith's administration of his property and another a covering letter giving instructions to deal with the personal effects of the victims of the Gaucho murders. This editor is now simply removing these alleging they clutter the article and demanding we still attribute this solely to Cawkell. It is also relevant to note that Vernet's dealing with the British are referred to in Caillet-Bois - an Argentine source and the same editor has been using this source whilst insisting only Cawkell made reference to it.

Questions for wider community input:

1. Noting there were multiple meetings between Vernet and Parish is there actually a conflict in the sources?
2. Should the article contain some of the images of original correspondence?
3. Should we attribute every single fact referenced from Cawkell? WCM_email 16:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is no conflict in the sources regarding what happened.
• The letters are worthy of inclusion, but I would be inclined to move the text and images to Wikisource and link to that.
• There is no need to attribute to Cawkell points that can be attributed to multiple sources, and it is not appropriate to remove the other sources and then pretend that Cawkell is the only source available. Kahastok talk 19:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have removed this comment on grounds of WP:TPO. I suggest that the editor in question, instead of editing others' comments, should make their own comment. Kahastok talk 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not easy to react to a tainted RfC, knowing that respondents would be badly predisposed by reading a not neutral and factually incorrect introduction. I ask editors to re-read WCM's "request" with the following in mind:

a) Shuttleworth mentions that "Parish's attention was first called to the question in early 1829, when the Buenos Ayreans proposed a scheme for the detentions of prisoners and convicts in the Islands. Parish at once communicated the intention to the Foreign Office, but before writing his next dispatch, a new development had arisen. A certain Mr. Louis Vernet had obtained permission from Rosas to colonise Soledad and Staten Island. (...) Hearing that England claimed sovereignty of the Islands, he now applied to Great Britain for the protection of his colonists." See for yourself.

Let's see: 1) First time that Parish dealt with the islands was in early 1829 because of a penal colony project, 2) he wrote to FO, 3) before writing again, Vernet applied for British protection. How in the name of all things sacred this could be a source for meetings with Vernet in 1828 and earlier? Impossible.

b) Have you noted that Mary Cawkell and Shuttleworth are the only sources cited by Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok? Even though they claim that these meetings "can be attributed to multiple sources"? Even though they talk about "sources" in plural? Have you seen a quote from, say, Caillet-Bois to back this idea? No, because it only exists in Mary Cawkell and the myriad of unreliable sources populating the internet, who repeat Falkander propaganda. They are not based on historical records, they have no back from primary sources. Caillet-Bois covers this period in 104 pages (192 through 296); Mary Cawkell does so in a mere 10 page summary (46 to 56). And even so Caillet-Bois does not mention these meetings and requests for protection and permission... Something smells fishy here

c) The whole whining about the letters to Lt. Smith is a moot point now. At the time I didn't know of the existence of this correspondence; now I do and I acknowledge my error. Instead of let go, Wee Curry Monster insists on bringing this up over and over, effectively turning a discussion about content into an WP:ADHOMINEM.

d) See these diff: Special:Diff/670662432 WCM is not trying to add one image, but 7 of them. I've repeatidly stated that I do not oppose to the inclusion 2 or 3 images (a full letter), and I've asked him to pick any of them, without response other than I will include them all. Also, editor never suggested to add a reference to Caillet-Bois, for example. He wants images, not cites, and lots of them. This is not a improvement for Wikipedia, this a personal and selfish need of Wee Curry Monster.

So, the real questions over which this is going in circles are:

1. Does Shuttleworth confirm that Vernet and Parish had meetings (including a "permission" from the British to establish a colony) in 1826 and 1828?
2. If the answer to the above is no, and if there is no other source other than Cawkell stating this, how should be tackle this problem?
3. Should the article contain some of the images of original correspondence? And if so, how many?

Regards. --Langus ^TxT 21:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

OH! And there's another source of problem that WCM left behind: the hidden text. Editor is edit warring to include a hidden text with the following "warning" (to my eyes), near the text that states that Parish and Vernet held meetings in 1826:

<!-- Discussed at length in RFC [[Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 2#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling?]] Consensus of RFC was that these citations established this fact. -->

This is an improvement from the original scare comment that read:[28]

<!-- Discussed at length in RFC [[Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 2#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling?]] Person challenging the cite has previously tried to remove this information. Consensus of RFC was that these citations established this fact. -->

I oppose to this use of hidden text which, according to WP:HIDDEN, should be used for "instructing others how to edit a page that may be difficult to edit", or "providing information to assist other editors in preventing a common mistake". Here, it is being used to deter discussion. The cite to that RfC is a distortion, because it was closed noting that: "this discussion largely fails as an RfC due to the non-neutrality of the debate proposal. What ensues is an extension of the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#British "Permission" II with the same participants", and even that "in the absence of further reliable evidence (such as, for example, government archives), they must convey to the reader that any definitive conclusions must be left open".

So, question #4 is: Do we have to include this hidden text at WCM's demand? --Langus ^TxT 21:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the archives, Vernet visited the British Consulate in Buenos Aires and met with Vice-Consul Charles Griffiths on 30 January 1828 emphasis added. At that point the land grant was counter signed by Griffiths and Vernet promised reports on his progress and expressed the desire for a British garrison. Woodbine Parish, the consul, requested a further meeting with Vernet, which took place in early 1829. On 25 April 1829 Parish sent a dispatch with these details. These details are contained in Despatch 24 found in PRO FO 6 499 in the archives at Kew. Some of these details are also corroborated by Caillet-Bois 1952, pp. 305.

As regards hidden text, it is merely drawing attention to the existing consensus (reached despite the biased nature of the RFC designed to provoke the opposite conclusion) and this is an acceptable use. Lets try and allow for some outside comment, without the temptation to have the WP:LASTWORD. WCM_email 19:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want the last word but this information has just emerged and I have to ask: is that WP:OR? Is it a quote?

Regarding the hidden text it would be most helpful and a sign of good will if you just desist to its inclusion. It's not precisely vital to the article. --Langus ^TxT 22:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There's not much to say about this issue. This is a clear case of WP:OR. We have a couple of editors who are making analysis and reach conclusions not stated by the sources. Several articles in Wikipedia (including this one) claim that Vernet had a British permission. There is no mention of such permission in any academic literature.

Our policy is clear: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. That's the problem here!

Where is the British permission? Now you are talking about the land grant issued by Buenos Aires. Where is the British permission? Where are the academic sources that have those exact words? I'm asking for reliable sources. Hey! I'm asking for British scholars! --ProfesorFavalli (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Both theories need to be included in the article: that some historians believe Vernet was working for the British government, with citations and dates, and that others believe he was solely working for the Buenos Aires government, with citations and dates. Some photos of correspondence would be helpful. The hidden text needs to be reworded for better NPOV. Markewilliams (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted simply because the reason for removing comment had no basis in policy. In addition, as noted in the RFC the letters are prima facie evidence of Vernet's dealing with the British. WCM_email 23:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The comment you withdrew[29] was more accurate: you are not reverting, you are imposing. The statement above responds to zero of the objections, which were repeated several times, including as a correction to the tainted RfC above. You are being delusional if you think you can get away with this just by using force: you need to start listening.

For example, you never answer my question at the RfC: Which letter are you talking about? Is that WP:OR or a quote? And also, do these documents support a meeting in 1824-1826?

Tell me, would you do us the great favor of following WP guidelines and using the author's words instead of your own interpretation? (I'm talking about "stamping a grant" vs "receiving a permission", in Cawkell).

I mean, assuming you have any interest whatsoever in trying to find common ground. --Langus ^TxT 17:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I repeat the reason for reverting is that your removal of content has no basis in policy and please limit your comments to content. I state above clearly where the information on the meetings comes from, you question was answered. Further your insistance we have to use the same words as the source is a flawed interpretation of policy, since were we to alwasy use the same words wikipedia could not exist because of copyright violation. I'll remind you in the flawed RFC in which you attempted to remove this from wikipedia concluded despite the attempt to lead the witness this wording was perfectly acceptable. WCM_email 19:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest we keep the present version unless a consensus change were agreed on the talk page. Attempting to unilateraly remove relevant sourced content won't work. Best, Apcbg (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The so-called "removal" of content is of course based on core policy: WP:CON. Your insistence on inserting it is against this policy. What you've said before is "According to the archives, Vernet...". From that, my conclusion (if you refuse to explain further) is that you did Original research: as such, we cannot simply state this information in Wikipedia without a proper source. And the only source so far is Mary Cawkell, which you still refuse to attribute and reflect accurately.

Regarding the hidden text, your summary is not neutral, even if it was improved. If you think the same about my summary, the logical and policy-compliant step to take is to remove the freaking hidden text and work on it here at Talk page. Or just remove it, honestly. But no, WCM does what WCM wants. On a side note, is there a reason why you keep on reverting my typo corrections wholesale?

@Apcbg: as I've said, there was never a consensus to introduce these changes in the first place. You're effectively saying "let's keep these unconsensuated changes until a consensus for not introducing them emerges". Nonsense. --Langus ^TxT 14:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:CON does not give you a veto over sourced content and there is clearly a consensus against you as to what is included. Your removal of content has no basis in policy and asserting material cannot be cited to archives is wrong. Worse you are deliberating putting material into a chronological order you know to be wrong. Clearly this is not about improving the encyclopedia is it? Similarly, you attempted a leading question in an RFC. You have a strong COI in trying to describe this neutrally, you should step back from altering it. Please stick to content. WCM_email 14:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

And to just to add, since we're now again going down the same path of claiming only Cawkell supports this material. As I've previously pointed out, Vernet's dealings with the British are corroborated by Caillet-Bois p.305-316. WCM_email 14:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI coming from a British soldier? Hilarious. Caillet-Bois at page 305 is already talking about 1829, not 1824. Moreover, Caillet-Bois explicitly says in p.297: "Más aun. Los observadores ingleses existentes en Buenos Aire no dieron señal alguna de vida cuando las autoridades de esta ciudad acordaron sucesivas concesiones de las islas, concesiones que hemos puntualizado como el lector ha notado. Es que, a nuestro entender, los pretendidos incontrovertibles derechos de Inglaterra solo fueron "descubiertos" en 1829, pero por razones que nada tienen que ver con la antigua discusión de los títulos de soberanía de las famosas y disputadas tierras. Y esto es lo que a continuación trataremos de poner en evidencia". Translation: "Our understanding is that the claimed incontestable rights of England were only "discovered" in 1829 (...) and this is which we'll try to put in evidence."

I'm sorry gentlemen, but ProfesorFavalli and myself have contested this material from the beginning, and nonetheless you went on to edit-war these inaccuracies (and a sh**load of images) into the article. I'm reverting again and respectfully requesting mediation from MarshalN20, who has helped us in situations like this before, and whom we all hold in high regard. --Langus ^TxT 22:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I see the refrain to stick to content fell on deaf ears. Just because you "contest" it doesn't mean you get to veto content. The material is sourced to a reliable secondary source, verified by primary sources. You have demanded and got extraordinary levels of proof and you're still contesting its inclusion. The material is accurate and you know it. Your reasons for contesting it have nothing to do with accuracy do they? WCM_email 00:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I appreciate the request for mediation, but at present I find myself with little time to conduct a thorough mediation. Based on a preliminary analysis, it seems that there are a couple of important points that are being discussed at present. The first is in regards to the Mary Cawkell source, and the second is with regards to "hidden text" in the article.

• With regards to the "hidden text," I agree that it would be best if this type of explanation was avoided as it does seem to go against the nature of Wikipedia (per the concept of WP:BRD). However, I do not see any intended misbehavior from its inclusion (and can understand, even if not agree, why it was included); I suggest an RfC to be used that directly addresses this situation.
• The Mary Cawkell question is a little more complicated, but not impossible to resolve from a purely academic viewpoint. I usually mention the author of a particular text when (1) I use a direct quote from that author, and (2) When the information from a certain author is disputed by another author. In other cases, where I paraphrase, a citation is generally good enough to indicate that it is based on the information provided by a certain source.

What makes Cawkell a complicated source is that it has been suggested by other sources as siding with the British version of the Falklands' history—by others I mean people like British historian Peter J. Beck, in The Falkland Islands as an International Problem, and even Lowell Gustafson in The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands (however, neither directly declare this). I should, nonetheless, emphasize very clearly that Cawkell is not a bad source to use; in fact, it is an important source within the historiography of the Falkland Islands. Therefore, unless another equally strong source directly contradicts Cawkell's assertions, or unless a direct quote is used from Cawkell's text, there is no need to mention her directly in the text.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, it would not be a bad idea to create a page for Mary Cawkell. Discussions about her as a source would be better focused on this suggested article rather than on Luis Vernet.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The only example that I can find where Cawkell is mentioned in-text (based on my second point) is found in Gustafson (1988), where Cawkell is presented as arguing for one of many versions of how the Falkland Islands were discovered by European explorers. However, I cannot find a source that contradicts Cawkell with regards to Vernet.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thing is Marshal, the claim that there is a conflict in the sources is entirely fallacious, they don't conflict at all. Vernet had many meetings with the British from 1826 to 1829. The particular reference in Cawkell to an 1828 meeting, which Langus is absolutely insistent must be dated to 1829, can be verified from the primary source Cawkell used - the archives at Kew. Just to repeat whats noted above:

“ According to the archives, Vernet visited the British Consulate in Buenos Aires and met with Vice-Consul Charles Griffiths on 30 January 1828 emphasis added. At that point the land grant was counter signed by Griffiths and Vernet promised reports on his progress and expressed the desire for a British garrison. Woodbine Parish, the consul, requested a further meeting with Vernet, which took place in early 1829. On 25 April 1829 Parish sent a dispatch with these details. These details are contained in Despatch 24 found in PRO FO 6 499 in the archives at Kew. ”

This clearly shows that Cawkell is correct in reference to an 1828 meeting and that Vernet subsequently had a personal audience with Woodbine-Parish in 1829. This is of course dismissed by Langus by saying we can't use primary sources. Well we're not proposing to use primary sources, we propose to use Cawkell, the only reason to refer to them is to show Cawkell is correct. This has gone beyond disputing content, its now being simply obstructive.

Its the same with the letters, Langus has been denying for years they existed, insisting those details are "only in Cawkell". Well now we have copies of the originals (and a tiny subset is in the article) he can't deny they exist. But now he wants to delete them claiming they clutter the article instead. WCM_email 13:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)