MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 13 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands/Archive 1. |
→Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: new section |
||
Line 459: | Line 459: | ||
:I will revert to last consensus version now. Please note that this doesn't constitute "editing" the article, it's just the application of [[WP:BRD]]. |
:I will revert to last consensus version now. Please note that this doesn't constitute "editing" the article, it's just the application of [[WP:BRD]]. |
||
:My proposal, following Senra's formulation: '''"Captain Silas Duncan records in the ''Lexington'' log that only arms and a powder store were destroyed, while Matthew Brisbane, who was in charge of Puerto Luis at that moment, maintains that private property was also damaged"''', with the rest of the paragraph as proposed by WCM. The only extra information that the in-text citation has is to introduce Matthew Brisbane, but nothing further. WCM please refrain from re-introducing your paragraph and work with us. --[[User:Langus-TxT|''Langus'']] <small>([[User talk:Langus-TxT|talk]])</small> 04:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
:My proposal, following Senra's formulation: '''"Captain Silas Duncan records in the ''Lexington'' log that only arms and a powder store were destroyed, while Matthew Brisbane, who was in charge of Puerto Luis at that moment, maintains that private property was also damaged"''', with the rest of the paragraph as proposed by WCM. The only extra information that the in-text citation has is to introduce Matthew Brisbane, but nothing further. WCM please refrain from re-introducing your paragraph and work with us. --[[User:Langus-TxT|''Langus'']] <small>([[User talk:Langus-TxT|talk]])</small> 04:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Primary, secondary and tertiary sources == |
|||
The first sentence of the [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] guideline informs us that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]])". I believe discussions on this talk page generally take this approach. However, further within [[WP:RS]] we have a brief discussion on [[Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources|the types of sources]]. This is expanded in the policy document [[Wikipedia:No original research]] in the section: [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources|primary, secondary and tertiary sources]]. The Wikipedia articles on [[primary source]]s and [[secondary source]]s, whilst not policy nor guidelines, may also be worth consulting. |
|||
My concern is the possibility that we may be straying into primary source territory when discussing the log of the ''Lexington'' and the recollections, via his diary, of Captain FitzRoy. The way I interpret the above policy and guideline material, we should take care that such primary sources are backed-up by reliable secondary sources: if no such secondary sources are available, I suggest we cannot use those primary sources. |
|||
Compared to involved editors, I am not as familiar with the sources for this event and I am not really familiar with the nuances of primary vs secondary sourcing. This paragraph, from [[WP:RS]] may be useful: "[[Primary source]]s are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid [[WP:OR|original research]]. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". |
|||
--[[User:Senra|Senra]] ([[User Talk:Senra|Talk]]) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:27, 6 November 2011
Military history: British / European Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
South America: Argentina / Falklands Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
Not neutral
This article is clearly biased to the english perspective —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegoesp (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
No it isn't, if you have a suggestion please offer it. Ranting about bias isn't helpful. Justin talk 16:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It clearly is, Justin. Biased, I mean. Would you describe the events of 1982 as a "Re-Establishment of Argentine Rule on the Falkland Islands"? Didn't think so. In 1833 the islands were clearly under Argentine control and the English gained control by force. Call it what you wish. Anyway, this article is rather useless and shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place (this also applies to the Spanish version of the article, and many more one-sided articles). Just delete both the English and Spanish versions of the article be done with it. Merge whatever little may be useful from them into the main Falklands article, if you wish. In any case, neither English nor Argentine editing should be allowed on this articles, for rather obvious reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.10.147 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- No is not, for many reasons you couldn't describe the events of 1833 as an invasion and we have invited suggestions to improve the title (which no one is happy with btw) many times but no one has been able to come up with a suitable alternative. And comparing a 19th Century event, with a 20th Century one, where we have norms of International law and the UN established is frankly ridiculous. As your contention that the islands were under Argentine control in 1833, clearly whilst Argentina may claim that, the historical details do tend to contradict that assertion as they do many aspects of what modern Argentina claims. Finally, on the English wikipedia British and Argentina editors can usually agree without rancour, please lets keep it that way. Justin talk 08:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's fair to say that nobody likes the current title, and if you have any new suggestions then I'm sure we'd all be keen to hear them.
- First of all the article is written strictly per WP:NPOV, there is not a preponderance of a British POV and we have always been open to changing the article title. No one is entirely happy with it, if it were the British POV it would be referred to as the British Return. That said a procession of editors have asserted it is biased but on each occasion have either failed to suggest a better alternative, merely asserting its biased, or in the end have agreed with it. Like I say we're open to suggestions but if you're intent on re-iterating the same one the arguments haven't changed. Justin talk 14:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- That still rather implies that violence was employed, which of course it wasn't. The word "takeover" would be perfect if it wasn't a bit too colloquial.
- "Argentine surrender"? When this was discussed before, Justin wasn't keen because the Pinedo left with his colours and weapons - Onslow was particularly keen not to humiliate Argentina - and because he was concerned that it might be interpreted as surrender of sovereignty in the sense of Gibraltar. But it might be useful to know Argentine views on this.
- The problem we have is that this was quite an unusual situation, so it's plausible that there just isn't an ideal word. The current solution is to try to avoid naming the situation and describing it instead, but again, the events rather defy brief description - we can't really call the article something really long like Events surrounding the replacement of Argentine authority with British authority on the Falkland Islands in 1833. Pfainuk talk 23:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Even if there was no battle, it was still a violent act, as things happen the way they did because of the military migth taken by the British. Extortion by intimidation is still violence. A non-violent transfer of sovereignty from Argentina to Britain would have been if the peoples in the islands made an open cabildo or other similar meeting, decide to emancipate themselves from Argentina and become instead an independent country or part of another country (which may include a petition of foreign protection). Of course, none of that is what has happened. It is said that this can't be called an invasion because there was no military action, which may make sense, an invasion is a military action to seize a territory. Then, don't use the term "invasion", which suggests a military action, but use "seize" instead. Is it incorrect in some way to say that the British seized the islands? Even if there was no military conflict, can we really said that the people in the islands changed from one country to another by their own free will, without any threating force influencing them to do so? MBelgrano (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- "A violent act" implies the use of physical force - as does "seize". In this case, there was no use of physical force. There was a polite exchange of messages. Onslow asked Pinedo to leave and Pinedo did so.
- Part of the point of this is finding a form of words that does not imply that sovereignty was transferred (thus respecting the Argentine position), only that control was transferred. Even this is a touch debatable - the real power on the islands in June 1833 lay with Vernet, Brisbane and Dickson (depending on who was present), just as in June 1832. The only real difference was the flag being raised. It wasn't until a few months after Brisbane and Dickson were killed in the Gaucho murders that the British even tried to exert any significant authority over the islands.
- The answer to your final question is that Vernet - the leader of the colony - did not particularly care what country was in control so long as his business affairs were unmolested - and they were until the Gaucho Murders. Likewise Brisbane and Dickson. The colony being a private enterprise, it was their judgement that was considered important. Pfainuk talk 07:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that this last point is not strictly accurate in implication. The general point made is correct: Vernet et al. were more interested in their business than they were in the dispute. Vernet had British permission to set up his colony and did not object to the British actions, given assurances as to his business.
- Did they change of their own free will, without threats of outside force? We can say for sure that they did continue to raise the British flag instead of the Argentine despite the absence of any British military power to enforce a change in de facto control. While the British were not going to go back and tell the Argentines they could come back had the colonists objected (something I believe I may have inadvertently implied), it was the colonists' choice to raise the British flag instead of the Argentine.
- The most important point would seem to be that this was a private settlement, not the colony of a country. It could not unreasonably be argued that for most of the period from 1828 to 1834 - including that which we discuss here - it was pretty irrelevant what flag was being raised. There was no government of the islands outside of Vernet's organisation except for a few brief periods during that time. Pfainuk talk 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"Takeover" isn't colloquial isn't it? Dentren | Talk 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is not colloquial in an economic sense (as in LAN's takeover of AIRES). But it is in a political sense (Ruritania's takeover of Elbonia). Pfainuk talk 18:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Recent edits
These seem to be based on a personal interpretation of the Nootka Conventions. We need secondary sources to show that these were intended to apply to the Falklands - all I can read here suggests that they were intended to apply only to the North-West coast of the Americas, the Falklands were not considered. David Underdown (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK I see that actually one article did apply to South America:
ARTICLE VI It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.
However, the application of that to the Falklands is still fai from clear cut, and does not invalidate the general point that we need secondary sources that directly address taht piont, rather than relying on our own interpretation. See WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. David Underdown (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Having dealt with this before, the most relevant points are:
- It is unclear that the Falklands are to be considered "adjacent" to South America. If not then the treaty is irrelevant.
- If the Falklands are taken to be "adjacent", it is unclear that Argentina is not a third party as regards the secret article of the treaty (i.e. that it is Argentina, not Spain, that is bound by the terms of the treaty). If it is a third party, then it is clear from the secret article that the relevant section of the treaty was no longer in force in 1833 as the edit implied.
- Similarly, and again assuming that the Falklands are included, it is not entirely clear that the United States did not form an establishment on the islands by the meaning of the treaty during the Lexington Raid.
- If we assume both that the Falklands are included as part of the treaty and that Argentina takes Spain's place in the treaty terms, then we must point out that in 1790, Puerto Soledad - on the north coast of East Falkland - was the southernmost Spanish settlement that we assume to be included in the terms. South of the southernmost settlement, the treaty applies to both parties equally. If Britain gave up rights, it seems plausible to suggest that Spain - and by our assumption, Argentina - did so as well.
- All of those demonstrate the issue with trying to interpret primary sources. The original edit also cited an Argentine government webpage - but of course the Argentine government is going to pick the interpretation most favourable to its POV. We can't accept that as neutral fact. Pfainuk talk 17:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- This interpretation of Nootka was first proposed by Paul Groussac in the late 1880s, prior to that it had not featured in any Spanish or Argentine considerations on the Falklands. Properly it is an Argentine interpretation relevant to the sovereignty dispute and is dealt with on the sovereignty dispute article. The official British position is that the convention has never applied to the islands and I have documents from 1791 to that effect. We have regularly seen tendentious editing to try and insert it elsewhere, which I feel should be resisted as it is attempting to impose a skewed POV on the article. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 19:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Recent edits
On the recent edit war:
It is common practice on Wikipedia articles on articles related to the Falklands dispute to mention the word Malvinas at the first reference to "Falklands", and then using Falklands for the rest of the article. This mirrors common practice in neutral outside sources that discuss the dispute, and I feel that it improves the perception of neutrality on these articles.
On the additional discussion: Curry Monster is correct that this is not immediately background to these incidents, but rather general background. In addition, I note that it puts background to the British claim but not the Argentine, which would not appear to be neutral. I have added a link to History of the Falkland Islands to help provide any further background that readers want. Pfainuk talk 18:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is not 'common practice' to include the the word Malvinas at the first reference to "Falklands" as History of the Falkland Islands shows. It is also not 'common practice' in other articles on disputed territories. This suggests that there is a general consensus to not include other names for places (disputed or otherwise). Why does this article needs this almost unique inclusion?
- On the general background, we have to explain why the British thought they were 're-establishing' their rule on the Islands, and the couple of lines I added did so. Claims on territory can have long backgrounds so just dealing with the immediate background is often not sufficient. Neutrality does not involve restating everyone's claims all the time.
Rsloch (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that neutrality requires that everyone's claims be restated - that's partly why I removed your piece. But it does require that, if the basis for one side's claims are restated, the basis for the other's should also be restated. Otherwise we appear to be backing one of the two POVs.
- It is actually pretty standard throughout articles on the Falklands to use the word Malvinas in this way. That you can find one place that misses it out does not invalidate the general rule. At least partly, this is a compromise between those who would have us ignore the Argentine claim altogether and those who insist that any neutral text must include Malvinas alongside Falklands at every instance of the word. As I say, it also mirrors neutral sources on the subject - which tend to mention Malvinas on the first instance of the word Falklands.
- There are very few parallel cases elsewhere in the world. I have not found another example where an English-speaking country and a non-English speaking country dispute a territory; where each side uses one of two entirely unrelated names for the territory and where there is no third compromise name used by neutral commentators. If the solution is unique (and based on the precedent of the Gdansk vote I'm not convinced it is), it is only because the situation is also unique. Pfainuk talk 13:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here's ten places, Battle of Mount Tumbledown, Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands, Politics of the Falkland Islands, Geology of the Falkland Islands, Rivers of the Falkland Islands, Economy of the Falkland Islands, Education in the Falkland Islands, Sport in the Falkland Islands, Transport in the Falkland Islands, Military of the Falkland Islands. I believe that I have more than adequately shown that adding the Spanish name for the Falklands is not 'standard' or 'common practice' (even within Falklands based topics) and thus should really be removed.
- I'm suggesting that there is a need to provide a reason as to why the British were re-establishing, not just establishing control over the Islands. Do you disagree with that premise or how I did it?
Rsloch (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- What do articles such as Transport in the Falkland Islands, Education in the Falkland Islands or Rivers of the Falkland Islands have to do with the dispute?
- I don't think we need to go into vast quantities of detail about the previous history of the islands. I also don't think that it's neutral to put one side's arguments without putting other side's, and feel that the way it was written did not flow at all well. Pfainuk talk 18:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I substantially wrote both the Timeline and History articles, I have now re-added the Spanish names as I hadn't noticed they'd been removed. It has been common practise for quite some time but unfortunately various editors motivated by rather blind nationalism keep removing it. I don't catch them all. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- They show that your previous assertions were false.
- One and a half lines is hardly 'vast quantities of detail' but it is necessary.
- I've made my points but as you two are clearly unwilling to listen this discussion is closed.
Rsloch (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't show anything of the sort. As I made perfectly clear, my point is that such usage is common on "articles related to the Falklands dispute". Search for that phrase and you'll find that I put it in the first sentence of my first edit in this section.
"Re-establishment"?
If this was the re-establishment of the British rule, when was the first one? In other words, when did the British first established their rule over the Falkland Islands? --Langus (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- 1766, Port Egmont, West Falkland. Known verifiable historic fact. Before complaining about the name, see the discussions above. And note no one is interested in further semantic arguments, since the name is a compromise no one is happy with, so if you can come up with a better NPOV suggestion people will be interested. However, if you intention is to reprise pre-existing arguments no one is likely to listen. Similarly accusations of bias will simply fall on deaf ears. Further for the record, that is not a presumption of bad faith, more a reflection of bitter experience on this article. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Easy, tiger. You're quite right: Port Egemont, West Falkland. But the article title refers to the Falklands as a whole. If there was no "British rule over the Falkland Islands" before 1833, then this was in fact the "establishment" of British rule, not the "re-establishment". "Ruling" refers to 'the exercise of authority or control'[1], and looking at the timeline of permanence in the Falkland Islands, I don't see a period prior to 1833 in which the British were the only settlers:
- This is the reason for the choice of preposition. Not rule over the Falklands as a whole but rule on the Falklands. I think you could credibly argue that none of the early settlements had control over every part of the islands (except by default).
- As Curry Monster notes, the status quo is the least bad option at the moment: I don't think anyone is outright happy with it. If you have better suggestions, I think we'd all like to hear them - though it's probably worth looking over previous discussions first. Pfainuk talk 06:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Langus, this has been noted previously and as Pfainuk notes above the preposition was chosen carefully. You're reprising an old argument and starting down the path of arguing semantics. I will have little patience if you're simply going to go down the same route as previously. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Langus in full right to rise questions again, "consensus" generated by the guardians of the article can be challenged in any movement and the phrase of "reprising an old argument" is a very weak argument. In fact if ones goes back to those discussions one can find repeatedly that some users (Mariano, Dentren and others) are not happy with the current name albeit their lack of persistence and collaboration (perhaps due to sporadic activity in the English wiki) have lead Pfainuk, Narson, Justin & Co. to win the battles not by argument but by persistence (just see who made the last comments in each discussion). Chiton magnificus (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NPA Please do not raise tensions on the article unnecessarily by resorting to personal attacks. This comment is completely unaccetpable and if repeated I will take this straight to WP:ANI, you may consider this a warning of future intent. All 3 of the editors you just named have indicated a willingness to compromise. Editing in controversial areas requires a cool head and this is just completely unacceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- And it may have escaped your notice sunshine, that nobody is happy with the current name. Its a compromise. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, but I don't consider my comments personal attacks. I will assume you made them on good faith. Chiton magnificus (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I consider win the battles not by argument but by persistence is a clear personal attack. We earnestly engaged to find a solution, despite the provocation of being accused of bias. Your comments are out of place. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- win the battles not by argument but by persistence is no personal attack. I'm actually sort of tired of what I would call the "hypochondriac personal attack infectious disease" or "HPAID" that goes around in wikipedia. I don't blame you, I just ask you to think. Chiton magnificus (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- How about you think before posting and then not making it worse by accusing other of HPAID? If in a hole stop digging. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I knew this sórt of comment was comming. But I still stand but what I have said: that I consider that some users here have won discussions not by argument but by persistence and that I'm actually sort of tired of what I would call HPAID. Let's now discuss more interesting thing than revolve in a circular logic. Chiton magnificus (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- And you keep on digging, your remarks are out of place and uncivil; repeating them is more than unhelpful. Decisions were made solely on the basis of the strength of the argument nothing more. If you don't like them, then frankly tough, there was nothing to stop or deter anyone's participation. Frankly I resent the implication that there was. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody is digging. Please stop your baseless accusations and desist from future ones. I'm just asserting I haven't done or said nothing wrong. Wee Curry's your comment "I consider win the battles not by argument but by persistence is a clear personal attack" does not fit the description of WP:NPA, but accusations towards me falls under the WP:NPA were it says "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." are personal attacks: I waited and desisted in the begining to poit this out because I'm critic to the way poeple resort to WP:NPA for very small things (yes I try to not catch HPAID), but now I point this out to you, just so you think that it is not the best way of solve things to do random WP:NPA accusations as it might hit yourself back. Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have taken this to WP:WQA, it seems better to discuss it there rather than needlessly clutter this page. Do you need a templated notice on your talk page? Wee Curry Monster talk
- You see? WP:WQA was a waste of time, didn't even had to defend myself there. I have done nothing wrong. win the battles not by argument but by persistence is not a personal attack and neither HPAID. Please desist from more futile accusations against me. It's not my fault I'm Argentine. Chiton magnificus (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see the comment about not cluttering up the page passed you by. Nobody is fighting any battles here and there was no argument, a consensus was reached by discussion, your comments were a personal attack and an example of a WP:BATTLE mentality, which I don't share. I don't care about your nationality as I count several Argentine editors as friends. You are welcome to have the last word. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your claims of personal attacks seems to have been rejected in WP:WQA, so will you please stop accusing me of those things here? This is not the place to do so. Continue your issue on that on WP:WQA and not here. Chiton magnificus (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see the comment about not cluttering up the page passed you by. Nobody is fighting any battles here and there was no argument, a consensus was reached by discussion, your comments were a personal attack and an example of a WP:BATTLE mentality, which I don't share. I don't care about your nationality as I count several Argentine editors as friends. You are welcome to have the last word. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You see? WP:WQA was a waste of time, didn't even had to defend myself there. I have done nothing wrong. win the battles not by argument but by persistence is not a personal attack and neither HPAID. Please desist from more futile accusations against me. It's not my fault I'm Argentine. Chiton magnificus (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have taken this to WP:WQA, it seems better to discuss it there rather than needlessly clutter this page. Do you need a templated notice on your talk page? Wee Curry Monster talk
- Nobody is digging. Please stop your baseless accusations and desist from future ones. I'm just asserting I haven't done or said nothing wrong. Wee Curry's your comment "I consider win the battles not by argument but by persistence is a clear personal attack" does not fit the description of WP:NPA, but accusations towards me falls under the WP:NPA were it says "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." are personal attacks: I waited and desisted in the begining to poit this out because I'm critic to the way poeple resort to WP:NPA for very small things (yes I try to not catch HPAID), but now I point this out to you, just so you think that it is not the best way of solve things to do random WP:NPA accusations as it might hit yourself back. Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- And you keep on digging, your remarks are out of place and uncivil; repeating them is more than unhelpful. Decisions were made solely on the basis of the strength of the argument nothing more. If you don't like them, then frankly tough, there was nothing to stop or deter anyone's participation. Frankly I resent the implication that there was. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I knew this sórt of comment was comming. But I still stand but what I have said: that I consider that some users here have won discussions not by argument but by persistence and that I'm actually sort of tired of what I would call HPAID. Let's now discuss more interesting thing than revolve in a circular logic. Chiton magnificus (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- How about you think before posting and then not making it worse by accusing other of HPAID? If in a hole stop digging. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- win the battles not by argument but by persistence is no personal attack. I'm actually sort of tired of what I would call the "hypochondriac personal attack infectious disease" or "HPAID" that goes around in wikipedia. I don't blame you, I just ask you to think. Chiton magnificus (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I consider win the battles not by argument but by persistence is a clear personal attack. We earnestly engaged to find a solution, despite the provocation of being accused of bias. Your comments are out of place. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, but I don't consider my comments personal attacks. I will assume you made them on good faith. Chiton magnificus (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1833 establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands
I like to discuss if any here finds the title: 1833 establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands good for this page or not. Chiton magnificus (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- This proposal was already suggested above, you'll find that neither I nor Pfainuk had any significant opposition to it. In fact I believe it was Pfainuk who proposed it. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- "No opposition".. can you clarify Wee Curry which title you prefer 1833 establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands or Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands? Chiton magnificus (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have no particular preference either way, though the prefix "Re" acknowledges the pre-existing settlement of Port Egmont. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- And on reflection I would now prefer it stays the way it is. I now oppose changing it. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- How was your reflection? In between your change of opion in between less than 23 hours you accused me to the Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance for supposed attacks and had to know I'm Argentine. Remember to not get personal. Chiton magnificus (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I went back and looked at the earlier dicussions, noting that "Re" reflects there was an earlier settlement and avoids confusion with the settlement at Port Egmont. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- But a shorter title does not deny that "fact". There is a limit on how much information a title can contain, I guess nobody would agree with a title like Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands by James Onslow.. which is sort of correct but not short enought. I think, in that in matters of "title wording economy" its preferable to include the year 1833 in the title than the prefix "re". Chiton magnificus (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, originally it had both the "re-" and the year. It's not an either-or thing. The year was removed last year as unneeded disambiguation. I reverted it once at the time - but then decided it wasn't worth the hassle. I prefer the version with both. Pfainuk talk 18:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the need to add a year personally, it was a singular but one off event. Most events of this nature wouldn't require a year. The prefix and preposition offer the least of a bad bunch. IMHO Wee Curry Monster talk 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, originally it had both the "re-" and the year. It's not an either-or thing. The year was removed last year as unneeded disambiguation. I reverted it once at the time - but then decided it wasn't worth the hassle. I prefer the version with both. Pfainuk talk 18:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- But a shorter title does not deny that "fact". There is a limit on how much information a title can contain, I guess nobody would agree with a title like Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands by James Onslow.. which is sort of correct but not short enought. I think, in that in matters of "title wording economy" its preferable to include the year 1833 in the title than the prefix "re". Chiton magnificus (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I went back and looked at the earlier dicussions, noting that "Re" reflects there was an earlier settlement and avoids confusion with the settlement at Port Egmont. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- How was your reflection? In between your change of opion in between less than 23 hours you accused me to the Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance for supposed attacks and had to know I'm Argentine. Remember to not get personal. Chiton magnificus (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- And on reflection I would now prefer it stays the way it is. I now oppose changing it. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have no particular preference either way, though the prefix "Re" acknowledges the pre-existing settlement of Port Egmont. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- "No opposition".. can you clarify Wee Curry which title you prefer 1833 establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands or Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands? Chiton magnificus (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Rehash of previous proposals/discussions
As requested at the WP:WQA, I thought it would be useful to detail previous discussions and proposals here:
- 1833 British return to the Falkland Islands
- Common name in British-biased literature. POV/inaccurate in that it fails to acknowledge the pre-1833 settlement.
- 1833 British invasion of the Falkland Islands
- Common name in Argentine-biased literature. POV/inaccurate in that it implies use of military force, when what happened in fact was a polite exchange of messages. Draws a false parallel with the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands (in which a fair bit of fighting took place).
- 1833 British occupation of the Falkland Islands
- Inaccurate in that nothing that could plausibly be described as an "occupation" happened on the islands in 1833 (in that the British didn't actually leave any military personnel or civilian government, nor any colonists beyond those already present on the islands). It was also argued that it implied illegitimacy and was thus POV.
- 1833 Argentine surrender of the Falkland Islands
- Inaccurate in that Onslow made great effort to avoid a formal surrender (because he did not want to humiliate Argentina). Pinedo left with his arms and colours. Concern was raised that it implied surrender of sovereignty and was thus POV.
- 1833 Re-assertion of British sovereignty on the Falkland Islands
- Former name of this article. Concern was raised that the use of the word "sovereignty" in this context implied legitimacy and was thus POV.
- 1833 British takeover of the Falkland Islands
- Rejected as overly colloquial.
- History of the Falkland Islands (1826–1834)
- Concern was that this might imply a series of articles, where few other periods of Falklands history are likely to be as notable. Implies a different article scope (this may or may not be a bad thing).
- (Re-)installation of British rule on the Falkland Islands
- Considered no better than the current title. The (Re-) bit is the same as elsewhere.
- (Re-)establishment of British administration on the Falkland Islands
- Considered no better than the current title. The (Re-) bit is the same as elsewhere.
- Establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands
- Rejected as implying that there was no British settlement on the islands prior to 1833.
- Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands
- Current title. Not actively liked by anyone - it's very clunky - but accepted as the best of a bad bunch.
You should be able to find all of these above. Not necessarily exactly: some may use "Falklands" instead of "Falkland Islands"; some may include or exclude the date, or put it in different places; some may include or exclude one or other of the words "British" or "Argentine". And there may be some variations on a theme that share the drawbacks described (e.g. I've lumped in "occupation" options with 1833 British occupation of the Falkland Islands). Pfainuk talk 18:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- And I add Chiton's proposal, which I like:
- 1833 establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands
- Pfainuk, I understand your point about the 'on' preposition, but still I think it may be misunderstood by the reader. I'll try to explain myself by example:
- Hu Jintao's rule on Asia
- Arnold Schwarzenegger's rule on the US (I had to copy-paste that)
- Rule of Alexander The Great on the world
- While they're all correct in the sense that "on" refers to a part inside it, I don't think it's appropriate to use it in that way, especially in an article title. Using "establishment" instead of "re-establishment" eliminates this issue.
- Regards. --Langus (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- 1883?....see anyone can make a mistake, perhaps I should have berated you for it [2].
- I don't get your examples at all and the point you're trying to make isn't apparent. Especially as the title you're proposing contains the same preposition. Also as I said above the prefix "Re" is important as there was a previous settlement.
- Secondly why do we need the year for a one off event, Battle of Agincourt, Battle of Arnhem for example don't need them but for incidents where many share the same name you might eg Bloody Sunday. We'd normally add a year for disambiguation purposes. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have corrected it now. Yes, we all make mistakes, and I know yours there was an honest mistake.
- You have to read my comments in previous section to fully understand my point. "Establishment of British rule over the Falkland Islands" would be better perhaps. Note the 'over' preposition.
- Regards. --Langus (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have read both your comments and the above examples and TBH I really don't understand your point at all. I still have a preference for the current title over this suggestion as the current title acknowledges the previous settlement. As you propose it, it would appear they simply turned up in 1833 having never been there. Sorry though I don't particularly like the current title it seems better than what you're proposing. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I really can't see how "Establishment of British rule over the Falkland Islands" imply that they've never been there before. It doesn't "acknowledge" a lot of things, but it's just a title. Why do we need to refer to the settlement on Port Egmont? (not any previous ruling over the Falklands, but just over a part of it)
- I summarize my point: current title, if not analyzed carefully, gives the impression that there was a previous ruling over the Falklands. If I say "the rule of Sarah Palin on the US"... would you guess that I was talking only about a state? That was my point with the examples. Even if a careful reader notes the distinction, he/she has no clue about where exactly in the Islands was the previous ruling. It is better to have a more clear title, like saying "establishment over" or "1833 establishment on/over".
- Regards. --Langus (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why do we need to refer to a previous settlement? Perhaps because there was one, further contrary to the popularly perpetuated myth of the British absence from the Falkland Islands, there was a virtually continuous presence of sealers and whalers throughout that time. Whilst authority was absent it was re-established in 1833.
- As to your second point, I am unsure whether it is simply a language confusion but the sentences you use bear no relation to the use of that preposition in the English language. So whatever point you're trying to make is either invalid or the result of your misunderstanding of language usage. I make the point again there was a previous establishment of British authority on the Falkland Islands so I disagree that it is misleading.
- Again I make the point we would only typically include the year for disambiguation purposes and it is unnecessary in this case. Perhaps you may care to respond to that, instead of apparently ignoring it. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, although I think that including the year can be useful in some cases, even when no disambiguation is needed, to fix the event in the mind's eye. In this case, the date is one of the points that in general is best-known about this event. I think it's useful (though not essential) to put it in the title.
- I would note that the use of prepositions is quite a complex part of English grammar. In this context the choice of preposition is confusing because you can use "on" with some kinds of geographical features but not others. Islands, peninsulas, archipelagos, yes. Countries, continents or the world, no. You might legitimately refer to "Portuguese rule on Timor" or "Swedish rule on the Scandinavian Peninsula" - but "Sarah Palin's rule on the United States" simply doesn't make sense.
- The fact that the current title relies on the subtleties of an English preposition for its accuracy is one of the reasons why I don't like it. As I've said before, I think we all agree that it's a bad title. However, I do not believe that this issue would be alleviated be switching to "Establishment of British rule over the Falkland Islands", with or without the year. Pfainuk talk 09:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- By focusing on the (gross) grammar errors of my examples you're missing the point. Pfainuk, you say that the preposition 'on' is what justifies the "Re-" prefix, because 'on' doesn't necessarily mean that the previous ruling was over the Falklands as a whole, and that in fact it was over a part of it. Am I following you? If so, what I'm trying to expose here is that such use is not appropriate. Maybe "The rule of Sarah Palin in the US" could sound like English? It's not the same preposition but it's used equivalently, and the expression has the same problem I'm talking about.
- @WCM: "Perhaps because there was one" is not good enough. I believe that what you're trying to say is that it's relevant because it highlights the fact that there was a previous British settlement. To me, that's no different than "British return to the Falkland Islands". The purpose of an article name is just to identify it, not to make any point.
- Regarding the inclusion of the year, I could point out that after the Falklands War the British established once again their rule, so "Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands" could refer to events in 1982. Or it could also refer to January 1771: see Falkland Crisis (1770) and the timeline above. I concur here with Pfainuk in that the year and the place is what most commonly identifies this event. If I were to google it, I would certainly search for "+1833 +falklands". Because of naturalness and precision, I see now that the year should be included.
- If you don't like this title, then this is a chance to improve it.
- Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Langus, no that isn't what he is saying at all. The examples you constructed to attempt to show this is non-neutral are not relevant because that is not how the preposition "on" is used in the English language. The preposition is not used equivalently, it just isn't used in the manner you did. Again I make the point I don't know whether this is simply a language confusion but your habit of repeating the same argument after something has been patiently explained to you is rather irritating.
- That there exists a pre-existing settlement is relevant, the purpose of the title is to acknowledge that, not to make any particular point. As to the inclusion of a year, I consider it unnecessary. The actual date is in December 1832, when the Tyne and Clio arrived at Port Egmont btw. If you want to propose a new name by all means do so but constantly trying to argue for a name that has been rejected is not the way to go about it, all that does is harden attitudes against it. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to hear the opinion of Pfainuk and Langus on adding the year (1833) to the article name. 1833 is much more valuable in the title than the prefix "Re" which might be wrongly intrepted as if the British had undisputed sovereignty over the islands before or as if the British had de facto control over the islands before. These potential misinterpretations apart from confusing the reader might also lead to lower the level of stability of the article, which is an over-all problen in Falkland articles. Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- The preposition "on" is used for multiple reasons, specifically one is to avoid any question of claims of undisputed sovereignty or de facto control. Allegations of "potential misinterpretations" and "confusing the readers" are red herrings in that respect. The only real problems I see in Falklands articles relate to POV pushing by both British and Argentine nationalists seeking to turn wikipedia into a battleground. I will repeat, if you have a suggestion for improvement then make it. The current suggestions of Establishment of British rule over the Falkland Islands is rejected because it ignores the earlier settlement and the prepostion over is misleading as British rule over the islands was actually established much later. Addressing the problems with the suggestion would be more productive than continuing to argue in its favour as consensus requires compromise. As to the year, I see it as unnecessary but if you must have a year 1832 is more accurate as the British ships arrived in 1832, only a month later did they act to request the Argentine garrison to leave. I would just point out that wikipedia's policies would prefer British return to the Falkland Islands, since that is the WP:COMMON NAME in the English language. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Consider falling back on reliable sources. For example in Darwin C., (1860) A Naturalist's Voyage Round the World. Chap. IV p. 199, Darwin uses the words "After the possession of these miserable islands ..." and "England claimed her right an [sic] seized [the Falkland Islands]"—my emphasis—perhaps a title such as Claimed possession of the Falkland Islands by Britain in 1833? I accept that Darwin was not an authority on this direct matter. However, perhaps we could use the same principle of finding a different suitable source for this obviously contentious name --Senra (Talk) 15:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Britain claimed possession of the Falkland Islands in 1690, with the expedition led by John Strong. Try Mary Cawkell, A History of the Falklands, or Ian J. Strange, The Falkland Islands, or even online sources [3], my suggestion British Reoccupation of the Falkland Islands, 1832. Wee Curry Monster talk
- "Occupation" refers to possession over the the land in question. Therefore British reoccupation is only correct if there was a previous control over that area.
- The Argentine garrison left the islands in 1833, so I'd say this year is the one of the British establishment/occupation/possession etc.
- Senra's advice makes a lot of sense. "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles: the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable". From WP:TITLE. --Langus (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- But per Senra's advice, its a title stemming from a WP:RS, and the British arrived in December 1832, so your suggestion is both inaccurate and doesn't reflect what the sources say. Similarly British return to the Falkland Islands comes from a WP:RS. And this is the WP:COMMON NAME in the English Language. So now my suggestion is British return to the Falkland Islands, 1832. Lets see, its similar to titles in reliable sources, precisely identifies the subject, its shorter, natural and recognisable per WP:TITLE. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that alternatives involving the word "occupation" are appropriate because that word doesn't really describe events. Everyone on the islands immediately after January 1833 had already been there before December 1832: no new "occupation" occurred.
- The standard objection to British return to the Falkland Islands is that it is the British-biased term and doesn't adequately acknowledge the existence of the Argentine settlement. And I'm not convinced that it's common enough to make it the WP:COMMONNAME (though I could be persuaded).
- On the year, I would suggest that the date near-universally cited for the British takeover is 1833 (indeed, sometimes these events are only acknowledged as something like "since 1833") so it would seem odd for us to use another date - particularly when the argument for the rest of the title is WP:COMMONNAME. Pfainuk talk 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the point in mentioning 1832 is that the commonly accepted date is not necessarily correct. The squadron arrived in 1832, so stating 1832 or 1833 in the title is going to be misleading in one way or another. Is there an actual need to mention a year in the title - the dates are in the article after all, which makes it much clearer. Today I correct the lede as it had the date completely wrong.
- I'm open to new suggestions but again we see a situation where it is alleged there are neutrality problems with the current title but little in the way of concrete suggestions and any other suggestion made is rejected. We've been here before. I don't happen to like the current title but it was a compromise all were prepared to accept at the time. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- On the year, I would suggest that the date near-universally cited for the British takeover is 1833 (indeed, sometimes these events are only acknowledged as something like "since 1833") so it would seem odd for us to use another date - particularly when the argument for the rest of the title is WP:COMMONNAME. Pfainuk talk 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree.
- How about History of the Falkland Islands (1826-34) or something similar? I think I objected to it before, but on listing them it occurred to me that of all the titles proposed, this one has the least convincing objection. It means a bit of a rewrite of the article for a new scope, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea: one of the significant factors here is that, despite the fact that it's often portrayed as a single isolated incident, the change of flags was just one of a series of events over a period of several years that marked a transition from no de facto control to Vernet's colony to coming under the control of a British governor.
- On other articles, I'd suggest we use verb phrases - for example, where Falkland Islands currently says, [e]ver since the re-establishment of British rule in 1833..., this could be changed to [e]ver since Britain took control of the islands in 1832-3...'. Pfainuk talk 21:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Would it help us to suggest that if anyone claims WP:RS for a new title they should be required to justify that claim? They could cite and quote one (or more) sources as I did when citing and quoting Darwin above. Not all of us are as familiar with these sources as you all are --Senra (Talk) 15:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- British Colonization of the Falkland Islands 1832? on the basis that the citation uses "Colonization" in its own title and also incidentally uses "possess" and "reoccupation". Source: Gough, Barry M (1990). "The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843". Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. 22 (2): 261–287. Retrieved 27 October 2011.. That article also suggests that the fundamental work on this topic is Ferns, Henry S (1960). Britain and Argentina in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford. pp. 224–233. --Senra (Talk) 21:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't work, the decision to colonise the islands was made in 1841, we're talking about the events of 1832-1833. Colonisation started in 1843. During the period 1833-1843, the colony consisted almost exclusively of the people left by Vernet. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- British reoccupation of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)
- I have just obtained a copy of the Gough (1990) paper and it is making very interesting reading. The paper cites 97 sources! Expect me to pop back here with some comments after I have read it. In the meantime, I am beginning to favour British reoccupation of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834). I do understand the emotion that the word "reoccupation" evokes but for me, the fact that a paper which cites 97 references uses such a word makes it very WP:RS and thus very defensible --Senra (Talk) 23:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't object to that title, the objection will be that it is favouring the British POV, Mary Cawkell's referencing is impeccable (considerably more than 97), yet we had the same objection to the title used in her work. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, the word "reoccupation" is bound to be emotive. However, for any title, if we all work hard to carefully cite one (or more) references to support any given title, we should get somewhere. I don't have Mary Cawkell. Does her work support this title? If so, can you quote a supporting passage from it? --Senra (Talk) 08:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- [4] Falklands.info is a useful resource and based largely on her work. In the 1960 edition of her book, Cawkell simply calls the Chapter "A period of many changes", in the 1983 short history she calls it the "British repossession", Gusafson simply calls it "The incident of 1833", Goebel simply refers to the British taking possession of the islands. WP:RS support repossession or reoccupation. I will be adding bits'n'pieces shortly. Any particular passages you'd like to see? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, the word "reoccupation" is bound to be emotive. However, for any title, if we all work hard to carefully cite one (or more) references to support any given title, we should get somewhere. I don't have Mary Cawkell. Does her work support this title? If so, can you quote a supporting passage from it? --Senra (Talk) 08:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't object to that title, the objection will be that it is favouring the British POV, Mary Cawkell's referencing is impeccable (considerably more than 97), yet we had the same objection to the title used in her work. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have just obtained a copy of the Gough (1990) paper and it is making very interesting reading. The paper cites 97 sources! Expect me to pop back here with some comments after I have read it. In the meantime, I am beginning to favour British reoccupation of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834). I do understand the emotion that the word "reoccupation" evokes but for me, the fact that a paper which cites 97 references uses such a word makes it very WP:RS and thus very defensible --Senra (Talk) 23:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- This period (1832–1834) is indeed turbulent. Gough (1990) p. 264 relates the narrative of the then Captain Robert FitzRoy who commanded the southern coasts of South America survey on the HMS Beagle between 1831–1836. FitzRoy (Gough 1990 p. 267), or his Admiralty ghost writers, records his uncertainty with this query: "One may pause to consider what nation is at this moment the legitimate owner of the Falklands"? FitzRoy goes on to discuss the previous history concluding that "Spaniards neither discovered, landed upon, nor settled in the Falklands before Englishmen; and their only claim rests upon the unstable foundation of a papal bull, by virtue of which Spain might just as well claim Otaheite, the Sandwich Islands, or New Zealand". I think I should point out that I am not making a judgement here nor am I trying to deliberately bait. On the contrary, I am simply reporting one source which (IMHO) is reliable. I accept that other sources exist. If I was editing the article, I would also want to assure myself of the reliability of Falklands.info as a source, perhaps via the reliable sources noticeboard?—sorry WCM :(. I did notice in passing that there were some unreferenced sections in the article. Incidentally, I do not intend to edit the article, as I am only here to try to help reduce the tension --Senra (Talk) 12:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Check the archives at WP:RSN I believe it already has been. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry. I can't find it. Checked WP:RSN using the search term "falkland" which resulted in six results: three of those seem relevant (Falkland Islands, Official sources and Another WP:SPS regarding Falkland Islands); none ask directly whether Falklands.info is WP:RS or not. This is not a big issue for our discussions on the title unless Falklands.info is being used as one of the reliable sources justifying a specific title suggestion --Senra (Talk) 16:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Check the archives at WP:RSN I believe it already has been. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- This period (1832–1834) is indeed turbulent. Gough (1990) p. 264 relates the narrative of the then Captain Robert FitzRoy who commanded the southern coasts of South America survey on the HMS Beagle between 1831–1836. FitzRoy (Gough 1990 p. 267), or his Admiralty ghost writers, records his uncertainty with this query: "One may pause to consider what nation is at this moment the legitimate owner of the Falklands"? FitzRoy goes on to discuss the previous history concluding that "Spaniards neither discovered, landed upon, nor settled in the Falklands before Englishmen; and their only claim rests upon the unstable foundation of a papal bull, by virtue of which Spain might just as well claim Otaheite, the Sandwich Islands, or New Zealand". I think I should point out that I am not making a judgement here nor am I trying to deliberately bait. On the contrary, I am simply reporting one source which (IMHO) is reliable. I accept that other sources exist. If I was editing the article, I would also want to assure myself of the reliability of Falklands.info as a source, perhaps via the reliable sources noticeboard?—sorry WCM :(. I did notice in passing that there were some unreferenced sections in the article. Incidentally, I do not intend to edit the article, as I am only here to try to help reduce the tension --Senra (Talk) 12:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
OK. Well for now I'm liking your suggestion based on Gough, the year range is a better idea that simply putting 1833 there, since it doesn't pin this to one event. Tbere were a number of events that lead to the installation of the first British resident. These include the despatch of the squadran, the incident at Port Louis, the Beagle visit and the Gaucho murders and finally as a result of the murders the installation of the resident. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- British occupation of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)
- A more accurate way of naming the events, if you ask me (reoccupation of the Falklands makes no sense, as there was always a French/Spanish settlement on the islands). It is used by what seems to be reliable sources in:
- Peaceful Territorial Change (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), by Arie Marcelo Kacowicz.
- Toward resolution?: the Falklands/Malvinas dispute (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1991), by Wayne S Smith.
- The sovereignty dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands (Oxford University Press, 1988), by Lowell S. Gustafson
- ...and probably more. Regards. --Langus (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am certainly liking your approach. Finding references strengthens the case for this title. I do nit-pick your sources slightly in that they are all after 1982 and thus will have a post-war bias. Is there no pre-1982 sources or better yet, sources closer to 1832–1834?
- I prefer the version with the prefix "Re", it acknowledges there was a previous settlement, without the prefix it has POV problems to my mind in not acknowledging that previous settlement. Also nit picking I don't see any page numbers in those references. And as I have a copy of Gustafson, he simply calls it the "Incident of 1833", so I don't see it as supporting your edit at all. The critical pages in the Google books reference for Wayne Smith are missing from Google Books, so I would like to see a quote please. And Kacowicz would support both proposals if you read the text. Noting that Gough is an American RS and treats the subject in a neutral manner, I would be keen to see we use his title. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear Langus-TxT (talk · contribs). Nit-pick in my mind means minor point. I applaud your selection of three sources, to my one. My own source, (Gough 1990) was also post-1982, so I really should not nit-pick you at all. I just feel, on reflection, that sources closer to the actual event would stand up to future scrutiny better. All of us want this title to be resolved once and for all --Senra (Talk) 11:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer the version with the prefix "Re", it acknowledges there was a previous settlement, without the prefix it has POV problems to my mind in not acknowledging that previous settlement. Also nit picking I don't see any page numbers in those references. And as I have a copy of Gustafson, he simply calls it the "Incident of 1833", so I don't see it as supporting your edit at all. The critical pages in the Google books reference for Wayne Smith are missing from Google Books, so I would like to see a quote please. And Kacowicz would support both proposals if you read the text. Noting that Gough is an American RS and treats the subject in a neutral manner, I would be keen to see we use his title. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I am looking through books with a date range 1850-1981 (starting later to avoid primary sources) with preview or full view only through Google Books (thus biasing the sample toward 19th century texts), and I find that it is most common to describe the incident using a verbal phrase, such as:
“ | ...and more recently the government of Buenos Ayres established a colony at Port Louis, on the island of East Falkland. But this was surrendered to the English in 1833,... | ” |
(William Hughes, A manual of European geography, 1856, p609)
“ | Meanwhile the government of Buenos Aires had formed a settlement at Port Louis in 1823, but Great Britain asserted its rights, and the colony was given up to the English in 1833. | ” |
(C. Knight, Penny cyclopaedia of the Society for the diffusion of useful knowledge: Supplement, Volume 1, 1851, p565)
“ | ...till 1774, when they were for a time abandoned, and finally, after a temporary occupation by the Argentine Republic, the Falklands were, in 1833, taken possession of by the British government for the protection of the Whale Fishery, and a Governor placed there. | ” |
(Arthur Mills, Colonial constitutions: an outline of the constitutional history and existing government of the British dependencies, 1856, p286)
For most of this period, the Falklands were fairly obscure. During the nineteenth century they were just another, fairly minor, British territory in a world where Britain controlled 20% of the world's landmass. In population terms, they didn't register at all. Hence several basic errors in the above quotes. Where there was interest, it seems to have been in the islands' role as a strategic stop on the route around Cape Horn. Aside for a First World War naval battle, this obscurity in British eyes remained in place pretty much until the war of 1982.
I remain very much unconvinced about using "occupation". I am concerned that it can imply a military occupation (which would be inaccurate) and thus illegitimacy (which would be POV). Even if we don't accept this implication, the point is still inaccurate with respect to 1833, as no additional British personnel were landed on the islands. Even during 1834-41, I note Governor Rennie's description. Having just described how the colony was "taken possession of by England", he notes that the British "possession" was:
“ | ...limited to an officer with a boat's crew in charge of the flag up to 1841... | ” |
(taken from p56 of The United service magazine: with which are incorporated the Army and navy magazine and Naval and military journal, Part 1, Colburn, 1850). Pfainuk talk 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Analysis of the word possession (actually search of possess) within this page by occurence
- 86.16.117.32 (talk · contribs) 23 Jan 2007 possession (one) should replace invasion but rejected by 212.120.228.121 (talk · contribs) 2 Jan 2008 in favour of reoccupation
- Senra (talk · contribs) 26 October 2011 Darwin (1860) used the word possession so Claimed possession of the Falkland Islands by Britain in 1833? suggested and accepted by Langus (talk · contribs) (tut tut I mean Langus-TxT (talk · contribs)) 26 Oct 2011 but rejected by Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs) 26 October 2011 on the basis that possession claimed by Britain in 1690. See also [5], [6]
- Senra (talk · contribs) 27 Oct 2011 occupation in the context of suggesting British Colonization of the Falkland Islands 1832 cited by Gough (1990) but possession and reoccupation also mentioned in the same paper (in the context of the 1832-1834 timeframe)
- Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs) 28 Oct 2011 Cawkell (1983) calls the period British repossession and Goebel (?) calls it British taking repossession
- all leading to possession though due to 1690 possession (i.e. the plaque) we have ...
- ...British repossession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)?
- Support Again I can support that as a title, supported by multiple RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, but kudos on the progress! I disagree in that the 1690 event was a claim of possession, not actually a real one in the sense of having something into control, which to my mind is the core aspect of these events. Also, Port Egmont can't account as a "possession of the F.I" for obvious reasons, so it can't be a repossession even having that in mind. This would be actually the first British possession of the islands. I concur then with sources calling them a 'possession' or 'occupation'. How about "British possession of the Falkland Islands (1832-1834)"? --Langus (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree some progress seems to be occurring. I would like to propose that this is split off into a new section with the current two titles (British repossession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834) and British possession of the Falkland Islands (1832-1834)) plus an introduction that requests that any suppor should be backed up by one or more citations. I make this proposal because using citations seems to have got us this far :) Erm, I became bold and put the two new sections below anyway :) (I considered re-factoring to move the two above comments into the relevant sections but decided against it—that would be too bold) --Senra (Talk) 17:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Which title do you prefer?
It is proposed to rename the current article: Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. There are currently two titles being suggested differing only whether re is prepended to possession—see #1 and #2 below. If you support one of these titles, please take the time to cite and quote your source(s). Use {{cite}} in full for a citation that has not appeared in this thread before or use the shorter form author (year) if it has. If your support can additionally be reinforced by (a) short quotation(s) from the citation(s), all the better. If you support neither, please cast your oppose below this introduction but above the first title suggestion, stating the reason for your oppose --Senra (Talk) 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Added #3 Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands to be clear to any passing uninvolved editors --Senra (Talk) 13:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
#1 British repossession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)
- Accept For the simple reason it acknowledges earlier settlement. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- As an aside, noting Pfainuk's point below, I feel this is better as it doesn't imply possession over a time period. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Accept. I don't think I can support it outright because I am concerned about the inaccurate alternative meaning of repossession, but I will accept it as a way forward given use by Cawkell. Pfainuk talk 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- support for the following narrowly researched reasons
- OED "repossess, v. 1.a. To recover or regain possession of (a thing); to seize or occupy again (a place). Also fig."
- Darwin, Charles (1913) [1860], A Naturalist's Voyage Round the World, London: John Murray, p. 199, retrieved 1 November 2011
{{citation}}
: Unknown parameter|Edition=
ignored (|edition=
suggested) (help) "After the [prior] possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Ayres then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right an[d] seized them"—Note that I would contend that this 1860 writing of the word sieze (OED etym. 1290) compares well with the more recent term repossess (OED etym. 1513) - Gough, Barry M (1990). "The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843". Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. 22 (2): 261–287. Retrieved 27 October 2011.—due to reoccupation in the title
- Gough (1990) p. 261 "In December 1832 and January 1833 the British reoccupied the Falkland Islands or the Malvina"
- Gough (1990) p. 262 quoting Langenheim, Gómez A (1934), La Tecera Invasión Inglesa, Buenos Aires
{{citation}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) "... one Argentine historian has called the recoccupation 'the third English invasion,' in reference to two previous occupations by the British in 1765 and 1771." - Gough (1990) p. 267 quoting Captain FitzRoy of the Beagle, " ... when he anchored in Berkeley Sound [1831]. 'One may pause to consider,' he wrote, 'what nation is at this moment the legitimate owner of the Falklands. Do the discovery, prior occupation, and settlement of new and uninhabited countries give a right to possession?"
- OED "Occupation n. 1. a. The action of taking or maintaining possession or control of a country, building, land, etc., esp. by (military) force; an instance of this; the period of such action; (also) the state of being subject to such action"
- Note: Gough (1990) is more generally based on British documents although he seems to have sourced Argentinian documents too
- Note: Of course I have left myself open to being accused of selectively choosing my sources and quotations. Accepted.
- --Senra (Talk) 20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some comments, if I may:
- re. point #2: I believe Darwin was using the word 'possession' generically, without implying it belonged to Great Britain. Otherwise he wouldn't mention 'England' in that list of contestants;
- re. point #5: I'm pretty sure Gough misunderstood his sources. Every Argentinian knows there was two British invasions: it's one of the main themes in Argentina's primary education. That's what the Argentinian historian was referring to.
- re. point #6: Fitzroy was purposely leaving aside the French in his analysis. Gough should point this out too, to fully transmit Fitzroy's opinion.
- Regards. --Langus (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're wrong Gough is quoting Destefani who claims the British have invaded Argentina 6 or 7 times. He classes this as the 3rd invasion. As regards the rest, Darwin is not using posession generically, he is using it quite specifically and the language use is very clear. As to the Gough paper, have you read it? Criticism by speculation about Gough's analysis is not helpful at this juncture. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some comments, if I may:
- Oppose, for the reasons previously stated. --Langus (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC) NOTE: I am willing to accept this title if no further opposition arises. I believe it has the same flaws that current title, but at least is used by some sources. --Langus (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
#2 British possession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)
- Oppose Fails to portray a NPOV by not acknowledging earlier settlement. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose because it implies to me a period of British control beginning in 1832 and ending in 1834. (By the way, if you want to move my comments to a more appropriate place, by all means do.) Pfainuk talk 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Proposal #1 has the same structure... weird thing how the mind works. --Langus (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think I can see where you're coming from: you appear to be working on the basis that "repossession" means a second or later instance of possession. This would be logical, but isn't how the language works. Rather, possession refers to a continual state of ownership, whereas repossession refers to a single act of taking ownership.
- Proposal #1 has the same structure... weird thing how the mind works. --Langus (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- In this case, proposal 2 implies that the state of ownership begins in 1832 and ends in 1834. Proposal 1 implies that the act of taking ownership starts in 1832 and ends in 1834 (and the state of ownership lasts for an unspecified time after that).
- Support. --Langus (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- oppose People seem to be voting in each of the three alternatives so I had better maintain my balance by being clear. I have now voted in each of the three alternatives. As I have said elsewhere, I am perfectly willing to remove myself from the voting entirely if directly requested by one or more of you --Senra (Talk) 19:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
#3 Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands
- Oppose retaining this existing title for the reason that there has been long discussion and it is my belief that there is strong consensus against this existing title. Anyway, I voted support for #1 above :) --Senra (Talk) 13:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Conditional Support I am prepared to change but if nothing better emerges then I prefer to keep this. It is not neutral to choose a title that does not reflect the history of the settlement of the islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Accept as a neutral but imperfect solution. I'm unwilling to support it for reasons already detailed: I think we all agree it's a bit rubbish. The whole preposition thing is, IMO, technically fair but too small a detail. The whole thing is rather unwieldy. (As an aside, I would suggest that in any case, instances elsewhere where the title is used elsewhere should probably be replaced with descriptive verb phrases such as "Britain took control of the Falkland Islands".) Pfainuk talk 20:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, as no sources are provided to support this title. --Langus (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
In a spirit of co-operation (En un espíritu de cooperación)
Wikipedia is a multi-language encyclopaedia [sic] with, as far as I know, similar core content policies applicable to each language. For example, the English version uses these core content policies and the Español version uses these política similar policies, but in this case four. Both these versions contain a policy for verifiability although, unless Google is translating the Español version incorrectly, it seems consensus is more important in the Español version compared to the English version. Such differences will naturally cause difficulties when cultures clash as editors from different countries appear to be doing whilst working on this particular article.
English language editors, particularly in this context British editors, are attempting to write articles that are verifiable and in so doing, will naturally prefer English language sources. Español language editors, particularly in this context Argentinians, are attempting to write articles that (if I understand correctly) are a consensus of editors. The relevant (Google) translation of No son parte de la enciclopedia is "It is therefore not necessary to provide reliable sources , check Wikipedia rules or make the rules in a neutral or include an external authority to determine their own rules and procedures of Wikipedia. Instead, the content of this site [Español Wikipedia] is controlled by the broad community consensus and style should emphasize clarity, sincerity and usefulness for other publishers". Nevertheless, an Español speaking editor will naturally prefer Español sources. I am fairly certain that in the context of this article British and Spanish sources will disagree.
Therefore, these differences in both policy and sources will naturally cause editors from different countries to disagree with each other. We should all attempt to recognise these differences and try very hard to abide by our own language version policies and sources whilst giving all respect, support and encouragement to editors from other countries. By the same token, editors from other countries should not attempt to enforce their own policies and sources on Wikipedians writing in a different language.
Please be aware that I am not a Spanish speaker. Therefore the Spanish links I have used and the Google translations I have provided have all been in good faith. Any errors are mine and I apologise in advance if I have made a mistake. I have certainly not wished to cause offence to any English or Spanish speaking people
--Senra (Talk) 14:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, that section refers only to Wikipedia [ES] policies and guidelines, not articles. It starts with "Wikipedia tiene muchas políticas y convenciones sobre contenido enciclopédico. Estos estándares requieren verificabilidad, neutralidad, respeto por las personas vivas y más." -> "Wikipedia has many policies and conventions about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more". It goes on then saying that "Instead, the content of these pages [Wikipedia policies and guidelines] is controlled by the broad community consensus and style should emphasize clarity, sincerity and usefulness for other publishers".
- Difficulties between editors here it's solely a matter of human psyche.
- Would you share your thoughts with us about the article name? If you feel comfortable with it, of course.
- Thank you once again for taking the time to help us. --Langus (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you be more concise? Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Archiving
I plan to set up auto-archiving of this article talk page.
I will set it to auto-archive discussions that are older than 90 days but to retain at least 8 threads, and to add appropriate links at the top of this page.
If anyone objects, please say so, here. If there's no objections after about a week, I will implement this. Cheers, Chzz ► 10:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Support This is a good idea that will help us focus --Senra (Talk) 11:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Was planning to try and set it up myself but better you do it as I've never done it before. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Thank you! --Langus (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
USS Lexington
Wee, as you must remember some passages of the text you added[7] from the main article were once contended over NPOV concerns. I'd like to see if we can work on it to reach an agreement.
New text:
- "In 1831, Luis Vernet seized three American vessels (Breakwater, Superior and Harriet) hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the mainland, bringing senior officers of the American vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. The American consul protested violently against the seizure of American ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US Government for compensation (rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885) Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo, where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers."
Problems I still find with the text in bold:
- Vernet never returned to the islands after the incident (and he wasn't there either), so he wouldn't know firsthand the amount of damage the Lexington inflicted. He's not the best source for this;
- noting that the claim was rejected tends to discredit Vernet's version;
- the reader may think that Vernet had reasons to lie in a trial (i.e., money)
I suggest we use Matthew Brisbane account (corroborated by other settlers) that Capt. Fitzroy collected in his diaries: [8]
"but the Lexington ruined it: Captain Duncan's men did such harm to the houses and gardens. I was myself treated as a pirate—rowed stern foremost on board the Lexington—abused on her quarter-deck most violently by Captain Duncan—treated by him more like a wild beast than a human being—and from that time guarded as a felon, until I was released by order of Commodore Rogers."
Fitzroy writes: "I afterwards interrogated an old German, while Brisbane was out of sight, and after him a young native of Buenos Ayres, who both corroborated Brisbane's account."
It could be something like "The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though remaining inhabitants told of damage to private property as well".
Thoughts? --Langus (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is unacceptable. If you'd wanted to add the Fitzroy and Brisbane quote thats one thing - I in fact quote it on History of the Falkland Islands, that I would have agreed with. Reverting wholesale as you repeatedly do is not acceptable. I have reverted you for now and will edit the Brisbane quote in later. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Gentlemen. Let's not start another battle. I have no access to these sources so I cannot help on the content but I do recall from the policy verifiabilty (neutrality) that "All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. ... Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: '[Duncan (Lexington log) records] that X, while [Matthew Brisbane] maintains that Y,' followed by an inline citation.... Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say". At this moment, I would suggest that neither of your content additions achieve this. One or both of you please feel free to tell me to butt-out here, as I had previously declared I only wish to help on the title renaming issue --Senra (Talk) 09:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Senra, the text I added was lifted and copy edited from Falkland Islands there was no need to revert it at all - its already accepted . I have no problem including the Brisbane quote and have done so [9]. As it happens it provides a neat way to introduce Fitzroy's concern over the gap in the rule of law in the settlement. All he had to do was change/add a few words not revert wholesale. Eliminating Vernt's later claims is suppressing information for which there is a clear reason to include. Whats worse is he reverted to a version that did not present all the facts. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Unless there's a WP policy saying that consensus on one article can affect or have influence on another one, I'm going to defend my stance here. Please lets not turn this into edit warring. I reverted the whole paragraph for the sake of coherence and because that's what one is supposed to do when there's disagreement on new text (WP:BRD, and I stress 'D'). Note that I didn't touch a word from the rest of your contribution.
- Senra, the source for Brisbane is in the reference I provided, you can find it here.
- I'd be of course in favor of an inline citation like you propose ('[Duncan (Lexington log) records] that X, while [Matthew Brisbane] maintains that Y'). In fact, I'll just be BOLD and put that in right away.
- Regards. --Langus (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I take it you missed I'd included that information and an extensive quote in the article already? I have reverted as you had included the same information twice. Your stance as you put is not defendable, you're making accusations of POV editing to justify an edit, when the fact that the information is verifiable is enough. What is POV editing is removing relevant information such as Vernet's later claims stemming from the incident. Wikipedia is collaborative and you don't collaborate by justifying your actions the way you choose to do. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Before this gets out of hand I recommend that ...
- I take it you missed I'd included that information and an extensive quote in the article already? I have reverted as you had included the same information twice. Your stance as you put is not defendable, you're making accusations of POV editing to justify an edit, when the fact that the information is verifiable is enough. What is POV editing is removing relevant information such as Vernet's later claims stemming from the incident. Wikipedia is collaborative and you don't collaborate by justifying your actions the way you choose to do. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
List of events
|
---|
|
A couple of points. Langus needs to stop making allegations of POV editing and nuances about the text I write that don't exist. I'm fed up with it, its been going on since his first edit. He also needs to read comments on the talk page before he goes ahead as its clear above I'd included the quote he wanted. As regards Senra's comment, you could have added that prior to this Langus edited [13], which I merely copy edited to correct a few errors [14],[15]. Thats an example of collaborative editing, his approach is combative. And btw his "partial revert" was a full revert of one of my edits for info. I will stop editing for now. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- WCM you're once again taking this personally. WP:BRD <-- I know for a fact that you know very well how this works, in fact I think you've introduced me to the system. Why aren't you playing by the rules?? I don't want any quote to be included, I just want the two versions presented with the same weight, as WP policies suggest. And I can say the same about collaborative editing: the text you corrected was an expansion of an edition of yours: [16] [17].
- I will revert to last consensus version now. Please note that this doesn't constitute "editing" the article, it's just the application of WP:BRD.
- My proposal, following Senra's formulation: "Captain Silas Duncan records in the Lexington log that only arms and a powder store were destroyed, while Matthew Brisbane, who was in charge of Puerto Luis at that moment, maintains that private property was also damaged", with the rest of the paragraph as proposed by WCM. The only extra information that the in-text citation has is to introduce Matthew Brisbane, but nothing further. WCM please refrain from re-introducing your paragraph and work with us. --Langus (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
The first sentence of the reliable sources guideline informs us that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)". I believe discussions on this talk page generally take this approach. However, further within WP:RS we have a brief discussion on the types of sources. This is expanded in the policy document Wikipedia:No original research in the section: primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The Wikipedia articles on primary sources and secondary sources, whilst not policy nor guidelines, may also be worth consulting.
My concern is the possibility that we may be straying into primary source territory when discussing the log of the Lexington and the recollections, via his diary, of Captain FitzRoy. The way I interpret the above policy and guideline material, we should take care that such primary sources are backed-up by reliable secondary sources: if no such secondary sources are available, I suggest we cannot use those primary sources.
Compared to involved editors, I am not as familiar with the sources for this event and I am not really familiar with the nuances of primary vs secondary sourcing. This paragraph, from WP:RS may be useful: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors".