![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should WP say, as it currently does in 9 of its articles ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]), that Louis Vernet sought permission from the British consulate in Buenos Aires before starting a settlement at Falklands/Malvinas in the 1820s?
Following requests for a reliable source ( [10] [11]) only a book by Mary Cawkell was rendered, where the author states that Vernet took some grants, issued by the government of Buenos Aires, to the British Consulate where they "received its stamp". These grants awarded land and other privileges to Vernet on the condition that he formed a permanent settlement. User:Kahastok argues that Cawkell's statement implies that Vernet sought and was given British permission to settle. But User:Andres Djordjalian argues that it most probably refers, instead, to a consular legalization of the grants, a.k.a. "authentication", which is a common procedure for certifying the official origin of a document. Their discussion is here.
Cawkell doesn't elaborate and it is not clear what her source is. No act of legalization or permission at the British Consulate is mentioned in scholarly studies on the subject ( [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] etc.) or in a narration of the enterprise written by Vernet himself ( [20]). (More in the threaded-discussion section.) Andrés Djordjalian ( talk) 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The grants mentioned by Cawkell could be one or several issued in 1823 by the government of Buenos Aires to Louis Vernet and Jorge Pacheco (Vernet later purchased Pacheco's part), plus another one dated Jan. 5, 1828 where that government awards Vernet further land and other privileges on the condition that he formed a permanent settlement.
Apart from the article that now refers to Cawkell, two of those 9 WP articles refer to a website (currently suspended) that uses her words, and another one to a SPS that states that the consulate "countersigned" the 1828 grant in January 30, 1828 (no source given). Nevertheless, "countersignment" means authenticating the source of a document (see [21] [22] [23] [24]), thus concurring with the concept of consular legalization. The remaining 5 articles offer no source.
Granting land and privileges is a tacit expression of sovereignty, plus the grants included explicit manifestations from Buenos Aires, like saying (in the 1828 grant) that if those lands were not granted for such an enterprise, "an opportunity of doing a great national good would be lost, and even the right of sovereignty over them".
User:Langus-TxT quoted the passages by Cawkell here. I copy the relevant parts (my underlining):
“ | [I]t would appear Vernet had become aware of Britain's interest in the islands as before sailing in January 1826 he took his grant to the British Consulate where it received their stamp. He might have done better to have sought an interview with the head of the Consulate, Woodbine Parish, but it is clear that at this stage he did not view his enterprise as one with political content. [...] In January 1828 he approached the Buenos Aires Government. They could not help: the Administration was again in a state of turmoil. Instead they extended his grant to cover the entire islands and Staten Island and exempted his enterprise from all taxation provided he established a colony within three years. As he had done before with the earlier grant, Vernet took the document to the British Consulate where it received its stamp. On this visit he met Woodbine Parish, who expressed great interest in his venture and asked Vernet to prepare a full report on the Islands to submit to the British Government. On his side, Vernet expressed the wish that, in the event of the British returning to the Islands, HMG would take his settlement under their protection, a wish Parish duly passed on to London. | ” |
I find it absurd to interpret that a consulate stamp means approval of part of the the document (i.e., the tacit permission to build a settlement) while there is a rejection of the manifestations of sovereignty contained in it. If Cawkell meant such an odd interpretation, she would have been more precise. A common consular legalization, which would merely have certified the genuineness of the document and is the direct interpretation to make from the phrase "[the document] received the [consular] stamp", makes sense and would have served Vernet several purposes.
I think WP is clearly making an erroneous interpretation of Cawkell's verbatim and emphasizing those wrong conclusions. As I see it, this alleged stamping either didn't exist or was a mere consular legalization that most authors do not see worthy of a mention. However important to Vernet's business, it would be, after all, just a certification.
The singularity of Cawkell's passage is not limited to this unique and apparently-unsourced mention of a consular stamping. Leaving aside the stamping, I find five dubious points in those paragraphs, each leading to believe in an apolitical Vernet either by the author's speculation or by possible misinterpretation. As I see it, Cawkell may have pushed the limits too far to present this singular theory. This leads me to consider that all of her statements there should be taken with a pinch of salt. For a detail of those 5 points, expand the following section. Andrés Djordjalian ( talk) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The first of the 5 points is her disputable statement when she says that, in 1826, Vernet knew about Britain's interest but believed that his enterprise had no political content. In 1823, Vernet and Pacheco petitioned for land to the Buenos Aires authorities (AGN Sala IX 24-5-7, translated in FO 6/499 pp. 13-14). In this petition, which carries their signatures, they wrote that it would be advantageous for the interests of that state to name an authority at the islands, therefore requesting the entitlement of Pablo Areguatí (the captain of their enterprise) as governor, adding that "in that way the Province gets possession of that abandoned island" and that they would "defend that territory as a sacred property of the state." In 1832, Vernet presented a memo with a clear description of the political relevancy of his actions in favor of Buenos Aires; the 1823 petition suggests that from the start he had at least some of those views. According to Shuttleworth, Woodbine Parish's biographer (Parish was the British consul in Buenos Aires at the time), the consul's attention was called to the Falklands/Malvinas case for the first time in early 1829. Primary sources show that the first dispatch in which he mentions Vernet (or rather "a Mr. Charles [sic] Vernet" who had obtained grants from Buenos Aires) is dated April 25, 1829 (FO 6/499 pp. 6-17). The dispatch includes English translations of Vernet's grants, which Parish says he has procured from Vernet himself, who had past three winters at the islands and told the consul that he had sent, in that year and the previous one, about a hundred colonists. In that dispatch, Parish writes that Vernet "would I believe be very happy if His Majesty's Government would take his settlement under their protection." From this statement Cawkell apparently derives that Vernet "expressed the wish" for British protection. That is an ambiguous statement can be taken to mean an explicit request (this ambiguity is the second of the five points). But the consul would not have written "I believe" if Vernet had actually requested protection. Moreover, in Cawkell's text, this wish is conditioned to "the event of the British returning to the Islands", a clause that would be significant coming from Vernet but is apparently no more than Cawkell's addendum (third point), at least judging from Parish's dispatch, which includes no such conditional. As a side note, welcoming protection can mean different things and is certainly not equal to asking for permission. There is one prior dispatch from the consulate on the subject of the islands, dated March 15, 1829 (FO 6/499 pp. 3-5), where Parish informs of plans to install a penal colony there, with no mention of Vernet but rather of Buenos Aires granting, to some "individuals", privileges to form "temporary settlements" (my underlining). This temporary adjective, which does not fit several aspects of the grants such as the above mentioned, is not used in the April dispatch and subsequent ones. It thus appears that the consul studied the grants for the first time during the lapse between these two dispatches (i.e., between March 15 and April 25, 1829), when he also met Vernet. This interpration concurs with Shuttleworth's. Cawkell is not precise about timing (fourth point) but her words do not contradict this version, because she states that Vernet went to the consulate with his 1828 grants but does not say when. However, in WP, the British-permission hypothesis is enforced by saying, with no source claimed other than Cawkell (and a dubious SPS in one instance), that the meeting took place before Vernet departed to the islands in 1828. The fifth and last point is that she presents the meeting between Vernet and Parish as almost a matter of coincidence, arising from Vernet's visit to the consulate for the purpose of getting his grant stamped. If the meeting took place between March 15 and April 25, 1829, wouldn't it be too much of a coincidence that Vernet decided to stamp his grant 14 months after obtaining it but right after the consul became concerned about the islands? If they had discussed these matters before, why did the consul fail to offer information in his first dispatch, where he even used the "temporary" adjective? I find greater plausibility in Shuttleworth's version, where Vernet is said to have approached the consul upon hearing that Britain claimed sovereignty (presumably as a result of the consul's inquiries beginning in March, 1829). Unlike Cawkell's narrative, this version discourages her idea that Vernet knew beforehand that the British intended to revive their claim but considered his enterprise to be apolitical. Andrés Djordjalian ( talk) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
|
You used the introduction to your RFC to argue your case. If you think that was neutral, then that raises wider concerns about your conception of neutrality.
You're coming up with all sorts of WP:OR to try to explain away why he went to the British consulate, but the sources tell us straight out. The point remains unrefuted: the sources agree that Vernet went to the British because he found out that Britain maintained a claim and wanted, if the British returned, to be able to say that he was there with British approval. It's quite clear that he was concerned that a British takeover would have negative consequences for his settlement and understandably wanted to avoid them by ensuring that the British were happy with his being there. In other words, he got British permission, approval. The difference is semantic.
In general, you seem to be taking the facts and giving them the most pro-Argentine gloss possible, to the point of avoiding inconvenient points where they don't fit that gloss. For example, when you refer to the British expelling "the authorities from Buenos Aires", outside commentators should be aware that what you mean is a garrisonful of mutineers who were headed for the gallows regardless of what the British did, and their military commanders who left when asked to do so without a shot fired. Kahastok talk 22:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Feraess, you wrote "I can think of no circumstance in which the British consulate would approve of a document that permitted actions they disagreed with". Exactly! The grants said that Buenos Aires was awarding property rights on the islands, that if it didn't grant this land "an opportunity of doing a great national good would be lost, and even the right of Sovereignty over them" [27], that Buenos Aires was to decide on the administration of the colony, etc. A consulate approval of these statements wouldn't be consistent with a rejection of Buenos Airean sovereignty over the eastern island. This apparent inconsistency is solved when we consider that, as a closer look into the concept of consular legalization indicates, a consular stamp does not imply approval of the content of the document.
I realize that you wrote that "There is no purpose to an official stamp other than to express approval", but consular legalization (a common process) implies stamping without implying approval of the content. This is apparently not the first time that legalization is confused with approval of content, to judge from clarifications in some consular webpages. E.g.:
What is an Apostille or Authentication? An apostille or an authentication certifies the authenticity of the signature, seal and position of the official who has executed, issued or certified a copy of a public document. [...] The apostille or authentication does not validate the substance, contents, and/or legal effect of the document, nor that the document has been approved and/or endorsed by the Oregon Secretary of State. [28]
We only legalize Canadian documents. We legalize the signatures of the documents and we do not review or approve the content of those documents. [29]
Please note that the Consular Section of the Cyprus High Commission only authenticates signatures on documents and it does not review or approve the content of the documents. [30]
Moreover, if stamping did imply approval or permission, why does none of the consulted studies that cover this history (plentiful) say that Vernet sought and got British permission? If real, it would be a remarkable fact. Why did only Cawkell pay attention to this apparently all-important stamping? Why didn't she state more clearly that Vernet sought and got permission if she believed it to be so? WP:V states:
Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources [...] claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions.
Now, although I have been discussing that approval/permission is a poor interpretation of what "received the [consular] stamp" means, WP policy doesn't require us to evaluate the quality of this interpretation. We simply need to establish if it is a novel one. WP:OR states (bold words as in the original):
Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research.
The primary sources that I have brought shed light on Vernet's visit to the consulate, but they are apparently being ignored on the basis of WP:OR. However, WP:OR doesn't say that primary sources have to be rejected. If the reason to reject my arguments based on primary sources is a sheer rejection of such sources, I will be happy to address this issue.
Just to clarify, the 1829 "wish for protection" is a distinct event from the hypothetical stampings. Cawkell is a unique source only for the latter. In this note I comment solely about those because I'm replying to the latest comments.
Regarding the inclusion of the stamping claim with a proper attribution prefix, I agree with your appreciation that we're right to be suspicious if we apply the perspective of an historian. There is no reason not to apply the same rigour here, as it simply follows a need for objectivity that WP aspires to attain too. WP policy deals with this particular issue in WP:UNDUE, which states:
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.
The uniqueness of Cawkell is aggravated by the contradictions that her passage presents with other sources, as I described in the first collapsible section, and by its avoidable ambiguity. Besides, I doubt that she can be regarded as a historian, whereas the authors of the other publications, which do not mention any stamping, are mostly professional social scientists. I haven't found any publications from Cawkell other that those two books on the islands. Gustafson (Dean of Vilanova U., book published by Oxford U.) refers to her as a "British author" and Freedman (Official British Historian for the Falklands Campaign) mentions her book as "a history of the islands reflecting the view of the Falklanders".
Needless to say, it is not WP:OR to contrast sources and evaluate pertinence, concurrence, etc., in order to determine inclusion or lack thereof. If that were the case, any rational activity behind the WP articles would be WP:OR. Andrés Djordjalian ( talk) 01:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of things being discussed here, so I've tried to separate out all the points to make it easier to understand. If I've missed any, please feel free to add others in. The issues seem to be:
After we've solved those issues we have two further questions. How much information about Vernet should we include in the article? What is the best way to phrase a description of Vernet's actions?
Here's a quick list of sources I've seen mentioned so far.
Extended content
|
---|
a) The History of the Falkland Islands, Mary Cawkell [1] b) British and Foreign State Papers, Volume 20, Foreign Office [2] c) A life of Sir Woodbine Parish (1796-1882), Hon. Nina Shuttleworth [3] d) The Sovereignty Dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, Lowell S. Gustafson [4] e) The Struggle for The Falklands, W. Michael Reisman [5] f) Sovereignty and Decolonization of the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands, Adrián F. J Hope [6] g) The Merchants' Magazine and Commercial Review, Volume 6, Freeman Hunt [7] h) Las islas Malvinas, Paul Groussac [8] i) The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843, Barry M. Gough [9] j) Reflexions on ‘The Case of Antonio Rivero and Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands’, John Muffty [10] k) The Case of Antonio Rivero and Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, Richard Ware [11] l) Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas, Pascoe and Pepper [12] Not all of them are relevant, and I tend to agree with Andrés Djordjalian that the last of those sources isn't of high quality, so I'd prefer not to reference it directly in this article. |
1. Is the Cawkell source reliable? The fact that it is a third-party, published source means that the default position on Wikipedia is that it is reliable. At the moment I don't agree with the assessment that Source A and Source C (Cawkell and Shuttleworth) are inconsistent. Shuttleworth uses imprecise language, but doesn't explicitly state anything with regard to the timing of Vernet hearing about British claims to the Falklands, and so doesn't invalidate Cawkell's assessment of when it occurred. I also don't agree with the idea that Vernet had a political agenda. Although I've seen he used a political argument to try and persuade Buenos Aires officials to award him the grants, his 1832 memo says of the 1828 grant (source B, p379) "By this it appears that the character of my undertaking to colonize the Malvinas was exclusively and essentially mercantile." At best he shows inconsistent views on the politics of his settlement, and I think the most accurate assessment of the information I have seen so far is that he was a businessman trying to do whatever he could to get help from whatever government he could find.
The Cawkell source contains some unique information, but that in itself isn't reason to disregard it. None of her claims seem unreasonable, based on the information in the sources I've seen so far. Lacking any significant evidence to the contrary, we are left with the default position for a third-party, published source, which is treating it as being reliable.
2 Did Vernet visit the British consulate to get a British stamp on his grants? Source A (Cawkell) says Vernet did. No reason to disagree
3 If Vernet did visit the consulate to get a British stamp on his grants, when did he do this? Cawkell says he went before January 1826, and after January 1828. Again, no reason to disregard Cawkell.
4 If Vernet requested consular stamping is that indicative of him respecting a British claim on the Falklands? Cawkell says that it is. We have our own opinions, but reliable sources come first. Again, no reason to disregard Cawkell.
5 If Vernet requested a British stamp for his grants, is that the same thing ask asking the British for permission to start a settlement? There are no sources of which I'm aware that comment on this specifically. Some people think it does, some people think it doesn't, but if we can't support either case with reliable sources then I think we should find alternate wording that we can support.
6 Did Vernet request protection from the British for his settlement? Sources A and C say yes, he did. Source C (Shuttleworth) says he did it in 1829. If it's mentioned in other sources as well it's slipped my memory as to which ones precisely, but perhaps someone more familiar with the sources can add in more references.
7 Did Vernet's actions contain political intent on his part? On anyone else's part? Source A (Cawkell) says Vernet's expeditions didn't have political content. Source B (p379) shows Vernet himself stating in 1832 that his motives were purely mercantile. Although Vernet apparently made a political argument when appealing to politicians in 1823, I have no information as to how prominent a part it was in the overall application. Sources A and B also indicate that he received no actual assistance from the Buenos Aires government, and if there was no political involvement then it suggests to me that there could not have been a big political content. There also seems to have been a mixture of nationalities involved in these expeditions. The only conclusion I can draw is that Vernet had no political intent himself. I don't have enough evidence to draw any conclusions as to what political content anyone else might have thought attached to the expeditions.
Then the final two.
How much information about Vernet should we include in the article? Sources vary hugely regarding how much information they include about Vernet. I suggest we decide what information to include based on what we think will prove useful to a reader's understanding of the subject. Vernet was an active figure in the history of the Falklands, so I think that we should try and include all the available information regarding his interactions with the islands, at least in this article. We can summarise for the other articles.
What is the best way to phrase a description of Vernet's actions? To avoid WP:OR I also suggest we stick closely to Cawkell's wording at the crucial part. Rather than saying Vernet sought permission, we could say simply that "he took the documents for a stamp from the British consulate."
Comments/feedback on these suggestions? Feraess ( talk) 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not against its inclusion if we clearly attribute the statement to her.
Regarding Vernet, yes, he was a skillful businessman and a very diplomatic, smart person. He took a commitment with Buenos Aires (the Argentine flag waved there, and May 25th was celebrated as holiday) but he was prepared to switch sides if necessary. He was ultimately a businessman, not an idealist. -- Langus ( t) 01:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Kahastok, there is already a sentence in the article that mentions Vernet's request for protection. I think it sticks closely to the sources so I'd be happy to keep it largely intact with minor rephrasing. With the adjustements I mentioned earlier, the first paragraph would remain the same but without the final sentence:
"In 1823, the United Provinces of the River Plate granted fishing rights to Jorge Pacheco and Luis Vernet. Travelling to the islands in 1824, the first expedition failed almost as soon as it landed, and Pacheco chose not to continue with the venture. Vernet persisted, but the second attempt, delayed until winter 1826 by a Brazilian blockade, was also unsuccessful. The expedition intended to exploit the feral cattle on the islands but the boggy conditions meant the gauchos could not catch cattle in their traditional way."
...and the second paragraph would now read:
"In 1828, the United Provinces government granted Vernet all of East Falkland including all its resources, and exempted him from taxation if a colony could be established within three years. Vernet took with him settlers, including British Captain Matthew Brisbane (who had sailed to the islands earlier with Weddell). Historian Mary Cawkell describes how the grants, and previous ones, were taken to the British consulate to be stamped. The head of the British consulate asked for a report on the islands for the British government, and Vernet asked him for British protection should they return. [13]"
BedsBookworm, I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'm only aware of the one source which describes the 1826 stamping. If there are more sources that describe Vernet's consular visit in 1826 then I agree there would be absolutely no need to mention Cawkell by name in the artcle, but at the moment there does appear to be just the one. It appears to be a factual statement, which is why we include it, but it appears in just one source, so we can mention that too. I don't think that attributing the information to Cawkell in the article detracts significantly from the factual nature of the statement, but it does seem to get past all of the objections. Of the possibilities mentioned so far, and the discussion of this issue has been lengthy, this seems to be the most acceptable to most people. Without further sources becoming apparent, I don't think there's likely to be a better solution for all involved. Feraess ( talk) 11:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary".
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bhistoryofnations\.net\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
http://www.falklandshistory.org/getting-it-right.pdf
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should WP say, as it currently does in 9 of its articles ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]), that Louis Vernet sought permission from the British consulate in Buenos Aires before starting a settlement at Falklands/Malvinas in the 1820s?
Following requests for a reliable source ( [10] [11]) only a book by Mary Cawkell was rendered, where the author states that Vernet took some grants, issued by the government of Buenos Aires, to the British Consulate where they "received its stamp". These grants awarded land and other privileges to Vernet on the condition that he formed a permanent settlement. User:Kahastok argues that Cawkell's statement implies that Vernet sought and was given British permission to settle. But User:Andres Djordjalian argues that it most probably refers, instead, to a consular legalization of the grants, a.k.a. "authentication", which is a common procedure for certifying the official origin of a document. Their discussion is here.
Cawkell doesn't elaborate and it is not clear what her source is. No act of legalization or permission at the British Consulate is mentioned in scholarly studies on the subject ( [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] etc.) or in a narration of the enterprise written by Vernet himself ( [20]). (More in the threaded-discussion section.) Andrés Djordjalian ( talk) 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The grants mentioned by Cawkell could be one or several issued in 1823 by the government of Buenos Aires to Louis Vernet and Jorge Pacheco (Vernet later purchased Pacheco's part), plus another one dated Jan. 5, 1828 where that government awards Vernet further land and other privileges on the condition that he formed a permanent settlement.
Apart from the article that now refers to Cawkell, two of those 9 WP articles refer to a website (currently suspended) that uses her words, and another one to a SPS that states that the consulate "countersigned" the 1828 grant in January 30, 1828 (no source given). Nevertheless, "countersignment" means authenticating the source of a document (see [21] [22] [23] [24]), thus concurring with the concept of consular legalization. The remaining 5 articles offer no source.
Granting land and privileges is a tacit expression of sovereignty, plus the grants included explicit manifestations from Buenos Aires, like saying (in the 1828 grant) that if those lands were not granted for such an enterprise, "an opportunity of doing a great national good would be lost, and even the right of sovereignty over them".
User:Langus-TxT quoted the passages by Cawkell here. I copy the relevant parts (my underlining):
“ | [I]t would appear Vernet had become aware of Britain's interest in the islands as before sailing in January 1826 he took his grant to the British Consulate where it received their stamp. He might have done better to have sought an interview with the head of the Consulate, Woodbine Parish, but it is clear that at this stage he did not view his enterprise as one with political content. [...] In January 1828 he approached the Buenos Aires Government. They could not help: the Administration was again in a state of turmoil. Instead they extended his grant to cover the entire islands and Staten Island and exempted his enterprise from all taxation provided he established a colony within three years. As he had done before with the earlier grant, Vernet took the document to the British Consulate where it received its stamp. On this visit he met Woodbine Parish, who expressed great interest in his venture and asked Vernet to prepare a full report on the Islands to submit to the British Government. On his side, Vernet expressed the wish that, in the event of the British returning to the Islands, HMG would take his settlement under their protection, a wish Parish duly passed on to London. | ” |
I find it absurd to interpret that a consulate stamp means approval of part of the the document (i.e., the tacit permission to build a settlement) while there is a rejection of the manifestations of sovereignty contained in it. If Cawkell meant such an odd interpretation, she would have been more precise. A common consular legalization, which would merely have certified the genuineness of the document and is the direct interpretation to make from the phrase "[the document] received the [consular] stamp", makes sense and would have served Vernet several purposes.
I think WP is clearly making an erroneous interpretation of Cawkell's verbatim and emphasizing those wrong conclusions. As I see it, this alleged stamping either didn't exist or was a mere consular legalization that most authors do not see worthy of a mention. However important to Vernet's business, it would be, after all, just a certification.
The singularity of Cawkell's passage is not limited to this unique and apparently-unsourced mention of a consular stamping. Leaving aside the stamping, I find five dubious points in those paragraphs, each leading to believe in an apolitical Vernet either by the author's speculation or by possible misinterpretation. As I see it, Cawkell may have pushed the limits too far to present this singular theory. This leads me to consider that all of her statements there should be taken with a pinch of salt. For a detail of those 5 points, expand the following section. Andrés Djordjalian ( talk) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The first of the 5 points is her disputable statement when she says that, in 1826, Vernet knew about Britain's interest but believed that his enterprise had no political content. In 1823, Vernet and Pacheco petitioned for land to the Buenos Aires authorities (AGN Sala IX 24-5-7, translated in FO 6/499 pp. 13-14). In this petition, which carries their signatures, they wrote that it would be advantageous for the interests of that state to name an authority at the islands, therefore requesting the entitlement of Pablo Areguatí (the captain of their enterprise) as governor, adding that "in that way the Province gets possession of that abandoned island" and that they would "defend that territory as a sacred property of the state." In 1832, Vernet presented a memo with a clear description of the political relevancy of his actions in favor of Buenos Aires; the 1823 petition suggests that from the start he had at least some of those views. According to Shuttleworth, Woodbine Parish's biographer (Parish was the British consul in Buenos Aires at the time), the consul's attention was called to the Falklands/Malvinas case for the first time in early 1829. Primary sources show that the first dispatch in which he mentions Vernet (or rather "a Mr. Charles [sic] Vernet" who had obtained grants from Buenos Aires) is dated April 25, 1829 (FO 6/499 pp. 6-17). The dispatch includes English translations of Vernet's grants, which Parish says he has procured from Vernet himself, who had past three winters at the islands and told the consul that he had sent, in that year and the previous one, about a hundred colonists. In that dispatch, Parish writes that Vernet "would I believe be very happy if His Majesty's Government would take his settlement under their protection." From this statement Cawkell apparently derives that Vernet "expressed the wish" for British protection. That is an ambiguous statement can be taken to mean an explicit request (this ambiguity is the second of the five points). But the consul would not have written "I believe" if Vernet had actually requested protection. Moreover, in Cawkell's text, this wish is conditioned to "the event of the British returning to the Islands", a clause that would be significant coming from Vernet but is apparently no more than Cawkell's addendum (third point), at least judging from Parish's dispatch, which includes no such conditional. As a side note, welcoming protection can mean different things and is certainly not equal to asking for permission. There is one prior dispatch from the consulate on the subject of the islands, dated March 15, 1829 (FO 6/499 pp. 3-5), where Parish informs of plans to install a penal colony there, with no mention of Vernet but rather of Buenos Aires granting, to some "individuals", privileges to form "temporary settlements" (my underlining). This temporary adjective, which does not fit several aspects of the grants such as the above mentioned, is not used in the April dispatch and subsequent ones. It thus appears that the consul studied the grants for the first time during the lapse between these two dispatches (i.e., between March 15 and April 25, 1829), when he also met Vernet. This interpration concurs with Shuttleworth's. Cawkell is not precise about timing (fourth point) but her words do not contradict this version, because she states that Vernet went to the consulate with his 1828 grants but does not say when. However, in WP, the British-permission hypothesis is enforced by saying, with no source claimed other than Cawkell (and a dubious SPS in one instance), that the meeting took place before Vernet departed to the islands in 1828. The fifth and last point is that she presents the meeting between Vernet and Parish as almost a matter of coincidence, arising from Vernet's visit to the consulate for the purpose of getting his grant stamped. If the meeting took place between March 15 and April 25, 1829, wouldn't it be too much of a coincidence that Vernet decided to stamp his grant 14 months after obtaining it but right after the consul became concerned about the islands? If they had discussed these matters before, why did the consul fail to offer information in his first dispatch, where he even used the "temporary" adjective? I find greater plausibility in Shuttleworth's version, where Vernet is said to have approached the consul upon hearing that Britain claimed sovereignty (presumably as a result of the consul's inquiries beginning in March, 1829). Unlike Cawkell's narrative, this version discourages her idea that Vernet knew beforehand that the British intended to revive their claim but considered his enterprise to be apolitical. Andrés Djordjalian ( talk) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
|
You used the introduction to your RFC to argue your case. If you think that was neutral, then that raises wider concerns about your conception of neutrality.
You're coming up with all sorts of WP:OR to try to explain away why he went to the British consulate, but the sources tell us straight out. The point remains unrefuted: the sources agree that Vernet went to the British because he found out that Britain maintained a claim and wanted, if the British returned, to be able to say that he was there with British approval. It's quite clear that he was concerned that a British takeover would have negative consequences for his settlement and understandably wanted to avoid them by ensuring that the British were happy with his being there. In other words, he got British permission, approval. The difference is semantic.
In general, you seem to be taking the facts and giving them the most pro-Argentine gloss possible, to the point of avoiding inconvenient points where they don't fit that gloss. For example, when you refer to the British expelling "the authorities from Buenos Aires", outside commentators should be aware that what you mean is a garrisonful of mutineers who were headed for the gallows regardless of what the British did, and their military commanders who left when asked to do so without a shot fired. Kahastok talk 22:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Feraess, you wrote "I can think of no circumstance in which the British consulate would approve of a document that permitted actions they disagreed with". Exactly! The grants said that Buenos Aires was awarding property rights on the islands, that if it didn't grant this land "an opportunity of doing a great national good would be lost, and even the right of Sovereignty over them" [27], that Buenos Aires was to decide on the administration of the colony, etc. A consulate approval of these statements wouldn't be consistent with a rejection of Buenos Airean sovereignty over the eastern island. This apparent inconsistency is solved when we consider that, as a closer look into the concept of consular legalization indicates, a consular stamp does not imply approval of the content of the document.
I realize that you wrote that "There is no purpose to an official stamp other than to express approval", but consular legalization (a common process) implies stamping without implying approval of the content. This is apparently not the first time that legalization is confused with approval of content, to judge from clarifications in some consular webpages. E.g.:
What is an Apostille or Authentication? An apostille or an authentication certifies the authenticity of the signature, seal and position of the official who has executed, issued or certified a copy of a public document. [...] The apostille or authentication does not validate the substance, contents, and/or legal effect of the document, nor that the document has been approved and/or endorsed by the Oregon Secretary of State. [28]
We only legalize Canadian documents. We legalize the signatures of the documents and we do not review or approve the content of those documents. [29]
Please note that the Consular Section of the Cyprus High Commission only authenticates signatures on documents and it does not review or approve the content of the documents. [30]
Moreover, if stamping did imply approval or permission, why does none of the consulted studies that cover this history (plentiful) say that Vernet sought and got British permission? If real, it would be a remarkable fact. Why did only Cawkell pay attention to this apparently all-important stamping? Why didn't she state more clearly that Vernet sought and got permission if she believed it to be so? WP:V states:
Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources [...] claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions.
Now, although I have been discussing that approval/permission is a poor interpretation of what "received the [consular] stamp" means, WP policy doesn't require us to evaluate the quality of this interpretation. We simply need to establish if it is a novel one. WP:OR states (bold words as in the original):
Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research.
The primary sources that I have brought shed light on Vernet's visit to the consulate, but they are apparently being ignored on the basis of WP:OR. However, WP:OR doesn't say that primary sources have to be rejected. If the reason to reject my arguments based on primary sources is a sheer rejection of such sources, I will be happy to address this issue.
Just to clarify, the 1829 "wish for protection" is a distinct event from the hypothetical stampings. Cawkell is a unique source only for the latter. In this note I comment solely about those because I'm replying to the latest comments.
Regarding the inclusion of the stamping claim with a proper attribution prefix, I agree with your appreciation that we're right to be suspicious if we apply the perspective of an historian. There is no reason not to apply the same rigour here, as it simply follows a need for objectivity that WP aspires to attain too. WP policy deals with this particular issue in WP:UNDUE, which states:
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.
The uniqueness of Cawkell is aggravated by the contradictions that her passage presents with other sources, as I described in the first collapsible section, and by its avoidable ambiguity. Besides, I doubt that she can be regarded as a historian, whereas the authors of the other publications, which do not mention any stamping, are mostly professional social scientists. I haven't found any publications from Cawkell other that those two books on the islands. Gustafson (Dean of Vilanova U., book published by Oxford U.) refers to her as a "British author" and Freedman (Official British Historian for the Falklands Campaign) mentions her book as "a history of the islands reflecting the view of the Falklanders".
Needless to say, it is not WP:OR to contrast sources and evaluate pertinence, concurrence, etc., in order to determine inclusion or lack thereof. If that were the case, any rational activity behind the WP articles would be WP:OR. Andrés Djordjalian ( talk) 01:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of things being discussed here, so I've tried to separate out all the points to make it easier to understand. If I've missed any, please feel free to add others in. The issues seem to be:
After we've solved those issues we have two further questions. How much information about Vernet should we include in the article? What is the best way to phrase a description of Vernet's actions?
Here's a quick list of sources I've seen mentioned so far.
Extended content
|
---|
a) The History of the Falkland Islands, Mary Cawkell [1] b) British and Foreign State Papers, Volume 20, Foreign Office [2] c) A life of Sir Woodbine Parish (1796-1882), Hon. Nina Shuttleworth [3] d) The Sovereignty Dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, Lowell S. Gustafson [4] e) The Struggle for The Falklands, W. Michael Reisman [5] f) Sovereignty and Decolonization of the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands, Adrián F. J Hope [6] g) The Merchants' Magazine and Commercial Review, Volume 6, Freeman Hunt [7] h) Las islas Malvinas, Paul Groussac [8] i) The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843, Barry M. Gough [9] j) Reflexions on ‘The Case of Antonio Rivero and Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands’, John Muffty [10] k) The Case of Antonio Rivero and Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, Richard Ware [11] l) Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas, Pascoe and Pepper [12] Not all of them are relevant, and I tend to agree with Andrés Djordjalian that the last of those sources isn't of high quality, so I'd prefer not to reference it directly in this article. |
1. Is the Cawkell source reliable? The fact that it is a third-party, published source means that the default position on Wikipedia is that it is reliable. At the moment I don't agree with the assessment that Source A and Source C (Cawkell and Shuttleworth) are inconsistent. Shuttleworth uses imprecise language, but doesn't explicitly state anything with regard to the timing of Vernet hearing about British claims to the Falklands, and so doesn't invalidate Cawkell's assessment of when it occurred. I also don't agree with the idea that Vernet had a political agenda. Although I've seen he used a political argument to try and persuade Buenos Aires officials to award him the grants, his 1832 memo says of the 1828 grant (source B, p379) "By this it appears that the character of my undertaking to colonize the Malvinas was exclusively and essentially mercantile." At best he shows inconsistent views on the politics of his settlement, and I think the most accurate assessment of the information I have seen so far is that he was a businessman trying to do whatever he could to get help from whatever government he could find.
The Cawkell source contains some unique information, but that in itself isn't reason to disregard it. None of her claims seem unreasonable, based on the information in the sources I've seen so far. Lacking any significant evidence to the contrary, we are left with the default position for a third-party, published source, which is treating it as being reliable.
2 Did Vernet visit the British consulate to get a British stamp on his grants? Source A (Cawkell) says Vernet did. No reason to disagree
3 If Vernet did visit the consulate to get a British stamp on his grants, when did he do this? Cawkell says he went before January 1826, and after January 1828. Again, no reason to disregard Cawkell.
4 If Vernet requested consular stamping is that indicative of him respecting a British claim on the Falklands? Cawkell says that it is. We have our own opinions, but reliable sources come first. Again, no reason to disregard Cawkell.
5 If Vernet requested a British stamp for his grants, is that the same thing ask asking the British for permission to start a settlement? There are no sources of which I'm aware that comment on this specifically. Some people think it does, some people think it doesn't, but if we can't support either case with reliable sources then I think we should find alternate wording that we can support.
6 Did Vernet request protection from the British for his settlement? Sources A and C say yes, he did. Source C (Shuttleworth) says he did it in 1829. If it's mentioned in other sources as well it's slipped my memory as to which ones precisely, but perhaps someone more familiar with the sources can add in more references.
7 Did Vernet's actions contain political intent on his part? On anyone else's part? Source A (Cawkell) says Vernet's expeditions didn't have political content. Source B (p379) shows Vernet himself stating in 1832 that his motives were purely mercantile. Although Vernet apparently made a political argument when appealing to politicians in 1823, I have no information as to how prominent a part it was in the overall application. Sources A and B also indicate that he received no actual assistance from the Buenos Aires government, and if there was no political involvement then it suggests to me that there could not have been a big political content. There also seems to have been a mixture of nationalities involved in these expeditions. The only conclusion I can draw is that Vernet had no political intent himself. I don't have enough evidence to draw any conclusions as to what political content anyone else might have thought attached to the expeditions.
Then the final two.
How much information about Vernet should we include in the article? Sources vary hugely regarding how much information they include about Vernet. I suggest we decide what information to include based on what we think will prove useful to a reader's understanding of the subject. Vernet was an active figure in the history of the Falklands, so I think that we should try and include all the available information regarding his interactions with the islands, at least in this article. We can summarise for the other articles.
What is the best way to phrase a description of Vernet's actions? To avoid WP:OR I also suggest we stick closely to Cawkell's wording at the crucial part. Rather than saying Vernet sought permission, we could say simply that "he took the documents for a stamp from the British consulate."
Comments/feedback on these suggestions? Feraess ( talk) 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not against its inclusion if we clearly attribute the statement to her.
Regarding Vernet, yes, he was a skillful businessman and a very diplomatic, smart person. He took a commitment with Buenos Aires (the Argentine flag waved there, and May 25th was celebrated as holiday) but he was prepared to switch sides if necessary. He was ultimately a businessman, not an idealist. -- Langus ( t) 01:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Kahastok, there is already a sentence in the article that mentions Vernet's request for protection. I think it sticks closely to the sources so I'd be happy to keep it largely intact with minor rephrasing. With the adjustements I mentioned earlier, the first paragraph would remain the same but without the final sentence:
"In 1823, the United Provinces of the River Plate granted fishing rights to Jorge Pacheco and Luis Vernet. Travelling to the islands in 1824, the first expedition failed almost as soon as it landed, and Pacheco chose not to continue with the venture. Vernet persisted, but the second attempt, delayed until winter 1826 by a Brazilian blockade, was also unsuccessful. The expedition intended to exploit the feral cattle on the islands but the boggy conditions meant the gauchos could not catch cattle in their traditional way."
...and the second paragraph would now read:
"In 1828, the United Provinces government granted Vernet all of East Falkland including all its resources, and exempted him from taxation if a colony could be established within three years. Vernet took with him settlers, including British Captain Matthew Brisbane (who had sailed to the islands earlier with Weddell). Historian Mary Cawkell describes how the grants, and previous ones, were taken to the British consulate to be stamped. The head of the British consulate asked for a report on the islands for the British government, and Vernet asked him for British protection should they return. [13]"
BedsBookworm, I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'm only aware of the one source which describes the 1826 stamping. If there are more sources that describe Vernet's consular visit in 1826 then I agree there would be absolutely no need to mention Cawkell by name in the artcle, but at the moment there does appear to be just the one. It appears to be a factual statement, which is why we include it, but it appears in just one source, so we can mention that too. I don't think that attributing the information to Cawkell in the article detracts significantly from the factual nature of the statement, but it does seem to get past all of the objections. Of the possibilities mentioned so far, and the discussion of this issue has been lengthy, this seems to be the most acceptable to most people. Without further sources becoming apparent, I don't think there's likely to be a better solution for all involved. Feraess ( talk) 11:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary".
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bhistoryofnations\.net\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
http://www.falklandshistory.org/getting-it-right.pdf