Luis Vernet was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After searching the Internet I found that in most places Vernet's name is spelled "Luis", not "Louis". Since he was an Argentine governor and I couldn't find any conclusive source either way I changed the name to the Argentine (and most common in Google) spelling and all the links accordingly. I'll try to provide some sources for this (other than google searches). Worst case scenario, we'll rename them again. :)
Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
PS: I know he was french, and kinda contradicts my changes... maybe I should've discussed first... Anyone wants to go back, let's talk. sorry for rushing into this
In fact he was born in Hamburg and was of French - Huguenot descent, according to this source [1] his birthname was Ludwig, but off course he's known as Luis. HerkusMonte ( talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
A user has changed his birth place to Hamburg Germany, and posted this site as a reference. That site clearly states he was a "French-born Hamburg merchant". Unless reliable sources are posted showing he was not born in France, it will be reverted. -- Alexf 42 18:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's a fast response, these sources (sorry it's German) state clearly he was born in Hamburg [2],[ [3]] and here's someone searching for his anchestor Luis Vernet, born in Hamburg [ [4]], I used the liverpoolmuseum because it's the only english source I could find, sorry I didn't read it properly. I'll try to find something more about him, but it seems he wasn't French (just his name) HerkusMonte ( talk) 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
As France isn't really a birthPLACE and several sources claim him to be born in Hamburg I deleted the "born in France" sentence, until we have exact informations about the town he was born in, I think it's not necessary to add a whole country as a place of birth. HerkusMonte ( talk) 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
And his birth name was Louis, he later changed it to Luis to reflect his adoptive country. Justin talk 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I found this: "The Falklands War" by Daniel K. Gibran [5] calling him "a (Hamburg) merchant of French extraction" and Encyclopædia Americana [6] "a native of Hamburg". HerkusMonte ( talk) 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Something more: "Vernet was of French Protestant (Huguenot) descent, born in Hamburg in Germany, and he spent some years in the United States before settling in Buenos Aires." [7]. HerkusMonte ( talk) 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
There are many sources to confirm that he was born in France.
For instance The Falkland Islands by Ian Strange has him a French born Hamburg merchant. Julius Goebel. The Struggle for the Falkland Islands also has him as a French born Hamburg merchant. Goebel will confirm the name change I believe but I can't find my copy to be sure. Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960 By Harold F. Peterson "French origin" Signals of War by Lawrence Freedman and Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse has him a "Frenchman" [8] "Frenchman"
I could go on, most sources i've seen indicated he moved to Hamburg at a young age but he was born in France. Having said that the authors of your final reference have spent 10 years of impeccable research in preparing that paper; so I would give it some weight. I think the best compromise is to state that his birthplace as Hamburg but indicate that the exact birthplace is confused and some sources indicate it was France. Is that acceptable? Justin talk 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Also worth pointing out that Germany didn't exist at this point in time. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
UNINDENT
After some further research I've found that this is indeed correct and Vernet was born in Hamburg. The confusion over his birth place appears to have arisen out of his attempt to persuade the French Government to act on his behalf in his dispute with Britain in the 1850s. Justin talk 09:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"In September 1832 a new interim military and political commander, Juan Mestivier, was appointed and a gunboat, the ARA Sarandi, was dispatched to support him. The British objected that his appointment infringed British sovereignity over the Islands. More problematic for Mestivier was that his own forces would not accept his authorithy and two months later, when the Sarandi sailed away from the Islands, the garrison mutinied and killed him. The Sarandi returned and attempted to rout the mutineers. Just as it was doing so, on 2 January 1833, the Clio under the command of Captain J.J. Onlslow, appeared in Port Louis. Onslow told Don Jose Maria Pinedo aboard the Sarandi that the Islands belonged to no one, and that the British flag would replace that of Argentina the next day, 3 January 1833. Pinedo protested but in the face of superior force he did no resist. To Britain this demonstrated that the transfer control was a matter of persuation, for no shots were fired. Argentina points to the coercitive nature of persuasion." From The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: The origins of the Falklands war by Lawrence Freedman, page 8.
"In early 1832 Argentina sent to 'Las Malvinas' a new Governor, Don Juan Esteban Mestivier, but he was murdered shortly after his arrival by mutineers. Don Jose Maria Pinedo, officer in charge of the Argentine warship 'Sarandi', took command of the settlement. [...] In December 1832 the British returned to the Falkland Islands, concerned by the unlawful activities of the Americans and by the Argentine assertions of sovereignty. [...] The British commander, Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag. Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands." From falklands.info
Before my change, the article read: "This left the islands in a state of anarchy, occupied by escaped convicts and pirates. Attempts by the Argentine government to re-establish the settlement as a penal colony failed when a new Governor (Juan Esteban Mestivier) arrived in the islands in November 1832, only to be murdered by a mutiny. In January 1833, the United Kingdom sent a naval task force, regaining control of the islands."
I've fixed it on grounds on NPOV and correctness, as it can get people to believe that Argentine settlements just "failed" and British task force more or less landed and planted a flag. -- Langus-TxT ( talk) 21:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Last version before my additions read: "Luis Vernet (born Louis Vernet in 1791 - died in 1871) was a merchant from Hamburg of Huguenot descent." I believe this introduction needed to be expanded, since it didn't mention the most relevant aspect of his life (and the reason why it is included in WP), which is his relation to the Falkland Islands.
Proposal: Luis Vernet (born Louis Vernet in 1791 - died in 1871) was a merchant from Hamburg of Huguenot descent. As a governor of Argentina he leaded a settlement in the Falkland Islands between 1829 and 1831.
I believe this short addition remedies this problem and rises no controversial issues. -- Langus ( talk) 16:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the recent changes for a number of reasons. First of all the English grammar was incorrect and changing well written prose for poorly written prose is not improving the article. Secondly, it removed a lot of information. Vernet is a controversial figure and removing this is removing a significant fact, especially in the context of the sovereignty dispute. Thirdly it was inaccurate, Vernet's control over the settlement at Port Louis ended as a result of the Gaucho murders in August 1833, it continued even after the Lexington Raid and the British return. Note I explained the reason - and I did not revert to the version you demanded as you have given no good reason to do so. Simply asserting neutral prose is POV is not a good reason, nor is WP:NOCONSENSUS. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) While I am certainly able to identify simple grammar mistakes, there's a difference between a simple error in grammar and totally changing the meaning to something unrecognisably different from what was apparently intended.
It's certainly possible that I have not properly understood what you (Langus) were intending to write. Unfortunately, it is difficult to make sense of a point being made when it is so entirely shorn of punctuation and when what it says is something different from what it is intended to say. I can try to understand what you write, and gloss over grammatical errors or failures in punctuation, but I don't believe I can be expected to read your mind.
That said, it was not Vernet's practical efforts that ended there but only his personal physical presence on the islands. The islanders continued to be his employees and he continued to pay them for another eighteen months. The only sense in which your point makes sense to me is inasmuch as Vernet did not need to continue to put effort into establishing something that had already been established. Which is not something that logically belongs in the lede. Pfainuk talk 09:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wizardman ( talk · contribs) 15:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Here are the issues I found:
Based on the above points, I don't think it can realistically become a GA soon, so I'm unfortunately going to fail it outright. After the concerns are addressed, I would suggest trying WP:PR to get another pair of eyes relatively quickly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
We've been here before, but: why exactly "regained" would be more appropriate than "gained"?
Some definitions:
If "gained control" is somehow problematic, I'm open to other options. -- Langus ( talk) 23:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, guys, I'm here from the 3O noticeboard. Given that the disputed wording is a wikilink to another article on Wikipedia, I'd imagine the best wording in this article would be to reflect the wording of that title. If it's inaccurate so say that the British "re"-gained control/possession/whatever, then that article's title should be changed first (after a consensus is reached through discussion, of course). Since it appears that there has already been extensive discussion of this issue on that article's talk page, and since it (presumably) has reached a consensus in the article's present title, we should reflect that consensus in our wording here, as well. Thus, I'd say that the wording of this diff, as worded by Wee Curry Monster, is probably the best, since it is the most directly related to the title of the other article. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 21:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
My edit summary was maybe unclear. My point being to have the disambiguation sentence calling him Argentine implies his nationality was Argentine, was this the case? Undoubtedly he was appointed governor by Argentina (even if it was known as something else then). Is there a sentence that shows the governor for Argentina that does not imply nationality, such as Argentine Appointed Governor of Puerto Luis. If a non-Argentine citizen was now appointed Governor of the Islands by Argentina it wouldn't make him/her Argentine without other actions. Bevo74 ( talk) 08:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
First, [13] the "handy" online reference. It should be noted that falklands.info is self-published and authored by two Falklanders without any credentials, Jason Lewis and Alison Inglis: [14] Are we seriously arguing to keep this?
Secondly, WCM's comments inside a cite are erroneous and disruptive. I quote: "Discussed at length in RFC Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 2#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling? Person challenging the cite has previously tried to remove this information. Consensus of RFC was that these citations established this fact." This is erroneous because a) I didn't get involved too much in that discussion, b) the RfC was closed noting that: "this discussion largely fails as an RfC due to the non-neutrality of the debate proposal. What ensues is an extension of the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#British "Permission" II with the same participants", and even that "in the absence of further reliable evidence (such as, for example, government archives), they must convey to the reader that any definitive conclusions must be left open". Plus c), consensus can change. In fact, I have changed my view on Mary Cawkell since then which leads me to my next point...
I no longer consider Mary Cawkell to be capable enough to bring into literature a novel interpretation of what Vernet's "stamps" means. IMO, Cawkell confused an act of document legalization carried by the British Consulate with "a permission" from the British Government. Cawkell says this "stamping" of "a grant" happened in January 1826. She might be referring to the facade contract by which Pacheco simulated to to cede his share to Mr. Green & Mr. Hodgson, British merchants in Buenos Aires, as a precaution for the impending war between the United Provinces and Brasil:
“ | El 31 de Diciembre de 1825 [Vernet] celebraba un arreglo con Pacheco. Para esa época había tomado sus precauciones en vista de la inminente guerra entre los Imperiales [en Brasil] y Buenos Aires. En primer término, el propio Pacheco simulaba, por un convenio celebrado el 10 de octubre de dicho año, ceder a los señores Green y Hodgson "del comercio inglés en esta plaza" todas las concesiones recibidas del Gobierno. ["cuio documento --dicen los señores Green y Hodgson-- es nulo de ningún valor ni efecto pues ni ha hecho tal donación ó enagenación, ni por consiguiente, ha recibido tal cantidad; pues por fines particulares y temerosos de la guerra que se aproxima..."] Luego, y antes de iniciar la gran aventura, hipotecaba las tierras que, en virtud de ser el primer poblador o por concesiones que en adelante le hiciese el gobierno, llegasen a pertenecerloe. Con este acto, bien característico, Vernet deseaba poner a cubierto a sus descendientes y acreedores de cualquier contingencia que le pudiese sobrevenir de la guerra que, por largos meses, desangraría al Brasil y a las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, o de la navegación no exenta de peligros por los mares del Sur. | ” |
As noted, this was denied by these British merchants in a counter-document.
It is not unthinkable that a housewife condensing history for the local Falklander radio station could have seen more in this act of what really meant... specially if she based her investigations on books in Spanish, not being a native speaker.
And finally, regarding Shuttleworth... I've repeated every time it was brought up that the author is talking about 1829. This is getting borderline WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT, so I expect an explanation for the insistence with this source to reference something that allegedly happened in 1826. --Langus TxT 01:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
“ | In the course of the year 1829 the Consul-General first called the attention of the Foreign Office to the question of the Falkland Islands. [] Parish's attention was first called the question early in 1829, when the Buenos Ayreans proposed a scheme for detention of prisoners and convicts in the Islands. Parish at once communicated the intention of the Buenos Ayres Government to the Foreign Office, but before writing his next despatch a new development had arisen. A certain Mt. Louis Vernet had obtained permission from Rosas to colonise Solidad and Staten Island; he had done so with great success, finding the soil suitable for potatoes and other vegetables, the climate excellent, and the prospects for cattle-breeding most promising. Hearing that England claimed sovereignty of the islands, he now applied to Great Britain, through their Charge d'Affairs, for the protection of his colonists. | ” |
I have added a NPOV tag to the article for two reasons.
First of all, [17], copies of correspondence between Luis Vernet and British authorities has been removed under the guise of WP:BRD. The same editor has been denying for years there was any correspondence, now direct proof has been produced back up by a WP:RS he is simply removing it.
Secondly, an editor Prof Favelli, has removed British sources simply based on their nationality, he is then claiming the content is uncited. W C M email 19:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Cawkell notes that Vernet made a fortune from a process of preserving hides. However, I cannot find any reference to any process known as Vernetizar outside of wiki, other than the WP:SPS site [18], which I do not consider reliable. The source given Historical Dictionary of Argentina London: Scarecrow Press, 1978 doesn't appear to exist [19]. The edit that added this [20] was done by an editor who has been blocked for serial sockpuppetry. I am concerned this is false information. W C M email 23:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
“ | Un señor de apellido Vernet inventó una fórmula química para que los cueros soporten las largas travesías. Por eso se habla de "vernetizar" (A Mr. Vernet invented a chemical formula that cures hides for long voyages. That is why we speak of "vernetizar") | ” |
It's being "proposed" that a comment be included at the mention of the alleged 1826 "British authorization" for Vernet settlement. It reads:
Discussed at length in RFC Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 2#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling? Consensus of RFC was that these citations established this fact.
This usage is against WP:HIDDEN. I strongly suggest everyone to read it in full. There's a section, Inappropriate uses for hidden text, where we are told that "Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus".
The invoked RfC was closed by an admin noting that "this discussion largely fails as an RfC due to the non-neutrality of the debate proposal. What ensues is an extension of the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#British "Permission" II with the same participants about the reliability of Cawkell's and Shuttleworth's chronicles of historical facts and whether Vernet went to obtain permission or simply to get a document certified".
Therefore, because consensus never existed and the idea never stopped being challenged, I consider this hidden comment unwarranted and detrimental to the building of a real consensus on this matter. --Langus TxT 22:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted the addition of three letters, for a total of 7 pages/images, in the face of them being an excessive amount of pictures, and honestly not adding much to the article.
May I ask Wee Curry Monster why the need for them? Also, if you had to choose, which one of them would you propose for addition? Bear in mind MOS:IMAGES and WP:IUP. --Langus TxT 06:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Really, Kahastok? The sources provided are a) Shuttleworth, who explicitly talks about 1829, and b) John Fowler as reported by Buenos Aires Herald, a Falklander former Superintendent of Education of the FI and Manager of the Falkland Islands Tourist Board. If this is a reliable source to you, then Cristina Kirchner, Daniel Filmus, Hector Timmerman, must be so too, when printed by BA Herald. Utter nonsense. Regarding the letters, they are dated 1835 and depict exchanges between Vernet and Hammond, Smith and Vernet, etc.; none of them are between Vernet and Parish and certainly not from 1828 or older. Do you know what we are discussing about? Have you inspected those letters? Because otherwise you are being WP:DISRUPTIVE.
@WCM: You keep on focusing on my past (now obsolete) standings. I want to discuss content; you divert to talking about editors. Would you stop doing that, please?
We must bear in mind that Caillet-Bois is probably the very place from where Cawkell informed herself to write The Falkland Islands. She didn't had access to primary sources, to Vernet's archives; Caillet-Bois did. --Langus TxT 14:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have again added a NPOV tag to the article for two reasons.
First of all, [23], copies of correspondence between Luis Vernet and British authorities has been removed again. We've had years of the same editor has been denying for years there was any correspondence, now direct proof has been produced back up by a WP:RS he is simply removing it.
Secondly, an editor Prof Favelli, is continuing to WP:TAG team to remove content for nationalist POV reasons. W C M email 07:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Since there are one or two points where we seem to be speaking different languages (or reading different material), can we agree to revert to stable revision of May 27th ( this one) to stop the edit war? I would do it myself but I already tried it more than once [24] [25] [26] [27] without success... --Langus TxT 14:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(As a first step, of course. Then we can start including the text on which we have already reached agreement, using Talk page previously to confirm consensus.) --Langus TxT 14:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to get wider community input on a matter that is preventing an effort to improve wikipedia's coverage of the role played by Luis Vernet in the Falkland Islands. There are two key areas I feel community input would be helpful:
1. Luis Vernet had multiple dealings with the British and visited the British consulate on more than occasion. He corresponded regularly with the British consul Woodbine Parish for a number of years. We have one source Cawkell, definitely referring to a meeting in January 1828. The second Shuttleworth also refers to a meeting but the date of the meeting is unclear in this account and the only date definitively given is to 1829 in reference to a scheme to form a penal colony. It has been inferred from this that the date of the meeting must be 1829. Both sources agree that Vernet had recognised the British sovereignty claim and requested British protection for Vernet's own settlement. A corroborating factor is that Cawkell refers to the grant given to Vernet by the Government of Buenos Aires was raised in the meeting, which can also be dated to January 1828. We have one editor asserting there is a conflict between sources, insisting he changes the chronological order of the article. He is moving the meeting with the consulate to after a later event when Vernet was appointed Military and Civil Commander in mid-1829, which is actually contradicted by the sources; the scheme referred to was suggested in early 1829. Further he is insisting we must use attribution to infer that only Cawkell mentions Vernet's approaches to the British for endorsement of his venture. This is an almost exact reprise of an earlier RFC Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 2#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling. Rather than actually dealing with and reporting on what sources say, the effort is focused on challenging their reliability and using attribution to infer doubt.
2. The same editor has also challenged Cawkell's references to Vernet's correspondence with Lt Smith, first British residence, and that both Lt Smith and his son provided Vernet with regular accounts. Again he asserted only Cawkell mentions this, I have obtained images of some of the original correspondence from the archives which confirms this exists. One example is accounts provided by Lt Smith to Vernet, one example is Vernet writing to the British C in C praising Lt Smith's administration of his property and another a covering letter giving instructions to deal with the personal effects of the victims of the Gaucho murders. This editor is now simply removing these alleging they clutter the article and demanding we still attribute this solely to Cawkell. It is also relevant to note that Vernet's dealing with the British are referred to in Caillet-Bois - an Argentine source and the same editor has been using this source whilst insisting only Cawkell made reference to it.
Questions for wider community input:
According to the archives, Vernet visited the British Consulate in Buenos Aires and met with Vice-Consul Charles Griffiths on 30 January 1828 emphasis added. At that point the land grant was counter signed by Griffiths and Vernet promised reports on his progress and expressed the desire for a British garrison. Woodbine Parish, the consul, requested a further meeting with Vernet, which took place in early 1829. On 25 April 1829 Parish sent a dispatch with these details. These details are contained in Despatch 24 found in PRO FO 6 499 in the archives at Kew. Some of these details are also corroborated by Caillet-Bois 1952, pp. 305.
As regards hidden text, it is merely drawing attention to the existing consensus (reached despite the biased nature of the RFC designed to provoke the opposite conclusion) and this is an acceptable use. Lets try and allow for some outside comment, without the temptation to have the WP:LASTWORD. W C M email 19:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
There's not much to say about this issue. This is a clear case of WP:OR. We have a couple of editors who are making analysis and reach conclusions not stated by the sources. Several articles in Wikipedia (including this one) claim that Vernet had a British permission. There is no mention of such permission in any academic literature.
Our policy is clear: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. That's the problem here!
Where is the British permission? Now you are talking about the land grant issued by Buenos Aires. Where is the British permission? Where are the academic sources that have those exact words? I'm asking for reliable sources. Hey! I'm asking for British scholars! -- ProfesorFavalli ( talk) 00:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted simply because the reason for removing comment had no basis in policy. In addition, as noted in the RFC the letters are prima facie evidence of Vernet's dealing with the British. W C M email 23:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:COI coming from a British soldier? Hilarious. Caillet-Bois at page 305 is already talking about 1829, not 1824. Moreover, Caillet-Bois explicitly says in p.297: "Más aun. Los observadores ingleses existentes en Buenos Aire no dieron señal alguna de vida cuando las autoridades de esta ciudad acordaron sucesivas concesiones de las islas, concesiones que hemos puntualizado como el lector ha notado. Es que, a nuestro entender, los pretendidos incontrovertibles derechos de Inglaterra solo fueron "descubiertos" en 1829, pero por razones que nada tienen que ver con la antigua discusión de los títulos de soberanía de las famosas y disputadas tierras. Y esto es lo que a continuación trataremos de poner en evidencia". Translation: "Our understanding is that the claimed incontestable rights of England were only "discovered" in 1829 (...) and this is which we'll try to put in evidence."
I'm sorry gentlemen, but ProfesorFavalli and myself have contested this material from the beginning, and nonetheless you went on to edit-war these inaccuracies (and a sh**load of images) into the article. I'm reverting again and respectfully requesting mediation from MarshalN20, who has helped us in situations like this before, and whom we all hold in high regard. --Langus TxT 22:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the request for mediation, but at present I find myself with little time to conduct a thorough mediation. Based on a preliminary analysis, it seems that there are a couple of important points that are being discussed at present. The first is in regards to the Mary Cawkell source, and the second is with regards to "hidden text" in the article.
What makes Cawkell a complicated source is that it has been suggested by other sources as siding with the British version of the Falklands' history—by others I mean people like British historian Peter J. Beck, in The Falkland Islands as an International Problem, and even Lowell Gustafson in The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands (however, neither directly declare this). I should, nonetheless, emphasize very clearly that Cawkell is not a bad source to use; in fact, it is an important source within the historiography of the Falkland Islands. Therefore, unless another equally strong source directly contradicts Cawkell's assertions, or unless a direct quote is used from Cawkell's text, there is no need to mention her directly in the text.-- MarshalN20 Talk 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
“ | According to the archives, Vernet visited the British Consulate in Buenos Aires and met with Vice-Consul Charles Griffiths on 30 January 1828 emphasis added. At that point the land grant was counter signed by Griffiths and Vernet promised reports on his progress and expressed the desire for a British garrison. Woodbine Parish, the consul, requested a further meeting with Vernet, which took place in early 1829. On 25 April 1829 Parish sent a dispatch with these details. These details are contained in Despatch 24 found in PRO FO 6 499 in the archives at Kew. | ” |
Luis Vernet was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After searching the Internet I found that in most places Vernet's name is spelled "Luis", not "Louis". Since he was an Argentine governor and I couldn't find any conclusive source either way I changed the name to the Argentine (and most common in Google) spelling and all the links accordingly. I'll try to provide some sources for this (other than google searches). Worst case scenario, we'll rename them again. :)
Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
PS: I know he was french, and kinda contradicts my changes... maybe I should've discussed first... Anyone wants to go back, let's talk. sorry for rushing into this
In fact he was born in Hamburg and was of French - Huguenot descent, according to this source [1] his birthname was Ludwig, but off course he's known as Luis. HerkusMonte ( talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
A user has changed his birth place to Hamburg Germany, and posted this site as a reference. That site clearly states he was a "French-born Hamburg merchant". Unless reliable sources are posted showing he was not born in France, it will be reverted. -- Alexf 42 18:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's a fast response, these sources (sorry it's German) state clearly he was born in Hamburg [2],[ [3]] and here's someone searching for his anchestor Luis Vernet, born in Hamburg [ [4]], I used the liverpoolmuseum because it's the only english source I could find, sorry I didn't read it properly. I'll try to find something more about him, but it seems he wasn't French (just his name) HerkusMonte ( talk) 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
As France isn't really a birthPLACE and several sources claim him to be born in Hamburg I deleted the "born in France" sentence, until we have exact informations about the town he was born in, I think it's not necessary to add a whole country as a place of birth. HerkusMonte ( talk) 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
And his birth name was Louis, he later changed it to Luis to reflect his adoptive country. Justin talk 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I found this: "The Falklands War" by Daniel K. Gibran [5] calling him "a (Hamburg) merchant of French extraction" and Encyclopædia Americana [6] "a native of Hamburg". HerkusMonte ( talk) 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Something more: "Vernet was of French Protestant (Huguenot) descent, born in Hamburg in Germany, and he spent some years in the United States before settling in Buenos Aires." [7]. HerkusMonte ( talk) 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
There are many sources to confirm that he was born in France.
For instance The Falkland Islands by Ian Strange has him a French born Hamburg merchant. Julius Goebel. The Struggle for the Falkland Islands also has him as a French born Hamburg merchant. Goebel will confirm the name change I believe but I can't find my copy to be sure. Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960 By Harold F. Peterson "French origin" Signals of War by Lawrence Freedman and Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse has him a "Frenchman" [8] "Frenchman"
I could go on, most sources i've seen indicated he moved to Hamburg at a young age but he was born in France. Having said that the authors of your final reference have spent 10 years of impeccable research in preparing that paper; so I would give it some weight. I think the best compromise is to state that his birthplace as Hamburg but indicate that the exact birthplace is confused and some sources indicate it was France. Is that acceptable? Justin talk 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Also worth pointing out that Germany didn't exist at this point in time. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
UNINDENT
After some further research I've found that this is indeed correct and Vernet was born in Hamburg. The confusion over his birth place appears to have arisen out of his attempt to persuade the French Government to act on his behalf in his dispute with Britain in the 1850s. Justin talk 09:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"In September 1832 a new interim military and political commander, Juan Mestivier, was appointed and a gunboat, the ARA Sarandi, was dispatched to support him. The British objected that his appointment infringed British sovereignity over the Islands. More problematic for Mestivier was that his own forces would not accept his authorithy and two months later, when the Sarandi sailed away from the Islands, the garrison mutinied and killed him. The Sarandi returned and attempted to rout the mutineers. Just as it was doing so, on 2 January 1833, the Clio under the command of Captain J.J. Onlslow, appeared in Port Louis. Onslow told Don Jose Maria Pinedo aboard the Sarandi that the Islands belonged to no one, and that the British flag would replace that of Argentina the next day, 3 January 1833. Pinedo protested but in the face of superior force he did no resist. To Britain this demonstrated that the transfer control was a matter of persuation, for no shots were fired. Argentina points to the coercitive nature of persuasion." From The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: The origins of the Falklands war by Lawrence Freedman, page 8.
"In early 1832 Argentina sent to 'Las Malvinas' a new Governor, Don Juan Esteban Mestivier, but he was murdered shortly after his arrival by mutineers. Don Jose Maria Pinedo, officer in charge of the Argentine warship 'Sarandi', took command of the settlement. [...] In December 1832 the British returned to the Falkland Islands, concerned by the unlawful activities of the Americans and by the Argentine assertions of sovereignty. [...] The British commander, Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag. Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands." From falklands.info
Before my change, the article read: "This left the islands in a state of anarchy, occupied by escaped convicts and pirates. Attempts by the Argentine government to re-establish the settlement as a penal colony failed when a new Governor (Juan Esteban Mestivier) arrived in the islands in November 1832, only to be murdered by a mutiny. In January 1833, the United Kingdom sent a naval task force, regaining control of the islands."
I've fixed it on grounds on NPOV and correctness, as it can get people to believe that Argentine settlements just "failed" and British task force more or less landed and planted a flag. -- Langus-TxT ( talk) 21:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Last version before my additions read: "Luis Vernet (born Louis Vernet in 1791 - died in 1871) was a merchant from Hamburg of Huguenot descent." I believe this introduction needed to be expanded, since it didn't mention the most relevant aspect of his life (and the reason why it is included in WP), which is his relation to the Falkland Islands.
Proposal: Luis Vernet (born Louis Vernet in 1791 - died in 1871) was a merchant from Hamburg of Huguenot descent. As a governor of Argentina he leaded a settlement in the Falkland Islands between 1829 and 1831.
I believe this short addition remedies this problem and rises no controversial issues. -- Langus ( talk) 16:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the recent changes for a number of reasons. First of all the English grammar was incorrect and changing well written prose for poorly written prose is not improving the article. Secondly, it removed a lot of information. Vernet is a controversial figure and removing this is removing a significant fact, especially in the context of the sovereignty dispute. Thirdly it was inaccurate, Vernet's control over the settlement at Port Louis ended as a result of the Gaucho murders in August 1833, it continued even after the Lexington Raid and the British return. Note I explained the reason - and I did not revert to the version you demanded as you have given no good reason to do so. Simply asserting neutral prose is POV is not a good reason, nor is WP:NOCONSENSUS. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) While I am certainly able to identify simple grammar mistakes, there's a difference between a simple error in grammar and totally changing the meaning to something unrecognisably different from what was apparently intended.
It's certainly possible that I have not properly understood what you (Langus) were intending to write. Unfortunately, it is difficult to make sense of a point being made when it is so entirely shorn of punctuation and when what it says is something different from what it is intended to say. I can try to understand what you write, and gloss over grammatical errors or failures in punctuation, but I don't believe I can be expected to read your mind.
That said, it was not Vernet's practical efforts that ended there but only his personal physical presence on the islands. The islanders continued to be his employees and he continued to pay them for another eighteen months. The only sense in which your point makes sense to me is inasmuch as Vernet did not need to continue to put effort into establishing something that had already been established. Which is not something that logically belongs in the lede. Pfainuk talk 09:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wizardman ( talk · contribs) 15:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Here are the issues I found:
Based on the above points, I don't think it can realistically become a GA soon, so I'm unfortunately going to fail it outright. After the concerns are addressed, I would suggest trying WP:PR to get another pair of eyes relatively quickly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
We've been here before, but: why exactly "regained" would be more appropriate than "gained"?
Some definitions:
If "gained control" is somehow problematic, I'm open to other options. -- Langus ( talk) 23:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, guys, I'm here from the 3O noticeboard. Given that the disputed wording is a wikilink to another article on Wikipedia, I'd imagine the best wording in this article would be to reflect the wording of that title. If it's inaccurate so say that the British "re"-gained control/possession/whatever, then that article's title should be changed first (after a consensus is reached through discussion, of course). Since it appears that there has already been extensive discussion of this issue on that article's talk page, and since it (presumably) has reached a consensus in the article's present title, we should reflect that consensus in our wording here, as well. Thus, I'd say that the wording of this diff, as worded by Wee Curry Monster, is probably the best, since it is the most directly related to the title of the other article. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 21:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
My edit summary was maybe unclear. My point being to have the disambiguation sentence calling him Argentine implies his nationality was Argentine, was this the case? Undoubtedly he was appointed governor by Argentina (even if it was known as something else then). Is there a sentence that shows the governor for Argentina that does not imply nationality, such as Argentine Appointed Governor of Puerto Luis. If a non-Argentine citizen was now appointed Governor of the Islands by Argentina it wouldn't make him/her Argentine without other actions. Bevo74 ( talk) 08:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
First, [13] the "handy" online reference. It should be noted that falklands.info is self-published and authored by two Falklanders without any credentials, Jason Lewis and Alison Inglis: [14] Are we seriously arguing to keep this?
Secondly, WCM's comments inside a cite are erroneous and disruptive. I quote: "Discussed at length in RFC Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 2#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling? Person challenging the cite has previously tried to remove this information. Consensus of RFC was that these citations established this fact." This is erroneous because a) I didn't get involved too much in that discussion, b) the RfC was closed noting that: "this discussion largely fails as an RfC due to the non-neutrality of the debate proposal. What ensues is an extension of the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#British "Permission" II with the same participants", and even that "in the absence of further reliable evidence (such as, for example, government archives), they must convey to the reader that any definitive conclusions must be left open". Plus c), consensus can change. In fact, I have changed my view on Mary Cawkell since then which leads me to my next point...
I no longer consider Mary Cawkell to be capable enough to bring into literature a novel interpretation of what Vernet's "stamps" means. IMO, Cawkell confused an act of document legalization carried by the British Consulate with "a permission" from the British Government. Cawkell says this "stamping" of "a grant" happened in January 1826. She might be referring to the facade contract by which Pacheco simulated to to cede his share to Mr. Green & Mr. Hodgson, British merchants in Buenos Aires, as a precaution for the impending war between the United Provinces and Brasil:
“ | El 31 de Diciembre de 1825 [Vernet] celebraba un arreglo con Pacheco. Para esa época había tomado sus precauciones en vista de la inminente guerra entre los Imperiales [en Brasil] y Buenos Aires. En primer término, el propio Pacheco simulaba, por un convenio celebrado el 10 de octubre de dicho año, ceder a los señores Green y Hodgson "del comercio inglés en esta plaza" todas las concesiones recibidas del Gobierno. ["cuio documento --dicen los señores Green y Hodgson-- es nulo de ningún valor ni efecto pues ni ha hecho tal donación ó enagenación, ni por consiguiente, ha recibido tal cantidad; pues por fines particulares y temerosos de la guerra que se aproxima..."] Luego, y antes de iniciar la gran aventura, hipotecaba las tierras que, en virtud de ser el primer poblador o por concesiones que en adelante le hiciese el gobierno, llegasen a pertenecerloe. Con este acto, bien característico, Vernet deseaba poner a cubierto a sus descendientes y acreedores de cualquier contingencia que le pudiese sobrevenir de la guerra que, por largos meses, desangraría al Brasil y a las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, o de la navegación no exenta de peligros por los mares del Sur. | ” |
As noted, this was denied by these British merchants in a counter-document.
It is not unthinkable that a housewife condensing history for the local Falklander radio station could have seen more in this act of what really meant... specially if she based her investigations on books in Spanish, not being a native speaker.
And finally, regarding Shuttleworth... I've repeated every time it was brought up that the author is talking about 1829. This is getting borderline WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT, so I expect an explanation for the insistence with this source to reference something that allegedly happened in 1826. --Langus TxT 01:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
“ | In the course of the year 1829 the Consul-General first called the attention of the Foreign Office to the question of the Falkland Islands. [] Parish's attention was first called the question early in 1829, when the Buenos Ayreans proposed a scheme for detention of prisoners and convicts in the Islands. Parish at once communicated the intention of the Buenos Ayres Government to the Foreign Office, but before writing his next despatch a new development had arisen. A certain Mt. Louis Vernet had obtained permission from Rosas to colonise Solidad and Staten Island; he had done so with great success, finding the soil suitable for potatoes and other vegetables, the climate excellent, and the prospects for cattle-breeding most promising. Hearing that England claimed sovereignty of the islands, he now applied to Great Britain, through their Charge d'Affairs, for the protection of his colonists. | ” |
I have added a NPOV tag to the article for two reasons.
First of all, [17], copies of correspondence between Luis Vernet and British authorities has been removed under the guise of WP:BRD. The same editor has been denying for years there was any correspondence, now direct proof has been produced back up by a WP:RS he is simply removing it.
Secondly, an editor Prof Favelli, has removed British sources simply based on their nationality, he is then claiming the content is uncited. W C M email 19:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Cawkell notes that Vernet made a fortune from a process of preserving hides. However, I cannot find any reference to any process known as Vernetizar outside of wiki, other than the WP:SPS site [18], which I do not consider reliable. The source given Historical Dictionary of Argentina London: Scarecrow Press, 1978 doesn't appear to exist [19]. The edit that added this [20] was done by an editor who has been blocked for serial sockpuppetry. I am concerned this is false information. W C M email 23:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
“ | Un señor de apellido Vernet inventó una fórmula química para que los cueros soporten las largas travesías. Por eso se habla de "vernetizar" (A Mr. Vernet invented a chemical formula that cures hides for long voyages. That is why we speak of "vernetizar") | ” |
It's being "proposed" that a comment be included at the mention of the alleged 1826 "British authorization" for Vernet settlement. It reads:
Discussed at length in RFC Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 2#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling? Consensus of RFC was that these citations established this fact.
This usage is against WP:HIDDEN. I strongly suggest everyone to read it in full. There's a section, Inappropriate uses for hidden text, where we are told that "Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus".
The invoked RfC was closed by an admin noting that "this discussion largely fails as an RfC due to the non-neutrality of the debate proposal. What ensues is an extension of the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#British "Permission" II with the same participants about the reliability of Cawkell's and Shuttleworth's chronicles of historical facts and whether Vernet went to obtain permission or simply to get a document certified".
Therefore, because consensus never existed and the idea never stopped being challenged, I consider this hidden comment unwarranted and detrimental to the building of a real consensus on this matter. --Langus TxT 22:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted the addition of three letters, for a total of 7 pages/images, in the face of them being an excessive amount of pictures, and honestly not adding much to the article.
May I ask Wee Curry Monster why the need for them? Also, if you had to choose, which one of them would you propose for addition? Bear in mind MOS:IMAGES and WP:IUP. --Langus TxT 06:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Really, Kahastok? The sources provided are a) Shuttleworth, who explicitly talks about 1829, and b) John Fowler as reported by Buenos Aires Herald, a Falklander former Superintendent of Education of the FI and Manager of the Falkland Islands Tourist Board. If this is a reliable source to you, then Cristina Kirchner, Daniel Filmus, Hector Timmerman, must be so too, when printed by BA Herald. Utter nonsense. Regarding the letters, they are dated 1835 and depict exchanges between Vernet and Hammond, Smith and Vernet, etc.; none of them are between Vernet and Parish and certainly not from 1828 or older. Do you know what we are discussing about? Have you inspected those letters? Because otherwise you are being WP:DISRUPTIVE.
@WCM: You keep on focusing on my past (now obsolete) standings. I want to discuss content; you divert to talking about editors. Would you stop doing that, please?
We must bear in mind that Caillet-Bois is probably the very place from where Cawkell informed herself to write The Falkland Islands. She didn't had access to primary sources, to Vernet's archives; Caillet-Bois did. --Langus TxT 14:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have again added a NPOV tag to the article for two reasons.
First of all, [23], copies of correspondence between Luis Vernet and British authorities has been removed again. We've had years of the same editor has been denying for years there was any correspondence, now direct proof has been produced back up by a WP:RS he is simply removing it.
Secondly, an editor Prof Favelli, is continuing to WP:TAG team to remove content for nationalist POV reasons. W C M email 07:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Since there are one or two points where we seem to be speaking different languages (or reading different material), can we agree to revert to stable revision of May 27th ( this one) to stop the edit war? I would do it myself but I already tried it more than once [24] [25] [26] [27] without success... --Langus TxT 14:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(As a first step, of course. Then we can start including the text on which we have already reached agreement, using Talk page previously to confirm consensus.) --Langus TxT 14:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to get wider community input on a matter that is preventing an effort to improve wikipedia's coverage of the role played by Luis Vernet in the Falkland Islands. There are two key areas I feel community input would be helpful:
1. Luis Vernet had multiple dealings with the British and visited the British consulate on more than occasion. He corresponded regularly with the British consul Woodbine Parish for a number of years. We have one source Cawkell, definitely referring to a meeting in January 1828. The second Shuttleworth also refers to a meeting but the date of the meeting is unclear in this account and the only date definitively given is to 1829 in reference to a scheme to form a penal colony. It has been inferred from this that the date of the meeting must be 1829. Both sources agree that Vernet had recognised the British sovereignty claim and requested British protection for Vernet's own settlement. A corroborating factor is that Cawkell refers to the grant given to Vernet by the Government of Buenos Aires was raised in the meeting, which can also be dated to January 1828. We have one editor asserting there is a conflict between sources, insisting he changes the chronological order of the article. He is moving the meeting with the consulate to after a later event when Vernet was appointed Military and Civil Commander in mid-1829, which is actually contradicted by the sources; the scheme referred to was suggested in early 1829. Further he is insisting we must use attribution to infer that only Cawkell mentions Vernet's approaches to the British for endorsement of his venture. This is an almost exact reprise of an earlier RFC Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 2#RfC: Did Vernet seek and obtain British permission before settling. Rather than actually dealing with and reporting on what sources say, the effort is focused on challenging their reliability and using attribution to infer doubt.
2. The same editor has also challenged Cawkell's references to Vernet's correspondence with Lt Smith, first British residence, and that both Lt Smith and his son provided Vernet with regular accounts. Again he asserted only Cawkell mentions this, I have obtained images of some of the original correspondence from the archives which confirms this exists. One example is accounts provided by Lt Smith to Vernet, one example is Vernet writing to the British C in C praising Lt Smith's administration of his property and another a covering letter giving instructions to deal with the personal effects of the victims of the Gaucho murders. This editor is now simply removing these alleging they clutter the article and demanding we still attribute this solely to Cawkell. It is also relevant to note that Vernet's dealing with the British are referred to in Caillet-Bois - an Argentine source and the same editor has been using this source whilst insisting only Cawkell made reference to it.
Questions for wider community input:
According to the archives, Vernet visited the British Consulate in Buenos Aires and met with Vice-Consul Charles Griffiths on 30 January 1828 emphasis added. At that point the land grant was counter signed by Griffiths and Vernet promised reports on his progress and expressed the desire for a British garrison. Woodbine Parish, the consul, requested a further meeting with Vernet, which took place in early 1829. On 25 April 1829 Parish sent a dispatch with these details. These details are contained in Despatch 24 found in PRO FO 6 499 in the archives at Kew. Some of these details are also corroborated by Caillet-Bois 1952, pp. 305.
As regards hidden text, it is merely drawing attention to the existing consensus (reached despite the biased nature of the RFC designed to provoke the opposite conclusion) and this is an acceptable use. Lets try and allow for some outside comment, without the temptation to have the WP:LASTWORD. W C M email 19:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
There's not much to say about this issue. This is a clear case of WP:OR. We have a couple of editors who are making analysis and reach conclusions not stated by the sources. Several articles in Wikipedia (including this one) claim that Vernet had a British permission. There is no mention of such permission in any academic literature.
Our policy is clear: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. That's the problem here!
Where is the British permission? Now you are talking about the land grant issued by Buenos Aires. Where is the British permission? Where are the academic sources that have those exact words? I'm asking for reliable sources. Hey! I'm asking for British scholars! -- ProfesorFavalli ( talk) 00:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted simply because the reason for removing comment had no basis in policy. In addition, as noted in the RFC the letters are prima facie evidence of Vernet's dealing with the British. W C M email 23:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:COI coming from a British soldier? Hilarious. Caillet-Bois at page 305 is already talking about 1829, not 1824. Moreover, Caillet-Bois explicitly says in p.297: "Más aun. Los observadores ingleses existentes en Buenos Aire no dieron señal alguna de vida cuando las autoridades de esta ciudad acordaron sucesivas concesiones de las islas, concesiones que hemos puntualizado como el lector ha notado. Es que, a nuestro entender, los pretendidos incontrovertibles derechos de Inglaterra solo fueron "descubiertos" en 1829, pero por razones que nada tienen que ver con la antigua discusión de los títulos de soberanía de las famosas y disputadas tierras. Y esto es lo que a continuación trataremos de poner en evidencia". Translation: "Our understanding is that the claimed incontestable rights of England were only "discovered" in 1829 (...) and this is which we'll try to put in evidence."
I'm sorry gentlemen, but ProfesorFavalli and myself have contested this material from the beginning, and nonetheless you went on to edit-war these inaccuracies (and a sh**load of images) into the article. I'm reverting again and respectfully requesting mediation from MarshalN20, who has helped us in situations like this before, and whom we all hold in high regard. --Langus TxT 22:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the request for mediation, but at present I find myself with little time to conduct a thorough mediation. Based on a preliminary analysis, it seems that there are a couple of important points that are being discussed at present. The first is in regards to the Mary Cawkell source, and the second is with regards to "hidden text" in the article.
What makes Cawkell a complicated source is that it has been suggested by other sources as siding with the British version of the Falklands' history—by others I mean people like British historian Peter J. Beck, in The Falkland Islands as an International Problem, and even Lowell Gustafson in The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands (however, neither directly declare this). I should, nonetheless, emphasize very clearly that Cawkell is not a bad source to use; in fact, it is an important source within the historiography of the Falkland Islands. Therefore, unless another equally strong source directly contradicts Cawkell's assertions, or unless a direct quote is used from Cawkell's text, there is no need to mention her directly in the text.-- MarshalN20 Talk 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
“ | According to the archives, Vernet visited the British Consulate in Buenos Aires and met with Vice-Consul Charles Griffiths on 30 January 1828 emphasis added. At that point the land grant was counter signed by Griffiths and Vernet promised reports on his progress and expressed the desire for a British garrison. Woodbine Parish, the consul, requested a further meeting with Vernet, which took place in early 1829. On 25 April 1829 Parish sent a dispatch with these details. These details are contained in Despatch 24 found in PRO FO 6 499 in the archives at Kew. | ” |