![]() | 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 |
Wikipedia is a multi-language encyclopaedia [ sic] with, as far as I know, similar core content policies applicable to each language. For example, the English version uses these core content policies and the Español version uses these política similar policies, but in this case four. Both these versions contain a policy for verifiability although, unless Google is translating the Español version incorrectly, it seems consensus is more important in the Español version compared to the English version. Such differences will naturally cause difficulties when cultures clash as editors from different countries appear to be doing whilst working on this particular article.
English language editors, particularly in this context British editors, are attempting to write articles that are verifiable and in so doing, will naturally prefer English language sources. Español language editors, particularly in this context Argentinians, are attempting to write articles that (if I understand correctly) are a consensus of editors. The relevant (Google) translation of No son parte de la enciclopedia is "It is therefore not necessary to provide reliable sources , check Wikipedia rules or make the rules in a neutral or include an external authority to determine their own rules and procedures of Wikipedia. Instead, the content of this site [Español Wikipedia] is controlled by the broad community consensus and style should emphasize clarity, sincerity and usefulness for other publishers". Nevertheless, an Español speaking editor will naturally prefer Español sources. I am fairly certain that in the context of this article British and Spanish sources will disagree.
Therefore, these differences in both policy and sources will naturally cause editors from different countries to disagree with each other. We should all attempt to recognise these differences and try very hard to abide by our own language version policies and sources whilst giving all respect, support and encouragement to editors from other countries. By the same token, editors from other countries should not attempt to enforce their own policies and sources on Wikipedians writing in a different language.
Please be aware that I am not a Spanish speaker. Therefore the Spanish links I have used and the Google translations I have provided have all been in good faith. Any errors are mine and I apologise in advance if I have made a mistake. I have certainly not wished to cause offence to any English or Spanish speaking people
-- Senra ( Talk) 14:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It is proposed to rename the current article: Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. There are currently two titles being suggested differing only whether re is prepended to possession—see #1 and #2 below. If you support one of these titles, please take the time to cite and quote your source(s). Use {{ cite}} in full for a citation that has not appeared in this thread before or use the shorter form author (year) if it has. If your support can additionally be reinforced by (a) short quotation(s) from the citation(s), all the better. If you support neither, please cast your oppose below this introduction but above the first title suggestion, stating the reason for your oppose -- Senra ( Talk) 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
|
On reflection, and as I am not contributing directly to the article, I feel I should not vote here. I have therefore withdrawn my votes --
Senra (
Talk)
16:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I Suggest Reestablishment of British settlement on the islands, as British had never before Ruled the islands nor has complete possesion of them, as their previous presence in the islands was contemporary with French or Spanish, so they certainly didnt rule and if they possesed anything it was the small island where they where installed and not the rest of the island, which were in parts ocupied by France or Spain or empty land. The fact that the spanish expelled them and they returned to port Egmont after the Spanish agreed to allow The British to return (with or without a secret agreement to abandoning the islands later as they did) would seem to suggest that if anyone ruled the islands at that time it was the spanish. 190.229.17.23 ( talk) 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I plan to set up auto-archiving of this article talk page.
I will set it to auto-archive discussions that are older than 90 days but to retain at least 8 threads, and to add appropriate links at the top of this page.
If anyone objects, please say so, here. If there's no objections after about a week, I will implement this. Cheers, Chzz ► 10:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Support This is a good idea that will help us focus --
Senra (
Talk)
11:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Was planning to try and set it up myself but better you do it as I've never done it before.
Wee Curry Monster
talk
15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Thank you! --
Langus (
talk)
02:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Done
[1] - of course, the params could be changed via agreement. Active editors may wish to change;
|minthreadsleft = 8 |algo = old(90d)
...but it's a start. HTH. Chzz ► 22:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Wee, as you must remember some passages of the text you added [2] from the main article were once contended over NPOV concerns. I'd like to see if we can work on it to reach an agreement.
New text:
Problems I still find with the text in bold:
I suggest we use Matthew Brisbane account (corroborated by other settlers) that Capt. Fitzroy collected in his diaries: [3]
"but the Lexington ruined it: Captain Duncan's men did such harm to the houses and gardens. I was myself treated as a pirate—rowed stern foremost on board the Lexington—abused on her quarter-deck most violently by Captain Duncan—treated by him more like a wild beast than a human being—and from that time guarded as a felon, until I was released by order of Commodore Rogers."
Fitzroy writes: "I afterwards interrogated an old German, while Brisbane was out of sight, and after him a young native of Buenos Ayres, who both corroborated Brisbane's account."
It could be something like "The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though remaining inhabitants told of damage to private property as well".
Thoughts? -- Langus ( talk) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
List of events
|
---|
|
A couple of points. Langus needs to stop making allegations of POV editing and nuances about the text I write that don't exist. I'm fed up with it, its been going on since his first edit. He also needs to read comments on the talk page before he goes ahead as its clear above I'd included the quote he wanted. As regards Senra's comment, you could have added that prior to this Langus edited [8], which I merely copy edited to correct a few errors [9], [10]. Thats an example of collaborative editing, his approach is combative. And btw his "partial revert" was a full revert of one of my edits for info. I will stop editing for now. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of the reliable sources guideline informs us that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)". I believe discussions on this talk page generally take this approach. However, further within WP:RS we have a brief discussion on the types of sources. This is expanded in the policy document Wikipedia:No original research in the section: primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The Wikipedia articles on primary sources and secondary sources, whilst not policy nor guidelines, may also be worth consulting.
My concern is the possibility that we may be straying into primary source territory when discussing the log of the Lexington and the recollections, via his diary, of Captain FitzRoy. The way I interpret the above policy and guideline material, we should take care that such primary sources are backed-up by reliable secondary sources: if no such secondary sources are available, I suggest we cannot use those primary sources.
Compared to involved editors, I am not as familiar with the sources for this event and I am not really familiar with the nuances of primary vs secondary sourcing. This paragraph, from WP:RS may be useful: " Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors".
-- Senra ( Talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we have secondary sources that endorse Duncan's account?
For the pillage of the settlement, I have found:
Sources for destruction of buildings and private property
|
---|
|
Regards. -- Langus ( talk) 02:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Tatham p.544 "There is no evidence that Duncan's men did any significant damage to the houses. Accounts saying that the settlement was sacked or "razed" are untrue." Some extra quotes from Gustafson: p.35 When Argentina revived its claims against the Lexington raid in 1884, President Cleveland said in his 1885 annual message that Duncan did no more than break up a piratical colony And from Peterson p.115 Alvear learned for the first time that the American government had long since approved of Commander Duncan's conduct. p.117 In view of the ample justification for the act of the Lexington and the derelict condition of the island before and after their alleged occupation by Argentine colonials this Government considers the claim as wholly groundless Though I do not Cawkell supports the comment of the destruction of the settlement. Duncan's report is here [13], this also includes some quotes from Goebbel that give the Argentine version of events. This is a contemporary account that paints a rather different picture [17]. |
Some additional quotes and links above. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
If we're to include what Fitzroy & Darwin reported during their visit to the Falklands, I don't understand why Fitzroy's impressions about the state of the settlement after the Lexington are to be removed. We're echoing his "concern for the settlement with its lack of regular authority", and Darwin's view on Falklands history ("Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual", "England claimed her right", etc.), yet were taking away from the article a passage because it makes the article
"completely unbalanced"?
a) I just don't see it;
b) Fitzroy's account is interesting and is properly attributed, sourced information that IMO adds to the article.
Despite this last point, as noted before this is a primary source. We're pretty much basing half of the 'Aftermath' section on primary sources, which doesn't feel right. I'm open to suggestions that involve the whole Fitzroy's and Darwin's accounts, but I'm against selectively picking those impressions.
Regards. -- Langus ( talk) 21:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
...diplomatic relations with the US remained ruptured till 1839.
Francis Baylies was the United States Chargé d'Affaires in office 15 June 1832 – 26 September 1832, preceded by John M. Forbes, succeeded by William Brent, Jr.
Having replenished our partially-exhausted stock of sea-stores, and the commodore being with the squadron at La Plata, we were compelled, reluctantly, to proceed to that place and set sail accordingly, on the twentieth of May. The situation of our squadron at La Plata, arose out of difficulties which existed between the Argentine Republic and that of the United States, consequent upon the unlawful and unfriendly capture of American vessels, sealing among the Falkland islands, by order of Vemet, the governor; and from the proper and spirited conduct of Captain Duncan, commander of the Lexington, in removing the colony to Montevideo, and thereby, most effectually cutting off all further depredations upon our commerce. [26] We received the customary assistance of boats, from the various men of war, in towing the ship out of the harbour. As we passed the British line-of-battle ship Plantagenet, the band of musicians struck up our national air of "Hail Columbia." On the thirtieth, we made St. Marys, being the northern cape at the entrance of the river. A brisk breeze the day following, accompanied with misty weather, wafted us, at midnight, within four miles of the isle of Flores, on which we found an excellent revolving light; and the weather clearing up, we saw the dull light which crowned the hill called Montevideo. Sail was then shortened to maintain our position until daylight; but in the course of three hours, a strong current running out of the river had forced us into four and a half fathoms of water, on the edge of the English bank. We anchored, on the second of June, in the roadstead of Montevideo, near thee United States’ ship Lexington. On the next morning, we again sailed, with a strong easterly gale, for Buenos Ayres, and at noon anchored in three and a half fathoms of water, off Pinta de India, in thick weather and a bad sea. In the afternoon, it became sufficiently clear for us to obtain a glimpse of the tops of some trees; sail was again made and on the fifth, we came too, in the outer Balissas, near to the United States’ ship Warren, under the command of Acting-Commodore Cooper, and the schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant-Commodore Downing. Having landed Mr. Baylies and family, and taken in provisions for our voyage across the South Atlantic and Indian oceans, we sailed on the nineteenth, and in four days arrived at Montevideo. As we passed to our anchorage ground, H. B. M. frigate Druid, A. R. Hamilton, commander, complimented our flag by her musicians playing "Hail Columbia," which cheered our hearts and created a kindly feeling in us towards our English brethren. [1]: pp 25, 26
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
The "English brethren" likely recognized Peacock has having been previously commissioned in 1812 and fought the last naval engagement of the War of 1812, despite protests by the British captain that the war was over. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 09:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The name of this article is incorrect, the British only occupied a small island between 1765 and 1774, where they established Port Egmont, while other parts of the archipelago was occupied successively by French and Spanish. Before 1833 there was never a British government over the Falkland Islands, but on a small island of them. There can be no re-establishment of something that was never established. Greetings. Nerêo ( talk) 22:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Khendon, Nerêo and Langus (that's four editors Wee), the title needs to be changed. I like Khendon's proposal very much: UK occupation of the Falkland Islands (1833) and would definitely support its usage instead of the current POV title. What do the rest of the editors say? Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 14:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
As has been discussed in detail in the past, "occupation" is inaccurate and biased. It is inaccurate because no occupation of any kind actually occurred in 1833. The British did not leave any new settlement or settlers, or military presence, on the islands in 1833. It's biased because to the modern ear "occupation" in this context tends to imply a military occupation of foreign territory: the British would argue that the Falklands were British at this time and this is the sort of matter of opinion that we should not be prejudging.
Incidentally, Langus' claim that the current title is the British equivalent of the Argentine-biased "British invasion" is simply false.
The issue claimed that the current title refers to prior British rule over the entire archipelago is addressed by the use of the preposition "on" rather than, say, "over" or "of". It's a fine distinction and it's fair to say that no-one is completely happy with it. But we can't neutrally imply that there was no British control on the Falklands before 1833, and it is reasonable to argue that no power before the mid-nineteenth century genuinely controlled the entire archipelago (other than by default). The only genuine control during this period would have been over the immediate vicinity of settlements.
The key thing here is "a better suggestion if anybody has one". I don't think anyone genuinely thinks that the current title is genuinely good, and all of these issues have been cogitated at some length. If we had a better suggestion that accurately and neutrally reflected the events that occurred, we'd be using it. But we don't. While we have had several people coming along and calling POV, ultimately most such arguments have come down to telling us that we should be using terms that are inaccurate, biased or both - such as "British occupation" or "British invasion". The exception was the change that resulted in the current title: the previous one was Re-assertion of British sovereignty of the Falklands. Kahastok talk 17:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
How about British settlement on the Falkland Islands (1833) then? Khendon ( talk) 06:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
From WP:TITLE:
More detail can be found in section WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.
What I'm saying is that I won't support any title coming solely from WP editor's opinion and research. Please include secondary sources in your propositions.
@Kahastok: do you know of any reliable source that refers to this event as "Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands"? -- Langus ( t) 18:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I see no benefit in moving from a neutral name to a made up version reflecting the propaganda of any national narrative. There has been a good logical reason against the use of certain terms, hence, to continue to present demands to use them does not show good faith to achieving a consensus position. This is not a British term, its not an Argentine term but as Langus well knows is not used by neutral parties; unless Langus is claiming the Iranian national news agency is favourable to the British position. The archive presents a number of alternatives I'd be happy to contemplate but for the reasons already stated I reject the ones suggested here as they are clearly non-neutral. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article currently says "In December 1832, two naval vessels were sent by the United Kingdom to re-assert British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands" and seems to have said that or something similar for a while. On that basis, it seems like Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833) ought to be easy to get a consensus for. Khendon ( talk) 10:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes kudos, you got me, my mistake. That book was published later. The point that the phrase is reliably sourced remains, that you also seek to discount sources remains. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Btw the point that you were aware this is sourced but denied it remains. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Speaking as an outsider this whole discussion seems to be a bit Forumy and has increasingly diverged from discussion of the specific topic. That is not to take sides - but just to point out that talk pages of articles are not the place for airing personal greviances. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
As discussed above, I'd like to propose this article be moved to Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833). What are your views? Khendon ( talk) 09:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
As would I, though I think the current title is better from a neutrality perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Done -- As almost everyone involved in the discussion above has already expressed opinion, I've mode the page and its talk page, two archived pages
[22]
[23] (I trust MizaBot will know how to handle them), and fixed one double redirection.
[24] If I missed a spot I'll happily accept a wet
WP:TROUT. --
Langus (
t)
22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I am going to restore the previous category of South America which was removed without discusion, The categories are not POV, but a geographical fact if the continental shelf is included.
Note: The issue here is that I included this article in Category:1833 in Argentina and Category:1833 in the Falkland Islands, but Bevo74 prefers Category:1833 in South America Cambalachero ( talk) 17:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster reverted an edit that corrected the use of the names United Provinces and Argentina. The name Argentina was instated with the 1826 constitution and even though this constitution was rejected shortly after, the name was used from there on in one of its variants (Confederación Argentina, República de la Confederación Argentina, Federación Argentina) [25]. Even more two of its variants (República Argentina, Confederación Argentina) were used along with United Provinces since 1810 as the 1853 constitution states in its 35th article. It is inaccurate to say that in 1833 the name used by the country was United Provinces which is why I made the edit. I'll await comments. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Quite so Cambalachero. In the interest of completeness I tracked down Morenos' letter where it can be seen that both names are used, United Provinces and Argentine Republic. Taking into account Cambalachero's comment on primary sources, here's a fragment of Laver's Breaking the Deadlock referring to this incident (emphasis added):
I believe the sources presented are more than enough to support the edit. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Gaba and Cambalachero are right, and it is illustrative that they were forced to write so much to make this basic point. A few (redundant) notes to add to what they already said:
(1) The closest thing to a constitution back then was the Pacto Federal (1831), which used the term "República Argentina" exclusively.
(2) The same term was used in the preliminary treaty of friendship and commerce celebrated with France in 1834.
(3) This denomination was common in solemn communications. A light example: The inscription on a plate given to Woodbine Parish on his departure.
(4) Nevertheless, "Confederación Argentina" (also "Confederación de la República Argentina") was commonly used. E.g., in p. 375 of the previous book you can read a communication from Arana to Parish in 1839, where he uses "Confederación Argentina" to refer to the state and "República Argentina" to refer to the nation.
(5) "United Provinces" had not been discarded completely, but it was definitely not the preferred or "official" term. It would be odd to read historiography that referred to the country as such in 1832. The so-called "United Provinces" period was over.
(6) "Argentina" and "Argentine Republic" are terms that predate the 1816 independence. It is incorrect to say that they "refer only to a modern state" (WCM dixit).
(7) Why so much fuss about this? If we write about France in 1900, we can properly refer to the country as "France", not necessarily to "the Third French Republic, part of it would ultimately become the current Republic of France". It seems to me that once again WCM is disregarding the concept of state succession, like if all of these were different countries.
To offer context, the article could use "Argentine Confederation" (or something similar) once, although "Argentine Republic" would be correct too. But using "Argentina" in the remainder of the text is perfectly reasonable. -- Andrés Djordjalian ( talk) 05:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.falklandshistory.org/getting-it-right.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 01:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The article as currently written is not presenting all viewpoints in the literature. One version of events has the settlement of Puerto Luis totally destroyed in 1831. The log of the Lexington notes the destruction of the powder store and spiking of guns. It is perfectly acceptable though the log is a WP:PRIMARY source to refer to this. Removing it and including additional text to back up the Argentine claim is a violation of WP:NPOV.
One editor has been conducted a slow revert war, returning periodically to undo work done in the mean time. The text he demanded be included was, this was Matthew Brisbane's account of the events of 1831. BTW from a primary source, the accounts of Darwin and Fitzroy. However, the proposal that this replaces the comments based on the log of the Lexington also violates WP:NPOV since it removes a significant viewpoint to replace it with text backing up the Argentine claim. This becomes doubly one sided.
My initial edits were to correct a POV imbalance on this article, using text accepted elsewhere on wikipedia to express the range of opinions in the literature. Edit warring to prevent the inclusion of text perfectly acceptable by consensus on another article is preventing a POV problem being addressed. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Plenty, see below. The destruction is part of the conspiracy theory that the British tricked the US into destroying the settlement in order to facilitate the later "seizure" by the British. In looking at the sources below its worth noting that many of the sources Langus quotes above that both positions are considered but he selectively quotes from them to support only one. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Tatham p.544 "There is no evidence that Duncan's men did any significant damage to the houses. Accounts saying that the settlement was sacked or "razed" are untrue." Some extra quotes from Gustafson: p.35 When Argentina revived its claims against the Lexington raid in 1884, President Cleveland said in his 1885 annual message that Duncan did no more than break up a piratical colony And from Peterson p.115 Alvear learned for the first time that the American government had long since approved of Commander Duncan's conduct. p.117 In view of the ample justification for the act of the Lexington and the derelict condition of the island before and after their alleged occupation by Argentine colonials this Government considers the claim as wholly groundless Though I do not Cawkell supports the comment of the destruction of the settlement. Duncan's report is here [35], this also includes some quotes from Goebbel that give the Argentine version of events. This is a contemporary account that paints a rather different picture [39]. |
BTW on Falkland Islands with an RFC [40] Langus unsuccessfully lobbied to have the same content removed. This is an issue that was already raised and settled. I just want to quote one comment in that RFC:
“ | Langus' behavior is a bit unsettling and reverting cited edits without rationale certainly does not create an atmosphere where an RFC can function properly. I'm not privy to Falkland disputes and don't have a vested interest in the topic but reading through Curry's edits it seems his contributions are fair and meticulously sorted. Informal mediation is probably a better route to solve this dispute because an RFC will get you nowhere at this point IMO. | ” |
Its a classic example of disruptive and tendentious editing, raising the same issue time and time again. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I know the POV issue has been beaten to death, but I do want to point out that the Spanish and English articles have different titles. One uses "Reassertion" while the other uses "Occupation." Shouldn't those two agree if there is a NPOV? Sowelilitokiemu ( talk) 16:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I did not expect any objection to inserting a weasel tag, WCM, but I agree that I perhaps should have raised it here first. I note that the neutrality of this article has been questioned before on this talk page. One of the main references is from falklands.info which is a site run by a couple of local Falklanders. It is effectively a blog and as such unreliable, even though I think it contains useful information. It seems that much of the text in this article is copied directly from that blog site, which might explain some of the slightly one sided slant on several points of history. In short, it reads as 'bad guy Argies making a mess of everything and good guy Brits there to put everything to right (with help from the trusted US friends). I changed a couple of what I see as mildly slanted phrases and inserted a new reference. I do not dispute the facts of what happened, just the way they are stated. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 21:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Oops, I did not realise you wrote most of this article. I would have been a bit more tactful if I'd realised. Or perhaps it was better I didn't know - pros and cons both ways. No offense meant, if indeed any was taken. I do agree with the "seize" word though. When I look through different sourses I did come across it a lot. I also thought that it isn't really a problem anyway. Seizing a ship can cover all sorts of ways to take control of a ship, peacefully included. I too would enjoy a discussion on the facts but I probably need to gen up on the detail and sources more first. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
To begin with, Argentina was already called Argentina in 1831, see the wikipedia article in Spanish. Is extremely complete, with historical evidence and more information. This article is garbage compared to Wikipedia in Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.44.215.205 ( talk) 17:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I think it would be fair to mention the fact that the french were the first ones in colonize the islands in 1764. Thanks. -- 190.225.240.184 ( talk) 04:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
There seem to be dispute about the use of the "military conflict infobox" in this article. Currently this infobox has been modified as to be also available to cover military events that are neither wars or battles, for example coups. The 1833 events were of military nature. There was threat of use of force, so use of this infobox seem legitimate so far. Dentren | Talk 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
Wikipedia is a multi-language encyclopaedia [ sic] with, as far as I know, similar core content policies applicable to each language. For example, the English version uses these core content policies and the Español version uses these política similar policies, but in this case four. Both these versions contain a policy for verifiability although, unless Google is translating the Español version incorrectly, it seems consensus is more important in the Español version compared to the English version. Such differences will naturally cause difficulties when cultures clash as editors from different countries appear to be doing whilst working on this particular article.
English language editors, particularly in this context British editors, are attempting to write articles that are verifiable and in so doing, will naturally prefer English language sources. Español language editors, particularly in this context Argentinians, are attempting to write articles that (if I understand correctly) are a consensus of editors. The relevant (Google) translation of No son parte de la enciclopedia is "It is therefore not necessary to provide reliable sources , check Wikipedia rules or make the rules in a neutral or include an external authority to determine their own rules and procedures of Wikipedia. Instead, the content of this site [Español Wikipedia] is controlled by the broad community consensus and style should emphasize clarity, sincerity and usefulness for other publishers". Nevertheless, an Español speaking editor will naturally prefer Español sources. I am fairly certain that in the context of this article British and Spanish sources will disagree.
Therefore, these differences in both policy and sources will naturally cause editors from different countries to disagree with each other. We should all attempt to recognise these differences and try very hard to abide by our own language version policies and sources whilst giving all respect, support and encouragement to editors from other countries. By the same token, editors from other countries should not attempt to enforce their own policies and sources on Wikipedians writing in a different language.
Please be aware that I am not a Spanish speaker. Therefore the Spanish links I have used and the Google translations I have provided have all been in good faith. Any errors are mine and I apologise in advance if I have made a mistake. I have certainly not wished to cause offence to any English or Spanish speaking people
-- Senra ( Talk) 14:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It is proposed to rename the current article: Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. There are currently two titles being suggested differing only whether re is prepended to possession—see #1 and #2 below. If you support one of these titles, please take the time to cite and quote your source(s). Use {{ cite}} in full for a citation that has not appeared in this thread before or use the shorter form author (year) if it has. If your support can additionally be reinforced by (a) short quotation(s) from the citation(s), all the better. If you support neither, please cast your oppose below this introduction but above the first title suggestion, stating the reason for your oppose -- Senra ( Talk) 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
|
On reflection, and as I am not contributing directly to the article, I feel I should not vote here. I have therefore withdrawn my votes --
Senra (
Talk)
16:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I Suggest Reestablishment of British settlement on the islands, as British had never before Ruled the islands nor has complete possesion of them, as their previous presence in the islands was contemporary with French or Spanish, so they certainly didnt rule and if they possesed anything it was the small island where they where installed and not the rest of the island, which were in parts ocupied by France or Spain or empty land. The fact that the spanish expelled them and they returned to port Egmont after the Spanish agreed to allow The British to return (with or without a secret agreement to abandoning the islands later as they did) would seem to suggest that if anyone ruled the islands at that time it was the spanish. 190.229.17.23 ( talk) 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I plan to set up auto-archiving of this article talk page.
I will set it to auto-archive discussions that are older than 90 days but to retain at least 8 threads, and to add appropriate links at the top of this page.
If anyone objects, please say so, here. If there's no objections after about a week, I will implement this. Cheers, Chzz ► 10:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Support This is a good idea that will help us focus --
Senra (
Talk)
11:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Was planning to try and set it up myself but better you do it as I've never done it before.
Wee Curry Monster
talk
15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Thank you! --
Langus (
talk)
02:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Done
[1] - of course, the params could be changed via agreement. Active editors may wish to change;
|minthreadsleft = 8 |algo = old(90d)
...but it's a start. HTH. Chzz ► 22:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Wee, as you must remember some passages of the text you added [2] from the main article were once contended over NPOV concerns. I'd like to see if we can work on it to reach an agreement.
New text:
Problems I still find with the text in bold:
I suggest we use Matthew Brisbane account (corroborated by other settlers) that Capt. Fitzroy collected in his diaries: [3]
"but the Lexington ruined it: Captain Duncan's men did such harm to the houses and gardens. I was myself treated as a pirate—rowed stern foremost on board the Lexington—abused on her quarter-deck most violently by Captain Duncan—treated by him more like a wild beast than a human being—and from that time guarded as a felon, until I was released by order of Commodore Rogers."
Fitzroy writes: "I afterwards interrogated an old German, while Brisbane was out of sight, and after him a young native of Buenos Ayres, who both corroborated Brisbane's account."
It could be something like "The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though remaining inhabitants told of damage to private property as well".
Thoughts? -- Langus ( talk) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
List of events
|
---|
|
A couple of points. Langus needs to stop making allegations of POV editing and nuances about the text I write that don't exist. I'm fed up with it, its been going on since his first edit. He also needs to read comments on the talk page before he goes ahead as its clear above I'd included the quote he wanted. As regards Senra's comment, you could have added that prior to this Langus edited [8], which I merely copy edited to correct a few errors [9], [10]. Thats an example of collaborative editing, his approach is combative. And btw his "partial revert" was a full revert of one of my edits for info. I will stop editing for now. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of the reliable sources guideline informs us that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)". I believe discussions on this talk page generally take this approach. However, further within WP:RS we have a brief discussion on the types of sources. This is expanded in the policy document Wikipedia:No original research in the section: primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The Wikipedia articles on primary sources and secondary sources, whilst not policy nor guidelines, may also be worth consulting.
My concern is the possibility that we may be straying into primary source territory when discussing the log of the Lexington and the recollections, via his diary, of Captain FitzRoy. The way I interpret the above policy and guideline material, we should take care that such primary sources are backed-up by reliable secondary sources: if no such secondary sources are available, I suggest we cannot use those primary sources.
Compared to involved editors, I am not as familiar with the sources for this event and I am not really familiar with the nuances of primary vs secondary sourcing. This paragraph, from WP:RS may be useful: " Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors".
-- Senra ( Talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we have secondary sources that endorse Duncan's account?
For the pillage of the settlement, I have found:
Sources for destruction of buildings and private property
|
---|
|
Regards. -- Langus ( talk) 02:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Tatham p.544 "There is no evidence that Duncan's men did any significant damage to the houses. Accounts saying that the settlement was sacked or "razed" are untrue." Some extra quotes from Gustafson: p.35 When Argentina revived its claims against the Lexington raid in 1884, President Cleveland said in his 1885 annual message that Duncan did no more than break up a piratical colony And from Peterson p.115 Alvear learned for the first time that the American government had long since approved of Commander Duncan's conduct. p.117 In view of the ample justification for the act of the Lexington and the derelict condition of the island before and after their alleged occupation by Argentine colonials this Government considers the claim as wholly groundless Though I do not Cawkell supports the comment of the destruction of the settlement. Duncan's report is here [13], this also includes some quotes from Goebbel that give the Argentine version of events. This is a contemporary account that paints a rather different picture [17]. |
Some additional quotes and links above. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
If we're to include what Fitzroy & Darwin reported during their visit to the Falklands, I don't understand why Fitzroy's impressions about the state of the settlement after the Lexington are to be removed. We're echoing his "concern for the settlement with its lack of regular authority", and Darwin's view on Falklands history ("Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual", "England claimed her right", etc.), yet were taking away from the article a passage because it makes the article
"completely unbalanced"?
a) I just don't see it;
b) Fitzroy's account is interesting and is properly attributed, sourced information that IMO adds to the article.
Despite this last point, as noted before this is a primary source. We're pretty much basing half of the 'Aftermath' section on primary sources, which doesn't feel right. I'm open to suggestions that involve the whole Fitzroy's and Darwin's accounts, but I'm against selectively picking those impressions.
Regards. -- Langus ( talk) 21:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
...diplomatic relations with the US remained ruptured till 1839.
Francis Baylies was the United States Chargé d'Affaires in office 15 June 1832 – 26 September 1832, preceded by John M. Forbes, succeeded by William Brent, Jr.
Having replenished our partially-exhausted stock of sea-stores, and the commodore being with the squadron at La Plata, we were compelled, reluctantly, to proceed to that place and set sail accordingly, on the twentieth of May. The situation of our squadron at La Plata, arose out of difficulties which existed between the Argentine Republic and that of the United States, consequent upon the unlawful and unfriendly capture of American vessels, sealing among the Falkland islands, by order of Vemet, the governor; and from the proper and spirited conduct of Captain Duncan, commander of the Lexington, in removing the colony to Montevideo, and thereby, most effectually cutting off all further depredations upon our commerce. [26] We received the customary assistance of boats, from the various men of war, in towing the ship out of the harbour. As we passed the British line-of-battle ship Plantagenet, the band of musicians struck up our national air of "Hail Columbia." On the thirtieth, we made St. Marys, being the northern cape at the entrance of the river. A brisk breeze the day following, accompanied with misty weather, wafted us, at midnight, within four miles of the isle of Flores, on which we found an excellent revolving light; and the weather clearing up, we saw the dull light which crowned the hill called Montevideo. Sail was then shortened to maintain our position until daylight; but in the course of three hours, a strong current running out of the river had forced us into four and a half fathoms of water, on the edge of the English bank. We anchored, on the second of June, in the roadstead of Montevideo, near thee United States’ ship Lexington. On the next morning, we again sailed, with a strong easterly gale, for Buenos Ayres, and at noon anchored in three and a half fathoms of water, off Pinta de India, in thick weather and a bad sea. In the afternoon, it became sufficiently clear for us to obtain a glimpse of the tops of some trees; sail was again made and on the fifth, we came too, in the outer Balissas, near to the United States’ ship Warren, under the command of Acting-Commodore Cooper, and the schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant-Commodore Downing. Having landed Mr. Baylies and family, and taken in provisions for our voyage across the South Atlantic and Indian oceans, we sailed on the nineteenth, and in four days arrived at Montevideo. As we passed to our anchorage ground, H. B. M. frigate Druid, A. R. Hamilton, commander, complimented our flag by her musicians playing "Hail Columbia," which cheered our hearts and created a kindly feeling in us towards our English brethren. [1]: pp 25, 26
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
The "English brethren" likely recognized Peacock has having been previously commissioned in 1812 and fought the last naval engagement of the War of 1812, despite protests by the British captain that the war was over. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 09:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The name of this article is incorrect, the British only occupied a small island between 1765 and 1774, where they established Port Egmont, while other parts of the archipelago was occupied successively by French and Spanish. Before 1833 there was never a British government over the Falkland Islands, but on a small island of them. There can be no re-establishment of something that was never established. Greetings. Nerêo ( talk) 22:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Khendon, Nerêo and Langus (that's four editors Wee), the title needs to be changed. I like Khendon's proposal very much: UK occupation of the Falkland Islands (1833) and would definitely support its usage instead of the current POV title. What do the rest of the editors say? Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 14:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
As has been discussed in detail in the past, "occupation" is inaccurate and biased. It is inaccurate because no occupation of any kind actually occurred in 1833. The British did not leave any new settlement or settlers, or military presence, on the islands in 1833. It's biased because to the modern ear "occupation" in this context tends to imply a military occupation of foreign territory: the British would argue that the Falklands were British at this time and this is the sort of matter of opinion that we should not be prejudging.
Incidentally, Langus' claim that the current title is the British equivalent of the Argentine-biased "British invasion" is simply false.
The issue claimed that the current title refers to prior British rule over the entire archipelago is addressed by the use of the preposition "on" rather than, say, "over" or "of". It's a fine distinction and it's fair to say that no-one is completely happy with it. But we can't neutrally imply that there was no British control on the Falklands before 1833, and it is reasonable to argue that no power before the mid-nineteenth century genuinely controlled the entire archipelago (other than by default). The only genuine control during this period would have been over the immediate vicinity of settlements.
The key thing here is "a better suggestion if anybody has one". I don't think anyone genuinely thinks that the current title is genuinely good, and all of these issues have been cogitated at some length. If we had a better suggestion that accurately and neutrally reflected the events that occurred, we'd be using it. But we don't. While we have had several people coming along and calling POV, ultimately most such arguments have come down to telling us that we should be using terms that are inaccurate, biased or both - such as "British occupation" or "British invasion". The exception was the change that resulted in the current title: the previous one was Re-assertion of British sovereignty of the Falklands. Kahastok talk 17:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
How about British settlement on the Falkland Islands (1833) then? Khendon ( talk) 06:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
From WP:TITLE:
More detail can be found in section WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.
What I'm saying is that I won't support any title coming solely from WP editor's opinion and research. Please include secondary sources in your propositions.
@Kahastok: do you know of any reliable source that refers to this event as "Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands"? -- Langus ( t) 18:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I see no benefit in moving from a neutral name to a made up version reflecting the propaganda of any national narrative. There has been a good logical reason against the use of certain terms, hence, to continue to present demands to use them does not show good faith to achieving a consensus position. This is not a British term, its not an Argentine term but as Langus well knows is not used by neutral parties; unless Langus is claiming the Iranian national news agency is favourable to the British position. The archive presents a number of alternatives I'd be happy to contemplate but for the reasons already stated I reject the ones suggested here as they are clearly non-neutral. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article currently says "In December 1832, two naval vessels were sent by the United Kingdom to re-assert British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands" and seems to have said that or something similar for a while. On that basis, it seems like Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833) ought to be easy to get a consensus for. Khendon ( talk) 10:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes kudos, you got me, my mistake. That book was published later. The point that the phrase is reliably sourced remains, that you also seek to discount sources remains. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Btw the point that you were aware this is sourced but denied it remains. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Speaking as an outsider this whole discussion seems to be a bit Forumy and has increasingly diverged from discussion of the specific topic. That is not to take sides - but just to point out that talk pages of articles are not the place for airing personal greviances. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
As discussed above, I'd like to propose this article be moved to Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833). What are your views? Khendon ( talk) 09:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
As would I, though I think the current title is better from a neutrality perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Done -- As almost everyone involved in the discussion above has already expressed opinion, I've mode the page and its talk page, two archived pages
[22]
[23] (I trust MizaBot will know how to handle them), and fixed one double redirection.
[24] If I missed a spot I'll happily accept a wet
WP:TROUT. --
Langus (
t)
22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I am going to restore the previous category of South America which was removed without discusion, The categories are not POV, but a geographical fact if the continental shelf is included.
Note: The issue here is that I included this article in Category:1833 in Argentina and Category:1833 in the Falkland Islands, but Bevo74 prefers Category:1833 in South America Cambalachero ( talk) 17:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster reverted an edit that corrected the use of the names United Provinces and Argentina. The name Argentina was instated with the 1826 constitution and even though this constitution was rejected shortly after, the name was used from there on in one of its variants (Confederación Argentina, República de la Confederación Argentina, Federación Argentina) [25]. Even more two of its variants (República Argentina, Confederación Argentina) were used along with United Provinces since 1810 as the 1853 constitution states in its 35th article. It is inaccurate to say that in 1833 the name used by the country was United Provinces which is why I made the edit. I'll await comments. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Quite so Cambalachero. In the interest of completeness I tracked down Morenos' letter where it can be seen that both names are used, United Provinces and Argentine Republic. Taking into account Cambalachero's comment on primary sources, here's a fragment of Laver's Breaking the Deadlock referring to this incident (emphasis added):
I believe the sources presented are more than enough to support the edit. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Gaba and Cambalachero are right, and it is illustrative that they were forced to write so much to make this basic point. A few (redundant) notes to add to what they already said:
(1) The closest thing to a constitution back then was the Pacto Federal (1831), which used the term "República Argentina" exclusively.
(2) The same term was used in the preliminary treaty of friendship and commerce celebrated with France in 1834.
(3) This denomination was common in solemn communications. A light example: The inscription on a plate given to Woodbine Parish on his departure.
(4) Nevertheless, "Confederación Argentina" (also "Confederación de la República Argentina") was commonly used. E.g., in p. 375 of the previous book you can read a communication from Arana to Parish in 1839, where he uses "Confederación Argentina" to refer to the state and "República Argentina" to refer to the nation.
(5) "United Provinces" had not been discarded completely, but it was definitely not the preferred or "official" term. It would be odd to read historiography that referred to the country as such in 1832. The so-called "United Provinces" period was over.
(6) "Argentina" and "Argentine Republic" are terms that predate the 1816 independence. It is incorrect to say that they "refer only to a modern state" (WCM dixit).
(7) Why so much fuss about this? If we write about France in 1900, we can properly refer to the country as "France", not necessarily to "the Third French Republic, part of it would ultimately become the current Republic of France". It seems to me that once again WCM is disregarding the concept of state succession, like if all of these were different countries.
To offer context, the article could use "Argentine Confederation" (or something similar) once, although "Argentine Republic" would be correct too. But using "Argentina" in the remainder of the text is perfectly reasonable. -- Andrés Djordjalian ( talk) 05:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.falklandshistory.org/getting-it-right.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 01:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The article as currently written is not presenting all viewpoints in the literature. One version of events has the settlement of Puerto Luis totally destroyed in 1831. The log of the Lexington notes the destruction of the powder store and spiking of guns. It is perfectly acceptable though the log is a WP:PRIMARY source to refer to this. Removing it and including additional text to back up the Argentine claim is a violation of WP:NPOV.
One editor has been conducted a slow revert war, returning periodically to undo work done in the mean time. The text he demanded be included was, this was Matthew Brisbane's account of the events of 1831. BTW from a primary source, the accounts of Darwin and Fitzroy. However, the proposal that this replaces the comments based on the log of the Lexington also violates WP:NPOV since it removes a significant viewpoint to replace it with text backing up the Argentine claim. This becomes doubly one sided.
My initial edits were to correct a POV imbalance on this article, using text accepted elsewhere on wikipedia to express the range of opinions in the literature. Edit warring to prevent the inclusion of text perfectly acceptable by consensus on another article is preventing a POV problem being addressed. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Plenty, see below. The destruction is part of the conspiracy theory that the British tricked the US into destroying the settlement in order to facilitate the later "seizure" by the British. In looking at the sources below its worth noting that many of the sources Langus quotes above that both positions are considered but he selectively quotes from them to support only one. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Tatham p.544 "There is no evidence that Duncan's men did any significant damage to the houses. Accounts saying that the settlement was sacked or "razed" are untrue." Some extra quotes from Gustafson: p.35 When Argentina revived its claims against the Lexington raid in 1884, President Cleveland said in his 1885 annual message that Duncan did no more than break up a piratical colony And from Peterson p.115 Alvear learned for the first time that the American government had long since approved of Commander Duncan's conduct. p.117 In view of the ample justification for the act of the Lexington and the derelict condition of the island before and after their alleged occupation by Argentine colonials this Government considers the claim as wholly groundless Though I do not Cawkell supports the comment of the destruction of the settlement. Duncan's report is here [35], this also includes some quotes from Goebbel that give the Argentine version of events. This is a contemporary account that paints a rather different picture [39]. |
BTW on Falkland Islands with an RFC [40] Langus unsuccessfully lobbied to have the same content removed. This is an issue that was already raised and settled. I just want to quote one comment in that RFC:
“ | Langus' behavior is a bit unsettling and reverting cited edits without rationale certainly does not create an atmosphere where an RFC can function properly. I'm not privy to Falkland disputes and don't have a vested interest in the topic but reading through Curry's edits it seems his contributions are fair and meticulously sorted. Informal mediation is probably a better route to solve this dispute because an RFC will get you nowhere at this point IMO. | ” |
Its a classic example of disruptive and tendentious editing, raising the same issue time and time again. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I know the POV issue has been beaten to death, but I do want to point out that the Spanish and English articles have different titles. One uses "Reassertion" while the other uses "Occupation." Shouldn't those two agree if there is a NPOV? Sowelilitokiemu ( talk) 16:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I did not expect any objection to inserting a weasel tag, WCM, but I agree that I perhaps should have raised it here first. I note that the neutrality of this article has been questioned before on this talk page. One of the main references is from falklands.info which is a site run by a couple of local Falklanders. It is effectively a blog and as such unreliable, even though I think it contains useful information. It seems that much of the text in this article is copied directly from that blog site, which might explain some of the slightly one sided slant on several points of history. In short, it reads as 'bad guy Argies making a mess of everything and good guy Brits there to put everything to right (with help from the trusted US friends). I changed a couple of what I see as mildly slanted phrases and inserted a new reference. I do not dispute the facts of what happened, just the way they are stated. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 21:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Oops, I did not realise you wrote most of this article. I would have been a bit more tactful if I'd realised. Or perhaps it was better I didn't know - pros and cons both ways. No offense meant, if indeed any was taken. I do agree with the "seize" word though. When I look through different sourses I did come across it a lot. I also thought that it isn't really a problem anyway. Seizing a ship can cover all sorts of ways to take control of a ship, peacefully included. I too would enjoy a discussion on the facts but I probably need to gen up on the detail and sources more first. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
To begin with, Argentina was already called Argentina in 1831, see the wikipedia article in Spanish. Is extremely complete, with historical evidence and more information. This article is garbage compared to Wikipedia in Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.44.215.205 ( talk) 17:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I think it would be fair to mention the fact that the french were the first ones in colonize the islands in 1764. Thanks. -- 190.225.240.184 ( talk) 04:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
There seem to be dispute about the use of the "military conflict infobox" in this article. Currently this infobox has been modified as to be also available to cover military events that are neither wars or battles, for example coups. The 1833 events were of military nature. There was threat of use of force, so use of this infobox seem legitimate so far. Dentren | Talk 10:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)