Talk:Luis Vernet

Letters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding your other points:

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

No I'll add them back because they're relevant and interesting historical documents.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

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

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

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

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

As regards your supposed points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-addition of NPOV tag`

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

First of all, [3], copies of correspondence between Luis Vernet and British authorities has been removed again. We've had years of the same editor has been denying for years there was any correspondence, now direct proof has been produced back up by a WP:RS he is simply removing it.

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

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

Suggestion

Since there are one or two points where we seem to be speaking different languages (or reading different material), can we agree to revert to stable revision of May 27th (this one) to stop the edit war? I would do it myself but I already tried it more than once[4][5][6][7] without success... --Langus ^TxT 14:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for wider community input:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an improvement from the original scare comment that read:[8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert

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

The comment you withdrew[9] was more accurate: you are not reverting, you are imposing. The statement above responds to zero of the objections, which were repeated several times, including as a correction to the tainted RfC above. You are being delusional if you think you can get away with this just by using force: you need to start listening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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