Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:22, 25 March 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of the Falkland Islands article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

British Overseas Territories B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

South America: Falklands B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as Top-importance).

History B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.historyofnations.net/southamerica/falklandislands.html

  Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II _Online 15:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

{{subst:cclean:url=http://www.falklandshistory.org/getting-it-right.pdf}}

comments on the bit about pre european discovery

I don't think the Yaghans could have made it, because travelling such a distance on a simple canoe must have been very dangerous, especially in those days. There has been no evidence to show the Falklands had been forested. Also, if the Yaghans had been to the Falklands, why couldn't they stay there and be the "indigenous people" of the Falklands? -- Warrah Falkland Islands

Recent Revert

When adding text eg do not copy verbatim from the source, this is a copyright violation. See the source for confirmation . Please also don't bite the newcomers .

Aside from anything else these were two separate sentences, one did not imply the second. WCM_email 12:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on WCM, don't you have anything better to do?

1. Claiming that "a group of imported gauchos and their families" is a verbatim copy of the source is spurious. On page 58 your link confirms that the author says "a small imported force of armed gauchos and their families". How many other expressions can you use to refer to them? Certainly not "the remaining rump of Vernet's settlement"
2. I condensed those two sentences into one in lieu of style. The second one was obviously accurate; the first one, unsustained.
3. The "newcomer" aggressively confronted me in my Talk page. To judge me properly you should inspect those "revertions" to see whether or not I remained civil. And while you're at it, you should inspect your own revertions too, because they tend to be blunt.

I'm reverting to the version prior to the addendum of Lt. Smith's period because I'm strongly suspicious about a) Smith relying on the remaining of Vernet's settlement; and b) Smith relying on help and advice from Louis Vernet and providing him with regular accounts. This is because, for starters, I can't find such assertions in my 2001 edition of Cawkell, and also because these assertions raise eyebrows when they are not mentioned in the 145 pages-long worke cited, which focus precisely on this period.

Would you be so kind as to transcribe the relevant text here? Thanks. --Langus (t) 21:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to tell us what the 2001 version of Cawkell's book says of Vernet's dealings with Lt. Smith, the relevant reference is p66 - 68. Because the edits you just removed would equally well be supported by those citations as the reference to the 1960 edition. And the information in the thesis is not contradicted by Cawkell, who cites that the Gauchos (eg Coronel and his sons) came from the Vernet settlement.

From the 1960 edition p.51

"But Smith was a man of resource and energy. When Vernet wrote offering his advice he accepted in greatefully and carefully followed his suggestions"

The footnote:

"Lieut. Smith was instructed to see that proper care was taken of Vernet's property and accordingly he appointed his son agent for Vernet's affairs, and accounts of his custodianship were rendered from time to time to Vernet."

On p.52

"There was only a handful of people at Port Louis. Besides Smith and his boat's crew, there were the fragments of Vernet's establishment-the old German Russler, the three women, two children and the three faithful Gauchos, Coronel, Diaz and Lopez."

On p.53 the Lowcay period.

"At the settlement the good work begun by Smith was allowed to deteriorate".

None of this is controversial, disputed or contradicted by the academic paper cited. The decade after the British take over was one of neglect and stagnation, we have a new editor trying to make a contribution and you're reverting them wholesale. For no good reason from what I can see. They're not particularly good at adding cites yet but their contributions are well written and can be supported by sources. As I comment above, the same material can be sourced to the 2001 edition and you claim to have a copy of that. WCM_email 00:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the edits made by WCM and BedsBookworm are accurate based on the sources. I have changed it slightly because I haven't found anything in the above that implies anything as strong as "heavily reliant". He was guided, yes, and advised - but if he was "heavily reliant" I would expect something a bit stronger than taking advice when it was offered. Kahastok talk 20:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thats a fair point, I don't have a problem with that. WCM_email 22:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, it is getting a bit unsettling that Langus-TxT has systematically reverted every edit I've made on this topic. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What is getting increasingly unsettling is the way you single me out and exaggerate about our interaction. I have nothing against you BedsBookworm, and it's alarming to see how you take my edits so personally. You need to understand that they are not about you, they're about content. --Langus (t) 16:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.

Pages 66-68 of Cawkell 2001 do indeed address the Lt Smith's period, but I can't find any of those 1960 quotes. Moreover, one of those quotes says that "Smith was instructed to see that proper care was taken of Vernet's property and accordingly he appointed his son agent for Vernet's affairs, and accounts of his custodianship were rendered from time to time to Vernet". In the 2001 edition, this takes a 180 degrees turn:

"As a result of Hammond's injuction not to indulge in trade, Lt Smith passed the management of Vernet's affairs to his son. This action also did not meet with the approval of Hammond who told him he would still be responsible for his son's management". (p.67)

"At this time Hammond was also sending conflicting communications to Vernet alternatively informing him that he could not allow Lt Smith to manage his affairs on the islands and if he wished to continue his enterprise he should go there in person or send someone to act on his behalf. When however Vernet made arrangements to act in the matter he was informed he would not be permitted to land as settlers were no being permitted. It is clear that at this time Admiral Hammond was unfamiliar with the terms of the re-take-over. It was not until Admiral Grey informed him after his visit (note from Langus: 1836 visit) that without the use of Vernet's hunting horses and his horse gear there would have been no 200 tame cattle feeding around the settlement that this attitude towards Vernet changed to such a extent that he wrote to the Admiralty requesting that Vernet be handsomely rewarded for the use being made of his property".(p.67-68)

Long story short, they didn't, "as Vernet was a tresspaser" (p.68)

The 2001 edition also says that Smith followed written instructions from Vernet but originally intended for Brisbane, and nothing more than that:

"Lt Smith had been fortunate in finding the instructions Vernet had written out for Brisbane which the murderers in their rampage through the settlement in search of money had left untouched". (p.66)

On the other hand, it does confirm that the gauchos on which Smith relied upon were in fact those remaining of the Vernet settlement:

"He had also been able to assemble a small gaucho posse comprising Luna, the elderly Coronel who had taken no part in the murders, two others who had been absent from the settlement at the time and one of his boat's crew who had been a butcher on board a man-of-war". (p.66-67)

Given these contradictions between the first and newer editions of Cawkell, added to the fact that this reliance and interchange with Vernet is not mentioned in academic works such as the one introduced by BedsBookworm, Gough, or Royle convinces me that we should avoid these assertions about Vernet. After all, for all I know Mary Cawkell was an amateur historian from the Falkand Islands (I couldn't find much info on her to be honest).

Also, as I've said in one of my edits which got reverted, "failure of Vernet's settlement" seems a bit odd, as it could be understood that the settlement failed because of its management. It was actually more of a termination than a failure. --Langus (t) 16:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You're incorrect, Cawkell does not make a 180° turn. In the 1960, she notes:

"The Admiralty handled the Vernet "problem" and handled it extremely badly. Lieut. Smith was instructed to see that proper care was taken of Vernet's property...Then abruptly this attitude ceased."

Vernet did write to Lt. Smith offering advice, in turn both Lt Smith and Woodbine-Parish recommended Vernet as Governor. The initial attitude toward Vernet was positive but as Vernet's name was increasingly linked with the claims of the United Provinces the attitude changed from one of co-operation to ignoring him. I note you're also selectively quoting. The very next paragraph covers Mandeville, the British Minister in BA lauding Vernet suggestion of returning. The two books are 100% consistent, the 1960 version focusing on the mishandling of Vernet, the 2001 edition also covering it but focusing on the mistreatment of Lt. Smith. All entirely consistent with the premise of the thesis quoted by Bookworm of a decade of neglect and failure to colonise. Both books are entirely supportive of the edit you tried to remove for no good reason.

The supposed conflict you're claiming between the two books is a figment of your fevered imagination; it doesn't exist. Its just yet another example of you trying to rubbish sources in order to justify removing material. WCM_email 20:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"Selective quoting" does spring to mind after the further context you have provided above. However, I'm sure you realize that the paragraph about Mandeville is tangential to whether or not Smith received advice from Vernet. Moreover, it further shows that, despite Mandevielle's opinion, his superiors did not allowed Vernet to continue his enterprise.

I note also that you're beating a straw man: "All entirely consistent with the premise (...) of a decade of neglect and failure to colonise". That was not my point and that is not what I'm challenging. "He received advice from Louis Vernet in this regard and in turn continued to administer Vernet's property and provide him with regular accounts". <-- this is what I challenge. And so far the only quotes supporting that are found on the 1960 edition of Cawkell but not on the 2001 edition.

Mary Cawkell was born in Wigtown, Scotland in 1907. She remained there until her early 20s when she moved to Africa, travelling extensively in both South Africa and Zimbabwe. During the war she worked in the Lebanon where she met her husband. After the war her husband joined the Colonial Service and was posted to the Falklands as Superintendent of Education.

She and her family first went to the Falklands at the beginning of the 1950s and lived there for seven years. This was a start of a lifelong interest in, and affection for, the Islands. Mary became a respected author on the Falklands which provided her with endless material for many articles and broadcasts covering all aspects of life there, from past to present and from peat to penguins. The extensive research she had done led her to writing the authoritative standard history of the Islands, The Falkland Islands, published in 1960. Later a shorter book The Falklands Story 1592-1982 based on additional material, concisely covered the story of the Falklands until the Argentinean invasion.

From the Falklands the family moved to West Africa, to The Gambia where Mary continued with her journalism. After she returned to England she carried on with travelling and writing, spending time in eastern communist countries then little visited. In her later years she lived in Sussex and worked on updating her history of the Falklands.

Given the amateurish nature of her work, and the fact that the 2001 edition differs from her first book, we should either avoid talking about this or confirm it from another reliable, secondary source. --Langus (t) 22:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• B-Class British Overseas Territories articles
• High-importance British Overseas Territories articles
• All WikiProject British Overseas Territories pages
• B-Class South America articles
• Unknown-importance South America articles
• B-Class Falkland Islands articles
• Top-importance Falkland Islands articles
• Falkland Islands articles
• WikiProject South America articles
• B-Class history articles
• Unknown-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles