Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:03, 4 April 2015

Biography: Military Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group.

South America: Argentina / Falklands Start‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-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 WikiProject Argentina (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Argentine Navy

Could someone explain how Jewett came to have a post in the navy of a country that didn't exist? Argentina did not come into being until 1853. "Letters of marque", adduced from the text, are not given to naval officers. Naval officers would be considered to be acting in the interests of their government. Such a document, especially as it is stated that it referred to Spanish vessels, would only be issued to a private person, thus a privateer. Agent0060 21:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewett wasn't an officer in the navy, he was employed by a consortiun of BA businessmen led by Patricio Lynch to captain the Heroina on a privateering voyage; a private venture. He had been given a commission in the navy of the United Provinces of the River Plate previously, this was a precursor state for Argentina. Justin talk 22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Justin. So perhaps we could get the article corrected?

Agent0060 11:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)

On my list of things to update, my research has turned up a lot of new material. Justin talk 11:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Sooner the better. Incidentally, I have posted a comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Argentina seeking correction of any number of articles referring to "Argentina" before the actual inception of the Argentine Republic. Agent0060 19:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)

Privateer and Pirate

Jewett was both. Carrying Letters of Marque he was authorised to take Spanish ships as prizes. Except he didn't, he took Portuguese ships and an American ship the Rampart, those were acts of piracy.

The seizing of the Carlota by Jewett and other Portuguese ships lead to the sinking of the Heroina by a Portuguese warship. Jewett was convicted in absentia of piracy in Portugal for taking the Carlota.

As regards WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarise the article, so omitting a significant fact from the lede is at odds with the policy.

As regards WP:LABEL, Henry Morgan offers a very good example, he was both so it is pertinent to include both. The only reason I can see for this at the moment is WP:IDONTLIKE and reverting demaning a discussion, really you know better. The onus is on you to take it to talk to explain your objection and thus far I ain't seen one that stands up to scrutiny. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence, the "(X name) is a (occupation)", should be limited to the occupation that made the man notable in the first place. It is not enough to say that a man was trialed for piracy, his pirate activities should be the man reason why did does history keeps track of him. Blackbeard is a good example of a man who can be described as a pirate in the first sentence. Further information may be added in later sentences, making overviews of the things written in the body of the article.

As a whole, the lead section should be able to stand alone as a mini-article. It currently says that Jewett was a pirate who played a notable role in the history of the sovereignty dispute between Great Britain and Argentina, by seizing the Malvinas for Argentina. Which is misleading: written that way, the reader may understand that he seized the islands in an act of piracy, when it actually happens that the piracy issue is caused by other activities unrelated to that one. And it is a word that labels because it is seen as negative information by the reader and casts doubt on the legitimacy of the actions told immediately afterwards (see Ad hominem). Consider for example Thomas Jefferson. What if the opening sentence was "Thomas Jefferson, owner of 600 slaves, was an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States."

As for Henry Morgan, I find it disturbing: there was a discussion days ago about adding or removing that term, and you maintained the opposite idea: you wanted to remove it. You could not do it... and now you move to another article to apply the consensus achieved somewhere else on an unrelated discussion. Have a care, that's basically the main definition of WP:POINT Cambalachero (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt that is bullshit, I initially opposed the use of Pirate on Henry Morgan, as according to the information I had all of Morgan's activities were authorised by Letters of Marque. I did however listen to the arguments of others and when shown to be misinformed changed my mind. Nothing whatsoever to do with WP:POINT but clearly demonstrates you're definitely not acting in good faith

Your fundamental premise is that a reader may infer something not actually in the article by connecting two disparate pieces of information. Given the article explains what was legitimate and what was not I reject that premise entirely.

Your second premise is that it is not germane to the man's career. During his employment by Lynch he seized two ships, the Carlota of Portugal and the Rampart of the USA. The seizure of the Rampart caused a major diplomatic incident with the US, the seizure of the Carlota saw him condemned for piracy. The piratical actions are one of the reasons why he is known.

Your strawman of Thomas Jefferson is such a weak argument, it is not worth constructing a rebuttal.

Finally, for information, in English Pirate is not a word that labels in the way that Piratas does in Spanish. You appear to be labouring under a false impression. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone did the electrical wiring of his home every time he moved in his life (twice), would that make him an electrician?

Jewett was a privateeer, he worked for the USA, Chile, Argentina and Brazil at different points of his life. He died being a Brazilian officer. You're taking two acts of alleged piracy (I'm not quite convinced) and using them to WP:LABEL the man right in the lead. Don't tell me that "pirate" has no negative connotations, a pirate is someone who steals, someone outside the law. To my knowledge, stealing is not a honorable profession in any major culture.

Henry Morgan seems to be mentioned in True Caribbean Pirates (2006), Buccaneers and Pirates of Our Coasts (1898), Under the Black Flag (1996), etc. If you can find David Jewett listed in similar works, then you would have a point. --Langus (t) 18:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Utter strawman, if someone committed piracy twice, they're a pirate.

Second strawman, linking Jewett with the Pirates of the Caribean, of course he won't be mentioned there.

Langus, are you calling me a liar? It seems you are flat out accusing me of lying, when I point out there is a language difference here. Because if you are accusing me of lying, lets just take this to WP:ANI right now.

WP:LABEL is not appropriate here, I was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt and presume it was down to a language confusion. However, from the comments here it seems its more about protecting the reputation of the guy because of his links to Argentina's claim on the Falklands. The stupid thing is that in English we don't make that much of distinction between Privateer and Pirate. I will be reverting presently simply because the reasons given for reverting my edit don't stand up to scrutiny. IF you wish to continue the discussion I will revert to this version, , prior to Langus' edit of the 19 July. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody accused you of anything. Do not overreact. Cambalachero (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to revert claiming WP:NOCONSENSUS per WP:BRD you're supposed to talk it to talk and also supposed to revert to the last version for which a stable consensus existed. This I have done, I trust we will not see edit wars to restore your favoured version.

Thus far,

You have asserted including he was convicted of piracy in the lede fails WP:LABEL, clearly it does not. As noted on Henry Morgan, who is mainly known for being a privateer and Governor of Jamaica but also for piracy. Hence, it is included in the lede.

Please avoid repeating the bullshit ad hominem attack again.

You next claimed it wasn't relevant to his "career", well as he is known for taking Portuguese ships and attacking a US ship causing a diplomatic incident. These are noted incidents in his "career" as you put it, so not to include them is illogical on the basis of your own argument.

Again for reference, Pirate is not the insult in English, that Piratas is in Spanish.

Cutting to the chase, both have expressed concern for Jewett's reputation and the influence including this in the lede will have an Argentina's sovereignty claim. Is this your real concern? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The use of the word "pirate" has a negative connotation and it is being deliberately used to downplay the Argentine sovereignty claim. It is not me who says it, it is the "getting it right" report cited as a reference. Let me cite a sentence: "It is a moot point whether an announcement made by a pirate who keeps it secret can count as a valid territorial claim". You were saying...? You accuse us of trying to remove the word to benefit the Argentine claim, yet the source is transparent in that it is using it to beneft the British claim, and well aware of the negative impact of the word.

Besides, that report says that Jewett was accused at Lisbon, not that he was sentenced. It was the Englishman William Mason who was sentenced. Of course, the report says that Jewett commited piracy, in the "report voice", but Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper are not a prize court. The first thing to label someone as a criminal is the existence of a sentence for a crime. In fact, he was living in Río de Janeiro, a portuguese city, the last thing that a pirate escaping from Portuguese justice would do. You said that he was convicted in absentia, do you have a better reference for it? Cambalachero (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The opinion of the author who you've quoted is immaterial. Your presumption that I share it is incorrect. That Pepper and Pascoe make that link is a moot point, since that is not included in the article.

Just to confirm your only concern is that reporting Jewett's act of piracy is detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim. If so I suggest we take this to WP:NPOVN for an advisory opinion as to its inclusion. From my understanding of WP:NPOV we report facts from a neutral perspective, whether it is detrimental to the Argentine claims should not matter. And just to re-iterate I do not consider it makes any difference.

Jewett was beyond the reach of Lisbon in Rio, Brazil had already declared independence. Just to point out that particular claim is not A) not sustainable and B) WP:OR.

And yes I can produce other references. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article is saying that he was a pirate, citing that report as a source. The report itself makes it explicit that they are labeling Jewett as a pirate to discredit the Argentine claim. Those are the facts. It is your opinion, that one of piracy having no negative connotations, the one that is irrelevant here, and has no consensus. Cambalachero (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If there's no consensus, then the status quo from before the dispute arose remains. The status quo does not mention the word "privateer", only "pirate". This edit summary does not make sense because it's reverting to a position that also did not have consensus.

It is fact that the word "pirate" has different connotations in English from in Spanish. This is obvious when you consider that the Hispanophone aversion to the word comes from English privateering against Spanish treasure ships during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

My last point would be that I don't feel that this article takes a proper historical perspective on an individual who, according to my research, was the first foreigner to be commissioned into the Brazilian Navy, who was the first man to raise the flag of an independent Brazil and who was made Admiral Commander-in-Chief of the Brazilian Navy in 1827 (during the war against Argentina). Jewett's role in Brazil's independence is singularly underrepresented - though it's probably rather more important to his life than anything to do with the Falklands. Kahastok talk 21:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree on your last point but... are you aware that you have restored the article to a version that is clearly wrong? Who is supporting right now the expression "pirate frigate"? This was my first edit and this was WCM's objection to it. He didn't restored the expression "pirate frigate", that's why I would think we have consensus on that point.

WCM, are we going to need to disturb another noticeboard in order to solve this? Conditioning this issue with Argentina's sovereignty claim is constructing a straw man. This is about an historical figure who is being described as "pirate" in the lede. It is of course related to the Falklands matter, but we don't need to go down there to solve this. --Langus (t) 01:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was happy to accept your edit, once it was modified by me. Both you and Cambalachero have refused to accept this, so we are at the previous stable consensus. I would still be happy to accept it, with the small modification I suggest, otherwise I am not. Purely for interests of accuracy and reflecting the content of the article.

As regards your claim that I have "conditioned this issue" with Argentina's sovereignty claim - I reject that out of hand. It is not a straw man, the only straw man raised is the claim that I am seeking to downplay Argentina's sovereignty claim - something that I don't agree with and have made no mention of in the article. Please note the one and only reason it has been raised, is because you and Cambalachero consider it detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim and you both stated this as the reason for your objection. I suggest WP:NPOVN simply because in all the time you have edited articles within my sphere of interest, you have never accepted any comment I have made and have always insisted on seeking other opinions. I am left with the nagging presumption the reason you reject WP:NPOVN is because you already know what the answer will be. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting help from the NPOV noticeboard or any other will be useless, unless you do not behave like other times and accept the opinions that come from them, whichever they may be. You can't request to follow that consensus if it agrees with you, and ignore it if it does not.

Do you think the sovereignty claim is messing this article? Very well, I accept the criticism. Let's get rid of the report of the sovereignty claim used as a source, and the contents sourced on that report, and let's begin the article again, using only generic sources, unrelated to the dispute. Do you agree? Cambalachero (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're accusing me of misconduct - then please lets take this to WP:ANI. I would in fact positively relish their views on that accusation, seeing as the last time you levelled it, the advice at WP:NPOVN backed my approach absolutely (although you tried to claim it didn't). You made the link, the article doesn't. We report facts not the author's opinions. Why are you both so reluctant to take this to WP:NPOVN? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The reference, not me, made the link. It is there, page 9, 4º paragraph, go and read it. It is you who is denying the link made by the reference, and as you say, author's opinion do not count. If they say that piracy has a negative meaning, and you say it does not, your opinion does not count. The reference says what it says, that's the fact. We don't discuss our own opinions, but the content of the references. And again: if you think that the sovereignty discussion is uncalled for in this article, then let's get rid of the report of the sovereignty claim used as a source, and the contents sourced on that report, and let's begin the article again, using only generic sources, unrelated to the dispute. Do you agree with that? Cambalachero (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WCM, please stop the WP:DRAMA. No one is accusing you of bad faith. Your late behavior with regard to comments at noticeboards has been roughly as described by Cambalachero. That is a fact, not an accusation. And I have to confess, you inviting us over and over to take the matters to WP:ANI always reminds me of WP:BAIT... trust me, it doesn't look good. I know it's not your case, so please stop offering us the nuclear option, we already know it's there.

Personally, I have no problem with going again to another board, it is just that we are certainly doing no good to the project by disturbing other editors so much. If we are going to WP:NPOVN (I'm not sure if that is the right noticeboard for this case), please write down the problem here before asking for help. In my opinion, it should limit itself to the question "Is the word 'pirate' applicable to David Jewett? Does it constitute a violation of WP:LABEL?"

And the same question goes for the Heroina, if you insist on maintaining the "pirate frigate" expression. --Langus (t) 18:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Again WP:NPOVN was not ignored by me and their advice backed up my approach 100%. You know what guys the written record is there, no matter how manner times you repeat the same falsehood, it won't make it true. Quit it, its getting boring. Equally boring is accusations of WP:BAIT or whatever other misdemeanor you plan on conjuring up.

Cambalachero you made the link, then tried a post hoc justification with reference to Pascoe/Pepper. No I'm not prepared to restrict the sources we use to ones you approve of. Again I'm happy to accept your proposed edit, with modification, what I won't accept is airbrushing material out because you consider it affects Argentina's modern sovereignty claim. WP:NPOVN is the correct place, because you have phrased it as a POV matter. If you're going to take this option, a question phrased correctly together with all relevant information is provided not just the subset you suggest. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you found the reference I requested? Cambalachero (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You did not request references, you suggested a veto over which sources we used. I believe I made it plain that I wasn't prepared to accede to such a request. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It was earlier in the discussion. I pointed that the first thing we need to even begin to discuss about piracy labels is a reference detailing that Jewett was sentenced, not merely accused, of piracy. The current reference does not say that, so I requested another one that does. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Blackbeard aka William Teach was never tried or sentenced, so I guess by the criteria you're seeking to apply he would not have be a pirate. Is that where you're headed? Since apparently thats what you're trying to argue. I note you don't dispute his actions were piracy but whether or not he was convicted. Nice try at wikilawyering but no cigar on this occasion. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If he was not convincted, then he was not a pirate, and the whole discussion has been pointless from the begining. Only a court of law can decide if someone is a criminal, not a random book author, and much less a wikipedia editor. If there is a sentence with no appeals, there is a fact. If there is no such a sentence, there is an opinion. Stating opinions as facts is original research. Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That's your POV. Misplaced Pages doesn't work like that. If reliable sources refer to him as a pirate, then we refer to him as a pirate. If some reliable sources say that he was a pirate and some say that he wasn't, we reflect the difference of opinion. If there's no difference of opinion to reflect - and I haven't seen any that say that he wasn't a pirate - we don't need to invent one.

As has been pointed out, the connotations of the word "pirate" in English and Spanish are very different. In English, the word "pirate" conjures up an almost romantic image - parrots, X marks the spot, wooden legs, that sort of thing. To the extent that when discussing Somali pirates I've heard - more than once - radio newsreaders feeling the need to remind the listener that they're discussing thieves and kidnappers who happen to have boats, and not Jack Sparrow.

My opinion on the dispute is that the emphasis of the article is probably wrong, almost to the point of creating a WP:COATRACK. We should introduce Jewett based on his career in the Brazilian Navy. Throughout the article, 1820 should be significantly de-emphasised from the current position in favour of Jewett's naval service during the Brazilian War of Independence and Cisplatine War, including as Admiral Commander-in-Chief of the Brazilian Navy. Kahastok talk 17:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree in the sense that it doesn't matter whether we are convinced or not of him being a pirate. What is relevant is if there are secondary, reliable sources who refer to him as a pirate. As per WP:LABEL, "value-laden labels may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution".

Kahastok, are you asking for sources specifically stating that he was not a pirate? That's not necessary, as shown above. The burden is on you guys, you need to prove that the adjective/profession pirate is "widely used by reliable sources to describe" David Jewett.

I also reject your positive view of the word pirate, and we can ask to the language board if needed. But a quick search through WP:NPOVN already yields an opinion (bottom one).

Also, introducing Jewett by his role on the Falklands dispute is absolutely correct. His life was researched only because of the declaration of possession issued in 1820. That's why he is notable. But I agree that there's more to be filled about his career at Brazil, in fact I had it in my to-do list. But I don't think that the current version is screwed enough to be called "a WP:COATRACK" --Langus (t) 18:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Langus, two native English speakers have told you the same thing, and your response is basically that you don't believe us. Do you think we're lying? Its a Yes/No answer by the way. Go on, take it to the language board, I will look forward to your apology for yet again calling me a liar. It would be a first, seeing as how you regularly fail to WP:AGF.

Secondary reliable sources do refer to Jewett as a Pirate, which is why I put it in and why I object to you and Cambalachero removing it because of your perception that it reflects badly on the Argentine claim. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't called you a liar, you are just assuming I'm doing so (and accusing me of doing so, BTW). I just think you are wrong. Do you make mistakes sometimes? Am I a criminal or a "bad-faith accuser" for thinking you're wrong? The user I quoted from the NPOVN is also a native English speaker, how can you explain that?

I don't care how it reflects on anything except DAVID JEWETT. It is not enough you have found a few reliable sources that link him with piracy acts (note that none of them go so far as to call him "a pirate"), because there are plenty more sources that don't. Hence, you're WP:LABELing the man. --Langus (t) 00:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't enough that I've found reliable sources....that says it all really. And you haven't quoted any user and the links you posted to at WP:NPOVN don't refer to anything of relevance; they refer to electronic piracy over the Internet. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I quote: "Words like assassination, murder, kidnap, killer, pirate, loser, poisoner, spy, dictator, secret policeman, all have negative (in some cases, strongly negative) connotations". By User:RayAYang, a native English speaker. --Langus (t) 16:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

But no diff eh? Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language#Use of Pirate in English, versus its use in Spanish as an insult The rest of the English speaking world disagrees. But hey guess they're wrong too. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take a hard look at WP:Canvassing, Wee Curry Monster. Wrad (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to make sure of your facts first, seeing as announcing an intention to seek a third opinion to resolve a dispute before doing so is part of WP:DR. And I made that suggestion days ago. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being misled and then having my statements taken out of context to support a point made in a debate I know nothing about. Usually when you ask for a third opinion, you link to the appropriate discussion and provide a neutral summary of the issue. What you posted was extremely biased and out of context, which is exactly what canvassing is. The facts are quite clear here. Wrad (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think I misled you? I made it plain I was bringing it to the language board because the guy above didn't believe me that pirate didn't have the same context in Spanish. What was biased and out of context? There is a discussion at WP:NPOVN about the POV issue. The only thing I might have done differently is to link here. You've jumped to a conclusion that is unwarranted. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wee, have you noticed how you end up arguing with the whole noticeboard when they don't agree with you? You should reconsider your attitude. It is not sustainable in the long term. --Langus (t) 17:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I dunno Langus you tell me, you're the one arguing the toss at WP:NPOVN. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Although Jewett himself claimed that the "Heroina" was a frigate, it was actually a corvette.

Jewett received a license as a privateer from the Buenos Ayres government in 1820, shortly afterwards he turned pirate in two instances.

Both corvette and piracy are documented in the trial for piracy in Lisbon 1822:

"Sentença proferida pelo Auditor de Marinha, condemnando como preza a Corveta ==Heroina== aprezada pela Fragata == Perola."

“Diário do Governo, Segunda Feira 1.” Abril – Junho de 1822. Nº 77-151, Imprensa Nacional de Lisboa.

books.google.com.ar/books/download/Diário_do_governo.pdf?id=PQ4wAAAAYAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U1-kdYkUWRnqH4M8YEgOTKLV8mOBA John.St (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, David Jewett. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Impressive sources. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

David Jewett → David Jewitt – Name has been misspelled on wikipedia for years. The correct spelling is Jewitt. A redirect already exists at desired name. Should be a straight forward non-controversial move. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Wee Curry Monster talk 15:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

1) " ADMIRAL DAVID JEWETT... was born in the North Parish of New London, Conn., June 17, 1772. He married, in New York in 1827, Mrs. Eliza jNIcTiers, daughter of Alderman Augustine H. Lawrence of New York... Admiral Jewett was a man of uncommon powers of body and mind; and imbued with the romatic, adventurous disposition of a knight errant... When Emperor Dom Pedro II was on his visit to the United States he said 'Admiral Jewett was one of our heroes.'" Source: p.334 of Jewett, Frederic Clarke. History and genealogy of the Jewetts of America. 1. New York : The Grafton Press, 1908.

2) "David Jewett (Montville, Connecticut - United States 184 - Rio de Janeiro 26 July 1842) was in the port of Rio Janeiro in a ship he owned, the Maypu, when D. Pedro, interested in creating a Brazilian force, bought the ship, gave it the name Caboclo, and offered Jewett admission in the service of the Armada. On 6 October 1822 he was admitted in the Navy, with the rank of captain-of-sea-and-war. He has, thus, the first officer hired to the Navy, and was named the commander of the frigate União." Source: p.134 of Rodrigues, José Honório (1975). Independência: revolução e contra-revolução (in Portuguese) 3. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria Francisco Alves Editora.

3) David Jewett; una Biografia para La História de las Malvinas. A biography published in Argentina.

As can be seen, the book about the genealogy of his family said that the spelling is "Jewett". The surname "Jewitt" is novel to me. --Lecen (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A lot people get it wrong and its an extremely common mistake. Weddel records it as Jewitt and Cawkell 2001 confirms it as a common error. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In the 1820s, English spelling was still not yet universally standardized. Weddel may have recorded a common variant, but what's important now is what the majority of reliable sources use, with an emphasis on modern ones. Powers 13:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In pages 63, 64 and 65 of David Jewett; una Biografia para La Historia de las Malvinas there are copies of letters written by Jewett: he clearly spelled it that way. However, the "Jewitt" spelling is indeed used by some authors. Maybe we could add in the lede something like "sometimes spelled Jewitt" or "sometimes also referred to as David Jewitt". --Langus (t) 23:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That would not be unreasonable, at least if we can find more than one source that spells it with the 'i'. Powers 19:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Any letter written by Jewitt who died in 1842 is long since in the public domain. Langus could you scan and upload those letters to WP? BTW Weddel is a primary source, he actually received a note from Jewitt. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't own a scanner, but I'll find the way. We could then include his signature into the infobox. --Langus (t) 02:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That was my plan... :-) Wee Curry Monster talk 09:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The name of David Jewett's wife was Eliza Lawrence Mactier (not jNIcTiers :) ) http://records.ancestry.com/David_Jewett_records.ashx?pid=16773760 — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.St (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the best I could do... --Langus (t) 03:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jewett's report (full text)

I have checked Roger Lorton's transcript against my photos of the original. There are a few minor errors (difficult to read the handwritten report) and that's all. To remove the reference is downright stupid. As I wrote, I have photos of the 13 pages original, and I can send them some somebody who can doublecheck the transcription; it is only 47 MB. Who? John.St (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled: what document would that be? --Langus (t) 05:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Jewett's report to His Excellency Supreme Director of the United Provinces of South America, written in Port Soledad, Falkland Islands, February 1st, 1821 on Board the Frigate Heroina The ref. was removed from the article. John.St (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean the photos. What document would that be? (the original one)

Cheers. --Langus (t) 01:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

13 photos of the 13 pages of Jewett's/Jewitt's handwritten report to the Supreme Director of the United Provinces of South America, written in Port Soledad, re. above, where I wrote "I have photos of the 13 pages original". John.St (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

1) I see nothing in any policy that would allow an editor to exclude sources. WP:PRIMARY does not say that such sources cannot be used, only that secondary sources are required for interpretation of primary sources. Nor is there anything in policy that states only works by professional historians can be used. I suggest that editor does not remove sources again, unless they can show how this is supported by policy. You might also care to explain why you wish to remove sources and why you're demanding sources then rejecting them when you get them. This seems to be a repeat of behaviour I saw in an RFC at Talk:History of the Falkland Islands in which the editor responsible was trying to exclude sources and it appeared to me that this was to justify removing material they felt contradicted the claims Argentina makes about the Falkland Islands.

2) I removed what I saw as a dubious claim. The ship Heroína was named before Jewett was appointed her captain by Patricio Lynch in 1819. I note that the editor responsible for reverting acknowledges I was correct but reverted anyway. So please tell me why you would do that. WP:COMMON would clearly indicate you wouldn't want to give WP:FRINGE material WP:UNDUE promoninence would you?

Also the original claim made was that "Some historians believe that Jewett choose this name to honor his Chilean lover", your partial quote to support dubious material is deliberately being misleading and quoting the material out of context.

3) What is described as "nit picking" is removing a badly written and unneeded embellishment that gives a misleading impression. Its plain wrong, please don't add incorrect material again. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There are various parts that rely on Weddell as a source that assert Weddell's beliefs and opinions beyond what is in the source text. Primary sources can be used, as long as they are used with care, and interpretations of the source text should be sourced to secondary reliable sources. These overstatements need to be removed. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

1) Elaqueate has answered this point above;

2) I didn't revert, I corrected the information, even including a quote from the source. Compare both diffs, or just read it again;

3) I disagree. The reason why those historians say that he was ordered to, is because Jewett himself said that. Explaining it is equivalent to explaining the British POV that "there is no documentary evidence to support this". It seems to me that you want the British rationale included but the Argentine one censured out.

Also, note that in this case you're are the one removing the material, and I'm the one vouching for keeping it. Therefore, you're the one edit-warring. --Langus (t) 01:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

To be even more clear on a couple of things, the Weddell source is an interesting and useful primary source, but the text that's in the article right now, and apparently copy-pasted across numerous related articles, (Port Louis, Falkland Islands, Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute etc.), is not sourced, contains interpretive elaboration, guesses dressed up as historical facts, etc. Proper sourcing would remove a lot of these problems, but if things can't be sourced they shouldn't be in there, for any POV position. The most egregious problem seems to be that people claim to know what was in Weddell's mind beyond the words of the text itself, and make an interpretive claim that Wedell believed there was some plot to secure an exclusive claim to the wreck of the French ship Uranie when "the French ship Uranie" is not mentioned by Weddell in any way. So adding Weddell is fine but not to back up stuff that was never in Weddell.

Another example of how this text is currently used without care is the mix up of the chronology and specifics of Weddell's involvement. In order, he 1. Received a letter with the text quoted in the article, 2, helped Jewett move his boat to anchorage, 3. Witnessed the formal declaration in person. Most of the connected articles make it sound like Weddell got a letter after a ceremony happened somewhere. This is interesting, as people want to point to this person's account as valuable as a personal eyewitness, but somehow manage to avoid all mention of his testimony about the event that he said he personally attended. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

1) I want to record that User:Elaqueate agrees that Weddell is a WP:RS. The stated reason previously for User:Langus-TxT removing cites was WP:PRIMARY and reference to the fact that Weddell was not a historian. Those reasons are clearly bogus, Weddel is a reliable source and User:Elaqueate agrees it should be used. I was of the opinion they supported the claim but on reflection concur with User:Elaqueate's appraisal of the situation. On the basis of the rationale supplied by User:Elaqueate I will not add them again but do some more research. But let us be clear, Weddell is a reliable source and so we should be keeping all references to that work in the article.

2) Returning to the text. Langus inserted a claim made in a reference that the ship was named for Jewett's lover. It has been acknowledged by Langus that the ship was named before Jewett was Captain so this is obviously a dubious claim. To then partially re-introduce that claim by partially quoting out of context the self-same source is bizarre behaviour. WP:BRD does not exist to keep dubious material in the article.

3) Jewett makes no reference to Sarratea, he simply claims he was ordered to take the island not by whom. It is clearly synthesis to add an editorial to infer he did and WP:OR on your part. WP:BRD does not mean you can keep claims that are in none of the original cites and to introduce unsourced material after it has been challenged is WP:VAND.

4) Lynch and not Jewett obtained a corsair license for Jewett's activities from José Rondeau. This is confirmed by multiple sources.

5) The Sarratea claim was introduced by User:Cambalachero who has been censured and topic banned by arbcom for using dubiously sourced material. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#Cambalachero: POV-pushing. Given this contradicts multiple reliable sources, I am removing it to make only the reliably sourced claim that Argentina claims he was ordered to do so.

WP:BRD is a process to discuss content, its not a mechanism to be abused to keep dubious material in a article by spinning discussions on forever. Given your previous co-operation with an editor topic banned for POV pushing I would suggest you read WP:MEAT before edit warring to keep dubious material in the article. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

1) It is a reliable source, I never said it wasn't. But, as a primary source, it is being used incorrectly. See WP:WPNOTRS.

2) I can't understand why you're so obsessed with this sentence. Firstly, you're talking about an edit that I've already corrected (that Jewett named/suggested to name the ship). When you say that I "partially re-introduced that claim" you're maliciously ignoring the fact that the idea is a completely different one, and sourced with a full quote! I suspect that the problem here is not the text but your feelings towards me. However, you can have it your way and remove the sentence if that helps to settle your temper...

3) Again, nitpicking. I agree to the use of "Argentine authorities" that you introduced in this edit; however, I disapprove how you turned the sentence from a sources-vs-sources idea to a government-vs-sources one. I will partially revert this, maintaining "Argentine authorities" to address your objection.

4) Ok. Would you please add one of them at the end of the sentence? Thanks.

5) See point 3. Regarding Cambalachero, he was topic banned AFTER the supposed introduction of material, therefore you're not entitled to point this out to support text removal. For what is worth, most of this article was introduced by an editor now topic-banned from the Falkland Islands articles; if we apply your rationale, we could completely dismantle this article.

Regarding the accusation of WP:MEAT, as I've said, take it to the admins or drop it. Note however, that I'm contributing to WP long before Cambalachero's sanction, therefore I'm not a new user as specified in WP:MEAT. --Langus (t) 23:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I just saw that my name was being referred to here without perhaps sufficient nuance given to what I actually stated. I had hoped I was clear that Weddell was not a reliable source for the claim as it was written and that it was more than appropriate (citing the policy Misplaced Pages:PRIMARY) that it should be removed if the claim was not edited. Misplaced Pages:PRIMARY was the policy that was being violated, as a primary source was being used to support interpretive claims not found in the source itself. To repeat, there were only two allowable plays here; 1. Remove the citation that did not support the questionable claim and replace with a (citation needed) tag, or 2. Change the claim to something the citation can support. Either would have been fine. (Forcing a citation that does not support the claim onto a challenged claim was not the correct thing to do.) Weddell could certainly be considered a reliable source to support a revised or completely different claim regarding specifically what Weddell stated, as long as it's attributed clearly as Weddell's testimony, and sticks to reporting that testimony without elaboration, guesses at his inner thoughts or unexpressed feelings and with due weight. It does not mean it can be used for any claim in the article ever, only the ones that are conservative and not beyond the text itself. If they're in violation of Misplaced Pages:PRIMARY they must go, if they're not in violation, people are free to decide whether to include them. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I do hope you didn't think I was using your comments out of context? I simply pointed out that Langus' original reason for reverting me was because he claimed that WP:PRIMARY sources couldn't be used. As I commented at your talk page, I fully agree with your reasoning. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

BedsBookworm, again, saying the policy WP:Primary applies is not the same as saying "Primary sources not allowed"; it's saying "Primary sources can not be used to support conclusions not in the primary source." Your addition of the primary source as a citation to support a conclusion was unfortunately incorrect, even if made in the best faith. I see you've added the claim back in, sourced to Cawkell this time. I have to admit I'm skeptical, as we have Weddell's book, I've looked at it, and I don't see an explicit Uranie to Jewett connection made anywhere. Can you please quote the sentence in Cawkell that supports your addition? __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I could but I would rather point you to Google books and you can get it direct from Weddell . For instance on Page 105, Weddell comments that the principle reason Jewett went to the Falklands was to "refresh his crew". Hence, I was about to suggest we add that back. And on Page 111-2 he refers to the ceremony being linked to Jewett's claim on the Uranie. I've simply sourced it to a secondary source as you suggested. The explicit connection to the Uranie is there. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's all fine, but we obviously can't draw conclusions beyond the text or source we have. As a theoretical example, we can't say that a mention of greater pomp in a ceremony is proof that the ceremony was only done for that reason or anything like that. On a quick review, I see the text in Weddell, "he was wise enough to calculate the effect of such a parade" becomes "it was was calculated to make an impression". That's close to what happened, and it sounds like people were impressed with the effort, but the "to calculate" in the text is a 19th Century "to understand" while the "calculated" in the article is "to intend an effect", all close enough here but it shows the problems of rewriting old texts. You have a direct quote of "overcame them with politeness" which is not in Weddell at all, and makes me wonder if it's an slight error in Cawkell. If you look at page 112 of Wedddell it doesn't say politeness happened, just that there was an introduction. You can see why the sources have to be treated with care. And again we can't use Weddell as a reliable source for Jewett's intentions or unspoken motivations, only as a reliable source for what he said. We still have to be conservative and not present Weddell's subjective opinions as fact when based on the Weddell text. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I was quoting Cawkell, so I've copy edited it to remove the implication it was Weddell. Note I made no comment on Weddell's beliefs, only that he linked the Uranie claim with the ceremony and the effect Weddell commented upon. I am not doing anything other than reflecting the information available. It is a fact that Jewett claimed exclusive salvage on the Uranie, Weddell links this to the ceremony, we leave it to the reader to draw an inference. Is there a problem with that approach? BedsBookworm (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

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. Misplaced Pages 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) 21:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Order of the Southern Cross

In the current picture we have of Jewett, he is almost certainly portrayed wearing the Brazilian Order of the Southern Cross, as seen here, and here on his contemporary John Pascoe Grenfell, and here on Pedro II. They were first awarded in the Empire of Brazil beginning in 1822 to non-Brazilian-born people of exceptional merit, so it's not unlikely. Can anybody find a reference for him receiving this medal? __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed!

Da Fonseca Figueira, José Antonio. David Jewett; una biografía para la historia de las Malvinas. p. 179.:

"En esta última parte de su trayectoria se han sumado 14 años al servicio de la Armada Imperial donde recogió importantes lauros, tales como la medalla de distinción de la Orden del Cruzeiro, de la Restauración de Bahía y de la Buena Orden, respectivamente."

I'm not sure which medals would be these last two.

The expansion of the section about his (remarkable) career in Brazil is something I have pending since a long time ago. In part because, as you must know, good prose in English is not one of my skills...

Also, I thought to include the following: according to historian Eduardo Gerding, Jewett was appointed 'Comandante en Jefe de la Marina Chilena' before it was even created, on September 20, 1814. He was suggested by consul Joel Roberts Poinsett and Captain David Porter; however, when Chilean General Jose Miguel Carrera met him in the US, he had already offered his services to the United Provinces.

Would you say it's worth including? --19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Langus, if you could scan the book or take pictures with your cell phone and send them to me I could write the article. --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a good reference for the basic fact of the medal being awarded. I would advise that this section will need more English language sources or you will spend a lot of time defending your personal translations. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Lecen, were talking about a lot of pages... Although it would be useful to have an extra pair of eyes to do those translations, as I don't think sources about Jewett with this level of detail exist in English. Da Fonseca Figueira conducted a 9-year research on him, particularly in Brazil: he was the historian who unveiled his later life and death. -Langus (t) 02:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has access to these, here and here, are good academic sources that have things to say about Jewett in Brazil. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't access them... however, Vol. 57 seems to mention Jewett tangentially:

Volume 80 it's more promising: --Langus (t) 22:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The index has more listings for him in volume 57 than given by snippet view, and seems to give an account of the events around squadron of ships he commanded, something not yet included in his biography, but obviously of substance. Somebody will have access to all of it at some point, and can evaluate it then.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

November 6th?

The text was just changed to say that Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces on November 6th, 1820. I thought the only written source for this event was Weddell, and it's the source given for the sentence. Can somebody point out where in Weddell it says November 6th specifically? If it's not in the text, it should be reverted to just "November". Cheers.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

p.43 of Cawkell states it was November 6 for the ceremony. I am starting to feel a little uncomfortable, in that you seem to be singling out my edits for extra scrutiny. I realise this may be unintentional but wanted to raise this point, as it would appear from your talk page I'm not the first editor to express this as a concern. Do you feel this needs an inline citation? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I made a lot of edits to these pages because of a Reliable Sources request earlier, so these two are on my watchlist. You added the date, so I queried on the talk page. I would be fine with an inline citation, but I believe that a specific date means that Cawkell is using a different source than Weddell as evidence the ceremony happened. It might be nice to find out where she got the "6th" from. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There, I did a search and found a corroborating source for the 6th. It's not from Weddell at all. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did I state the source was Weddell? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You didn't. But that was the original sole source in the article. Everything doesn't have to be about you. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I welcome you fixing it per WP:SOFIXIT. Why did you make the remark you did? I am confused as to the point you're making here. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 22:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of clearing up confusion, the sentence was previously only sourced to Weddell. You added the date (that wasn't in Weddell) without anyone at that point adding any other source. It's all fine, but I asked because if it's not from Weddell, where could it be from? Before I made the query about the date, the only thing it was sourced to was Weddell. So when I looked to find where the date was originally sourced from and it turned out to not be Weddell, I said, "Huh, it was from Jewett himself in a second letter," and shared that sentiment.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I welcome the fact you went the extra mile to clear up a confusion. Text is a poor medium for communicating and we appear to have been talking past each other. Let us perhaps agree to put this behind us and try to communicate better! What say you? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am only concerned that claims match sources, that sources are reliable for the claims given, and that articles are improved and neutral. I hold no prejudice or animosity beyond these aims and am happy to work towards that without getting bogged down in miscommunications. So I agree with you here, spirit and letter. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I raise a glass to future collaboration, Slàinte mhath! Wee Curry Monster talk 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

For what is worth, I've checked Fonseca Figueira and Laurio Destefani and they agree on the date, November 6th. --Langus (t) 01:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

English vs Spanish

Regarding this edit and this WikiSource entry: is the original report written in English? Do you have access to the actual photographs?

If you don't have the photos, then we are relying on a self-published source (link to Lorton's blog: report-of-david-jewett-feb-1st-1821.pdf)

It is noted in wikisource its based on photographs of the original document and Roger Lorton has a credit as the photos are his. Please note the copyright is his so I won't be posting copies without his permission. I've also had it independently verified by John above who also has photos of the original. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, but if I understand Wikisource's policies correctly, you'll need to upload them with Lorton's permission, to back Jewett's request for relief.

Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes says: "Most written work (or transcript of original audio or visual content) published (or created but never published) prior to 1923 may be included in Wikisource, so long as it is verifiable. Valid sources include uploaded scans and printed paper sources."

This should be helpful too: --Langus (t) 11:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster, any news? --Langus (t) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Weddell and the Uranie

The following sentence was re-added to the article:

"Weddell also linked the ceremony to Jewett's claim to the wreck of the Uranie and that it was was calculated to make an impression on the masters of ships in the area."

It is sourced with Mary Cawkell (2001). The History of the Falkland Islands.

For starters, given the wording, it makes me wonder if Jewett ever laid claim on the wreck of the Uranie. It is my understanding that he did not, but current text makes me doubt.

Secondly, if Jewett in fact didn't claim the wreckage, what is the point of reporting Weddell's conjectures about Jewett's intentions? Also, if those hypothesis are reported by a secondary source (Cawkell), does it mean that the secondary source avails them?

I guess it depends on how the secondary source reports them (context). But it does seems a bit weird if those 19th-century suppositions are demonstrably wrong. What I'm trying to say is that I don't see the point for inclusion, unless the idea is to discredit the ceremony, as Weddell did. --Langus (t) 02:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

On what basis is your understanding that he did not claim the Uranie? I ask because BedsBookworm provides a link above to the part of Weddell where he states the Jewett had made an exclusive claim to rights the Corvette. Bookworm has gone much further than is required. In addition, is my recollection flawed but didn't you state you had a copy of Cawkell? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I won't have access to it until a few days from now (incidentally, page numbers would be most useful in these kind of articles).

It seems you're right! Evidently I've missed that part... It would be interesting to know if he salvaged something from it, or if he never exercised that claimed right. Does anyone know?

WCM, I've left you a question in the section right above. Regards, --Langus (t) 11:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Bookworm gives page numbers but the way he is doing refs keeps over-writing them. I'll fix it when I have a moment but you could give the guy a few tips. I'm working from memory and would have to dig to find the reference but I believe Jewett stripped the Uranie to repair the Heroìna. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong? I used the citation generation tool for Google books. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Lede Comment

I've tagged the lede for a none neutral statement, Langus-TxT has twice reverted editors addressing a minor issue with the lede to edit war none neutral language into the lede. His rationale is that this is "neutral" with reference to the description of John Byron in 1765. There is a large difference between the two. No one disputes that John Byron acting under orders acted as described, there is some controversy over the events described here and BedsBookworm noted this and addressed it. I invite other editors to review and comment. WCM_email 09:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Falsely accusing people of edit-warring here is not helpful. Many sources simply say "claim" and it's neutral to directly reflect the words of sources here. Templating the whole article over a single word can be considered non-constructive, as well. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It is neutral because that is what he factually did; it is not neutral trying to obscure it by using convoluted expressions. The alleged lack of orders Wee Curry Monster mentions is already tackled with in the body of the article, and is no more than an attempt to undermine the claim that some lesser British-POVed authors have recently made. Is evident that these editors want to carry that controversy to the lede, as WCM already did with the piracy issue. That is POV pushing, as both views do not have the same weight.

Elaquate is right about the false accusations of edit-warring, although everyone here should already know that this is pretty much characteristic behavior of Wee Curry Monster. --Langus (t) 21:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't neutral, the way it is currently worded, since there is controversy over exactly what happened, which the current wording obscures. I don't use {{npov}} tags lightly, it is being used here exactly as it should be to draw attention to an issue.

As usual we see exactly what the problem is with the response from Langus - he dismisses the controversy over this as "lesser British-POVed authors" and undermining Argentina's sovereignty claim ie Langus' concern is to protect Argentina's claims not present a NPOV. We saw the same problem in the reference to his edit warring over the piracy comment - he accused every editor of introducing it to malign the Argentine claim - "conditioned this issue" with Argentina's sovereignty claim as he put it at the time. Even going so far as to accuse editors of a falsehood when we simply pointed out that the word pirate in English doesn't have the negative connotations that piratas does in Spanish. Its unfortunate that this is a fairly obscure article and doesn't have too many eyes on it. WCM_email 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit tiresome. What does your mentor say about your tagging? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am finding it distinctly tiresome that you have decided to single me out and its becoming rather common of late. If you find it tiresome, I suggest you find something more productive to do. WCM_email 00:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You've dodged the question, just as you've dodged replying to the fact that you falsely accused an editor of edit-warring in this thread. Feel free to take your own advice here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have one editor reverting two others without discussion, that is by definition edit warring - there was no false accusation. You're just trolling now, find something productive to do please. WCM_email 01:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not constructive. An editor made a bold edit to the longstanding article text, Langus reverted it, there was no discussion from the bold editor on the talk page. Routine editing. A couple days later, it happened again, with you. You were reverted, we have this discussion. Basic BRD editing. Not edit-warring. It seems your complaint about the article is just that you don't like Langus or his edit to revert to the longstanding version, which is a poor reason to template it. We've left it up for ten days, and all you've provided is a comment that drips with bad blood. This is not constructive. What did your mentor say about your tagging here? __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And you've now twice politely asked Elaquate to "go away". I know you are a soldier, but I suggest you drop the WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior now. --Langus (t) 03:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because I'm not responding to the needling comment doesn't mean this has gone away, the lede is still not neutral. If you want the tag to go address the problem. WP:MOSLEDE requires that the lede reflects the content of the article and if the facts are disputed this should be reflected in the lede. Bookworm's edit addressed it, Langus's reasons for reverting are not based in policy. WCM_email 21:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We left it up for weeks, but you're now admitting you're not responding to the discussion here. If you want to discuss, discuss away, but don't ignore the fact that you're the sole person who's demanding a template. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I opened the discussion. Neither of you have made any attempt to discuss, there is no objections that have basis in policy and basically your "argument" seems to be telling me I'm not a good person but not once addressing any issue I raise. Like above you're not addressing my point that the lede doesn't reflect the article - ie zero attempt to discuss just another example of personalising matters. Yes there is two of you, so you're gonna win the edit war over the tag that just makes you both bullies afraid of attracting outside comment. WCM_email 22:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You're a little confused. I never said you weren't a good person. You're probably a lovely person. You're not being constructive here, and calling people trolls and bullies are clear personal attacks. There's no "winner" here. That template wasn't doing anything and more editors (including your mentor) agreed with that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I was being constructive, the only thing you could accuse me of is getting irritated by yet another example of Langus edit warring over something that actually improved the article and not for good reasons. Above he went on to ridiculous lengths about the reference to piracy and even now won't accept in good faith it doesn't have the negative connotation that he perceives. The arguments for reverting:

• First of all, narrow nationalism, that this article must use the same wording as in an earlier incident in 1764, when John Byron claimed the islands for the British crown. However, there is no controversy over those events, there is here ie the two are not comparable.
• That this edit "undermines" the Argentine claim and refers to the piracy incident above
• And apparently this is promoting pro-British POV authors.

Arguments based on promoting a national viewpoint have no place in wikipedia. WCM_email 22:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no edit-warring. And if you don't see calling people trolls and bullies as non-constructive personal attacks, it doesn't change the fact that they are. The word "claimed" to describe Jewett's basic action is used without qualifier in official material from the Falkland government themselves; I wouldn't call them an example of Argentine nationalism. "David Jewett claimed the islands for the United Provinces of South America (one of the precursor states of Argentina)" is already a neutral statement and is in accord with the sources. The controversy might be in whether that claim has any effect either way in today's world (probably not) but I don't see that there's a reasonable argument from sources that he never even made the claim we are discussing. You're getting into fringe territory if you're trying to take the wording further than the Falklands government.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You are being somewhat disenguous, the complete wording in official material is:

Taking one word out of context from the statement is none neutral by omitting the rest and is a classical example of WP:CHERRY. WCM_email 12:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The other points are handled by the article from better sources; I was just pointing out that even a highly partisan source still says that Jewett claimed the Islands for the United Provinces, as we say in the lead. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Issue dodged again. They're in the article but are not summarised in the lede, which leads to a neutrality problem. The lede should reflect the balance of opinion, currently it doesn't - and one word is used out of context. Again a classic example of WP:CHERRY. MOS requires the lead present a summary of the article. WCM_email 14:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems you are dodging the issue: is it or is it not a neutral wording the expression "David Jewett claimed the islands for the United Provinces of South America"? --Langus (t) 20:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been clear that expression taken out of context is not of itself neutral. It becomes neutral when used in context with other relevant facts. WCM_email 20:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the proposed summary to work on it here, to avoid excessive editing of the article.

The first thing we need to tackle is that, as I predicted, you intend to carry the controversy over the alleged lack of orders to the lede, on which I disagree for not having enough weight on literature. We need to keep in mind that this is an introduction, and it can't contain every controversy "or else it is not neutral". If the controversy is relevant enough, it gets included, in a neutral fashion. So, first thing first: show me sources please. --Langus (t) 02:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The lede is not usually sourced as it reflects a summary of the article where the sources actually are. You know full well the comments are sourced to Mary Cawkell, Jewett's report and Jose Maria. I will expect you to revert presently, you had no reason to expurgate that content. WCM_email 19:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have readded the tag to bring us back to the status quo before this latest discussion arose. Note that the NPOV tag does not indicate that the article is biased, only that somebody on talk asserts that the article is biased. Despite Langus' claim per WP:DETAG, there is a clear discussion on talk.

Of the options, I think Curry Monster's is better, as the current lede is too short and it clarifies the situation neutrally. But I will repeat at this stage my view that the lede, in common with most of the rest of the article, is heavily skewed toward the events of 1820. I believe this is recentism. The sources that I have seen - those on the subject of Jewett himself rather than those focussed on the Falklands - put far more emphasis on Jewett's service to Brazil and wee should reflect that. Kahastok talk 19:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have more sources for Jewett's Brazilian service, you should share them. I did a lot of work to add other material that would help this article avoid being a coatrack for byzantine Falkland Islands theories. Parts of WCM's suggestion could be considered, but his addition of unprovable theories based on "absence of evidence" is not appropriate to add. As for the tag, there was more opinions that that the tag was a bit unhelpful and WCM had stopped discussing his concern for over three weeks, and the discussion was dormant. Per the essay Misplaced Pages:Tagging pages for problems: Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason this discussion became "dormant" is that you dominated it with unsubstantiated allegations, then tag teamed to edit war the tag from the article deterring further outside comment. I made numerous attempts to discuss it and there was no attempt to discuss above, only a rather patronising commentary of personal attacks where you sought to justify disruptive behaviour and completely ignored the fact that Langus' quoted reason for reverting was concern for the advancement of a nationalist agenda.

I have not added anything on unprovable theories based on "absence of evidence", which I consider an unwarranted and unneeded attempt to once again esclate the temperature of this discussion again. Please stop this. There is no documentary evidence to support any claim that Jewett was sent, what does exist like his Letters of Marque and his report make no mention of it. In the context of Argentina's sovereignty claim, it is asserted he was sent but the only evidence is that, whilst in the Falkalnd he claimed to have been sent this was later reported in the foreign press. Without Weddell's book or Captain Orne it would be unknown today. The absence of documentary evidence to support a particular claim is commented upon by numerous authors and as such merits WP:DUE consideration. You are editorialising to determine whether or not a comment in the literature should be mentioned, that is WP:OR and WP:SYN and lets face it, if we go down that line - Argentina claims the existence of a secret agreement in 1771, for which there is no solid evidence whatsoever - are you suggesting we remove that as well? WCM_email 20:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the comments about the tag, I've already complained to Kahastok in his talk page. I reject that after 15 days of inactivity (and 25 days since tagging) a discussion can be "clearly" ongoing.

I agree on the feeling about the theory of "absence of evidence". @Wee Curry Monster: I know Cawkell makes this point, but I'm asking for more. Remember: you're asking us to put this controversy in the lede. You need far more than just one author noting the absence of evidence; you need to prove that this controversy is not a WP:FRINGE theory, to start with. The "report" you mention is not a report. It is called a report by the FI Government and POV warriors, but it is a letter asking for relieve. Its purpose was to tell the authorities the pain and difficulties he had to struggle with, and ask for replacement. It is not "a report" of his activities.

If you are suggesting that we should read this letter and conclude (WP:OR) he had no orders... No, that's not going to happen. And if you want to go down the road of the historical investigator (just for fun), explain me then why Jewett sailed from the Canary Islands to the Falkland Islands, instead of going straight to Buenos Aires with the Carlota.

Regarding "Jose Maria", I don't know who are you referring to. I hope it's not Pinedo...

Your point about the alleged secret agreement of 1771 is not valid, because we are not saying that the controversy can't be in the article, only that it doesn't warrant to be in the lede. Is like me wanting to put the secret agreement in the lede of the FI sovereignty dispute article... and mind you, you don't even allow it to be in the body of the article, even knowing that I can get you right away at least half a dozen books exposing the controversy. That's right: it's not Argentina who claims it existed, it is reliable sources. Same thing with Jewett's orders (the lede you proposed said "Argentina claims..." which is not neutral -- scholar sources think he had the orders).

@Kahastok: the only reason why we have an article on Jewett is because he claimed the islands in 1820. In Brazil, were he spend most of his career and later life, he had been largely forgotten until Argentine historians started to search for traces of him.

@Wee Curry Monster: you have now accused us of WP:TAGTEAM. Stop the personal attacks here and focus on content. --Langus (t) 02:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If you "complained" on his talk page, you have no business commenting here. The discussion was ongoing, you had not responded to any point other than to mouth off about WCM being a bad person.

I see the point about the 1771 agreement was well made but you're perverting my comment. I made no comment about removing it, I simply pointed out the logical conclusion of following the absence of evidence strawman. I guess from the response it shot home with a vengeance and now you're back peddling.

Jose Maria Rosa is the Argentine revisionist historian used by Cambalachero to source the claim that Jewett was sent. I ask what that is based upon, as it is likely he simply made it up. No documentary evidence exists to support a claim that Sarratea sent Jewett. Applying your own standard, if you consider Cawkell insufficient then I am going to suggest we need more sources and sources which follow rigorous scholastic standards unlike the practises of the revisionist movement. By the way, there is a huge discrepancy in that claim. Lynch obtained the Corsair license on January 15, Sarratea didn't take office till February 18. Sarratea just happened to be president for about 20 days and this period Jewett set sail. Revisionist historians claim he had orders, there is nothing to back it up. I see you're claiming elsewhere that revisionist historians are considered "reliable", I would remind you of the arbcom case that concluded they weren't.

I don't have to supply another source, since if you look above it is commented upon in Our Islands, Our History published by the Falkland Islands Government. Its mentioned by Pepper and Pascoe, Beck, Tatham and the distinguished historian Lawrence Freedman has reviewed and endorsed Pepper and Pascoe's work. But I guess from your previous comment these will just be "FI Government and POV warriors", what a classic example of Projection bias. As usual you find reasons to reject looking at sources, based upon your own narrow nationalist viewpoint. Again the evidence of Jewett's report is simply dismissed, since it doesn't fit your own narrow world view.

I have not suggested we look at the letter, show me where I did. But other historians have looked at the letter and noted it makes no mention of the Falklands, other historians have noted the absence of evidence. This is what we comment on. But if you do look at the letter, it was signed by Rondeau not Sarratea.

Now as far as the lede goes, I would happy with the compromise suggested by Bookworm, what I'm not happy with is allowing for a state of affairs to perpetuate where the lede states a modern spin on the events favouring one national narrative. Kahastok can back me up here, I would reject any such edit whether it favoured a British narrative or an Argentine one and have a track record of doing so.

Finally, you are wrong about Jewett, he was known in Brazil for his role in forming the navy there. Argentine historians have rather neglected that chapter of his life, since he spent most of it bashing seven bells out the Argentine Navy and it doesn't have the spin they like. WCM_email 09:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, one tiny edit of mine caused this?

I have to agree with WCM and Kahastok that the lede needed rewriting as it had stayed the same, despite the article being expanded. WCM's effort seems a neutral and well written stab at it and including commentary that met Langus' concern to have the Argentine position included. Personally I think the alternatives are to go with WCM's edit that address the range of opinion in the article, or to compromise and go with my modest effort. I don't think the current state is acceptable, simply because it doesn't reflect the article. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WCMs' proposition is highly biased and oddly constructed:

• The controversial accusations of piracy are still there, and have been given even more relevance (expanded);
• The claim is mentioned almost at the end of the lede, when it is the sole reason why we know so much about this person today;
• "Argentina now claims he was sent to the islands for this purpose" --that's pure POV speech: scholars say that, not only the Argentine government. I'm gathering quotes from reliable sources right now to prove this.
• Your last edit even took away the fact he claimed the islands!

To sum it up: it has been coatracked. --Langus (t) 20:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

While I'm gathering sources I'll reply to some of your points @Wee Curry Monster:

You are proposing to use the FI Government as a reliable source. If we do that, we would have to take Cristina Kirchner's speeches as reliable sources. Pascoe & Pepper are not reliable sources. They are self-published. They are not historians. Tatham is a former Governor of the FI, and his book is a compilation of stories of both scholars and common people (even islanders) that also seems to fail the standards of WP:SP. You must remember (I do) that we were advised at WP:RSN to use it with care, even to avoid it if possible (see here). Finally, even if Lawrence Freedman spoke well of Pascoe & Pepper's pamphlet as I call it, his published and peer-reviewed work The Official History of the Falklands Campaign does not endorse this view or theory that David Jewett had no orders to visit the Falklands. And that has more weight that an interview with a magazine. --Langus (t) 20:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The lede has simply been rewritten to reflect the article and follows the same narrative path. If I understand your argument, you want the Argentine claim to be given extra prominence right away in the first sentence and you don't want any mention that there is doubt expressed about what happened? Have I got that right?

Langus, will you stop the nonsense, the accusations of piracy are a documented fact and it is not controversial in the slightest except in your own paranoia. You have to do the same argument again and again on every article and its deeply tedious. You have a personal opinion that this is detrimental to Argentina's claims or it was introduced to denigrate the claim (your words). Charitably I once put this down to a simple language confusion but even after having a neutral party point out you were wrong you are still carping on it about. Are you really that paranoid, that you think everyone on the English wikipedia is lying to you about the use of the word pirate? Come on now, yes or no, do you think we're lying to you?????

I'm also sure you can find sources that say "claimed", you don't make an article neutral by quoting a ton of biased cherry-picked sources.

Pepper and Pascoe are reliable sources, they're acknowledged experts. You're also wrong about Freedman, since he has since issued an errata for the Official Histories to correct that error. Whats interesting, is you're finding excuses to dismiss sources but insisting we have to respect Revisionist Argentine historians that were noted to be unreliable in the arbcom case. Those historians are about as reliable as a Kirchner oratory, since they spout the same nonsense.

And btw just in case you hadn't noticed, there are now a number of editors here who've supported a change to the lede, are you going to keep simply reverting everyone? WCM_email 19:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There are 3 editors pushing a new lede to enforce a POV that does not accurately reflects scholarly literature. Neither Wee Curry Monster or BedsBookworm have provided reliable sources for the lack of orders. What's more, I've checked my copy of Cawkell-Nelson (2001) and it doesn't claim that Jewett had no orders. Elaquate and I are noticing this lack of sourcing, and the only response on your part seems to be a "let's edit-war over it" or "let's take a straw poll, I've brought a friend".

Pascoe & Pepper are self-published, WP:SPS, hence, unreliable. If Freedman issued an errata that would be a reliable source! Do you have access to it?

Quote me where in the Arbcom case was revisionism banned from Misplaced Pages. That would be the first arbitration on content that I know of.

"Pirates are commonly referred to as hostis humani generis, the enemy of all". Robert Elliot Mills, Rhetoric & Public Affairs , Volume 17, Number 1, Spring 2014. That beats "Wee Curry Monster, anonymous Misplaced Pages editor". WP:LABEL applies.

Now, some sources:

• Caillet-Bois, Ricardo (1952). Las Islas Malvinas. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Peuser.

• Da Fonseca Figueira, Jose Antonio (1985). David Jewett; una biografía para la historia de las Malvinas. Sudamericana-Planeta.

• Fitte, Ernesto J (1974). Crónicas del Atlántico Sur. Emecé.

• Pigna, Felipe (2008-03-30). "La larga usurpación de las Islas Malvinas". Clarin. Retrieved 5 October 2014.

I can provide for translations later, if needed.

Note also that Caillet-Bois notes that the claim to the Uraine was probably part of the instructions given; i.e., that it wasn't really Jewett who was interested in the wreckage but the Government of the United Provinces. --Langus (t) 01:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar? YES / NO

No need to translate, I can read Spanish.

Caillet-Bois is claiming that the Heroina was sent to Puerto Soledad to salvage Uranie. That is an obvious lie, Heroina sailed in February and was at sea for eight months, there was no opportunity for an order to be issued. Urarnie wrecked in March, after she sailed. This is why this sort of revisionist history is inherently unreliable - this is an obvious fabrication. There is no evidence upon which it is based, its just made up. Using garbage like this to source material has already lead to one editor being banned and using dubious material to push a POV edit, really you should know better.

And another editor just reverted you, are you claiming Lecen is my mate as well, I doubt he would agree. WCM_email 11:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

POV, the lede is currently has problems with neutrality.

Answer: NO, I'm not calling you anything because I'm focusing on sources, not editors.

If we take Cawkell out the list, we are left with ZERO reliable, secondary sources for Wee Curry Monster's claim that David Jewett did not have orders to visit the Falklands.

On March 11, 1820 the Heroina was anchored at Buenos Aires port, as a letter by Thomas Hardy corroborates. He reproduces in it a letter received from David Jewett the day before, announcing a blockade on the port of Buenos Aires. L'Uraine wreaked on Febraury 14th. What's more, the Uraine was aided at the Falkland Islands by the Argentine sealer Mercurio. Her sailors could be very well the ones who informed Buenos Aires of the wreckage, reaching for that port aboard of other ships (the Mercurio was bought by Freycinet)

I don't know if Callet-Bois is considered a revisionist or not, but that's pointless. He has produced one of the finest works of historical investigation on the matter: Las Islas Malvinas is only surpassed by Goebbel's work. What we should ask ourselves when discussing sources is: "is Las Islas Malvinas by Caillet-Bois a reliable source for saying that David Jewett had orders to claim the islands?". The answer is an overwhelming YES, and if you disagree we can ask at the WP:RSN. --Langus (t) 21:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving the article

Instead of arguing over a sentence, I believe it should be better instead to actually improve the article. Write the main body of text, divided in sections, everything backed by sources and with a 4-paragraph lead. However, if the problem is the lack of sources, I could do it. But I could only start working on it in a couple of weeks. And I will only do it if I get the promise from the other editors that I have their confidence and support, and most importantly of all: that they will keep Langus-TxT far away. I will not compromise with someone like him, who clearly wants to push a POV based on Revisionist sources. --Lecen (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Time Image

I've removed the Times image. I've seen that version circulating the web for sometime. It has been photoshopped to give the impression it was on the front page, whereas it was in fact a small reference hidden near the back. As a manipulated image it isn't clear who owns the copyright. WCM_email 10:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside the front page issue, and mainly for the record, would you object to this version, which doesn't have any of those issues? --Langus (t) 04:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious, just how many times do I have to state that I don't object to the use of an image of the actual Times article, as opposed to the fake version? I trust the caption will be in accordance with WP:NPOV. WCM_email 10:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Jewett's declaration reported by The Times, on August 3, 1821." --Would that be ok? --Langus (t) 11:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Jewett's declaration as reported in the Salem Gazette and reprinted by The Times, on August 3, 1821." WCM_email 16:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done From time to time we settle on a compromise without external help. Cheers to that. --Langus (t) 18:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Regarding this revert Bookworm made a very valid point here, there is no need to have the declaration twice. Please discuss the need for two copies. Regards, WCM_email 15:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. And I note given the edit summary in the revert, that I believe that this individual would be notable even if he'd never been to the Falklands. Kahastok talk 16:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that Brazilian historians totally ignored him. He was rescued from oblivion by an Argentine historian just because the role he played in the sovereignty dispute, which ultimately boils down to the ceremony and the declaration.

That's why I insist the declaration needs to be included and a picture has not the same weight that the full declaration. Moreover, text always takes precedence over images, in benefit of those reader with low bandwidht:

Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image. True text can be colored and adjusted with CSS tags and templates, but text in images cannot be. Images are not searchable, are slower to download, and are unlikely to be read as text by devices for the visually impaired. Any important textual information in an image should also appear in the image's alt text, caption, or other nearby text.

That's from WP:MOSIM. --Langus (t) 19:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

So you're arguing for the removal of the image, fine, I'm happy either way. WCM_email 14:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I reached the same conclusion. Though I don't really see that the precise text of the declaration is necessarily hugely relevant or of massive importance in any case. The article would lose noting if it included a neutral description of it instead. Kahastok talk 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I wasn't supporting any change. Let's be clear: both of you were first arguing for the removal of text, and now you've moved goalposts and successfully removed the imaged that everyone had agreed to include just a month ago. Why am I not surprised?

Do note that the article currently goes to a great extent to plant amateurish doubts against the proclamation, noting how "Jewett did not mention the claim in his 13-page request for resignation" or that "the declaration was only reported in Argentina as a foreign news story after being reported in the Salem Gazette in 1821"; however, you won't allow to even mention that The Times also published the proclamation. This is why you are the POV pushers and I'm the one trying to bring neutrality to his article. I shiver at the idea of what neutral description means to Kahastok. --Langus (t) 00:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (military) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class South America articles
• Unknown-importance South America articles
• Start-Class Argentine articles
• Mid-importance Argentine articles
• WikiProject Argentina articles
• Start-Class Falkland Islands articles
• Mid-importance Falkland Islands articles
• Falkland Islands articles
• WikiProject South America articles