Talk:Capture of Port Egmont

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Overseas Territories This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. South America: Falklands This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group. Military history: Maritime / British / European / Spanish This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force Spanish military history task force

You know there are some events that just don't fit the guidelines and this is one, I'd prefer it referred to the crisis article as that was the net result but won't edit war to achieve that. Can we have some common sense please and think of what is best for the article and our readers? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why this event doesn't fit the guidelines? --Langus (t) 01:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I dunno, maybe because A) there wasn't a battle, B) they weren't at war and C) the result was settled diplomatically without conflict. Or did you as usual presume some underhand motive on my part? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there wasn't a battle or a war then the problem would be the infobox in the first place, not me following the guidelines...

BTW, would you be so kind as to stop accusing me of bad faith? It's getting annoying again... Thank you. --Langus (t) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goes straight back to my first comment - somethings don't fit the guidelines. Did you accept it as a comment in good faith, no you questioned it, like there was some ulterior motive. Would you kindly stop presuming bad faith, then I won't annoy you anymore. Guidelines are not rules, and rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I questioned it because I wanted to understand why you prefer to disregard the guidance. And to be honest, I disagree... this event (Capture of Port Egmont) was a military conflict indeed.

I'm willing to submit this to external help if you want to --perhaps a

WP:MILHIST. --Langus (t) 23:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You disagree, you've disagreed with every point I have ever made but you never explain why and then get "annoyed" when I "presume bad faith". I note, however, that the source does not substantiate the edit [1] but nontheless raised this at

here. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

What do you think? --Langus (t) 18:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being ridiculous to be frank, no that bears no relation to the comments at

WP:ARBCOM yet. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Disappointing and disturbing...

• "if this event is viewed as a successful Spanish military occupation of a settlement, then “Spanish Victory” appears justified. I would probably make it still clearer by rephrasing it as “Successful Spanish Occupation” or something like that though. [...] I would then add “Beginning of the Falklands Crisis” as a secondary result under a new bullet point (however, I don’t think that result should be used in isolation). Personally I don’t see the need to link to the aftermath section. This result seems pretty clear cut." Ranger Steve [2]
• "Given that this invasion fits into the context of a larger series of events it might be appropriate to copy the way Wikipedia approaches the capture of Port Stanley in 1982." Wiki-Ed [3] (from this I took the "Spain seizes control of the islands" option)

You admitted here that you took the liberty of doing something that wasn't suggested. If you're going to disregard other editor's input, there's no possible dispute resolution with you. Why did you ask a question in MILHIST if you are still going to do whatever you feel like? --Langus (t) 00:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't follow Slatersteven's suggestion, for the simple reason it isn't sourced. The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome ... It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Just to note I've already pointed out, I took one of the comments from the casualties section, simply because I thought it uncontroversial. I self-reverted as you appear to think my content suggestion wasn't an improvement. I note in response you've added the unsourced material I did not. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a quote to put this cite into context please[4]. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. It's done!

In a related matter, would you do the same with this ref? I'm intrigued about what book is it.

In fact, I'm thinking right now that references definitely need some work... What is "Charles Dickens, Clive Hurst, Jon Mee, Iain McCalman" supposed to be? Is it this book?? --Langus (t) 00:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already posted a link to Maher online - you can search for it in Google Books. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Does it support the conclusion? It refers to East Falkland, Port Egmont is on West Falkland. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry, I made a mistake, "Occidental" refers of course to West Falkland.

I couldn't find the 'Maher' book Wee, could you post it here? Or tell me where you posted the link and I'll look for it.

What do you think we should do with the other sources? Does anyone know any of them? --Langus (t) 23:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been revised as part of

This needs a larger scale cleanup than I can do in the short term so I'm putting this notice here. It currently cites the historical novel Barnaby Rudge by Charles Dickens, and a travel guide written by a wildlife guide, as references for historical fact. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capture of Port Egmont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403102155/http://new.falklands.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=3Falklands to http://new.falklands.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=3Falklands

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]