File talk:The Times - Argentine Capture of the Falkland Islands 1821.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

file name should be fixed to reflect 1821 instead of current 1820[edit]

The file may need to be renamed to reflect is not from 1820 as the file name states but is fron 1821 as the summary states.--WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editions by tandem Wee Curry Monster - Kahastok[edit]

After unsuccessfully attempting to delete the picture, the team formed by Wee Curry Monster and his friend [redacted Kahastok talk 21:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)]-Kahastok now try to manipulate the file description. Although I have no particular problem in using 'combination' or 'reworked image', I don't see the reason to state it's "modern" (the source does not explain when the reworking was done); don't understand the reason to use "claiming", when the title of the news item is clearly "capturing"; object to the use of "contemporary", as it can be misleading; don't understand again the purpose of claim that it "was created to", as we don't really know who, when and why it was created; and finally don't understand the reason to remove the exact sentence the picture refers to, as it provides a clear context of the use of the picture.[reply]

Even worse is the fact that both refuse to propose and explain changes "before" and not after the edition. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 21:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason you feel the need to announce my change in user name everywhere? The change was several years ago, and was fully propagated through on to the Commons. It's beginning to look like harassment or attempted outing or similar.
I find your message also utterly fails to assume good faith, but given that you have not assumed good faith once since I encountered you a couple of weeks ago (after several years' gap) this is not a surprise.
The current wording is plain wrong on multiple counts:
  • This is not a "[r]eworked image", implying that the image was retooled or improved. It's two separate pictures that were located nowhere near each other in the original.
  • The events described did not take place in 1821. They took place in 1820.
  • This was not in any credible sense a "capture" of the islands. Such an event did not take place in either 1820 or 1821. My version describes what happened neutrally; the reader is perfectly able to read the image.
  • While images on Commons don't have to be neutral, the descriptions do have to be as neutral as possible per COM:NPOV. Using the description to argue Argentina's case, as you demand, clearly fails this.
I note that "contemporary" very clearly refers to the date of the piece, i.e. 1821. But if there are improvements to be made, then it's best to make improvements, not just revert wholesale.
I think it is also useful to provide a French translation. You seem insistent that it must go. I do not understand why you feel that French-speakers should not be allowed to know what this image is about.
And finally, this notion that editors should have to explain edits before making them is directly counter to the spirit of a Wiki (which this is). Your objection to this suggests that you are trying to claim some kind of veto over this image, which is entirely against COM:OWN. Kahastok talk 21:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
  1. I highly doubt about the interpretation that the image was crafted "as if it were the actual front page of the newspaper". Whose interpretation is that? Does it come from a reliable source or is it editors' own assessment? Moreover: how did a front page of The Times even looked at that time?
  2. How do they know who and why created the image? Could they share information about that?
If descriptions must be neutral, these two points must be addressed. --Langus-TxT (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Kahastok says its not a reworked image, its a image that was doctored deliberately to give a misleading impression. As noted in the discussion on deletion I have never had any problems with the original or with honestly describing what this image is. Commons isn't censored you claim, prove it, give it an honest description. And for info, the OP is banned on es.wikpedia for trolling, harassment and abuse of admin powers.
Oh you doubt it Langus-TxT, [1] This event received considerable media coverage when released in 1821 seeing as the editor you've encouraged by maligning other editors on the English wikipedia [2] states this almost verbatim. The image itself was created by editors on the El Malvinense website, as I'm sure you know. WCMemail 22:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're not answering any of my questions and instead you engage in edit-warring. How do you pretend that I held you in high regard? You are reinforcing the image I have of you.
Again: "the image was crafted as if it were the actual front page of the newspaper". Whose interpretation is that? Does it come from a reliable source or is it your own assessment? If it's yours: how do you know that the intention was to make it look like front page and not just produce a more amicable image for the reader? That kind of crystal-ball guessing on the intentions of the unknown maker of the image are patently out of line.
Moreover, the description you are both pushing for is suspicious because it refers to the body part as "a news item on the declaration" as if were taken from another newspaper. This is unsettling. I object also "combination of two separate images" as one can clearly see all its components in one image here.
I still don't understand why you rejected Discasto's description based only on the "reworked image" bit. Kahastok's refusal of the word capture as not neutral is amazing, given the fact that it is precisely the word that The Times uses in the article. Arguments about the year and having or not a French translation are equally invalid for rejecting the whole text. If those are your only objections, they can be easily addressed. --Langus-TxT (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did answer your question but you're imposing your will by edit warring. Quelle surprise as your normal modus operandi. I guess we have an answer, politically motivated censorship and POV pushing is alive and well. We're not allowed to openly state that an image has been doctored intentionally to mislead. God forbid anybody would see an official Argentine publication with a doctored image for what it actually is. WCMemail 21:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, instead of trying to improve the text, as Langus asks everyone else to, Langus himself just reverts to the worst caption of the lot. His arguments are "invalid for rejecting the whole text". Langus edit wars in favour of removing any mention - however oblique - of the nature of this image as a mashup of multiple parts. The words "politically motivated censorship" come to mind - can't think where from. Kahastok talk 21:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're being ridiculous on top of disruptive. Of course we're allowed "to openly state that an image has been doctored intentionally to mislead", but only if we have a reliable source for it. Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster are not reliable sources. Wikipedia does "censor" original research: w:WP:OR, a core policy, the first one that novice editors learn.
w:WP:BRD Kahastok, you know extremely well how this works when there's disagreement over content. What would you have preferred me to do, revert to Dicasto's version? Blanking the description perhaps?
As the only thing you're both doing now is reverting to your preferred version over and over without a glimpse of compromise or a search for dialog, it is fair to categorize your behavior as w:WP:DISRUPTIVE. I really can't explain all this more clearly. --Langus-TxT (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia. This is Wikimedia Commons. They're different. The policies are different. If they weren't, w:WP:NPOV could well have seen this image deleted in the deletion request. But Commons rules do say that captions should be as neutral as possible.
I would suggest that it is double standards for you to have objected to my improving the description (keeping good aspects such as the translations into multiple languages, which I could have discarded since it's not the easiest thing to do for languages where you have limited understanding) claiming that I was "rejecting the whole text", while at the same time rejecting the whole text and reverting to a version that is quite clearly inferior and more biased compared with all the other options.
Your claim that I have not attempted to compromise is false. I have improved the text in line with some of your suggestions and would be interested in listening to other constructive suggestions. But I do not see how your reverting to the most biased option available and then yelling at us can be considered constructive. Kahastok talk 22:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I hadn't noticed the changes you introduced. However, it still has the problem of guessing the intentions about why the image was created. Even if you're alleging that w:WP:OR doesn't apply to file descriptions here in Commons, I still disagree with your interpretations. Moreover: it is absolutely unnecessary! Therefore, I'm removing that part from all the descriptions in the hope that this settles the matter. The rest is now acceptable. --Langus-TxT (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, when your colleagues on es.wikipedia are using it to do just that [3]. Replacing real with fake and adding the most appallingly biased commentary to it. You know Langus, you often speak of a NPOV, you now have a chance to prove you respect it. Its your language not mine, my Spanish is crap but its your native language. WCMemail 07:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have enough troubles with British nationalists in en.WP as to further divert my attention to es.WP controversies. Besides, what you're asking me to do sounds very similar to a w:WP:MEATPUPPET or proxy editor, and that's a big no-no.
What they are doing in Wikipedia (any language) with this image has nothing to do with the issue I'm pointing out. I insist with it. --Langus-TxT (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Replacing real with fake and adding the most appallingly biased commentary to it." Really? Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. :) Seriously, Freedman's Official History of the Falklands Campaing is appallingly biased? Are you for real? Is he supporting Argentina's position now? LOL. What do you want? Pascoe & Pepper's self-published pamphlet. "Yeah let's kick Argies asses!" that would be a neutral comment for you? --· Favalli ⟡ 23:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be the first time editors from es.wiki picked the parts of sources that favoured their POV and ignored the rest. And the caption used in es.wiki is clearly very biased.
But the biased use of this image is hardly unusual. For the entire time I have been editing Wikimedia projects, nigh-on all of es.wiki's coverage of Falklands topics has been a long way on the wrong side of the line between encyclopædic commentary and political propaganda, and I don't think fixing this one thing is going to help with the overall problem. In some ways the more blatant stuff - such as the caption given to this image - is a good thing because it makes it so obvious that the thing is biased that it's less likely that readers will accept the rest of it without a fairly large pinch of salt. Kahastok talk 11:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of the image[edit]

I note that many of those who opposed the deletion of this image, claiming that there was use to illustrate how false images were used are now editing es.wikipedia to present this false image as the original eg [4]. They have in fact swapped the original for the fake. I've therefore reverted to the original and not the doctored image. WCMemail 22:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Por favor, deténgase. Lo suyo es sabotaje, eso ya se discutió. El pie de la imagen tiene TRES referencias; DOS son libros publicados por académicos del Reino Unido y otra es de un alto funcionario del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Argentina. Termine con esta actitud o la reportaré a los administradores. --· Favalli ⟡ 00:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this image, allegedly, is to illustrate the use of a fake image. Given a choice between the original and fake, you've chosen to impose the fake. Worse you're presenting this as the original. Please feel free to report this to adminstrator, pretty please, with sugar on top. I would like this to be reported thanks. WCMemail 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the way to address the issue. If it's being misrepresented in es.wiki, you should edit there. If it's being misused in, say, de.wiki, you should complaint there. If you try to "make it right" by editing this file on Commons, you could be at the same time breaking a valid use in another wiki, or preventing a future valid use. The logic is flawed. --Langus-TxT (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So to summarise:
1. A fake image is loaded and there is an organised lobby of Argentine editors who dominate the deletion discussion to keep it.
2. The correct image is found and used on es.wikipedia.
3. As soon as that deletion discussion finishes, one of the members of that organised lobby changes every instance of the real image for the fake.
4. Another member of that organised lobby says I have to "make it right" on es.wikipedia, convincing a group of ardent Argentine nationalists to respect a NPOV.
And my logic is flawed, well thank you gentlemen, a lot of us at en.wikipedia have commented on the biased coverage of Falklands topics on es.wikipedia. Thank you for providing definitive proof of that bias. WCMemail 07:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your logic is flawed because you think of Spanish Wikipedia, English Wikipedia and Commons as being the same thing, and they are not. And I never said you "had to make it right", I said:
If you try to "make it right" by editing this file on Commons, you could be at the same time breaking a valid use in another wiki, or preventing a future valid use.
Do note the quotes around make it right. They are signaling skepticism. --Langus-TxT (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the alleged layout[edit]

The present text, as protected, has:

Reworked image of the news item published by The Times on the capture of the Falkland Islands by Argentina in 1821. The image shows The Times masthead and the text of the article, in a layout as if it were the actual front page of the newspaper, and formed part of the Argentinian government's argumentation in the Falklands dispute: In 1820 the Buenos Aires Government formally took possession of the Malvinas Islands. 'The Times' of London reported the event without raising any protest or action by the British Government.

This says too much. Unnecessary dispute here should be avoided. The description should identify the image, briefly and clearly. Conclusions or other historical understanding should be avoided if they could be controversial. How the image is used is irrelevant, except to identify the source. Hence I suggest this:

Image taken from a pamphlet issued by the Argentine Embassy, showing a composite of the masthead, the date, and an article as published by The Times on the capture of the Falkland Islands in 1821, as an "act of sovereignty," copied from a "circular" issued by an officer in the name of the "Supreme Government of the united provinces of South America.

Or anything more or less, as identifying information, on which there is maximum consensus, preferably unanimity. --Abd (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with "capture of the Falkland Islands in 1821" on two grounds.
First, the event took place in 1820, not 1821. The 1821 date is just a measure of how long it took for the news to make it to London (because Jewett first had to sail home to Massachusetts). It took even longer to make it to Buenos Aires - this article was part of the chain - but that's by-the-by.
Second, it was not really a "capture of the Falkland Islands". That's similar to saying that Cook captured Australia or that Columbus captured America. Jewett showed up with a broken ship, read a declaration, raised a flag, hung about for a few months rebuilding his ship, and then left. There was no greater Argentine control of the Falklands after he left than there was before he arrived. Now, "capture" is what the document says, and it's one thing to quote the document, but if it's going in the Commons' voice it should be accurate and neutral, and "capture of the Falkland Islands" isn't. We should also perhaps name the officer, David Jewett. Kahastok talk 09:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Gaston notices, "capture" was just the word used in the headline. I actually suspect the Times was being sarcastic. I have put "capture" in quotes, in the next draft, to reflect that it is just a quotation. What Jewett did was what could be considered an "act of sovereignty," as the Times actually called it. Kahastok is correct about the context. I can imaging the citizens of other natures, who were there, using Port Soledad, scratching their heads between gulping down some alcoholic drink, "What is this idiot doing?" But these things are terribly important to people once national pride is involved. There are much larger populations than that of the Falklands arguing about what happened even thousands of years ago. What happened happened, and it is not for us to judge or assess it, not here. I've named Jewitt. Linking to Wikipedia for articles should be reasonable. Port Soledad could be in there, and that article tells much of this anecdote.
Just the daily headlines: "the capture of the Falkland Islands". So the title of the file... --Gastón Cuello (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we used the word "capture" in quotes, then that would be one thing - that means it's not us saying it, it's the Times saying it in 1821. The problem is that for us to use that word, we have to be sure that it's accurate and neutral. And as per my above comment I don't believe it is. Kahastok talk 22:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its important that the description should be neutral. Its relevant to note that the real article was barely noticable, a tiny footnote buried in the paper. This image was doctored to further a current claim made by Argentina that it was prominent and well known. You can either note that the image was doctored to make it look like the notice was more prominent or note that in the original paper it was a tiny footnote. Personally I'd prefer the latter approach. WCMemail 22:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abd, if you see the starting point of this page, I asked some questions that remain unanswered. Anyway, I don't see a problem with some of the updates suggested, but many with much of them. I won't repeat them as Kahastok seems to refuse to answer them, but I will show my comments about your proposal. I object to it on the following grounds:

  1. I think we can get rid of the mention to "the date". It's not relevant.
  2. No problem with capture, it's what the news item says. To avoid controversy, it could be used with quotation marks
  3. You complain about verbosity, but "Supreme Government of the united provinces of South America" is equally verbose and also misleading. It should refer to at least en:United Provinces of the Río de la Plata or even to Argentina.
  4. I can't see the reason to hide the name of the "officer". In fact, his rank is pretty irrelevant.
  5. Is it important to emphasize the "circular" and that the news item transcripts the "circular"?
  6. The main flaw of your proposal is IMHO the lack of context. Kahastok has worked hard and since the beginning to remove the context of the image. The image in the Argentine pamphlet illustrates the following text: In 1820 the Buenos Aires Government formally took possession of the Malvinas Islands. 'The Times' of London reported the event without raising any protest or action by the British Government. Only if the argumentation is accurately quoted, the reader would understand the purpose of the composition. Otherwise, s/he didn't understand anything.

Thus, it should be something like this:

Image taken from a pamphlet issued by the Argentine Embassy in the UK, showing a composite of the masthead and an article as published by 'The Times' on the "capture" of the Falkland Islands in 1821 in the name of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, as an "act of sovereignty. The image supports the statement 'In 1820 the Buenos Aires Government formally took possession of the Malvinas Islands. 'The Times' of London reported the event without raising any protest or action by the British Government'.

My €0.02 --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 22:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remain strongly opposed to using this page as a vehicle for repeating Argentine arguments re: the modern sovereignty disputes as per Discasto's proposal. This completely fails the rule that says that descriptions must be as neutral as possible.
Worth mentioning a few other points: Jewett was a privateer, not a military officer at this time (he would later become an officer in the Brazilian Navy). "Capture" is biased and does not accurately reflect what happened, so must be used only with major caution.
WCM's point, that it was originally a very minor story, is a good one and has been demonstrated on this page (the original page from the Times is here). Kahastok talk 22:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Importance" depends on point of view, it's an obvious red flag. In any case, the "point" is editorializing. Notice the language: "doctored," "tiny footnote," and then the purpose of this fraud, surely nefarious. If the Argentine embassy wants to make a silly argument, that's up to them. This image is not from the Times, it is from the Argentine embassy based on material from the Times, and that's all we need to know. As to the date, it is not in the article. The date under the alleged masthead was from where? However, it appears to not be controversial that the "act of sovereignty" took place in 1820. The Times article was published, allegedly, in 1821, the filename reflects the Times publication date, not the "capture" date.
The "description" is about the image, not the history. This is Commons, a repository of images, not the Encyclopedia of World History.
Realize this: whatever can be agreed upon here can be incorporated under protection. So, considering the above, I suggest this:
Image taken from a pamphlet issued by the Argentine Embassy in the United Kingdom, showing a composite of the masthead, the date, and an article as published by The Times in 1821 on the "capture" of the Falkland Islands in 1820, as an "act of sovereignty," copied from a "circular" issued by D. Jewett in the name of the "Supreme Government of the united provinces of South America.
Any corrections? --Abd (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This problem has no solution because there is no problem at all. The current text introduce uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources. As a matter of fact, the word "capture" is british POV. --· Favalli ⟡ 23:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest: Image taken from a pamphlet issued by the Argentine Embassy in the United Kingdom, showing a composite of the masthead, the date, and an article from the Times of 3 August 1821. The article was originally published in the Salem Gazette of June 12 and republished by The Times. It contains a circular issued on the Falkland Islands by David Jewett and is entitled "The Capture of the Falkland Islands". The page from which the original article was taken can be seen at File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg.
The suggestion that the term "capture" is British POV is fallacious, the article was originally printed in the Salem Gazette an American publication. The Times is simply a verbatim reprint. WCMemail 23:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with below.) The draft is okay. I would modify it this way, wikilinked to death:
Image taken from a pamphlet issued by the Argentine Embassy in the United Kingdom, showing a composite of the masthead, the date, and an article from The Times of 3 August 1821, republished from the Salem Gazette of June 12. Titled "The Capture of the Falkland Islands," it reports as an "act of sovereignty," a quoted "circular" as issued in Port Soledad by David Jewett, "in the name of the Supreme Government of the united provinces of South America." The page from which the Times article was taken may be seen at File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg.
I do not know if the Times article is a verbatim reprint, no evidence on that has been adduced, but we do not need to know. We take no position on the import of the claims, nor, in fact, on the authenticity of the image. We take no position on whose POV "capture" represented.
From what we know of the story, though, the word "capture" is a bit bizarre. These are all issues for users of the image to consider.
Jewitt apparently did assert sovereignty, for a government that he believed existed. If this has any legal significance whatever, it will be assessed in context the full history, including what happened later. Not our business at all.
Now, let's all get along, okay? I'm happy with the draft I presented just above, and the draft by Wee Curry Monster seems okay. Is something incorrect or missing? What?
Remember, our job here is not to create an article on the "Jewitt Assertion of Sovereignty" or on the "Attempt of the Argentine Embassy to pull a major Falkland Island product over the eyes of readers". It is just to describe the image, and not all the fuss that people might make about it. If you want to create educational resources on those subjects, try Wikiversity. Very free, at least en.wikiversity is. Original research is allowed. <-- shameless plug for my home wiki. --Abd (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no problem with your revised draft or mine suitably marked up. WCMemail 01:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


LOL if this File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg is the page from which the original article was taken then it was front page news!--· Favalli ⟡ 00:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't.
"The Capture Of The Falkland Islands." Times [London, England] 3 Aug. 1821: 2. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.
URL <None functional URL removed>CMemail 00:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict with below) Stop it, you two. WCM, you are probably correct, but, of course, I can't read that image.
  • Prof. Favalli, that does not look like a front page to me. It looks like a later page, and it was obviously not featured. When we talk about "front page news, we mean featured. Big news. Not a tiny note down in the corner of a page, no But we don't care if it was front page news or not. It's completely moot. It was a very brief article, news passed on, and newspaper editors fill pages. It has zero significance, except for those who are trying to prove some political point. The image here is not from the Times, it is from the Argentine Embassy. It was taken from the Times. If there is evidence that it was taken from the "front page," if we would all agree on that, this could be said. Until then, no. If that's a front page of a newspaper, I'm amazed. --Abd (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a page reference there, anyone with access to the Times Digital Archive can check it. I rather hope someone else does as I'm rapidly tired of being called a liar here. No offence but its felt like open season on me for the last couple of weeks [5] <- That was at the Adminstrator's Noticeboard. WCMemail 01:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some words for the wise:
meatball:DefendEachOther. Realize that if nobody else will defend you, you are up the creek without a paddle. Time to stop trying so hard. Watch out for those who will "defend" you by reinforcing your belief that you are the target and you are being terribly wronged. If you are blocked, they will say, tsk, tsk, ain't it awful? And all you guys are horrible, blocking that innocent user! Notice the stand: they are isolated themselves. Not safe.
The "lying" accusation was withdrawn. You were unblocked. The sky is clear, the sun is shining. Somewhere, at least! You can breathe! Now, as to the image, this is not Wikipedia, as you were told by someone you didn't want to hear it from. You don't have to prove everything you say. What did the image show? I have a guess. Why don't you just tell us the fact? Caught up in the drama, you did not actually take care of business. Happens all the time. That's the way it normally is when we are stuck in primitive survival reactions. We get stupid. All of us. --Abd (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this right... You were lying, weren't you?--· Favalli ⟡ 01:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the Administrators' noticeboard, English is not my native language. If that sound rude, I apologize. That was not my intention. I leave the discussion --· Favalli ⟡ 02:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Favalli. If you have anything to say about the proposed revision to the file description, it is completely welcome. Otherwise, happy editing, and we will assume it is acceptable to you. --Abd (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abd: I don't support your version, for the arguments described above. I do think that we're completely loosing the focus of "this" image. I can't see any gain to verbosely describe how and how not the original events happened. We have to describe this image and its context. The context is a propaganda piece in which the composition has a clear target: "proofing" (mind the quotation marks) that the "capture" of the Malvinas by "Argentina" was widely known in the UK and ignored in that moment (incidentally it's actually false, but that's not relevant to Commons). Mutilating the description on the grounds that somebody does not like the Argentina claim is not serious. The description I've proposed does not assert whether the claim is fair on not. On the contrary, by explaining it's a composition, it lets the reader know that such a claim is not true. But we are here to describe this image (not this one). Digressions about File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands (cropped).jpg are pointless here. The description of this image must show what it is (a composition of several images), its author (we don't know), who's using it (the Argentine Embassy) and with which purpose (supporting its claim on the Malvinas by stating exactly what). In fact, the description of the image can link to File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands (cropped).jpg, to File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg and to File:The Times masthead (early 19th-century).jpg. But, again, the description of this file must be related to this file, not to others, and clearly explain what it is. As explained above, I can't see any problem in stating it's a composition (or composite, I'm not a native speaker and cannot assess that) or that it seems combined as though the news item was on the front page of the newspaper (as it's obvious). However, stating that it supports one side's claim without saying how the claims looks like is not really what we should provide to any interested person:

Image taken from a pamphlet issued by the Argentine Embassy in the UK, showing a composite of the masthead and an article as published by 'The Times' reporting the claimed "capture" of the Falkland Islands in 1821 in the name of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata. These are combined as though the news item was on the front page of the newspaper (the complete, not front, 'Times' page can be seen here), and is used to support the Argentine government's arguments in the Falklands dispute (In 1820 the Buenos Aires Government formally took possession of the Malvinas Islands. 'The Times' of London reported the event without raising any protest or action by the British Government).

Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 09:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Discasto. That is not acceptable, my position, because it makes inferences that are not necessarily fact, they are interpretive, and interpretive in such a way as to create possible dispute. A number of points:
  • I don't know that the image has the masthead in it. It has a mini-masthead that may have been taken from elsewhere on the page, not the front page masthead.
  • We don't know where "capture" came from (The Times or the Salem Gazette. It was not in the original report, the "circular," which was not belligerent, it simply asserted a claim of sovereignty. However, this was clearly not a major news item. The choice of words of a newspaper editor for a headline hardly establish much of anything. So "claimed" has a lost performative. A claim requires a claimant. Who claimed "capture"? Capture implies a serious claim, backed by military or forceful action. That does not appear to have occurred. So this was just a word used in a headline, and I personally conclude that nobody cared about Jewitt's claim, given there was no force or power behind it. He did have a warship, he did have guns, and there is a report there that some were afraid of him, but nobody there represented the British government, or the government of any nation, and the nation that he claimed sovereignty on behalf of didn't exist any more under that name. It was a mess. There are many interesting details. And we will not be reporting them in the Commons image description. That is not what Commons does, and we want to avoid the kind of controversy that erupted here, it wastes time and does not further Commons' mission.
  • The assertion of sovereignty took place in 1820, not 1821. You have to read carefully to see this. The "circular" states the date as November 6. Then the news was published in the Salem Gazette, June 12, obviously the next year, and posted on a bulletin board August 2, and picked up by the Times, which would always be hungry for tidbits like this to fill the pages, August 3, 1821.
  • The claim was not made in the name of the "United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata." It was made in the name of the "Supreme Government of the united provinces of South America." If you read the history here, "United Provinces of South America" was an early incarnation of the later name, and the leaders of it called themselves Supreme Leaders. That name links to the later name. The specific government that Jewitt made the claim in the name of no longer existed at the time he made the claim, apparently. That may be part of the reason why the claim was ignored, and it was ignored, apparently. It was first and most powerfully ignored by the United States, with forceful effect. None of this is our business here, but by linking to the articles, we provide convenient access to far more information, which we will assume is reasonably neutral, even if, in fact, from time to time, it is not. In other words, we are not going to decide which Wikipedia is "right." We don't do that.
  • "As though the news item was on the front page." Not really. It certainly never looked like that to me. This is an imputed intention, not a fact. I.e., someone believes that the Argentine Embassy created the montage in order to create a false impression, hence, in fact, the whole dispute here. However, there is a much easier explanation: they were referring to the event, and they were putting together a very brief polemic pamphlet. They wanted the image to show "The Times" and the date, and then they wanted the article to show. That's all. It was a graphical device, and it accomplished its purpose. They did it very efficiently, and not in a way that would be likely to deceive anyone. At last not that needs to be seen as deliberate deception. It is very obviously not an as-is front page of a newspaper!
  • Look, people have died over this dispute, I watched it happen in 1982. To resolve it, everyone will need to look to the future, not the past, or old battles will rage forever. The embassy's pamphlet asserts an Argentinian government position. I would say that it asserts in such a way as to depress resolution. This hardly ever works: "You were bad and wrong, and still are. Do the right thing!" Yet people continue, don't they? The most powerful argument in the pamphlet is the photo of the Argentine President, a "hot babe." How about we refer to that? "...In a pamphlet with a photo of the beautiful President of Argentina..." (Really, she looks like a nice person, and that can actually help. Now back to our business.)
  • How the image is used isn't our business, but anyone can see it from the Source. Discasto, the version I proposed was acceptable to WCM. If it is not acceptable to you, what is incorrect about it? What harm would it cause? What I'm seeing in your response is effectively a claim that it doesn't include certain "information" you consider important, but then what you assert is not information, but impression and conclusion, and that is unsourced, if we want to get Wikipedian about it. The description of a file should be like a Wikipedia lede, everything in it should be rigorously neutral and not controversial. Is anything in my version controversial? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a detail -- not to be part of the Description -- the composite was entirely taken from the page that has been linked as the full page. That is, the supposed "masthead" was a title used for a list of performances, and the date was taken from the publication notice just below that. Defects in the printing show this. Our image was a very simple cut and paste from that original Times page, showing what was considered relevant in the Embassy pamphlet, intended to show in a single image the source and date. --Abd (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW the Argentine embassy didn't create the image, I rather suspect sloppy editing with an image found on the web used. As I said to {@Collect: its been circulating for ages [6]. The original was used to claim it was front page news and widely known.
I don't believe we have to repeat the claims made by the Argentine Government in their pamphlet, there is a link to the original document anyway. But we should describe the image and I've no issue with Abd's suggestion that is neutral and uncontroversial. WCMemail 21:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WCM. If someone else created the image, nevertheless the source for our copy is the Embassy. If there is an earlier source, that might be of interest. WCM, nothing you have pointed to shows that. The link to the "nationalist web site" shows nothing. (And do we know the date of the Embassy pamphlet?)
I looked on archive.org. The earliest capture that shows the pamphlet, as far as I could see, was May 13, 2013. Sure enough, the file creation date in the PDF is March 11, 2013.
Meanwhile, I think you are correct that the image wasn't on the "front page." What you saw and posted a link to, that we could not see, you still have not described. My guess would be the front page for that day. But what was it?
I will wait for any substantive objections to the last draft I put up, before going ahead and requesting an edit under protection. Especially if anyone thinks the current language is better, let us know! If the draft is better, then the edit will improve the file page, even if it isn't perfect. I will ask again before going ahead. --Abd (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW front pages of British newspapers at the time carried nothing but advertisements, so it certainly wasn't on the front page. But, as this discussion demonstrates, that's not necessarily well known.
I will accept the neutral proposal by Abd. I don't know if the Commons has an equivalent of w:WP:ENGVAR, but I would note that the proposal uses US-style punctuation, and at least on en.wiki we would prefer British-style for a British newspaper (i.e. punctuation outside quotation marks unless it's actually being quoted). Kahastok talk 23:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abd, you keep on removing the context, making the image description useless. You haven't got any consensus, sorry. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 17:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Description[edit]

For review, below is the current proposal. As I write this introduction, there is an alternate proposal above, to which I objected. I will edit the draft below to show the current maximum-consensus proposal. Please comment or ask questions in the Comment section.

Current proposed consensus[edit]

Image taken from a pamphlet issued by the Argentine Embassy in the United Kingdom, showing a composite of a Times logo, the date, and an article from The Times of 3 August 1821, republished from the Salem Gazette of June 12. Titled "The Capture of the Falkland Islands", it reports as an "act of sovereignty," a quoted "circular" as issued in Port Soledad by David Jewett, "in the name of the Supreme Government of the united provinces of South America". The page from which the image elements were taken may be seen at File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg.

Placed by Abd (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC), permanent link[reply]
Edited to substitute "a Times logo" for "the masthead", and to honor a request for non-American punctuation, by Abd (talk) Abd (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC) permanent link[reply]

Support/Oppose[edit]

Other comments[edit]

  • Summary of prior response: above, a slightly different draft was supported by Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok. (Only the last sentence was changed to reflect a discovery that all the image elements came from that page, easily visible in reproduced typographic defects.)
A very different draft was proposed by Discasto which I rejected as interpretive, i.e., telling a story about the image, the alleged purpose of the arrangement of the elements, and other controversial claims that would be problematic in an encyclopedia and beyond the pale here. (Forking has been suggested as a solution if we cannot find consensus, but I don't think that is necessary.)
Discasto was asked for specific objections to my draft and has not yet responded, but remains welcome.
Other users who have commented on this page but who have not specifically approved or moved to amend the description are WiZaRd SaiLoR, Langus-TxT, ProfesorFavalli, and Gastón Cuello. --Abd (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Objections have been already presented. As mentioned, you simply removed the context of this image and focused on useless information about this image. It is encyclopedic not as an account of the Malvinas capture but as a propaganda piece. Therefore, it should be described from such an encyclopedic point of view. The composed image supports a very specific claim (In 1820 the Buenos Aires Government formally took possession of the Malvinas Islands. 'The Times' of London reported the event without raising any protest or action by the British Government). As you acknowledged, the description should talk about the image. The Argentine claims are controversial and our role here is to neutrally describe such claims, without asserting or rejecting them. What we can't do is simply hiding them because in that case the image would be out of scope. Imagine you take File:Manipulated portrait of Abraham Lincoln (1860's).jpg and you verbosely describe the background, Lincoln clothes, where and when it was published.... but you "forget" to mention the purpose of the composition... You know, it does not work. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 17:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Above, Discasto, you say "no consensus at all," but you meant "no agreement," i.e, from you. Your objection is not to the content, but to what you think is missing from the content. What you have wanted to be in the description is what is called synthesis or original research, as far as I've found. It would not be allowed in one of our encyclopedia projects without reliable source. And then we'd have to research the matter, which is much more than a file description requires, and how it is presented can enters the realm of controversy.
The piece is used in political polemic, yes, which is shown from the source, but that does not make it a "propaganda piece." There is nothing really deceptive about the image; I don't think anyone was fooled, nor do I think deception was the purpose; the only opinion shown here that the piece was on the front page seems to be from someone who believed that the full page shown was the front page. That the image was condensed, eliminating all the other stories from the page, leaving only a Times logo and the date, was simply sane graphic presentation, in my view, for a cleanly-produced pamphlet, probably professional, and anyone with any understanding would know that this was not the original entire page.
It is not our job to create an article on the image. We would then have all the problems of the Wikipedias, maintaining it against POV-pushers of all stripes. We describe the image and link to the relevant pages, which do link to the dispute. Nobody will be deceived by the alleged "fake." If the making of this image is actually important, "encyclopedic," then this should be in an encyclopedia, not Commons.
Commons hosts free images with potential educational value, "encyclopedic" is not a standard for us, plenty of our images are not ones that you would find in an encyclopedia.
It has been claimed here that the image is old, that there is a prior source. If that appears, that might be relevant. No evidence to this effect has been shown. --Abd (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • RFC. This is informal, and like an RfC, but is not announced as one, broad participation has not been solicited, because given the high level of consensus that I saw here already, it wasn't necessary. This is merely to show to an administrator to efficiently show current opinion on the file description, adequate to justify an edit under protection. We have more than enough, my opinion, but I'll wait another day. I only pinged users who had already commented here. We do not need to waste a lot of user time when it simply is not necessary.--Abd (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Question So let me get this straight:

I quote Abd's draft: "The page from which the Times article was taken may be seen at File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg".
From File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg two pictures were extracted:
This image File:The Times - Argentine Capture of the Falkland Islands 1821.jpg was formed with those two pieces.
Now, this is the tricky part:
If this File:The Times masthead (early 19th-century).jpg was extracted from this File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg we have two scenarios:
And no, as a matter of fact, this is not the "masthead" File:The Times masthead (early 19th-century).jpg (an 1788 example File:Times 1788.12.04.jpg) You may notice that this masthead fills the width like most mastheads do. Discasto upload the file, because WCM told us that "is a composite of the Times leader" And per COM:AGF everyone believed him. Perhaps WCM made one little mistake? It's OK. We all make mistakes from time to time.
Here's the thing:
If this File:The Times masthead (early 19th-century).jpg it's not the front page masthead, then this file File:The Times - Argentine Capture of the Falkland Islands 1821.jpg does not picture the front page masthead. The Times masthead is much wider. Nothing suggests it was front page news. Because this is not how The Times masthead looks like. The front page masthead span the width of the page.
So, we have a problem:
  • The whole thing start because WCM and Kahastok stated that this picture was "doctored to deceive". I quote: "a image that was doctored deliberately to give a misleading impression", "the image was crafted as if it were the actual front page of the newspaper", "It was originally conceived, put together and used by Argentine nationalists to imply that the story was front page news and was more widely known about than it actually was", "The fake was produced to deceive as to the prominence of the article, claiming it was widely known and on the front page", etc.
  • In the speedy delete request WCM wrote: "Its been photoshopped to give the impression that this article appeared on the front page of the Time and is a composite of the Times leader and the text from the original article."
  • A group of spanish speaking users were accused of having some sort of political agenda and the intention of use this image "to deceive", etc. (Last time I checked, COM:AGF is official policy)
But the image can't be seen as a front page news by any stretch of the imagination! Unless you consider File:The Times masthead (early 19th-century).jpg The Times front page masthead. But it is not.
So, my question is:
1. Why WCM and Kahastok told us that File:The Times - Argentine Capture of the Falkland Islands 1821.jpg featured the Times masthead as seen in front page? They told us that the image was created to look like front page news. Now we know that's not right.
2. Why WVM told us that File:The Times masthead (early 19th-century).jpg looks like front page?
3. What happens here? All this drama was an unfortunate mistake? A communication failure? A misunderstanding, perhaps?
This needs to be clarified before making further changes.
I'm not accusing anyone. I'm just confused. Cheers --· Favalli ⟡ 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Favalli, thanks. A general principle: let the past be the past. We are all working together now, and what people said in the past may have had some reasoning, or it may have been a mistake, people get irritated, etc. The users you mention told us things about the image that are actually irrelevant here. They may have been exaggerated, or stated uncivilly. People with different points of view then argued about these things. Interpretations became confused with facts. Notice: that does not mean that interpretations were "wrong," but that they are different from known fact. There are facts that we can agree upon here.
Yes, there were misunderstandings and feelings based on conflicts that happened elsewhere. A mess. But the fact is that everyone involved seems to have woken up, "dropped the cudgels," and we are coming to almost complete agreement. People are not attacking each other any more.
You have the history a bit confused. The two separated files you mention did not come directly from the full-page source, but were simply cut from the Embassy image, by Discasto. They are irrelevant.
I have not seen an actual masthead from The Times from that day. (Below, I link to a 1788 Times front page, and there are others on commons. A real masthead is very different.) However, I do know where the elements of the Embassy pamphlet image came from. They all came from the page that is linked in the draft. You can tell; in printing from that time, it was normal for letters to be broken or not exactly print the same way. Type, which was used over and over, wore out, so letters would show defects before finally being recycled.
There are three elements that were put together from the page shown at full page, which was not the front page on that date, obviously, because it does not have the masthead. It has a logo, something quite different.
  • The Times logo, from column 4. Notice the small breaks in the top of the E and the S, and the broken stroke in the M. This is a single column wide logo, used for the theatre announcements.
  • "London and the day and date. This comes from just below the logo. Notice the breaks in the Ns and the U. Above, in the word VAUXHALL, twice, you can see an intact U and one broken in a different way.
  • The article itself.
Compare with our image. They are the same as to these unique elements. Our image appears to be somewhat higher quality. In other words, the Embassy image did not come from our full page scan, but may have been from a higher-resolution scan of the same original. Or photocopies made in the library and then literally cut and pasted.
I don't care what anyone said, the image we have doesn't look like a "front page" at all. And there was no "fakery" here. It was a condensation. I.e., it was very much like a quotation:
THE TIMES ... LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 1821 ... THE CAPTURE OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS etc.
File:The Times masthead (early 19th-century).jpg is not an actual Times masthead. It is simply part of the Embassy image (as it says). That file is mislabeled, because Discasto jumped to conclusions, I think. He did correctly classify it as a logo, because it is that. I'll fix the pagename, I assume it will be okay with him.
File:Times_1788.12.04.jpg is a 1788 Times front page. You can see a real masthead there.
Clear?
So, a point: our image is sourced with the Embassy. We do know where the elements came from, but not the full story of who put them together and when. And that's not really our business. As I have written above, if someone finds evidence as to more history of this image, this composite, it might be of interest, but we want to avoid unnecessary controversy. (There is insufficient originality in the cut and paste, I would argue, to make the composite copyrightable separately.) We are about hosting images, not about resolving all controversies in the world. To me, it's a miracle if we can agree on something small.
Now, how about the draft file description? Is it acceptable? If there is a problem with it, what would it be? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discasto's proposal[edit]

I wrote a report covering Discasto's proposal, but this page is getting way too long, and consensus is reasonably clear, so I have archived it to history. If necessary, it can be brought back. permanent link --Abd (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit under protection[edit]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#File:The Times - Argentine Capture of the Falkland Islands 1821.jpg. --Abd (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The description is wrong[edit]

This image doesn't show the masthead. It's a logo. And the quotation marks are unnecessary. --· Favalli ⟡ 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ProfesorFavalli, I seems like you agree with the current proposed version. Even if the quotation marks are unnecessary, what is quoted are quotations from the article, and they avoid unnecessary controversy. (They neither confirm nor deny the conclusions represented, i.e, whether or not the Islands were captured, whether or not this was a true act of sovereignty, nor how or how widely the letter or document quoted was circulated by Jewitt.) Are you willing to accept the current proposed version? Essentially, is it better than the current protected version? If so, please indicate in #Support/Oppose, or you may, of course, also oppose. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the masthead vs logo issue. I think Abd tried to address that in this edition, am I correct? --Langus-TxT (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Langus. Yes, it's been corrected in the proposed edit (and I renamed the "masthead" image). --Abd (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding Favalli correctly, he's saying that "masthead" is not an appropriate description, and I agree. Current proposed version still calls it "masthead". In the description of your last edit there[7] you summarized: "Edited to substitute "a Times logo" for "the masthead", and to honor a request for non-American punctuation". However, only punctuation was actually addressed in the edit. --Langus-TxT (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is incorrect, Abd is correct in that it is the "masthead" for the theatre section. See File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg WCMemail 09:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I intended to change that. Langus, below, explains in detail. Not all logos are mastheads, the word is very specific. The logo is probably a routinely used section header. It doesn't look at all like a masthead, the width is totally wrong. A short article, as well, does not fill the front page of any newspaper, being the same width as the supposed "masthead." --Abd (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definition from Dictionary.com:[8]
2. Also called nameplate. a line of type on the front page of a newspaper or the cover of a periodical giving the name of the publication.
  • Definition from TheFreeDictionary.com:[9]
2. The listing in a newspaper or periodical of information about its staff, operation, and circulation.
3. The title of a newspaper or periodical as it appears across the first page, front cover, or title page. Also called nameplate.
  • Definition from Merriam-Webster:[10]
2.a: the printed matter in a newspaper or periodical that gives the title and details of ownership, advertising rates, and subscription rates
2.b: the name of a publication (as a newspaper) displayed on the top of the first page
Abd could you clarify? --Langus-TxT (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Langus, thanks. I thought I had made that change. I hadn't. I have now done it and revised the edit note. I hope your explanation and mine, above, will suffice. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically its a Nameplate, the masthead is the section with the staff and editors names [11] and its a common mistake. A Nameplate can be used to separate sections eg editorials or theatre sections though the practise is less common these days. However, as every word I say must be subjected to intense scrutiny, I'm included to quote my grandmother and simply say let the babies have their chocolate. WCMemail 20:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Frankly, I never saw that usage of "masthead" before. I've working in publishing, though never published a newspaper. I was simply using words that I thought I knew without looking them up. Look, the point: what was in the image is not the masthead, either way. The implication of "masthead" was "front page." Right?
The source given was one source, not really about newspapers, and it does not show our usage of "masthead as a "mistake." Rather, British and American usage differ. I was using the term (and others intended it) as in British usage.
More details at w:Masthead (publishing). See also wiktionary:en:Masthead. What is weird to me is I'm American and have worked in publishing, though not of newspapers, but I never noticed the "American" usage. Did a magazine, though. w:Nameplate (publishing) does not mention the additional usage you mention.
On a wiki, every word you write may be scrutinized. Haven't you noticed that? --Abd (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. The implication of "masthead" was "front page". But now everyone knows it's not a masthead. It doesn't look like front page news. But... no explanation was given for that little mistake. What a waste of time! Anyway, I'm glad everything has been settled. Kindest regards --· Favalli ⟡ 00:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Favalli, when people make a mistake, the polite thing to do is not to mention it, once it's over. Yes, it's settled, with a remarkable level of agreement. While we might be curious about some behaviors, some things are better not explained. Meanwhile, we still have translations to do. I don't want to add google translations; I'm willing to review them with google, but not to create text in languages where I am really weak. Personally, I don't think this was a waste of time. For me, it was an opportunity to practice techniques of finding agreement on a wiki. It was a mixture of being assertive and of listening and considering what everyone was writing. And then organizing discussion. Endless threaded comment often gets practically nothing done. Besides, I learned something about the Falkands/Malvinas. --Abd (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, descriptions in all of the languages should basically convey the same information. Where they do not, something is quite amiss. Collect (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The language descriptions[edit]

As pointed out above, the non-english descriptions should be parallel. I edited the file page because the protecting admin unprotected it at my request; I told him edit warring was unlikely to recur.

I did not remove the other language descriptions because they might be better than nothing; thinking about it, I should. My thinking was that I'd leave them there until they were fixed, but I think it's better than they be blanked. They are there in history, for reference. So, please, any of you may translate the English version. Please keep it close. If you want to change something, bring that here and we can discuss it.

Thanks for working together, everyone. --Abd (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done image description in spanish. --· Favalli ⟡ 02:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added a link to es.wiki, behind the word emitida, es:Toma de posesión argentina de las islas Malvinas. That links to es.wiki. While I don't find that article entirely neutral, personally, it is on this topic precisely and my opinion is we should respect that. The article uses this image with its own caption, as is normal. Thanks for the translation.
Please bring up any changes like that so that we all notice them. --Abd (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:The_Times_-_Argentine_Capture_of_the_Falkland_Islands_1821.jpg&oldid=154646941"