Talk:Luis Vernet

message: After searching the Internet I found that in most places Vernet's name is spelled "Luis", not "Louis". Since he was an Argentine governor and I couldn't find any conclusive source either way I changed the name to the Argentine (and most common in Google) spelling and all the links accordingly. I'll try to provide some sources for this (other than google searches). Worst case scenario, we'll rename them again. :)
Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: A user has changed his birth place to Hamburg Germany, and posted this site as a reference. That site clearly states he was a "French-born Hamburg merchant". Unless reliable sources are posted showing he was not born in France, it will be reverted. -- Alexf42 18:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already reverted that information because it was wrong, I believed at the time it was a good faith edit based upon misunderstanding the Liverpool Museum article; which by the way does have some inaccuracies so as a source its not brilliant.  All the information I have to hand indicates Vernet was born in France, moved to Hamburg in infancy, initially emigrated to the US to pursue business interests and thence to Argentina (at the time the United Provinces of the River Plate).  I can back up with better and more authorative sources than the Liverpool museum. 
And his birth name was Louis, he later changed it to Luis to reflect his adoptive country.  Justin talk 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I wonder why nobody seems to know his exact birthplace in "France" as it is a real large country. He was of French (Huguenot) descent and probably that's why a lot of people call him French. I found his name in a small broschure about notable people from Hamburg (Hamburgische Geschichts- und Heimatblätter, 1982) describing his role in South American politics. Just as a minor point, the Huguenots were discriminated a long time before 1790 (and left to Germany), so it's not really presumable that his parents left France after his birth (but that's just my opinion). However, I think your proposal is just fine, will you do it? HerkusMonte (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would normally but I'm having great difficulty accessing wikipedia this evening.  Its a co-operative project please feel free to make the edit yourself.  You make a good point, in my own research I've tried to pin down his birthplace in France but can't find one.  Justin talk 22:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: At that time Hamburg was part of the Holy Roman Empire - Btw did Europe exist before the  EEC was founded? HerkusMonte (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Europe is a continent, a slab of land. Germany is a country. This is a category error. Germany didn't exist in the sense you claim.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now seriously, you think nobody who was born before 1871 should be called German? Goethe and Schiller, Bach and Beethoven or Martin Luther are wrongly categorized? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a different issue. German people, and Germany are not quite one and the same. Nor indeed is the German language contiguous with Germany. Pre-unification, there would have been a case for calling certain people in Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Alsace, and various parts of the Prussian and Austrian Empires "German", but that does not mean that Germany existed as a concrete entity. Goethe was German, but the nearest thing to a German state at that time was the misnamed Holy Roman Empire. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  Why are we discussing? The current version doesn't say anything about "born in Germany". There's only a single category (you created it) "Germans of Huguenot descend", do you think that category is wrong? HerkusMonte (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "born in Hamburg in Germany" - look up above...--MacRusgail (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  That was (my) first version, now it's only "merchant from Hamburg", so the dispute is resolved already.HerkusMonte (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your message, that's the fascinating thing about wikipedia, we all learn new surprising things. Should the article be changed? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say so, I have a fairly major edit planned to put in a lot of new material.  Justin talk 19:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  French-born Hamburg merchant, not born in Germany 

message: I have added a NPOV tag to the article for two reasons.
First of all, , copies of correspondence between Luis Vernet and British authorities has been removed under the guise of WP:BRD.  The same editor has been denying for years there was any correspondence, now direct proof has been produced back up by a WP:RS he is simply removing it.
Secondly, an editor Prof Favelli, has removed British sources simply based on their nationality, he is then claiming the content is uncited. WCMemail 19:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag Comment 

message: It's being "proposed" that a comment be included at the mention of the alleged 1826 "British authorization" for Vernet settlement. It reads: 
This usage is against WP:HIDDEN. I strongly suggest everyone to read it in full. There's a section, Inappropriate uses for hidden text, where we are told that "Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus".
The invoked RfC was closed by an admin noting that "this discussion largely fails as an RfC due to the non-neutrality of the debate proposal. What ensues is an extension of the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#British "Permission" II with the same participants about the reliability of Cawkell's and Shuttleworth's chronicles of historical facts and whether Vernet went to obtain permission or simply to get a document certified".
Therefore, because consensus never existed and the idea never stopped being challenged, I consider this hidden comment unwarranted and detrimental to the building of a real consensus on this matter. --Langus TxT 22:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Its worth noting that the reason the closer noted it failed as RFC due to the none-neutrality of the debate proposal was because of the leading question posed.  This sought to disqualify the source and to offer the proposer's own interpretation based on WP:OR and WP:SYN.  The usage isn't against hidden, its purpose is not to prohibit making an edit, its there to inform the debate exists.  You know what I trust community members to use that link wisely.  WCMemail 23:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the reason, hidden text points to a RfC and talks about a "consensus" that never existed as a real community input. You may very well just point to the discussion at Talk page archives and not to a tainted RfC. Wording is unfortunate too, hinting editors not to discuss the issue further. --Langus TxT 05:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was judged to be a consensus, despite the biased nature of the RFC request and received community input.  However much you would like to ignore it, there was a consensus as the close noted.  Its not hinting at anything.  WCMemail 11:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden text 

message: I have again added a NPOV tag to the article for two reasons.
First of all, , copies of correspondence between Luis Vernet and British authorities has been removed again.  We've had years of the same editor has been denying for years there was any correspondence, now direct proof has been produced back up by a WP:RS he is simply removing it.
Secondly, an editor Prof Favelli, is continuing to WP:TAG team to remove content for nationalist POV reasons.  WCMemail 07:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-addition of NPOV tag` 

message: Since there are one or two points where we seem to be speaking different languages (or reading different material), can we agree to revert to stable revision of May 27th (this one) to stop the edit war? I would do it myself but I already tried it more than once without success...  --Langus TxT 14:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We've seen this too many times, you insist we revert to a version and then filibuster any attempt to introduce material until people just give up.  I think I'll take the route of getting wider community input via an RFC instead.  WCMemail 16:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There's plenty of material I introduced myself which I want to see added to the article; you're not considering that. In the meanwhile, an edit war is ensured, and I hereby put it on your shoulders. Let's try the RfC once again but I cannot see how this time could be different. --Langus TxT 16:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added to the RfC my vision on the subject, because it only reflected yours which I deem tainted. It's done in a clear way, with another color. It's that or else consensuating a new, neutral text for it. --Langus TxT 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion