Author talk:David Jewett

Consensus

Langus-TxT you are well aware that to change a long standing consensus requires you to establish a cogent logical argument and to engage in talk. A cogent logical argument is not accusing other editors of POV pushing, when your own edit is censoring this man's history of material you consider detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim - which is POV pushing. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Censoring Original Research? Funny. I note[1] that you are now also reverting editor Prosfilaes; so much for your consensus. I'll ask only once: which secondary, reliable source refer to Jewett as a pirate or even a mercenary? I'm not asking for interpretations of his life (we all know about those 2 accusations --no real convictions that I'm aware of), but for brief summaries/characterizations of this person's jobs. We've been through this, WCM. --Langus-TxT (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Per Talk:David Jewett, the above editor is fully aware of the status of this individual. His stated reason for removing this material is his personal belief that it is detrimental or harmful to Argentina's sovereignty claim. For the record, I won't be reverting further for now. However, I wish the following to be borne in mind. Langus has a history of imposing none-consensual text by edit warring. He likes to tag team edit war and I'm sure his main reason for tagging Prosfilaes is that he hopes he will intervene on his side. We've been through this countless times and it is quite apparent his motive for expunging or censoring material is not with a NPOV in mind. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Cite:Jeremiah N. Reynolds (1835). Voyage of the United States Frigate Potomac: Under the Command of Commodore John Downes, During the Circum-navigation of the Globe, in the Years 1831, 1832, 1833, and 1834. Harper & Brothers. pp. 512–.  We have some recollection of having heard of a vessel called the Heroine, which, in some publication of Governor Vernet, was dignified by the name and style of the national corvette Heroine. This vessel sailed from Buenos Ayres in eighteen hundred and twenty, and in the same year visited the Falkland Islands, being under the command of one David Jewett. She was unfortunate—having been captured by the Portuguese frigate Perola, off Cape Spartel, on the twentieth of March, eighteen hundred and twentytwo,—the kingdom of Portugal and the Argentine Republic, as to each other, then being in a state of profound peace. Notwithstanding, the Heroine was condemned in the court of admiralty at Lisbon, as a lawful prize to the captors, her officers and crew having been found guilty of many aggravated acts of piracy. Jewett was not the commander at the time of the capture.* Did he abandon her at the Falklands? Was the plunder of the first cruise shared there? If the Heroine was a national corvette, the national loss was greater in amount than the damages done Vernet's colony by Captain Duncan. We have heard of no reclamations—no denunciations of the Portuguese for this " Vandal" outrage on the Argentine flag: this capture of "a national corvette," in a period of profound peace:—this seizure of the very guns which (if it was the vessel commanded by David Jewett) had solemnized the great act by which a nation proclaimed her sovereignty over a great region. If the David Jewett, Coronel de Marina of Vernet, are identical, there would seem to be a wonderful congruity in all things relating to this celebrated settlement. A symmetry, fitness, and adaptation of parts, disclosing the perfection of the original design. The guns of a pirate announced the sovereign rights of the—Argentine Republic! The ceremonies might have been rendered more appropriate and exact, by burying a chest of money with its usual accompaniments!

I have no clue what you mean by long-standing consensus. For years it was Langus-TxT's description, which you edited and then it stood a few months before this whole thing started.

It seems all his piracy was done under color of government; that makes him a privateer. It probably also makes him a pirate, but that's redundant. This is not the place for all the possible descriptors, and issues that must be argued out on Wikipedia should just be avoided here. NPOV is about stating nothing as fact that's clearly taken as fact by a vast majority of the experts; the fact that you can cite a polemic contemporary does nothing for your case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

[2] Something that stood unchallenged from 9 October 2014 until 27 February 2015, is an established consensus in anyone's book.

A privateer or corsair's activities are authorised by letters of marque, they strictly limit what can be attacked. In the case of Jewett this was limited to Spanish ships. Taking a Portuguese ship, the Carlota, was piracy as it was not authorised by the Republic of Buenos Aires. Further taking the Rampart, was piracy as it was not authorised by the Republic of Buenos Aires. His actions were not authorised under colour of Government. The taking of the Rampart rumptured relations with the Republic for several years, especially when the Republic of Buenos Aires ruled it a lawful prize due to its Spanish cargo. What you choose to describe as a polemic contemporary gives the widely held view at the time. Further the Heroina was later captured of Gibraltar by the Portuguese ship Perola and the crew tried and convicted for piracy.

I didn't choose to bring this as a conflict to Wikisource:

[3] rv POV edit -- "mercenary" and "pirate" is highly dubious. "Privateer" is redundant

[4] even if accused of piracy by some of his contemporaries, no reliable, secondary source characterizes him as a "pirate". That's not only POV pushing but also your own conclusion

My comments which caused you to intervene addressed accusations of POV pushing and editing. Acting even handedly I would have expected you to check why I commented as I did and address his comments as well. I would like to know why you didn't. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't regard something that stood for a few months on a minor, rarely visited page as an established consensus. If it were, what business did you have making that edit on 9 October 2014, that broke the established consensus that had stood since 31 July 2012‎?

Taking the Rampart was authorized by the Republic of Buenos Aires if they ruled it a lawful prize. In any case, anyone who wants to know the full details of his life has the Wikipedia link right there; as he was hardly Blackbeard, and we already have the word "privateer" there, there doesn't seem much value in adding "pirate".--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Wee Curry Monster: Generally speaking, references are not added in the traditional manner (with ref tags) in an author’s description; thus, I have commented them out. They were as follows: ^[1][2][3][4]

References

1. José Antonio da Fonseca Figueira (1985). David Jewett, una biografía para la historia de las Malvinas. Sudamericana/Planeta. p. 84. ISBN 978-950-37-0168-3. 
2. Jeremiah N. Reynolds (1835). Voyage of the United States Frigate Potomac: Under the Command of Commodore John Downes, During the Circum-navigation of the Globe, in the Years 1831, 1832, 1833, and 1834. Harper & brothers. pp. 511–512. ISBN 978-0-608-40439-4. 
3. The Latin American Times. Latin American Times Company. 2008. p. 7. 
4. Manuel Pedro Peña; Juan Ángel Peña (20 November 2017). Falklands or Malvinas: Myths & facts. Pentian. ISBN 978-1-5243-0127-9. 

No problem, I added them to demonstrate there is ample precedent for describing the individual as a pirate. I suspect that without supporting refs, someone will be along presently to revert me for no good reason really. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not about refs. It's about neutrally describing him in a short space. A privateer really is a pirate, and the number of edits here is ridiculous and frustrating. Let it be; there's Wikipedia pages linked that will do a fine job of communicating all the detail.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It's very much about sources, a privateer's activities are licensed by a state and are limited in what they can do by letters of marque. They only risk the action of enemy combatants and provided they stick within the limits there is no problem. A pirate steals for profit, is outside of the law and liable to be attacked by the navy of any nation. Now previously you said my sourcing was not sufficient to prove he was a pirate, I've now demonstrated that all sources both contemporary and modern day, British, Argentine, academic all refer to him as both. Please explain what is your justification for removing this information - 1 word. If you can't I will restore it. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I told you to let it be. You say above that "Something that stood unchallenged from 9 October 2014 until 27 February 2015, is an established consensus in anyone's book." and then edit a page that has stood for six years, reopening an edit war.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to let this go. Consensus has never been about preventing an editor from correcting incomplete information, what I added is more accurate and reflects what sources say about the guy, its entirely inline with policy. And its just that 1 word, which is about neutrally describing him in a short space. What is your justification for removing this information? I know what Langus' motivation is, he believes it to be damaging to Argentina's sovereignty claim (and I know this because he said so himself). What is yours? If you can't give me a valid policy based reason for this I'll put it back in. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: It is a short description that identifies the author. It is not the biography, that is Wikipedias area of speciality. Keep it simple. This discussion will stand for your opinion, and adding references to the talk page is always useful where an author is less known, or gives good authoritative information about an author that we may wish to transcribe. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I was keeping it simple, [5] in fact almost returning to your original description. It's more accurate and reflects what academic sources say about the individual. I am left wondering why people are siding with an editor whose motivation is not the interests of our readers. I think I am entitled to ask why. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I will have done a copy and paste of the enWP article. The simplest description for today would be "American military officer" though the extra component aligns with the written works so it is okay to have that additional. Keep it simple, it is just an identifier. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

And the problem is you look at it now and the first question that springs out is: What dispute between Britain and Argentina? Hence, why I added the link. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)