Talk:William Dickson (Falklands settler)

Add notability tag

This article contains almost every fact known about Dickson and is rightly classed as a stub, which says a lot. The majority of the article is not directly about him.

His notability is purely based on his status as a victim of a murder, Gaucho Murders. His only other activity of note is being given a flag to raise on Sundays or when boats appeared in the harbour of Port Louis. We do not even know if he actually did so. I do not feel this is sufficient to merit an article of its own, especially given every singe fact known about Dickson is included in both Gaucho Murders and Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833).

The relevant notability criteria (WP:BIO) is the following:

A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:For victims, and those wrongly accused or wrongly convicted of crime,The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

He does not meet the criteria for either being a victim of crime or his minor role in the reassertion of sovereignty, and these two situations are effectively part of the same process which took place within 8 months of each other. He was not a soldier so the military template is invalid. I feel this article adds nothing to wikipedia. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Further, I would argue that Dickson does not meet the criteria of significant coverage below:

 "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Adding citations to sources that merely mention the topic: You can cite numerous reliable, secondary, independent sources and it will not help establish notability if they do not treat the topic substantively – think generally two paragraphs of text focused on the topic at issue. Remember: it is much better to cite two good sources that treat a topic in detail, than twenty that just mention it in passing. Moreover, citation overkill to sources containing mere passing mentions of the topic is a badge of a non-notable topic and, if good sources are actually present in the mix, they will be hidden among these others from those seeking to assess a topic's demonstration of notability.

I am not aware of a single paragraph in a secondary source which talks about Dickson alone, never mind two. Generally speaking, he is mentioned as receiving the flag in one sentence, and as a murder victim in another I believe Thomas Heslby dedicates a paragraph to his death, but that's a primary source.

I am quite minded to nominate for deletion. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You added a tag but did not start a talk page discussion, if you're going to add such a tag, the onus is on you to start such a discussion. I find your comments about my revert to be somewhat WP:POINTy as it seems is your threat to start a deletion nomination.

Dickson is one of a small group of people who were influential in the history of the Falkland Islands due to their involvement in Vernet's settlement at a crucial point in the British return. He is notable for being appointed the British representative in the islands during this period, not for his murder. This is mentioned in multiple reliable sources on the history of the Falklands. People can be notable for a single event like this and in the context of Falkland's history he is notable. WCM_email 09:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I started the discussion on the discussion page two hours prior to your revert. Look at the timestamps, the onus is on you to read the discussion page before reverting. Notability criteria are very clear and cited above. Are there two paragraphs in a any source devoted to Dickson? If so, great, add it and then I am happy to remove the tag. I actually looked for them myself, I haven't found any. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

In which case I will apologise, I did look at the time but I guess I screwed up. I can name several sources such as the three Mary Cawkell volumes on Falklands history but there is a biography in the Dictionary of Falkland Islands biography edited by David Tatham. But you fail to address my comment, you are incorrect to state he is notable for being a murder victim, he is notable for being part of the small group of people in the Falklands in January - August 1833, which is a pivotal part of Falklands history and for being appointed the British representative. I will expand the article later when I have soe free time. WCM_email 10:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence that I have seen to justify the term "British Representative" I have seen the wording used in some Argentine propagandist material, but I wouldn't call them great sources. Being appointed British representative (which, I would say, didn't happen) does not make him noteworthy enough on its own to have a wikipedia article. He needs to have done something, and the only act of his which exists, to my knowledge, in secondary sources, is to get murdered. Being part of a small group of people at an important place and time is not noteworthy, without evidence of his actions.

If there are valid secondary sources of sufficient length to justify inclusion, please adapt the article. The self-published website article (Tatham) might not meet the criteria for validity as a source in terms of establishing notability if used on its own. I would strongly suggest WP:RSSELF to be applicable. This clearly states that self-published sources are rarely useful in establishing notability. If the Cawkill volumes are valid secondary sources (not self-published), and dedicate a couple of paragraphs solely to Dickson, then they should be ok to establish notability. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It's actually a book, not just a website, it's a collection of material produced by experts on various aspects of Falklands History, the entry for William Dickson was compiled by David Tatham himself. There is also material in Cawkell, which is not self-published. Dickson is also missing from the list of FI Governors. WCM_email 14:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It's quite an impressive work, but both the book and the website are self-published so don't count for notability purposes. They are ok to source info for the article though, as far as I can tell from the pages on that. The two paragraphs about Dickson don't really reveal anything notable about him though. Had flag, had shop, was killed. That's it. I really don't see much point in this article. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources that may provide notability

Users can add any sources below that they feel may establish the notability of Dickson with regards to "significant" coverage and notability. Users can comment below each source, this should be framed in terms of WP:BIO and/or WP:GNG Boynamedsue (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources that may provide evidence notability for William Dickson

Source	Significant coverage	Valid as source to establish notability
Dictionary of Falklands Bibliography -Tatham	Yes	Disputed (self-published)
The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843' -Gough	Possibly	Yes
The Falklands Story: 1592-1982 -Cawkill	No	Yes
The Falklands Islands -Cawkill	No	Yes

Tatham Ed. The dictionary of Falkland biography

This source is a book and website written by a group of serious people, albeit not always academic specialists. It contains two paragraphs on Dickson, stating the bare bones of his family and professional life, meetings with more famous people, and the fact he was given a flag to raise and then murdered. I'm not sure these events are notable, but perhaps a case could be made if this were a valid source. Unfortunately both the book and website are self-published and self-published books are to be treated with extreme care as indicators of notability. This is particularly important in this case, as the DFB also contains many entries of greater length and detail of people I am certain would not make the cut for notability. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Dickson's entry is written by Tatham and as such would carry more weight, yes it's self-published but there is an exception in policy for expert commentary. Tatham definitely falls into this category. WCM_email 12:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If it is self-published, the dictionary is only technically self-published.

The spirit of WP:SPS is that anyone can just go out and publish a source with no oversight and can use it to say anything. Per [1], this source was edited by a former Governor of the Falkland Islands, and many of the contributors are academics. Many of the out-of-pocket expenses and the printing costs, were met by the Falkland Islands Government. The FIG archivists are also acknowledged for their help in the research. How many self-published authors are given a foreword by a former Foreign Secretary? As the DFB has.

Technically it may be self-published - though given that the FIG picked up the printing cost that actually isn't obvious. But Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and does not deal in technicalities. This is simply not the sort of source that WP:SPS was written to exclude. Kahastok talk 12:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If it were not an exceptional source, being the only book which might establish notability, I would feel there might be some merit to these arguments. It is not technically self-published, it is self-published. Being a governor does not give an individual any extra validity as a source on history, unless one can find a respectable publisher. As I say, the DFB is full of entries, much more extensive ones, that would not meet the criteria for notability. For example: 1, 2, 3 and many others.

Even if the validity criteria were met, I really don't see anything that meets the criteria for notability in the article, especially in terms of WP:1E. He was on the island when Britain took over, then he was murdered in the chaos that followed. He really should just have a short biography in the Antonio Rivero page, alongside the other victims (except Brisbane who was notable in his own right).

Gough confirms (p272) Onslow delegated control of the Union Jack to Dickson, whom he describes. A couple of sentences. Minor mention, but that makes two reliable sources. Notable enough? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't see this. Good source, but significant coverage for notability is a couple of paragraphs on Dickson.Boynamedsue (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It is, I am holding off on improving this article waiting for the deletion threat to be removed. WCM_email 10:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can find significant coverage there will be no deletion, if you think there is some, please post it, it will save a lot of time. Boynamedsue (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Cawkill, M. (1983) The Falkland Story 1592-1982

This book is a valid source for establishing notability by any measure. Dickson is mentioned in one sentence on page 36, it states he was a storekeeper, a flagstaff was erected at his house, and that he was the "senior British resident" in the absence of Matthew Brisbane. He is mentioned in a list of victims of Antonio Rivero on page 39. I would argue these are trivial mentions, and quite possibly also WP:1E, given that the his role as a storekeeper and his murder were part of the same chain of events. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the source is fine, but it is not "significant coverage".Boynamedsue (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Cawkill, M. (1960) The Falkland Islands

Valid source. Dickson mentioned in passing on pages 43 (given flag) and 45 (is murdered). Not significant coverage. --Boynamedsue (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If it came down to just this source, I'd nominate for deletion then let others evaluate its validity as a source, in view of the difference of opinion here.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Gough, Barry M. (1990) The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843

Thanks for this one User:Roger 8 Roger. Do you know exactly what it says about Dickson? Boynamedsue (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Just found it, source is fine, it's unfortunately not significant coverage, 2 sentences again. Though one is different! If the article is considered notable there is evidence that Dickson discussed the possibilities for agriculture with Onslow when he was given the flag. Hardly earth-shattering but at least it's content. Boynamedsue (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

here

There are references out there. Here is another which unfortunately is once again only two sentences. [2] The next Irish name in Falklands/Malvinas history is that of William Dickson of Dublin who was storekeeper for Louis Vernet’s colonists, and was entrusted with the care of the British flag by Captain Onslow after he landed at Port Louis in 1833. Dickson was among those murdered by the gauchos led by Antonio Rivera on 26 August 1833. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. Absolutely, there are probably a at least a dozen that are similar, more in Spanish. The problem is that for establishing notability for a standalone article, it must be more than a trivial mention. As I understand it, a couple of sentences would class as a trivial mention even if there are many sources. I might be wrong on this, so I'm going to speak to people on the notability noticeboard to see if I'm being too strict. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have asked people at the notability noticeboard to comment on whether the sources available provide evidence of notability. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Original research tag

The original research tag has been placed on the section entitled "Brtitish Representative" as there are no sources I am aware of, and certainly none cited in the article, that call Dickson the "British Representative" in the Falklands. The section also uses the term "office" to describe Dickson's instruction to raise the flag. An office is an official position: "a position of authority and responsibility in a government or other organization" (here). There is no cited evidence that Dickson ever held any official position, much less a position of responsibility and authority, in the British government, he was merely charged with performing a menial task. I will happily remove the tags if sources can be found that identify him as the "British Representative" in the Falklands and show he held an official office.Boynamedsue (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah thought you might. WCM_email 09:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Since no support for the term British Representative has been offered. I have removed the unsupported claims, and removed the tags. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I also removed the claim that Dickson continued to raise the flag until his death. There is no evidence of this in any source cited, or in any of the many sources I have seen on this. If one is found, I would have no objection to it being included but without the term "held this office" unless specifically used in the source. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

When are you going to nominate for deletion? I'd like to get that out of the way so I can get on with improving the article without you hanging that threat over it. WCM_email 14:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the procedure says that the first step for non-notable articles is to try a merger, that seems not to have been well-received. The next step would be AfD. So I have just contacted the notability noticeboard to make sure my understanding of notability with regards to the sources for Dickson is correct. If it isn't, then I won't ever nominate. If they tell me my concerns about notability are founded, I am likely to nominate quite soon after. If you want some time to make the article as good as possible, in order to make it more likely to be retained, then I am happy to hold fire for a while. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No I shall wait patiently for you to exhaust your options in forum shopping your campaign, then take the time to upgrade this article. WCM_email 14:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Great look forward to seeing the contents of your secret bookshelf of constructiveness, the contents of which must be respected but never named. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that your message on both these articles is essentially, do what I say, when I say it, or else I'll take the article to AFD? Can you see why that message might get people's backs up? And you are rather giving the impression that you'll dismiss any evidence you come across anyway, so there's not a lot of point in presenting any.

I can quite understand WCM's reluctance to invest time and effort in an article if you're just going to AFD it anyway. Kahastok talk 16:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Military template

Removed, Dickson is not known to have served or acted in any military capacity, formal or informal. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

So why did you not replace it with a more appropriate version? Kahastok talk 16:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Not good with templates, I approve of WCM's edit though. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:Notability

From an inquiry at the guideline page I heard that there is a wp:notability debate here. With my NPP work including AFD's I've had a lot of experience in these areas. IMO it probably fails WP:GNG but IMO it is very likely that the article would be kept at AFD due to a multitude of other considerations. My advice: just try to build it into a nice article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Really appreciate an outside opinion. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)