File talk:Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg

File Versions

Commons:Overwriting existing files

Above policy permits overwriting to provide a higher resolution version of the original image and for colour correction. The version I uploaded is a high resolution photograph taken from the original currently held in the British library. The original upload was from a small portion of the map and clearly has problems with the colour. Further, if you look at the imaage, the colour has clearly been manipulated from the original changing the colour of Argentina and the Falkland Islands to match. It is not the original and shouldn't be portrayed as such. Please explain why you're revert warring over an obvious improvement. WCM_email 17:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a Different file relating to the exact same object (a map), which has a big red cross next to it indicating you should upload a new file. This is not a Minor improvement. Please stop and upload a new file. Langus-TxT (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW it's called "edit warring", not "revert warring". Meaning, if you're trying to force a new version in the first place, you are the one to blame. Langus-TxT (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I really can't see why anyone would knowingly revert to a poorer quality version of an image, especially one digitally manipulated to deceive. What we see here is the map being manipulated to show the opposite of what it originally showed. WCM_email 22:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a different file relating to the exact same object. It is not a "new version" but a different photograph altogether. Stop edit warring and upload a new file. Langus-TxT (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The image your "prefer" is claimed to show the original map but is such a poor quality reproduction and has been manipulated. The image I uploaded is an image of the original map, which is exactly what the image description claims it to be. It was stable for over 6 months before you and your friend started edit warring to overwrite it. The policy you are citing to "justify" removing it, allows for overwriting to provide a higher resolution version of the original image and for colour correction. This is exactly what I've done. The map you are insisting on using, which you've just happened to use on multiple wikis, has clearly been manipulated to show something other than the originator's intent. The image I uploaded is a faithful reproduction of the original. The image you upload only shows a portion of the map, the image I uploaded shows the entire map. So again its not the original, so why are you edit warring to remove such an obvious improvement? WCM_email 08:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

See my point in the section below. Map keys suggest you're wrong. Langus-TxT (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate Map

The description implies that this image is a true reproduction of the original map. I have uploaded a photo of the original map here from a copy held by the British Library. In the original version, the Falkland Islands and the Beagle Channel Islands are shown as foreign territory. In this file, the colours have been changed so that the Falkland Islands and mainland match. You can see where some of the original colour remains on the mainland (I guess that was a bit tricky to change) and the colours don't match the map key. In addition, all of the meta informaation was stripped out of the file. Whilst it claims to be a copy of the original map, it isn't, its been photoshopped.struck as I may have been mistaken I am concerned that users may use it in good faith as a reproduction of the original. I would like to either suggest this version is deleted, or if users wish to retain it, that the description is changed to note the manipulation of the colours to infer something not intended by the original map.struck as I may have been mistaken WCM_email 11:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

La description implique que cette image est une reproduction fidèle de la carte originale. Je l'ai téléchargé une photo de la carte originale ici d'une copie détenue par la British Library. Dans la version originale, les îles Falkland et les îles anglo-normandes Beagle sont présentés comme des territoires étrangers. Dans ce fichier, les couleurs ont été modifiées de sorte que les îles Falkland et match de la partie continentale. Vous pouvez voir où certains de la couleur d'origine reste sur le continent (Je suppose que ce fut un peu difficile à changer) et les couleurs ne correspondent pas la légende de la carte. En outre, l'ensemble de la méta informaation a été dépouillé du fichier. Alors qu'il prétend être une copie de la carte originale, il est pas, son été retouchée.struck as I may have been mistaken Je crains que les utilisateurs peuvent utiliser en toute bonne foi comme une reproduction de l'original. Je voudrais suggérer soit cette version est supprimée, ou si les utilisateurs souhaitent conserver, que la description est modifiée pour noter la manipulation des couleurs de déduire quelque chose de pas prévue par la carte originale.struck as I may have been mistaken WCM_email 11:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the description : this is indeed is a photograph of a partial reproduction of the first official argentine map, according to opinions maybe not enough a good quality photograph or maybe not enough a good quality reproduction however that stay a photograph of a partial reproduction of the first official argentine map. Thus "the first official argentine map, partially reproduced" (...) reproduced=reproduction=not the original, (...) "after the Boundary Treaty of 1881..." is quite good description IMO. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry but that doesn't begin to address the issue with the colours being manipulated to show something completely different from the original. The issue is one of accuracy. WCM_email 11:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen this reproduction in the reality, how do you know the colors are very different from the original reproduction? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you even ever seen another photograph of this reproduction? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have seen the copy in the British Library. By inspecting this version, you can also see areas where the original colour remains. In addition the map key remains the same. Oui je l'ai vu la copie à la British Library. En inspectant cette version, vous pouvez également voir les zones où la couleur d'origine reste. En outre, la légende de la carte reste la même.struck as I may have been mistaken WCM_email 11:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• If you have seen this reproduction version, I mean the map on the photo, not yours but this one, in the reality :

1/are these colors here, even for the Falkland Islands, identical to the original, the original of this map not to your version? if no do you think it is a numeric manipulation, or do you think this map is another map than the reproduction that you've seen?

2/what name and description the British Library gives for this map?

--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Of more mistakes sometimes exist on official and original maps even more on reproductions thus even if it is a fact that the colors are not the sames that's not mean this one is a fake (it is maybe even a collector). And for the colors, they are so faded here that it's maybe simply the aging color. And it's in reality hard to say if the Color of the Falklands Island are here more close from one or from the other. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: This is the image of the map directly from the British Library. Unfortunately, it's quite low-resolution, and the colors suck. Revent (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you but sadly I'm not sure if we talk about the same thing. Both are two different maps. The file we are talking about is a wholly map, it is not a part of this one, not a crop of it nor an edited version of it. The description say "partial reproduction", it mean several things:

It was maybe not made at the same time (a week later, a month later, who know?)

It was maybe not made by the same person/organisation/artist

It is maybe not made with the same material (different alterations of the colors with the time)

The conditions for preservations have perhaps not been the same and did not affect the two maps in the same way

Who can say that the one who realized the reproduction does not make a mistake? (have you really never seen even in an official school book a mistake made by the author? is this book fake?)

--Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

They are definitely not the same photography (which would already call for a new upload) and not even the same object. I mean, they are two different physical map, as in being in two different libraries. See the folding lines:

Further, I'm worried that the version WCM is pushing for doesn't have a clear/usable map key:

File:Leyenda2.PNG

IMO, this suggests that WCM's photograph (or perhaps the map itself) is the one with altered/fainted colors. Langus-TxT (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Christian Ferrer: , @Revent: And another version [1]. The Latzina map is well known, this is not a case of mistaken identity where one map is mistaken for another. The British Library documents this as the Latzina map of 1882, a Lithograph by Curt Stiller produced in Buenos Aires. This corresponds exactly with the description here, the printers marks are the same. Whilst the ability to control colour was not an exact science in 1882, there are enough clues to conclude that there has been digital manipulation here.struck as I may have been mistaken

1. As can be seen even from the poor resolution version on the British Library website, the Falkland Islands are a different colour. On the version here, and I have just checked using GIMP, they're not just similar they're identical. Were this just the result of fading, as they were completely different colours originally you could not expect them to be identical.
2. On the map key, the original colours are intact, again were this just the result of fading you would have expected the colouring in the key to have faded. They haven't and are close in colour and shading to the key in the version shown from the British Library.
3. You can also see in two areas where the original colour is retained on this image - around Chubut (66°E 43°S) and around Rio Negro (63°E 40°S).

These three points make it pretty clear to me that the image has been manipulated.struck as I may have been mistaken Please feel free to verify for yourself. WCM_email 15:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I was typing this Langus-TxT has just accused me of manipulating the image. Given there is not one but now two additional examples independently showing the version I uploaded to be a faithful reproduction of the original I demand an immediate apology for a deliberate slur by that editor. That is completely unacceptable and a blatant example of a complete lack of good faith. WCM_email 15:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Your indignation seems a bit uncalled for given the fact that you started this mess accusing the original uploader of photoshoping the map. However, do note that I considered the possibility of the map you photographed being discolored, or modified on printing. That's more assumption of good faith that the one you're putting on the original uploader.

WCM, you fail to get the point. Even if it was manipulated, or if it has naturally faded, you're not allowed to overwrite the file with a photograph of another (physical) map. W:WP:HEAR what Christian Ferrer is saying and understand COM:OVERWRITE, which is a policy here in Commons. Langus-TxT (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What you describe as "areas where the original colour is retained" are actually parts of the areas of Argentinian land identified as land type "tierras de pastoreo" (pasture lands) and those areas are meant to be coloured like that in darker colour, as distinguished from the areas of Argentinian land identified as "tierras incultas", which are coloured in lighter colour. The difference in the colours of the areas of those two types of Argentinian land is clear in the Boston Library online reproduction, in the British Library online reproduction and in the Keysanger reproduction. The difference between those two types of Argentinian land is almost indiscernable in your WCM reproduction, unless one knows exactly where to look, thanks to comparison with the other reproductions. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the overwriting was inappropriate, and we should keep both. As far as the actual images, the one from the Boston Public Library is not the same as the images we have here... the printer's information (down at the very bottom right) is different.... it was lithographed by a different printer. The image that I linked from the British Library is not clear enough to tell, but the 'pattern of the words' appears to match that of the Boston version. Both of the images here have identical printers information (which is different from that on the library versions) but, as noted, are not the same physical object... different fold lines, and notably different color registration. I don't really thing it's a case of either being literally 'photoshopped', but instead being within the normal variation of 1880's printing methods, and having been stored differently. Revent (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I found yet another online version showing more vivid colours but yet again the Falkland Islands are different. [2] Could you explain something to me @Revent: , if you download this image and sample the colour for the mainland and the Falklands, they are identical. Were this down to printing or fading, how could they end up identical? To my mind that is pretty convincing evidence of digital manipulation.struck as I may have been mistaken WCM_email 16:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I really can't explain that to you, and am not particularly interested in trying. That starts getting into the drama of taking one side of the other in the whole historical dispute, and there are honestly few things I care less about than who owned those islands 130-odd years ago. My 'position' here is that all of the images we are seeing are of obviously different physical objects, with different provenances. Given that, I don't think it's really possible for us to determine, from the evidence at hand, what was the creators intent. I also don't think it really matters, for the purposes of Commons (other than what ends up in the descriptions, which should be purely factual and neutral anyhow). I don't see any particular evidence of 'digital manipulation' of any particular one, however.... I see photos of different physical objects, with no particular way to determine if any of them are faithful reproductions of those physical objects. I also see an undue amount of emotional involvement in the argument. Revent (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Emotional involvement, pish, if wanting the description to be factual and neutral is emotional involvement we're all guilty. I see evidence of manipulation and there are people emotionally involved in their countries claim to manipulate images and this wouldn't be the first time they've found their way onto commons purporting to be the real thing. WCM_email 17:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)struck as I may have been mistaken

@Langus-TxT: Where did I accuse the original uploader of manipulating the image? The answer is of course I never did, my assumption was they had acted in good faith in uploading it, not knowing it had been manipulated.struck as I may have been mistaken The only person to have leveled accusations of misconduct against another editor is yourself. I realise most of your reply was an attempt to needle, you may have the satisfaction that I noticed it but the disappointment that I've ignored it. WCM_email 16:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

On the versions originally uploaded by Keysanger of this file (Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg), it is clear that the Beagle Channel islands are coloured as foreign territory. That is apparently the same as in the version uploaded by Wee Curry Monster (WCM). So I don't know what WCM is talking about or why they are proffering accusations about it. As for the Malouines Islands, on the original Keysanger versions, they are coloured as Argentinian territory of the land type tierras incultas, whereas on the WCM version it's hard to tell. On the WCM version, the colours are so hard to distinguish from each other that even the colour difference between the two types of Argentinian land, the tierras incultas and the tierras de pastoreo, is almost impossible to tell, whereas the colours are very clear on the Keysanger versions. That is further complicated by the fact that the different parts of the WCM version have different levels of darkness. Anyway, if one opens two windows, both with the WCM version, and place side by side the Malouines and the colour key, which is on the same part of the map, it looks like the Malouines may be of the colour of the tierras incultas land type, the same colour in the WCM version as on the Keysanger version. As far as I can tell, both versions (Keysanger and WCM) seem to reproduce the respective paper copies from which they are taken. The difference between the colours of the two reproductions seem mostly due to the poor quality of the rendering of the colours in the WCM reproduction or in the paper copy from which it is reproduced. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• One thing is sure the current description "Partial view of the Latzina map of 1882." is not ok as we are all agree it is not a view nor a part of the Latzina map but a real different map, thus partially reproduced (even if according to opinions it is a bad reproduction) is more appropriate. That said I don't know the history of Argentina and if the colors ( by mistake or alteration) do not reflect the real historical facts, we can add this kind of note "The colors of this old map have been altered or a mistake have been made at this creation, as a result of what to reflect the reality of historical facts the Falkand Islands are normally colored in the same color as "Tierras incultas" in the legend."
  (historical facts IMO confirmed by the two link provided [3] and [4]) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but its supposed to be the same map Christian. And you're incorrect that its referring to two different maps.

If you look at the map its supposed to show Argentine territory available to be settled. All the Argentine territory is shaded in relief showing terrain and rivers. Both the Falkland Islands and Chilean territory show none of this, they're blank.

If you look at all other copies of the maps other than this one, the Falklands and Chilean territory are shown as the same colour, differentiating them from Argentine territory.

I don't know if something has been lost in translation @Asclepias: but that the Falklands are coloured as Argentine territory in this version is precisely my point. They aren't in the original. WCM_email 17:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that in some versions of the map, or at least in some reproductions, the colour in the key box labeled "tierras incultas" looks closer to the colour of the foreign territories than to the colour of the tierras incultas on the mainland of Argentina. So, when looking at the Malouines on those versions, some viewers legitimately say that the Malouines look indeed the same colour as the box labeled "tierras incultas", and other viewers legitimately say that it looks like the colour of the foreign territories. There may or may not have been a printing mistake in one or several printing runs of the paper maps, and that possible mistake, if it was a mistake, may have been the colour of the key box, or it may have been the colour of the Malouines, or it may even have been the colour of mainland Argentina. If we forget the colours and we look at the drawing style, you are correct that the Malouines are drawn in the style of foreign territories, for example without "shading" of the coasts. It is indeed an important point, which does suggest that the map artist drew the Malouines as foreign territory. What happened after that? Maybe, after the first printing run, somebody decided that in later printings the colours would be fixed and the colour of the Malouines was made to look more like the colour of mainland Argentina. (That would be quite interesting if the printing dates of the different paper copies could be known and if it was found that the first printing was in 1882-1883 and a later printing was, for example, in 1885, the year when the dispute about the Malouines resurfaced.) Or maybe it was not deliberately changed. I see that you removed the mention given by the original uploader of the source of this reproduction, which was a reproduction in a book published by a Chilean office in 1978 or 1979. Is there a reason why you removed that source? If it is the source, it is an important information. And it would be relevant to try to find what copy of the map the book used as its source and to know if the book coloured the Malouines differently from its source. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

My source was the British library and as I originally thought I was correcting an error by uploading a new file, I changed it to match. It would be interesting to see that book. I would like to ask Keysanger to comment here but it may be better if someone else were to do it as I don't think I'm his favourite person right now [5]. In the mean time, I will change it back. WCM_email 21:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

After a bit of searching, it seems to me that around 2007-2008 Keysanger uploaded reproductions of maps that had been collected in a book printed for the government of Chile in 1979 : Relaciones chileno-argentinas, la controversia del Canal Beagle : una selección cartográfica / Chilean-Argentine relations, the Beagle Channel controversy : a cartographical selection, printed by Atar, Geneva, Switzerland, in 1979. (Or perhaps reproductions were also in another volume in the same series of books, printed in 1978 and 1979.) From online book catalogs, it seems that this book included some 33 reproductions of maps. I'm guessing that in those years the government of Chile probably published those books to support its arguments during its dispute with Argentina about the Beagle Channel islands. At the top of this image there is an indication that this image is the plate number 5 in the book. Some of the other plates from the book are also in the Category:Maps related to the Beagle conflict. I don't see a particular reason why we should doubt the uploader's statement that the reproductions originate from this book, although I don't know if we should assume that the uploader scanned the images directly from a paper copy of the book or if the uploader reproduced images of scans made by someone else. So, for me, an objective way to describe the situation is to say that the copy in the British Library, which is from one of the editions of the 1883 brochure The Argentine Republic as a field for European Emigration, does not have exactly the same colours as the map included in the 1979 book of the government of Chile. The current state of our research doesn't tell how and when the colour of the Malouines may have drifted. It is possible that some reprints of this map were made in Argentina and began to have different colours after 1885. The 1888 Latzina map seems to colour the Malouines as part of Argentina. Or that the difference occurred in the 1979 book. Or somehow between the 1883 brochure and the 1979 book. No reason for throwing accusations of recent manipulation of files. If we're all seeking truth, it seems to me that serene communication between you and the uploader could give useful results. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Asclepias: I'm seriously impressed, I tried to find the source from the description and got nowhere. I think you're right. After a little more research I find that Oxford University and the British Library both hold copies. I will ask for Keysanger to comment but I will also look into accessing a copy myself. I assume you're not familiar with the 'Affair of the Map' between 1884 and 1888? In 1884, Argentina announced an intention to show the Falklands as Argentine territory. This has parallels with the Beagle Channel dispute when the Boundary Treaty of 1881 was reinterpreted and maps began to show the disputed islands as Argentine. Maps after 1884 tend to show the Falklands as Argentine, before 1884 they didn't. Regards, WCM_email 10:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• ISTM that the territories are distinguished by more than colour: the Argentine land includes hatching to show relief, while the other areas are flatly coloured outlines. I don’t see any such shading in the Falklands, whose coasts I don’t believe are significantly less rugged than those of, say Tierra del Fuego. So regardless of the appearance of the tints themselves, which are of course even less distinct in the paler map, I’d say the Malvinas match the Chilean territory better than the Argentinian in both images.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe Asclepias has nailed it, both regarding the source of confusion and a possible explanation for different colors in different versions. IRRC, there was indeed a back and forth back in those days regarding, precisely, the Falklands. Langus-TxT (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposition of description

Partial reproduction of the Latzina map of 1882
Note:The colors of this old map have been altered or a mistake have been made at this creation, as a result of what to reflect the reality of historical facts the Falkand Islands are normally colored in the same color as "Tierras incultas" in the legend.
The Latzina map of 1882 was the first official Argentine map produced after the Boundary Treaty of 1881. It was ordered to be drawn up by the then Argentine Minister of the Interior, Bernardo de Irigoyen (who has previously been Minister of Foreign Affairs in which capacity he signed the Boundary Treaty of 1881) for inclusion in a official publication issued by the Director of the National Statistics Office in 1883 under the title "The Argentine Republic as a field for European Emigration". This was published in Spanish, English, German, French and Italian in a edition of 120.000 copies. On the official map all the islands located south of the Beagle Channel are shown under Chilean Sovereignty.--Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry no, that would be falsifying what this map shows, in original copies of the map the Falklands are not shown as Argentine territory. WCM_email 16:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand I see the same international boundaries in both maps or my eyes play with me...--Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Here we clearly see that Falkand Islands are normally colored in the same color as "Tierras incultas" in the legend as I wrote above, I don't understand your point. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you do something a little more scientific, download a copy and look at in an image program such as GIMP. free download. They're not coloured the same way. The Falklands are coloured in the same manner as the Chilean territory. If you were to note that the Falklands and Chilean territory are coloured in the same manner I would be cool with that. WCM_email 17:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Revent: , @Langus-TxT: , @Asclepias: After to have uploaded your file Wee Curry Monster, your version is the less realistic of all the exemples we seen here, and even I think your version have maybe been manipuled as (zoomed at 100 and 200% with Adobe photoshop) :

some areas of the legend are not fully coloried

some very small areas of the Falklans Island are not fully coloried

the areas of the Falkland Islands and of the legend called "tierras incultas" that are not fully coloried are very similar (Legend :R(199)V(185)B(146)) (Falklands Islands: R(197)V(178)B(146)), this is very close and confirm of what I said above "Falkand Islands are normally colored in the same color as "Tierras incultas" ". I have now to think that there is a possibility you have manipulated your image, in the measure of it really is your file of course, in the purpose to mark a point. These are serious charges, but I can not hide what I found and it is you, WCM, who asked me for this analysis. And these are my conclusion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense, the only thing I ever did with that file was to take the original trim the borders and rotate the image. And I did so openly in the file history [6]. What you see on the key is normal colour bleeding from the original lithograph. The meta information is still intact in the file to show the make and model of camera used, the focal settings, the whole shebang. You haven't found anything, you simply don't know what you're talking about. WCM_email 19:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The border change nothing to my reasoning, the EXIF can stay the same after a manipulation of the RAW file and I still think that this image have been manipulated and if it is not the image it is the map. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is maybe the map that have been manipulated, you're maybe for nothing... but I really think this map is not as it was at its origin. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we get someone who actually understands this please? The original image of the map is a faithful reproduction from the copy held in the British library. What you see as evidence of manipulation is actually evidence of the complete opposite, showing defects in the original lithograph. Were it photoshopped the colour would be uniform and regular, funnily enough exactly as we see on the image we were originally discussing. Take this image and zoom in, we do not see the mottled effect we would expect from pixelation of variation in colour of the original. However, take for example the hi resolution version in the Boston Public library, as we zoom in that is exactly what we do see [7]. WCM_email 20:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Wee Curry Monster: Maybe I'm a bit ignited me, is this better :

Partial reproduction of the Latzina map of 1882
Note:The colors of this old map have been altered or a mistake have been made at this creation, as a result of what to reflect the reality of historical facts the Falkand Islands are normally colored in the same clear color as the land area, just left of the Argentina area and which corresponds to Chile.
The Latzina map of 1882 was the first official Argentine map produced after the Boundary Treaty of 1881. It was ordered to be drawn up by the then Argentine Minister of the Interior, Bernardo de Irigoyen (who has previously been Minister of Foreign Affairs in which capacity he signed the Boundary Treaty of 1881) for inclusion in a official publication issued by the Director of the National Statistics Office in 1883 under the title "The Argentine Republic as a field for European Emigration". This was published in Spanish, English, German, French and Italian in a edition of 120.000 copies. On the official map all the islands located south of the Beagle Channel are shown under Chilean Sovereignty. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm cool with the basics of what you're suggesting, with respect the use of the English language could be cleaned up but essentially I agree with it. WCM_email

@Wee Curry Monster: Peut-être peux-tu corriger mon anglais sur ce coup, car j'ai bien peur d'etre au maximum de mes capacités. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Note:The colours of this old map have been altered or a mistake have been made during its creation. It should be noted that in other versions of this map the Falkland Islands (Sp:Islas Malvinas,Fr:Isle Malouines) and other surrounding territories are normally coloured in the same clear color.

Monsieur, votre anglais est infiniment mieux que mon français. Que pensez-vous de ma suggestion? WCM_email 21:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I applied the change in the file page. The first version and source have been restored. And a note added for the historical accuracy. I think all people can be happy. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, tag removed. WCM_email 21:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer, Wee Curry Monster: I'd recommend everyone to wait for clear consensus before introducing changes because, alas, I'm not comfortable with the idea of "editorializing" the description of the image this much. Just note that in the first proposed description, we would explain that the color of the Falklands should be the same one as "Tierras incultas" (savage lands); in the second proposal (which sadly was soon committed) we would be saying that they should be the same color as Chile. I'm puzzled.

While I concur with Asclepias' comments about shading of the coasts (not so much about rivers, because I believe that the ones on the islands may not be notable enough to draw them) I'm uncomfortable with the idea of drawing this conclusion ourselves. IMO, we don't have the necessary knowledge and resources to give a definitive answer; we are not "reliable sources", as we say in Wikipedia. How do we know if there weren't different versions of this map?

My opinion is that we would be better off just presenting both versions, clearly indicating where they come from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but descriptions at Commons should be to the point and neutral. We're stepping into a tarpit here, and I'd much prefer to use my time in something else.

On a side note, I confirm that EXIF information can altered by hand with some tools.[8][9] The only way to tell for sure would be analyzing the SD card where it was originally stored (computer forensics). Langus-TxT (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Langus. I'm not happy with the proposed description. Too much original research to my taste. --· Favalli ⟡ 23:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• I still think what I said about the version of WCM, it seems re-colored, but maybe the map itself and not by WCM, and as I'm far to have perfect eyes nor to have enough knowledge to prove something at 100%, I can not really say anything, and even if it was re-colored nothing say that does not reflect the historical accuracy. And of more his point of view is credible and the other maps tend to confirm that, even if the clear colors are hard to distinguish I tend to agree with him, the Falkland Islands seems to have the same color as Chile and I don't think Chile and Falklands are both "Tierras incultas" thus IMO they are both neutral. Please consider me now out of the conversation, I made the question around, studied all the maps and said all what I thought. I tried to find a solution for all. Sadly if it is not satisfactory I can not help more. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There pretty much was a clear consensus and if you remove it Langus, then the onus was on you to put back the tag. You didn't but based on long experience of your editing I'm not surprised. That we have ProfesorFavalli entering the fray is equally unsurprising.

We have two independently sourced copies from the British library[10],[11], an online copy from the Boston public library,[12] and a version from Archivo General de la Nación, Buenos Aires [13]. I've since found others [14] Funnily enough they all show the same thing, the Falkland islands are treated in the same manner as Chile and other surrounding territories. So its not unreasonable to conclude based on the weight of evidence that this map differs from the original.

Having spent the evening trying to track down the source claimed for this image, I am beginning to doubt that the source has been accurately delineated. However, that research has shown that the map is important in legal terms and for the precedent set in the Beagle Channel case.[15],[16]. Given its prominence it is not unreasonable to conclude that were there different versions due to its crucial role in the case this would have been mentioned. Hence, I would reject criticism by speculation "that there might be two maps". Further given the importance of the map and the unclear parentage of this version, it is important that any concerns are available for anyone who may wish to use the image in future.

I am left wondering gentlemen and I use the phrase loosely, what is your justification for not sharing this information with anyone who may wish to use the file in future? WCM_email 00:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What you describe is original research. It's a WP policy, but I find it appropriate to apply it here too. You ask why I want to deprive the world of such investigation. My answer: because I don't trust on editors' research.

For the record, I do concur that in the map at [17] the islands seem to have a color matching Chile. [18] has a very low resolution to judge correctly (or at least I couldn't find how to zoom in). But again, I wouldn't venture to explain the differences between them and Keysanger's or even to explain their differences with your version, which is an evident outlier here. Why should I distrust Keysanger (or his source) but accept WCM's version/source? Specially considering how much it differs from the online libraries. Langus-TxT (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is tiresome Langus, [19] shows clearly that the colours in the version I uploaded are correct, yet you've added a tag claiming the accuracy is disputed, despite the fact that all online versions agree with it. In addition, all of the editors here have disagreed with you. Please remove it, you're being deliberately disruptive, you know it to be a faithful reproduction of the original. WCM_email 07:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[20] And yet another one, in high definition. WCM_email 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The copy of Sardoa d-library presents an interesting imperfection : a lighter area, immediately to the right of 64°W and approximately between 36° and 41°S. Which shows that the "original" printed copies may not all be completely identical with each other in every detail. I think we can say that the printer of this copy probably didn't want to imply that this area in the middle of Argentina was foreign territory . Another observation about this copy is the same I have made about another reproduction : at first sight the Malouines may look coloured like foreign territory, but upon closer examination, if we open two windows with this same map and we adjust the windows to juxtapose the Malouines over different parts of the mainland, we can see that the colour of the Malouines may look actually closer to the colour of Argentina, Patagonia section, than to the colour of Chile. (If we wanted to joke, we could say that the printer wasn't sure if he should colour the Malouines like Argentina or like foreign territory, so he used a colour somewhat between the two.) What I want to point out is that the problem seems at least partly present already since the original copies of the map. It may only have been made more apparent in the reproduction in the 1979 book of the government of Chile where the differences between the colours are somewhat more contrasted. It's really not the fault of any uploader to Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have never ventured to suggest the original uploader was at fault. It could well be that the colour reproduction in the Chilean book was faulty or the technology used then did not allow for accurate reproduction - for example it may not have allowed for subtle differences in colour. However, and this is the thing that is bugging me, the colours in this one are identical but are not in any other copy. They not just close, they're identical plus they're simply not the beige of the original. I am hoping to have a copy of the Chilean book shortly, I am begging a favour of a friend who lives near the Bodleian Library in Oxford. Having seen the original and multiple other copies I'm convinced there is an error in the colour reproduction here - its not an accurate reflection of the original. I may well be wrong about it being manipulated but there is definitely an error. WCM_email 18:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, different maps with different color alterations (printing or natural fading) and yet WCM ventures to tag the file with a definite statement: "In the original version, the Falkland Islands and the Beagle Channel Islands are shown as foreign territory". And more: "the colours have been changed". This is unacceptable. Langus-TxT (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That there might be manipulation would not be a huge surprise in this area. These maps have been used as a determiner of Argentine territory before. Specifically, the map chose a borderline in the Beagle Channel that gave to Chile certain islands that Argentina would later say they had always claimed. The position of the Falklands is in exact parallel: Argentina says that it has always claimed the islands. One might easily see that the map manipulated to avoid the same conclusion being made.

That the colour should be precisely identical would be extraordinary without some kind of manipulation. In every other copy of the map we have - and there are several - the Falklands appear a different colour to Patagonia and a similar colour to Chile. Patagonia is shown with hatched relief, the Falklands are not, also suggesting that the Falklands are considered different from Argentina. And it is worth noting that when an official map came up a few years later that actually did include the Falklands as part of Argentina (for - so far as we know - the first time in decades) it caused a significant diplomatic dispute.

And it is worth our being aware that we have had manipulated images show up masquerading as real before in the area of Falklands history.

It appears to me that the evidence we have points clearly at some form of manipulation It is clear that the colouring is not faithful to the original and we should say this to warn anyone using the image. But in doing so, I do not see why we should not allow for the possibility of mistake in scanning or in printing. Kahastok talk 20:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

After a close examination I can find no evidence that this image has been manipulated. I don’t think it’s possible to be certain, given the similarity of the comparison colours, the overall poor quality of the reproduction, the relatively large variations in illumination, and the severe JPEG artifacts that make representative sampling difficult; moreover the largest extents of more-or-less solid colour in the Falklands are only about a dozen pixels across. With these caveats in mind, I don’t find the Falklands colour to be identical to that in the southern Argentinian hinterlands; it‘s intermediate between that and the ‘default’ background as shown in the Chilean parts of Tierra del Fuego, albeit closer to the former—the eastern main island more so than the western. In an extremely ‘stretched’ rendering I observe that the vertical fold just east of Patagonia defines a fairly pronounced transition in the saturation of the ocean colour, which effect might explain the difference between the Falklands and the mainland; unfortunately there’s no ‘undisputed’ land area nearby to make a direct comparison. Close inspection of the Falkland coasts reveals no telltale ‘jumps’ in colour or texture, but I admit that the amount of adjustment required to make the one colour resemble the other is so slight that it might not leave obvious traces. The image is certainly not good enough to show anything about the original printing techniques or quality. (For example it was not uncommon for maps of this era to be printed only in black, then hand-tinted in watercolour, which might produce significant variations even within the same edition.)

Accordingly, regarding the warning template or the description text I am not in favour of any wording that implies deliberate alteration, unless someone can point to a ‘smoking gun‘ I may have missed; instead I would suggest a more neutral statement referring to the poor quality of the image, or more specifically the unevenness of the colours, that makes it unreliable in this regard. (Disclaimer: I have no particular expertise in forensic image analysis, but a lot of related experience from thirty years in the prepress trades.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Odysseus1479: for your analysis and the benefit of your experience, I am quite happy for a note to simply refer to the poor quality of the image and that its not good enough to show the original printing techniques or image quality and that colour reproduction is not true to the original due to the techniques used. We now have multiple high quality scans of the original that can be used instead. This is effectively a scan of a plate of a reproduction, which as its been copied effectively 3 times may well explain the differences. I apologise if my certainty that this was evidence of manipulation has slowed debate, I was sincere in that belief but having seen the comments of other editors I can see that I may have been mistaken. Give it a few days and I may have a copy of the original plate as well. WCM_email 22:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, we have different uploaded versions now[21][22] and the analysis of them is most interesting. However, since we're all guessing here, I'm reluctant of laying those observations on the description. If we do so in this image, I'd expect editors to also 'guess' what's wrong with File:Latzina_Map_of_Argentina_1882.jpg, which has indistinguishable map keys, and accordingly indistinguishable territories (at least I cannot easily distinguish the borders between Tierras inclutas and Tierras de pastoreo). What went wrong there? According to Kahastok's reasoning, we would need a warning on that one too. Langus-TxT (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What we have is a reproduction of a reproduction of a reproduction being compared with first generation scans or photographs of the original. What interesting is that all of the first generation copies show similar characteristics and its only this one that is different and we have a ready explanation for the differences. Why pray can we not allow for a warning? I hope btw that is not a none too subtle threat that you'll disrupt other images if you don't get your way. WCM_email 00:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Affair of the Map" "Argentina says that it has always claimed the islands"

What we have here is a reproduction, word by word, of conspiracy theories that can be found on internet forums. Commons has no place for nationalist propaganda and original research. It's as simple as that --· Favalli ⟡ 01:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I find Kahastok's comments most reasonable; just a couple of points to stress. First, WCM is right in placing that warning remark at the relevant copy that is an exception among the number of available copies. Second, on all copies the Falklands are unquestionably shown as non-Argentine. Indeed, all the Argentine coasts are shadowed which is not refering to their relief as e.g. the areas near Rio Grande (on Tierra del Fuego) and east of Buenos Aires are shadowed, too, although these are of very low altitude. On the contrary, the Falklands coasts are not shadowed, same like those of Chile, Uruguay and Brazil. Apcbg (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Commons should have no place for nationalist propaganda. This is why we should not be letting this image alone without a health warning. Given how different this version is to all the other representations we have, given the nature of those differences, and given the perfectly plausible case that it has been deliberately manipulated, we could easily class this image as "nationalist propaganda". Kahastok talk 21:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I too agree that Commons or any wiki shouldn't be a place for nationalist propaganda. [23],[24] But that some editors do put nationalist propaganda on Commons and abuse it is sadly a fact. WCM_email 22:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, and now the full gang (WCM, Kahastok, Apcbg) is here. Wikipedia's dramas have spread to Commons.

The only version whose colors are so distorted that Tierras incultas and Tierras de pastoreo are indistinguishable is the third one. That some editors deny what's plain for the eyes to see illustrates the nature of Wikipedia's never-ending discussions on this subject. Langus-TxT (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

1. First one is scanned, by professionals, in a learned library. This has been done to preserve it, its available in high resolution. The technology used is infinitely superior to that of my personal photo or the scan of the plate in number 4.
2. Second one is scanned, by professionals, in a learned library. This has been done to preserve it, its available in high resolution. This has been done to preserve it, its available in high resolution. The technology used is infinitely superior to that of my personal photo or the scan of the plate in number 4.
3. Third one is a photo, my photo. Done by an amateur, yours truly.
4. Fourth, is a scan of a plate, of a reproduction and has been copied at least three times in different processes. It was done in 1979 before the advent of modern digital reproductions, where reproduction accuracy particularly in terms of colour was limited by the technology available. Even if we ignore the possibility of manipulation and I'm quite willing to admit I may have been wrong about that, there is enough doubt about the technology used to suggest more modern techniques would be superior.

Now I don't claim to be the world's greatest photographer, the camera I used [25] wasn't expensive [26]. But there is one thing thats very plain, the colours are a reasonable match to the first two for an amateur photographer. However, I do say its a photo and I do give information on the camera and exposure used, so that people can make an informed choice about using it. I'm quite willing to add that I've cropped the border and rotated the image to correct the cant I imparted with my limited abilities. Even with my limited skills, its quite plain that the image is better reproduction than the fourth image.

The fourth image doesn't match at all and the colours are very different; that much is quite plain. Moreover, its not just the other three images that show this but every one we can find online. That there is plenty of opportunity for colour errors to creep in is very much apparent. As such we can't use this image to draw any accurate conclusions about the original image. We should state that. Now that won't stop nationalist POV warriors abusing it on wiki or off wiki in blogs, twitter and social media.

So if I were to summarise positions at this point in time. I've chosen to use the professional image on various wikis, ignoring my own because they're better reproductions. I've chosen to make sure my own image has information to allow other editors to use it as an informed choice and I'm quite willing to expand on that. Your position is you disagree with the proposition that we should not treat this image the same as my personal photograph and inform other editors about the limitations of the technology originally used.

Now I think I'm going to take a break Langus and allow other editors to comment. Though I know consensus is not a vote, its about strength of argument, the vast majority of other editors agree with my comments about this image. WCM_email 23:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that all has been said, but anyway, yes, I uploaded the File:Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg and of course I didn't manipulated it, as WCM foreshadowed (Don't worry Justin, I don't want to destroy the British Empire. Not before they get the NHS working! ;-))

I don't remember much about the case, but if you take a look to the first loaded version [27], you will see a wrinkle in the middle of the paper. Left of the wrinkle the colors are more pale than in the right side of the map. As consequence the Argentine part of Tierra del Fuego has two colors.

I knew the problem as I made a copy of the the Argentine stamp: the upper blue is slightly different from the below blue. This difference is only in the foto-image of the paper-stamp. In the paper-stamp both blues should be the same.

Greetings, --Keysanger 08:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear mate, I have not accused you of anything. As everyone here has noted the method of reproduction can introduce errors. Thanks for commenting. BTW do you have any concerns if we were to note that the method of reproduction can cause colour errors. WCM_email 13:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

And another question, was it a photo or did you scan it? WCM_email 17:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Keysanger for your input and Wee Curry Monster for taking a depth breath and slowing down. I'm ok with introducing a note about techniques used and the possibility color artifacts as a result, so long as we warn of them in both #3 and #4 (WCM's and Keysenger's).

But please let us consensuate a text here before actually introduce it in the descriptions. Langus-TxT (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok I'll go first. For Keysanger's upload I propose the following:

Note: the scanner used to digitalize this image is known to introduce color artifacts. In addition, book printing technology in 1970s may have introduce further inaccuracies. Please refer to other versions below for comparison.

And for WCM's:

Note: the digital camera used to obtain this picture and the lightning conditions were not ideal, and as a result colors in this image may not reliably reproduce original colors. Please refer to other versions below for comparison.

Would everyone agree to these? Wee Curry Monster, Keysanger? Langus-TxT (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

When you slapped that tag on my photo, you didn't read the description did you? Try reading it first. WCM_email 21:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Mellow, please. Most people, unfortunately, are not going to read to the end of such a long description. A succinct disclaimer should not be the cause of drama, just deal with the wording. Revent (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just as a further note, to give my personal opinion.... the depiction of what territory has been shown on this map to belong to whom has been a matter of long-standing dispute, to the point of having been addressed by UN courts. We now have multiple images, depicting multiple sources. The end result of this should be that all versions hosted on Commons should note the dispute, point at each other, and make it clear that nothing beyond what was legally established by the international tribunal about the ownership of particular territories is definitive. If a consensus can be reached about what the 'disclaimer' on each image should be, I am willing to protect each one in that state to prevent future tampering by partisans....however, each image's description (in addition to it's tagging) should reflect it's status in comparison to the Beagle Channel Arbitration Report (see [28], paragraphs 126-128). Revent (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would probably be a lot more mellow but the guy follows me from wiki to wiki, dogging every contribution I make, its getting tiresome.

Regarding your comments, I agree 100%, the fact that the map has had a significant bearing on a ICJ case makes it beholden to us to ensure we have an accurate reproduction - which is why I added those notes to my picture. I have held back from commenting to hopefully allow more people to comment as I am sometimes rather mission-orientated. I'm happy to suggest a wording if you like - I have a copy of the findings in the UN case. WCM_email 09:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

...And that's how WCM "collaborates".

Let me guess, you prefer to leave the tags on forever? At least you desisted from overwriting, I'll give you that. Langus-TxT (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant extract from the case:

(v) The 1882 "Latzina" map

126. If anything more were needed to confirm the view that the map sent to Mr. Petre in December 1881 did indeed represent Señor Irigoyen's own opinion concerning the effect of the Treaty in regard to the islands, it would be amply afforded by the publication under his aegis, about a year later, of what has been known in the case as the 1882 "Latzina" map (Chilean Plate No. 25). This map is regarded by Chile as the first official Argentine map to be produced under government auspices —though its official character was subsequently denied by the Argentine Government, and this is discussed later (see paragraphs 153-156 infra). The point is however that the map was brought out under the auspices of the President of Argentina, and of Señor Irigoyen (who had by then become Minister of the Interior), for inclusion in, or to go with, a publicity work entitled "The Argentine Republic as a field for European Emigration", and subtitled "A statistical and geographical review of the country, and its resources, with all its various features". Supervision was entrusted to Dr. Francisco Latzina, Director of the National Statistical Office.

127. This work, headed "Publicación Oficial", was issued in five languages (Spanish, French, English, German and Italian). It included a map prepared by the lithographic firm of Stiller and Laas. The Argentine Congress officially approved the project and authorized the publication of a large number of copies for distribution throughout Europe. Like the Irigoyen map {supra, paragraph 122) this Latzina map leaves no doubt as to the attribution to Chile of the PNL group of islands. In 1883, Señor Irigoyen, in making his Report to the Argentine National Congress, had occasion to assess the value of the publicity project, when requesting additional funds to continue the distribution. In the course of his Report he declared: "The map which Dr. F. Latzina was entrusted with, was printed last year, and distributed in Europe and America with excellent results"—(Chilean written Reply, paragraph 123 on p. 334). It cannot be accepted that the chief negotiator for Argentina of the 1881 Treaty would thus have given his personal backing to the publication of a map which showed the islands as Chilean unless, as previously, he believed this to be a correct representation of the Treaty settlement.

128. The Latzina map of 1882-3 provides an excellent example of the relevance of a map not so much for its own sake—(it could, theoretically, have been inaccurate)—but for the circumstances of its production and dissemination, making it of high probative value on account of the evidence afforded by this episode, namely of official Argentine recognition, at the time, of the Chilean character of the PNL group. The force of this, as illustrative of Argentine official opinion in the immediate post-Treaty period, is therefore in no way lessened by the fact that the 1882 Latzina map fell out of favour with the authorities a decade or so later,(87) or that Dr. Latzina himself, having again, in 1888, published a map (Chilean Plate No. 48) showing a Chilean attribution for the PNL group, proceeded the year after, in 1889, to publish or at least write an introduction to a work containing a map (Argentine Counter-Memorial Plate No. 25) showing the group as Argentine—(this is discussed in paragraph 157 below).

Suggestion for the note on all images.

[29] The Latzina map of 1882 proved to be significant as it was created under the auspices of Señor Irigoyen, who had been previously responsible for negotiating the Boundary Treaty of 1881 with Chile. Due to his involvement, the significance of showing the islands as Chilean was deemed by the ICJ as a direct representation of Irigoyen's view of the boundaries between the two countries.

On this image:

Note: the originator of this image has indicated that the scanner used to digitalize this image did not accurately reproduce colours. The image itself is the scan of a plate from a document produced by the Chilean Government and is not a direct reproduction from the original map. Produced in 1979, the printing technology used in this document may have introduced errors in colour reproduction. Please refer to other versions below for comparison.

My photo already has a note:

The photo was taken with my old Panasonic TZ7 camera. This had some limitations imposed by the compression algorithm to reduce the file size and in Macro mode taking pictures of documents the JPEG compression could introduce artefacts not present in the original image. The photo was subsequently imported into GIMP and rotated to remove cant imparted by not framing the original properly and I trimmed the borders.

To remove personal comments, I propose instead:

Photo was taken with a Panasonic TZ7 camera in 2011. This digital compact camera only produces images in compressed quality format (JPEG). The compression algorithm could introduce artefacts not present in the original image; especially in Macro mode when taking pictures of documents. The photo was subsequently imported into GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program), rotated to remove cant imparted by errors in framing the original image and excess border trimmed. Please refer to other versions below for comparison.

Please note the sole reason I refrained from offering suggestions was on the advice of Abd. My photo was tagged [30] after I added a note about possible image errors introduced by compression techniques [31]. Tag could be taken as a tit for tat action because of this edit [32]. WCM_email 21:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Revent: After receiving no comment I went ahead and added the tags as discussed above. WCM_email 22:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: The descriptions, as they now stand, seem reasonable to me. I'll give it a few more days, though, just to make sure everyone has had a chance to look. Revent (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's probably worth making sure all of the copyright tagging is correct and consistent, probably {{PD-scan|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1922}}, since Latzina died that year, and that he is properly attributed everywhere as the author. Revent (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. What about the photo, do I need to do any more? WCM_email 23:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: See this edit, which makes it clear that it's a CC-licensed photo (by you) of a PD object. Other than that, it all looks okay to me... just want to see if anyone else still has issues. Revent (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

OK no worries, thanks for the help and advice. WCM_email 22:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, tough week here. Over all, new descriptions (both in content and order) are acceptable to me. However, I'd propose two changes:

1. In both images, first and second paragraph (being this last one based on the Beagle Channel Arbitration Report, per Revent's advice) are repeating information. Since the new description suggested above better reflects what's written on the report, I'd suggest removing original descriptions from both images.
2. Regarding why colors may be different in WCM's photographs, I'd guess it has more to do with color enhancement in digital cameras than JPG compression: [33][34][35] I'd add that possibility too. Langus-TxT (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. WCM_email 23:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted) Per request below.

@Langus-TxT: (sigh) Yeah, we really have no say (and, honestly, should not) about how people use material we host.... I don't know if that was actually written by WCM, and really don't care. Nothing about the 'real world' situation is going to be decided by anything on Commons, or even in the 'court of public opinion', obviously.... all that it can really accomplish is create more strife. What I care about is if you, and others, are happy with how the descriptions of the various file stand now, and if there is any kind of protection needed... it seems unlikely that this issue isn't going to resurface on Commons at some point, regardless of 'who' is stirring it back up, given the political situation. Revent (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with current descriptions. Regarding protection, I leave that decision up to editors mentioned above, trusting your experience. I'm ok either way. Langus-TxT (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Strongly suggest we redact that link. I'm only not doing it myself because Langus will cry blue murder if I do. On en.wiki we would call this en:WP:OUTING - a rule that applies equally whether the identification is accurate or not. I'm a little vague on the precise rule on Commons, but I do note that the page containing en:WP:OUTING is listed by the Commons blocking policy as a good reason for blocking editors - just as it would be on en.wiki. Kahastok talk 18:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Revent: Having just seen this could I request the above is redacted per en:WP:OUTING. I would suggest that the original idea of protection is followed through as I am certain there is likely to be further disruption. Regards, WCM_email 18:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Protection

(crossposted from COM:AN/P)

• File:Map of Argentina by Francisco Latzina, 1882.jpg
• File:Mapa geográfico de la Repùblica Argentina, 1882.jpg
• File:Latzina Map of Argentina 1882.jpg
• File:Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg

After an extended discussion at File talk:Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg, and with what appears to be the consensus of several editors involved with the past issues regarding this topic here and on other wikis, I've applied indefinite full-protection to these four files. For those unaware of the issue, this particular map has been at the heart of a political conflict that has gone on for decades now, and the general subject has been the center of much drama (including an enwiki ArbCom case). Because of the context, these particular images are unfortunately quite likely to be tarmpered with, if nothing else than by slanting the image descriptions to match a particular POV. We seem to have worked out something everyone can live with 'here', for now, and 'drive-by' edits making changes to the descriptions without discussion would be highly counterproductive, unfortunately. Revent (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)