Wikipedia

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 22

< Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Kahastok in topic Timeline correction
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Reorganize by *Date* instead of by *Country*

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

To increase readability, I'm proposing to reorganize the Historical Basis section from "by country" to "by year." Currently, the layout is:

  • French
  • Spanish
  • British
  • Argentine
  • Sovereignty Dispute
  • War
  • Post-war

My proposed outline would be: (or something similar, if you have other ideas)

  • 1690-1774 Early settlements
  • 1774-1811 De facto Spanish rule
  • 1811-1829 Unoccupied
  • 1829-1833 Resettlement
  • 1833-1982 De facto British rule
  • 1982 Falklands War
  • 1982-Present Post war disputes

Note that only the pre-1833 information is being reorganized; the post-1833 stuff would remain the same. Also, no content changes would be made - just moving things around.

Personally, I had a really hard time understanding the pre-1833 timeline, so I think something should be done. Thanks!!

Armadillo1985 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd oppose that suggestion, if you try to do it on a timeline basis you will end up in a mire of POV warriors trying to insert various national claims or give additional prominence to current events. I'd agree the article could be improved but every attempt to do so is blocked with bad faith editing. I speak with the voice of experience. WCMemail 06:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
That's fine - we can leave it alone for now. I wouldn't want to start a huge edit war, and I trust the judgement of those more experienced than me. Armadillo1985 (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Source Reliable?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[1] is this source reliable for the claim "The Argentine settlers left peacefully but under protest, and Argentina has argued ever since that the Falklands were illegally taken by force." This is also a potential copyvio per Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#Can_I_copy_if_I_change_the_text_a_little_bit? and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, since it is almost a verbatim quote. As a copyvio it should probably be removed.

The article is actually about the imposition of economic sanctions and its not directly related to this topic. Noting the following sources, contradict this comment (collapsed for readability):

extended discussion on sources

Contemporary accounts

Captain Onslow's report and orders are in the British Archive at Kew Gardens. Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow, and several different versions of Onslow’s report on his visit to Port Louis, are in PRO Adm 1/2276, and in PRO FO 6 500, pp. 96 (orders), and 116-124 (Onslow’s report as sent to British chargé d’affaires Philip Gore in Buenos Aires; Onslow's orders were clear.


Onslow's report documents his efforts to persuade them to stay, many wanted to leave as the Falklands were a harsh place to live and the Gaucho's had not been paid since Vernet's departue in 1831.



Pinedo (An Argentine source)From Pinedo’s testimony at his trial later in 1833, AGN Sala VII, Legajo 60, p. 22: “… los habitantes que quisiesen voluntariamente quedan, que serian respetados ellos y sus propriedades como anteriormente…”) corroborates this:


I ask you to note that the two eye witness accounts corroborate.

The Complete Works of Charles Darwin online includes the diaries of both Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy. HMS Beagle visited the settlement in March 1833 and again the following year. In March 1833, Fitzroy documents his meeting with Matthew Brisbane, Vernet's deputy, who had returned to take charge of Vernet's business interests. Fitzroy also documents his efforts to persuade the settlers to continue in the islands. Both Darwin and Fitzroy document their meetings with the settlers supposedly expelled 3 months earlier.

Brisbane brought one Thomas Helsby who also kept a diary and documented the residents of Port Louis. Residents of Port Louis This pretty much co-incides with Pinedo's account in January 1833. All without exception members of Vernet's settlement.

There is also Thomas Helsby's accounts of the Gaucho murders, when disgruntled Gaucho's ran amok and murdered Vernet's representatives.

Neutral

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.


I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.


Empahsis added

Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.


Emphasis added

Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.



Gunter (1979)


Metford (1968)


Royle (1985)


Dickinson (1994)


Goebel (1927)


Cawkell (1983)


Destefani (1982)

David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Source for the British Government position

[2] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Source for the Argentine Government position

[3] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands


Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do.

Not to mention the schizophrenic nature of what Argentina claims.

[4]



On the one hand its claiming the settlers were expelled, in the same document it refers to the settlers left in the islands.

Given that there is overwhelming documentation to show this is incorrect, why should we persist in sticking with a sourced statement that is incorrect? WCMemail 11:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the claim - this is the expulsion myth that has been repeatedly debunked. The source used uses this as background and does not discuss the point in detail, as it is mostly dealing with later events. WCM's sources above are actually discussing this point and demonstrate that it is not accurate - a fact tacitly acknowledged by the Argentine side when they discuss the later Gaucho murders. The point as written also contradicted the previous section (which said - accurately - that the British plans centred on maintaining the existing colony, not on creating a new one).
However, this leaves this point entirely missing from the history section, and I don't think that's necessarily the right way to do it either. Though it is not accurate, this is a prominent claim made by the Argentine side that should probably be mentioned (and debunked as required) rather than just ignored as per my current revision. Kahastok talk 12:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
A suggestion:

References

  1. ^ "FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS), GIBRALTAR, AMERICAN SAMOA DISCUSSED IN CARIBBEAN REGIONAL SEMINAR ON DECOLONIZATION - Meetings Coverage and Press Releases (UN Press Release)". United Nations.
  2. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2011-05-31. Retrieved 2008-10-07. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
  3. ^ Angel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 38. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3.
  4. ^ Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012. Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis.
  5. ^ Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012. Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina
  6. ^ Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012. On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison.
  7. ^ Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012. Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis.
  8. ^ J. Metford; Falklands or Malvinas? The background to the dispute. International Affairs, Vol 44 (1968), pp. 463–481."Much is made in successive presentations of the Argentine case of the next episode in the history of the islands: the supposed fact that Great Britain 'brutally' and 'forcefully' expelled the Argentine garrison in 1833. The record is not nearly so dramatic. After the commander of the Lexington had declared, in December 1831, the Falklands 'free of all government', they remained without any visible authority. However, in September 1832, the Buenos Aires Government appointed, in place of Vernet, an interim commandant, Juan Mestivier. The British representative immediately lodged a protest, but Mes- tivier sailed on the Sarandi at the end of the year to take charge of a penal settlement at San Carlos, his Government's reserve on East Falkland. There was a mutiny, led by a sergeant of the garrison, and Mestivier was murdered. At this juncture, on January 11, 1833, H.M. sloop Clio arrived at Puerto de la Soledad when Pinedo, the commander of the Sarandi and 25 soldiers were attempting to re-establish order. The so called 'brutal' eviction is laconically recorded in Captain Onslow's log: Tuesday 1 Jany. 1833. P.M. Mod. with rain 12.20 shortened sails and came to Port Louis (Soledad), Berkeley Sound ... found here a Buenos Ayrean flag flying on shore. 2.30 out boats. 3 furled sails. 5.30 Moored ship . . . Wednesday Jany. 2. Moored at Port Louis A.M. Mod. cloudy ... loosed sails and landed a party of marines and seamen and hoisted the Union Jack and hauled down the Buenos Ayrean flag and sent it on board the schooner to the Commandante. Sailmaker repairing the Main top Gallant sails.... In the interval between these two entries, Onslow had 'civilly' (his report) told Pinedo that he had come 'to exercise the right of sovereignty' on the islands and asked him to haul down his flag on shore. Pinedo protested, but said that if the Buenos Aires flag were allowed to fly until January 5, he would leave with his soldiers and anyone else who wished to go. When Onslow proved adamant, Pinedo agreed to embark his soldiers, but he left his flag flying on shore. This was why Onslow sent it to him by one of the Clio's officers. Pinedo sailed on January 4 and was later punished by the Buenos Aires Government for failing to offer any resistance"
  9. ^ Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. p. 91. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos
  10. ^ Marjory Harper (1998). Emigration from Scotland Between the Wars: Opportunity Or Exile?. Manchester University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-7190-4927-9.

Gaps in sovereignty protests by Argentina

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Sovereignty dispute section states that "In International Law, territorial claims are usually considered defunct if there is a gap of 50 years or more between protests over sovereignty." If the dates of Argentinian protests given in the fourth bullet point in the Current claims section are correct, then the gaps between the protests are:

1833 - 1841, 8 years; 1841 - 1849, 8 years; 1849 - 1884, 35 years; 1884 - 1888, 4 years; 1888 - 1908, 20 years; 1908 - 1927, 19 years; 1927 - 1933, 6 years; 1933 - 1946, 13 years; 1946 onwards, 1 year.

Before 1833 Great Britain did not have complete de facto control of the islands at any time.

So, at no time has there been a 50-year gap. Should this not be made clear in the text? I would like to get consensus on this before editing the page because this is a contentious subject. Does anyone have comments on this or want to suggest a form of words?

10:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)10:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)~~ Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.142.150 (talk)

I would be curious to see the detail of the 50-year claim and have requested a quote from the source. I would have said that 50 years is a very long time to forget about a claim for it still to be potentially valid. But obviously we need something more than that before we can go against the source.
We can't add in a text as you describe because it would be original research - because the point is at best disputed. I am not aware of a (reliable) source that concludes that there was never a period of less than 50 years between protests, the Argentine claim never lapsed. I am aware of biased sources that claim that there was such a period and that the Argentine claim did lapse, but would certainly not support adding such a claim in Wikipedia's voice based on those sources.
When dealing with this, remember that the timeline of protests is disputed. As per the history section, the British argue that they received no protests over the Falklands between the 1880s and 1940s - a period of well over 50 years - but Argentina claims a number of intermediate dates as you describe. Neither of these claims can necessarily be taken at face value, as each side is likely to seek to include or exclude protests in a way that favours its own position. Kahastok talk 17:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Could you identify the protests in 1908, 1927, 1933 and 1946 please?
As far as I'm aware there were no protests to the British Government between 1888 and 1941. There are various Argentine documents that attempt to fill in the gap by inferring other acts were protests, e.g. claiming that Argentina was responsible for VD in the Falklands at a conference on sexually transmitted diseases. WCMemail 13:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

"Transplanted population"

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

User:Roger 8 Roger wishes to change the "current claims" section so that it says:


This removes the specific attribution of the latter part of the claim to Argentina.

The claim being attributed to Argentina here is that the principle of self-determination does not apply. If the phrase "the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine" is not attributed to Argentina, then we are treating it as a fact provided in Wikipedia's voice.

In practice, reliable sources (per many previous discussions) demonstate that this is at best highly skewed and at worst plain inaccurate (as it relies on the expulsion myth). I content that making Argentine claims in Wikipedia's voice, when we know that they are inaccurate or misleading, is strongly biased and hence entirely inappropriate.

I am happy for the attribution of this claim to Argentina to be reworded on done in another way (other points handle this by repeated use of the word "that"), but I think some form of attribution must remain for us to maintain WP:NPOV. Kahastok talk 09:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you read what I said in my edit note? I assume from the above comment that you did not. The article comment already IS attributed to Argentina because it is in a list of claims made by Argentina. Attributing it a second time is not only unnecessary it reads as hammering home a POV. This has nothing at all to do with the validity or not of the statement and the only thing any reliable source needs to do is confirm that that is the Argentinian claim, not whether it is right or wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I did read it and I do not agree with it. Shall I assume that the fact that you do not agree with my assessment means that you did not read it?
The text in the article in your version does not attribute this specific point to Argentina. Per my above, it says that Argentina claims that "principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question", and then treats the claim that the "current inhabitants are a "transplanted population"" as an underlying uncontroversial fact.
There are ways around this - and I accept that the existing consensus text is clumsy and could be improved - but we neutrally allow this to go in Wikipedia's voice without any form of attribution at all. Kahastok talk 09:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I have looked again at the article and how it reads. Although I can see an argument for stating the latter part of the sentence is not connected to the section heading, that argument is weak. The sentence as a whole comes under the heading as does everything else in the list. I would even say it is not realistically even ambiguous. Rewording this sub section might improve it slightly, but in no better way, IMO, than simply removing the repeated attribution to Argentina. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you're ruling out even considering anything other than your original edit, which is unacceptable to me, then I think we have very little to discuss. I mean, we can carry on stating opposing views until the cows come home, but it would be a waste of time for both of us.
Bear in mind though that the burden of consensus is on you here. The status quo wording, including the attribution will remain until there is consensus for something else, and there is clearly not consensus at this time for your edit.
Alternatively, we can start discussing other wordings that can achieve consensus by resolving both our concerns. Kahastok talk 11:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

To move on from this specific point of difference, which I think is only part of a wider concern about this article, a wider discussion on improving the article would be more productive, certainly one involving the wider audience You suggest a discussion about better wording (of this sentence), but I am suggesting another look at the entire article, specifically its structure, which is causing many of the problems I can see with this article, including its tone. One example is the infobox. Well constructive and informative though it is, what it shows is something that is important to the UK position, but not important to the Argentine position. Lack of balance? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that it's not really an infobox, I find it interesting that you think that a timeline of the history is "important to the UK position, but not important to the Argentine position".
If anything, it's the other way around.
It is the Argentine position that so strongly emphasises the importance of the history of the dispute. The long period of Spanish occupation and the periods of Argentine control before 1833 are absolutely fundamental to Argentina's modern case for sovereignty. Perhaps no surprise then that British-biased histories traditionally ignore those periods completely.
The British position is that the most important point is self-determination for the modern population. While they would argue that the history favours their position, the British would ultimately see the events of 1764-1833 as being ancient history, with little modern relevance.
Now, the box is putting facts, summarising the history section, without particularly emphasising the important historical points on either side. I don't see any significant NPOV problem with that. But if it were felt to be overemphasising the history, that would demonstrate bias in favour of Argentina, not Britain. Kahastok talk 21:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong conclusion drawn from source?

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Under French settlement it say: France was the first country to establish de facto control in the Falkland Islands, with the foundation of Port Saint Louis in East Falkland by French explorer Louis Antoine de Bougainville, in 1764.[1] The citation is Calvert. But, Calvert says: Goebel argues (5) that the declaration makes the subsequent British act of annexation invalid and of no legal effect. But the very fact that the British settlement took place unhindered is the clearest possible evidence that French occupation was not effective over other islands in the group, and, given the numbers involved, probably not as far as the island of East Falkland itself was concerned. He uses this line to dismiss the validity of the Argentine claim that sovereignty was transferred by France to Spain. This Calvert reference IMO is therefore being totally misunderstood and misused. This affects not just this section but the whole article, including the timeline template, called 'de facto control'. I will try to rearrange this sub-section but I am not sure how simple that will be. Comments welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As we are not using it as a source for that conclusion but only for when France too control, not it is not being misused.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

How come? The article said France had control over the islands; the source used says it did not have control (and therefore could not cede them to Spain). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

For a start its not Calvert who says it, its Calvert saying Goebel says it. Secondly the fact they did not control every island does not mean they were no in Defacto control of the islands, in fact the source says they had no legal or valid claim. Not that they were not in defacto (I.E. not officially recognized by laws) control of the islands until the British demonstrated the weakness of that control.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The source used is Calvert, so Calvert says it, even if Calvert refers to Goebels. Calvert does not quote Goebels but uses his, Calvert's, words, making the whole thing a RSS by Calvert. Not controlling every island is not the argument being used, which is that the French lack of control was demonstrated by France's failure to contest the British settlement at Port Egmont, or even to know about it. Such a situation, says Calvert, would not have occurred had France had effective control. Incidentally, please check because I thingde facto, does not mean what you say it means. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

When we use the phrase de facto control in this era, we need to be quite careful with our prepositions. Not de facto control over the islands, but on or in the islands, i.e. over some area of the islands. That's also how we end up with overlapping de facto control during some periods.
As I believe I've mentioned before, the early settlements (until well after 1833) generally had very few inhabitants and little capacity to exercise control beyond the boundaries of their own settlements and settlers. It is difficult to argue that any of them had de facto control over the islands as a whole except by default. But they still exercised de facto control on the islands - even during the periods where there were two such settlements.
That said, I do not object to your edit, though I prefer "foundation" over "founding". Kahastok talk 17:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think de facto is a commonly used phrase on wikipedia that I agree is not always given the care it needs. I agree with your mention of 'at that time'. The phrase is often used inappropriately in an anachronistic way. I am no expert on international law but my understanding of Calvert's argument is to have 'ownership rights' over newly discovered land you needed to have other countries accept your ownership (eg by mutual agreement, who first raised a flag), or you establish effective control. Effective control means being able to assert your authority in a few fundamentally important ways, such as determining who lives there and the ability to levy and collect tax. Calvert IMO is saying that neither of these ways existed then: the French settlement was not accepted by Britain, whether or not Britain knew about it, and neither did the settlement have the effective control needed to establish ownership. Although not quite the same, another example of this with some similarities occurred in NZ in 1840 when a French settlement began at Akaroa. Unknown to the French, Britain had signed the Treaty of Waitangi while the French were en route. As soon as the British learned of the settlement, which was grounded on land purchased by the French, Britain intervened (ie established control) by getting the French settlers to cede all ownership rights. That to me is an example of what having effective control means, something that did not happen in the Falklands in 1767. Another point I think Calvert raises, as you did too, but does not expand on is that we need to be careful about looking at this through the eyes of contemporary people. It would have been quite possible to split the archipelago between two authorities, as happened in very many places elsewhere. The Caribbean islands is a classic example. Here [5] is a much earlier discussion on this topic. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Article off track

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This article is called Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. To begin, the lead does not say what makes up the dispute but it does strongly hint that it is about the length of occupancy and what the islanders want. This amounts to the UK's strongest bargaining counter: self-determination, or its interpretation of UN 1514, creating imbalanced editorialising. The lead in full is here --

Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) is disputed by Argentina and the United Kingdom.
The British claim to sovereignty dates from 1690, and the United Kingdom has exercised de facto sovereignty over the archipelago almost continuously since 1833. Argentina has long disputed this claim, having been in control of the islands for a few years prior to 1833. The dispute escalated in 1982, when Argentina invaded the islands, precipitating the Falklands War.
Contemporary Falkland Islanders overwhelmingly prefer to remain British. They gained full British citizenship with the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, after British victory in the Falklands War.

Next, a third of the article under 'historic basis of the dispute' is an extended mix of the six other articles mentioned at the start of the section, complemented by a tidy timeline chart of de facto control which, due to the length of the UK line, harks back to UN 1514, the UK strong point. There is then a sizable section on the war before we finally get to some detail about the dispute itself, taking up about a tenth of the article. The final third is the references etc.

I suggest that the article should concentrate on the issues involved (the part two thirds in) which is what the article is supposed to be about, and heavily crop reference to history and the war. Reference to history cannot of course be avoided, but it should be kept to a minimum and used only where necessary to clarify reference to any legal points about the sovereignty claims. Yes, I know this has been suggested before and rejected, but that does not mean it is wrong. If there is consensus on that then it will be easier to iron out other areas such as the lead. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead is horribly biased, it it selectively presents information favourable to UK, and leaves the whole Argentine claim and position as a big question mark. Dentren | Talk 16:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
As I said before, the reality is that the history is absolutely critical to understanding this dispute. Without a good understanding of the historical background to the dispute, you cannot possibly make sense of the current claims or reach any sane conclusions about them.
And it's specifically Argentina's case that relies so heavily on the history. Not Britain's. Downplaying the history would bias the article toward the British, not the Argentines, because the principal British arguments don't rely on the history.
Now, if you believe that the fact that most of the contentious historical events in question were in the 1820s and 1830s undermines Argentina's case, you are of course welcome to come to that conclusion. But let us be clear that that is your conclusion, not the article's. The article does not state or imply this, except when explicitly describing the British arguments. The fact that a pertinent fact, stated neutrally, might appear to some users to undermine the position of one side is not a reason not to include that fact.
(FTR, I believe I expressed the same reservation about the graphical timeline when it was added. I accepted it despite this reservation because it was supported by Argentine and Latin American users - who clearly didn't see any issue with it.) Kahastok talk 18:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Kahstok the addition of the graphical timeline was opposed by myself and other editors. The editors who insisted in be included were Argentine, per my usual practise I refused to enter into a revert war with them when I tried to remove it and they tag teamed to keep it. Similarly the article lede is poor, limited to listing a few facts. It's currently in that state as a group of Argentine editors edited it, after failing to gain consensus to include an extended discourse on the Argentine claim. Those commenting about an alleged bias in the article should check their facts before bandying such unhelpful comments around. WCMemail 12:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a useful comment on the background. Yesterday I looked again at the article at what it was that did not seem to work. Although it is tempting to structure it around each country's claim, and the timeline template fits in with that, the issues get lost because they are not specific to only one country. I looked back to the very beginning and saw the timeline approach came in very early. For example, based on recent edits, the question of occupation/control of/settlement is a fundamental issue in this dispute that IMO should be addressed in a section of its own that focuses on international law. If we take that line it means the whole article will need to be rearranged, probably with lengthy discussion here first. Another example where an issue is not addressed on its own is the 3,000 people living there. I am certain that very many people see the Argentine position on this as illogical and contrary to commonsense and international law. That issue deserves a section of its own. Anyway, are you saying WCM that there may now be a consensus growing for a changed structure? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I missed your reply and never responded. I've long thought this article needs a major rewrite, the structure is terrible, the claims section has become bloated with material that in many cases doesn't belong there. But I think you will find it difficult as there are many POV warriors around who will fight to keep material in there. It may be better to go with the big bang approach - move the article to a sandput and work as a team to rebuild it. WCMemail 09:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the Beck Quote

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've removed the Beck quote but to explain I thought I'd add a note in talk. For protests to be effective in International Law, they have to be made Government to Government. To cover up the rather large gap various authors have embellished various incidents as "protests". So for example, the postal union, the claims made at conferences on sexually transmitted diseases (I kid you not) have all been cited by various authors as "protests".

If we're going to include such quotes, the WP:NPOV would demand that we also include examples where statements by various Argentine officials can be described as acquiescing to British sovereignty.

I also reverted to add back the Argentine government has claimed the population was expelled. Referring to the Wayback Machine, the Argentine government has changed it's official page since to only mention the garrison. This was done rather quietly after decades of being the official position, since the publication of "Getting it right" by Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe. If you want you could change the cite to refer to the Ruda speech at the United Nations, where this claim was first made. WCMemail 07:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Added Ruda cite. WCMemail 13:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Kohen and Rodriguez

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Two reverts of this external link today, one here. Okay, so what's the problem? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It didn't work, I checked it out and I'm not sure what you did but it wasn't working. My question would be why single out one book that has come in for a lot of criticism? WCMemail 23:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The link works fine for me. Perhaps there is some obvious problem with the link I have overlooked. If the link is broken then anyone can find it simply with a google search. I added it because it seemed pretty relevant to me in claiming to be a reply to P&P, a document that makes very good and specific claims supporting the UK position, and which is used in various wiki articles. The K&R document therefore seems to be no more than creating balance. It is also IMO relevant because it too deals with specifics about the Argentine case, something lacking so far. I can well see how it has come in for criticism: a quick look at some parts of the document does bring up some questionable reasoning, from two supposedly high up academics. I have singled out this document because I came across it. I do not know of anything else that deals with the same issues,and in such depth, as this one. Are there others available? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Mmm, I went back and checked and all that results is an XML error. My problem with that document is that as you've noticed has questionable reasoning and a great deal of errors. Rather than a work of history it is a polemic attacking the two authors of an influential paper (it's also a history book written by lawyers taking an advocates position). The fact checking in the book is dubious, for example they attack P&P for a document that was produced in the United Nations, which they didn't even write. Linking to an Amazon page is vulnerable to link rot due to the way Amazon runs it's website. The book is also self-published and as an WP:SPS we would not recommend it's use on wikipedia.
As an aside Graham Pascoe has just published a rebuttal that I am currently reading. But equally that is self-published so it's not something I would recommend for sourcing, although Pepper and Pascoe could arguably fall into the expert commentary category. I doubt you could make the same claim for Kohen and Rodriguez, they don't research history they regurgitate the commentary of authors such as Caillet-Bois and do rather depend on Argentine revisionist works that were ruled as unreliable in an arbcom case.
Finally, I'm not aware of anything that is sourced to P&P of any great consequence, since their paper was published we have seen a campaign from Argentine editors that it should not be used. WCMemail 08:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
At least part of my reasoning for removing it was that it was explicitly included as a rebuttal to Pascoe and Pepper's "Getting it Right", on pages that do not otherwise refer to "Getting it Right" in any way.
Also, per WP:ELPOV, we should "avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view". In this case the proposed section had one link so the balance of POV was entirely on the side taken by that link. If we were to link Pascoe and Pepper, you can be sure that there would be howls of outrage from the Argentine contingent here.
And I'm also not sure it's neutral to link an argument, and the rebuttal, unless we then include all subsequent rebuttals to rebuttals. And if we do that, the section could clearly then get out of hand. Kahastok talk 17:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw a fairly major rewrite yesterday that in part was based on this book. As an WP:SPS, it is not a WP:RS that can be used on Wikipedia. The rest was merely uncited. As such I have removed it. @Kahastok:, @Roger 8 Roger: for info. WCMemail 07:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

About the Nootka convention

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

This has probably been raised before, but here goes anyway. From my quick reading of articles 4 and 6, it appears they have been misinterpreted. The South seas referred then, and usually still does, to the Pacific Ocean, in its entirety back in the 16thC. and later especially to the southern part of that ocean. Article 4 cannot therefore refer to the Falklands. Article 4 defines an off-shore area (for fishing reasons) as ten leagues off the coast. To me that shows the thinking of the persons writing this treaty about what constituted islands adjacent to the coast of south america as mentioned in article 6. The Falklands is nowhere close to ten leagues off the coast. The current Chilean, and then Spanish, off-shore islands down the Pacific coast would seem to be a much more obvious reason for that article 6 reference. Furthermore, it looks as though Spain was acknowledging that continental land south of its southernmost settlement was terra nullius. (Cannot immediately remember what was the southern most settlement in 1790). Anyway, this subsection needs a clean up: it is not referenced despite a request tag dating back many years. If I have misread these clauses I am happy to be proved wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The southernmost settlement on the east coast would have been Viedma if the islands are not included, or Puerto Soledad if they are. Obviously, Puerto Soledad is a long way south of Viedma, so the choice makes a fairly major difference. On the west coast, Spain's southernmost settlement was Chiloé.
This sort of question - and the points you raise - demonstrate that the convention is very open to interpretation, IMO, and we need to be very careful about interpreting it per WP:PRIMARY.
FTR I'd suggest you correct the phrase In a secret article it was stated that this was conditional on no third party settling there either, in which "there" now appears to refer to Vancouver Island. Kahastok talk 10:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
If RS say it so do we. We do not do analysis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Roger's interpretation is correct and as an analysis is repeated in other documents by academics. The Nootka claims are a really poor argument on Argentina's part. However, wikipedia being an encyclopedia simply reports the arguments made by both sides.


Is a quite neutral summary. This article itself is a bit of a mess and has needed a clean up for some time. I've added a cite where one was requested. WCMemail 10:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
No issue with what we say, but I do not think we can alter it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the quick replies. I will now reword my earlier sentence as requested. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
For anyone else reading this, I got the text of article 4 here [6] from Kohen and Rodriguez, and noted their comment which says: "The prohibition is crystal clear, as is the fact that at the moment the Treaty was signed, Spain was in sole possession of the Falklands/Malvinas. By that time, Spain had already appointed the 13th Governor of the Malvinas. The prohibition undoubtedly included the Falkland/Malvinas islands, a fact recognised by Pascoe and Pepper." Crystal clear about what? The Pacific? Yes, it is crystal clear that it applies to the Pacific and the South-Seas, to those 'said seas'. They then link it to the Falklands by saying that this undoubtedly applies to the Falklands?? Isn't this sloppy reasoning at best or simply telling fibs at worst? Isn't Kohen meant to be a professor? It was after reading this part of K&R last night that I decided to post here in case I had missed something obvious. Pleased to have my concerns vindicated. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Kohen is a lawyer not a historian, Rodriguez is also a lawyer and very committed to the Malvinist cause. The book is not a history, in fact they simply regurgitated old and in many cases long debunked Argentine arguments; an example would be the claim that the Falklands were discovered by Amerigo Vespucci, when it has long been known the Soderini letter upon which it is based is a fake. The book is a polemic and a rather nasty attack on two academics that wrote an influential paper on Falklands history. A recurring theme in the book is their claim to have debunked Pepper/Pascoe when in fact all they did is assert they did so. As far as academic standards, the first version included a number of photos of "historical" documents to illustrate the book, except a number turned out to be Photoshopped. I remain surprised that Kohen put his name to it, it was obviously written by Rodriguez and would never pass muster in any academic setting outside of Argentina. As a WP:SPS it is something whose use should be very much discouraged on Wikipedia; particularly as Argentine editors have fought bitterly to have any mention of Pepper/Pascoe removed from Wikipedia. WCMemail 06:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
"Furthermore, it looks as though Spain was acknowledging that continental land south of its southernmost settlement was terra nullius." No it doesn't. It rather looks like the Convention set up a condominium in that particular territory with equal rights for Spain and Britain while excluding third parties; no terra nullius that anyone may occupy. Apcbg (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Consequences after Brexit

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

It seems that European Union no longer recognize the Falklands as British territory nor support the UK in the islands after the UK abandoned the EU: https://penguin-news.com/headlines/politics/2021/falklands-disappointed-and-frustrated-with-brexit-deal/ --190.183.23.139 (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Does this belong here? Your sentence is misleading too without further explanation. Whatever, the link with any sovereignty dispute is tenuous to say the least. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The European Union excluded the Falkland Islands from this agreement following UK's brexit: https://polarjournal.ch/en/2020/12/28/eu-uk-agreement-without-falkland-islands/ --181.9.176.125 (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither reference support the claim being made and having just looked at the current article, it describes the current situation accurately and neutrally. WCMemail 07:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Another sources I have found: [7] [8] --181.9.176.125 (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Still doesn't contradict what the article currently says and doesn't reflect the edit proposed. WCMemail 08:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Other sources: [9] and [10] ... I will try to add more sources until I found an reilable source. I'm very newcomer on this. --181.9.176.125 (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This is all about the British Overseas Territories, including the FI, losing certain trading rights with the EU after Brexit, rights they held when Britain was a member. It has nothing to do with any sovereignty dispute. Reference to "Will Britain lose the Falklands after Brexit" is speculative nonsense. Those sources appear to be low quality. Look at source 4 - it seems to be quoting from wiki articles, is written in poor English and reads like someone's personal blog. If you are new to this take a look at RSS and CITE and other similar pages. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of date anyway, since the EU has already fudged the issue and said it won't apply tariffs to the catch of the Spanish fleet operating in the Falklands. WCMemail 10:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Probably that anonymous user was referring to this: https://www.lapoliticaonline.com/amp/131271-brexit-aftermath-eu-to-stop-recognizing-falkland-islands-as-british-overseas-territory/... and finally he put another thing. --190.183.23.99 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The headline does not match the content of the article there. The article says that Argentina called for the EU to stop recognising the Falklands as a British Overseas Territory. Which, frankly, is the sort of thing that happens so frequently that it is barely newsworthy, and certainly not worth including here. Kahastok talk 16:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Date Title Card Appears Incorrect. Changes Adviced.

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Good Evening, I'm not normally a Wikipedia editor but as someone who has been studying the dispute leading to the eventual conflict in 1982 for a dissertation, I have noticed that the dates of the first French landings and end of French sovereignty in the date/timeline card on the right is incorrect. The source cited states that "he took formal possession of the island on 5 April 1764 on behalf of France and sailed for home" and that the "French claim was formally transferred to Spain on 25 February 1767, in return for an indemnity equivalent to £24,000". However, in the date card, the months are the wrong way round. Is it possible there was a mix up of dates that has been overlooked?

Regards, Techiejt Techiejt (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Update: I have changed the dates of French occupation and the beginning of Spanish occupation as described in my above text to accurately reflect the source.
Source:
Peter Calvert – International Affairs Volume 59 Issue 3 (July 1983)
https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/59/3/405/2405577 Techiejt (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Good morning and well done in seeing that. Your quote of Calvert saying that France transferred sovereignty to Spain should be qualified by what he says later and which is a key point in the article: "Again, unfortunately, the facts are not so simple, for Spain did not choose to regard the actions of 1767 at the time as an act of cession." Therefore, no transfer of sovereignty took place. All Bougainville did was accept that Spain already had sovereignty. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

De Jure

Latest comment: 1 year ago30 comments7 people in discussion

I find it slightly irritating when I find this term "de jure" used in contexts like this, where multiple legal interpretations exist and the dispute is essentially about sovereignty. De jure vs de facto is only a meaningful concept if there is a clearly-defined "de jure" interpretation, e.g. "Sucre is the de jure capital of Bolivia, while La Paz is the de facto capital". Obviously in this instance, both Argentina and the UK have different ideas about who is "de jure" the rightful claimant to these islands. Furthermore, international law (at least as far as the US and EU are concerned) according to the article has no opinion on the matter. Therefore the UK is de facto in control, but de jure is disputed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Why did you also remove defaco? Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: I didn't think that was necessary either in the absence of "de jure", but if you want to reinstate "de facto" then that's fine. I have no objection to that part.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I suggest we leave it as the long-standing version until the is an agreement for any change. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: No, I suggest we don't do that because it's inaccurate, as I've pointed out above and you don't seem to have refuted it. We don't need "agreement" to remove something that fails WP:V and is also inaccurate. So once again, please explain why I'm wrong.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
That is not how we do things, you need to get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
[[11]], "e, the United Kingdom has de jure, and de facto, control of the Falkland Islands, ". Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
That's not a reliable source. The "Model United Nations" is a process that exists for students to try their hands at international diplomacy in a mock environment. Nothing said or decided there is in any way guaranteed to be based on actual law. Furthermore, the same document you cite says "it is recognised by the international community as the lawful controller of the archipelago", something which this very article contradcits, with the lines "the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders" while the US and the EU are explicitly state as taking "no position over their sovereignty".  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
It's more subtle than that. De jure in international law has not always the same significance as in municipal law (as in the Bolivia example). De jure is not necessarily about what State "really" owns a disputed territory, but about what State is currently recognised as responsible for adminstering it. This status confers onerous obligations (e.g. to protect nationals of a third State) as well as rights. In that sense, the United Kingdom-appointed government of the Falkland Islands is undoubtedly the de jure government. Ttocserp 13:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The EU does in fact recognize it as UK territory [[12]], so stop with the OR. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Then why does our article here say the EU has no position on the sovereignty? Something is amiss here...  — Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is (as pointed out by Ttocserp) because it is a very complex issue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
That you find it irritating is your problem, it is also your problem using WP:OR to justify removing material. I fully realised WP:BRD is an essay not policy but whenever a bold edit is reverted it is a bad idea to then immediately revert without using the talk page. Seeing several rapid reverts I would imagine many admins would have been tempted to impose a block, so I would strongly suggest this is a learning experience to avoid picking up a block.
My own view, informed by recourse to the prevailing view in sources is that De Jure is not POV about who "really" owns a territory but recognition of the state that currently administers it. Even the UN recognises the UK as the administrating power [13]. I don't see removal citing WP:NPOV as a valid reason for removing such content as a result. I'm more than willing to consider other reasons why to remove such phrasing but not convinced the reason cited is a valid one. WCMemail 14:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
This appears to be backwards. How can it can't be WP:OR on my part to remove an uncited statement? It could only be OR to keep it in, if a citation can't be supplied and at worst, my edit is removing content which is correct. Per WP:V, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material". If the Falklands are de jure part of the UK, then high-quality sources are needed that say that. Otherwise, WP is effectively taking sides in an international dispute, which I doubt is the intention. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
You are changing arguments now, you never claimed previously it was unverified, in any case I have provided a UN cite that backs up my position. And no WP is not taking sides in an international dispute, no matter how unpalatable certain facts are in some quarters. Rather removal would be taking sides by not reporting facts a party in the dispute dislikes. I never find it encouraging when someone tries to quibble about their sub-optimal conduct to justify it. The correct response should be "yes I shouldn't have edit warred but I think we should change this because...(reasons)". WCMemail 14:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

OK we have sources that say it, lets just add them as cites. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

[14] I also note that this is a long standing consensus that has stood since 2017 and given the volume of ardent Argentine nationalists we have visiting this page find it surprising that it none has previously made such a comment that its "favouring" the British position. WCMemail 14:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
It has still been challenged and any challendged content must be sourced, those are the rules. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
What are the sources? So far I haven't seen high-quality sources that attest to be the islands being de jure UK territory internationally. And given the article's assertion about countries staying neutral, I doubt such a source exists. And to be honest seeing that 2017 edit just makes it even odd to me that the "de jure" thing even exists at all. The caption originally correctly said that the UK enjoys "de facto" control, until an editor with no user page, and very few recent edits on the project decided to swing by and add "de jure" with no other explanation whatsoever. It may have stayed that way for five years with nobody noticing, but that doesn't make it correct.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
And bear in mind I have no skin in this game. Maybe I lean towards favouring the UK position, being from that country myself, but that's irrelevant here. Our job is to present accurate and neutral information.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware it has been challenged, the UN source above is authoritative that the UK is the internationally recognised administering power. You might like to look at the contribution history of that editor, before you suggest their editing is partisan in favour of the UK. WCMemail 16:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
That is not the same thing at all. The "administering power" is basically a formal way of saying who's de facto in charge, that's not making any comment on whether it's a legal arrangement. I'm not implying that the editor in question was partisan in particular, how would I know that, I'm just saying it was a drive-by, undiscussed change with no rationale attached, which suddenly everybody's lining up to defend to the hilt, even though I've explained several times why it seems questionable.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
By way of initial comment without much detailed thought, I have always been slightly uncomfortable with what I see as the over use throughout WP of the terms de jure and de facto. My personal view on this article is that it has an inherent slant towards the UK side and this de jure issue is an example of that. Is it necessary to hjave it there? It could be seen as trying to ram home the point that they are British and don't anyone dare suggest otherwise. Thus, although I can see merit to both sides of this argument, I think there is no real need to have the phrase there, where its use is correct or not. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree on 2 points.
1. As noted by more than 1 editor, de jure does not have the narrow meaning attached to it by Amakuru. There isn't a POV issue, there isn't a sourcing issue, it wasn't a partisan edit.
2. I don't see the article as having any pro-British or pro-Argentine slant. It's badly written because nationalist editing (on both sides) has shoe horned in lots of extraneous comment. I'd love to be able to pull a team of editors to craft a well sourced and neutral article but I can't see that happening right now.
That said, the particular edit in question is putting two latin terms into picture caption, without explaining what they mean or without a wikilink to explain them is not serving our readers. Having looked at the edits of the editor in question, I don't see them particularly favouring the British position, so I concluded it wasn't one of the partisan edits typical of nationalist editing. I could be persuaded they're simply not needed, I could be persuaded we add a wikilink, I could be persuaded to add an explanation of the terms. What doesn't persuade me is throwing out a series of invalid policy arguments and stubbornly sticking to the same position, which will only lead to stalemate and no consensus for change. WCMemail 07:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Why is it in a picture caption, what does it add to our understanding of that picture? Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Pretty much my question after thinking about it. On that basis I could agree to its removal. WCMemail 10:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
FTR, in my view, if the article has a slant, it's that it gives too much weight to the historical arguments - particularly the history before 1833 - compared with the other arguments raised. The phrase "self-determination" does not appear until most of the way down the history section, despite the fact that the interpretation of the right to self-determination is absolutely central to the modern dispute.
I've just done a word count. We have 3365 words on history up to 1833, 2249 words on later history, 1720 words on current claims.
The trouble with describing this as "an inherent slant towards the UK side" is that the pre-1833 history is the entire basis for the Argentine claim. If we are giving too much weight to pre-1833 history, that means we are going too far into accepting the Argentine contention that pre-1833 history is more important than post-1833 history and interpretations of modern law. To be clear, the pre-1833 history is important. You cannot understand the basis for the Argentine position without understanding what happened before 1833 and so we do have to go into that. But you can't understand the basis for the British position without understanding the modern right to self-determination and the modern views of the islanders, and we don't really go into that point to anything like the same degree. Kahastok talk 16:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
That's pretty much how I see it. By countering the Argentine claim based on pre-1833 history the article in my view gets involved in arguments like: "We got there first", "We set up a settlement before you did". "No, your (ARG) claim is based on assumptions but ours is on facts" etc. That then creates nationalist UK foot stomping that I called a UK slant, although that might not be the best description. One improvement I think would be good is to remove the time-line image. It gives the impression that length of occupancy is the critical consideration, which is part of but not the only determinant. Yes, Britain's trump card, the will of the people there, should be given more prominence. Others might disagree about the timeline image, but if it is to be replaced I am not sure with what - the referendum stats? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
You might want to check the archives. I have proposed to remove that image before, it was vehemently opposed by Argentine editors, who see it supporting their claims. As I said I don't see a UK slant on this because both sides have seriously bloated their claim sections. As such I'm not seeing it favouring either side. I'd happily see it rewritten but I've tried and failed many times. You can almost guarantee as soon as you start editor will come out of the woodwork claiming POV editing. WCMemail 06:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'm a user from South America (not Argentina) and I just wanted to say, after reading this article, that I found it to be structured in a way that treats Argentina's perspective more favorably by relegating pro-British opinion on the matter.
-
That's it. I just believe it's useful for this discussion for you guys to hear ordinary Wikipedia users' impressions. 190.71.145.195 (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Foradori-Duncan Agreement

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Using this as a cite [15] this edit was added [16]. It was removed with the comment that this isn't a rolling commentary, due to the long standing convention that we don't report on every pronouncement made on demands for negotiations. I do note that the Foradori-Duncan agreement wasn't mentioned.

The article is incorrect, the agree to disagree pact was made in 1989 and is part of the Madrid accords. The main elements of the Foradori-Duncan were:

  1. 2nd flight from Brazil with a stop over in Argentina
  2. Provision for DNA identification on Argentine soldiers buried as unknowns.
  3. Co-operation on topics of mutual interest eg fishing, since Argentina withdrew from sharing quota and catch data in 1999.
  4. A bunch of other "stuff" setting up a bilateral exchange.

It was hated from the moment it was signed by the Peronists, who jumped on the excuse that the Foreign Minister was allegedly drunk - based on a UK conspiracy website. It was only a matter of time before a Kirchner government would kill it.

Personally I think not mentioning the agreement was a mistake, it should be mentioned in the article and other agreements all broken by Argentina, if for nothing else to show that Argentina has broken every agreement made with the UK. However, I'd suggest that the edit based on an erroneous newspaper article is perhaps not the best. Knowing the passions raised by any mention of the dispute bringing it to talk to get a consensus before editing.

Couple of sources to set the ball rolling [17], [18], [19], [20] WCMemail 14:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Page move (reverted)

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A recent editor was quite right to restore this article to its original title - Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. This article is about the sovereignty dispute: a well understood juristic concept. Other aspects of the Falkland Islands dispute e.g. warfare have their own articles.

The rule that page moves require consensus was overlooked, probably because the editor concerned was not aware of it. Ttocserp 03:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Timeline correction

Latest comment: 5 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Argentina (in those years called the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata) had annexed the Falklands Islands on November 6 by David Jewett and created the Military Command of the Malvinas (Falklands) Islands, informally although none of the inhabitants of the Islands were involved. I resisted. Putting the United States as if it had controlled the Islands after the USS Lexington attack is incredibly wrong because they did not even land on the Islands. After that attack, Luis Vernet stopped being governor and became Esteban Mestivier (he was even appointed by Juan Manuel de Rosas). What is clear is not that the island belonged to 'none' but that it continued to belong to Argentina. At that time it was called the Argentine Confederation. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

So, you agree, Argentina did not exist in 1820, or 1826 or 1829 or 1831. Good, let's move on. Who or what authorised Jewitt to do what he did in 1820? This so-called military command - you say it was created informally, meaning it had no connection with anyone or anything in Buenos Aires. Who was in actual control on the islands, or even just in the town, after the Lexington raid? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I think this editor deserves a rather more principled answer than that. What the country was called can make no difference since, even if it was only the government of Buenos Aires, present-day Argentina stands in its shoes according to the usual laws of state succession. That there is an answer to the Jewett point I have no doubt, but it should be stated. Ttocserp 00:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Really? Based on that logic Bavaria is in Prussia, because in 1871 a unified Germany was proclaimed and Berlin was the capital of Prussia. According to what you seem to be saying that means the unified Germany, with its capital as Berlin, was really an expanded Prussia, that happens to have changed its name to Germany. This isn't a question of a state expanding, it's the creation of a new state from a collection of separate parts. Anyway, this discussion is meant to be about the Falklands and Jewett. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
As somebody or other said, we await your argument. Ttocserp 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Not accepting an argument is not the same as not being given one. And we need a source for this claim. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually the answer to your question is almost certainly that nobody at all authorised Jewitt to take possession of the islands. Jewitt was a privateer with a letter of marque from Buenos Aires. He claimed the islands in the name of the Supreme Government of the United Provinces of South America but - as Cawkell points out - there were in 1820 at least 24 separate governments in the United Provinces, none of them Supreme. It is highly unlikely that any of them gave any thought at all about a few small islands several days' sail from the nearest European settlement (which at this time would have been Viedma) as they were all far too busy dealing with the anarchy at home.
In any case, Jewitt did make an official report to Buenos Aires at the end of his voyage. That report makes no mention any declaration or annexation or any other act of sovereignty or taking of possession over the islands.
Several of the claims made by the edit are false. Jewitt did not establish any kind of military command over the Falklands. He left no settlers, no commander, nobody in control. Jewitt was not Argentine. He was American by birth and if it weren't for this incident he would be best known as an important early figure in the Brazilian Navy. Moreover he could not have told the local population that they were now Argentine, because at the time the islands had no permanent population.
I would note that this table describes de facto control - i.e. control on the ground - rather than legal claims. Nowhere else in the table do we accept claims of legal authority (whether made at the time or later) without actual control on the ground, and there is no reason for this to be an exception. Kahastok talk 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute/Archive_22&oldid=1250629084"