Talk:Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

NPOV wording?

I strived to keep it fair and balanced, but I'm more than glad to hear suggestions to improve it. Ejrrjs | What? 23:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Article claims that the settlement was destroyed in first paragraph but it still exists in the third paragraph. Also the Falkland Islands and History of the Falkland Islands seems to say that the Americans attacked in 1829, not 1831. Should also probably include a mention of the reason for the American attack. Rmhermen 16:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll review it Ejrrjs | What? 17:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It also provides no context. Why did the British invade? Was this a long running territory dispute? Or was it merely land grabbing?

How many people died? I've read Spanish sources that refer to this as a "Brutal Attack", though without providing details whatsoever. Are there any decent sources for this? Do scholars agree on what exactly took place? Gantlord 10:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

--kingboyk 23:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See History of the Falkland Islands. ...dave souza, talk 01:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the title itself lack NPOV?

To me, "invasion" implies they were taken by force, but what the article describes is a non-violent act of taking possession. (Admittedly, with the implied threat of force.) 86.16.117.32 11:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

YES, the title is POV. It was not an invasion, but a reoccupation, as Britain had never given up its previously held sovereignty, and when they left the first time, they left behind a plaque asserting their claim. It should be changed to "reoccupation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.228.121 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why were they invaded?

Why were the islands reclaimed by Britain? The article says that the destruction of the Argentine settlement by the U.S. served the foreign office to restake its claim but what were the details? Were they just cashing in on an opportunity? Was there a diplomatic effort to get the British involved (involving other countries in the region perhaps)? I've seen this line about "the British invaded because the U.S destroyed the Argentine settlement" written in numerous places but I haven't found someone actually explaining the rationale behind the invasion. The settlement being destroyed is not in itself a rationale for invading, it may have been the precipitating factor, but it's not a motivation unless there is some additional explanation offered. blankfrackis 19:45, June 27th 2007 (UTC)

I think the British claimed the Islands because, as far as I'm aware, the US captain declared the Islands to be 'open', much like an 'open city'. A base in the South Atlantic would be of excellent use to the British in maintaining the Empire, and if you can do it legally - as this was (by the standards of the time, if a settlement was declared open, no-one owned it). Let's not forget that the lack of troops mentioned in the article is because most of the troops on the Islands were British mercenaries in the service of the Argentinian forces, and refused to fight their countrymen. The Islands weren't invaded, a request was handed to the Governor to switch nationality, which he accepted. Hawker Typhoon 21:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It gets more interesting than that. Vernet, the Argentine Governor, went to the British Consulate in Argentina and asked British permission to land before he did so. He also expressed the wish that his colony would be taken under the British wing should the British return. Vernet provided written reports to the British Government on the Islands and contrary to the often stated Argentine position, the settlement was not expelled at all. Vernet's colonists, apart from those involved in the so-called "Gaucho Murders", remained on the Islands - there are Islanders that can trace their ancestry to before the British return. Justin A Kuntz 13:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not neutral

1) The introductio "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland sent a naval task force to re-assert British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas), after the United Provinces of the River Plate (which later became Argentina) ignored British diplomatic protests over the appointment of Luis Vernet as Governor of the Falkland Islands and a dispute over fishing rights." is clearly in favor of Britain as it cal the ocupation for re-asserment and describes it from a british point of view.

2) If the name of the article is Re-assertion of British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (1833), then the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands should be called Re-assertion of Argentine sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (1982). Dentren | ^Talk 13:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Re-assert does not imply legitimacy. It merely says they asserted a claim before and they are doing so again. Are you saying Britain had never claimed sovereignty before on the Islands? It does indeed describe why the British sent a fleet there but, uhm, well....isn't that kind of important? I think a couple of words such as due to claims the United Province.... or whatnot could do it (Though, is anyone saying the united province didn't ignore British protests?) Why do Argentinians claim the British sent the fleet? What cause do they think sparked it?

2) OK, ignoring for a moment the fact the two events are hugely dissimilar if you acctually take more than 2 seconds to glance at them, I admit I have never really liked the name of this article, either at its previous location or at this one. However, no-one has yet managed to find a name that is suitable. It is usually best to come to a talk page and talk out your feelings /before/ slapping around neutrality flags. It can appear to be very Point-y. Narson (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the disambiguation page I made it clear that Argentina describes this as an invasion. And the description is actually neutral, so I have been BOLD and removed the neutrality tag for that reason. As Narson points out above the article does not imply legitimacy in any way and describing the events of 1833 as an "invasion" is simply giving favour to the Argentine POV not the British POV. The policy appropriate is WP:NPOV.

Further if you can come up with a better term that actually describes what happened, then we would be in fact happy to consider it - nobody was happy with the current version but it seemed the best compromise. However, I would suggest achieving a NPOV would be best served by first assuming good faith in your fellow editors and having the courtesy to discuss things first. In addition, I would further suggest that making demands as in 2) above is not a suitable way to build a consensus.

Finally, I would point out that favouring the British POV would have been to title the article "British Return to the Falkland Islands" as that is how it is usually referred to in British text books. Justin talk 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The British invasion of 1833 is esentially the same things as the Argentine invasion of 1982, therefore both articles should have a similar title and not the current ones thats calls the Argentines for "invasors" and legitimates the British occupation calling it re-assertion. In my opinion both articles should be caller Bristish/Argentine occupation of the Falklands Islands. Dentren | ^Talk 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll discuss this here (rather than on the 1982 page) if that is ok with everyone (And perhaps we should put a note on that talk page pointing to this discussion as it seems to cover both pages?). Addressing 1982 first: I would argue that the 1982 incident was an invasion from any standpoint. I certainly doubt Argentina even argues it wasn't a military action. Looking at the 1833, it is quite obvious it is not analogous to the 1982 incident. In 1833 there was no long standing occupation of the islands, an islands that had been declared by one government to be without government, where permission was sought from the other's embassy for the original colonisation to even go ahead. Then the incident itself was a fairly simple 'Take down your flag and bugger off' and it was complied with. The colony carried on much as before after 1833, after all Vernet had always reported the colony to the British crown...I really can't see how anything but the most simplistic reading of the facts could result in the two being declared to be fitting analogues for one annother. Narson (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only add that, like Narson, I've never been really happy with the title of re-assertion but making changes without discussing here first is not helping matters. In 1833, two British ships turned up, sent a polite note to Pinedo asking him to leave, they exchanged a few more polite notes and he agreed to leave several days later. No shots were fired, no aggression took place. The settlement at Port Louis aka Puerto Luis remained intact and was encouraged to remain; please tell me how this can be described as an invasion? In 1982, the Argentines inserted troops via submarine, launched Amtracs for an amphibious assault and had 2,500 men ready to invade. That is an invasion. Justin talk 07:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-establishment of British rule of the Falkland Islands? It avoids the term sovereignty. Though are we into OR here? Narson (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But rather close to the British Return, which is actually the POV term. Justin talk 19:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK...so...we want to avoid the words Occupation and Invasion. The pro-argentines dislike assertion and sovereignty....even if it is the British name for the event, Justin, what /is/ the case against British return to the Falkland Islands (1833)? Other than it is the name used by the British? I think the fact it ignores there was anything there is likely to be coming up...Narson (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

An invasion is (from wikipedias article):

An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof.

By sending a naval squadron to territories under the rule of Argentina Brittain invaded the islands. Please note that the definition above includes the case of re-establish rule. They overtrew the de facto gornment by the use of miliary power it doesnt mather if this was a legitimate action or not. An invasion is not neseralily negative, the Allies of WWII invaded Germany for example. I strongly believe that there is a bias in the Falkland related articles favouring Brittish claims and i found simmilar bias but favouring Argentina in the spanish wikipedia.

As i stated before if the name of this article is Re-aestablishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (1833)', then the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands should be called Re-establishment of Argentine rule on the Falkland Islands (1982), to more consequent. By saying that OK, ignoring for a moment the fact the two events are hugely dissimilar.. mr. Narson is sugesting that the Bristish did not invade (see the definition above). Instead of this titles i prefer to name both article for invasions, as both countries overtrew the others government in the disputed area. Dentren | ^Talk 12:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The two situations are entirely dissimilar. One involved an army taking control of the islands by force of arms, the other involved the islands' administration leaving on being asked to by a relatively minor naval commander. You highlight the difference with your comparison of this event with the Allied invasion of Germany. But let's take your quote of what an invasion is:

An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof.

Wiktionary defines offensive in its military sense as "an attack" (the other noun sense being figurative). In 1833 there was no attack. There was a polite exchange of notes, whereupon Pinedo agreed to leave. In 1982 Argentina did attack the Falklands.

The article states that an offensive is "a military operation that seeks through aggressive projection of armed force to occupy territory, gain an objective or achieve some larger strategic, operational or tactical goal." In 1833 there was no "aggressive projection of armed force to occupy territory" - the British did not start a fight there - and we have no evidence that they took control of any territory before Pinedo left. Thus neither of these two definitions supports the conclusion that this was a military offensive and hence neither supports the conclusion that this was an invasion. In 1982, the Argentines did take control of territory aggressively.

In 1833, the British action did not consist of all, or large parts of the armed forces. It consisted a brig-sloop (which was not even a ship by the standards of the time) and a sixth-rate. Between them they carried 46 guns - the quantity carried by the very smallest ships of the line - so there were many individual ships with significantly greater fire-power. Captain Onslow won't, I believe, even have held the rank of "captain" except as a courtesy. This was clearly a tiny proportion of the armed forces of the UK and certainly not all, or large parts of the armed forces. In 1982, Argentina (I believe) did use a large part of their armed forces in taking the Falklands.

On aggressively entering territory. This section implies that if this was an invasion, British forces would have been fighting Argentines on Argentine-held territory. It is clear that they did not. The Clio anchored offshore and sent Pinedo notes. Pinedo responded. No fighting occurred. In 1982, the Argentines were fighting British forces on British-held territory.

As such, no, I don't think that Britain "invaded" the Falklands in 1833 - I don't think "invasion" is an accurate word. This event is not easy to describe succinctly and neutrally, and I think the current solution is the best we've found. On the other hand, I think it is clear that Argentina did invade in 1982 - that the word "invasion" is accurate in that case. Pfainuk talk 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but any argument that is based on the premise that what occured in 1982 was the same or even similar to what occured in 1833 is so flawed as to be discounted out of hand. Nothing built on such a piss poor foundation can stand. Narson (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I will not comment this : Nothing built on such a piss poor foundation can stand. Still the Brittish sent a naval to overtrow the Argenine rule of the islands, it was a hostile military action that can very well be called an invasion. If Brittain occupied New York would you also call that a re-assertion of Brittish rule? Following your logic: YES, but the thousands of north American would not allow it. I want to point out that by calling the Argentine occupation in 1982 for an invasion and the Brittish occupation of 1833, wikipedia is not being neutral an is favouring the Brittish claims on the islands. A good option would be to call both artuicles for Xxxx occupation of the Falklands Islands 19XX. Dentren | ^Talk 09:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You know not so long ago, we had an extensive debate on what to call this article; see below. Your contribution history shows you were editing Wikipedia at the time but you appear to have chosen not to take part, which of course you were perfectly entitled to do so. Dropping by every once in a while to demand that the article is renamed to suit the Argentine POV is pretty unhelpful and is of itself demonstrating a POV. Noticeably, you don't even appear to have noticed that the article title has changed, since you're referring to one of the previous versions; a version, by the way, no-one was entirely happy with and would happily have considered changing. I also note that you bandy accusations of bias and POV around but yet totally fail to see your own POV.

The article does not favour the British POV, it does not favour British claims to the islands, to do so would be to title it the British return to the Falkland Islands, which is how it is generally termed. In fact, the article is decidely neutral in tone, since it merely delineates the facts as they occurred and does not favour either side. Now other editors have patiently explained why they do not consider your suggestions to be appropriate. I would suggest you consider them and respond accordingly, rather than, to be blunt, indulging in what appears to be a rather ill-tempered rant. Justin talk 10:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And now we are into reductio ad absurdum. As for the occupation suggestion, the Falklands were not occupied in 1833. They were placed under control of a civilian authority. Occupation was also not used as much before the 1907 Hague conventions. Narson (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both. And I figure that if both sides tell us that we are biased against them on Falklands articles (and they do) then we're probably doing quite well. Pfainuk talk 11:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Pfainuk, if you are saying that both sides tell us that we are biased, why does the article have an NPOV or any sort of dispute tag? Dentren | ^Talk 12:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what Pfain was saying was that if both sides are saying we are favouring the other POV, then the ruth is somewhere in the middle. As Justin points out, we had a discussion about the name, one where we went to lengths to consider both POVs. Your suggestion that we should name two dissimilar events the same is patently ludicrous and is, frankly, a little POINTy. However, if there are serious suggestions for the title to this article, please do make a case for them, though please remember that you are wanting to overturn a consensus so convincing arguments are required. Narson (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed I was - I'm afraid you (Dentren) rather took my quote out of context: the pro-British have told us we are pro-Argentine and the pro-Argentines have told us we are pro-British, so we're probably somewhere in the middle (where we should be). If we tagged every article for every old dispute (and this one had been silent for two months when the tag was added), most articles would end up with dozens of tags on top. And I agree with Narson on the rest of his comment as well: we do have a current consensus which you did not choose to object to at the time, and which you would have to overturn if this title was to be changed. Pfainuk talk 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tagging

To the anon, hello.

According to our sources, the contents of this article are an accurate and neutral (though incomplete) account of the events of late 1832 and early 1833 on the Falkland Islands, which resulted in the British gaining control of said islands. If you feel that this article is POV, please give your reasoning here. Bear in mind that you will need to provide neutral reliable sources that back up your claims, if you dispute the content of the page. If you do not choose to discuss why your placement of the tag, other editors may well just assume that you are trolling and remove it accordingly. Pfainuk talk 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Its would appear that an anonymous IP editor has decided to register a user name and added a NPOV tag once more. Please note that registering a username to avoid a block due to WP:3RR will not work. This is referred to as a sock puppet and is just as likely to earn you a block as disruptive editing. I have asked you four times now to discuss with us here on the talk page as to why you consider the article to be POV, you have thus far chosen not to do so and instead have chosen to disrupt the article with an inappropriate use of the NPOV tag. If you are prepared to remove it and discuss it here, then that is one thing. However, if you are simply placing the tag on the article to make a point then as noted by Pfainuk talk above other editors will assume you are simply trolling, remove it and report your IP address to the administrators.

As I said to you earlier, expending your energies in discussing your concerns with fellow editor is a far more productive use of your energies than disrupting the article. Justin talk 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What sources? The CIA factbook? The title of the article is being disputed by more than two persons for being not neutral. Until there is a consensus this article should have the tag. Dentren | ^Talk 13:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to put forward an argument? Narson (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, when the NPOV tag was put on, there had been no discussion of any kind on talk for nearly two months. None of us knew what the user was disputing because, as Justin's comment notes, he didn't tell us. That is why the tag was removed. Pfainuk talk 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Name?

I think its fair to say that no-one has ever been happy with the names put forward thus far for this article.

Its original title, "British Return to the Falkland Islands" reflects how this is usually reported in the British history, one might say representing the British POV. This was changed to "1833 Invasion of the Falkland Islands" following a POV push by Argentine editors on the article 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands (under its original title "Invasion of the Falkland Islands"). I think that was a poor compromise, since it effectively gave in to some extent to disruption and POV editing by Argentine nationalists with an agenda.

Of itself the compromise title was POV, reflecting the POV pushed by Argentine nationalists who will usually describe the events of 1833 as a brutal attack (noted above). The actual events could never be described in that way, two British ships arrived at Puerto Luis on January 3, Captain Onslow sent a note to Pinedo (Argentine commander who'd just put down a mutiny that had resulted in the death of the replacement governor Mestivier) that basically said they were there to enforce British sovereignty (after numerous diplomatic protests to Argentina) and asking politely that they took the Argentine flag down. Pinedo thought of resisting but thought better off it (mainly because the majority of his men were British mercenaries) and complied. He returned to Argentina with arms and colours intact, which for the period is quite a magnanimous gesture (if you understand the importance then attached to military colours). So all in all "invasion" does not describe the very genteel and terribly polite affair that it was. It also does not reflect that, contrary to Argentine claims, the existing settlers were not molested in any way and were encouraged to remain.

As a result several British editors, as above, begain to press for yet another change, the current name, "Re-assertion of British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (1833)", was the resultant compromise and as I said in my opening pre-amble, no-one has ever been entirely happy with that. Having said that I've been accused of a Pro-Argentine bias by british editors and a Pro-British bias by our "new" contributor, so I guess despite its problems its not a million miles away.

The only reason, thus far, it hasn't been changed is that no-one has come up with a better suggestion. Narson and I had a brief discussion on another talk page and came up with:

"Events leading to the British occupation of the Falkland Islands, 1833" (My suggestion and even I think its pants.) "British re-occupation of the Falkland Islands (1833)" (Narson's suggestion)

There is a suggestion that occupation may ruffle a few feathers, further suggestions are welcome but can we avoid the POV terms "sovereignty", "invasion" and "return" please. Other than the name controversy, the article itself seems to satisfy NPOV. Justin talk 12:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The term re-occupation makes me jumpy people will object for the same reason Argentine editors have opposed the use of occupation on other articles. I think, however, that second guessing what some people might take issues with is borrowing trouble. It nicely sums up the situation though. Narson (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good summary of events.

I'm concerned that "occupation" could imply illegitimacy (as in a military occupation). I'll accept it if you guys are happy, but I don't think it's a good word. My ideas are "British takeover", which would be a bit colloquial, I guess, and "Argentine surrender" is perhaps pro-British.

Anyone mind if I canvass for opinions at WT:MILHIST? It strikes me that this can't be the only time this sort of thing has happened, and that they may be able to give us some precedents. Pfainuk talk 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point, which was why I think it wasn't used the last time. I don't particularly like using POV terms and "Argentine surrender" is basically incorrect, there was no surrender, the Argentine military was allowed to leave with its weapons and its colours. What is often forgotten is that Onslow went out of his way to avoid humiliating the Argentines. The colloquial is also to be avoided for the obvious reason.

I'd suggest seeing what our "new" contributor suggests before bothering WT:MILHIST. Previously when NPOV tags have been splashed around, when a request for a preferred term has been made, it's gone quiet. It seems rather typical behaviour to throw around a NPOV tag but offer nothing to improve matters.

A thought, how about "Re-establishment of British Administration of the Falkland Islands"? Justin talk

Would it be too contrived to use "History of the Falkland Islands 1826 - 1834"? --FactotEm (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've self-reverted my message :). I think that suggestion's my favourite so far. "In the Falkland Islands", to reflect the fact that in 1767-76 the British settlement didn't cover the entire archipelago? Just a thought. Pfainuk talk 20:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Would that be Re-establishment of British Administration in the Falkland Islands, 1833"? That doesn't seem too bad. Whilst I like the idea of the contrived version and the sentiment behind it, there is already History of the Falkland Islands. Justin talk 20:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thought. I'm a little concerned that the contrived version might imply a whole series of articles when we only have about three periods that are well enough covered to potentially have their own articles (1764-76, 1826-34 and 1976-82, periods that are significant for the sovereignty dispute), but I'll accept it as well. Pfainuk talk 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That feels too 'cuddly' to me (The Re-establishment one). There should be some nod that this was unilateral action by the British (OK, the yanks are loosely involved). Annexation? British annexation of the Falkland Islands? But then, that doesn't show that the British were there before etc....Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way around? Removal of Argentina from the Falkland Islands (1833)? 'Expulsion of the Argentine government of the Falkland Islands (1833)'? Pah. I hate this sodding thing. Lets go duff up ALR for ever pointing this out. Narson (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What would wiki be without this sort of drama? I shall continue to work on it. Justin talk 21:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The irritating part is that it isn't drama. There should be some obvious name. Looking at policy, we probably /should/ be using 'British return to the Falkland Island (1833)' as the common name...have we acctually asks the argentine editors if they find the POV in that hideous? I mean, are we worrying over what we think is POV but is acctually harmless? Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkands (1833) is annother option. British removal of the Argentine government of the Falklands (1833) Narson (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've personally no objection to the "British return to the Falkland Island (1833)" but that was the original name before a deluge of complaints from Argentine editors. British removal of the Argentine government of the Falklands (1833) seems POV and a tadge inaccurate, there was no Government there. Justin talk 22:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Milhist has noticed. 'Occupation' would describe it, but that's not among your suggestions below. 'Bloodless annexation' would also describe the issue, though not quite technically accurately. Of the suggestions below, I'd go for No.3. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Suggestions finding favour, a quick straw poll?

1. Re-establishment of British Administration in the Falkland Islands, 1833
2. British return to the Falkland Islands (1833)
3. Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkands (1833)

I'd go for 2 personally as it fits with wiki policies, its actually reasonably neutral and it was a poor compromise to remove it. Justin talk 22:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

3, because I think it's less likely than 2 to give us issues in the future. I'm happy with all of them though. Pfainuk talk 09:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If we arn't using the term occupation then, yep, I'll go with Pfain and Buck and go for 3. Also, I'd like a Big Mac. Narson (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I close this and make the move to number 3 then? Fair warning... Pfainuk talk 22:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Gets my vote! Justin talk 14:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was very tempted to rename it to "Number 3" and see what happened, but decided this might not go over well :) Fixing redirects now. Pfainuk talk 16:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing we should add in after the renaming, is coverage of the Argentine version of events. It is certainly oft repeated and notable enough to be there, a sentence or two. Narson (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed but for NPOV, we should also provide sources to show it is incorrect. Justin talk 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if ALR still has the stuff. And well, it is common sense, but sadly common sense is OR. I do love that there are reported murders on an island the Argentine government claims was empty. Sheep on Penguin gang violence! Narson (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol! I always liked the idea of people magically returning to the islands to murder one another and then equally magically disappearing again, but hadn't thought of the other alternative!

On a more serious note, we should include it. The pamphlet on the FI talk page is a decent source for no expulsion, and there are others at that and other articles. Pfainuk talk 09:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are other suitable sources http://www.falklands.info/ and the online diaries of Fitzroy regarding the visit of the Beagle in March 1833, as well as the Falklands history website. The pamphlet is a convenient reference that ties it all together. However, I'm sure certain quarters will dismiss it as POV. Justin talk 09:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

True (though we could in theory use the same references they did if we can find copies). In any case we have plenty of sources, so we don't have to use it. Pfainuk talk 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Break in discussion

I'm really sorry I didn't see this conversation before. I don't know if you realize, but you have decided a NPOV renaming with no opinion from the Argentine side, something that could be very difficult to accomplish. My biggest critic is that you are forgetting that the British "re-took" a rule they never really had before. If you take a look at the article Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands you'll see that the British had the facto control over the islands from 1765 to 1770 (5 years), and then from 1771 to 1776 (another 5 years). Then 57 years later they "re-established the British rule" on the Falkland islands?? I'm not saying Argentina controlled much more either (well, the Spanish Crown did for 44 years before the Argentine independence), but we need to understand that only small settlements were on the island for centuries, and often they were uninhabited. And whether the take over was pacific or not, the British did in fact take control from an existing Argentine authority.

The current title of the article suggests something that is not, and thus I consider it non-neutral. The only 2 differences with the Argentine invasion that lead to the 1982 Falklands War (that is, minimal confrontation, war declaration afterwards) are not as great by themselves as you all suggest; what would have happened if a single Argentine soldier had resisted? What would have happened if Argentina declared war to the British over the Islands? Those are 2 actions from the Argentine side that don't change the intention of the British forces that landed on the island to overtake the control from the Argentine government.

I'm not saying must revert the name back to 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands (though I do actually think so), but there must be a more neutral title that better represents the historical context and the passively violent nature of the "re-establishment". Mariano(t/c) 07:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, there was every chance for Argentine editors to participate in formulating a name, Argentine editors had a chance to participate and chose not to do so. My suggestion to rethink it was in part prompted by suggestions by an Argentine editor that it wasn't neutral. For whatever reason that person and others chose not to participate even though their input would have been welcome.

A consensus was achieved and you're now seeking to overturn that consensus.

With respect crafting an argument that the British Return was a passively violent event, whilst an inventive argument, is a wholly unconvincing one. Similarly speculation about what might have happened is original research and has no place in wikipedia. Our function is to report what happened not to indulge in a spot of navel gazing as to what might have happened.

I actually created the de facto control table, it doesn't reflect sovereignty at all but rather who was in control of the islands. You might, as an Argentine, have the point of view that the intention of the British was to take control, a British perspective would be that the intention was to re-assert sovereignty in the face of Argentina aspirations to take control of British territory. However, the article and its title treads a very careful path between the two and thus satisfies NPOV. The events are reported but there is no attempt to put a spin on them.

Hence, after very careful debate and deliberation I believe we've achieved a title that does that and article that provides historical context; without favouring either side. A lot of effort went into creating a neutral title that should be acceptable to both. You might like to know that I'm accused of being pro-British from the Argentine side, whilst harangued from the British side for my streak of pro-Argentine bias. So I guess by upsetting both I'm somewhere in the neutral ground.

So with respect, I would suggest that you consider your own POV and reflect on it some more before suggesting that the title is not neutral. Justin talk 08:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? YOu only see those two differences? And you don't think the difference between a peaceful and a military take over is big? I would have to disagree. Invasion implies a military action and is an argentine POV. The British label it 'The British Return'. Now, the common name in English we can't use because people will yell NPOV, we can't use its common name in spanish because people will yell NPOV, so we are left withthe events naming policy. What happened and where. There was no invasion as we think of it, so thats out. Expulsion of the Argentine government doesn't cover it all, so thats out. Re-assertion of British rule does imply some degree of 'aggression'. Occupation is a losely defined term at the period (militarily speaking) and in the modern definition that isn't what occured. The issue is that the British and Argentine vesions differ vastly. The Argentines claim the British came in and expelled everyone from the islands and took it all over for themselves. The British claim that the Falklands had remained under British authority to some degree, that the governor of the islands had been seeking approval from them for everything as well. That the colony was declared 'open' after the Americans attacked the colony and so fine for them to re-assert their previous claim, which they had never truely relinquished. With suc a large body inbetween, it is a problem. Narson (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't think there's much I can add. I am open to suggestions for improvements, but please bear in mind that we did achieve consensus on this page in June in a discussion in which all users were welcome to comment on, and so if there is no consensus for any specific alternative then the article won't be moved. As a practical matter, I feel I can say with confidence that words like invasion will not get consensus because there are three of us who raise strong objections to them. There are great differences between the events in 1833 and 1982, and we should not expect to use the same word for both events. Pfainuk talk 12:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1. A consensus does not necessarily mean neutral point of view: the previous title was consented and yet you all considered biased.
2. I didn't say Argentine editors didn't have the chance to participate; I said the decision was taken without an exposition of the Argentine side. Not that it was your fault at all, but it is still a strong reason for reviewing the decision.
3. Peaceful take over? As far as I understand it, the 1833 landing was carried by military armed personnel; how is it not a military incursion? The main difference between both events where the consequences, not the acts themselves. Both implied a military take over of the existing local government. So the Argentine people decided not to resist? That doesn't change the invasion by the foreign force.

Again, perhaps "invasion" is not the best word, but the title as it clearly suggest that the islands where taken from the British (which is not true, since they were left without any kind of government representation), and that they re-established some sort of legitimate ruling over the islands.

Imagine for a second that there's a motion to move the 1982 invasion article to Re-establishment of the Argentine rule on the Falklands (1982), since the Argentine government did in fact re-established a ruling that existed over a century before, we could follow your reasoning to change that article to that.

Mariano(t/c) 12:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer points three, a ship sent a letter to...Pinedo?...asserting British sovereignty. Pinedo struck his colours and left the port. It was nota military take over in a sense most people would be familiar with, it certainly wasn't gunboat diplomacy (See Zanzibar War for that). As I said in the last move request, Re-establishment is a bit too peaceful, I agee. I think the formulae for the title is correct, however, we need to decide on what verbs to put there. A word both sides can live with and that conveys what happened. Occupation I flip flop over. I wouldn't mind it too much, but I know others will. I accept that argentine views are useful, and you will see that we did consider them, we tried very hard to, so you must forgive any appearance of 'butt hurt' over it. Now, leaving aside the 1982 events (I do not agree they are similar, and frankly wikipedia is not a game of precedents),what suggestions do you have for titles? Lets get something to discuss. This article title is a flipping albatross. Narson (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer Point 1. Actually you're incorrect the previous version wasn't a consenus, it was a temporary compromise that no-one was happy with, hence there was a willingness to consider changes. The previous title had been problematic for the reasons outlined above and its replacement was a temporary expedient.

To answer Point 2. Again you're incorrect there was a strong attempt to take the Argentine viewpoint into account. Hence, we have not used the standard British nomenclature for this event but have attempted to come up with a neutral term.

To answer Point 3. It WAS an entirely peaceful event and there wasn't a landing or armed confrontation that took place. It wasn't a military take over in the way most people would understand. In fact the British military left 2 days later, permitting Vernet's settlement to continue as it had done before. In addition, Vernet actively sought a British military presence in the islands. Its not an event that is easily described and, hence, considerable thought has gone into crafting that title. We should be describing what happened not pandering to POV interpretations of historical events.

Invasion is a completely inappropriate title, there was no invasion, there was no armed confrontation. The British had previously established a presence on the islands, so re-establishment of British rule seemed an appropriate compromise (how many settlements in Americas have seen several changes of Government?). The extension of your reasoning to the events of 1982 is quite specious and verging on the offensive to be honest. I suppose like Narson I am rather tiring of Argentine editors coming to this page screaming NPOV but offering no positive proposal in return. If you come up with concrete proposals we're prepared to listen, if you simply going to complain its not neutral but offer nothing in return then to be honest people will rapidly tire of dealing with you. Justin talk 13:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I, like the others, am happy to look at any proposals you might have. I am not dead set for the current title whatever the other suggestions. But there are words we would not accept. Some of the Argentine editors here have been dead set for "invasion" and only for "invasion", a word to which we object - but that doesn't mean we'll reject all other proposals. I went into some detail over my objections to the word invasion for this event in the section Not neutral above, which you may like to read.

Incidentally, since Narson mentioned it, occupation has never been a word I was happy with because it normally implies a military occupation (which is not what happened here as Justin notes) and can imply illegitimacy.

My point on consensus is simply this: we need consensus to move, and consensus over where to move, otherwise the article stays here. Now, consensus can change, and if you have proposals, please put them forward and we can discuss them. Pfainuk talk 13:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not twist things around, the letter part is anegdotic, Pinedo didn't raise the British flag by himself. There was a landing; the British came with their army, changed flags, and kindly invited Pinedo to go for a walk. The vessels might have left, but there's no data on the number of soldiers left on land. But never mind the comparison with the 1982 events.

I find rather insulting the comment on "Argentine editors coming to this page screaming NPOV", I think I started this conversation in a civilized way. Claiming the article is neutral as it is is at least debatable; for instance calling "murderers" those guilty of mutiny.

Back to the title of the article, I would suggest a something more like "take over", since it is more exact. A re-establishment doesn't imply a previous control by someone else and is extremely vague.

Mariano(t/c) 14:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is twisting things around and actually there is historical records that clearly show Onslow departed with his entire force some 2 days later; i.e. no military forces were left behind. You're speaking from a POV and you need to recognise that. It was not the "Brutal aggression" of Argentine propaganda. For many reasons its not an easy event to come up with an accurate description. In point of fact, a permanent British presence wasn't established till 1834 when Lt John Smith arrived. The original British intention was to maintain Vernet's settlement and maintain sovereignty via an annual visit by a warship. Throughout all of 1833, the only permanent presence in the islands was Vernet's settlement.

No offence was intended by my remark and it was not directed at you per se, I was merely pointedly making the point that all too often Argentine editors have come here yelling POV, offering no solution or seeking to insert a POV edit. The article is NEUTRAL, it doesn't favour Argentina and it doesn't favour Britain.

As to the comments about calling the mutineers murderers, that is not in dispute and I don't understand why you've brought it up. The men under Mestivier mutinied and murdered him; a theme common in both the Argentine and British literature. The leader of the mutiny was executed and the rest imprisoned. I'm sorry but I'm at a loss to see your point.

As to your suggestion of "take over". Sorry but that is too colloquial, equally vague, slightly POV tinged and doesn't adequately describe the events. Re-establishment is actually accurate, since a British settlement had been previously established. Also the British position is that the Argentine control over the Falklands was not legitimate, whereas the Argentine position is the converse. To be truly neutral we have to come up with something that favours neither position. I'd contend the current version actually does that but I am willing to consider others. Your version clearly starts from the premise that the Argentine control was legitimate and the British "take over" was not ergo it fails NPOV. Justin talk 15:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

An army? It was a brig sloop. 121 men, probably a bit less after a trans-atlantic crossing. Pinedo struck his colours in submission to the British request and left. It was forceful, in that the British did not just sail in and go 'Oh, no flag up? Well then we had better claim this'. It was not however by force or a military engagement. Now, personally I don't mind the discussion of the title too much, and am more than happy to hear suggestions, but yes, take over is simplified and ignores part of the British claimm, the decleration of rex nullis. Surrender of Falklands to the British (1833), anyone? Narson (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Would a ship that small carry marines? i.e. were there any soldiers there? Its something I've often wondered about. The general presumption is that Pinedo was outnumbered and outgunned but as the Sarandi was a schooner it was probably bigger. We may have the balance in the article slightly wrong. I guess I need to do some more research. Justin talk 16:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there would have been a few marines - probably not an overwhelming number though. I understood that a major issue behind Pinedo's decision was that the crew of the Sarandí was almost as British as that of the Clio, and that the British would refuse to fight their own country, significantly reducing Pinedo's manpower if it came to a fight. Pfainuk talk 16:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Royal Navy would like being described as the British army. Not then, not now. I suggested "Argentine surrender of the Falkland Islands (1833)" before, but as Pinedo was allowed to leave with his colours and weapons - quite an honour at the time - "surrender" is not technically an accurate word.

On "murderers", we use the term twice in quoting Darwin, and once in reference to the Gaucho murders, not the Mestevier mutiny. The mutiny is described as: his soldiers mutinied and killed him and those who did it aren't described as "murderers". Pfainuk talk 16:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah I'd missed that, well fine you could user killers if its absolutely necessary. However, I hope this isn't an attempt to introduce "Rivero the gallant guerilla fighter", because that is simply POV nonsense. Justin talk 16:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

On surrender, I would disagree. That he was given generous terms does not negate that the islands were surrendered. It is, after all, what the striking of the colours signified, certainly to the navies of the period and Pinedo was a navy man. On the Brig Sloop, I /think/ that they would have around half a dozen armed with muskatoons? It would not be a hideously brilliant force. As for schooner being bigger, not necessarily. Schooner is just rigging, not size generally. It is entirely possible (and often done among new nations of the period) that the schooner was a private one that was pressed into military service. So essentially a large yacht. The British on Sarandi would be unlikely to fight the Clio due to it being made clear that while it was fine for British to fight for other nations and serve their navies, to fight against the British while doing so was treason. That carried with it some quite nasty penalties, back in the day. Now I think they give you a coupon good for 2 books from waterstones and a slap on the wrist. The sarandi's guns would have been, I assume, moved onto and to defend the settlement, and I can't imagine the gun crews were British, it was easy enough to train poor wretches to put the powder in, put the ball in and fire. Narson (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In that little time though? I can't see Pinedo having had much more than 24 hours notice that the British were coming if he was lucky, so he had four days between the first sign of the British and his own departure. Moving the guns to decent shore-based mountings would have not have been trivial - particularly in the (likely) absence of a shore battery or even a decent landing stage. And there won't necessarily have been much trust between Pinedo and the islanders, since he had himself just put down a mutiny. How would he know the guns wouldn't be turned on the Sarandí?

Teaching the gun crews - well, depends on any number of factors I guess. Teaching people to shoot from scratch in that little time would be doable, but they might not hit anything at any distance. But on the other hand it might just have been a shift-around of gun crews - which would have probably not have been so bad for him.

The marines, that's what I'd have guessed, but it would be a guess.

Surrender, I won't block consensus on it, but that's why it was rejected before. Pfainuk talk 17:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't name it 1833 British actions that precipitated the departure of the Argentine government from the Falkland Islands, re-claiming their still in dispute sovereignty if we wanted to be more correct and precise. Now seriously, I understand "take over" is too colloquial. As for it suggesting that Argentina had any rights on the islands, I strongly feel that "re-establishment" has exactly the same bias towards the British, and that's where we started.

As things are, I doubt we can find a term that doesn't suggest either. Government replacement of the Falklands by the British Royal Navy, De-facto control regain of the Falklands by the British Empire, British releive of duties of the Argentine governor on the Falkland Islands, any better formed idea? In any case "Surrender" does sound better than re-establishment, though you might consider Argentina was surrending a legitimus control over the islands? Mariano(t/c) 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Surrender is usually about de facto rather than de jure ownership/control, which is what happened. I wouldn't say the British transferred de jure control of singapore to the Japanese, but they did surrender Singapore. That kind of thing. Though, we could shorten it to Surrender of the Falklands (1833), as we don't need the British bit on as there was only one surrender in 1833. Certainly reduces the length. It also reads better in a sentence. Narson (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree there. Surrender is not normally de jure (that generally comes with the peace treaties afterwards) and the country surrendering territory frequently intends to get it back. I don't see any claim of legitimacy on either side. This is fair because the de jure situation did not change at all in 1833 so far as I can tell, just the de facto control. I have expressed concerns that it might be overly pro-British before, but if Mariano considers it better than the current title (which I consider pretty neutral) I don't mind deferring to that.

But I do want to make clear that the name of this article should have absolutely no bearing on the name of the article 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. Pfainuk talk 22:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I never meant for the 1982 article to change name; I was just trying to make a point.

I do consider "surrender" a better option, but I would very much like to hear the oppinion of other Argentine editors on the subject as my English might not be as good as I would like it to be, and I might be getting a not exact impression from both possibilities. (As you said before, it would be silly to drag the name back and forth). I'll try to contact some other users for their oppinions. Mariano(t/c) 06:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, I didn't mean you specifically, but others might feel that that article should be moved as well based on consensus here - they have before - I should have been clearer on that. If others do come, I'd ask them to read over our discussions before suggesting a title other than the current one and a variant of "Surrender of the Falkland Islands (1833)", just because I don't want to have to repeat my argument against the word "invasion" too many times. Pfainuk talk 08:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor point but I wouldn't be too keen on the use of the word "surrender". I had considered that previously but, putting Narson's comments aside, it can be interpreted also as a surrender of sovereignty for example as in Gibraltar. In trying to satisfy Mariano's concerns we may well end up making the situation worse. As to Re-Establishment it only refers to the fact that the British previously had a presence on the islands, which is undisputed, lets be clear it doesn't have a bias toward the British. Were that to be the case we'd have used something like Re-Assertion. Let me ask a question, is this a language problem i.e. does it perhaps have a different nuance in Spanish that perhaps we're unaware of?

Thinking of the top of my head, would Installation of British rule of the Falkland Islands (1833) avoid some of the issues? Justin talk 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Installing brings to mind coronations to me, though perhaps that is just me. It is all just a synonym really. Install and Establishment. Narson (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We could drop the Re if that is what is causing the issue, my concern was leaping from the frying pan into the fire with "surrender". Justin talk 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) OK. I just want to write down what's in my head on this at the moment.

The two wordy titles that we've been using generally haven't found favour with Argentine contributors. However, most have simply insisted on the Argentine POV word invasion without suggesting anything else, so have got nowhere. The current version did get a previous consensus in an open discussion, so if this discussion fails, it is the fall-back position.

The word surrender, while acceptable to me, does have its drawbacks as Justin notes. The current title is clunky but it does have the benefit of being both accurate and is acceptably neutral. It might be better to prefer it over surrender as the previous consensus position. On installation, I think establishment is better. Installing rule sounds a bit odd to my ear.

I also think the "re-" is important, because the British did have a previous settlement on the islands and I think Establishment of British rule on the Falklands sounds like it was established for the first time in 1833. The fact that the previous settlement didn't cover the entire archipelago is covered by the choice of prepositions - a small thing, but important in my view. "British rule on the Falklands" is I think the best we can get at that in that it doesn't imply that it did cover the entire area. Right, I hope that made sense. It's now gone 1am here so I should probably go to bed. Pfainuk talk 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we are once again borrowing trouble by assuming what the Argentine editors might find unnacceptable. Lets let them speak their own minds. Narson (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm affraid I didn't get much attention from other Argentine editors. Mariano(t/c) 10:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

August 2009

I agree with Mariano in that the usage of re-assertion by legitimates the Brittish claim. Government replacement of the Falklands by the British Royal Navy. The usage of Re-established have have some weak points:

1. The Brittish Empire never controlled/ruled the whole archipelago before. The British do not reestablished rule on eastern Falkland as they never before controlled it.
2. While the Argentine "re-assertion of soverignity" is considered an invasion, thus with negative connotation, the Brittish overtrow of Argentine rule is called a "re-assertion". Trough both changes of rule were done by military means and the menace of overwhelming any resistance. Dentren | ^Talk 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone actually likes the current title of this article, but it's the best we've been able to come up with. We are open to suggestions.

That said, coming back every year with the same demands is not helpful. The arguments against describing this event as an "invasion" are the same as those given last year. You can read them in detail by scrolling up the page, but they boil down to this: the articles are named in different ways because different things happened.

I note that you are still using a title that, as we pointed out at the time, wasn't in use when you brought this up this time last year and hasn't been used at any time since. As I explained above, I do not feel that the use of the word "re-establishment" is inaccurate or misleading. There was a British settlement on the islands prior to 1833, and I think that without the "re-" it would appear as though there wasn't. Pfainuk talk 20:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to make the same point, coming back here a year later with exactly the same argument as before, when we'd been through this extensively a year ago and the editors involved in that discussion eventually acknowledged the title was NPOV - they couldn't come up with anything better. It certainly isn't intended to make any comment about the relative merits of any claim. Its an attempt to describe events and the background in a neutral manner. To compare the events of 1833 and 1982 as in any way equivalent is to push a POV. As Pfainuk indicates, we're open to suggestions but if you merely intend to re-iterate the same tired, worn and discredited arguments it will go nowhere. Justin talk 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Misspelled "Falkands" (FalkLands) in title.

.

Oops! I've gone through the other articles that link here and corrected the ones that used "Falkands" in the text. The others are less urgent and someone can go through with the semi-automated tools at some point and deal with them. Pfainuk talk 09:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

United Provinces of the River Plate

I've used United Provinces of the River Plate as it was historically accurate - refer to the article. Argentina was only used following the 1826 Argentinian constitution, when the name República Argentina was first time used, however the name was not adopted at the time as that constitution lasted less than 6 months. You might also care to look at Name of Argentina, the name United Provinces of the River Plate persisted until 1836. So the Treaty of Friendship 1825 was with the United Provinces, the 1829 and 1831 protests were lodged with the United Provinces and it was the United Provinces that protested about the events of 1833. The lead-in makes it plain that the United Provinces became the modern Argentina, what exactly is the problem with being accurate for the period. Justin talk 09:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I undesrtand your point, and I truly don't know what name was used exactly on 1829, but the Argentine Confederation began in 18271835, and lasted supposedly until the creation of the Republic in 1854. Please, take a look at List of heads of state of Argentina.

By the way, the name Argentina was present in as far as the XVII century, and it was never really contested, but the Federal and Unitarians used to use different names because ouf political rivalries. Mariano(t/c) 11:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are both right on this one. Argentina was first used by the state in a constitution of 1824. However, it didn't become the widespread name until after the war ended in 36 (if I'm corect, I could be wrong on if it was the war ending in that year). I also believe that UP wasn't just Argentina, but Argentina and Uruguay at that point. We should probably use UP up until 1836 and then switch to Argentina after that, once it became the sole name? Narson (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can help with the name that was used diplomaticall, [1] from the knowledge base at the Faklands/Malvinas forum. In 1833, the correspondence with Moreno refers almost exclusively to the Government of the "United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata" but also mentions the "Argentine republic". The 1825 Treaty was with the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. Generally for International relations, it appears that the United Provinces was used but internally as you say political rivalries came to the fore. In the interests of historical accuracy it would appear United Provinces is correct, particularly with the comment in the opening pre-amble that the UP became modern day Argentina. My reasoning is that the modern day Argentina did not exist then, hence we need to create the link with the country that became Argentina. Does that make sense? Justin talk 12:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But following your reasoning United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is not present United Kingdom, and thus every usage of the word "British" in this context is wrong, or at least ambiguous. I do believe both the United Provinces of the River Plate and Argentina are the same thing, and whether it existed or not prior to 1854 is debatable at most, and were at that time already synonyms. Anyhow, the Argentine Confederation was started on March 1835. Mariano(t/c) 13:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Darn, I can't get a grip on the start of the Argentine Confederation. It was during one of Rosas' mandates, but it's not clear if it was on 1827, 1831, 1832, or 1835... I think it was after the Pacto Federal (January 1831), where there's no reference to "United Province" in any form, only the Argentine State (see wikisource). Mariano(t/c) 13:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to the states, we use the appropiate name I think? That being Great Britain or United Kingdom (Great Britain and United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Ireland are seperate states (One being a successor state to the other), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are the same state with a change of name in 1927) Narson (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't get the point you're making I used the full name of the UK in the period concerned in the opening pre-amble, then I switch to an abbreviated form for both afterward. A consistent treatment for both countries.

I don't have the reference to hand but I believe you were correct with the 1835 date, generally the name Argentina is used after 1836. I think we're losing something in the translation here, can we start off with why you'd prefer Argentina to the United Provinces? My interest here is historical accuracy, is there perhaps a nuance in the historical terms that perhaps we're unaware of? Justin talk 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just saying that, as Narson pointed out, it's just the same thing with a change of name in between, whereas you were suggestin the United Provinces and Argentina were different things. My interest is anecdotal , I didn't question myself the naming until an anonymous user changed it to Argentina, and then asked myself what was actually the correct term to use. Again, you support the idea that the modern term was not used, at least internationally, until after 1835, which sounds a bit late to me, since the Pacto Federal suggests it was already in 1831. I'm affraid I don't have any other reference to such change in denomination, neither a previous nor posterior one. Mariano(t/c) 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Uruguay's independence took place in 1825 (constitution on 1830), answering to Narson's comment above, so it was pretty much moder Argentina without a piece of Bolivia. Mariano(t/c) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok for the record I wasn't suggesting the two were different things, in the opening pre-amble I did clearly state the UP became Argentina. So I'm kinda at a loss to understand where that came from? Justin talk 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Narson wrote "I also believe that UP wasn't just Argentina, but Argentina and Uruguay at that point.". I was just trying not to leave a misconcept loose. Mariano(t/c) 07:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK no problem, I misunderstood your comment to mean something else. Justin talk 08:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarandi

Sarandi apparently shipped 9 guns, so was at a disadvantage compared to Clio with 18. I found another reference to 68 guns but I think that must have been a typo as another source says 6-8 guns. Can't find any details of the type and firepower though. Justin talk 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And apparently contradicted by another source that says 14 guns, so may not have been at a significant disadvantage. Can't find any details of the type. Justin talk 12:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It shipped 9 guns to shore or carried 9 guns? Do any sources speak to it being at disadvantage (I mean, the argentines held the harbour, so could move all guns to one side of the ship, while the maneuvering clio would have had to maintain its broadsides, not to mention that depending on the harbour geography, the Clio may have been forced to sail straight at the Sarandi...if sources say she was at a disadvantage so be it, I don't think we should say either way unless it is in the sources) --Narson ~ Talk • 15:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've two sets of plans, one shows 4 gun ports either side and an extra cannon on the main deck. The second show 7 gun ports either side and indicating 14 cannon. Sarandi appears to have had an interesting history having been involved in Admiral William Brown's victory over Brazil, it seems worthy of an article in its own right. Sources tend to say Sarandi at anchor was disadvantaged but none I've ever seen said anything about her armament only that she was out-gunned; I guess I can see why now. I was simply checking. Does anyone have better information? Justin talk 15:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of Spanish

It's me that's been removing the phrase (Spanish:Islas Malvinas) from the article. Let me outline the reason.

This is the English language encyclopaedia, and as such text within articles should be in the English language. Whilst it is appropriate for the article Falkland Islands to make reference to the Spanish language names - both as it partly explains the Malouine history, plus because the term is so different from the English language name - the same cannot be true of a subsidiary article on one aspect of Falklands history. What it comes down to is an observation that the Spanish language name adds nothing to this article, and is not appropriate to the English language encyclopaedia. It is notable that the Spanish language version of this page just uses the Spanish name, Islas Malvinas, and makes no acknowledgment whatsoever of the English language name. This seems right to me - English shouldn't be used in the Spanish Wikipedia, and Spanish should not be used in the English Wikipedia. Hibbertson (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument that we should remove Spanish names because the Spanish Wikipedia excludes English names - or something similar - comes up fairly often on Falklands articles. The problem is that the Spanish Wikipedia takes a strongly pro-Argentine editorial line in Falklands issues. Looking at their equivalent to this article, it is not an exception.

Thing is, we don't want the English Wikipedia's Falklands articles to become a British propaganda piece to rival the Argentine propaganda piece on the Spanish Wikipedia. We want to respect WP:NPOV and allow readers to make up their own minds on the issues at hand. We want a neutral article. The argument based on what the Spanish Wikipedia does cuts no ice because we don't want these articles to become what the Spanish Wikipedia's articles have become. I'm not saying that you do either - nor indeed most of those who bring this up. I'm just explaining why there is likely to be a discrepancy.

Now, that's a fairly general reason why invoking the Spanish Wikipedia here is probably a bad idea, I'll move on to the use of the Spanish name. I would say that the Spanish name is appropriate and relevant for the first usage in this article because this article specifically covers an event that is immediately relevant to the dispute between the UK and Argentina. I don't think it hurts, but I think it helps, in a small way, to reinforce the neutrality of the article. That's why I think we should keep it. Pfainuk talk 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

February 2011

Removing it doesn't hurt either::It is totally unnecessary, has nothing to do with NPOV, and it is not added in other subpages of the Falkland Islands page or the pages of other disputed territories.

I'm thus removing it. If you want it to remain please provide a reason as to why this page requires this unique addition. And please only remove the material you object to not all the edit.

Rsloch (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are you opening this the middle of the page, responding to a comment that is eighteen months old? You may see the answers to all of this in the section I started on the subject. I suggest you read it. I suggest you also read WP:BRD and edit in accordance with it: that means initiating discussion, as opposed to reverting anyone who disagrees with you. Pfainuk talk 20:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

See new section, I suggest.

Rsloch (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing part of introduction

At the moment, the first paragraph has this "I don't understand why it states "Re-establishment" of British rule, how could it be re-established if it was not established before? I am not debating whether the islands should be Argentine or British, it just does not make any sense to state that the British re-established rule when the only one's that where there before were Spanish and French."

Ignoring for a second that this is in the wrong place (presumably a mistake, with the editor probably wishing to add that to the discussion page) it's also untrue. Britain was re-establishing her rule as she previously had control over the islands in the 18th century (as shown in this table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands .)

As such - given that it's in the wrong place and since it's false anyway - I'm deleting it. JH 22:01, 6th December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.38.81 (talk)

No it isn't and the talk page here has extensive discussion between both Argentine and British editors. We've yet to come up with a better alternative. Do not change without concensus. Justin talk 22:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to this edit, which had already been removed at the time you posted your message. I can only assume that you got that text off one of Wikipedia's many mirror sites. If so, remember that the mirror sites do not necessarily reflect the most current version of a given article.

As Justin notes, the current wording as "Re-establishment" has consensus here following extensive discussion involving both Argentine and British editors. The "Re-" is considered appropriate due to previous existence of a British settlement on the islands in 1765-70 and 1771-76 (as you correctly point out). Pfainuk talk 18:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Pfainuk, and, yeah, I did spend a while writing the message on the talk-page only to find that it'd been changed by the time I was finished. I'm fairly certain I hadn't been using a mirror site, though. Nevertheless, sorry for the hassle (needless to say, the comment was redundant.) JH 21:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.252.179 (talk)

Use of Spanish place names

The use of Spanish names for places and the Islands as a whole is inextricably linked to Argentine Propaganda.If a place has a perfectly good English place name then it ought to be used.Think about how you would feel if people started renaming places in your country,and if other also started referring to these places by these foreign names.You would,understandably be insulted,and perhaps angry too.The Use of such terms undermines the credibility of Wikipedia further than it already has been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celticprince (talk • contribs) 08:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Err no, in 1833 it was known as Puerto Luis, the original French name was Port St Louis, the Spanish renamed it Puerto Soledad and in 1828 Vernet renamed it to Puerto Luis, whether it was sheer vanity (his first name was Louis) or a reversion to the original name is not known. It was renamed Anson's Harbour by the British who later reverted to the name in common use today of Port Louis. It isn't a question of renaming it in line with Argentine propaganda in the slightest but a question of historical inaccuracy. The names that are offensive are those associated with the Argentine invasion and occupation, as well as the names invented by the Argentine commission to rename all features with only English names. Puerto Luis is in no way considered offensive. Justin talk 13:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (1833)"

"Re-establishment..."??? In History books, this was a military invasion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andres Rojas (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Invasion" implies that military force was used. It wasn't. What actually happened was a polite exchange of messages, which is hardly the same thing. Pfainuk talk 20:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ocupación británica de las islas Malvinas (1833) Read it. Andrés —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

This is discussed higher up on the page and and a clear consensus has been resolved on this question. It's no appropriate to use the POV dispute for the current version - re-establishment - since this a neutral term and invasion is clearly POV. I've removed the POV tag. --Duncan (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Pfainuk talk 07:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have. It's mostly Argentine propaganda and is one of the most biased articles I've ever seen. Pfainuk talk 07:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we remove the fugly POV warning now? --Narson ~ Talk • 23:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Andres seems to have decided that the article requires the POV warning based on the fact that this article is different to that on the Spanish Wikipedia. I have explained to him that the fact that this article is different from the Spanish Wikipedia's propaganda piece does not imply that this article is POV, but he is ignoring this. He is also refusing to discuss any specific issue on talk. I have removed the warning, but will not continue to revert: I suggest that this go to WP:WQA or somewhere similar if the warning is replaced again. Pfainuk talk 13:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not neutral

This article is clearly biased to the english perspective —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegoesp (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, if you have a suggestion please offer it. Ranting about bias isn't helpful. Justin talk 16:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It clearly is, Justin. Biased, I mean. Would you describe the events of 1982 as a "Re-Establishment of Argentine Rule on the Falkland Islands"? Didn't think so. In 1833 the islands were clearly under Argentine control and the English gained control by force. Call it what you wish. Anyway, this article is rather useless and shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place (this also applies to the Spanish version of the article, and many more one-sided articles). Just delete both the English and Spanish versions of the article be done with it. Merge whatever little may be useful from them into the main Falklands article, if you wish. In any case, neither English nor Argentine editing should be allowed on this articles, for rather obvious reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.10.147 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No is not, for many reasons you couldn't describe the events of 1833 as an invasion and we have invited suggestions to improve the title (which no one is happy with btw) many times but no one has been able to come up with a suitable alternative. And comparing a 19th Century event, with a 20th Century one, where we have norms of International law and the UN established is frankly ridiculous. As your contention that the islands were under Argentine control in 1833, clearly whilst Argentina may claim that, the historical details do tend to contradict that assertion as they do many aspects of what modern Argentina claims. Finally, on the English wikipedia British and Argentina editors can usually agree without rancour, please lets keep it that way. Justin talk 08:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with 190.231.10.147 in that there is predominance of a British POV on this article speacially the title. We should work out to find a title that does better reflect the reality of the events, particularily the military aspects. Dentren | ^Talk 02:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that nobody likes the current title, and if you have any new suggestions then I'm sure we'd all be keen to hear them.

But the last two times you've come here, all you've actually done is repeat the same suggestion. If this is your intention again, I suggest reread the previous discussions because the same objections to that proposal still apply. Pfainuk talk 10:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all the article is written strictly per WP:NPOV, there is not a preponderance of a British POV and we have always been open to changing the article title. No one is entirely happy with it, if it were the British POV it would be referred to as the British Return. That said a procession of editors have asserted it is biased but on each occasion have either failed to suggest a better alternative, merely asserting its biased, or in the end have agreed with it. Like I say we're open to suggestions but if you're intent on re-iterating the same one the arguments haven't changed. Justin talk 14:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Then by then its good to rise the same questions to see if somebody else picks this up so we can bring a new consensus rather than the current Justin-Pfainuk-Narson consensus. To overturn the current consensus by my own would be like a full time job. Dentren | ^Talk 21:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What about "British seizure"? MBelgrano (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That still rather implies that violence was employed, which of course it wasn't. The word "takeover" would be perfect if it wasn't a bit too colloquial.

"Argentine surrender"? When this was discussed before, Justin wasn't keen because the Pinedo left with his colours and weapons - Onslow was particularly keen not to humiliate Argentina - and because he was concerned that it might be interpreted as surrender of sovereignty in the sense of Gibraltar. But it might be useful to know Argentine views on this.

The problem we have is that this was quite an unusual situation, so it's plausible that there just isn't an ideal word. The current solution is to try to avoid naming the situation and describing it instead, but again, the events rather defy brief description - we can't really call the article something really long like Events surrounding the replacement of Argentine authority with British authority on the Falkland Islands in 1833. Pfainuk talk 23:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if there was no battle, it was still a violent act, as things happen the way they did because of the military migth taken by the British. Extortion by intimidation is still violence. A non-violent transfer of sovereignty from Argentina to Britain would have been if the peoples in the islands made an open cabildo or other similar meeting, decide to emancipate themselves from Argentina and become instead an independent country or part of another country (which may include a petition of foreign protection). Of course, none of that is what has happened. It is said that this can't be called an invasion because there was no military action, which may make sense, an invasion is a military action to seize a territory. Then, don't use the term "invasion", which suggests a military action, but use "seize" instead. Is it incorrect in some way to say that the British seized the islands? Even if there was no military conflict, can we really said that the people in the islands changed from one country to another by their own free will, without any threating force influencing them to do so? MBelgrano (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"A violent act" implies the use of physical force - as does "seize". In this case, there was no use of physical force. There was a polite exchange of messages. Onslow asked Pinedo to leave and Pinedo did so.

Part of the point of this is finding a form of words that does not imply that sovereignty was transferred (thus respecting the Argentine position), only that control was transferred. Even this is a touch debatable - the real power on the islands in June 1833 lay with Vernet, Brisbane and Dickson (depending on who was present), just as in June 1832. The only real difference was the flag being raised. It wasn't until a few months after Brisbane and Dickson were killed in the Gaucho murders that the British even tried to exert any significant authority over the islands.

The answer to your final question is that Vernet - the leader of the colony - did not particularly care what country was in control so long as his business affairs were unmolested - and they were until the Gaucho Murders. Likewise Brisbane and Dickson. The colony being a private enterprise, it was their judgement that was considered important. Pfainuk talk 07:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this last point is not strictly accurate in implication. The general point made is correct: Vernet et al. were more interested in their business than they were in the dispute. Vernet had British permission to set up his colony and did not object to the British actions, given assurances as to his business.

Did they change of their own free will, without threats of outside force? We can say for sure that they did continue to raise the British flag instead of the Argentine despite the absence of any British military power to enforce a change in de facto control. While the British were not going to go back and tell the Argentines they could come back had the colonists objected (something I believe I may have inadvertently implied), it was the colonists' choice to raise the British flag instead of the Argentine.

The most important point would seem to be that this was a private settlement, not the colony of a country. It could not unreasonably be argued that for most of the period from 1828 to 1834 - including that which we discuss here - it was pretty irrelevant what flag was being raised. There was no government of the islands outside of Vernet's organisation except for a few brief periods during that time. Pfainuk talk 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Takeover" isn't colloquial isn't it? Dentren | ^Talk 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not colloquial in an economic sense (as in LAN's takeover of AIRES). But it is in a political sense (Ruritania's takeover of Elbonia). Pfainuk talk 18:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

These seem to be based on a personal interpretation of the Nootka Conventions. We need secondary sources to show that these were intended to apply to the Falklands - all I can read here suggests that they were intended to apply only to the North-West coast of the Americas, the Falklands were not considered. David Underdown (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I see that actually one article did apply to South America:

ARTICLE VI It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.

However, the application of that to the Falklands is still fai from clear cut, and does not invalidate the general point that we need secondary sources that directly address taht piont, rather than relying on our own interpretation. See WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. David Underdown (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Having dealt with this before, the most relevant points are:

• It is unclear that the Falklands are to be considered "adjacent" to South America. If not then the treaty is irrelevant.
• If the Falklands are taken to be "adjacent", it is unclear that Argentina is not a third party as regards the secret article of the treaty (i.e. that it is Argentina, not Spain, that is bound by the terms of the treaty). If it is a third party, then it is clear from the secret article that the relevant section of the treaty was no longer in force in 1833 as the edit implied.
• Similarly, and again assuming that the Falklands are included, it is not entirely clear that the United States did not form an establishment on the islands by the meaning of the treaty during the Lexington Raid.
• If we assume both that the Falklands are included as part of the treaty and that Argentina takes Spain's place in the treaty terms, then we must point out that in 1790, Puerto Soledad - on the north coast of East Falkland - was the southernmost Spanish settlement that we assume to be included in the terms. South of the southernmost settlement, the treaty applies to both parties equally. If Britain gave up rights, it seems plausible to suggest that Spain - and by our assumption, Argentina - did so as well.

All of those demonstrate the issue with trying to interpret primary sources. The original edit also cited an Argentine government webpage - but of course the Argentine government is going to pick the interpretation most favourable to its POV. We can't accept that as neutral fact. Pfainuk talk 17:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This interpretation of Nootka was first proposed by Paul Groussac in the late 1880s, prior to that it had not featured in any Spanish or Argentine considerations on the Falklands. Properly it is an Argentine interpretation relevant to the sovereignty dispute and is dealt with on the sovereignty dispute article. The official British position is that the convention has never applied to the islands and I have documents from 1791 to that effect. We have regularly seen tendentious editing to try and insert it elsewhere, which I feel should be resisted as it is attempting to impose a skewed POV on the article. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 19:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

On the recent edit war:

It is common practice on Wikipedia articles on articles related to the Falklands dispute to mention the word Malvinas at the first reference to "Falklands", and then using Falklands for the rest of the article. This mirrors common practice in neutral outside sources that discuss the dispute, and I feel that it improves the perception of neutrality on these articles.

On the additional discussion: Curry Monster is correct that this is not immediately background to these incidents, but rather general background. In addition, I note that it puts background to the British claim but not the Argentine, which would not appear to be neutral. I have added a link to History of the Falkland Islands to help provide any further background that readers want. Pfainuk talk 18:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not 'common practice' to include the the word Malvinas at the first reference to "Falklands" as History of the Falkland Islands shows. It is also not 'common practice' in other articles on disputed territories. This suggests that there is a general consensus to not include other names for places (disputed or otherwise). Why does this article needs this almost unique inclusion?

On the general background, we have to explain why the British thought they were 're-establishing' their rule on the Islands, and the couple of lines I added did so. Claims on territory can have long backgrounds so just dealing with the immediate background is often not sufficient. Neutrality does not involve restating everyone's claims all the time.

Rsloch (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that neutrality requires that everyone's claims be restated - that's partly why I removed your piece. But it does require that, if the basis for one side's claims are restated, the basis for the other's should also be restated. Otherwise we appear to be backing one of the two POVs.

It is actually pretty standard throughout articles on the Falklands to use the word Malvinas in this way. That you can find one place that misses it out does not invalidate the general rule. At least partly, this is a compromise between those who would have us ignore the Argentine claim altogether and those who insist that any neutral text must include Malvinas alongside Falklands at every instance of the word. As I say, it also mirrors neutral sources on the subject - which tend to mention Malvinas on the first instance of the word Falklands.

There are very few parallel cases elsewhere in the world. I have not found another example where an English-speaking country and a non-English speaking country dispute a territory; where each side uses one of two entirely unrelated names for the territory and where there is no third compromise name used by neutral commentators. If the solution is unique (and based on the precedent of the Gdansk vote I'm not convinced it is), it is only because the situation is also unique. Pfainuk talk 13:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's ten places, Battle of Mount Tumbledown, Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands, Politics of the Falkland Islands, Geology of the Falkland Islands, Rivers of the Falkland Islands, Economy of the Falkland Islands, Education in the Falkland Islands, Sport in the Falkland Islands, Transport in the Falkland Islands, Military of the Falkland Islands. I believe that I have more than adequately shown that adding the Spanish name for the Falklands is not 'standard' or 'common practice' (even within Falklands based topics) and thus should really be removed.

I'm suggesting that there is a need to provide a reason as to why the British were re-establishing, not just establishing control over the Islands. Do you disagree with that premise or how I did it?

Rsloch (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What do articles such as Transport in the Falkland Islands, Education in the Falkland Islands or Rivers of the Falkland Islands have to do with the dispute?

I don't think we need to go into vast quantities of detail about the previous history of the islands. I also don't think that it's neutral to put one side's arguments without putting other side's, and feel that the way it was written did not flow at all well. Pfainuk talk 18:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I substantially wrote both the Timeline and History articles, I have now re-added the Spanish names as I hadn't noticed they'd been removed. It has been common practise for quite some time but unfortunately various editors motivated by rather blind nationalism keep removing it. I don't catch them all. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

They show that your previous assertions were false.

One and a half lines is hardly 'vast quantities of detail' but it is necessary.

I've made my points but as you two are clearly unwilling to listen this discussion is closed.

Rsloch (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't show anything of the sort. As I made perfectly clear, my point is that such usage is common on "articles related to the Falklands dispute". Search for that phrase and you'll find that I put it in the first sentence of my first edit in this section.

You feel that an addition is necessary. I do not. That is fine: we are allowed to disagree. If you now consider this closed, then I will as well. Pfainuk talk 18:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Re-establishment"?

If this was the re-establishment of the British rule, when was the first one? In other words, when did the British first established their rule over the Falkland Islands? --Langus (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

1766, Port Egmont, West Falkland. Known verifiable historic fact. Before complaining about the name, see the discussions above. And note no one is interested in further semantic arguments, since the name is a compromise no one is happy with, so if you can come up with a better NPOV suggestion people will be interested. However, if you intention is to reprise pre-existing arguments no one is likely to listen. Similarly accusations of bias will simply fall on deaf ears. Further for the record, that is not a presumption of bad faith, more a reflection of bitter experience on this article. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Easy, tiger. You're quite right: Port Egemont, West Falkland. But the article title refers to the Falklands as a whole. If there was no "British rule over the Falkland Islands" before 1833, then this was in fact the "establishment" of British rule, not the "re-establishment". "Ruling" refers to 'the exercise of authority or control'[2], and looking at the timeline of permanence in the Falkland Islands, I don't see a period prior to 1833 in which the British were the only settlers:

Therefore, they didn't have 'authority or control' over 'the Falkland Islands', unless the other governments were there under their authorization.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the reason for the choice of preposition. Not rule over the Falklands as a whole but rule on the Falklands. I think you could credibly argue that none of the early settlements had control over every part of the islands (except by default).

As Curry Monster notes, the status quo is the least bad option at the moment: I don't think anyone is outright happy with it. If you have better suggestions, I think we'd all like to hear them - though it's probably worth looking over previous discussions first. Pfainuk talk 06:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Langus, this has been noted previously and as Pfainuk notes above the preposition was chosen carefully. You're reprising an old argument and starting down the path of arguing semantics. I will have little patience if you're simply going to go down the same route as previously. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Langus in full right to rise questions again, "consensus" generated by the guardians of the article can be challenged in any movement and the phrase of "reprising an old argument" is a very weak argument. In fact if ones goes back to those discussions one can find repeatedly that some users (Mariano, Dentren and others) are not happy with the current name albeit their lack of persistence and collaboration (perhaps due to sporadic activity in the English wiki) have lead Pfainuk, Narson, Justin & Co. to win the battles not by argument but by persistence (just see who made the last comments in each discussion). Chiton magnificus (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA Please do not raise tensions on the article unnecessarily by resorting to personal attacks. This comment is completely unaccetpable and if repeated I will take this straight to WP:ANI, you may consider this a warning of future intent. All 3 of the editors you just named have indicated a willingness to compromise. Editing in controversial areas requires a cool head and this is just completely unacceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And it may have escaped your notice sunshine, that nobody is happy with the current name. Its a compromise. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but I don't consider my comments personal attacks. I will assume you made them on good faith. Chiton magnificus (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I consider win the battles not by argument but by persistence is a clear personal attack. We earnestly engaged to find a solution, despite the provocation of being accused of bias. Your comments are out of place. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

win the battles not by argument but by persistence is no personal attack. I'm actually sort of tired of what I would call the "hypochondriac personal attack infectious disease" or "HPAID" that goes around in wikipedia. I don't blame you, I just ask you to think. Chiton magnificus (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

How about you think before posting and then not making it worse by accusing other of HPAID? If in a hole stop digging. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew this sórt of comment was comming. But I still stand but what I have said: that I consider that some users here have won discussions not by argument but by persistence and that I'm actually sort of tired of what I would call HPAID. Let's now discuss more interesting thing than revolve in a circular logic. Chiton magnificus (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And you keep on digging, your remarks are out of place and uncivil; repeating them is more than unhelpful. Decisions were made solely on the basis of the strength of the argument nothing more. If you don't like them, then frankly tough, there was nothing to stop or deter anyone's participation. Frankly I resent the implication that there was. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is digging. Please stop your baseless accusations and desist from future ones. I'm just asserting I haven't done or said nothing wrong. Wee Curry's your comment "I consider win the battles not by argument but by persistence is a clear personal attack" does not fit the description of WP:NPA, but accusations towards me falls under the WP:NPA were it says "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." are personal attacks: I waited and desisted in the begining to poit this out because I'm critic to the way poeple resort to WP:NPA for very small things (yes I try to not catch HPAID), but now I point this out to you, just so you think that it is not the best way of solve things to do random WP:NPA accusations as it might hit yourself back. Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have taken this to WP:WQA, it seems better to discuss it there rather than needlessly clutter this page. Do you need a templated notice on your talk page? Wee Curry Monster talk

You see? WP:WQA was a waste of time, didn't even had to defend myself there. I have done nothing wrong. win the battles not by argument but by persistence is not a personal attack and neither HPAID. Please desist from more futile accusations against me. It's not my fault I'm Argentine. Chiton magnificus (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I see the comment about not cluttering up the page passed you by. Nobody is fighting any battles here and there was no argument, a consensus was reached by discussion, your comments were a personal attack and an example of a WP:BATTLE mentality, which I don't share. I don't care about your nationality as I count several Argentine editors as friends. You are welcome to have the last word. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your claims of personal attacks seems to have been rejected in WP:WQA, so will you please stop accusing me of those things here? This is not the place to do so. Continue your issue on that on WP:WQA and not here. Chiton magnificus (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

1833 establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands

I like to discuss if any here finds the title: 1833 establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands good for this page or not. Chiton magnificus (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This proposal was already suggested above, you'll find that neither I nor Pfainuk had any significant opposition to it. In fact I believe it was Pfainuk who proposed it. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"No opposition".. can you clarify Wee Curry which title you prefer 1833 establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands or Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands? Chiton magnificus (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no particular preference either way, though the prefix "Re" acknowledges the pre-existing settlement of Port Egmont. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And on reflection I would now prefer it stays the way it is. I now oppose changing it. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

How was your reflection? In between your change of opion in between less than 23 hours you accused me to the Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance for supposed attacks and had to know I'm Argentine. Remember to not get personal. Chiton magnificus (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the earlier dicussions, noting that "Re" reflects there was an earlier settlement and avoids confusion with the settlement at Port Egmont. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

But a shorter title does not deny that "fact". There is a limit on how much information a title can contain, I guess nobody would agree with a title like Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands by James Onslow.. which is sort of correct but not short enought. I think, in that in matters of "title wording economy" its preferable to include the year 1833 in the title than the prefix "re". Chiton magnificus (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, originally it had both the "re-" and the year. It's not an either-or thing. The year was removed last year as unneeded disambiguation. I reverted it once at the time - but then decided it wasn't worth the hassle. I prefer the version with both. Pfainuk talk 18:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need to add a year personally, it was a singular but one off event. Most events of this nature wouldn't require a year. The prefix and preposition offer the least of a bad bunch. IMHO Wee Curry Monster talk 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Rehash of previous proposals/discussions

As requested at the WP:WQA, I thought it would be useful to detail previous discussions and proposals here:

• 1833 British return to the Falkland Islands
  • Common name in British-biased literature. POV/inaccurate in that it fails to acknowledge the pre-1833 settlement.
• 1833 British invasion of the Falkland Islands
  • Common name in Argentine-biased literature. POV/inaccurate in that it implies use of military force, when what happened in fact was a polite exchange of messages. Draws a false parallel with the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands (in which a fair bit of fighting took place).
• 1833 British occupation of the Falkland Islands
  • Inaccurate in that nothing that could plausibly be described as an "occupation" happened on the islands in 1833 (in that the British didn't actually leave any military personnel or civilian government, nor any colonists beyond those already present on the islands). It was also argued that it implied illegitimacy and was thus POV.
• 1833 Argentine surrender of the Falkland Islands
  • Inaccurate in that Onslow made great effort to avoid a formal surrender (because he did not want to humiliate Argentina). Pinedo left with his arms and colours. Concern was raised that it implied surrender of sovereignty and was thus POV.
• 1833 Re-assertion of British sovereignty on the Falkland Islands
  • Former name of this article. Concern was raised that the use of the word "sovereignty" in this context implied legitimacy and was thus POV.
• 1833 British takeover of the Falkland Islands
  • Rejected as overly colloquial.
• History of the Falkland Islands (1826–1834)
  • Concern was that this might imply a series of articles, where few other periods of Falklands history are likely to be as notable. Implies a different article scope (this may or may not be a bad thing).
• (Re-)installation of British rule on the Falkland Islands
  • Considered no better than the current title. The (Re-) bit is the same as elsewhere.
• (Re-)establishment of British administration on the Falkland Islands
  • Considered no better than the current title. The (Re-) bit is the same as elsewhere.
• Establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands
  • Rejected as implying that there was no British settlement on the islands prior to 1833.
• Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands
  • Current title. Not actively liked by anyone - it's very clunky - but accepted as the best of a bad bunch.

You should be able to find all of these above. Not necessarily exactly: some may use "Falklands" instead of "Falkland Islands"; some may include or exclude the date, or put it in different places; some may include or exclude one or other of the words "British" or "Argentine". And there may be some variations on a theme that share the drawbacks described (e.g. I've lumped in "occupation" options with 1833 British occupation of the Falkland Islands). Pfainuk talk 18:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And I add Chiton's proposal, which I like:

• 1833 establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands

Pfainuk, I understand your point about the 'on' preposition, but still I think it may be misunderstood by the reader. I'll try to explain myself by example:

• Hu Jintao's rule on Asia
• Arnold Schwarzenegger's rule on the US (I had to copy-paste that)
• Rule of Alexander The Great on the world

While they're all correct in the sense that "on" refers to a part inside it, I don't think it's appropriate to use it in that way, especially in an article title. Using "establishment" instead of "re-establishment" eliminates this issue.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1883?....see anyone can make a mistake, perhaps I should have berated you for it [3].

I don't get your examples at all and the point you're trying to make isn't apparent. Especially as the title you're proposing contains the same preposition. Also as I said above the prefix "Re" is important as there was a previous settlement.

Secondly why do we need the year for a one off event, Battle of Agincourt, Battle of Arnhem for example don't need them but for incidents where many share the same name you might eg Bloody Sunday. We'd normally add a year for disambiguation purposes. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have corrected it now. Yes, we all make mistakes, and I know yours there was an honest mistake.

You have to read my comments in previous section to fully understand my point. "Establishment of British rule over the Falkland Islands" would be better perhaps. Note the 'over' preposition.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read both your comments and the above examples and TBH I really don't understand your point at all. I still have a preference for the current title over this suggestion as the current title acknowledges the previous settlement. As you propose it, it would appear they simply turned up in 1833 having never been there. Sorry though I don't particularly like the current title it seems better than what you're proposing. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I really can't see how "Establishment of British rule over the Falkland Islands" imply that they've never been there before. It doesn't "acknowledge" a lot of things, but it's just a title. Why do we need to refer to the settlement on Port Egmont? (not any previous ruling over the Falklands, but just over a part of it)

I summarize my point: current title, if not analyzed carefully, gives the impression that there was a previous ruling over the Falklands. If I say "the rule of Sarah Palin on the US"... would you guess that I was talking only about a state? That was my point with the examples. Even if a careful reader notes the distinction, he/she has no clue about where exactly in the Islands was the previous ruling. It is better to have a more clear title, like saying "establishment over" or "1833 establishment on/over".

Regards. --Langus (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need to refer to a previous settlement? Perhaps because there was one, further contrary to the popularly perpetuated myth of the British absence from the Falkland Islands, there was a virtually continuous presence of sealers and whalers throughout that time. Whilst authority was absent it was re-established in 1833.

As to your second point, I am unsure whether it is simply a language confusion but the sentences you use bear no relation to the use of that preposition in the English language. So whatever point you're trying to make is either invalid or the result of your misunderstanding of language usage. I make the point again there was a previous establishment of British authority on the Falkland Islands so I disagree that it is misleading.

Again I make the point we would only typically include the year for disambiguation purposes and it is unnecessary in this case. Perhaps you may care to respond to that, instead of apparently ignoring it. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although I think that including the year can be useful in some cases, even when no disambiguation is needed, to fix the event in the mind's eye. In this case, the date is one of the points that in general is best-known about this event. I think it's useful (though not essential) to put it in the title.

I would note that the use of prepositions is quite a complex part of English grammar. In this context the choice of preposition is confusing because you can use "on" with some kinds of geographical features but not others. Islands, peninsulas, archipelagos, yes. Countries, continents or the world, no. You might legitimately refer to "Portuguese rule on Timor" or "Swedish rule on the Scandinavian Peninsula" - but "Sarah Palin's rule on the United States" simply doesn't make sense.

The fact that the current title relies on the subtleties of an English preposition for its accuracy is one of the reasons why I don't like it. As I've said before, I think we all agree that it's a bad title. However, I do not believe that this issue would be alleviated be switching to "Establishment of British rule over the Falkland Islands", with or without the year. Pfainuk talk 09:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

By focusing on the (gross) grammar errors of my examples you're missing the point. Pfainuk, you say that the preposition 'on' is what justifies the "Re-" prefix, because 'on' doesn't necessarily mean that the previous ruling was over the Falklands as a whole, and that in fact it was over a part of it. Am I following you? If so, what I'm trying to expose here is that such use is not appropriate. Maybe "The rule of Sarah Palin in the US" could sound like English? It's not the same preposition but it's used equivalently, and the expression has the same problem I'm talking about.

@WCM: "Perhaps because there was one" is not good enough. I believe that what you're trying to say is that it's relevant because it highlights the fact that there was a previous British settlement. To me, that's no different than "British return to the Falkland Islands". The purpose of an article name is just to identify it, not to make any point.

Regarding the inclusion of the year, I could point out that after the Falklands War the British established once again their rule, so "Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands" could refer to events in 1982. Or it could also refer to January 1771: see Falkland Crisis (1770) and the timeline above. I concur here with Pfainuk in that the year and the place is what most commonly identifies this event. If I were to google it, I would certainly search for "+1833 +falklands". Because of naturalness and precision, I see now that the year should be included.

If you don't like this title, then this is a chance to improve it.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Langus, no that isn't what he is saying at all. The examples you constructed to attempt to show this is non-neutral are not relevant because that is not how the preposition "on" is used in the English language. The preposition is not used equivalently, it just isn't used in the manner you did. Again I make the point I don't know whether this is simply a language confusion but your habit of repeating the same argument after something has been patiently explained to you is rather irritating.

That there exists a pre-existing settlement is relevant, the purpose of the title is to acknowledge that, not to make any particular point. As to the inclusion of a year, I consider it unnecessary. The actual date is in December 1832, when the Tyne and Clio arrived at Port Egmont btw. If you want to propose a new name by all means do so but constantly trying to argue for a name that has been rejected is not the way to go about it, all that does is harden attitudes against it. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to hear the opinion of Pfainuk and Langus on adding the year (1833) to the article name. 1833 is much more valuable in the title than the prefix "Re" which might be wrongly intrepted as if the British had undisputed sovereignty over the islands before or as if the British had de facto control over the islands before. These potential misinterpretations apart from confusing the reader might also lead to lower the level of stability of the article, which is an over-all problen in Falkland articles. Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The preposition "on" is used for multiple reasons, specifically one is to avoid any question of claims of undisputed sovereignty or de facto control. Allegations of "potential misinterpretations" and "confusing the readers" are red herrings in that respect. The only real problems I see in Falklands articles relate to POV pushing by both British and Argentine nationalists seeking to turn wikipedia into a battleground. I will repeat, if you have a suggestion for improvement then make it. The current suggestions of Establishment of British rule over the Falkland Islands is rejected because it ignores the earlier settlement and the prepostion over is misleading as British rule over the islands was actually established much later. Addressing the problems with the suggestion would be more productive than continuing to argue in its favour as consensus requires compromise. As to the year, I see it as unnecessary but if you must have a year 1832 is more accurate as the British ships arrived in 1832, only a month later did they act to request the Argentine garrison to leave. I would just point out that wikipedia's policies would prefer British return to the Falkland Islands, since that is the WP:COMMON NAME in the English language. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider falling back on reliable sources. For example in Darwin C., (1860) A Naturalist's Voyage Round the World. Chap. IV p. 199, Darwin uses the words "After the possession of these miserable islands ..." and "England claimed her right an [sic] seized [the Falkland Islands]"—my emphasis—perhaps a title such as Claimed possession of the Falkland Islands by Britain in 1833? I accept that Darwin was not an authority on this direct matter. However, perhaps we could use the same principle of finding a different suitable source for this obviously contentious name --Senra (Talk) 15:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Britain claimed possession of the Falkland Islands in 1690, with the expedition led by John Strong. Try Mary Cawkell, A History of the Falklands, or Ian J. Strange, The Falkland Islands, or even online sources [4], my suggestion British Reoccupation of the Falkland Islands, 1832. Wee Curry Monster talk

"Occupation" refers to possession over the the land in question. Therefore British reoccupation is only correct if there was a previous control over that area.

The Argentine garrison left the islands in 1833, so I'd say this year is the one of the British establishment/occupation/possession etc.

Senra's advice makes a lot of sense. "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles: the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable". From WP:TITLE. --Langus (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But per Senra's advice, its a title stemming from a WP:RS, and the British arrived in December 1832, so your suggestion is both inaccurate and doesn't reflect what the sources say. Similarly British return to the Falkland Islands comes from a WP:RS. And this is the WP:COMMON NAME in the English Language. So now my suggestion is British return to the Falkland Islands, 1832. Lets see, its similar to titles in reliable sources, precisely identifies the subject, its shorter, natural and recognisable per WP:TITLE. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that alternatives involving the word "occupation" are appropriate because that word doesn't really describe events. Everyone on the islands immediately after January 1833 had already been there before December 1832: no new "occupation" occurred.

The standard objection to British return to the Falkland Islands is that it is the British-biased term and doesn't adequately acknowledge the existence of the Argentine settlement. And I'm not convinced that it's common enough to make it the WP:COMMONNAME (though I could be persuaded).

On the year, I would suggest that the date near-universally cited for the British takeover is 1833 (indeed, sometimes these events are only acknowledged as something like "since 1833") so it would seem odd for us to use another date - particularly when the argument for the rest of the title is WP:COMMONNAME. Pfainuk talk 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the point in mentioning 1832 is that the commonly accepted date is not necessarily correct. The squadron arrived in 1832, so stating 1832 or 1833 in the title is going to be misleading in one way or another. Is there an actual need to mention a year in the title - the dates are in the article after all, which makes it much clearer. Today I correct the lede as it had the date completely wrong.

I'm open to new suggestions but again we see a situation where it is alleged there are neutrality problems with the current title but little in the way of concrete suggestions and any other suggestion made is rejected. We've been here before. I don't happen to like the current title but it was a compromise all were prepared to accept at the time. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree.

How about History of the Falkland Islands (1826-34) or something similar? I think I objected to it before, but on listing them it occurred to me that of all the titles proposed, this one has the least convincing objection. It means a bit of a rewrite of the article for a new scope, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea: one of the significant factors here is that, despite the fact that it's often portrayed as a single isolated incident, the change of flags was just one of a series of events over a period of several years that marked a transition from no de facto control to Vernet's colony to coming under the control of a British governor.

On other articles, I'd suggest we use verb phrases - for example, where Falkland Islands currently says, [e]ver since the re-establishment of British rule in 1833..., this could be changed to [e]ver since Britain took control of the islands in 1832-3...'. Pfainuk talk 21:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Would it help us to suggest that if anyone claims WP:RS for a new title they should be required to justify that claim? They could cite and quote one (or more) sources as I did when citing and quoting Darwin above. Not all of us are as familiar with these sources as you all are --Senra (Talk) 15:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• British Colonization of the Falkland Islands 1832? on the basis that the citation uses "Colonization" in its own title and also incidentally uses "possess" and "reoccupation". Source: Gough, Barry M (1990). "The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843". Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. 22 (2): 261–287. Retrieved 27 October 2011.. That article also suggests that the fundamental work on this topic is Ferns, Henry S (1960). Britain and Argentina in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford. pp. 224–233. --Senra (Talk) 21:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Doesn't work, the decision to colonise the islands was made in 1841, we're talking about the events of 1832-1833. Colonisation started in 1843. During the period 1833-1843, the colony consisted almost exclusively of the people left by Vernet. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Do I still get a cookie for trying? --Senra (Talk) 22:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• British reoccupation of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)

I have just obtained a copy of the Gough (1990) paper and it is making very interesting reading. The paper cites 97 sources! Expect me to pop back here with some comments after I have read it. In the meantime, I am beginning to favour British reoccupation of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834). I do understand the emotion that the word "reoccupation" evokes but for me, the fact that a paper which cites 97 references uses such a word makes it very WP:RS and thus very defensible --Senra (Talk) 23:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to that title, the objection will be that it is favouring the British POV, Mary Cawkell's referencing is impeccable (considerably more than 97), yet we had the same objection to the title used in her work. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the word "reoccupation" is bound to be emotive. However, for any title, if we all work hard to carefully cite one (or more) references to support any given title, we should get somewhere. I don't have Mary Cawkell. Does her work support this title? If so, can you quote a supporting passage from it? --Senra (Talk) 08:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

[5] Falklands.info is a useful resource and based largely on her work. In the 1960 edition of her book, Cawkell simply calls the Chapter "A period of many changes", in the 1983 short history she calls it the "British repossession", Gusafson simply calls it "The incident of 1833", Goebel simply refers to the British taking possession of the islands. WP:RS support repossession or reoccupation. I will be adding bits'n'pieces shortly. Any particular passages you'd like to see? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No particular passage. Just anything that directly supports a non contentious title here so we can all move on and improve the article itself :) --Senra (Talk) 12:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This period (1832–1834) is indeed turbulent. Gough (1990) p. 264 relates the narrative of the then Captain Robert FitzRoy who commanded the southern coasts of South America survey on the HMS Beagle between 1831–1836. FitzRoy (Gough 1990 p. 267), or his Admiralty ghost writers, records his uncertainty with this query: "One may pause to consider what nation is at this moment the legitimate owner of the Falklands"? FitzRoy goes on to discuss the previous history concluding that "Spaniards neither discovered, landed upon, nor settled in the Falklands before Englishmen; and their only claim rests upon the unstable foundation of a papal bull, by virtue of which Spain might just as well claim Otaheite, the Sandwich Islands, or New Zealand". I think I should point out that I am not making a judgement here nor am I trying to deliberately bait. On the contrary, I am simply reporting one source which (IMHO) is reliable. I accept that other sources exist. If I was editing the article, I would also want to assure myself of the reliability of Falklands.info as a source, perhaps via the reliable sources noticeboard?—sorry WCM :(. I did notice in passing that there were some unreferenced sections in the article. Incidentally, I do not intend to edit the article, as I am only here to try to help reduce the tension --Senra (Talk) 12:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Check the archives at WP:RSN I believe it already has been. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I can't find it. Checked WP:RSN using the search term "falkland" which resulted in six results: three of those seem relevant (Falkland Islands, Official sources and Another WP:SPS regarding Falkland Islands); none ask directly whether Falklands.info is WP:RS or not. This is not a big issue for our discussions on the title unless Falklands.info is being used as one of the reliable sources justifying a specific title suggestion --Senra (Talk) 16:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Well for now I'm liking your suggestion based on Gough, the year range is a better idea that simply putting 1833 there, since it doesn't pin this to one event. Tbere were a number of events that lead to the installation of the first British resident. These include the despatch of the squadran, the incident at Port Louis, the Beagle visit and the Gaucho murders and finally as a result of the murders the installation of the resident. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• British occupation of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)

A more accurate way of naming the events, if you ask me (reoccupation of the Falklands makes no sense, as there was always a French/Spanish settlement on the islands). It is used by what seems to be reliable sources in:

• Peaceful Territorial Change (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), by Arie Marcelo Kacowicz.
• Toward resolution?: the Falklands/Malvinas dispute (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1991), by Wayne S Smith.
• The sovereignty dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands (Oxford University Press, 1988), by Lowell S. Gustafson

...and probably more. Regards. --Langus (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly liking your approach. Finding references strengthens the case for this title. I do nit-pick your sources slightly in that they are all after 1982 and thus will have a post-war bias. Is there no pre-1982 sources or better yet, sources closer to 1832–1834?

I prefer the version with the prefix "Re", it acknowledges there was a previous settlement, without the prefix it has POV problems to my mind in not acknowledging that previous settlement. Also nit picking I don't see any page numbers in those references. And as I have a copy of Gustafson, he simply calls it the "Incident of 1833", so I don't see it as supporting your edit at all. The critical pages in the Google books reference for Wayne Smith are missing from Google Books, so I would like to see a quote please. And Kacowicz would support both proposals if you read the text. Noting that Gough is an American RS and treats the subject in a neutral manner, I would be keen to see we use his title. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear Langus-TxT (talk · contribs). Nit-pick in my mind means minor point. I applaud your selection of three sources, to my one. My own source, (Gough 1990) was also post-1982, so I really should not nit-pick you at all. I just feel, on reflection, that sources closer to the actual event would stand up to future scrutiny better. All of us want this title to be resolved once and for all --Senra (Talk) 11:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am looking through books with a date range 1850-1981 (starting later to avoid primary sources) with preview or full view only through Google Books (thus biasing the sample toward 19th century texts), and I find that it is most common to describe the incident using a verbal phrase, such as:

“ ...and more recently the government of Buenos Ayres established a colony at Port Louis, on the island of East Falkland. But this was surrendered to the English in 1833,... ”

(William Hughes, A manual of European geography, 1856, p609)

“ Meanwhile the government of Buenos Aires had formed a settlement at Port Louis in 1823, but Great Britain asserted its rights, and the colony was given up to the English in 1833. ”

(C. Knight, Penny cyclopaedia of the Society for the diffusion of useful knowledge: Supplement, Volume 1, 1851, p565)

“ ...till 1774, when they were for a time abandoned, and finally, after a temporary occupation by the Argentine Republic, the Falklands were, in 1833, taken possession of by the British government for the protection of the Whale Fishery, and a Governor placed there. ”

(Arthur Mills, Colonial constitutions: an outline of the constitutional history and existing government of the British dependencies, 1856, p286)

For most of this period, the Falklands were fairly obscure. During the nineteenth century they were just another, fairly minor, British territory in a world where Britain controlled 20% of the world's landmass. In population terms, they didn't register at all. Hence several basic errors in the above quotes. Where there was interest, it seems to have been in the islands' role as a strategic stop on the route around Cape Horn. Aside for a First World War naval battle, this obscurity in British eyes remained in place pretty much until the war of 1982.

I remain very much unconvinced about using "occupation". I am concerned that it can imply a military occupation (which would be inaccurate) and thus illegitimacy (which would be POV). Even if we don't accept this implication, the point is still inaccurate with respect to 1833, as no additional British personnel were landed on the islands. Even during 1834-41, I note Governor Rennie's description. Having just described how the colony was "taken possession of by England", he notes that the British "possession" was:

“ ...limited to an officer with a boat's crew in charge of the flag up to 1841... ”

(taken from p56 of The United service magazine: with which are incorporated the Army and navy magazine and Naval and military journal, Part 1, Colburn, 1850). Pfainuk talk 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of the word possession (actually search of possess) within this page by occurence

1. 86.16.117.32 (talk · contribs) 23 Jan 2007 possession (one) should replace invasion but rejected by 212.120.228.121 (talk · contribs) 2 Jan 2008 in favour of reoccupation
2. Senra (talk · contribs) 26 October 2011 Darwin (1860) used the word possession so Claimed possession of the Falkland Islands by Britain in 1833? suggested and accepted by Langus (talk · contribs) (tut tut I mean Langus-TxT (talk · contribs)) 26 Oct 2011 but rejected by Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs) 26 October 2011 on the basis that possession claimed by Britain in 1690. See also [6], [7]
3. Senra (talk · contribs) 27 Oct 2011 occupation in the context of suggesting British Colonization of the Falkland Islands 1832 cited by Gough (1990) but possession and reoccupation also mentioned in the same paper (in the context of the 1832-1834 timeframe)
4. Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs) 28 Oct 2011 Cawkell (1983) calls the period British repossession and Goebel (?) calls it British taking repossession

all leading to possession though due to 1690 possession (i.e. the plaque) we have ...

• ...British repossession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)?

--Senra (Talk) 21:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Again I can support that as a title, supported by multiple RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, but kudos on the progress! I disagree in that the 1690 event was a claim of possession, not actually a real one in the sense of having something into control, which to my mind is the core aspect of these events. Also, Port Egmont can't account as a "possession of the F.I" for obvious reasons, so it can't be a repossession even having that in mind. This would be actually the first British possession of the islands. I concur then with sources calling them a 'possession' or 'occupation'. How about "British possession of the Falkland Islands (1832-1834)"? --Langus (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree some progress seems to be occurring. I would like to propose that this is split off into a new section with the current two titles (British repossession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834) and British possession of the Falkland Islands (1832-1834)) plus an introduction that requests that any suppor should be backed up by one or more citations. I make this proposal because using citations seems to have got us this far :) Erm, I became bold and put the two new sections below anyway :) (I considered re-factoring to move the two above comments into the relevant sections but decided against it—that would be too bold) --Senra (Talk) 17:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)