Wikipedia

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 6

< Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Dab14763 in topic Laver, Roberto
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Step by step

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Let me go into detail of your arguments.

1) This draft legislation has no chances now of being discussed in the chambers. It has lost relevance. False

Success is no criterion to be included or not in Wikipedia:

are failed but they are described in WP, not only because they affected the mainkind but also because they represented the problems of the epoch: facism, expansionism, oil. The fact that the proyect has still not been approved is irrelevant. We are not looking for a solution for the Argentine claims. That is not our task. We are looking to explain the Argentine claim and in this relation Tarragno's proyect is a real light in the obscurity: he speaks out what are the problems of the Argentine state: what to do with people that belong to them (says the A. state) but don't want to be under his law.

2) Of course, this is Argentina's POV, but that's precisely the section's subject False

No, Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece (WP:NOTADVOCATE) for any one. I cite WP:FIVE:

We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced impartial manner. We try to avoid advocacy and we characterize issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

3) You know I think that's not correct [: the legislation is not applied or it is inconclusive] It is said by an Authority and it is reliable sourced

Terragno says that it is a fiction. It is woth to be published because Terragno is an authoritative sources. Our, your and mine, opinion is irrelevant in the article, but Terragno's writings are relevant. Anyway, as stated by Apcbg: if there is other opinion on or analysis of the Argentine position on the Falklander citizenship then you would be welcome to propose its inclusion

4) Too much weight is being put on the bill False

Citizenship is crucial in any state. Minority group, Minority rights, etc are to be cleared before you build a state. Take many of problems in any place of the world and you will see that the citizeship law play a pivotal role in the crisis. What about North Irland, Israel, Sudan, Inmigration.

Therefore Terragno's proyect, it does not matter whether approved or refused, is deciding about the Argentine stance about the citizenship of the Falklanders. There must be a problem if a outstanding personality like Terragno wants to change the citizenship law of the Argentine constitution, moreover restrictive in a country built by inmigrants.

At last, let me critize the approach to the issue: there have been a lot of attacks to the article, again and again they have tried to change by brute force the long standing consensus of the text. They never presented an viable alternative to the current text. They never accepted what a member of the Argentine parlament said. They wanted to push that Peck was the first man on Mond by hook or by crook, and insulted (UK are the pirates).

I personally follow always the rule of WP:AGF, but don't exaggerate.

Best regards, --Keysanger 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(short reply to point 1)Those events are included because they are notable. Success and notability, apples and oranges. I would love to see if that bill had any effect or repercussion anywhere. pmt7ar (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
So you see absolutely nothing wrong in giving so much space to the proposal of one single man, a minority, just because its authoritative in the matter, and omit what the majority did with it. Under the header of Argentine position. My weight scale is yelling undue weight, giving half a subsection to the effects of a bill and not its results. I suppose the Argentine position (as in action of the representative legislators) would be reject that bill. If you don't think it should be removed, then I'd assume that you want to correct it with the new information. Something like "Senat Terragno submitted a bill in order to regulate (...) but it was dismissed and expired before reaching the Senate."
That would be more neutral and accurate. Terragno is not the Argentine position, but the fact of being dismissed by the commission is. So the most relevant of the two facts is that it was dismissed and never discussed. If it isn't mentioned but is the former, then you have the undue weight. I'll wait for the editors I mentioned earlier to comment on the new fact, if we still don't agree I'll start a RfC for an outside opinion. pmt7ar (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My weight scale is yelling undue weight, thats the problem, too much yelling and very little listening. I've opened a medcab case as I see circular arguments and constantly stating the same position as unproductive. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-24/Falkland Islands Sovereignty Dispute Wee Curry Monster talk 17:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the basic rules of Wikipedia are not well or enough known for some editors. Reliable sources, undue weight, civility, NPOV are ignored or misused by the editors. Reluctantly I accept the mediation. I would like to resolve it under us but it doesn't work if some editor doesn't cooperate. (Thank you Wee, I didn't know about Mediation Cabal.)--Keysanger 17:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll participate there, but the request is focused on the first part on which I haven't argued. My issue was always with the bill, its weight and relevancy, I never discussed about different sources calling "illegal" or "implanted population". Also, I know it may be rude but I stroked my name on the request, since I was quite shocked of being interpreted of wanting to state simply that. I just don't want false or misleading statements, I always advocated for adding all positions. Even on my participation on early 2010, I proposed to state all 4 relevant positions (Argentine, UK, islanders and international). I accept the mediation and give my opinion but don't forget to discuss the second paragraph too. pmt7ar (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd be glad to stop this madness. I've signed with reservations, stroking out the word "simply" (please don't take offense, but it may result misleading). -- Langus (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So, the mediation is CLOSED and we are on the same. It didn't prove to be useful at all. Now what? :S pmt7ar (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See [4] and add your voice there. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Suggest that we give that discussion a few days. If it comes to nothing, and we accept that we haven't reached WP:STICK territory yet, we should remove Jeff as mediator and set the status to "new" (noting that that's what we've done). I don't know if that'll move it back to the new cases page, but if not we can always set up a new page. Mediation hasn't failed here IMO: we might make progress with a better mediator. Pfainuk talk 16:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Then we ask for a new mediator? Before this goes into oblivion indefinitively. Can't we solve it by ourselves?pmt7ar (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC) -bump pmt7ar (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably best to get a mediator as the views are too far apart to find an easy compromise. I would like to see this resolved equitably. You could relist the case using my original or perhaps better the modified version. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with that, tho a formal mediation would be a sure way of settling it. After all, it's been like two months already...
WCM we would appreciate if you include the modifications AND also tackle the issue of the second paragraph, that is, the one about the "proposed legislation". I believe both question are related and should be solved in the same analysis, or else we would repeat many of the arguments in a second mediation. --Langus (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I call again attention to this issue. There has been no sign of life on the mediation. I want to note there was a general acceptance regarding removing the second paragraph for lack of relevancy, but not edit was made because there was a discussion in progress. As it was closed I'll proceed deleting it. The reasons and discussions can be seen on the archives already so there is no need to explain it again. If there is still an objection, I'll instead of removing edit and note the facts (i.e. it was dismissed, it never reached the confess) and open a mediation again. pmt7ar (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree to removing the whole section, its speculation, if thats unacceptable feel free to open mediation again. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes in the Argentina's or UK's claims sections

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I find very objectionable that in a section dedicated to show one position or another, footnotes against the claims are included right below them. I'm referring specifically to this:

The islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.§
§ Although a signatory to the 1958 convention, Argentina never ratified the convention.[45] The 1958 Convention was superseded by 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratified by Argentina in 1995.

Not mentioning the fact that this seems to be original research... (links are broken BTW) -- Langus (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you find this objectionable? On your talk page, you indicated this was because you thought this undermined the Argentine claim. As I said to you there, this is your perception and your stated reasons for its removal are based on that perception. I countered this by pointing out providing the facts and letting people make their own mind up is better. The information is pertinent and relevant. Are readers better informed with it and being allowed to form their own opinions? Those are the questions that should be asked and answered.
Let me explain why its there, please refer to the history of the page. We had an editor, ironically accusing me of being pro-Argentine, who removed that line pointing out that Argentina never ratified the convention. The note points out that Argentina was a signatory and has ratified its successor.
I don't see this as undermining Argentine claims, rather it is providing additional information as background. I don't see it as WP:OR either, you've suddenly raised that as a red herring IMHO. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
As pmt7ar puts it, "if the subsection is 'Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship', it's expected to be Argentine-POV". Otherwise we might as well merge both sections.
As your accusations of diversion, you're wrong. First of all, I objected this two days ago. And second, I rise it now because it's related with the poll below. You say there "'you can't state only the Argentine position without offering a myriad of legal opinions'", which reveals your intentions of introducing British POV in the Argentina's claims section. -- Langus (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I've just explained it to you patiently and WP:AGF, if your only reply is to make unfounded allegations of POV editing, then the discussion is at an end. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Inputs, please? -- Langus (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the section as-is. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
hair-splitting. --Keysanger 15:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Revert War

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

This edit is incorrect. [5]

The US did not support the Argentine claim, they didn't abstain as in previous years from a resolution calling for a negotiated settlement. The US has always supported a negotiated settlement, it does not represent a significant change in the US position. Only difference from previous years is they didn't abstain. As it isn't a significant changer per WP:NOTNEWS we don't necessarily report it and we certainly don't misrepresent it as in this edit.

If you feel different, then discuss and arrive at a WP:NPOV edit, do not revert war. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't call this a revert war with only 1 revertion. I intended to create a new section if needed, maybe I should've foreseen this and started it instead.
The US did not support the Argentine claim. Agree. But the fact it signed the resolution seems significant enough to be included in the article. Take Chile for example: "Chile supported the United Kingdom during the Falklands War, but the post-Pinochet democratic governments have given greater support to the Argentine claim, calling on several occasions for the resume of the negotiations at the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization". It is a significant change[6], since as you say, in previous years they did abstain.
Regards. --Langus (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It was a revert, don't play semantics, you were starting to edit war again. You restored an edit claiming the US supported the Argentine claim. That was the wrong thing to do again. You should have taken it to talk.
It isn't a significant change, the US has always called for negotiations. The source you just quoted says so. Per WP:NOTNEWS it is not a significant change, for all the empty rhetoric devoted to it. We don't jump every time someone makes a fuss over nothing in the papers, thats why we have that policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
And its not a neutral source [7]. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Honestly I don't see whats wrong with the information and it's 100% notable to be included. Albeit a change or not in policy it is a fact and provides an updated insight into US policy. -Chiton magnificus (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I would be inclined, as I frequently am in these news-type issues, to wait and see whether this heralds a genuine shift in US foreign policy or whether it proves to be an outlying point. If the former, it should be included, but this will become clearer in time anyway. If the latter, WP:NOTNEWS applies. This section should describe long-term trends in policy, not individual instances of votes. Pfainuk talk 16:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Virtually every week Argentina will found some forum in which to expound its claim to the Falkland Islands, whether it is a fishing forum on conservation or an international conference on venereal disease (seriously, they did). If we included every news item the article would be completely unmanageable. If this does indeed become a genuine shift in policy then we should include it but I don't see a shift in policy, the US has always called for negotiations - and the very source you quote says it isn't a shift in policy. If it becomes a recurring news item representing a genuine shift in policy my view will change but we shouldn't knee jerk insert every item of so-called news that results from Argentina perennially raising the issue all over the shop. Next week this will be chip wrappers. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not "these week's news", it's a real shift in US position by Obama's administration. Which can be reverted anytime, true, but it's been like this for more than a year, and for that this article is outdated without this info, to my understanding.
WCM I apologize again for reverting you, please bear with me while I'm learning WP's way.
Regards. --Langus (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OK A) blogs are WP:SPS and are in general not considered a WP:RS, the only thing a blog can be used for is to source the opinion of the blogger.

B) Your own sources contradict your proposed edit:

  • [8] Senior US officials insisted that Washington’s position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality.
  • [9] "The American position is that they recognise the UK administration on the Falklands," said a Foreign Office spokesman. "There is no change in their overall approach."

The article currentlty states:

This is an accurate succinct summary. The articles you've posted do not demonstrate any change in US policy. I'm sure the Brits would be delighted for overt support from the US, they might claim they have more overt support because of the "special relationship". As usual Argentine sources claim this a significant breakthrough, Brits claim it is a slap in the face. In fact, business as usual, the US looking out for its own interests. Back in June, Dick Sawle did a tour of the US [10], he claims the US was extremely supportive, (though the article notes US policy hasn't changed since the '40s).

Do we put that in as well? Or perhaps let a little common sense guided by the policy WP:NOTNEWS rule the day? Wee Curry Monster talk 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As a secondary source (US court) testified at the time, "The government of the United States having insisted, and continuing to insist, through its regular executive authority, that the Falkland Islands do not constitute any part of the dominions within the sovereignty of Buenos Ayres".
Also: "As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as "the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation".
I am not aware of any subsequent change in that position of the USA. Apcbg (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the fact that no one else disputed the arguments above, I won't even reply and I'll just let this horse die. Let this section be a written record for the future. Regards. --Langus (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

British expansionism?

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Does the Argentine position include the claim that the British were generally seeking more possessions in the Americas in 1833, ten years after Monroe's declaration? I should like a source. Perhaps it will explain why the invasions of 1806 and 1807, done under Fox, at a time when Great Britain was at war with Spain, are thought relevant to Earl Grey's policy a quarter century later. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

These references states that the US specifically declined to invoke the Monroe doctorine in respect of the Falkland Islands in 1833. [11], [12]. (Note, both are ".gov" references). Martinvl (talk)
Yes Argentina does claim the Falklands resulted from a British desire for more possessions in South America. The invasion of 1806 was not an officially endorsed expediton but the brain child of its commander who acted without orders and was court martialed as a result. You are quite correct in stating they're unrelated but this is what the Argentines claim. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
And now we have a source, the inquiring reader can go see whether Felix Luna answers these questions. That's what I wanted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't fall in the mistake of reading history as if the countries held by then the same balance of power they hold in modern day. The US is a superpower since WWII. "America for the Americans", during the Cold War, was both a threat to powers from other continents (the Soviet Union) and a meddling into the sovereignty of Latin American countries. "America for the Americans", during the early XIX century, was basically a "we second your feelings" declaration of good will towards other american countries (as they fought independence wars against their metropolis, not much different than the US revolutionary war of some decades before), but little else. The US had no power to succesfully force mediations in any conflicts between Latin American and European countries. 1833 is an example, but there are others: the French blockade of the Río de la Plata, the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata, the Spanish reconquest of the Dominican Republic, the Spanish reconquest of the Peruvian Chincha Islands... in all cases, the Monroe Doctrine meant squat. And the British interpretation that there was no military conflict in 1833, does not apply at all to the other cases. And let's skip the cases when the European powers (mainly Britain) were actively meddling into the internal politics of the countries, because we could fill several books with it. Cambalachero (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
And, correspondingly, don't fall into the error that Monroe and Teddy Roosevelt meant the same thing by the Doctrine; Monroe specifically said and meant colonization. The business of the Great Powers was meddling in the internal politics of other countries (and the United States had been joining in since Miranda's time); the only two of these which constituted territorial acquisition were the annexation of the Dominican Republic and of the Chincha Islands. It is also reasonably true that President Lincoln, in particular, did not attempt to enforce the Monroe Doctrine; but then, again, he was a trifle busy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Tag

Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion

All the sources I've ever seen, even Argentine sources, claim the British recognised Argentine independence with the Treaty of Friendship in 1825. Now someone has sourced a claim stating it was 1823 and recognising the borders. Whilst contact with the new regime started earlier, it didn't become formalised as recognition till 1825. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the English-speaking powers did not recognize the borders; in particular, they did not recognize the borders of the Spanish viceroyalty as those inherited by the new state - and were never to do so, explicitly so in the case of Uruguay. They did, however, recognize the existence of the new state in 1823, immediately after Monroe's declaration, to discourage a campaign of reconquest. That was the doctrine's purpose; it would have been too late two years later. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

abandon many overseas settlements due to the economic impact of the American War of Independence.

This is not what the source cited says; it says garrisons and the forthcoming war. Even that is somewhat exaggerated for simplicity; the Empire was not dissolved in 1774 (for the most obvious example, Gibraltar remained garrisonned). But the statement in the text is simply wrong; there was no War of Independence in 1774; it broke out the next spring. And the fiscal problem had existed since 1763; one of the chief causes of the War of Independence was the Crown's effort to shift costs on to the Colonies so it could repay Pitt's war loans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
When was the Boston Tea Party? The problems and drivers predated the breakout of war. I believe the current text is accurate but would consider expanding it briefly. However, the details are best dealth with a summary IMHO. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
1773, as the article would have told you; but it was destruction of property, not war. War on any scale sufficient to affect the finances of an empire began at Lexington and Concord, the following April. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Some clarification about the borders. Contemporary to the war of independence, there was a civil war going on, between Artigas at the Banda Oriental (modern Uruguay, then a province of the United Provinces) and the Supreme Directors at Buenos Aires. Artigas wanted a federalist national organization, and the Directors wanted a centralist country, with the supremacy of Buenos Aires over the other provinces. Unable to defeat Artigas, they offered him to secede from the United Provinces and create his own country, which he refused. Then, they settled for a similar option: they let Brazil invade the province and annex it, leaving Artigas alone against the Brazilians, who was defeated. Yes, a highly questionable action, and consequently a highly unpopular one. This took place in 1816. Time passes... and in April of 1825, a group of people from Buenos Aires, the Thirty-Three Orientals, make their way into the "Cisplatine province" and began a rebellion to secede it from the Empire of Brazil and return it to the United Provinces. Initially, the governor (I forgot which one was there by then) tried to maintain good relations with Brazil, so he denied any relation with the 33 orientals, and dismissed them as people acting on their own; but the popular support to them in Buenos Aires was so high, and the hatred to the Brazilians was so high as well (and a menacing giant warship stationed in front of Buenos Aires did not help), that the governor had no choice but to declare war on Brazil. The war lasted some years (seek details elsewhere), and by the end of it, the disputed territory was recognized as the independent nation of Uruguay.

Yes, I know, it's all unrelated to the islands, but it gives context. Either if we consider 1823 or the 1825 treaty of friendship (signed on February 2), Uruguay was not a disputed territory awaiting definitive status, it was a Brazilian province. And, if not for the unexpected intervention of the 33 orientals, it would have stayed so until modern day. So, it is not a reason to suspect that Britain would not acknowledge the existing limits. Cambalachero (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your alternate history sounds plausible; but the British (and Americans) did not recognize Uruguay as a province of Brazil either; they waited until they had helped to negotiate a settlement.
Fabry's point, however, is expressly that they did not recognize any Argentine claims to territory they did not uncontestedly possess; he's not discussing the islands, he's drawing a contrast to the recognition of the Soviet successor states, which recognized the pre-breakup frontiers, even where there were active wars. This principle of uti possedetis he illustrates from John Quincy Adams: " a mere acknowledgment of the fact of independence...without deciding upon the extent of their territory, or upon their claims of sovereignty, in any part of the Provinces of La Plata, where it is not established or uncontested." He says the British attitude is similar; shall I find the letter cited? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
We don't consider anything, we go by what the sources say and the above sounds like WP:OR - all of which say (including the official Argentine Government) position is that Britain recognised Argentina in 1825 with the Treaty of Friendship. Unless I see a reliable source that says different I'm changing it back to what the official Argentine Governement position says. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The British recognition of the Brasilian independence took place in 1825 as well, the treaty of Montevideo enacting Uruguayan independence was only signed three years later. Cambalachero (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thats not my question. The official Argentine Government claim states 1825, why have we got 1823 in the article? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Because two reliable sources say so; the one cited and George P. Mills: Argentina, p. 203: "Recognition of Independence by the United Kingdom: December 15, 1823". So does the website of the Argentine foreign ministry - and the article on Argentine-United Kingdom relationships where I found it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
But your original cite [13] doesn't back up that claim. I can't find a supporting cite in Mills [14], the website of website of the Argentine foreign ministry merely states that it recognised independence and no mention of territory or borders as your edit suggests. Could you please indicate how you formulated this edit and what basis, as I so far cannot verify it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Mills' exact words are: TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS /I. WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM. /Recognition of Independence, Dec. 15, 1823.; go look at a copy, as I did, or follow the link to what Google Books will give you. Note that the Argentine Foreign Ministry places this in London; it must substantively be the reception of an Argentine delegation. The nature of recognition is Fabry's footnote 88, on this page; although the quote is from an American, it is clear that Fabry gives the same interpretation ("Britain acted in the same fashion") to Canning's words (which are themselves much more general). I do not deny - it is evident from Parish's correspondence with Canning - that the important step at the time was the Treaty of Amity and Commerce of February 1825, and some sources do count it as recognition; I have added that to the footnote in our text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I was unaware of the meeting in London in 1823, so thank you for that, I've learned something new. However, as the footnote notes it is a recognition of independence and not territory as your edit claims. Also, per [15] Britain did not confirm recognition till later, when certain conditions had been met. It would appear the earlier meeting was a preliminary to later full recognition. I remain concerned that your edit is problematical for that reason and I'm not convinced it is an improvement on what was there before. At the very least, we should remove claims that it is a recognition of territory as the sources flatly contradict that. Please don't remove the dubious tag again until this is resolved. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
If you can find any claim in the edit that any of these Anglo-American recognitions was a recognition of territory beyond what Fabry explicitly quotes: "the province of Buenos Aires," you are welcome to remove it. I see none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, lightbulb, I see what you mean.
Argentina claims that through the Treaty of Friendship, Britain recognised her borders. The sources contradict that claim, showing that both Britain and the US recognised only the Province of Buenos Aires. I think your edit needs work but I understand your point now. I'll remove the tag. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. For what it's worth, Canning's chief concern seems to have been not recognizing the porteño Government as extending over (say) Santa Fe and Bogota until it actually did.
But that is reading between the lines of primary sources; Canning writes in generalities for good reason: he does thank Parish for not eriting about the principal object, which has to be the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, and he writes as though concerned the mail will be intercepted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Copy edited to reflect the source. I think this is clearer. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Frontiers

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The text of the Treaty of Amity of Commerce is here. It would be curious to know which clause is held to assert any particular frontiers for the Provinces of La Plata. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

None do, its an Argentine claim that by signing that treaty Britain recognised its borders and that included its inheritance of the Falkland Islands. As you have found at the time, Britain and the US only recognised the River Plate territories. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's worth pointing out we have to be quite careful to distinguish between claims made and historical fact in this dispute. It is not unusual for historical claims made in this dispute to fail to withstand even pretty basic scrutiny. There are some claims listed in our "current claims" section that are flatly contradicted by reliable sources. They're real claims made to further arguments in the dispute, but they appear to have no basis in fact. Others rely on unreasonable assumptions or on what can only be described as imaginative reinterpretation of treaties (as has just been demonstrated) - again, assumptions and interpretations that are not accepted by reliable sources. Pfainuk talk 22:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Images of supporting countries

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not comfortable with including another map in the "Supporters of the ... claim" sections. As both section are complementary, one picture for each one is to me the most logical, balanced approach. Moreover, two images are too much for that small section: it overlaps with the one below. Aesthetically, it doesn't look good...

I have no particular feelings for the current ones, in case we want to change one of them or both, but I do believe we should keep the number. --Langus (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see relevant the map of the EU there. Anyone can just follow the wikilink to European Union if it wants to know which countries conforms it. If a map fits in that subsection should be one including its supporters (like adding Turkey) and maybe its status. pmt7ar (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I think any picture of any grouping implying universal support among that grouping is probably a bad idea. That includes both the current EU map and the photo from the 2010 Rio Group summit.
I note, incidentally, that there are at least two leaders who attended the summit back in February 2010 whose governments are now reported to show "strong support" for Falklands self-determination (thus at least appearing to take the British side). I'm not arguing that we should say this: as I say, I think both images are best gone.
I particularly note that I think pmt7ar's suggestion that we include a map with each side's supporters has been tried before. It was removed because the thing was too nuanced to be easily displayed on such a map. Pfainuk talk 18:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
While I do agree with Pmt7ar in that two maps depicting supporters of each side would be the best images to include here, I also concur with Pfainuk that reaching consensus on these matters seems almost impossible. For example, some would highlight the fact that Spain is part of the EU, while others would point out that it's a member of the Ibero-American Summit; some would recall US' neutral stance during the war and others would focus on latest calls for negotiations; etc. All in all, I support the removal of both pictures. Regards. --Langus (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

C24 & FIG

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am puzzled by the mention of "C24" and "FIG" under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Resolutions_of_the_United_Nations_and_the_OAS. Anyone able to clarify? I. 94.210.47.135 (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Government = FIG
C24 = Committee of 24 or the UN Decolonisation Committee Wee Curry Monster talk 07:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Caribean CARICOM etc

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I was about to revert the latest edit per WP:NOTNEWS, when I noticed that is was in counterpoint to an earlier edit so I paused. I believe both should be removed. Comments? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's legitimate point in noting that CARICOM has recently supported both sides - but the status quo gives too much detail. I thought of:
The Commonwealth of Nations recognises the islands as a British territory, though members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) have appeared to support both sides in the recent past.
I wouldn't oppose removal, mind. Pfainuk talk 19:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually those members issued a clarification this week, they didn't support Argentina as Argentina claimed. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
OK - we should definitely remove that part altogether then. I've removed the rest as well. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe the timeline is somewhat misleading in showing September 1771 – May 1776 British flag after the Spanish flag, as this gives the impression that Argentina's ocupation of the islands followed British ocupation, when it actually came after spanish ocupation and several years after the British had abandoned the islands. Even though the correct timeline can be seen in the text reversing the order is more accurate. I think this should be changed, it is important as the absence of british presence in the islands and the fact that argentina`s ocupation followed spain's around the time of Independence is a central argument in Argentina`s claim. I think the spanish wikipedia version is a better way of showing the timeline, also more accurate at showing 1820 as the first argentine ocupation, and 1833 as the end of it.

current timeline is also inaccurate at showing a period of US control of the islands, they destroyed much of installations and left, but did not ocupy nor raise american flag in fact when Britain invades in 1833 it is the Argentine flag and garrison that is removed, not american. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.1.100 (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I believe the article is not neutral when it calls the 1833 ocupation a "Re-establishment of British Rule" and on the other hand in 1982 it is called an invasion- this is the British POV. I have edited both to be re-establishment as an alternative they can both be called invasion, otherwise it is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.1.100 (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Invasion is not neutral, it implies unwarrented agression. Rightly or wrongly, Britain had de-facto control before the events of 1982. In 1982 Argentina did not 'establish control' as they spent all of that time preparing for the British forces coming to remove them. That's hardly 'control'. I suspect this page will be accused of British POV unless it is renamed Islas Malvinas Bevo74 (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

thats nonsense wikipedia is soposed to be neutral not british POV or in anycase it has to say so if that is what it is talking about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.249.234 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We describe them in different ways because different things happened. The word "invasion" is accurate for Argentina's action in 1982, but inaccurate for 1833 (as no force was used in 1833). Pfainuk talk 18:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Again that is not correct, force was used, certainly at a smaller scale first because USA had attacked before and the size of population and invading forces where smaller, but this does not make it any less a use of force, People are not arrested and sent out of the islands just because they asked them to leave, it was british military force, even if not actual use of it was needed.

In any case considering the considerable difference in magnitude the Argentine landing in 1982 had minimum casualties (all argentine) with the island ocupied without any loss of islanders or british life. In any case ,using your argument of use of force, the task force attack in 1982 was in any case the only one that could really be called invasion as the previous two (British invasion in 1833, and argentine in april 2 1982) where won pretty much by showing overwhelming force to a much less armed occupant of the islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.249.234 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To Pfainuk and Curry , please calling vandalism on an edit that i sincerely believe adds neutrality to an otherwise moderately British Point of View biased article is not very un polite, much less deleting my reply to the message accusing me of vandalism and seems you have not read what vandalism is, it does not include edits, what i have added is definately not nonsense nor attempting to destroy the article, i think in any case we can call them all invasions, see Merriam Webster online definition of invade "to enter for conquest or plunder" Britain in 1833 definately entered for conquest, the definition of invasion does not imply active use of force (in fact it does not even mention passive use of force, or threat of use of force, which did ocurr in 1833 as much as in 1982, granting that april 2 did use some low scale active use of force as there was actual shooting, but in any case much less than in the subsequent task force invasion. I think it is quite neutral to call all of these invasion or ocupation or something similar but all on the same ground.

My edit on the timeline on the other hand i have already expressed my point of view and however it was reverted with no counter argument what so ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.249.234 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Alex you were blocked for sock puppetry and disruptive editing, you're fooling no one. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

May i ask who is Alex, and what does this have to do with discussing the proposed changes to the page. I see that Wee Curry seems to be acting as owner of this page, maybe you should sign the article as yours so it is known by everyone that colaborating is only under your permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.249.234 (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Four stances

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

there are four stances regarding the dispute:

  1. pro-Arg
  2. pro-Bri
  3. neutral
  4. pro-negotiations

I added some words in order to prepare the reader before. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I call on the editors to be careful assigning support or refusal to any stance. For example, this is a support but neither XX Ibero American Summit nor ibero summit XIX are a support for the Argentine sovereignty on the islands. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Spain

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Spain didn't support Argentina in the 502 resolution. Spain abstained, like China and SU. We shouldn't expand the relate to Gibraltar, Goa, Martin Garcia, Beagle or Hong Kong. It would result too long. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

map restored

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I've never seen that map before and its quite relevant to the issue. Argentina now claims that Britain relinquished its claim to the Falklands as a result of the Nootka Convention, Britain maintains that it did not as Nootka was never intended to apply in the case of the Falklands - noting that neither Britain nor Spain applied the treaty they signed to the Falklands. Here we have a map from 1794, 4 years after Nootka clearly showing the British did not relinquish any claim. It is of great relevance and interest to this article. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

the map was drawn 1787 [16], that is 5 years before the end of the last NK. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The full map is now under File:1787 map of South America.jpg. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Nope, if you look the map is from 1794, there are several reprints of the book each with updated maps. Make sure you don't confuse it with earlier editions. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I would say we should take the first edition of the map, that is the relevant time, as the geograph studied the situation, the later editions are only slightly modified copies of the first. The map didn't mention the Nootka convention, that could be a hint that the map editors ignored the last treaties. Any way, the map is too big in the article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The map mentions the presence of a British settlement at Port Egmont, but that settlement was abandoned in 1776. This may suggest that it may not have been entirely up-to-speed with later developments. Pfainuk talk 16:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Compare

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I propose to bring the referenced and relevant arguments in a table. That could be better for the reader:

Argentine claims British claims
Sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence, a principle known as uti possidetis juris. the principle of uti possidetis juris "is not accepted as a general principle of international law".
Spain never renounced sovereignty over the islands, even when a British settlement existed.
Great Britain abandoned its settlement in 1776, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention. Argentina has always claimed the Falklands, and never renounced its claim. Argentina's attempts to colonise the islands in 1820–33 were "sporadic and ineffectual".
the re-establishment of British rule on the Falklands (referred to as an "act of force" by Argentina) was illegal under international law, and this has been noted and protested by Argentina since 17 June 1833.[1] the islands have been continuously and peacefully occupied by the UK since 1833, with the exception of "2 months of illegal occupation" by Argentina.
the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population (see below).[2] the islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement.
the Argentine population was expelled by an "act of force" in 1833.[2]
the islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.§[3][4]
Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier.[5] the British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim.
UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future."[6]
in an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances.[6]
The European Union Treaty of Lisbon ratifies that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain.[7]

Criticism?, WP:OR?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Likely WP:OR - you're interpreting it as point and counterpoint. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The connections are clearly point and counterpoint in some cases, but it's not so clear in others. (By the way, would this be an appropriate source here?) Pfainuk talk 16:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
In view of the fact that this table is built only from the (two) lists of issues (already) presented in the respective "Arg. claims" and "Bri. claims" of the current version of the article, it can't be considered WP:OR. The content of the table is already in the article.
WP:OR is the fact that I have tried to bring them together, to confront the arguments. But we have to present the facts anyway: as lists, as prosa, as diagram, as timetable or even as table.
We can see that the items don't match together. This is very annoying and confusing notonly for us, but much more for the uninformed reader interested in the dispute. For the first reader would be very helpful if we could bring the arguments and contra-arguments together.
Of course we can improve the content of the table as we can improve the article, the last link is a good basis. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I found an Argentine official document, in English language, that expose exhaustively every argument of the Argentine position and a corresponding English document, not official, that try to confront the former.

I will try to bring them together in a table in Compare and every one is encouraged to edit and improve the table. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

But that would be a) WP:OR on your part and b) as the second document is not official presenting the author's opinion as fact violating WP:SYN and WP:FACT. Overall its not a good idea to try to present a comparison, since inevitably you will be making a value judgement on the claims and counterclaim. It is better IMHO to simply present both positions and allow the reader to make their own minds up. This is not a good idea and I would strongly encourage you not to pursue it - I cannot see a consenus emerging. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

USS Lexington raid

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Silas Duncan didn't have instructions form his government to retake the confiscated property.

Francis Wharton, A digest of the international law, 2nd. Edition 186.124.56.52 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes? The article doesn't say that, it states that he was sent under the direction of the consul in Buenos Aires, which is correct. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Well isn't that worth mentioning? Also in this other article states "As a reprisal, the United States sent Captain Silas Duncan of the USS Lexington to recover the confiscated property". 186.124.56.52 (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No I wouldn't say so. The US Government did not disavow his actions, in fact they lauded him for the action he took. In addition, the Lexington was sent to beef up the Brazil squadron because of concerns of Argentine action against US ships in the region. Duncan was following orders to protect US commerce when he acted, getting direction from the USG over those distances was simply not practical in that day and age. The other article has now been corrected. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:25, 19 February

2012 (UTC)

Vernet's Nationality

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vernet had a somewhat elastic relationship with nationality at various times claiming to be French, German, American and Argentine. It may be worthwhile noting this in the section. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Argentinian settlement

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm restoring the information that Vernet's settlement was Argentinian, which was removed without a consensus.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

the issue is under discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands#Vernet established an Argentinian settlement‎ Cambalachero (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And should be removed until the matter is settled - an experienced wikipedian would know that. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Laver, Roberto

Latest comment: 12 years ago40 comments7 people in discussion

I moved folowing controversial text from Falkland Islands:

  • As soon as Argentina became aware of what it described as Britain's "takeover" of the islands, it filed a protest with the British representative in Buenos Aires. A formal protest was filed to the British Foreign Office on 17 June 1833. Argentina protested on 28 other occasions, both before Britain and in international forums, before the UN was created. Argentina also made four different offers to submit the case to arbitration. All four were rejected or ignored by Britain

(ref)((cite web |url = http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=cNKtX4mYVZUC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=%22as+we+shall+see,+argentina+took+a+number+of+actions%22&source=bl&ots=i9zbj_SmxV&sig=Lues0EBrGZMkg1F_iha4JHLEn1g&hl=es&sa=X&ei=ao9KT_H9BobqtgevpfzuAg&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22as%20we%20shall%20see%2C%20argentina%20took%20a%20number%20of%20actions%22&f=false |title = The Falklands/Malvinas case: breaking the deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine sovereignty dispute |last = Laver |first = Roberto C |date = 2001 |publisher = Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, pp. 88-89))(/ref)

I think the text belong to this article AND hope on a civilized discussion. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the text mis-represents what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It does. It rather implies that the protests occurred throughout this period, which is not true. In fact they were fairly concentrated in a few discrete periods. It's worth noting that the British government states that it received only a single formal Argentine protest to Britain on the subject during the entire period 1850-1940.
It seems to imply that this was a large number (otherwise we wouldn't mention it in a summary history of the dispute) - but even if we accept the unsourced figure, modern Argentina would probably get through 29 protests "before Britain and in international forums" in the space of a year or two, let alone the 11 decades we're discussing. If we're saying that Argentina offered arbitration, it seems fair to point out that it was after having not made any claim at all for over 35 years and (if this is accurate) that it was on condition that Argentina chose the arbitrator.
But all in all, I don't see the need for it. To my mind, this is too much weight for this and as such I'm removing it. Pfainuk talk 21:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a place for this, it does represent an argentine view.Slatersteven (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article appears such protests and they are considered very important by the Argentine claimers. "Too much weight" is a reason to modify the text but not to delete it. Pfainuk, How would you express the Argentine protests?. Can you provide a RS supporting your view?. To say "the protests ocurred from year X to year Z only" is OR. Is it?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"When Argentina became aware of what it described as Britain's "takeover" of the islands, it filed a formal protest with the British representative in Buenos Aires on 17 June 1833. Over the next 130 years Argentina made over 27 sovereignty claims, both to Britain, domesticly in Argentina and to international bodies, regarding the status the the falklands. in 1888 Argentina also made an offer to have the dispute settled through arbitration, it was rejected by Britain."Slatersteven (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems a good proposal. I re-inserted it. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 22:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that with Keysanger over the importance and need for this information. Although I will look for confirmation about the 1888 arbitration request. Cheers. --Langus (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Found it: "The map controversy lasted four years, and the correspondence contained two references to the Argentine suggestion that the matter should be decided by arbitration, but that is all." // "La controversia del mapa duró cuatro años, y la correspondencia incluyó dos referencias a la sugerencia argentina que la cuestión debía ser decidida por medio de un arbitraje, pero eso fue todo". From the British POV text Getting it Right. Also mentioned here. --Langus (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with putting a suitable edit into this article, saying Argentina revived its claim in the period 1885-1888 and made a suggestion for arbitration. Equally you would have to state that it made no further comment to the British Government till 1941. However, claiming it continued to make regular complaints is stretching it. It simply did not. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe you're the one stretching it. You may be right in saying that "Argentina made no further comment to the British Government till 1941", but that is not the same as "Argentina dropped its claim till 1941", or "Argentina remained silent till 1941". Quoting the book:
  • On January 22, 1908, the Argentine foreign minister, Estanislao Zeballos, submitted a protest to the representative of Italy in Argentina resulting from the inclusion of the islands as a British colony in the Postal Convention of 1907.
  • On August 31, 1908, a similar protest was submitted resulting from the inclusion of the islands as a British colony in the Berlin Convention of Radiotelegraphy.
  • On 1919, the Argentine Marine Ministry instructed all radiolegraph stations in the Argentine maritime zone no to accept messages dispatched from the Falkland Islands.
  • Argentina registered a protest in 1924 in the context of the extension of the Bruxelles Convention, on venereal diseases, of December 1, 1924, to the islands.
  • Argentina protested in 1927 against the British government for the establishment of a wireless station in the South Orchades Islands
  • In 1933, Argentina sent a communication addressed to the Universal Postal union stating that the Argentine jurisdiction extended to the Malvinas, South Orchades, and South Georgia Islands.
  • In 1927, the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs acted favorably on a Falklander's petition of enlistment in the Argentine army as an Argentine citizen.
  • In 1929, the Argentine government required payment of custom taxes on all postal packages proceeding from abroad and bound for the Malvinas.
  • In 1933, the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs required the granting of Argentine passports and not visas to all Falklanders with British passports.
  • In 1933, the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Postal Union that all mail received in Argentina with British stamps issued on the occasion of the centennial of the 1833 takover would be considered to lack stamping.
  • In 1935, a federal court in Argentina denied a petition for naturalization by a person born in Port Stanley on the grounds that the islands are part of Argentine territory.
  • In 1939-40, Argentina makes reservation of its sovereignity rights in occasion of the Panama Declaration of American Security Zone and the Convention of Provisional Administration of European colonies and possessions in America.
The proposed text is absolutely correct: "Over the next 130 years Argentina made over 27 sovereignty claims, both to Britain, domestically in Argentina and to international bodies". Regards. --Langus (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you've pulled off the web some of the propaganda material used to cover the fact that there is an embarassingly large gap in Argentine protests. None of those events you just listed qualify as a protest to the British over sovereignty for the purposes of International Law. I was well aware of for example the Argentine claim to be responsible for venereal disease in the Falkland Islands - this does not however qualify as a protest. Its the classic example of scraping the barrel for excuses, as fringe material it does not qualify for inclusion. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
You're the one POV pushing by labeling the edit as "propaganda" and "fringe". It's very relevant to this article and should be reinstated. STSC (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Really, if you look above I indicate my willingness to consider an edit covering the topic. However, the material above is fringe and it is propaganda to advance a particular nation's sovereignty claim. I would equally reject a British source doing the same and have at various times been accused by nationalists on both sides of being pro-Argentine or pro-British - once on the same page. Now instead of actually composing an edit that meets the requirments of NPOV, we have a whole cut'n'paste of fringe material pushing a particular national agenda. That the material is fringe is clearly demonstrated by the claim that the "protest" over Venereal Disease represents an assertion of national sovereignty for the purposes of International Law. One author's opinion does not represent the weight of opinion in the literature and here we have one author's opinion presented as such. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RS versus OR

The last list given by Abelyosef were protests by third countries and/or international Organitations (except "wireless station in the South Orchades"), not by the UK. WCM is right when he says "A. didn't protest by the UK in a long time". But both AJ and WCM went too much in the OR, I think. Can anyone provide another reliable source about the same issue: Argentine diplomatic notes regarding the FI?. @WCM: what is your proposal?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I will propose an edit presently - written according to NPOV. I would appreciate it, if following BRD this is discussed here rather than forcing POV text into the article. Watch this space. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I found ([17]) and propose:
When Argentina became aware of what it described as Britain's "takeover" of the islands, it filed a formal protest with the British representative in Buenos Aires on 17 June 1833. Argentina claims to have made, over the next 130 years, Argentina made over more than 27 sovereignty claims, both to Britain, domesticly in Argentina and to international bodies, regarding the status the the Falklands and in 1888 Argentina also made an offer to have the dispute settled through arbitration, it was rejected by Britain.[8] But the United Kingdom rejects this view and asserts that in 1850 both countries resolved all territorial disputes in the region and that in the following 90 years Argentina made only one diplomatic protest[9]
--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I would propose:
Fondest regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 12:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It is too long, it shows the British view as neutral statement and the Argentine view is dimissed. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Show me an Official Argentine Government document that makes the same claims as Mr Laver - this is the problem with your text. You say in my text that the Argentine view is dismissed, I believe the above is an accurate summary of events that doesn't favour either side, which unlike the versiom you present above does not ascribe them to claims. If you can point to the text you feel is a problem we can move forward. The above response is useless in helping me to improve the text. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 14:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
As Keysanger noted, that text is excessively long for this article and it's too biased, as it ridiculizes (out of 27 protest it mentions the one about venereal diseases) and completely dismiss the Argentine claims. You obviously have a source that has a very strong British POV, but you can not censor other views just because one source contradicts the other. --Langus (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Gustafson was the source I was planning to use, who is American - you quote him all the time and generally most authors praise his work for its neutrality. It largely is, though aspects of it are more favourable to the Argentine POV stemming from the fact he lived there for several years and doesn't question certain dubious claims. I do find it amusing that Argentina claimed it was responsible for Venereal Disease in the Falkland Islands, if it makes Argentine claims look ridiculous that really is not my fault (I could not mention it if it didn't exist). You were in fact the one who listed it above as one of many "protests" demonstrating Argentina's claims of sovereignty. On the other I find your claim I'm censoring views to be grossly offensive - once again you resort to personal accusations and no doubt will shortly claim thats what I'm doing. Again can someone show me a source showing the Argentine Government endorses Mr Laver's claims? And btw is it not censorship to demand we don't mention Argentine claims to be responsible for VD? Have a nice day now. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I still didn't find a official Argentine list of protests. But in The British Resort to Force in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict 1982 by Christoph Bluth, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 5-20, Marzo de 1987, Oslo, Noruega, the author asserts that although During those 35 years [1849-1884] no [Argentine] protest occurred [... but in summary ...] the British claim to sovereignty over the Falklands on the basis of prescription is rather tenuous. I don't believe that we have to describe the situation "in extenso" but your proposal lacks the shadow of the doubt over the British reasons.

All in all, I cut minor facts and I would propose a slightly modified version of your proposal:

When the Republic of Buenos Aires became aware of events in the Falkland Islands it filed a formal protest with the British representative. The following year the British Government rejected it. From 1841 to 1849 Argentina sent annually a formal protest towards the British Governemnt. According to the British goverment, the Convention of Settlement settled all existing differences between the two nations and in fact there were no further protests or debates in congress until the affair of the map in 1885, when Argentina once again raised the subject of the Falkland Islands.[10] In 1888, Argentina made an offer to have the matter subject to arbitration but this was ignored by the British Government. The British Government don't know about further Argentine protests until the 1940's, although the official Argentine version asserts that During the first half of the twentieth century, the successive Argentine governments made it standard practice to submit protests to the United Kingdom[11] but don't list the protest notes. Other sources, like the Rattenbach Report[12] only mention the abundant bibliography or like Roberto Laver[13] claim "27 sovereignty claims, both to Britain, domestically in Argentina and to international bodies". In International Law, territorial claims are considered defunct if there is a gap of 50 years or more between protests over sovereignty[10]

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you're going, I'll clean up the English grammar later if thats OK. I would suggest we might list the protest notes in an inline cite - if only because the VD claim amuses me. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm not sure if the length is appropriate, the text is certainly balanced. Well done! A slight change: in the last sentence we should present the assertion as the source does: "Most writers on international law suggest that...".
@WCM: I left you a message in my talk page.
Cheers. --Langus (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that "the affair of the map" is not discussed at present, so the current wording is awkward from that perspective. And I also note that we are to some extent overlapping with the end of the "British claim" section (which reaches as far as 1976). Maybe it would be a good idea to put everything post-1850 into a new section after the Argentine claim bit, or a brief section on each period in the dispute post-1850 (say, 1885-88, 1908-40, 1940-82, 1982-present)? The 1850-85 hiatus certainly seems a good break point where we can merge the stories. Pfainuk talk 18:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK here goes.


I think we should consider how we could use Pfainuk's suggestion as it seems a good point to me. Another point that may be of relevance is Argentine cartography in the mid-19th Century. Argentina produced many maps showing the Falklands as foreign territory, it was only after the Affair of the Map that it started to produce maps showing the territory as Argentine. A couple of authors have commented on this, citing the Beagle Channel Dispute, since Argentine cartography was a factor in the decision favouring Chile.

Another point for consideration is Moreno's protest which was based on the claim of inheriting Spanish territory and claiming that the British had made a secret agreement to vacate the Falklands. The British rejected that claim and did search the archives for any evidence. The modern claim is significantly different.

Thoughts? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The affair of the map could be briefly explained: "The British Government considers that the Convention of Settlement settled all existing differences between the two nations and there were no further protests until 1885, when Argentina included the Falkland Islands in an officially sponsored map."
Moreno's protest seems too much detail. And, in any case, the British claim has in fact shifted completely: in those days, it was based upon alleged prior discovery, and now it is strongly based on the principle of self-determination.
A proposal to improve coherence: I would move the sentence that reads "The matter was not raised in the Argentine Congress between 1850 and 1941" to right after "The issue was debated annually in the Argentine Congress and a formal protest issued until 1849", because that first part talks about the formal protests raised by the Congress and then switches to other types of formal and informal protests, like the exchange of 1885 ("the map affair"):


I wouldn't oppose to the inclusion of the list in the Laver ref.
Cheers. --Langus (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Moving the sentence is fine but the context of the Argentine Congress has been lost - it really should go back.
There is a subtle difference in the way the claims have evolved. Britains reasoning has changed as International Law has developed together with the establishment of the UN Charter, whereas Argentina keeps adding to its claim eg the 1958 Convention or Groussac's interpretation of the Nootka Convention in the 1880s. But I'll see what others think on that point.
What do others think on the point of cartography, prior to the Affair of the Map, Argentine cartography showed the territory as foreign and generally used English nomenclature as well as Spanish. Some commentators think it significant - especially with the role cartography played in the Beagle Channel Dispute. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean exactly by "the context of the Argentine Congress has been lost"? That position is the most coherent, although I understand that my prose may not be the one of a writer.
What worries me is that by saying "The matter was not raised in the Argentine Congress between 1850 and 1941. In International Law, territorial claims are usually considered defunct if there is a gap of 50 years or more between protests over sovereignty" -- we will surely confuse the readers by inducing them to think that no protest was raised for more than 50 years. --Langus (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
" but authors such as Roberto Laver", should read "Roberto Laver". "claim's "27 sovereignty claims, both to Britain, domestically in Argentina and to international bodies" should read "claim's over 27 sovereignty claims, both to Britain, domestically in Argentina and to international bodies"Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it just me or did I not make it clear that moving the sentence was fine? Its really irritating to have every comment interpreted in a negative fashion. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I haven't actually found that quote in Laver, but I may be missing it. Could I have a page reference please?
The current proposal reads to me like 27 protests (domestically, internationally or to Britain) during the first half of the twentieth century. I count 16 events during 1900-1950, and not all of which could be credibly described as "protests" (but rather acts implying a claim to sovereignty). It reads to me as though we have Laver clarifying/supporting Argentina's claim, but I don't actually think his list and Britain's claim that they received only one protest from 1850-1940 are incompatible. Pfainuk talk 19:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I count 29 actually listed (one to the USA) (pages 88-89) and he says “including the following” (page 88), this its not an exhaustive list.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough - but the list for this period seems to pinpoint at least the largest events - presumably if there was another formal diplomatic protest to Britain in this period, he would have listed it. I do think we may need to do without the quote, though, and reword a bit.
Added an extra word in there to clarify what I meant in the above. Hope that's not a problem. Pfainuk talk 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
@WCM: apologizes, I didn't realize that that was its original position, and when you said 'but' I got it wrong. I apologize.
On the other hand, please, it would be civil of your part to respond to the questions I left in my talk page. I don't like being ignored, no one does. Thank you, cheers. --Langus (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The affair of the map led to a protest by the UK to Argentina, not Argentina to the UK. The texts above seem to imply it was the other way round. Dab14763 (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Laws

I have to put the role of cartography in the decision straight. The Beagle Channel Arbitration Court reviewed in-depth the cartography of the zone and stated that[18]: §163 :

§163
Finally, the Court wishes to stress again that its conclusion to the effect that the PNL [Picton, Nueva and Lennox Islands] group is Chilean according to the 1881 Treaty has been reached on the basis of its interpretation of the Treaty, especially as set forth in paragraphs 55-111 above, and independently of the cartography of the case which has been taken account of only for purposes of confirmation or corrobation. The same applies in respect of the particular maps discussed in, and from, paragraph 119 onwards.

The internationale tribunal, (five judges from Sweden, Nigeria, France, UK and USA), decided on the basis of the 1881 Boundary treaty not on the basis of cartography. The story about the cartography-decision and also the story that the Queen Elizabeth II decided are baseless rumours planted by people displeased with the award.

I agree with yours plans to improve the text and hope soon to cooperate, --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks that is very useful. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome.--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Argentine diplomatic protest for the occupation of the Malvinas in 1833
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ArgentineMinistryForeignAffairs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Rupert Cornwall Could Oil Exploration of the Falklands Lead to a Renewal of Hostilities?. The Independent, 23 February 2010; cited by the Global Policy Forum
  4. ^ Although a signatory to the 1958 convention, Argentina never ratified the convention.[1][dead link][2] Convention on the Continental Shelf, Geneva, 29 April 1958. UN.org. The 1958 Convention was superseded by 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratified by Argentina in 1995.
  5. ^ Luna, Félix (2003). Los conflictos armados. Buenos Aires: La Nación. pp. 12–17. ISBN 950-49-1123-4.
  6. ^ a b "Country Profile: Falkland Islands". Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 13 April 2007. Retrieved 27 April 2008. The Argentine Government has argued that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right of self-determination, on the (false) basis that they replaced an indigenous Argentine population expelled by force. However there was no indigenous or settled population on the Islands until British settlement. The people who live in the Falklands now are not a transitory population. Many can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early nineteenth century. Britain is committed to defend their right to choose their own future. The Islanders are fully entitled to enjoy the right of self-determination. It is a right which cannot be applied selectively or be open to negotiation, and one which is recognised in the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Self-determination does not necessarily mean independence. Britain has willingly granted independence where it has been requested, and will continue to do so where it is an option, while remaining committed to those of its Overseas Territories which choose to retain the British connection. In exercise of their right of self-determination, the Falkland Islanders have repeatedly made known their wish to remain British.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bryant was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Laver, Roberto C (2001). "The Falklands/Malvinas case: breaking the deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine sovereignty dispute". Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, pp. 88-89.
  9. ^ United Nations, Department of Public Information, Press conference by permanent representative of United Kingdom, on 10 February 2012
  10. ^ a b c d e f Christoph Bluth, in The British Resort to Force in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict 1982, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 5-20, March 1987, Oslo, Noruega Cite error: The named reference "bluth" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
  12. ^ Informe Rattenbach, [3] §17:
    Los restantes antecedentes históricos se omiten, en bien de la brevedad y de la abundante bibliografía existente al respecto
  13. ^ Laver, Roberto C (2001). "The Falklands/Malvinas case: breaking the deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine sovereignty dispute". Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, pp. 88-89.
  14. ^ Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
  15. ^ Laver, Roberto C (2001). "The Falklands/Malvinas case: breaking the deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine sovereignty dispute". Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, pp. 88-89. (I suggest a list goes here)
  16. ^ Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
  17. ^ Laver, Roberto C (2001). "The Falklands/Malvinas case: breaking the deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine sovereignty dispute". Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, pp. 88-89. (I suggest a list goes here)
  18. ^ Beagle Channel Arbitration between the Republic of Argentina and the Republic of Chile, Report and Decision of the Court of Arbitration
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute/Archive_6&oldid=488613302"