Talk:Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents 1 One of the reasons... 2 Invasion, schminvasion 3 Table 4 British protest 5 NPOV revert 6 Discovery 7 Important information 8 Historical names 9 French flag is wrong! 10 Apcbg edits 11 Ivanov's book 12 Reference book & Timeline table 13 Kudos from a neutral in this war 14 Uti possidetis 15 Weakness of Opening Paragraph? 16 Timeline of de facto control 17 NPOV statement 18 Britain's position as a global power has it accepted the occupation 19 Introduction, British Sovereignty 20 Spanish (Malvinas) in intro 20.1 CIA Wordbook 21 NPOV at Current claims paragraph 22 Uti possidetis? 23 External jumps

[edit] One of the reasons...

"One of the reasons that the name Falkland Islands is rejected by Argentina is that it reflects British colonialism." "One of the reasons that the name Malvinas is rejected by the British is that it reflects Argentine claims." I'm removing both sentences. The British reject the name Malvinas simply because the English name is Falklands and the Argentines reject the name Falklands simply because the Spanish name is Malvinas. (Some use Falklands in Chile, but that's material for the main article, if at all.) --84.42.146.44 01:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps that's one reason for using different names for the archipelago. But let's not forget that throughout southern Argentina and Chile there are plenty of non-Spanish place-names, of which quite a few are English or (Anglo-Irish). And while Falkland is surely English in origin, Malvinas is French (or possibly Franco-Norman). --Big Adamsky 23:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion, schminvasion

In Argentina it is considered that in 1982 Argentine forces retomaron ("retook") the islands, while in the UK the word "invaded" is normally used.

The article says that. As I already raised on Talk:Falkland_Islands, it seems that while the word invasion describes the act, some view the word with a bad connotation. Since "attack" also describes the act and it doesn't have the connotation, maybe the intro should use that word without losing accuracy.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Invade would be correct. Especially since the native population resisted the takeover. A reader with no knowledge of the war may also interpret "attack" differently (ie they may think that no actual Argentine occupation took place). Astrotrain 21:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it should be invasion, SqueakBox 21:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, good point, Astro. I guess I can live with it... --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table

I've added a table to the page showing the occupier of the islands since the original French colony in the 18th century. I also removed the war memorial images which are not really relevant here, they relate to the Falklands War rather than the Argentine claim. Astrotrain 21:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I like it, I took the liberty of touching it up a little bit, hope you don't mind. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I won't discuss the history (it is consistent with History of the Falkland Islands, and that is the place to do that), but

• uninhabited = no sovereignty? That's a novel concept. Is this island (for example) free for taking?
• according to Sovereignty, it is an exclusive right. The first three entries overlap, so choose one (won't be very difficult ;) or change the title of the table to History of settlements in the Islands or something like that.

Greetings. --84.42.146.44 05:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It might be an exclusive right now but in the 17th, 18th and 19th century there are plenty of instances of one "country" as we know today being split into different parts. We can safely assume that all three powers were sovereign in at least a part of the islands.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Dunc, you have this thing about making changes without entering the debate here. Why would you make a change like that if there is people disagreeing with the anon? "De facto control" doesn't make any sense... --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How on earth can 3 powers control something at the same time? If you don't like sovereignty, how can you use control? For God's sake, PLEASE come here and comment before making more changes. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I just left the word "Timeline", and I hope that you get yourself in the talk page and discuss the changes before making them. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Calm down. The problem with "sovereignty" is that it suggests legitimacy, when either side doesn't recognise the other's legitimacy. Rhe problem with "occupation" is that it suggests illegality. De facto on the other hand is neutral. It also follows the wording of the Falkland Islands article. One or two years when there were >1 colony doesn't make too much of a difference over 200 years. Dunc|☺ 16:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I am calm now that you decided to follow common practice and give reasons here. After the protection issue yesterday, I have to admit I expected a tad better... De Facto might be a nice word but nobody controlled anything, as evidenced by the continuous changes and the fragilty of their bases. Occupation is the correct word, it has taken that meaning sometimes because of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but to occupy is the correct word in this case. On the other hand, nobody can argue that the Falklands are under legitimate British sovereignty, even when there's an Argentine claim which disputes that legitimacy... I would be more than happy to compromise on another word, although at at this point no ideas come to mind. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, I would argue that the British sovereignty over the islands is not legitimate. I hope your POV doesn't permeate to the article. --84.42.146.44 12:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Good for you, kindly contribute to the article if you feel that my "POV" is permeating the article. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• I realised at the time of writing, that "Timeline of Sovereignty" was not the best wording. I think Dunc's edit is the best solution- since defacto control is a completely neutral term, and is a better description for the purposes of the table (ie it is supposed to show how the control of the islands has passed over time) Astrotrain 17:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem with control is the same one that with sovereignty... "De Facto" is cool, but I don't see that much sense unless we maybe change control for "posession"... --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British protest

The first Argentine Governor was appointed in 1823. In response the British consul in Buenos Aires protested the move and restated the UK's original claim.

Source? Here says that the Argentine take of posession (?) of the islands was published in USA and Spain in 1821 and GB didn't even mention it then, and neither when the treaty of 1825 was signed (it doesn't say that the British didn't protest in 1823, but a source would be nice). Sorry the English, I know it is atrocious :-/. --84.42.146.44 01:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm... I should read the whole section before commenting. Ok, the British regained interest in the islands in 1829 and then protested when Vernet was appointed governor (protest filed in november 1831). At the same time, Vernet, who had exclusive fishing rights there, tried to stop the fishing of the US ships in the area. Finally, the Argentine authorities captured three and sent them to Buenos Aires for a trial (he went there too). They arrived 19 november 1831. Big diplomatic fuss follows. The US consul wants the immediate release of the capturing ships, and free fishing rights for US ships; the Argentine government says they are investigating; the consul goes to speak with the captain of USS Lexington (then at Bs. As. port) and then sends an ultimatum to the Arg government: return the ships or the Lexington will sail to the islands on 9 december 1831. (Apparently, the Arg couldn't stop a single corvette (!).) Unacceptable ultimatum, of course, so the Lexington goes (under French flag), arrives (28 dec), destroys, takes prisoners, declares res nullius and returns to Montevideo (8 feb 32). In the meantime the consul teams up with the British one, and they start denying Argentine sovereignity over the islands.

Argentina sends another governor with some soldiers. They disembark (nov 1832) and the ship goes to inspect the zone. The soldiers revolt and kill the governor. The ship returns and finishes the revolt. The captain (Pinedo) assumes authority. USA consul snorts :-/.

20 dec 1832, Clio and Tyne arrive to Pt Egmont. 2 jan 1833 they arrive to Soledad. The captain says to Pinedo that he should take the Argentine flag down, and raise the English one. He refuses, the British do that themselves. Outnumbered, Pinedo leaves. The end.

That's what my source says. Please see if yours differ substantially. If not, I will adapt the above to the section. What the section says now has serious inaccuracies (according to this source, that is). Greetings. --84.42.146.44 02:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Your right, the consul protested after the appointment of Vernet (the 4th governor) and not the 1st governor. I also expanded the section to include more detail on Vernet and his actions. Previosuly I had only summarised the events. Astrotrain 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV revert

I have reverted this article. It's important to understand that there are two sides to this issue especially regarding the actions of 1833 (Invasion/Return) - 1982 (Liberation/Invasion). The existing article reflected boths sides better. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands&diff=30287241&oldid=30245057 Megapixie 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Megapixie. If the 1982 was an invasion, then the same standard should be applied to the 1833 incident. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 03:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Mariano(t/c) 09:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Invasion is a standard term for armed conflict to capture territory (eg it is common to describe D-Day as the begnining of the Allied invasion of France), regardless of Sovereignty. However the 1982 invasion by the UK (to recapture the islands) could legitmately be described as "liberation", as they were removing an occupier with the support of the native population. Astrotrain 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You probably mean the 1833 invasion by the UK. But it can't be described as Liberation because there were no UK citizens in the islands to liberate, whereas an Argentine settlement (as well as a penal colony) where occupied by force (yet without resistance), and without help from native population because there was no native people on the islands. What's more, when the Argentinians settled on the islands, they where abandoned, so you can't consider that Argentine government was an occupier from which the land should be liberated. Mariano(t/c) 10:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I do mean the May 1982 invasion by the UK during the Falklands War (to recpature the islands from Argentina who invaded in April 1982). This could be described as liberating (basically just the opposite of the situation you describe in 1883). Astrotrain 11:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just re-reverted the page after some edits by User:212.120.226.135 (including the new Spanish interwiki link). Megapixie 02:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

To describe that as liberating equates to recognize the legitimacy of the UK de facto occupation. No, it is not legitimate; it's just a POV perspective. User:Ejrrjs says What? 07:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am meerly going by the definition of liberation. It doesn't matter about legitimacy of the UK position, if an army invades another territory to remove a force occupying that territory against the will of the people, it is perfectly acceptable to describe that act as "liberation". In any case, the article doesn't currently state the word "liberation", although the Islanders do celebrate a liberation day. Astrotrain 16:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Astro, the article doesn't mention the word "liberation", let's leave this here since the point is moot. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring the legitimacy of the claim. The issue is that the articles present state is WP:NPOV - and presents both sides' arguments as to the legitimacy of their claim. Any changes should maintain the NPOV-ness of the present article. Let us not get distracted by discussions of one claims legitimacy over the other. Megapixie 07:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the recent changes may be an attempt to involve this article in the ongoing edit war at Disputed status of Gibraltar. Obviously any POV edits should be reverted on site. Astrotrain 16:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we've all made a very good effort to keep this article NPOV. I agree 100% with astro. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery

According to the article History of the Falkland Islands, the first discoverers of this archipielago were the Spaniards at the beginning of XV century, around 190 years before than the British, but this article, Sovereignty of the Falklands Islands, gives to understand that do not there was Spanish presence before 1713. I believe that this point should be corrected.--Menah the Great 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• This article is really about the claims on the Islands. Discovery doesn't mean they were claimed by Spain. And I can't see the 1713 claim you are talking about? Astrotrain 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1713 is the Treaty of Utrecht year, when Britains recognized the Spanish sovereignty above the antartic archipielagos near South America.--Menah the Great 13:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Important information

The 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands article states:

After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right and seized them. The Englishman who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered. A British officer was next sent, unsupported by any power: and when we arrived, we found him in charge of a population, of which rather more than half were runaway rebels and murderers. (The Voyage of the Beagle.)

If this is true, maybe the Argentine government renounced sovereignty with that sale and the Falklands are really British, but the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article also says:

Great Britain abandoned their settlement in 1774, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention.

So apparently the Falklands are neither Argentine nor British. Is this correct?

[edit] Historical names

Timeline of de facto control

Era	Country	Name
1764 - 1767	France	Îles Malouines
1765 - 1774	Great Britain	Falkland Islands
1767 - 1811	Spain	Islas Malvinas
1811 - 1820	Uninhabited
1820 - 1833	Argentina	Islas Malvinas
1833 - 1982	United Kingdom	Falkland Islands
April - June 1982	Argentina	Islas Malvinas
1982 -	United Kingdom	Falkland Islands

The islands had different names through time, would that be something to add to the table with the different countries occupying it. Makes sense in a historical sense. KimvdLinde 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Made a table with names, but they might be incorrect. KimvdLinde 18:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think we should avoid the name dispute, and not put them in the table. The names are used at different points, and do exist at the same time. During the 1982 occupation, they were still offically the Falklands. Astrotrain 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean with " During the 1982 occupation, they were still offically the Falklands"? I'm not sure I undertand. What is an official name? For whom? If Argentina had de facto control over the islands, then it also had it over the name of the islands. At least that's what seams logical to me. Mariano(t/c) 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I think that clarifying the names in the table facilitates the under standing of the people that there are different names. The current version looks like suppression of the historical names. KimvdLinde 17:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To start with, the invasion and occupation in 1982 was illegal- therefore Argentina could not change the name. Since 1833, the name has been offically the Falkland Islands. Perhaps the key fact is that there has always been different names for the Islands, so we can't state what is offical for a large part of the time. Astrotrain 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean with illegal? Against which law? Is there any legal occupation? The British Occupation of 1833 was legal? I don't see your point. Mariano(t/c) 11:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The table gives the de facto control, and the it makes sense to use the de facto name in that case. Illegal or not. Otherwise, why indicate the de facto control at all, just say mention what is official. There is always a name related to the country that had the soevereinity over the islands, and giving that name in the table makes sense. The current situation makes it really hard for people to find the official names at historical times..... KimvdLinde 01:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of official control

Era	Country	Name
1764 - 1767	France	Îles Malouines
1765 - 1774	Great Britain	Falkland Islands
1767 - 1811	Spain	Islas Malvinas
1811 - 1820	Uninhabited
1820 - 1833	Argentina	Islas Malvinas
1833 -	United Kingdom	Falkland Islands

These flags are inconsistent. Quite correctly they show the British flag without the Cross of St. Patrick during the 18th century - but they also show the post-revolutionary Tricolour for France, which, needless to say, was not used until after 1789. TharkunColl 10:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so that one needs to be changed in the article, but doyou agree that clarifying the changes in names is a good idea?KimvdLinde 14:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If names are dependent on political control, then why is "Malvinas" in the Falkland Islands article? The list also gives the erroneous impression the "Falklands" came after the French name, whereas in fact it dates from 1690. TharkunColl 15:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not start the same stuff here. There are two aspects on naming, official naming and names that are commonly used. In the falkland islands article, it is about commonly used name, the table is about the official name. KimvdLinde 15:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the double standards? TharkunColl 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Double standards, no, different angle at different locations. But maybe we should give a list of officially used names, their first usage and whan it was used officially and commonly. KimvdLinde 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Then you would need different lists for different languages. Falklands has been the common name in English since 1690. TharkunColl 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French flag is wrong!

I've said this before, but nobody has done anything. The French tricolour was not used until after the revolution. TharkunColl 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apcbg edits

User:Apcbg introduced some changes I would like to discuss: He stated that between 1811 and 1826 UK and USA sailors had de facto control of the islands[1] (even if they fished around them that doesn't mean they have any control). He also changed the year of the Argentine colony's foundation from 1820 to 1826[2], adding a "source" that doesn't support the statement.

I would like to revert both changes. Mariano(t/c) 07:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Until 1826 the only inhabitants of the islands were the English and American sealers – in 1820 Jewett was sent to announce the Argentine claim to them not to the seals, and that he did in the islands not 'around'. That the Argentine settlement on the Falklands was only established in 1826 is a well known fact, indeed confirmed by the quoted reference Historia de las Relaciones Exteriores Argentinas, Obra dirigida por Carlos Escudé y Andrés Cisneros, desarrollada y publicada bajo los auspicios del Consejo Argentino para las Relaciones Internacionales (CARI), GEL/Nuevohacer (Buenos Aires), 2000:

“A first attempt of Pacheco to settle down in the islands failed. The second attempt, made personally by Vernet, was successful in 1826 (12). So that until this date an establishment of the United Provinces in the islands had not existed.” Apcbg 11:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'm still wondering why google didn't find that link. Mariano(t/c) 11:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The source says:

After Spanish personnel left Puerto Soledad, the islands became uninhabited again. To American historian J. C. J. Metford, they became res nullius. During that time, the Malvinas (Falklands) were only visited by whaling ships of several nationalities, looking for the shelter their ragged coast provided.

Nowhere is the nationality of the whalers stated, no sealers are mentioned, and it doesn't say that the island where inhabited--on the contrary. I'd suggest taking future sourced contributions of Apcbg with a grain of salt. --193ypico 16:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivanov's book

I removed the link to the book Apcbg has been spamming all wikipedias with. (It's the story of a trekker and his daughter, who live a couple of weeks in the islands, are charmed with its people, and then go on writing a book defending the British claim/rights on the islands.) I consider it no more than a pamphlet and not worthy of being in the Sources section. --193ypico 16:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference book & Timeline table

(1) Here follows the opinion of Dr. Ivanov’s work by the Falkland Islands Legislative Councillor the Hon. Mike Summers – presently he happens to be also the Falkland Islands Government spokesman – as presented in his foreword to the book:

(Quote)

FOREWORD

by Mike Summers
Legislative Councillor
Falkland Islands Government

In this paper on the Future of the Falkland Islands and its People, Dr. Ivanov has produced a remarkable and interesting piece of work. He has accurately analysed and assessed the current state of political development in the Falkland Islands and the options open to us. There is little doubt that the Falkland Islands will continue to develop at a pace that suits the people, and it is very unlikely that the Falklands would choose, in the foreseeable future, any route other than some form of devolved integration with the United Kingdom.

It is interesting to see Dr. Ivanov’s comments on the possible position of the Falklands as a bridge between Europe, South America and the Antarctic. It was the late Dr. di Tella, one of the most intelligent and free thinking of Argentina’s foreign affairs leaders, who first said to me that he thought the Falklands had a real place in the South West Atlantic. The calming influence of a European power could have a positive effect in an area where Latin temperament predominates; he was half joking and deadly serious.

The contrasts and parallels drawn by Dr. Ivanov and the distinguished commentators on his paper amply demonstrate the importance of both internal and external self-determination, in developing as well as developed nations. It is an interesting interface where devolution and decolonisation meet.

But it is in particular the contributions on self-determination from a worldwide perspective, that enhance and broaden Dr. Ivanov’s paper into a very significant contribution to debate in this area. They are all to be commended.

Stanley, 7th August 2003

(End of quote)

Furthermore, besides that paper the book comprises papers specially contributed to that collection by experts from several countries including:

Prof. Carlos Escudé, Ph.D., Argentine National Council of Scientific Research (CONICET), Uiversidad Torcuato Di Tella, Buenos Aires;

Howard A. Fergus KBE PhD, Professor of East Caribbean Studies, University of the West Indies (Montserrat);

Hon. Jan Cheek, Legislative Councillor, Falkland Islands Government;

Mark Sandford, Research Fellow, The Constitution Unit, University College London;

Hon. Mike Summers, Legislative Councillor, Falkland Islands Government;

Dr Noel Cox, Senior Lecturer in Law, Auckland University of Technology;

Government of St Helena etc.

Therefore, this is a duly published relevant reference, which I suggest not to remove without due procedure, if necessary a vote, and certainly not with misplaced ad hominem allegations as above.

(2) That there were English sealers on the islands is proved by Colonel Jewett’s letter distributed among the sealing ships in the bay when he arrived to the islands in 1820; Jewett wrote:

"... invito a usted a visitarme a bordo de mi barco, donde me será grato brindarle acomodo mientras le plazca; he de agradecerle - a si mismo - que tenga a bien, en lo que esté a su alcance, hacer extensiva mi invitación a cualquiér otro súbdito británico que se hallare en estas inmediaciones; tengo el honor de suscribirme señor, su más atento y seguro servidor". Firmaba Jewett, Coronel de la Marina etc.

The presence of US sealers is corroborated by President Andrew Jackson in his 1831 State of the Union Address:

"In the course of the present year one of our vessels, engaged in the pursuit of a trade which we have always enjoyed without molestation, has been captured by a band acting, as they pretend, under the authority of the Government of Buenos Ayres".

Should anyone claim that in 1811-1826 there were sealers from other nations too, please produce sources. Until then, I suggest not to alter the timeline table in the article, at least not without due procedure if necessary a vote. Apcbg 19:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) I still consider your book a pamphlet and your pushing of it spam. But if people are OK with it, I won't deny you Wikipedia-provided fame and fortune. (2) (a) Are you using Wikipedia as a source? No-no. (b) I hope you understand, that when one speaks on the year 1831 and says “in the course of the present year”, one can't be possibly referring to something that happened in 1811-1826, do you? Please, present your sources here for review before editing the article per discussion again. --193ypico 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

First, personal criticism of the book itself and its authors (like the one presented above in this talk page) is original research; what matters for Wiki sources such as the book is their relevance established outside Wikipedia. A Google search for the book’s title ‘The Future of the Falkland Islands and Its People’ produces a number of non-Wiki hits dated well before the first mentioning of the book in Wikipedia. These are citations, reviews, abstracts, entries in topical reference lists, comments and references to the book or particular chapters, reprinting of particular chapters etc. The Google hits include (1),(2), (3),(4),(5),(6),(7),(8),(9),(10),(11)(12),(13),(14), and dozens more.

Second, Jewett’s letter is a well known quote not Wikipedia text – you may find it say here.

Third, President Jackson’s “In the course of the present year” refers to the act of that “band acting, as they pretend, under the authority of the Government of Buenos Ayres”; about the American sealing on the islands he says something else: “pursuit of a trade which we have always enjoyed without molestation” (indeed the American sealers came to the Falklands as early as 1792, cf. www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/nepa/antarctica/finaleis/chapter_03.pdf).

Fourth, I have already invited the application of some procedure to resolve the 1811-1826 entry in the table, so I am not going into reversals but leave it to the people here to have their say. Apcbg

[edit] Kudos from a neutral in this war

I was impressed to see how neutral this article was (at least in my eyes). I can also tell from the talk page that it took a lot of effort and forbearance on the part of both the Argentine and British editors to make this happen. I know that wasn't always easy. I'm sure that to the truly well-informed there may still be some flaws, but I can't find them. Your diligence and tact should be an example for editors on so many other controversial Wikipedia articles.--A. B. 06:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uti possidetis

This principle of international law has nothing to do with inheriting colonial possessions. Simply put, what is states is this: that at the end of a war, the winning party is allowed to keep any territorial gains it made during the conflict. Presumably the Argentines invoked this principle in the early 19th century when they assumed control of the Falklands from Spain, but since they lost them a few years later to the British, the true benificiaries of uti possidetis are in fact the latter - both in 1833, when they ejected the Argentines, and again in 1982, when they did exactly the same again. TharkunColl 10:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That could be, but one thing is a militar operation and another is a declared war. As everybody knows, there has not been a declared war for the islands since the 1770s. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on this principle makes no reference to a requirement that war be 'declared'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.155.39.209 (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Weakness of Opening Paragraph?

I feel that opening paragraph does not do justice to the rest of the article. At best it probably doesn't reflect how the population would assess the sovereignty of the islands and at worst it may conjure up images of an island in a state of civil war. The first paragraph is the most important; some people may not read anymore.

The opening paragraph talks of "de facto control" and "administration by the UK" which might easily draw parallels in a reader's mind with a Kasmihr type situation i.e. (to an uninformed observer such as myself) population with split loyalties and an ethnicity not wholey in accordance with the de-facto control or administration. In my view, that would be a complete distortion. In fact the situation is entirely different: the population of the Falklands unanimously consider themselves to be British (apparently more than the UK gov did at the time of the Falkands War) and consequently they are and were, at the time of the Falklands War, satisfied with the status quo i.e. British administration.

The first paragraph should make it clear that it is not a population in dissent about ownership or administration of the Island. I am not aware of the existance of the Malvinas Liberation Front on the islands. Any dispute over ownership is entirely external to the Falklands, presumaly confined to Argentina. This is not a population of conquered Spanish speakers dreaming of the day when they will be liberated by Argentina and allowed to drive on the other side of the road and speak Spanish free of oppression. Perhaps some information on the ethnicity and ancestry of the population of the Islands throughout the dispute would lend more context. Ratuk 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your view. I think the opening paragraph reflects a good NPOV view of this issue and later elaborates on it. The dissension of the islanders is pretty clear throughout the article and even though their opinion is important to the world (as it should be) to WP is just one more POV. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of de facto control

Timeline of de facto control

1764 - 1767	France
1765 - 1774	Great Britain
1767 - 1811	Spain
1811 - 1826	Penguins
1826 – 1831	Argentina
1831 - 1832	United States
1832 - 1833	Argentina
1833 - 1982	United Kingdom
1982 (April - June)	Argentina
1982 - present	United Kingdom

Regarding the article's Timeline of de facto control table:

It is a notorious and well documented historical fact (1), (2) that from 31 December 1831 until 21 January 1832 Argentina had no de facto control of the Falkland Islands.

Military occupation and de facto control throughout that time was exercised by the US Navy.

The USS Lexington arrived to the Islands on 27 December, on 31 December took control of the Argentine settlement, brought onboard and arrested seven settlers including Vernet’s manager Brisbane, occupied the area until 31 January 1832, and eventually left taking onboard most of the Argentine settlers (39 persons).

During that period of military occupation, Argentina had no de facto control whatsoever.

On the right, the current version of the table is shown amended to reflect this timeline fact. Apcbg 09:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the table still further to include the 24-star US flag that was in use at the time. TharkunColl 10:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding banners, the French flag presently shown in the table was the Bourbon royal banner not the relevant national flag of France; the latter would be gold on white rather than gold on blue I believe. Apcbg 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to the correct pre-revolutionary national flag found at Flag of France. Unfortunately it looks a bit crap at this scale. I am also a little concerned about the accuracy of the Spanish flag that we have in the table, because the flag itself is described as a "war ensign", which was, moreover, only in use from 1785. TharkunColl 07:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt this is the correct French flag; it seems to be the French Royal Navy ensign not the national flag which had only 3 lilies. It should be the same as the previous flag shown here, except for the blue replaced by white. See that image. Best, Apcbg 09:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not keen on the USA being included. The Americans never claimed sovereignty over the Islands, and it is disputable whether they actually "occupied" the Islands during the time stated. I would still say the Argentines controlled at this point. Astrotrain 09:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you maintain that Argentina had de facto control of the Islands from 31 December 1831 until 21 January 1832, then you ought to provide some verifiable sources refuting the notorious and well documented historical facts narrated e.g. in (1), (2) -- that would be something new indeed! Apcbg 10:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not refuting what happened- I am refuting the interpretation of this- ie that the USA took control of the Islands. There was claim of sovereignty by the USA, or any attempt by the USA to colonise or settle the Islands. The American ship was not acting on the authority of the United States government in its actions. Astrotrain 10:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As you accept what happened, then effective control is effective control not interpretation. That it was the US Navy that did it is fact not interpretation. Your other points are interpretation that could be discussed elsewhere; who had what orders does not change the fact of effective control. Apcbg 10:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Provide a flag for the US Navy (that was in use at the time) Or, what's wrong with the US flag itself? TharkunColl 11:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl, the US flag would be fine; here you may see a picture of USS Lexington itself flying the US flag.

And here finally is the national flag of Royal France.

Your penguin looks nice, but during that period of time the Islands were not left to them; usually there were an average 50 sealing ships with over 1,000 English and US sealers pursuing their industry without anybody's effective control; that continued until the Argentine short-lived attempt to impose control by using force against US citizens in 1831, which was opposed and lead to the termination of the Argentine presence in one year or so.

Astrotrain, I have to object to your unilateral imposition of your POV and edits over the article, even as the issue is being debated in the talk page.

As already pointed out the table is on effective control not sovereignty.

Your other allegation of the USS Lexington's action on the Falklands not being supported by the US Government -- which wouldn’t have changed the status of effective control on the Islands one way or another -- is substantiated by no factual evidence.

The official US Government statements and action refute your claim, for instance the US Secretary of the Navy Levi Woodbury wrote to the Captain of USS Lexington:

"The President of the US approves of the course which you followed and is gratified by the firmness of your measures" (in: Record Group 45, National Archives, Secretary of Navy letter to Master Commandant Silas Duncan, 4 April 1832)

I am not going into reversals of the article, but invite you to reconsider, and other participants here are welcome to have their saying; as it is now the table would suggest that there was no effective control sometime in 1831-32, which was not the case during the US military occupation. Apcbg 12:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The USA did not claim the islands- they did not have an administration on the islands- they did not settle any citizens on the islands. All that happened was that the US Navy destroyed the Argentine settlement, then departed. A bit like a Viking raid. Astrotrain 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There was effective control (military occupation), and there was authority (US military command) during a well defined period of time. The rest is not for this table.

None of your additional requirements is actually needed for effective control. Surely there could be effective control without sovereignty claims (e.g. the German control of the Channel Islands or Norway during WWII); otherwise the USA did not need to send Americans to the Islands, for they were there already, had been on the Falklands since well before the Argentine claim, and in greater numbers than Argentina had at that time too. Indeed, the whole development started with the Argentine use of force against local American citizens:

"... occurrences which have lately taken place at the Falkland Islands, in which the name of that Republic has been used to cover with a show of authority acts injurious to our commerce and to the property and liberty of our fellow citizens. In the course of the present year one of our vessels, engaged in the pursuit of a trade which we have always enjoyed without molestation, has been captured by a band acting, as they pretend, under the authority of the Government of Buenos Ayres." (President Andrew Jackson in his State of Nation address, Washington, DC, 1831-12).

Apcbg 14:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"And here finally is the national flag of Royal France." Apcbg

Unfortunately that image is no doubt copyrighted. However, reading the text, it is evident that there were four different French flags all in equal use:

"Prior to the French Revolution, there was no national flag which represented France. A variety of flags were used by troops, different types of ships and for other purposes. From 1590-1790 this flag is one of four that was used on warships and fortresses. The plain white flag, known as the Bourbon Banner, and this white flag with three golden fleurs-de-lis, a white flag with many fleurs-de-lis, or a white flag with many fleurs-de-lis with the arms of France in the center."

In other words:

• A plain white flag (the Bourbon Banner), which it would be very easy to create an image of for Wikipedia.
• A white flag with three fleurs-de-lis.
• A white flag with many fleurs-de-lis, which is the one we've got in the info box at the moment.
• A white flag with many fleurs-de-lis, and the coat of arms of France in the centre.

None of these, it would appear, were in more common use than any of the others. TharkunColl 15:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

At least the second flag would look better on the table, and is now available in the Commons. Apcbg 19:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's much more aesthetically pleasing - I've just added it. But what about the Spanish flag though? It still seems a little dubious. TharkunColl 23:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that in 1785 one Spanish flag was replaced by another. Apcbg 00:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV statement

Note to Abcbg - What are you on about ? I reverted the following edit ; If you can't be bothered to check out the rv don't blame me. The edits you changed were not altered by me..... Apologies please ?

The United States supported mediated talks and initially took its familiar neutral stance, although in private, substantial material aid was made available to the UK from the moment of invasion. The USA finally publicly supported the UK's position following the failure of peace talks and pressure from Margaret Thatcher on Ronald Reagan.

Hardly NPOV on "familiar" no ?

As my edit does not interfere with yours in any way and your edit stays, I have no idea what you might be talking about. Apcbg 12:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Already debated, please do not change without prior discussion in the talk page" on the rv of my article. Was not discussed on talk page. See edit history of page if you don't believe me. Nevertheless, let's move on. Pete Orme 12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My edit summary (quoted above) naturally explains the edit I made. I did not revert your edit, so my summary simply cannot refer to your edit — is it still unclear? Your misplaced accusation in this talk page is not appreciated, I would expect you to reconsider and withdraw it together with its offending title. Apcbg 12:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Climbing down from this, with apologies. Pete Orme 12:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. Best, Apcbg 12:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britain's position as a global power has it accepted the occupation

I am trying to add the following point to the Criticism from within Britain section of this article, as a further argument from those defending government policy (ie. the war):

"In addition [to the arguments for the Falkland's self determination], many Britons felt strongly that a surrender of sovereignty in the face of Argentina's actions would have signalled the end of any pretentions that Britain may have had to act as a global power, whether at the time or into the future.

This point is taken from the following source (one which incidentally satisfies WP:RS):

Sunday Times Insight Team - The Falklands War, Sphere Books, (1982) - p262

Now, for some reason, User:TharkunColl seems to take exception to this point, reverting it on sight despite it being properly referenced, NPOV, and relevant. I'm not aware of having stumbled into the middle of an edit war, so I do not see any reason for it to be removed.

When first adding this contribution I neglected to provide a reference. User:TharkunColl reverted me, quite properly requesting in his edit summary that I:

"Please provide a source for this assertion".

Source duly provided, point reinserted. A second reversion follows,

"Point removed again, with the reference".

I add it back with the summary:

"rv. Why are you removing referenced material? Discuss on talk page - insisting on referencing is one thing, but removing properly referenced points constitutes vandalism.".

It is reverted once more with the explanation:

"It is you who should discuss it on the talk page. Any further revision by you will be in breach of 3RR." (Which incidentally is wrong - I have made only two reversions).

If User:TharkunColl would be good enough to explain his continued reversions then I would be very grateful. Perhaps I am missing something blatant here.

Xdamr^talk 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put it in then I have no further objection. TharkunColl 09:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm obliged.

Xdamr^talk 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction, British Sovereignty

Can the introduction make clear that though the question of who should have sovereignty over the Falklands is disputed that the United Kingdom has sovereignty over them not that it only claims them along side Argentina. Somethingoranother 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It was there and someone removed it, SqueakBox 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, what does '{current occupiers}' add? The intro already notes that the UK had de facto sovereignty (along with a note that both the UK and Argentina claim de jure sovereignty).

Xdamr^talk 04:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish (Malvinas) in intro

Hi guys, and I thought name disputes were only in the Balkans! :-) Having vast experience from there, if I may just drop my two drachmae: I agree that the alternative Spanish(/Argentinian) name should not be mentioned every time we mention the Falklands. However, this particular article that deals with the sovereignty of the islands, is IMO one of the places where the names should be included. Had it been their radio stations, or their football teams, or their geography and climate etc I'd be opposed to the insertion of the alternative name. This whole article speaks about how the Falklands turned to Malvinas who turned to Falklands and turned to Malvinas and to Falklands again. It is the definition of the dispute (which extends to the name). NikoSilver 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well we mention Malvinas in the opening. What more do you want? Especially remebering that the only English name for these islands is the Falklands and the only Spanish name the Malvinas so how they are called depends on the language one is speaking not one's opinion of the sovereignty of these islands, SqueakBox 23:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Squeak, I should have linked above the recent mini edit-war ([3][4][5][6]) over the addition of the Spanish name. No, I don't think anything else is necessary. Thanks. NikoSilver 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish name is irrelevant to the sovereignty issue. And since the main page does not follow that situation- then neither should this one. Astrotrain 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish name is the way the islands are called by two of the countries that are involved in the sovereignty dispute (one, Argentina, quite actively). As such, I suspect it is an emotional issue that has to be addressed. I have various examples from Greek Aegean islands (with the Turkish names) and vice versa. Also, I propose we include the full translation of the title in Spanish (i.e. also "sovereignty of the..."), because the dispute itself is expressed in both languages. Maybe the French name would also be pertinent. NikoSilver 14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is written neutrally in English because this is the English language wiki. The sovereignty claim is not relevant to the issue. If Argentina renounced its claim tomorrow- the Spanish name would still be Islas Malvinas. It has to go. Astrotrain 15:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as the Spanish word for London is Londres even though no Spanish country claims it for themselves, SqueakBox 16:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

When an international issue is between two countries, then we list it in both countries' languages. Especially when that issue concerns sovereignty. Non alteration of the Spanish name if Argentina renounced the claims, is one more reason why it should stay. To give you examples, see how Imbros and Tenedos are referred to in Greco-Turkish relations#The First World War and after. I have tons of examples like this where I come from. Also, in the (highly unlikely) case that UK handed over the islands to Argentina, I'm sure the official name would change accordingly, so this being a neutral "sovereignty article" must mention what that (official and regardless of frequency in English) name would be. NikoSilver 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See also how Imia/Kardak are referred to in Aegean dispute. NikoSilver 15:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember the islands are also called the Malvinas in English.--Vintagekits 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No they arent, SqueakBox 23:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

eh! yeah they are. See here for Argentinian press release in English, and here for left wing report on the war, here for a report on the islands and here for an American website. --Vintagekits 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yopu'll have to do better than that. A few Argentine and left wing POV warriors dont have that kind of influence on the English language and in terms of common usage they are called the Falklands in English and Las Malvinas in Spanish by almost all people regardless of their beliefs about the war. A bad Argentine translation. You really have to do better than that, Vintage, especially given the bloody policy of at least one previous Argentine government towards the islands, SqueakBox 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, your third source is La Rouche and there are strict arbcom rulings about not using La Rouche material in wikipedia articles so that would be removed on sight, SqueakBox 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand this. Malvinas is not the Spanish word for Falklands as far as I'm aware, it isn't a translation. The Argentinians call the islands the Malvinas, the British call them the Falklands. The United Nations uses the term in English. One Night In Hackney 13:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what browser are you using but your links show me FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS) and that because it is not a translation but how many countries named the islands Jor70 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point. SqueakBox asserted that the prior links that used both terms (see links above) were from "a few Argentine and left wing POV warriors", the links I provided are from the United Nations which can hardly be described as being either of those two groups. Edits such as this (referring to the second part of the edit) are incorrect, Malvinas is not Spanish for Falklands. One Night In Hackney 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Those UN docs are translating the word into Spanish. For an Argentine to claim that Malvinas is not a Spansih word fits like a glove into the POV that the Malvinas are really Argentine and the Malvinas is their name in all languages. This is POV, SqueakBox 15:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, please, try to be rational a second, the docs are not translating!. is the official international name of the islands (as per ONU and ISO). I agree the islanders want them to be named falklands, and most english speakers called them falklands, but this is a fact. Jor70 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It says Falkland Islands (Malvinas). That doesnt make Malvinas an English word and I would be surprised if you can find a source that would say such a thing. THE UN article is pure diplomatic language in order not to offend the Argentinians but that doesnt make it common usage in English (as you recognise). Do you agree that Malvinas is a Spanish word, Jor? There are editors who want no inclusion of the word Malvinas in the article but I believe we should include it saying that it is a Spanish word and with a link to Spanish language. With the overall views that is a consensus view, no? SqueakBox 16:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Jor70, you will find that there is a persistent campaign by a number of British editors to whitewash the names Malvinas from all articles concerning the Falklands, be the sovereignty issue, the Falklands War or the Falklands Islands themselves - in fact from my experience SqueakBox is actually one of the more reasonable editors.--Vintagekits 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said Malvinas was an English word, however it is used in English. I can find you many, many sources that use it in English. Falklands and Malvinas are not the same word in two different languages. One Night In Hackney 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well instead of giving me examples of where certain people use the word while talking English why dont you give a source that Falklands and Malvinas are not the same word in 2 different languages, as I strongly dispute this. Its Malvines in french, Malvinas in Spansih and Falklands in English. A few POV pushers (I dont refer to wikipedians but LaRoucheans etc) and diplomates dont change a language just like that! SqueakBox 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In the mean time I have referenced that the Spanish for Falklands is Malvinas [7] and put it as a reference in the opening, SqueakBox 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find the burden of evidence is on you for that I'm afraid. Can you find me a single reliable source that says Falklands is a direct translation of Malvinas or vice versa? Although I'm not saying it's a reliable source, the Falkland Islands article tends to back up my claim. The English name and the Spanish name both come from completely different and independent sources, so I really don't see how you can say the words are direct translations. One Night In Hackney 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just provided a ref that proves just that, whereas you havent provided any references to support that it isnt a translation. Which is fine by me but weakens your argument so if you dont want to provide a refence dont expect your argument to be given the weight it would otherwise. Malvines was originally a French word. I think you maybe misunderstand what translation means. While debate is the Spanish word for debate mejor is the Spanish word for better. Both are translations, so Londres is a trandslation for London and Malvinas for Falklands. That's how languages work, SqueakBox 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

my 2 points: First, nobody is saying Malvinas is of common usage in English , I only saying the international accepted named of the islands (diplomatically or whatever you called) is Falklands/Malvinas, and second, why are we talking about this again ?!?! it was already consensus to mention Malvinas in the intro . Jor70 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And I am fine to mention Malvinas in the opening, as it is right now, saying Malvinas is the Spanish word for Falklands and with a reference, 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, did you actually look at the Falkland Islands article? I fully understand what translate means, it seems to be you who doesn't. I shall quote the relevant text from the article for you:

The islands are referred to in the English language as "[The] Falkland Islands". This name dates from an expedition led by John Strong in 1690, who named the islands after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland. The Spanish name for the islands, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name "Îles Malouines", bestowed in 1764 by Louis Antoine de Bougainville, after the mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo who became the island's first known human settlers.

I would say it's safe to assume Malouines means "people of Malo" or somthing of that nature. Now are you suggesting the English for "people of Malo" is Falkland? It is not a direct translation, I don't see how you can say it is. One Night In Hackney 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You are mixing up a literal translation and a direct one.

The French word for the English Channel is "la Manche" - "the Sleeve". The words "English Channel" are by not any means a literal translation of the word "manche". They aren't even remotely similar. The the translation is direct - "the English Channel" and "la Manche" will be understood to mean exactly the same thing.

So no, the word "Falkland" has nothing to do with St. Malo. Nor does that not make it a direct translation - place names often don't translate literally from one language to another - Germany is a prime example. The words "English Channel" have never had anything to with sleeves - but assuming you want to be understood, "La Manche" is the only acceptable translation.

In this case it's only slightly more complicated, because the Argentines and anti-British people often seem to use "Malvinas" as an English word - and British (and apparently Chilean) sources often use "Falkland" as a Spanish word (check a Google Search for "Islas Falklands"). Nonetheless the unmarked case (the one that will not seem to be making any kind of point) in English is "Falklands" and in Spanish is "Malvinas". And that's the solution that we should accept. Pfainuk 18:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Chile officially uses (and support argentine claim) about Malvinas [8] , particulary all their democratic post pinochet govs. Google gives some sites with a text about penguins with an awful spanish (son un importante sitio instead of the most common son un sitio importante) what seems where just an automatic translation or something. Jor70 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIA Wordbook

Is the best example of Malvinas not being a translation but a part of the name of the islands. They stated: conventional short form: Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) . Something they not do not apply with every country, e.g., West Bank is not mention as Hagadah Hamaaravit but only when it is international accepted. Other example is Holy See (Vatican City) . Jor70 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I dont disagrere and IMO the dictionary translation is adequate, SqueakBox 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, It was ok to keep the CIA reference, I just wanted to remark that it wasnt a translation. Jor70 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV at Current claims paragraph

The line The United Kingdom exercised peaceful sovereignty over the islands continuously from 1833 to 1982 (and since 1982) is empty in the sense did not mention the continuous negative of the UK (per se its global power status) to mantain negotiations with Argentina about the 1833 invasion .- Jor70 23:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That is the UK section, hence it is bound to carry the UK POV (like the Arg section will have the Arg POV). If you have a source pointing that global status as a "continuous negative of the UK", that plays some role in this issue, feel free to include it (in another section). And always attribute the quote. NikoSilver 23:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

this is not the UK section this is the English language wiki and should have a global perspective.--Vintagekits 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the particular article section within the complete article (of course) titled Claims by the United Kingdom. You can't seriously add an Argentinan POV in there, especially when you have a Claims by Argentina right above (both renamed to add the word "claims" by me). I am sorry for not clarifying a particular edit, in the particular section, by a particular user (Jor70) to others; but then again, you needn't jump the gun immediately. NikoSilver 23:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For me the question is "does the Brit refusal to negotiate mean it wasnt peaceful sovereignty?" I would have thought we should add the Brit refusal to negotiate but not remove the word peaceful, SqueakBox 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

was peaceful in the meaning of not direct war confrontation (until 1982) but not in diplomatic levels with Argentina claiming its case at every diplomatic opportunity and UK continual refusal. Jor70 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, within this context peaceful becomes a weasel word. You could say the same for the French or Spanish periods. --Mariano(t/c) 11:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uti possidetis?

The principle of Uti possidetis actually states that the winner in any conflict takes the spoils. It therefore favours the British claim, rather than the Argentine, after both 1833 and 1982. Why is it therefore placed in the Argentine claims? TharkunColl 12:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Great point, someone type it wrong, should be Uti Possidetis Juris as per [9] , [10], etc Jor70 12:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense. So in that case, why doesn't Argentina claim, or try to invade, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uraguay, which were all part of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate? TharkunColl 12:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

well, as I far I understand the people born there choose self determination to be independent, whilest in the 'islands, argentines settlers where expelled, replaced by british people and prohibit return.

and the cause Argentina didnt try to invade those countries is simple, it neves was a colonial power , on the contrary, its send the Army to Chile and Peru too help them in their independeces Jor70 13:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, the principle of Uti possidetis Juris can be ignored when it suits them? Or perhaps the invasion of a tiny, defenceless country appeared more attractive in 1982 than trying to invade large, armed neighbours? TharkunColl 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

History sadly shows the Argentine Armed Forces fighting the UK (3rd global power, which was backup up by the US and EU), I think it would not care to invade Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay if, as you imply, had an imperialist reason. Jor70 18:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that Argentina doesn't have what it takes to for a fair fight? This is certainly not a constructive comment, given that the UK has done the same, and that Argentina had helped other independence causes around it. These issues are discussed by experts. I'm neither of pro-UK nor of pro-Argentinian orientation, and my opinion after reading these related articles is that both countries have legitimate argumentation over sovereignty. Historically, Argentina has a point, because she was the first to settle the island (although for a brief time period). In modern times, UK has a point because of the self-determination of the inhabitants (although very few). The problem is that we all know that unfortunately neither UK nor Argentina nor anybody else actually give a rat's ass about 3000 people; it's the strategic passage, the resources and a sick notion of national pride that come to play in these issues. Unfortunately. NikoSilver 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In pursuing claims to land that are centuries old, the Argentines will presumably recognise the right of the indigenous Indians in Argentina to have their land back, and evacuate their country forthwith? TharkunColl 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim would not be century old if the UK didnt sistematically abort any negotiation since 1833. Unfortunely, the claim surely would be present for centuries more Jor70 18:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. TharkunColl 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. Are there any left? :-( Centuries old land claims are not that uncommon in the world. I doubt the English will hand over their big island to the Welsh either. We can't reasonably find a solution to this problem here. In parallel to the Argentinian claims, Greek islands just off the coast of Turkey are called "too close to the Turkish mainland to be Greek", while Greeks say "thank God we have the sea in-between, look what happened to Smyrna". There's no end, and the beginning is hardly traceable too. World changes rapidly, and fortunately or unfortunately it's the survival of the fittest in the end (not of the one who is "right"). Sacking America was a dirty business indeed, but then again, we're only humans (are we?) In any case, you can't just draw an arbitrary line in history and say "behind this line, we don't recognize sovereignty based on self-id of the inhabitants". Yes, the indigenous Indians' claims would be valid (not to mention they were massacred on top). So would the claims of the Greeks for the... Byzantine Empire, and those of the British over the... USA. These things looked indisputable back then. Just like the sovereignty of the Falklands in 1833 or today. We all migrated at some point in history, didn't we? NikoSilver 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Argentines only occupied the islands for 7 years nearly two centuries ago, and the present population has been there ever since, should really tell us all we need to know. If the Argentines hadn't invaded in 1982 then it's just possible that the islanders might have eventually done a deal with them, but that is impossible now. TharkunColl 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It tells me as much as the fact that the first inhabitants were unilaterally expelled by the British and the fact that UK is abusing its superior diplomatic status over the years to disallow earlier settlement. Regarding the Argentinan invasion, well, you're right (of course). What a gaffe! But what a lousy way to respond also... NikoSilver 22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That unilateral expulsion happened nearly 200 years ago. As the article itself points out, the British Empire no longer exists. All we can do now is defend our kinfolk. TharkunColl 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

well, the fact tell us that the UK still maintain a colony after 2 centuries. Regarding the other point, we finally agree on something, the dictatorial gov (BTW, an US ally) of the time crap us all Jor70 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The colony, as you call it, is composed of British people. We will defend our kinfolk to the death - as Hitler found out to his cost. TharkunColl 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hitler? He didnt invade the Falkland Islands, SqueakBox 23:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but he did attack the British. He paid for that mistake dearly. We have seen enough tinpot fascist dictators come and go (from Napoleon to Hitler to Galtieri) to know how to deal with them. TharkunColl 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See Godwin's Law... NikoSilver 00:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware of Godwin's so-called law and in my opinion it is nothing more than a smokescreen. We oppose fascism in all its forms, whether from Germany or Argentina. TharkunColl 00:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"And boy... did we sack him for all of you put together!" Does this talk lead anywhere? I'm sure we can keep throwing catch phrases like these to each other forever! NikoSilver 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Iraq? Tony Blair bravely fighting to protect British territory dangerously threatened by Saddam? SqueakBox 03:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's called power projection—we do it because we have the power to fight globally (and the Argentinians don't).

81.131.59.62 03:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That would make us the dictators and indeed Blair would look good in a tin pot. Yet the Falklands was a very different battle, IMO, SqueakBox 04:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL that's the best approach I heard here so far! Personally as a non-involved third party, I surely acknowledge the mistakes of the Argentinian side, but that does not blind me from observing the mistakes of the British side. "Kinfolk protection" is neither selective among different kins, nor does it have a "date of expiry" of 174 years (especially when you use your superior diplomatic power to boycott resolution attempts throughout this period). Time is very relative, and what seems ages ago for one Brit, may well look like yesterday for another, or for a Greek, a Turk, a French, an Italian, a Russian, a Chinese, or anybody who perceives a significantly longer history. 5 grandpa's ago is not the beginning of time when there are ethnic groups around with 100. NikoSilver 10:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I doubt the real reason is "kinfolk protection". Rulers have been very hard on their kin (and other kins) numerous times, when the actual reasons (i.e. global power, strategic passages, resources etc) were on the other side of the scale. NikoSilver 10:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I must have misundersttod what you just wrote there... you seemed to be saying that the British don't have a very long history compared with such ancient civilisations as, for example, the Turks and the Russians. Is that what you really meant? TharkunColl 11:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant that we define "long" according to our personal biases, the Greeks, the Turks, the Russians and everybody else included. Some Turks define recently from the Turkish War of Independence; some others from the Fall of Constantinople, and some from much earlier. Same with all of us. British history can begin anywhere from before King Arthur to the end of colonialism or whatever. There are different views within each ethnic group (not among ethnic groups). Maybe I should rephrase a bit. NikoSilver 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl's claim that the UK "opposes fascism in all its forms, whether from Germany or Argentina." is quite enraging, actually, if you consider the fact that the British government (along with the US) has given support to a great number of military coups and dictators in Argentine history, including Aramburu, Onganía and, more importantly, the murderous 1976 military dictatorship (which left a dead count of almost 30,000 argentines) and with whom the British had excellent relations until the worsening of the Falklands dispute in 1981.

And I'm not even mentioning the excellent relations with Pinochet in Chile, or many other dictators throughout Latin America and the Third World.

Lack of education about politics and history prevent that people like Kissinger be brought to trial and these things be known in the west. Why nobody questions current US support to Musharraf in Pakistan? Is the word "dictator" defined on whether western bussiness interests are threatened or not?

--Lobizón 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for those accusations? In fact, the Argentines should be grateful to the UK for bringing about the downfall of Galtieri after he lost the Falklands War. TharkunColl 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you need evidence of the British to be friend of the Argentine dictatorship ? The bombs that sunk the british ships were "made in UK". UK didnt impose an arms embargo (like the US) after the 1976 coup, instead they even give two Type 42 destroyers! . FAA canberras bombers were few of the aircraft without spare parts problems in 1982 and 2 more where just to be delivered. Jor70 13:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stick to dicussing the article and not turn this into a political rant. thank you.--Vintagekits 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Second that. NikoSilver 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External jumps

The page has too many external jumps. I will start changing them to references as soon as I get the chance (and if no-one strongly objects), but if anyone beats me to it that would be good too! Chrisfow 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)