![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
To increase readability, I'm proposing to reorganize the Historical Basis section from "by country" to "by year." Currently, the layout is:
My proposed outline would be: (or something similar, if you have other ideas)
Note that only the pre-1833 information is being reorganized; the post-1833 stuff would remain the same. Also, no content changes would be made - just moving things around.
Personally, I had a really hard time understanding the pre-1833 timeline, so I think something should be done. Thanks!!
Armadillo1985 ( talk) 17:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
[1] is this source reliable for the claim "The Argentine settlers left peacefully but under protest, and Argentina has argued ever since that the Falklands were illegally taken by force." This is also a potential copyvio per Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#Can_I_copy_if_I_change_the_text_a_little_bit? and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, since it is almost a verbatim quote. As a copyvio it should probably be removed.
The article is actually about the imposition of economic sanctions and its not directly related to this topic. Noting the following sources, contradict this comment (collapsed for readability):
extended discussion on sources
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Contemporary accountsCaptain Onslow's report and orders are in the British Archive at Kew Gardens. Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow, and several different versions of Onslow’s report on his visit to Port Louis, are in PRO Adm 1/2276, and in PRO FO 6 500, pp. 96 (orders), and 116-124 (Onslow’s report as sent to British chargé d’affaires Philip Gore in Buenos Aires; Onslow's orders were clear.
Onslow's report documents his efforts to persuade them to stay, many wanted to leave as the Falklands were a harsh place to live and the Gaucho's had not been paid since Vernet's departue in 1831.
Pinedo (An Argentine source)From Pinedo’s testimony at his trial later in 1833, AGN Sala VII, Legajo 60, p. 22: “… los habitantes que quisiesen voluntariamente quedan, que serian respetados ellos y sus propriedades como anteriormente…”) corroborates this:
I ask you to note that the two eye witness accounts corroborate. The Complete Works of Charles Darwin online includes the diaries of both Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy. HMS Beagle visited the settlement in March 1833 and again the following year. In March 1833, Fitzroy documents his meeting with Matthew Brisbane, Vernet's deputy, who had returned to take charge of Vernet's business interests. Fitzroy also documents his efforts to persuade the settlers to continue in the islands. Both Darwin and Fitzroy document their meetings with the settlers supposedly expelled 3 months earlier. Brisbane brought one Thomas Helsby who also kept a diary and documented the residents of Port Louis. Residents of Port Louis This pretty much co-incides with Pinedo's account in January 1833. All without exception members of Vernet's settlement. There is also Thomas Helsby's accounts of the Gaucho murders, when disgruntled Gaucho's ran amok and murdered Vernet's representatives. NeutralLowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.
Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012. Source for the British Government position[2] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Source for the Argentine Government position[3] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do. Not to mention the schizophrenic nature of what Argentina claims.
On the one hand its claiming the settlers were expelled, in the same document it refers to the settlers left in the islands. |
Given that there is overwhelming documentation to show this is incorrect, why should we persist in sticking with a sourced statement that is incorrect? W C M email 11:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
“ | Argentina states the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population, which was expelled by an 'act of force', forcing the Argentinian inhabitants to directly leave the islands. [1] This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833 [2] during which Argentina claims the existing population living in the islands was expelled. Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination. [3] Historical records dispute Argentina's claims and whilst acknowledging the garrison was expelled note the existing civilian population remained at Port Louis [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and there was no attempt to colonise the islands until 1841. [10] | ” |
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link) Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis.
Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina
On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison.
Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis.
Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos
The Sovereignty dispute section states that "In International Law, territorial claims are usually considered defunct if there is a gap of 50 years or more between protests over sovereignty." If the dates of Argentinian protests given in the fourth bullet point in the Current claims section are correct, then the gaps between the protests are:
1833 - 1841, 8 years; 1841 - 1849, 8 years; 1849 - 1884, 35 years; 1884 - 1888, 4 years; 1888 - 1908, 20 years; 1908 - 1927, 19 years; 1927 - 1933, 6 years; 1933 - 1946, 13 years; 1946 onwards, 1 year.
Before 1833 Great Britain did not have complete de facto control of the islands at any time.
So, at no time has there been a 50-year gap. Should this not be made clear in the text? I would like to get consensus on this before editing the page because this is a contentious subject. Does anyone have comments on this or want to suggest a form of words?
10:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)10:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)~~ Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.142.150 ( talk)
User:Roger 8 Roger wishes to change the "current claims" section so that it says:
“ | That the principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question because the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine. | ” |
This removes the specific attribution of the latter part of the claim to Argentina.
The claim being attributed to Argentina here is that the principle of self-determination does not apply. If the phrase "the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine" is not attributed to Argentina, then we are treating it as a fact provided in Wikipedia's voice.
In practice, reliable sources (per many previous discussions) demonstate that this is at best highly skewed and at worst plain inaccurate (as it relies on the expulsion myth). I content that making Argentine claims in Wikipedia's voice, when we know that they are inaccurate or misleading, is strongly biased and hence entirely inappropriate.
I am happy for the attribution of this claim to Argentina to be reworded on done in another way (other points handle this by repeated use of the word "that"), but I think some form of attribution must remain for us to maintain WP:NPOV. Kahastok talk 09:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
To move on from this specific point of difference, which I think is only part of a wider concern about this article, a wider discussion on improving the article would be more productive, certainly one involving the wider audience You suggest a discussion about better wording (of this sentence), but I am suggesting another look at the entire article, specifically its structure, which is causing many of the problems I can see with this article, including its tone. One example is the infobox. Well constructive and informative though it is, what it shows is something that is important to the UK position, but not important to the Argentine position. Lack of balance? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Under French settlement it say: France was the first country to establish de facto control in the Falkland Islands, with the foundation of Port Saint Louis in East Falkland by French explorer Louis Antoine de Bougainville, in 1764.[1] The citation is Calvert. But, Calvert says: Goebel argues (5) that the declaration makes the subsequent British act of annexation invalid and of no legal effect. But the very fact that the British settlement took place unhindered is the clearest possible evidence that French occupation was not effective over other islands in the group, and, given the numbers involved, probably not as far as the island of East Falkland itself was concerned. He uses this line to dismiss the validity of the Argentine claim that sovereignty was transferred by France to Spain. This Calvert reference IMO is therefore being totally misunderstood and misused. This affects not just this section but the whole article, including the timeline template, called 'de facto control'. I will try to rearrange this sub-section but I am not sure how simple that will be. Comments welcome. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
How come? The article said France had control over the islands; the source used says it did not have control (and therefore could not cede them to Spain). Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The source used is Calvert, so Calvert says it, even if Calvert refers to Goebels. Calvert does not quote Goebels but uses his, Calvert's, words, making the whole thing a RSS by Calvert. Not controlling every island is not the argument being used, which is that the French lack of control was demonstrated by France's failure to contest the British settlement at Port Egmont, or even to know about it. Such a situation, says Calvert, would not have occurred had France had effective control. Incidentally, please check because I thingde facto, does not mean what you say it means. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 11:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I think de facto is a commonly used phrase on wikipedia that I agree is not always given the care it needs. I agree with your mention of 'at that time'. The phrase is often used inappropriately in an anachronistic way. I am no expert on international law but my understanding of Calvert's argument is to have 'ownership rights' over newly discovered land you needed to have other countries accept your ownership (eg by mutual agreement, who first raised a flag), or you establish effective control. Effective control means being able to assert your authority in a few fundamentally important ways, such as determining who lives there and the ability to levy and collect tax. Calvert IMO is saying that neither of these ways existed then: the French settlement was not accepted by Britain, whether or not Britain knew about it, and neither did the settlement have the effective control needed to establish ownership. Although not quite the same, another example of this with some similarities occurred in NZ in 1840 when a French settlement began at Akaroa. Unknown to the French, Britain had signed the Treaty of Waitangi while the French were en route. As soon as the British learned of the settlement, which was grounded on land purchased by the French, Britain intervened (ie established control) by getting the French settlers to cede all ownership rights. That to me is an example of what having effective control means, something that did not happen in the Falklands in 1767. Another point I think Calvert raises, as you did too, but does not expand on is that we need to be careful about looking at this through the eyes of contemporary people. It would have been quite possible to split the archipelago between two authorities, as happened in very many places elsewhere. The Caribbean islands is a classic example. Here [5] is a much earlier discussion on this topic. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 19:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
This article is called Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. To begin, the lead does not say what makes up the dispute but it does strongly hint that it is about the length of occupancy and what the islanders want. This amounts to the UK's strongest bargaining counter: self-determination, or its interpretation of UN 1514, creating imbalanced editorialising. The lead in full is here --
Next, a third of the article under 'historic basis of the dispute' is an extended mix of the six other articles mentioned at the start of the section, complemented by a tidy timeline chart of de facto control which, due to the length of the UK line, harks back to UN 1514, the UK strong point. There is then a sizable section on the war before we finally get to some detail about the dispute itself, taking up about a tenth of the article. The final third is the references etc.
I suggest that the article should concentrate on the issues involved (the part two thirds in) which is what the article is supposed to be about, and heavily crop reference to history and the war. Reference to history cannot of course be avoided, but it should be kept to a minimum and used only where necessary to clarify reference to any legal points about the sovereignty claims. Yes, I know this has been suggested before and rejected, but that does not mean it is wrong. If there is consensus on that then it will be easier to iron out other areas such as the lead. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a useful comment on the background. Yesterday I looked again at the article at what it was that did not seem to work. Although it is tempting to structure it around each country's claim, and the timeline template fits in with that, the issues get lost because they are not specific to only one country. I looked back to the very beginning and saw the timeline approach came in very early. For example, based on recent edits, the question of occupation/control of/settlement is a fundamental issue in this dispute that IMO should be addressed in a section of its own that focuses on international law. If we take that line it means the whole article will need to be rearranged, probably with lengthy discussion here first. Another example where an issue is not addressed on its own is the 3,000 people living there. I am certain that very many people see the Argentine position on this as illogical and contrary to commonsense and international law. That issue deserves a section of its own. Anyway, are you saying WCM that there may now be a consensus growing for a changed structure? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the Beck quote but to explain I thought I'd add a note in talk. For protests to be effective in International Law, they have to be made Government to Government. To cover up the rather large gap various authors have embellished various incidents as "protests". So for example, the postal union, the claims made at conferences on sexually transmitted diseases (I kid you not) have all been cited by various authors as "protests".
If we're going to include such quotes, the WP:NPOV would demand that we also include examples where statements by various Argentine officials can be described as acquiescing to British sovereignty.
I also reverted to add back the Argentine government has claimed the population was expelled. Referring to the Wayback Machine, the Argentine government has changed it's official page since to only mention the garrison. This was done rather quietly after decades of being the official position, since the publication of "Getting it right" by Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe. If you want you could change the cite to refer to the Ruda speech at the United Nations, where this claim was first made. W C M email 07:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Two reverts of this external link today, one here. Okay, so what's the problem? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 21:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It didn't work, I checked it out and I'm not sure what you did but it wasn't working. My question would be why single out one book that has come in for a lot of criticism? W C M email 23:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The link works fine for me. Perhaps there is some obvious problem with the link I have overlooked. If the link is broken then anyone can find it simply with a google search. I added it because it seemed pretty relevant to me in claiming to be a reply to P&P, a document that makes very good and specific claims supporting the UK position, and which is used in various wiki articles. The K&R document therefore seems to be no more than creating balance. It is also IMO relevant because it too deals with specifics about the Argentine case, something lacking so far. I can well see how it has come in for criticism: a quick look at some parts of the document does bring up some questionable reasoning, from two supposedly high up academics. I have singled out this document because I came across it. I do not know of anything else that deals with the same issues,and in such depth, as this one. Are there others available? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 01:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I saw a fairly major rewrite yesterday that in part was based on this book. As an WP:SPS, it is not a WP:RS that can be used on Wikipedia. The rest was merely uncited. As such I have removed it. @ Kahastok:, @ Roger 8 Roger: for info. W C M email 07:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This has probably been raised before, but here goes anyway. From my quick reading of articles 4 and 6, it appears they have been misinterpreted. The South seas referred then, and usually still does, to the Pacific Ocean, in its entirety back in the 16thC. and later especially to the southern part of that ocean. Article 4 cannot therefore refer to the Falklands. Article 4 defines an off-shore area (for fishing reasons) as ten leagues off the coast. To me that shows the thinking of the persons writing this treaty about what constituted islands adjacent to the coast of south america as mentioned in article 6. The Falklands is nowhere close to ten leagues off the coast. The current Chilean, and then Spanish, off-shore islands down the Pacific coast would seem to be a much more obvious reason for that article 6 reference. Furthermore, it looks as though Spain was acknowledging that continental land south of its southernmost settlement was terra nullius. (Cannot immediately remember what was the southern most settlement in 1790). Anyway, this subsection needs a clean up: it is not referenced despite a request tag dating back many years. If I have misread these clauses I am happy to be proved wrong. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
In a secret article it was stated that this was conditional on no third party settling there either, in which "there" now appears to refer to Vancouver Island. Kahastok talk 10:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
“ | Whether or not this affected sovereignty over the islands is disputed. The British argue that the agreement did not affect the respective claims and only stipulated that neither party would make further establishments on the coasts or "adjacent" islands already held by Spain.[99] Argentina argues that "the islands adjacent" includes the Falklands and that the UK renounced any claim by the agreements.[100] | ” |
It seems that European Union no longer recognize the Falklands as British territory nor support the UK in the islands after the UK abandoned the EU: https://penguin-news.com/headlines/politics/2021/falklands-disappointed-and-frustrated-with-brexit-deal/ -- 190.183.23.139 ( talk) 05:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The European Union excluded the Falkland Islands from this agreement following UK's brexit: https://polarjournal.ch/en/2020/12/28/eu-uk-agreement-without-falkland-islands/ -- 181.9.176.125 ( talk) 07:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Another sources I have found: [7] [8] -- 181.9.176.125 ( talk) 07:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Other sources: [9] and [10] ... I will try to add more sources until I found an reilable source. I'm very newcomer on this. -- 181.9.176.125 ( talk) 08:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Good Evening, I'm not normally a Wikipedia editor but as someone who has been studying the dispute leading to the eventual conflict in 1982 for a dissertation, I have noticed that the dates of the first French landings and end of French sovereignty in the date/timeline card on the right is incorrect. The source cited states that "he took formal possession of the island on 5 April 1764 on behalf of France and sailed for home" and that the "French claim was formally transferred to Spain on 25 February 1767, in return for an indemnity equivalent to £24,000". However, in the date card, the months are the wrong way round. Is it possible there was a mix up of dates that has been overlooked?
Regards, Techiejt Techiejt ( talk) 18:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I find it slightly irritating when I find this term "de jure" used in contexts like this, where multiple legal interpretations exist and the dispute is essentially about sovereignty. De jure vs de facto is only a meaningful concept if there is a clearly-defined "de jure" interpretation, e.g. " Sucre is the de jure capital of Bolivia, while La Paz is the de facto capital". Obviously in this instance, both Argentina and the UK have different ideas about who is "de jure" the rightful claimant to these islands. Furthermore, international law (at least as far as the US and EU are concerned) according to the article has no opinion on the matter. Therefore the UK is de facto in control, but de jure is disputed. — Amakuru ( talk) 13:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
OK we have sources that say it, lets just add them as cites. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Using this as a cite [15] this edit was added [16]. It was removed with the comment that this isn't a rolling commentary, due to the long standing convention that we don't report on every pronouncement made on demands for negotiations. I do note that the Foradori-Duncan agreement wasn't mentioned.
The article is incorrect, the agree to disagree pact was made in 1989 and is part of the Madrid accords. The main elements of the Foradori-Duncan were:
It was hated from the moment it was signed by the Peronists, who jumped on the excuse that the Foreign Minister was allegedly drunk - based on a UK conspiracy website. It was only a matter of time before a Kirchner government would kill it.
Personally I think not mentioning the agreement was a mistake, it should be mentioned in the article and other agreements all broken by Argentina, if for nothing else to show that Argentina has broken every agreement made with the UK. However, I'd suggest that the edit based on an erroneous newspaper article is perhaps not the best. Knowing the passions raised by any mention of the dispute bringing it to talk to get a consensus before editing.
Couple of sources to set the ball rolling [17], [18], [19], [20] W C M email 14:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
To increase readability, I'm proposing to reorganize the Historical Basis section from "by country" to "by year." Currently, the layout is:
My proposed outline would be: (or something similar, if you have other ideas)
Note that only the pre-1833 information is being reorganized; the post-1833 stuff would remain the same. Also, no content changes would be made - just moving things around.
Personally, I had a really hard time understanding the pre-1833 timeline, so I think something should be done. Thanks!!
Armadillo1985 ( talk) 17:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
[1] is this source reliable for the claim "The Argentine settlers left peacefully but under protest, and Argentina has argued ever since that the Falklands were illegally taken by force." This is also a potential copyvio per Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#Can_I_copy_if_I_change_the_text_a_little_bit? and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, since it is almost a verbatim quote. As a copyvio it should probably be removed.
The article is actually about the imposition of economic sanctions and its not directly related to this topic. Noting the following sources, contradict this comment (collapsed for readability):
extended discussion on sources
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Contemporary accountsCaptain Onslow's report and orders are in the British Archive at Kew Gardens. Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow, and several different versions of Onslow’s report on his visit to Port Louis, are in PRO Adm 1/2276, and in PRO FO 6 500, pp. 96 (orders), and 116-124 (Onslow’s report as sent to British chargé d’affaires Philip Gore in Buenos Aires; Onslow's orders were clear.
Onslow's report documents his efforts to persuade them to stay, many wanted to leave as the Falklands were a harsh place to live and the Gaucho's had not been paid since Vernet's departue in 1831.
Pinedo (An Argentine source)From Pinedo’s testimony at his trial later in 1833, AGN Sala VII, Legajo 60, p. 22: “… los habitantes que quisiesen voluntariamente quedan, que serian respetados ellos y sus propriedades como anteriormente…”) corroborates this:
I ask you to note that the two eye witness accounts corroborate. The Complete Works of Charles Darwin online includes the diaries of both Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy. HMS Beagle visited the settlement in March 1833 and again the following year. In March 1833, Fitzroy documents his meeting with Matthew Brisbane, Vernet's deputy, who had returned to take charge of Vernet's business interests. Fitzroy also documents his efforts to persuade the settlers to continue in the islands. Both Darwin and Fitzroy document their meetings with the settlers supposedly expelled 3 months earlier. Brisbane brought one Thomas Helsby who also kept a diary and documented the residents of Port Louis. Residents of Port Louis This pretty much co-incides with Pinedo's account in January 1833. All without exception members of Vernet's settlement. There is also Thomas Helsby's accounts of the Gaucho murders, when disgruntled Gaucho's ran amok and murdered Vernet's representatives. NeutralLowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.
Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012. Source for the British Government position[2] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Source for the Argentine Government position[3] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do. Not to mention the schizophrenic nature of what Argentina claims.
On the one hand its claiming the settlers were expelled, in the same document it refers to the settlers left in the islands. |
Given that there is overwhelming documentation to show this is incorrect, why should we persist in sticking with a sourced statement that is incorrect? W C M email 11:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
“ | Argentina states the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population, which was expelled by an 'act of force', forcing the Argentinian inhabitants to directly leave the islands. [1] This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833 [2] during which Argentina claims the existing population living in the islands was expelled. Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination. [3] Historical records dispute Argentina's claims and whilst acknowledging the garrison was expelled note the existing civilian population remained at Port Louis [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and there was no attempt to colonise the islands until 1841. [10] | ” |
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link) Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis.
Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina
On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison.
Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis.
Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos
The Sovereignty dispute section states that "In International Law, territorial claims are usually considered defunct if there is a gap of 50 years or more between protests over sovereignty." If the dates of Argentinian protests given in the fourth bullet point in the Current claims section are correct, then the gaps between the protests are:
1833 - 1841, 8 years; 1841 - 1849, 8 years; 1849 - 1884, 35 years; 1884 - 1888, 4 years; 1888 - 1908, 20 years; 1908 - 1927, 19 years; 1927 - 1933, 6 years; 1933 - 1946, 13 years; 1946 onwards, 1 year.
Before 1833 Great Britain did not have complete de facto control of the islands at any time.
So, at no time has there been a 50-year gap. Should this not be made clear in the text? I would like to get consensus on this before editing the page because this is a contentious subject. Does anyone have comments on this or want to suggest a form of words?
10:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)10:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)~~ Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.142.150 ( talk)
User:Roger 8 Roger wishes to change the "current claims" section so that it says:
“ | That the principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question because the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine. | ” |
This removes the specific attribution of the latter part of the claim to Argentina.
The claim being attributed to Argentina here is that the principle of self-determination does not apply. If the phrase "the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine" is not attributed to Argentina, then we are treating it as a fact provided in Wikipedia's voice.
In practice, reliable sources (per many previous discussions) demonstate that this is at best highly skewed and at worst plain inaccurate (as it relies on the expulsion myth). I content that making Argentine claims in Wikipedia's voice, when we know that they are inaccurate or misleading, is strongly biased and hence entirely inappropriate.
I am happy for the attribution of this claim to Argentina to be reworded on done in another way (other points handle this by repeated use of the word "that"), but I think some form of attribution must remain for us to maintain WP:NPOV. Kahastok talk 09:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
To move on from this specific point of difference, which I think is only part of a wider concern about this article, a wider discussion on improving the article would be more productive, certainly one involving the wider audience You suggest a discussion about better wording (of this sentence), but I am suggesting another look at the entire article, specifically its structure, which is causing many of the problems I can see with this article, including its tone. One example is the infobox. Well constructive and informative though it is, what it shows is something that is important to the UK position, but not important to the Argentine position. Lack of balance? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Under French settlement it say: France was the first country to establish de facto control in the Falkland Islands, with the foundation of Port Saint Louis in East Falkland by French explorer Louis Antoine de Bougainville, in 1764.[1] The citation is Calvert. But, Calvert says: Goebel argues (5) that the declaration makes the subsequent British act of annexation invalid and of no legal effect. But the very fact that the British settlement took place unhindered is the clearest possible evidence that French occupation was not effective over other islands in the group, and, given the numbers involved, probably not as far as the island of East Falkland itself was concerned. He uses this line to dismiss the validity of the Argentine claim that sovereignty was transferred by France to Spain. This Calvert reference IMO is therefore being totally misunderstood and misused. This affects not just this section but the whole article, including the timeline template, called 'de facto control'. I will try to rearrange this sub-section but I am not sure how simple that will be. Comments welcome. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
How come? The article said France had control over the islands; the source used says it did not have control (and therefore could not cede them to Spain). Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The source used is Calvert, so Calvert says it, even if Calvert refers to Goebels. Calvert does not quote Goebels but uses his, Calvert's, words, making the whole thing a RSS by Calvert. Not controlling every island is not the argument being used, which is that the French lack of control was demonstrated by France's failure to contest the British settlement at Port Egmont, or even to know about it. Such a situation, says Calvert, would not have occurred had France had effective control. Incidentally, please check because I thingde facto, does not mean what you say it means. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 11:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I think de facto is a commonly used phrase on wikipedia that I agree is not always given the care it needs. I agree with your mention of 'at that time'. The phrase is often used inappropriately in an anachronistic way. I am no expert on international law but my understanding of Calvert's argument is to have 'ownership rights' over newly discovered land you needed to have other countries accept your ownership (eg by mutual agreement, who first raised a flag), or you establish effective control. Effective control means being able to assert your authority in a few fundamentally important ways, such as determining who lives there and the ability to levy and collect tax. Calvert IMO is saying that neither of these ways existed then: the French settlement was not accepted by Britain, whether or not Britain knew about it, and neither did the settlement have the effective control needed to establish ownership. Although not quite the same, another example of this with some similarities occurred in NZ in 1840 when a French settlement began at Akaroa. Unknown to the French, Britain had signed the Treaty of Waitangi while the French were en route. As soon as the British learned of the settlement, which was grounded on land purchased by the French, Britain intervened (ie established control) by getting the French settlers to cede all ownership rights. That to me is an example of what having effective control means, something that did not happen in the Falklands in 1767. Another point I think Calvert raises, as you did too, but does not expand on is that we need to be careful about looking at this through the eyes of contemporary people. It would have been quite possible to split the archipelago between two authorities, as happened in very many places elsewhere. The Caribbean islands is a classic example. Here [5] is a much earlier discussion on this topic. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 19:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
This article is called Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. To begin, the lead does not say what makes up the dispute but it does strongly hint that it is about the length of occupancy and what the islanders want. This amounts to the UK's strongest bargaining counter: self-determination, or its interpretation of UN 1514, creating imbalanced editorialising. The lead in full is here --
Next, a third of the article under 'historic basis of the dispute' is an extended mix of the six other articles mentioned at the start of the section, complemented by a tidy timeline chart of de facto control which, due to the length of the UK line, harks back to UN 1514, the UK strong point. There is then a sizable section on the war before we finally get to some detail about the dispute itself, taking up about a tenth of the article. The final third is the references etc.
I suggest that the article should concentrate on the issues involved (the part two thirds in) which is what the article is supposed to be about, and heavily crop reference to history and the war. Reference to history cannot of course be avoided, but it should be kept to a minimum and used only where necessary to clarify reference to any legal points about the sovereignty claims. Yes, I know this has been suggested before and rejected, but that does not mean it is wrong. If there is consensus on that then it will be easier to iron out other areas such as the lead. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a useful comment on the background. Yesterday I looked again at the article at what it was that did not seem to work. Although it is tempting to structure it around each country's claim, and the timeline template fits in with that, the issues get lost because they are not specific to only one country. I looked back to the very beginning and saw the timeline approach came in very early. For example, based on recent edits, the question of occupation/control of/settlement is a fundamental issue in this dispute that IMO should be addressed in a section of its own that focuses on international law. If we take that line it means the whole article will need to be rearranged, probably with lengthy discussion here first. Another example where an issue is not addressed on its own is the 3,000 people living there. I am certain that very many people see the Argentine position on this as illogical and contrary to commonsense and international law. That issue deserves a section of its own. Anyway, are you saying WCM that there may now be a consensus growing for a changed structure? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the Beck quote but to explain I thought I'd add a note in talk. For protests to be effective in International Law, they have to be made Government to Government. To cover up the rather large gap various authors have embellished various incidents as "protests". So for example, the postal union, the claims made at conferences on sexually transmitted diseases (I kid you not) have all been cited by various authors as "protests".
If we're going to include such quotes, the WP:NPOV would demand that we also include examples where statements by various Argentine officials can be described as acquiescing to British sovereignty.
I also reverted to add back the Argentine government has claimed the population was expelled. Referring to the Wayback Machine, the Argentine government has changed it's official page since to only mention the garrison. This was done rather quietly after decades of being the official position, since the publication of "Getting it right" by Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe. If you want you could change the cite to refer to the Ruda speech at the United Nations, where this claim was first made. W C M email 07:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Two reverts of this external link today, one here. Okay, so what's the problem? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 21:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It didn't work, I checked it out and I'm not sure what you did but it wasn't working. My question would be why single out one book that has come in for a lot of criticism? W C M email 23:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The link works fine for me. Perhaps there is some obvious problem with the link I have overlooked. If the link is broken then anyone can find it simply with a google search. I added it because it seemed pretty relevant to me in claiming to be a reply to P&P, a document that makes very good and specific claims supporting the UK position, and which is used in various wiki articles. The K&R document therefore seems to be no more than creating balance. It is also IMO relevant because it too deals with specifics about the Argentine case, something lacking so far. I can well see how it has come in for criticism: a quick look at some parts of the document does bring up some questionable reasoning, from two supposedly high up academics. I have singled out this document because I came across it. I do not know of anything else that deals with the same issues,and in such depth, as this one. Are there others available? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 01:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I saw a fairly major rewrite yesterday that in part was based on this book. As an WP:SPS, it is not a WP:RS that can be used on Wikipedia. The rest was merely uncited. As such I have removed it. @ Kahastok:, @ Roger 8 Roger: for info. W C M email 07:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This has probably been raised before, but here goes anyway. From my quick reading of articles 4 and 6, it appears they have been misinterpreted. The South seas referred then, and usually still does, to the Pacific Ocean, in its entirety back in the 16thC. and later especially to the southern part of that ocean. Article 4 cannot therefore refer to the Falklands. Article 4 defines an off-shore area (for fishing reasons) as ten leagues off the coast. To me that shows the thinking of the persons writing this treaty about what constituted islands adjacent to the coast of south america as mentioned in article 6. The Falklands is nowhere close to ten leagues off the coast. The current Chilean, and then Spanish, off-shore islands down the Pacific coast would seem to be a much more obvious reason for that article 6 reference. Furthermore, it looks as though Spain was acknowledging that continental land south of its southernmost settlement was terra nullius. (Cannot immediately remember what was the southern most settlement in 1790). Anyway, this subsection needs a clean up: it is not referenced despite a request tag dating back many years. If I have misread these clauses I am happy to be proved wrong. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
In a secret article it was stated that this was conditional on no third party settling there either, in which "there" now appears to refer to Vancouver Island. Kahastok talk 10:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
“ | Whether or not this affected sovereignty over the islands is disputed. The British argue that the agreement did not affect the respective claims and only stipulated that neither party would make further establishments on the coasts or "adjacent" islands already held by Spain.[99] Argentina argues that "the islands adjacent" includes the Falklands and that the UK renounced any claim by the agreements.[100] | ” |
It seems that European Union no longer recognize the Falklands as British territory nor support the UK in the islands after the UK abandoned the EU: https://penguin-news.com/headlines/politics/2021/falklands-disappointed-and-frustrated-with-brexit-deal/ -- 190.183.23.139 ( talk) 05:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The European Union excluded the Falkland Islands from this agreement following UK's brexit: https://polarjournal.ch/en/2020/12/28/eu-uk-agreement-without-falkland-islands/ -- 181.9.176.125 ( talk) 07:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Another sources I have found: [7] [8] -- 181.9.176.125 ( talk) 07:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Other sources: [9] and [10] ... I will try to add more sources until I found an reilable source. I'm very newcomer on this. -- 181.9.176.125 ( talk) 08:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Good Evening, I'm not normally a Wikipedia editor but as someone who has been studying the dispute leading to the eventual conflict in 1982 for a dissertation, I have noticed that the dates of the first French landings and end of French sovereignty in the date/timeline card on the right is incorrect. The source cited states that "he took formal possession of the island on 5 April 1764 on behalf of France and sailed for home" and that the "French claim was formally transferred to Spain on 25 February 1767, in return for an indemnity equivalent to £24,000". However, in the date card, the months are the wrong way round. Is it possible there was a mix up of dates that has been overlooked?
Regards, Techiejt Techiejt ( talk) 18:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I find it slightly irritating when I find this term "de jure" used in contexts like this, where multiple legal interpretations exist and the dispute is essentially about sovereignty. De jure vs de facto is only a meaningful concept if there is a clearly-defined "de jure" interpretation, e.g. " Sucre is the de jure capital of Bolivia, while La Paz is the de facto capital". Obviously in this instance, both Argentina and the UK have different ideas about who is "de jure" the rightful claimant to these islands. Furthermore, international law (at least as far as the US and EU are concerned) according to the article has no opinion on the matter. Therefore the UK is de facto in control, but de jure is disputed. — Amakuru ( talk) 13:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
OK we have sources that say it, lets just add them as cites. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Using this as a cite [15] this edit was added [16]. It was removed with the comment that this isn't a rolling commentary, due to the long standing convention that we don't report on every pronouncement made on demands for negotiations. I do note that the Foradori-Duncan agreement wasn't mentioned.
The article is incorrect, the agree to disagree pact was made in 1989 and is part of the Madrid accords. The main elements of the Foradori-Duncan were:
It was hated from the moment it was signed by the Peronists, who jumped on the excuse that the Foreign Minister was allegedly drunk - based on a UK conspiracy website. It was only a matter of time before a Kirchner government would kill it.
Personally I think not mentioning the agreement was a mistake, it should be mentioned in the article and other agreements all broken by Argentina, if for nothing else to show that Argentina has broken every agreement made with the UK. However, I'd suggest that the edit based on an erroneous newspaper article is perhaps not the best. Knowing the passions raised by any mention of the dispute bringing it to talk to get a consensus before editing.
Couple of sources to set the ball rolling [17], [18], [19], [20] W C M email 14:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)