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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be formal mediation. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist ( talk) 10:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This is related to this discussion. I've been referred to this page from the following website: http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/26/spain-s-rich-catalonia-region-calls-snap-election-demanding-self-determination Anyone reading the comment section on the bottom of that page and on other pages on that website can clearly see the heated debate and disagreements between various parts about the issue of the Malvinas/Falklands. The vast majority are well organised anti-Argentinian groups. 92.4.151.194 ( talk) 22:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article (which seems to end "principle points of the Charter", in spite of the stop after "result"") is completely garbled. If I could work out what it was meant to say I would fix it myself, but I can't. AdeMiami ( talk) 17:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The double standards of the UK government's rhetoric must be debated and challenged. The UK is trying to apply its own self-serving interpretation of self-determination to the case of the South Atlantic islands. At the same time the UK refuses to apply the same arguments equally to the case of the expelled Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia inhabitants. -- 92.4.146.140 ( talk) 01:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey you want to find examples of my personal opinion in a talk page? Go for it, I'm sure you'll find some if you look hard enough. Difference is, I've learnt better. And if you try to force material based upon your personal opinion into the article, it will be reverted. You might also like to read WP:SPS and WP:RS, ie the blog you just referenced isn't considered a reliable source. Wikipedia presents a WP:NPOV based on material culled from reliable 3rd party sources, it isn't an excuse for a polemic. You fall into the classic category of wanting to use wikipedia to right WP:GREATWRONGS. In case you hadn't noticed, the wikilinks provided are intended for guidance, people are trying to point you toward relevant policy. You appear to be presuming some personal agenda to frustrate your agenda to right great wrongs. Sorry no, people are gently trying to tell you that isn't what wikipedia is for. My advice would be to think about starting a blog where you can tell the entire world about great wrongs. Have a nice day now. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
As indicated above by User:AdeMiami as well as myself, the Lead is completely incomprehensible. The article has a very low readability score and is not written in encyclopedic style. It needs work or the Article needs to be deleted. WP:LEAD. Mugginsx ( talk) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
As regards the Falkland Islands tag, it is there for a very good reason.
Argentina claims that in 1833 there was an expulsion of a settled Argentine population. This is untrue, it didn't happen. It has only entered the modern lexicon following a speech at the UN in 1964 by the Argentine ambassador Ruda. Argentina uses this to claim that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right to self-determination.
Two editors have edit warred text into the article, which attempts to buttress the Argentine claim by quoting authors out of context, attributing to them a meaning the original author did not intend. The text as a result is no longer neutral but is actually attempting to portray there is historical evidence to support Argentine claims when in fact none exists. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Taking a brief look at the RSN discussion, I note points where Gaba implies backing from RSN that was never suggested in the RSN discussion.
Gaba's quotes are not nearly as unequivocal as he takes them to be, and his argument that it is WP:OR to read the source in any way other than he does is singularly unconvincing. I find the argument for the status quo similarly unconvincing. I note in any case that RSN is not there to judge matters of neutrality, only of reliability, so even if Gaba's claims were all accurate, they would still not imply that the status quo is neutral.
I would suggest that the weight here is misapplied. The current text implies that the weight of opinion supports the Argentine position, which I would suggest is not an accurate or neutral representation of the sources. The NPOV tag should remain until the article is improved such as to remove the bias. Kahastok talk 21:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I am never impressed by threats and I would strongly suggest you apologise for calling me a liar. I am not going to repeat myself but it seems clear to anyone familiar with Falklands history that Escude is referring to the Lexington raid, perhaps mistakenly. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
* Dispute resolution requests details the various different methods used in dispute resolutions. Moxy ( talk) 01:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Please people, calm down...
In response to Gaba p, you clearly did breach 3rr, I believe that to have been a deliberate ploy on your part given my earlier revert in an attempt to get me blocked for 3rr. You were invited to discuss it in talk, you chose not to and yes I will be taking further action about your blatant personal a attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
“ | Argentina has rights to the Falkland Islands because in 1833 it occupied them legally and was expelled by force, against all right. With arrogance, the superpower of the time, Britain, sent a powerful frigate, took our inhabitants as prisoners, chartered them to Montevideo, lowered our flag and hoisted the Union Jack. | ” |
Langus, even the official Argentine Government claim makes no such assertion. Where is it claimed the British took prisoners and took them to Montevideo? It is so obviously a confusion with the USS Lexington raid of 1831 and you seriously expect me to believe you don't recognise this for yourself? Come on, you're destroying what little credibility you ever had. Really you want to claim this supports the text, are you really that desperate? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
As noted in the discussion above, the article by Escude does not support the original edit. It was removed on that basis. It has been edit warred back into the article by WP:TAG between Langus and Gaba p against the prevailing consensus in talk.
Langus has repeatedly claimed that the distinction between the garrison and the settlers is a "British POV". This is simply untrue, no part of the British case depends on making such a distinction. Conversely Argentina's justification for denying the right to self-determination is dependent on claiming the settlers were expelled and replaced by British settlers.
Neutral 3rd party academic sources note the Argentine claim to be untrue.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Argentina did not make the distinction.
It appears that the sole purpose of introducing the Escude quote is not as a cite but in order to introduce a political statement into the article and to repeat the same claim multiple times. It is certainly not adding anything of value to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Wee, after your reading your comment in the section above and thinking about it, it does seem that Escudé is mixing up the Lexington's attack with the Clio incident. However, it struck me clear: I've never payed close attention to the exact words, but there has to be many reliable, secondary sources stating that Argentina as a country was expelled by the British. In that I agree with Kahastok: authorities being expelled result in authors expressing that X country was expelled. It is not a political statement but an interpretation of facts. Also, you don't get to decide which sources are "neutral" and which aren't. This is a very polarized subject, I remind you.
The question is: are you prepared to accept that some secondary sources see it that way? Are you willing to let every significant viewpoint into the article? -- Langus ( t) 03:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
“ | This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833[9] during which Argentina states 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.[10] Historian Mary Cawkell[11] considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain[12][13], that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841.[14] | ” |
The fact that we're going into all this, because the sources don't say what they're claimed to say, should be telling us something.
The key point with respect to self-determination is about the local population. Everyone agrees that the garrison was expelled, but I'm sure we can come up with plenty of examples of countries (meaning their authorities rather than their local population) that have been expelled from a territory over the course of the last 180 yaers, and the right to self-determination is now accepted. The rule Argentina claims is based on the principle that you're not allowed to rig self-determination by replacing a local population with an implanted one. This is an issue in Western Sahara, where the alleged implantation has occurred over the last forty years, and I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention that situation. Of course, whether it can be held to apply at a remove of 180 years is disputed.
I support Curry Monster's proposal as an improvement to the status quo. Kahastok talk 22:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
“ | This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833[81] during which Argentina states 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.[citation needed] Historian Mary Cawkell considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain, and that only a garrison was expelled.[82] Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British[83][84] or that Argentina, as a country, was expelled as consequence.[85] | ” |
No it isn't a forum, what does however seem clear is you're simply filibustering.
This has nothing to do with personal opinion, sources have been provided to show this is the opinion of neutral sources. You're taking the remark of one author out of context to infer a conclusion the author never made. Whether Argentina as a country was expelled has not been shown to be relevant to self-determination the focus of this article.
You've forced an edit into the article by edit warring, you're filibustering to keep it there. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have two issues with the last sentence attributed to Harper: "Harper claims that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841."
At this point I'd propose that this sentence be removed. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 00:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Time for a reality check for Wee Curry Monster.
Note how the links presented prove that Wee purposely lied in his comment above, specifically: "the statement was originally sourced to Cawkell, you butchered the article separating source from statement and incorrectly attributed it to Harper". This is not the first time I've caught you doing this Wee, in fact it's the second time in two weeks. Anything to say about your behavior?. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 19:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
[16] Please refer to diff, where I reverted Gaba p for screwing with a sentence, mangling the English grammar and sentence structure, whilst simultaneously attributing a claim to the wrong source. Although he has attempted to give credence to his claim, the record in history shows my comment to be correct. I consider the personal attacks to be more evidence of filibustering. I request that Gaba could restrict his personal attacks to a separate section. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Please any editor read the following points which prove how Wee purposely lied by stating that "the statement was originally sourced to Cawkell, you butchered the article separating source from statement and incorrectly attributed it to Harper".
Please Wee, I'd appreciate if from now on you'll just restrict your lies to this section. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 18:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that further disruption is being made by the reference to the President of Argentina's advert placed in British papers. As a partisan source that is little more than propaganda, it clearly is inappropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the section on Falkland Islands as its clear there is some serious problems that should not be solved by a long standing edit war. The text meaning CANT be changing daily. Moxy ( talk) 00:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
(Not going to mention Wee's personal attacks any more)
I agree with Moxy, the section needs to be as concise as possible and not get into long and debatable details. This is what I propose:
Self-determination is referred to in the
Falkland Islands Constitution
[1] and is a factor in the
Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The British Government considers that, since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.
[2]
Argentina argues self-determination is not applicable in this case, asserting the current inhabitants are "descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled".
[3] This refers to the
reassertion of British sovereignty over the islands in the year 1833 during which Argentina states the Argentines on the islands were expelled by the British Royal Navy.
[4]
[5]
Feel free to make a new proposal or to edit this one. Regards.
Gaba p (
talk)
02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Full content proposal:
“ | Self-determination is referred to in the
Falkland Islands Constitution
[6] and is a factor in the
Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 175 years.
[7] In a 1986 poll, 94.5% of the population voted to remain British.
[8] As administering power, the British Government considers since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.
[9]
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 occupied islands. This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833 [10] This relates to a principle limiting the right to self-determination in cases where an indigenous population is expelled to be replaced by an implanted population, such that the implanted population advocates self-determination in favour of the aggressor state disrupting the territorial integrity of the original state. Whether this principle is applicable in the case of the Falkland Islands is debated by a number of historians and political commentators who note discrepancies in the historical record and inconsistencies in the Argentine claims. The historical record shows that the settlement this was established by Vernet in 1828. In establishing the settlement, Vernet sought permission from both the British and Argentine authorities. Equally Vernet urged both to establish a permanent garrison to protect his settlement. Neither provided any resource until the raid of the USS Lexington in 1831 convinced both sides to act. In October 1832, the Argentine authorities dispatched a garrison under the command of Mestivier aboard the ARA Sarandi. However, after 4 days Mestivier was brutally murdered in a mutiny, with order not restored until the arrival of the Sarandi in January. With the assistance of the British schooner Rapid order had had just been restored when on 3rd January 1833, HMS Clio arrived in Port Louis and requested the Argentine captain of the ARA Sarandi, Pinedo, to remove the garrison and his forces. The captain of HMS Clio received orders that he was not to expel or interfere with the population in anyway. But in his report he notes that he had great difficulty in persuading the Gaucho's employed by Luis Vernet to remain in the islands. Although Pinedo contemplated resisting the expulsion of the garrison, he chose not to do so as the majority of his crew were British mercenaries and he could not rely upon them to act against the British. In terms of the balance of forces, Pinedo had at his disposal over 40 soldiers and an armed schooner with 9 cannon. HMS Clio was a Brig-sloop mounting 16 cannon with 8 Royal Marines on board. The issue of the use of force has been greatly debated, although noting that no force was in fact used, Gustafson argues there was an implicit threat of the use of force. Cawkell simply notes that no force was used and that Onslow lowered the Argentine flag and delivered it to Pinedo. At his court martial in Buenos Aires, Pinedo testified the existing population was encouraged to remain and that property was unmolested. Both Onslow and Pinedo agree that of the existing population, 4 chose voluntarily to leave on the Sarandi. British plans for the Falkland Islands contemplated maintaining the existing population established by Vernet, maintained by an annual visit by a warship. Encouraged by the fact the British took no action agains his settlement, Vernet borrowed money to send his deputy Matthew Brisbane to the islands in March 1833. Co-incidentally Brisbane's arrival co-incided with the first visit of HMS Beagle to the islands, where Captain Fitzroy noted Vernet's intention to continue with his enterprise. However, in August of 1833 a party of Gaucho's led by Antonio Rivero ran amok murdering the senior members of Vernet's settlement. This event convinced the British to establish a permanent resident as a naval commander. The first resident Lt Smith maintained Vernet's property and provided Vernet with regular accounts. Both Lt Smith and the British consul advocated appointing Vernet as the British governor of the islands but as Vernet became implicated in Argentine protests over the Falklands, this relationship was terminated. Vernet was later to obtain a financial settlement from the British relating to property left on the islands. Although accepting this as a full and final settlement, he later instructed his sons to pursue further compensation without success. Contradicting the Argentine claim of the expulsion of an existing population, modern historians simply note that whilst the garrison was expelled, the settlement was encouraged to remain. Other commentators noting Argentine claims consider the possible imapct upon the competing sovereignty claims. The Argentine claims are in some respects self-contradictory. On the one hand Argentine asserts the population was expelled. However, it also refers to the so-called "Gaucho murders" in terms of patriotic Argentines fighting a rebellion against British rule. There was no reference to any expulsion of the population before Ambassadors Ruda's declaration to the UN at his speech in 1964. The British case for sovereignty maintains no distinction between the garrison and the settlement, it simply describes Argentine attempts to settle the islands as "sporadic and ineffective". Although Argentina claims the population were expelled to be replaced by British settlers, the situation is not so straight forward. The British maintained the Falklands as a naval station and made no attempt to settle the islands for a decade. The population remaining in the islands were solely those remaining from Vernet's time. Other aspects of the Argentine statement that self-determination is not applicable refer to preventing Argentines settling in the islands. There has never been any specific legislation or restriction on Argentines travelling to the islands, other than that which existed after the Falklands War. However, due to his role in the Argentine claim over the Falkland Islands in the late 1830s Vernet was denied permission to visit the islands. In the late 1840s, Samuel Lafone imported a large number of Gaucho's from Argentina and Uruguay to hunt feral cattle in the islands. The Argentine admiral Lasserre visiting the islands in the 1860s noted a number of Argentines resident in the islands. As a result of these contradictions, the role that self-determination plays in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute is greatly debated. There is no clear conclusion as to which of the competing claims has greater weight in international law. |
” |
I came up with the above content suggestion, which details all of the relevant material.
User:Gaba p's content proposal is not acceptable for what it leaves out by omission. He is suppressing any mention that the Argentine claims do not accord with the historical record and any attempt to address this has been obscured by adding selected quotes from sources taken out of context to infer there is a dichotomy in the historical record when none exists. He and Langus have also forced irrelevant content into the article.
Focusing on content.
1. Britain's position is fairly straight forward.
2. Argentina's position relies in part upon its allegation that the British expelled the pre-existing population to be replaced by British settlers.
3. Argentina's position also relies on the claim that the British did not allow Argentines to settle.
4. Argentina's position is self-contradictory.
In regards to 2b it is alleged Risman, Escude and Bulmer cast doubt upon this. They don't. Escude makes no relevant comment, Bulmer refers to the garrison and Risman simply repeats an Argentine claim so its a case of repeating the same claim twice.
Its also repeatedly alleged that the distinction betwen the garrison and the population is a "British POV", when it isn't. No part of the British position dependes upon that, its just a case that neutral academics comment on it, its often referred to in the literature.
Finally as I note in the end, these contradictions mean there is no clear consensus in the literature which of the competing positions has greater weight.
I did produce a faily short and succinct summary of the key points but unfortunately this isn't liked as it introduces material noting the contradiction in the Argentine claims. Gaba p and Langus simply wish to have the comments of neutral 3rd party academic sources expunged because as they see it, its casts doubt on Argentine claims. And for all the posturing about personal attacks both make, their responses has been nothing but. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
My summary text proposal is:
“ | Self-determination is referred to in the
Falkland Islands Constitution
[11] and is a factor in the
Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 175 years.
[7] In a 1986 poll, 94.5% of the population voted to remain British.
[12] As administering power, the British Government considers since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.
[13]
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 occupied islands. [14] This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833 [15] during which Argentina states 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. [16] Historian Mary Cawkell [17] considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain, [18] [19] that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841. [20] |
” |
I did suggest replacing the reference from Cawkell to Gustafson, simply because the latter has received wide praise for its neutral and even handed approach to the subject. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I fail to understand how can the mention of the Argentinian claim be confused with an "authoritative" statement "in a wikipedia voice". Let me just post my proposed edit one more time so that it can be seen that it clearly says " Argentina states" and the statement is even around quotes. How can this be confused with "the truth is" in a wikipedia voice?
The right of self determination of the Falkland Islanders is recognized by their administering power Britain (citation) and enshrined in the Falklands Constitution (citation). Argentina states the islanders posses no right to self determination as a part of its sovereignty claim of the islands (citation), asserting the current inhabitants are "descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled". [22]
The problem I have with Apcbg's proposed edit is that it gives weight to the opinion of the islanders precisely on an article about self-determination. Since Argentina contests that the islanders have this right, expressing their view as if it was a valid third party in the discussion is already to accept that they have such a right. My edit mentions the position of both the UK and Argentina without going into extensive detail. The position of the islanders is already mentioned in the articles Falklands Islands and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute or even better Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013. Any of them can be added to the top of the section so the reader can seek for more information if they wish to. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"The right of self determination of the Falkland Islanders is recognized by their administering power Britain" --> This phrase can't be put like this. The "right" to self-determination is contested, it can't be presented as something that exists. If we attribute it to the UK that would be ok though, e.g.: Britain "recognizes the right of self determination of the Falkland Islanders". Or else we should avoid, as Wikipedia, to refer to it as a "right" that is "recognized". -- Langus ( t) 01:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Wee could I ask you to please comment on Apcbg's reasoning that we somehow need to "demonstrate" the use of secondary sources for every source we use? Apcbg, would you care to open a ticket at RS/N and ask your question there? That way we could move forward with the actual writing of the section. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm adding a detailed list of what sources say, I don't expect you to read it all, so have added it as a separate section.
Captain Onslow's report and orders are in the British Archive at Kew Gardens. Onslow's orders were clear
“ | “you are not to disturb them in their agricultural or other inoffensive employments.” [24] | ” |
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.
“ | I had great trouble to pursuade 12 of the Gauchos to remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments to the shipping must have ceased. [25] | ” |
“ | I regretted to observe a bad spirit existed amongst the Gauchos, they appeared dissatisfied with their wages… The whole of the inhabitants requested me to move the government in their favour for grants of land. [26] | ” |
Pinedo (An Argentine source) corroborates this:
“ | … those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before… [27] | ” |
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.
Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
“ | Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis. | ” |
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.
“ | Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina | ” |
Empahsis added
Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
“ | 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... | ” |
Emphasis added
Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
“ | Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis. | ” |
“ | According to Argentina, the Falklands fell under the control of "the Spanish authori ties responsible to the Government and Captaincy-General of Buenos Aires" in 1967, with Argentina succeeding to the claim upon gaining its independence from Spain. A short-lived and "only partial" British occupation "was abandoned" in 1774. Then "on 3 January 1833 the British ... ousted by violence the Argentine authorities ... an action which was followed by the unlawful occupation of the Malvinas by the United Kingdom... ." Since then, "the Argentine Government has upheld a continuous claim to its rights ... throughout the entire time that has elapsed. . . ."43 Accordingly, "[w] hen it is considered that Argentina was deprived of the islands by an illegitimate act of force, it becomes clear that the governing principle here is that of the territorial integrity of a country, which is enunciated in paragraph 6 of resolution 1514 (XV)."44 Needless to say, the British view of the historical background of the dispute is differ ent: "British sovereignty, which was first established in 1765" was "peaceably reasserted" in January 1833. It is a demonstrable fact that since 1833, that is to say for nearly a century-and-a-half, . .. the United Kingdom has maintained an open, continuous, effective and peaceful possession of the Fallkland Islands. There have been, of course, numerous diplomatic exchanges between my Government and that of Argentina during this period | ” |
Gunter (1979)
“ | Much is made in successive presentations of the Argentine case of the next episode in the history of the islands: the supposed fact that Great Britain 'brutally' and 'forcefully' expelled the Argentine garrison in 1833. The record is not nearly so dramatic. After the commander of the Lexington had declared, in December 1831, the Falklands 'free of all government', they remained without any visible authority. However, in September 1832, the Buenos Aires Government appointed, in place of Vernet, an interim commandant, Juan Mestivier. The British representative immediately lodged a protest, but Mes- tivier sailed on the Sarandi at the end of the year to take charge of a penal settlement at San Carlos, his Government's reserve on East Falkland. There was a mutiny, led by a sergeant of the garrison, and Mestivier was murdered. At this juncture, on January 11, 1833, H.M. sloop Clio arrived at Puerto de la Soledad when Pinedo, the com- mander of the Sarandi and 25 soldiers were attempting to re-establish order. The so called 'brutal' eviction is laconically recorded in Captain Onslow's log: Tuesday 1 Jany. 1833. P.M. Mod. with rain 12.20 shortened sails and came to Port Louis (Soledad), Berkeley Sound ... found here a Buenos Ayrean flag flying on shore. 2.30 out boats. 3 furled sails. 5.30 Moored ship . . . Wednesday Jany. 2. Moored at Port Louis A.M. Mod. cloudy ... loosed sails and landed a party of marines and seamen and hoisted the Union Jack and hauled down the Buenos Ayrean flag and sent it on board the schooner to the Commandante. Sailmaker repairing the Main top Gallant sails.... In the interval between these two entries, Onslow had 'civilly' (his report) told Pinedo that he had come 'to exercise the right of sovereignty' on the islands and asked him to haul down his flag on shore. Pinedo protested, but said that if the Buenos Aires flag were allowed to fly until January 5, he would leave with his soldiers and anyone else who wished to go. When Onslow proved adamant, Pinedo agreed to embark his soldiers, but he left his flag flying on shore. This was why Onslow sent it to him by one of the Clio's officers. Pinedo sailed on January 4 and was later punished by the Buenos Aires Government for failing to offer any resistanc | ” |
Metford (1968)
“ | The situation in early 1833, after Britain had established control of the Falkland
Islands through Captain Onslow and the Clio, was that the one settlement, at Port Louis on East Falkland, upon Clio's departure, was left without a garrison and under the control of civilian residents, including William Dickson and Matthew Brisbane. These two men and three others were murdered by gauchos and Indians formerly employed on the Islands during the earlier period of United Provinces' (later Argentina) rule (Darwin, 1834; Cawkell et al., 1960; Metford, 1968; Boumphrey, 1969). All but one of the other settlers present that day took refuge on islands in Berkeley Sound where they were contacted by the Royal Navy who, in January 1834, in the presence of Lieutenant Henry Smith and HMS Challenger, arrived and restored order by catching and expelling the murderers. |
” |
Royle (1985)
“ | Britain therefore despatched HMS Clio (Cmdr. J.J. Onslow) and HMS Tyne (Capt. Charles Hope) from the Rio de Janeiro headquarters of the Royal Navy South American squadron on 29
November 1832. The vessels arrived at the Falklands on 20 December, entered Port Louis harbour on 5 January 1833, and expelled the Argentinean military garrison and "Governor" Don Juan Esteban Mestivier. |
” |
Dickinson (1994)
“ | 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 | ” |
Goebel (1927)
“ | 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. | ” |
Cawkell (1983)
“ | 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 | ” |
Destefani (1982)
David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
[22] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
[23] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
“ | This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina. | ” |
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.
“ | Once order had been restored in Puerto Soledad, a British Royal Navy corvette, with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement. After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base. | ” |
“ | 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 | ” |
On the one hand its claiming the settlers were expelled, in the same document it refers to the settlers left in the islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
@ User:HalseyEn Where does Theodor Herzl, an avowed colonialist, write about the notion of "self-determination"? That needs a citation, otherwise that section is simply anachronistic hasbara. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 04:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
MemoryGuardian ( talk) 08:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
(a)It is absolutely not appropriate for individuals with multiple ARBPIA bans for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish editing to manage this entry.
(b)There are no insults or attacks in my reply
BTW, if anyone is interested in Drmies's instant solution to this and similar edit problems: remove the list of "notable examples". It serves no purpose and causes unnecessary conflict. Abstract nouns and lists of "notable examples" just attract unrest. Drmies ( talk) 14:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help); Text "urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9776580/David-Cameron-must-return-Falklands-to-Argentina-Cristina-Kirchner-demands-in-open-letter.html" ignored (
help)
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be formal mediation. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist ( talk) 10:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This is related to this discussion. I've been referred to this page from the following website: http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/26/spain-s-rich-catalonia-region-calls-snap-election-demanding-self-determination Anyone reading the comment section on the bottom of that page and on other pages on that website can clearly see the heated debate and disagreements between various parts about the issue of the Malvinas/Falklands. The vast majority are well organised anti-Argentinian groups. 92.4.151.194 ( talk) 22:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article (which seems to end "principle points of the Charter", in spite of the stop after "result"") is completely garbled. If I could work out what it was meant to say I would fix it myself, but I can't. AdeMiami ( talk) 17:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The double standards of the UK government's rhetoric must be debated and challenged. The UK is trying to apply its own self-serving interpretation of self-determination to the case of the South Atlantic islands. At the same time the UK refuses to apply the same arguments equally to the case of the expelled Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia inhabitants. -- 92.4.146.140 ( talk) 01:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey you want to find examples of my personal opinion in a talk page? Go for it, I'm sure you'll find some if you look hard enough. Difference is, I've learnt better. And if you try to force material based upon your personal opinion into the article, it will be reverted. You might also like to read WP:SPS and WP:RS, ie the blog you just referenced isn't considered a reliable source. Wikipedia presents a WP:NPOV based on material culled from reliable 3rd party sources, it isn't an excuse for a polemic. You fall into the classic category of wanting to use wikipedia to right WP:GREATWRONGS. In case you hadn't noticed, the wikilinks provided are intended for guidance, people are trying to point you toward relevant policy. You appear to be presuming some personal agenda to frustrate your agenda to right great wrongs. Sorry no, people are gently trying to tell you that isn't what wikipedia is for. My advice would be to think about starting a blog where you can tell the entire world about great wrongs. Have a nice day now. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
As indicated above by User:AdeMiami as well as myself, the Lead is completely incomprehensible. The article has a very low readability score and is not written in encyclopedic style. It needs work or the Article needs to be deleted. WP:LEAD. Mugginsx ( talk) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
As regards the Falkland Islands tag, it is there for a very good reason.
Argentina claims that in 1833 there was an expulsion of a settled Argentine population. This is untrue, it didn't happen. It has only entered the modern lexicon following a speech at the UN in 1964 by the Argentine ambassador Ruda. Argentina uses this to claim that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right to self-determination.
Two editors have edit warred text into the article, which attempts to buttress the Argentine claim by quoting authors out of context, attributing to them a meaning the original author did not intend. The text as a result is no longer neutral but is actually attempting to portray there is historical evidence to support Argentine claims when in fact none exists. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Taking a brief look at the RSN discussion, I note points where Gaba implies backing from RSN that was never suggested in the RSN discussion.
Gaba's quotes are not nearly as unequivocal as he takes them to be, and his argument that it is WP:OR to read the source in any way other than he does is singularly unconvincing. I find the argument for the status quo similarly unconvincing. I note in any case that RSN is not there to judge matters of neutrality, only of reliability, so even if Gaba's claims were all accurate, they would still not imply that the status quo is neutral.
I would suggest that the weight here is misapplied. The current text implies that the weight of opinion supports the Argentine position, which I would suggest is not an accurate or neutral representation of the sources. The NPOV tag should remain until the article is improved such as to remove the bias. Kahastok talk 21:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I am never impressed by threats and I would strongly suggest you apologise for calling me a liar. I am not going to repeat myself but it seems clear to anyone familiar with Falklands history that Escude is referring to the Lexington raid, perhaps mistakenly. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
* Dispute resolution requests details the various different methods used in dispute resolutions. Moxy ( talk) 01:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Please people, calm down...
In response to Gaba p, you clearly did breach 3rr, I believe that to have been a deliberate ploy on your part given my earlier revert in an attempt to get me blocked for 3rr. You were invited to discuss it in talk, you chose not to and yes I will be taking further action about your blatant personal a attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
“ | Argentina has rights to the Falkland Islands because in 1833 it occupied them legally and was expelled by force, against all right. With arrogance, the superpower of the time, Britain, sent a powerful frigate, took our inhabitants as prisoners, chartered them to Montevideo, lowered our flag and hoisted the Union Jack. | ” |
Langus, even the official Argentine Government claim makes no such assertion. Where is it claimed the British took prisoners and took them to Montevideo? It is so obviously a confusion with the USS Lexington raid of 1831 and you seriously expect me to believe you don't recognise this for yourself? Come on, you're destroying what little credibility you ever had. Really you want to claim this supports the text, are you really that desperate? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
As noted in the discussion above, the article by Escude does not support the original edit. It was removed on that basis. It has been edit warred back into the article by WP:TAG between Langus and Gaba p against the prevailing consensus in talk.
Langus has repeatedly claimed that the distinction between the garrison and the settlers is a "British POV". This is simply untrue, no part of the British case depends on making such a distinction. Conversely Argentina's justification for denying the right to self-determination is dependent on claiming the settlers were expelled and replaced by British settlers.
Neutral 3rd party academic sources note the Argentine claim to be untrue.
We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Argentina did not make the distinction.
It appears that the sole purpose of introducing the Escude quote is not as a cite but in order to introduce a political statement into the article and to repeat the same claim multiple times. It is certainly not adding anything of value to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Wee, after your reading your comment in the section above and thinking about it, it does seem that Escudé is mixing up the Lexington's attack with the Clio incident. However, it struck me clear: I've never payed close attention to the exact words, but there has to be many reliable, secondary sources stating that Argentina as a country was expelled by the British. In that I agree with Kahastok: authorities being expelled result in authors expressing that X country was expelled. It is not a political statement but an interpretation of facts. Also, you don't get to decide which sources are "neutral" and which aren't. This is a very polarized subject, I remind you.
The question is: are you prepared to accept that some secondary sources see it that way? Are you willing to let every significant viewpoint into the article? -- Langus ( t) 03:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
“ | This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833[9] during which Argentina states 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.[10] Historian Mary Cawkell[11] considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain[12][13], that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841.[14] | ” |
The fact that we're going into all this, because the sources don't say what they're claimed to say, should be telling us something.
The key point with respect to self-determination is about the local population. Everyone agrees that the garrison was expelled, but I'm sure we can come up with plenty of examples of countries (meaning their authorities rather than their local population) that have been expelled from a territory over the course of the last 180 yaers, and the right to self-determination is now accepted. The rule Argentina claims is based on the principle that you're not allowed to rig self-determination by replacing a local population with an implanted one. This is an issue in Western Sahara, where the alleged implantation has occurred over the last forty years, and I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention that situation. Of course, whether it can be held to apply at a remove of 180 years is disputed.
I support Curry Monster's proposal as an improvement to the status quo. Kahastok talk 22:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
“ | This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833[81] during which Argentina states 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.[citation needed] Historian Mary Cawkell considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain, and that only a garrison was expelled.[82] Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British[83][84] or that Argentina, as a country, was expelled as consequence.[85] | ” |
No it isn't a forum, what does however seem clear is you're simply filibustering.
This has nothing to do with personal opinion, sources have been provided to show this is the opinion of neutral sources. You're taking the remark of one author out of context to infer a conclusion the author never made. Whether Argentina as a country was expelled has not been shown to be relevant to self-determination the focus of this article.
You've forced an edit into the article by edit warring, you're filibustering to keep it there. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have two issues with the last sentence attributed to Harper: "Harper claims that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841."
At this point I'd propose that this sentence be removed. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 00:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Time for a reality check for Wee Curry Monster.
Note how the links presented prove that Wee purposely lied in his comment above, specifically: "the statement was originally sourced to Cawkell, you butchered the article separating source from statement and incorrectly attributed it to Harper". This is not the first time I've caught you doing this Wee, in fact it's the second time in two weeks. Anything to say about your behavior?. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 19:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
[16] Please refer to diff, where I reverted Gaba p for screwing with a sentence, mangling the English grammar and sentence structure, whilst simultaneously attributing a claim to the wrong source. Although he has attempted to give credence to his claim, the record in history shows my comment to be correct. I consider the personal attacks to be more evidence of filibustering. I request that Gaba could restrict his personal attacks to a separate section. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Please any editor read the following points which prove how Wee purposely lied by stating that "the statement was originally sourced to Cawkell, you butchered the article separating source from statement and incorrectly attributed it to Harper".
Please Wee, I'd appreciate if from now on you'll just restrict your lies to this section. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 18:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that further disruption is being made by the reference to the President of Argentina's advert placed in British papers. As a partisan source that is little more than propaganda, it clearly is inappropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the section on Falkland Islands as its clear there is some serious problems that should not be solved by a long standing edit war. The text meaning CANT be changing daily. Moxy ( talk) 00:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
(Not going to mention Wee's personal attacks any more)
I agree with Moxy, the section needs to be as concise as possible and not get into long and debatable details. This is what I propose:
Self-determination is referred to in the
Falkland Islands Constitution
[1] and is a factor in the
Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The British Government considers that, since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.
[2]
Argentina argues self-determination is not applicable in this case, asserting the current inhabitants are "descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled".
[3] This refers to the
reassertion of British sovereignty over the islands in the year 1833 during which Argentina states the Argentines on the islands were expelled by the British Royal Navy.
[4]
[5]
Feel free to make a new proposal or to edit this one. Regards.
Gaba p (
talk)
02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Full content proposal:
“ | Self-determination is referred to in the
Falkland Islands Constitution
[6] and is a factor in the
Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 175 years.
[7] In a 1986 poll, 94.5% of the population voted to remain British.
[8] As administering power, the British Government considers since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.
[9]
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 occupied islands. This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833 [10] This relates to a principle limiting the right to self-determination in cases where an indigenous population is expelled to be replaced by an implanted population, such that the implanted population advocates self-determination in favour of the aggressor state disrupting the territorial integrity of the original state. Whether this principle is applicable in the case of the Falkland Islands is debated by a number of historians and political commentators who note discrepancies in the historical record and inconsistencies in the Argentine claims. The historical record shows that the settlement this was established by Vernet in 1828. In establishing the settlement, Vernet sought permission from both the British and Argentine authorities. Equally Vernet urged both to establish a permanent garrison to protect his settlement. Neither provided any resource until the raid of the USS Lexington in 1831 convinced both sides to act. In October 1832, the Argentine authorities dispatched a garrison under the command of Mestivier aboard the ARA Sarandi. However, after 4 days Mestivier was brutally murdered in a mutiny, with order not restored until the arrival of the Sarandi in January. With the assistance of the British schooner Rapid order had had just been restored when on 3rd January 1833, HMS Clio arrived in Port Louis and requested the Argentine captain of the ARA Sarandi, Pinedo, to remove the garrison and his forces. The captain of HMS Clio received orders that he was not to expel or interfere with the population in anyway. But in his report he notes that he had great difficulty in persuading the Gaucho's employed by Luis Vernet to remain in the islands. Although Pinedo contemplated resisting the expulsion of the garrison, he chose not to do so as the majority of his crew were British mercenaries and he could not rely upon them to act against the British. In terms of the balance of forces, Pinedo had at his disposal over 40 soldiers and an armed schooner with 9 cannon. HMS Clio was a Brig-sloop mounting 16 cannon with 8 Royal Marines on board. The issue of the use of force has been greatly debated, although noting that no force was in fact used, Gustafson argues there was an implicit threat of the use of force. Cawkell simply notes that no force was used and that Onslow lowered the Argentine flag and delivered it to Pinedo. At his court martial in Buenos Aires, Pinedo testified the existing population was encouraged to remain and that property was unmolested. Both Onslow and Pinedo agree that of the existing population, 4 chose voluntarily to leave on the Sarandi. British plans for the Falkland Islands contemplated maintaining the existing population established by Vernet, maintained by an annual visit by a warship. Encouraged by the fact the British took no action agains his settlement, Vernet borrowed money to send his deputy Matthew Brisbane to the islands in March 1833. Co-incidentally Brisbane's arrival co-incided with the first visit of HMS Beagle to the islands, where Captain Fitzroy noted Vernet's intention to continue with his enterprise. However, in August of 1833 a party of Gaucho's led by Antonio Rivero ran amok murdering the senior members of Vernet's settlement. This event convinced the British to establish a permanent resident as a naval commander. The first resident Lt Smith maintained Vernet's property and provided Vernet with regular accounts. Both Lt Smith and the British consul advocated appointing Vernet as the British governor of the islands but as Vernet became implicated in Argentine protests over the Falklands, this relationship was terminated. Vernet was later to obtain a financial settlement from the British relating to property left on the islands. Although accepting this as a full and final settlement, he later instructed his sons to pursue further compensation without success. Contradicting the Argentine claim of the expulsion of an existing population, modern historians simply note that whilst the garrison was expelled, the settlement was encouraged to remain. Other commentators noting Argentine claims consider the possible imapct upon the competing sovereignty claims. The Argentine claims are in some respects self-contradictory. On the one hand Argentine asserts the population was expelled. However, it also refers to the so-called "Gaucho murders" in terms of patriotic Argentines fighting a rebellion against British rule. There was no reference to any expulsion of the population before Ambassadors Ruda's declaration to the UN at his speech in 1964. The British case for sovereignty maintains no distinction between the garrison and the settlement, it simply describes Argentine attempts to settle the islands as "sporadic and ineffective". Although Argentina claims the population were expelled to be replaced by British settlers, the situation is not so straight forward. The British maintained the Falklands as a naval station and made no attempt to settle the islands for a decade. The population remaining in the islands were solely those remaining from Vernet's time. Other aspects of the Argentine statement that self-determination is not applicable refer to preventing Argentines settling in the islands. There has never been any specific legislation or restriction on Argentines travelling to the islands, other than that which existed after the Falklands War. However, due to his role in the Argentine claim over the Falkland Islands in the late 1830s Vernet was denied permission to visit the islands. In the late 1840s, Samuel Lafone imported a large number of Gaucho's from Argentina and Uruguay to hunt feral cattle in the islands. The Argentine admiral Lasserre visiting the islands in the 1860s noted a number of Argentines resident in the islands. As a result of these contradictions, the role that self-determination plays in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute is greatly debated. There is no clear conclusion as to which of the competing claims has greater weight in international law. |
” |
I came up with the above content suggestion, which details all of the relevant material.
User:Gaba p's content proposal is not acceptable for what it leaves out by omission. He is suppressing any mention that the Argentine claims do not accord with the historical record and any attempt to address this has been obscured by adding selected quotes from sources taken out of context to infer there is a dichotomy in the historical record when none exists. He and Langus have also forced irrelevant content into the article.
Focusing on content.
1. Britain's position is fairly straight forward.
2. Argentina's position relies in part upon its allegation that the British expelled the pre-existing population to be replaced by British settlers.
3. Argentina's position also relies on the claim that the British did not allow Argentines to settle.
4. Argentina's position is self-contradictory.
In regards to 2b it is alleged Risman, Escude and Bulmer cast doubt upon this. They don't. Escude makes no relevant comment, Bulmer refers to the garrison and Risman simply repeats an Argentine claim so its a case of repeating the same claim twice.
Its also repeatedly alleged that the distinction betwen the garrison and the population is a "British POV", when it isn't. No part of the British position dependes upon that, its just a case that neutral academics comment on it, its often referred to in the literature.
Finally as I note in the end, these contradictions mean there is no clear consensus in the literature which of the competing positions has greater weight.
I did produce a faily short and succinct summary of the key points but unfortunately this isn't liked as it introduces material noting the contradiction in the Argentine claims. Gaba p and Langus simply wish to have the comments of neutral 3rd party academic sources expunged because as they see it, its casts doubt on Argentine claims. And for all the posturing about personal attacks both make, their responses has been nothing but. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
My summary text proposal is:
“ | Self-determination is referred to in the
Falkland Islands Constitution
[11] and is a factor in the
Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The population has existed for over nine generations, continuously for over 175 years.
[7] In a 1986 poll, 94.5% of the population voted to remain British.
[12] As administering power, the British Government considers since the majority of inhabitants wish to remain British, transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determination.
[13]
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 occupied islands. [14] This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833 [15] during which Argentina states 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. [16] Historian Mary Cawkell [17] considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain, [18] [19] that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841. [20] |
” |
I did suggest replacing the reference from Cawkell to Gustafson, simply because the latter has received wide praise for its neutral and even handed approach to the subject. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I fail to understand how can the mention of the Argentinian claim be confused with an "authoritative" statement "in a wikipedia voice". Let me just post my proposed edit one more time so that it can be seen that it clearly says " Argentina states" and the statement is even around quotes. How can this be confused with "the truth is" in a wikipedia voice?
The right of self determination of the Falkland Islanders is recognized by their administering power Britain (citation) and enshrined in the Falklands Constitution (citation). Argentina states the islanders posses no right to self determination as a part of its sovereignty claim of the islands (citation), asserting the current inhabitants are "descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled". [22]
The problem I have with Apcbg's proposed edit is that it gives weight to the opinion of the islanders precisely on an article about self-determination. Since Argentina contests that the islanders have this right, expressing their view as if it was a valid third party in the discussion is already to accept that they have such a right. My edit mentions the position of both the UK and Argentina without going into extensive detail. The position of the islanders is already mentioned in the articles Falklands Islands and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute or even better Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013. Any of them can be added to the top of the section so the reader can seek for more information if they wish to. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"The right of self determination of the Falkland Islanders is recognized by their administering power Britain" --> This phrase can't be put like this. The "right" to self-determination is contested, it can't be presented as something that exists. If we attribute it to the UK that would be ok though, e.g.: Britain "recognizes the right of self determination of the Falkland Islanders". Or else we should avoid, as Wikipedia, to refer to it as a "right" that is "recognized". -- Langus ( t) 01:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Wee could I ask you to please comment on Apcbg's reasoning that we somehow need to "demonstrate" the use of secondary sources for every source we use? Apcbg, would you care to open a ticket at RS/N and ask your question there? That way we could move forward with the actual writing of the section. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm adding a detailed list of what sources say, I don't expect you to read it all, so have added it as a separate section.
Captain Onslow's report and orders are in the British Archive at Kew Gardens. Onslow's orders were clear
“ | “you are not to disturb them in their agricultural or other inoffensive employments.” [24] | ” |
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.
“ | I had great trouble to pursuade 12 of the Gauchos to remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments to the shipping must have ceased. [25] | ” |
“ | I regretted to observe a bad spirit existed amongst the Gauchos, they appeared dissatisfied with their wages… The whole of the inhabitants requested me to move the government in their favour for grants of land. [26] | ” |
Pinedo (An Argentine source) corroborates this:
“ | … those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before… [27] | ” |
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.
Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
“ | Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis. | ” |
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.
“ | Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina | ” |
Empahsis added
Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
“ | 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... | ” |
Emphasis added
Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
“ | Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis. | ” |
“ | According to Argentina, the Falklands fell under the control of "the Spanish authori ties responsible to the Government and Captaincy-General of Buenos Aires" in 1967, with Argentina succeeding to the claim upon gaining its independence from Spain. A short-lived and "only partial" British occupation "was abandoned" in 1774. Then "on 3 January 1833 the British ... ousted by violence the Argentine authorities ... an action which was followed by the unlawful occupation of the Malvinas by the United Kingdom... ." Since then, "the Argentine Government has upheld a continuous claim to its rights ... throughout the entire time that has elapsed. . . ."43 Accordingly, "[w] hen it is considered that Argentina was deprived of the islands by an illegitimate act of force, it becomes clear that the governing principle here is that of the territorial integrity of a country, which is enunciated in paragraph 6 of resolution 1514 (XV)."44 Needless to say, the British view of the historical background of the dispute is differ ent: "British sovereignty, which was first established in 1765" was "peaceably reasserted" in January 1833. It is a demonstrable fact that since 1833, that is to say for nearly a century-and-a-half, . .. the United Kingdom has maintained an open, continuous, effective and peaceful possession of the Fallkland Islands. There have been, of course, numerous diplomatic exchanges between my Government and that of Argentina during this period | ” |
Gunter (1979)
“ | Much is made in successive presentations of the Argentine case of the next episode in the history of the islands: the supposed fact that Great Britain 'brutally' and 'forcefully' expelled the Argentine garrison in 1833. The record is not nearly so dramatic. After the commander of the Lexington had declared, in December 1831, the Falklands 'free of all government', they remained without any visible authority. However, in September 1832, the Buenos Aires Government appointed, in place of Vernet, an interim commandant, Juan Mestivier. The British representative immediately lodged a protest, but Mes- tivier sailed on the Sarandi at the end of the year to take charge of a penal settlement at San Carlos, his Government's reserve on East Falkland. There was a mutiny, led by a sergeant of the garrison, and Mestivier was murdered. At this juncture, on January 11, 1833, H.M. sloop Clio arrived at Puerto de la Soledad when Pinedo, the com- mander of the Sarandi and 25 soldiers were attempting to re-establish order. The so called 'brutal' eviction is laconically recorded in Captain Onslow's log: Tuesday 1 Jany. 1833. P.M. Mod. with rain 12.20 shortened sails and came to Port Louis (Soledad), Berkeley Sound ... found here a Buenos Ayrean flag flying on shore. 2.30 out boats. 3 furled sails. 5.30 Moored ship . . . Wednesday Jany. 2. Moored at Port Louis A.M. Mod. cloudy ... loosed sails and landed a party of marines and seamen and hoisted the Union Jack and hauled down the Buenos Ayrean flag and sent it on board the schooner to the Commandante. Sailmaker repairing the Main top Gallant sails.... In the interval between these two entries, Onslow had 'civilly' (his report) told Pinedo that he had come 'to exercise the right of sovereignty' on the islands and asked him to haul down his flag on shore. Pinedo protested, but said that if the Buenos Aires flag were allowed to fly until January 5, he would leave with his soldiers and anyone else who wished to go. When Onslow proved adamant, Pinedo agreed to embark his soldiers, but he left his flag flying on shore. This was why Onslow sent it to him by one of the Clio's officers. Pinedo sailed on January 4 and was later punished by the Buenos Aires Government for failing to offer any resistanc | ” |
Metford (1968)
“ | The situation in early 1833, after Britain had established control of the Falkland
Islands through Captain Onslow and the Clio, was that the one settlement, at Port Louis on East Falkland, upon Clio's departure, was left without a garrison and under the control of civilian residents, including William Dickson and Matthew Brisbane. These two men and three others were murdered by gauchos and Indians formerly employed on the Islands during the earlier period of United Provinces' (later Argentina) rule (Darwin, 1834; Cawkell et al., 1960; Metford, 1968; Boumphrey, 1969). All but one of the other settlers present that day took refuge on islands in Berkeley Sound where they were contacted by the Royal Navy who, in January 1834, in the presence of Lieutenant Henry Smith and HMS Challenger, arrived and restored order by catching and expelling the murderers. |
” |
Royle (1985)
“ | Britain therefore despatched HMS Clio (Cmdr. J.J. Onslow) and HMS Tyne (Capt. Charles Hope) from the Rio de Janeiro headquarters of the Royal Navy South American squadron on 29
November 1832. The vessels arrived at the Falklands on 20 December, entered Port Louis harbour on 5 January 1833, and expelled the Argentinean military garrison and "Governor" Don Juan Esteban Mestivier. |
” |
Dickinson (1994)
“ | 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 | ” |
Goebel (1927)
“ | 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. | ” |
Cawkell (1983)
“ | 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 | ” |
Destefani (1982)
David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
[22] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
[23] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
“ | This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina. | ” |
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.
“ | Once order had been restored in Puerto Soledad, a British Royal Navy corvette, with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement. After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base. | ” |
“ | 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 | ” |
On the one hand its claiming the settlers were expelled, in the same document it refers to the settlers left in the islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
@ User:HalseyEn Where does Theodor Herzl, an avowed colonialist, write about the notion of "self-determination"? That needs a citation, otherwise that section is simply anachronistic hasbara. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 04:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
MemoryGuardian ( talk) 08:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
(a)It is absolutely not appropriate for individuals with multiple ARBPIA bans for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish editing to manage this entry.
(b)There are no insults or attacks in my reply
BTW, if anyone is interested in Drmies's instant solution to this and similar edit problems: remove the list of "notable examples". It serves no purpose and causes unnecessary conflict. Abstract nouns and lists of "notable examples" just attract unrest. Drmies ( talk) 14:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help); Text "urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9776580/David-Cameron-must-return-Falklands-to-Argentina-Cristina-Kirchner-demands-in-open-letter.html" ignored (
help)