Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject British Overseas Territories (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject South America / Argentina / Falkland Islands (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Argentina (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (marked as High-importance).
 


Rejected citations[edit]


Kahastok argued that Reisman "demonstrates disagreement" suggesting "that this is opinion".[1] Quote follows:

Reisman, p.303.: "A possible obstacle to Argentina's title is that even though Spain may have originally owned the islands, Argentina, as a former colony, could not claim them. Weber devotes more attention to this issue, but concludes that Argentina did not succeed to the islands. I disagree. Upon acquiring independence, a former colony ordinarily inherits all the territory of that colony. This principle, enshrined in Latin America and, a century later, in Africa, would certainly appear to apply to the Falklands. Spain treated the islands as part of the Vice-Royalty of Buenos Aires, and did not occupy them. Moreover, the short time that elapsed before Argentina took control of the islands does not seem to warrant the conclusion that Argentina was derelict, thereby transforming the territory into a res nullius. International law has traditionally tolerated temporary lapses in the control of central authorities over peripheral territories caused by internal disruptions." [emphasis added]


Note that Reisman talks about "the Falklands" and "the islands", i.e., the entire archipelago.

I presume Kahastok refers about Weber. It must be noted however that our WP article does not claim that Argentina inherited the territory: it only explains why Argentina claimed the islands. The disagreement between Reisman and Weber is about title, not about the fact that a) the new state was formed by provinces of the former Viceroyalty of the River Plate; or b) that the new state claimed sovereignty over the Falklands.

Or is it the real argument here that Argentina didn't claim the islands? --Langus (t) 13:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on the editor adding or restoring information to come up with a cite for it. Per community consensus, a point such as this "may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source". This point has been tagged uncited since March 2013 (not October 2014 per the current revision), which is plenty long enough to find a source. When it was removed, it should not have been replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source as it was in this revision.
The point in question states that Argentina automatically inherited Spain's claim to the islands on independence. It treats this as undisputed fact, not open to debate. By contrast, the source provided does not treat it as undisputed fact that Argentina inherited Spain's claim, but as the author's opinion and open to debate. The author even cites another author who makes the opposite argument (that Argentina did not inherit Spain's claim). The source patently does not back up the claim that Langus wishes the article to make, that this is undisputed fact.
There being no reliable source backing up the claim made (and apparently reliable sources suggesting that it is inaccurate as it stands), I will remove the claim per WP:BURDEN. And I will note that even if the status quo were to remain, the cite tag should be dated March 2013 and not October 2014. Kahastok talk 16:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I've offered 2 (one, two) reliable sources in line with current text. As such, the singling out of my last edition restoring the sentence with a {{cn}} is most inflammatory. Also, the assertion that there are "no reliable source backing up the claim made" is thus not very accurate.
Let's remember what's being discussed:
The new state, the United Provinces of the River Plate, was formed by provinces of the former Viceroyalty of the River Plate and as such claimed sovereignty over the Falklands.
The "claim" that you removed is that Argentina considered Spain's territories as its own. This is not a claim; this is a fact. You may think that the wording above is ambiguous; if that's the case it should be changed. But you cannot remove it just because you understand something different of what it actually says. --Langus (t) 21:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It is fact that you restored the original text, with a {{fact}} tag, after it had been removed as having been unsourced for over 18 months. Per WP:BURDEN this was inappropriate.
Your sources are discussing whether Argentina automatically inherited Spain's claim to the islands and treat it as a matter of opinion. Your text, whether you like it or not, claims that Argentina automatically inherited Spain's claim to the islands and treat that as a matter of fact. You can't do that because the sources don't treat it as a matter of fact but as a matter of opinion. They may agree with your opinion but that does not make that opinion factual and does not make it appropriate for us to treat that opinion as factual.
You seem to be arguing that it in fact makes a general point totally unrelated to the islands that you consider factual: it doesn't, and even if it did, that point would be unsourced - because that's not what your sources are discussing. Kahastok talk 22:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)