Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Spanish (Malvinas) in intro[edit]

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

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

Sorry Squeak, I should have linked above the recent mini edit-war ([1][2][3][4]) over the addition of the Spanish name. No, I don't think anything else is necessary. Thanks. NikoSilver 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The Spanish name is irrelevant to the sovereignty issue. And since the main page does not follow that situation- then neither should this one. Astrotrain 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The Spanish name is the way the islands are called by two of the countries that are involved in the sovereignty dispute (one, Argentina, quite actively). As such, I suspect it is an emotional issue that has to be addressed. I have various examples from Greek Aegean islands (with the Turkish names) and vice versa. Also, I propose we include the full translation of the title in Spanish (i.e. also "sovereignty of the..."), because the dispute itself is expressed in both languages. Maybe the French name would also be pertinent. NikoSilver 14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is written neutrally in English because this is the English language wiki. The sovereignty claim is not relevant to the issue. If Argentina renounced its claim tomorrow- the Spanish name would still be Islas Malvinas. It has to go. Astrotrain 15:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

When an international issue is between two countries, then we list it in both countries' languages. Especially when that issue concerns sovereignty. Non alteration of the Spanish name if Argentina renounced the claims, is one more reason why it should stay. To give you examples, see how Imbros and Tenedos are referred to in Greco-Turkish relations#The First World War and after. I have tons of examples like this where I come from. Also, in the (highly unlikely) case that UK handed over the islands to Argentina, I'm sure the official name would change accordingly, so this being a neutral "sovereignty article" must mention what that (official and regardless of frequency in English) name would be. NikoSilver 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
See also how Imia/Kardak are referred to in Aegean dispute. NikoSilver 15:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Remember the islands are also called the Malvinas in English.--Vintagekits 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm struggling to understand this. Malvinas is not the Spanish word for Falklands as far as I'm aware, it isn't a translation. The Argentinians call the islands the Malvinas, the British call them the Falklands. The United Nations uses the term in English. One Night In Hackney 13:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont know what browser are you using but your links show me FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS) and that because it is not a translation but how many countries named the islands Jor70 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's my point. SqueakBox asserted that the prior links that used both terms (see links above) were from "a few Argentine and left wing POV warriors", the links I provided are from the United Nations which can hardly be described as being either of those two groups. Edits such as this (referring to the second part of the edit) are incorrect, Malvinas is not Spanish for Falklands. One Night In Hackney 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Jor70, you will find that there is a persistent campaign by a number of British editors to whitewash the names Malvinas from all articles concerning the Falklands, be the sovereignty issue, the Falklands War or the Falklands Islands themselves - in fact from my experience SqueakBox is actually one of the more reasonable editors.--Vintagekits 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Nobody said Malvinas was an English word, however it is used in English. I can find you many, many sources that use it in English. Falklands and Malvinas are not the same word in two different languages. One Night In Hackney 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

In the mean time I have referenced that the Spanish for Falklands is Malvinas [5] and put it as a reference in the opening, SqueakBox 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chile officially uses (and support argentine claim) about Malvinas [6] , particulary all their democratic post pinochet govs. Google gives some sites with a text about penguins with an awful spanish (son un importante sitio instead of the most common son un sitio importante) what seems where just an automatic translation or something. Jor70 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is the alternate English language name ofr the Falklands, namely the Malvinas, being whitewashed out of the article by British editors - wiki is not censored and should not promote a solely British POV.--Vintagekits 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well you have to admit, your edit summary does not exactly scream of WP:NPOV. I don't think there is any evidence for Malvinas being considered as an alternative English word for the Falklands. I've seen quotes from Argentinians speaking in English referring to Malvinas - but that's not exactly evidence to support the argument. DrFrench 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

CIA Wordbook[edit]

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

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

Excellent, It was ok to keep the CIA reference, I just wanted to remark that it wasnt a translation. Jor70 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Malvinas is not a common English term and given this article concerns soveriegnty it is entirely correct that we make clear in the opening that Islas Malvinas is what the Argentinians call the islands, which is what we have done. I see no need to change it and it strikles me there is soem anti-Brit feeling (on a political level) going on here, SqueakBox 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Islas Malvinas is the isleands name in Spanish - Falklands Islands is its most common name in the English language and in Britain, however, The Malvinas is also used as the English language name for the islands by many and this is backed up by references - this is not an attempt to be "anti-Brit" this is an attempt to be balance the rampant British bias in the article that is pushed by some British editors and an attempt to provide a WP:NPOV perspective.--Vintagekits 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I dispute the word many, and I dont think you have backed up that many use it with a reference. Can you source this is a common usage term? eg if only 10% of English speakers used it it would be at least 40 million people whereas I doubt if 1 in 100 even know of the term. While I dont consider you personally anti-British your contribs do exhibit a stronglly political anti-Brit bias, IMO, SqueakBox 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the United Nations would be a good start, the non political Ocean Currents Project, this neutral ABC website, this British book by Martin Middlebrook, this Irish website, the landmines monitor there are thousands more incuding the references I have given in my other messeges above - stop trying to censor please!--Vintagekits 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
None of your references indicate notability. The British author was writing about the Argentines, the Irish blog talks about the Malvinas and the other 3 look like politically motivated pieces and dont establish notability either, SqueakBox 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol, yeah the United Nations has a ramant pro-Argie and anti-British agenda! Remember this is not the English national wiki this is the World wiki in the English language and should reflect a world perspective.--Vintagekits 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The UN is a neutral political body. That doesnt represent common usage, it represents the language of diplomats, SqueakBox 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV at Current claims paragraph[edit]

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

That is the UK section, hence it is bound to carry the UK POV (like the Arg section will have the Arg POV). If you have a source pointing that global status as a "continuous negative of the UK", that plays some role in this issue, feel free to include it (in another section). And always attribute the quote. NikoSilver 23:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
this is not the UK section this is the English language wiki and should have a global perspective.--Vintagekits 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the particular article section within the complete article (of course) titled Claims by the United Kingdom. You can't seriously add an Argentinan POV in there, especially when you have a Claims by Argentina right above (both renamed to add the word "claims" by me). I am sorry for not clarifying a particular edit, in the particular section, by a particular user (Jor70) to others; but then again, you needn't jump the gun immediately. NikoSilver 23:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

was peaceful in the meaning of not direct war confrontation (until 1982) but not in diplomatic levels with Argentina claiming its case at every diplomatic opportunity and UK continual refusal. Jor70 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In any case, within this context peaceful becomes a weasel word. You could say the same for the French or Spanish periods. --Mariano(t/c) 11:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Uti possidetis?[edit]

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

Great point, someone type it wrong, should be Uti Possidetis Juris as per [7] , [8], etc Jor70 12:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that makes more sense. So in that case, why doesn't Argentina claim, or try to invade, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uraguay, which were all part of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate? TharkunColl 12:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
well, as I far I understand the people born there choose self determination to be independent, whilest in the 'islands, argentines settlers where expelled, replaced by british people and prohibit return.
and the cause Argentina didnt try to invade those countries is simple, it neves was a colonial power , on the contrary, its send the Army to Chile and Peru too help them in their independeces Jor70 13:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So in other words, the principle of Uti possidetis Juris can be ignored when it suits them? Or perhaps the invasion of a tiny, defenceless country appeared more attractive in 1982 than trying to invade large, armed neighbours? TharkunColl 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
History sadly shows the Argentine Armed Forces fighting the UK (3rd global power, which was backup up by the US and EU), I think it would not care to invade Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay if, as you imply, had an imperialist reason. Jor70 18:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you implying that Argentina doesn't have what it takes to for a fair fight? This is certainly not a constructive comment, given that the UK has done the same, and that Argentina had helped other independence causes around it. These issues are discussed by experts. I'm neither of pro-UK nor of pro-Argentinian orientation, and my opinion after reading these related articles is that both countries have legitimate argumentation over sovereignty. Historically, Argentina has a point, because she was the first to settle the island (although for a brief time period). In modern times, UK has a point because of the self-determination of the inhabitants (although very few). The problem is that we all know that unfortunately neither UK nor Argentina nor anybody else actually give a rat's ass about 3000 people; it's the strategic passage, the resources and a sick notion of national pride that come to play in these issues. Unfortunately. NikoSilver 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
In pursuing claims to land that are centuries old, the Argentines will presumably recognise the right of the indigenous Indians in Argentina to have their land back, and evacuate their country forthwith? TharkunColl 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The claim would not be century old if the UK didnt sistematically abort any negotiation since 1833. Unfortunely, the claim surely would be present for centuries more Jor70 18:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. TharkunColl 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Highly unlikely. Are there any left? :-( Centuries old land claims are not that uncommon in the world. I doubt the English will hand over their big island to the Welsh either. We can't reasonably find a solution to this problem here. In parallel to the Argentinian claims, Greek islands just off the coast of Turkey are called "too close to the Turkish mainland to be Greek", while Greeks say "thank God we have the sea in-between, look what happened to Smyrna". There's no end, and the beginning is hardly traceable too. World changes rapidly, and fortunately or unfortunately it's the survival of the fittest in the end (not of the one who is "right"). Sacking America was a dirty business indeed, but then again, we're only humans (are we?) In any case, you can't just draw an arbitrary line in history and say "behind this line, we don't recognize sovereignty based on self-id of the inhabitants". Yes, the indigenous Indians' claims would be valid (not to mention they were massacred on top). So would the claims of the Greeks for the... Byzantine Empire, and those of the British over the... USA. These things looked indisputable back then. Just like the sovereignty of the Falklands in 1833 or today. We all migrated at some point in history, didn't we? NikoSilver 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the Argentines only occupied the islands for 7 years nearly two centuries ago, and the present population has been there ever since, should really tell us all we need to know. If the Argentines hadn't invaded in 1982 then it's just possible that the islanders might have eventually done a deal with them, but that is impossible now. TharkunColl 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It tells me as much as the fact that the first inhabitants were unilaterally expelled by the British and the fact that UK is abusing its superior diplomatic status over the years to disallow earlier settlement. Regarding the Argentinan invasion, well, you're right (of course). What a gaffe! But what a lousy way to respond also... NikoSilver 22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That unilateral expulsion happened nearly 200 years ago. As the article itself points out, the British Empire no longer exists. All we can do now is defend our kinfolk. TharkunColl 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
well, the fact tell us that the UK still maintain a colony after 2 centuries. Regarding the other point, we finally agree on something, the dictatorial gov (BTW, an US ally) of the time crap us all Jor70 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The colony, as you call it, is composed of British people. We will defend our kinfolk to the death - as Hitler found out to his cost. TharkunColl 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

No, but he did attack the British. He paid for that mistake dearly. We have seen enough tinpot fascist dictators come and go (from Napoleon to Hitler to Galtieri) to know how to deal with them. TharkunColl 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
See Godwin's Law... NikoSilver 00:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I am fully aware of Godwin's so-called law and in my opinion it is nothing more than a smokescreen. We oppose fascism in all its forms, whether from Germany or Argentina. TharkunColl 00:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"And boy... did we sack him for all of you put together!" Does this talk lead anywhere? I'm sure we can keep throwing catch phrases like these to each other forever! NikoSilver 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

It's called power projection—we do it because we have the power to fight globally (and the Argentinians don't). 03:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

LOL that's the best approach I heard here so far! Personally as a non-involved third party, I surely acknowledge the mistakes of the Argentinian side, but that does not blind me from observing the mistakes of the British side. "Kinfolk protection" is neither selective among different kins, nor does it have a "date of expiry" of 174 years (especially when you use your superior diplomatic power to boycott resolution attempts throughout this period). Time is very relative, and what seems ages ago for one Brit, may well look like yesterday for another, or for a Greek, a Turk, a French, an Italian, a Russian, a Chinese, or anybody who perceives a significantly longer history. 5 grandpa's ago is not the beginning of time when there are ethnic groups around with 100. NikoSilver 10:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, I doubt the real reason is "kinfolk protection". Rulers have been very hard on their kin (and other kins) numerous times, when the actual reasons (i.e. global power, strategic passages, resources etc) were on the other side of the scale. NikoSilver 10:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I think I must have misundersttod what you just wrote there... you seemed to be saying that the British don't have a very long history compared with such ancient civilisations as, for example, the Turks and the Russians. Is that what you really meant? TharkunColl 11:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant that we define "long" according to our personal biases, the Greeks, the Turks, the Russians and everybody else included. Some Turks define recently from the Turkish War of Independence; some others from the Fall of Constantinople, and some from much earlier. Same with all of us. British history can begin anywhere from before King Arthur to the end of colonialism or whatever. There are different views within each ethnic group (not among ethnic groups). Maybe I should rephrase a bit. NikoSilver 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
TharkunColl's claim that the UK "opposes fascism in all its forms, whether from Germany or Argentina." is quite enraging, actually, if you consider the fact that the British government (along with the US) has given support to a great number of military coups and dictators in Argentine history, including Aramburu, Onganía and, more importantly, the murderous 1976 military dictatorship (which left a dead count of almost 30,000 argentines) and with whom the British had excellent relations until the worsening of the Falklands dispute in 1981.
And I'm not even mentioning the excellent relations with Pinochet in Chile, or many other dictators throughout Latin America and the Third World.
Lack of education about politics and history prevent that people like Kissinger be brought to trial and these things be known in the west. Why nobody questions current US support to Musharraf in Pakistan? Is the word "dictator" defined on whether western bussiness interests are threatened or not?
--Lobizón 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for those accusations? In fact, the Argentines should be grateful to the UK for bringing about the downfall of Galtieri after he lost the Falklands War. TharkunColl 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you need evidence of the British to be friend of the Argentine dictatorship ? The bombs that sunk the british ships were "made in UK". UK didnt impose an arms embargo (like the US) after the 1976 coup, instead they even give two Type 42 destroyers! . FAA canberras bombers were few of the aircraft without spare parts problems in 1982 and 2 more where just to be delivered. Jor70 13:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we please stick to dicussing the article and not turn this into a political rant. thank you.--Vintagekits 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Second that. NikoSilver 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

External jumps[edit]

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


Given that my edits were reverted by DrFrench, I'll try to clarify my reasons here. Nowadays links to particular years tend to be regarded as excessive linking, therefore removing them is ok. On the other hand, links to dates, such as 29 September 2006 may be allowed as registered users can set their preferences to display such dates in different formats, such as 29 September 2006, September 29, 2006, or 2006-09-29, according to various national preferences for displaying dates.

According to WP:CONTEXT, redundant and useless links are not useful and can be very distracting, this practice is known as overlinking and is strongly discouraged. Consider also link density, though linking can be permissible and may even be necessary to facilitate understanding in e.g. technical articles, excessive links make an article difficult to read.

If DrFrench or someone else states a clear reason to include the links (in accordance with Wikipedia's policies of course) I'll be more than willing to undo my edits. Until then, I suggest discussing the matter here. Thank you, —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 05:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no justification for your edits OneEuropeanHeart, linking ot dates is standard and you need to be on a policy page. please leave main space alone and see WP:Point as you are in violation, SqueakBox 05:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, "no justification for your edits"? Excuse me? Links to particular years tend to be regarded as excessive linking, that's a fact. Redundant and useless links are not useful and can be very distracting, this practice is known as overlinking and is strongly discouraged (WP:MOS-L). "Linking of dates is standard"? Of course it is, but I'm afraid making an article difficult to read is not, especially when additional links are unnecessary. By the way, as you're talking about policies... WP:POINT is not a policy, it's just a guideline. —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 05:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, mind if you take a look at WP:VAND? Stating a position is not "simple vandalism", as you stated in your edit summary. —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 05:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I reverted your edits was because you cited WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT as the basis for your change when they do not support it. (I indicated such in my edit summary.) WP:MOSNUM says here that "There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text." Whilst WP:CONTEXT says here that "there is no general consensus that the habit of linking separate years (that are date indications that only consist of a "year") should be abandoned, although most Wikipedians disfavour that habit currently".

If you feel that the article is overlinked, then here is the place to discuss it. Personally I prefer linked years, I find it useful to put events being described in an article into the context of the time (what else was going on in the world at the same time) - especially when it involves something before living memory. I appreciate that is a preference which not all others share. But rather than remove links wholesale, why not just look for and remove redundant links (i.e. second appearances of the same link), or suggest here that we stick to century links only?

But what I objected to was you using two guidelines (not policies) to justify the change when the guidelines do not conclusively support one view or the other. DrFrench 11:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, they do not support it? I'll copy/paste verbatim what both guidelines say. Let's start with WP:MOSNUM.

When considering whether such a date should be linked or not, editors should take into account the usual considerations about links, including the recommendations of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context.
There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text.

Given we should take into account "the usual considerations about links" I continue with WP:CONTEXT.

*Dates when they contain a day, month, and year — [[25 March]] [[2004]] — or day and month — [[February 10]]should be linked for date preference formatting.
*Stand alone months and days of the week should generally not be linked.
*Stand alone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it, and some users prefer to link (with a piped link) to articles formatted as "year in subject" such as 1441 in art, 1982 in film, and 18th century in United States history.
*Dates in section headers should generally not be linked.

Take also a look at link density.

Aim for a consistent link density. Don't link eight words in one sentence and then none in the rest of the article. The introduction of the article may require modification of this rule. For general interest articles, where the links are of the "see also" or "for more information" type, it may be better to not link in the summary, deferring the link until the term is defined later in the article. Numerous links in the summary of an article may cause users to jump elsewhere rather than read the whole summary. (...) Excessive links make an article difficult to read.

Finally a section of WP:MOS-L about overlinking, to clarify this even more.

Do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:
  • More than 10% of the words are contained in links;
  • More than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist; or
  • Low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century.

Given the guidelines mentioned certainly support what I'm doing, I strongly suggest a careful removal of irrelevant links such as years and months. If you didn't notice it before, I'm trying to make this article less difficult to read. If you still wish to continue with this, please state a clear reason to do so.

By the way, if WP:MOSNUM/CONTEXT were policies, do you really think we should discuss the matter here? I don't think so. Policies are more official and less likely to have exceptions, whereas guidelines should be treated with common sense and are open to discussion, exactly what we're doing. Just to let you know. —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. As I said, the guidelines do not mandate that linking of individual years is prohibited, that much is clear form the lines you quoted. I also said "But rather than remove links wholesale, why not just look for and remove redundant links (i.e. second appearances of the same link), or suggest here that we stick to century links only". Yes I understand what you are trying to do - but I didn't think you were going the right way about it. If you honestly think that removal of every single one of the links is justified, then go ahead and do it. But please do not use the guidelines WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT as your justification for doing do. DrFrench 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in this article[edit]

There are a number of items in this article which are not actually historically accurate and other points which are politically slanted towards the Argentine point of view.

Whilst I historical and other factual matters should be relatively easy to agree upon it is not always so easy to agree interpretation of those facts. In some instances in this article interpretations have been preferred to actual facts. There is far too much inaccuracy here to deal with all the points at once.

Lets have a look at a couple of these items:

Quote “….The contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British and have British citizenship, although Argentina does not recognize self-determination rights to the inhabitants since they are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population expelled by the British invasion of 1833. “

This statement is unsupported opinion and not actual fact. Argentina’s denial of Falkland Islander’s self determination rights because they are not ‘aboriginal’ and were brought in to replace the Argentine population expelled by the so called British invasion of 1833 does not stand up to even cursory examination of the facts and is simply part of their smokescreen style presentation to the world of their purported case for sovereignty.

1. The denial of rights because the population of the islands is not aboriginal is not supported by the UN which makes no such stipulation in Resolution 1514 (XV) Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples. of 14 December 1960. This is completely a modern Argentine invention.

2. There was also no mass expulsion of the Argentine population of the Falkland Islands in 1833. In the Argentine National Archives there is a document entitled “ Lista de la Tropa, sus familias y Peones de las Isla de Malvinas, que vienen de pasaje en la ’Sarandi’ roughly translated meaning ‘"List of the Troops, their families and Labourers of the Island of the Falklands, that took passage in the ' Sarandí’ ‘

This list consists of the names of the soldiers ordered to leave by the British, including the later executed mutineer Gomila under arrest by Pinedo (referred to elsewhere in this article).

Under …..Individuals de la Isla (no pertenecientes al la Comandancia military) translating as ‘.. Individuals of the Island (not pertaining to the military Command)’ are listed only two Argentine residents and their wives. There are also listed three people termed as ‘foreigners’.

So given that the soldiers only arrived in the Islands in October 1832 the ‘indigenous Argentine population’ that were ‘expelled’ by the British seems to have consisted of only two men and their wives.

Anyone wish to discuss these points before I come back with some more of the inaccuracies contained here. Naturally I will wish to edit to make the text more accurate and informative also but would like to read any comments first. Malvinero 15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that s the Argentine government position and why they do not recognize self-determination, you can believe it or not, but you cant deleted it because actually is what it is, the argentine position, what would you like to put ? "Argentine position is wrong" that would be simple british pov. Jor70 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia we have to describe the various claims and let our readers make up their own minds, SqueakBox 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree absolutely that it is quite appropriate that the Argentine claim about expulsion is their position and deserves to be dispalyed but it is entirely unsubstantiated in any given reference and does not quote an event that actually happened in 1833, because the records simply do not support that claim, but quotes as a fact a much later claim made by Argentina to support its position regarding sovereignty. Therefore whilst it may be entirely correct that this claim should remain in the introduction, if it does it is also appropriate that the alternative view with supporting references should also be included to complete the balance from the point of view of Falkland Islanders, whose views and historical references are actually not represented here at all. Malvinero 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Argentine population expelled[edit]

Suppose the argentine populatio was not expelled form the islands, why there are NO falklander families with spanish surnames? In addition, here you have (some) webpages in spanish:ía-las-Islas-Malvinas

And some in english:

And the United Nations:

--Argentini an 13:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point. You must accept that there are two parties to this dispute - Argentina and the UK. I fully accept that this is the POV of Argentina, but this is most certainly not the POV of the UK (see footnote 19 for instance). That being the case this 'expulsion' is not an objective fact but rather one in dispute between the parties. Given that is is a view held by the Argentinian side, it is correct to characterise it as an Argentinian viewpoint.
Xdamrtalk 13:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The thiing is most if not all of the articles relating to this issue are written from the British perspective rather than the Argentinian - infact there is a concerted effort by some editors to even wipe the mention of the term "Malvinas" from these articles let alone acknowledge the non British POV in relation to this issue.--Vintagekits 13:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats totally irrelevent to this matter, Vintagekits. The expelled nature is certainly not accepted by both sides. The wording I put in was clunky, to say the least, but it didn't say 'falsely claim' or anything else. Its just one sides claim that is not backed up even in the 1833 article on this site. I'll reinstitute the claim wording. Narson 15:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The population did not want to leave. It was explelled. We don't claim it. It is a fact, in addition it has been recognized by most of the british sources. Note 19 says that the argument itself is not acceptable but it does not deny the expulsion.
The sentence says: "although Argentina does not recognize self-determination rights to the inhabitants citing that they are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population that the Argentinians claim was expelled after the British invasion of 1833."
I propose to change it into: "although Argentina does not recognize self-determination rights to the inhabitants citing that they are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population that the Argentinians claim was expelled after the British invasion of 1833."
I repeat, we dont claim the population was expelled, the British claim it was not. Argentini an 20:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It is the stated UK view that there were no expulsions. It is the stated Argentinian view that there were. For us to prefer one version of events over the other would be violating WP:NPOV. By all means identify this point as the Argentinian view, but don't promote it at the expense of the POV of the other protagonist, the UK.
Xdamrtalk 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It is the stated Turkish view that there was no armenian genocide. It does not mean it did not happen.
The argentinians were expelled, at least a Falkland Islander said so to the Uited Nation's Decolonization Committee [9]
The only thing I see there is that they were ousted with their government. Apparantly the Americans also removed some argentinians from the island in 1831. Also, its the Argentinian I believe who says they are ousted...least on my first reading of that document. Narson 15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I see a man who has no authority whats so ever also stated the expulsion. Argentinian POV I'm afraid. He is clearly a naturalised Argentinian now. Narson 16:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, you say it "they were ousted" it means that they were expelled. It is a fact: they didnt enjoy to be forced to leave. Argentina doesnt "claim" they were expelled. The reversion is absud. You dont say that the scientists "claim" the world is round, do you?
Provide a verifiable source that states clearly that the argentinians agreed to leave.
I provide a source that cant be considered pro-argentinian, that is
"The British commander, Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag. Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands." --Argentini an 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. That makes reference to the flag and the governor, not the people. Expel is also, these days, usually used when referring to being removed from your own country (See Grants General Order number 11, for example, or the History of the Jews in Britain). That these people belonged in anyway is central to the thing that divides the two sides. Part of the British claim was that it was always British territory.
And yes, if we did an article on the Flat Worlders vs Round Worlders debate, I would expect the commonly accepted view of the world being round to be stated as one sides claim or case etc.
Oh, and the next line on that page? Says how one of the colonists there under the argentine flag stayed there under British rule. Narson 22:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he is considered a hero, because he resisted and fought. He died in 1845 in the Battle of Vuelta de Obligado, fighing against 100 british and french ships in Paraná River.
Regarding WP:V, it says: "This page in a nutshell: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." You are restoring material that has been challenged (the Argentines agreed to leave). Therefore you must provide the reliable publishd source from wich you take the information. --Argentini an 00:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Uhm. You are the one trying to put back in material that is challeneged (that the argentinian POV is fact). I am simply keeping the wording neutral. You have totally failed to provide any source which, when examined beyond your selective quoting, proves its an accepted view on both sides of the debate. Though, if we are going to start tossing around the vandalism policy here, I will just point out that a wikiadministrator has stated it is correct to state it as the argentinian view point. Its on you to prove your case at this point. Narson 12:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
And I have provided 22 likns, among which are the BBC and two Falkland Islanders in the United Nations. In addition, there is NO reliable source to prove that the argentinians wished, liked, or accepted to leave the islands. IF they had, you would have been able to provide a reliable source. Since you have not been able to provide a source, that statement is unsourced.--Argentini an 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Your 22 links are fine, no-one disputes that this is the Argentinian point-of-view. However you must accept that this is not the UK point of view. If you accept this, then it follows that this is an area of dispute between the UK and Argentina. If this is the case then it is most inappropriate for we here to adjudicate, deciding who is right or wrong. WP:NPOV deals with this sort of thing and is fairly explicit.
Xdamrtalk 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Its impossible to find a citation for a negative. Asking for one is just disruptive to the article. No offense meant, but you seem to be misreading alot of the English sources you use, which may be what is leading to the confusion that its the view of the British. Just consider the possibility. I'm not asking for the British POV to be put in, I have no desire for that, it is simply an attempt to ensure that no POV is given priority, most notably in a lead section (We could simply avoid this whole thing and remove it from the lead and just have it in argentinian claims, but I do think that the sentence is useful in the lead for establishing prior argentinian occupation of the Islands). I would ask that you consider removing the 'citation needed' bit from the lead, for at the very least reason that it will be very difficult (if not impossible) for either side to prove their point in this. Narson 23:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I take it that this isn't directed at me? (I'm sure not, but the indenting made me pause for thought) --Xdamrtalk 23:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No, simply makes a bit more sense taken after your post (And I hate indenting at the same level, looks damn confusing, and denies me the joys of typing all those :::::::). More of a 'look at his stuff first' indent than a 'replying' ident. If that even makes sense. Apologies for confusion Narson 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The british official POV does not deny the expulsion. Man, I've been researching this since I was 13. I've participated in discussion forums with anti-argentinian falklanders. There is absolutely no proof that all argentinians wanted to leave, in addition, there are thousands of webpages citing Rivero's revolt, one of the examples of resistance against the british authorities, who was eventually removed from the archipellago as the others were.
WP:V clearly states that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources": your statement has not been published by any source, reliable or not. Mine, unlike yours, has been published not only by argentine, but also by british sources, as the British Brodcasting Corporation.
The inclusion of the "the Argentinians claim" bit is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV since it denigrates the true facts and makes the reader belive the "expulsion" is disputed, and benefits the british point of view. We've been forced out of our lands and want them back. That's all. You can not deny we wanted to go, because that is not treu. End of story. And I repeat: if you had been right you would have been able to provide a reliable source.
If you are right, you can prove it.
If you are not right, you can not prove it.
Since you can not prove it, you are not right. --Argentini an 00:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office seem to disagree - [10]. --Xdamrtalk 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Xdamr has found what I couldn't there. And from a perfect source to speak as to the BRitish POV. You want to edit it in Xdamr? Your good find after all :) Narson 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Original XIX century sources: Argentine settlers not expelled in 1833[edit]

First, an overview of the links given above by Argentini an:
Dead link?
2 April 2007, no reference to original sources
En 1833 las Malvinas contaban con apenas 20 pobladores, de distintas nacionalidades. Todos ellos fueron expulsados por los británicos.
No expulsion mentioned.
2007, no reference to original sources
La población local fue perseguida y expulsada, y sus bienes robados.
29 March 2007, no reference to original sources
Las Islas del Atlántico Sur, Malvinas, Georgias, Sándwich, y sus espacios marinos circundantes tenían población argentina la que fue al momento de la invasión inglesa expulsada de los territorios.
31 March 2007, no reference to original sources
El 2 de enero de 1833 los habitantes y el comandante militar designado por el estado argentino fueron expulsados de las islas Malvinas por Gran Bretaña. ... La escena puede cerrarse con dos planos: uno desde el barco al que debieron subir por la fuerza el comandante y los habitantes de las islas, y otro desde la costa, correspondiente a lo que vieron los “nuevos” ocupantes de las islas.ía-las-Islas-Malvinas
2 April 2007, no reference to original sources
... como si en 1833 los argentinos residentes no hubiesen sido expulsados ...
5 April 2007, no reference to original sources
El capitán del buque de la Armada HMS Clio, John Onslow, tenía instrucciones de «ejercer los derechos de soberanía» sobre las islas y ordenó al comandante argentino que arriara su bandera y retirara a sus fuerzas. Los colonos argentinos fueron reemplazados por otros de Inglaterra y otras procedencias, especialmente de Gibraltar.
Wikipedia article – not a source
No expulsion mentioned. **[What?? "The English began to colonize the Falkland/Malvinas in January, 1833 shortly after a U.S. warship expelled Argentinean settlers." --Argentini an 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)]**
2007, no reference to original sources
Vernet scampered back to Buenos Aires, leaving a token Argentine force in Port Louis until 1833, when they were expelled by the returning British.
... the British re-occupied the islands and peacefully expelled the Argentine garrison.
No expulsion of settlers mentioned.
30 April 1982, no reference to original sources
In 1833 the British expelled them and took over the Island.
Reproduced text from the entry above.
In 1833 a British force expelled the few remaining Argentine officials from the island without firing a shot ...
No expulsion of settlers mentioned.
24 April 1982, no reference to original sources
In 1833, the British occupied the Falklands/Malvinas and expelled the Argentines
Reproduced text from the entry above.
2007 But in 1831, the few Argentinian settlers were expelled by a US warship and a British expedition took control of the territory in 1832. Full British sovereignty was declared in 1833.
No expulsion of settlers by Britain mentioned.
30 March 2007, no reference to original sources
Britain claimed sovereignty in 1833 and expelled the remaining Argentine settlers.
25 May 2001, no reference to original sources
... the colonized people were descendants of Britains who had been sent there after the original inhabitants had been expelled.
15 June 2006, no reference to original sources
... the United Kingdom had occupied the Islands by force in 1833, ousted the Argentine population and authorities on the Islands and replaced them with settlers of British origin.

One sees two immediate points:

(1) A number of links have been misleadingly given here, as they refer to no expulsion of Argentine settlers by Britain in 1833;

(2) There are no original sources quoted in any of the linked sources, which are fairly recent; no XIX century Argentine (or other) sources mention expulsion of Argentine settlers by the British.

Second, here is some well sourced information on the demographic development of Vernet's settlement of Port Louis.

One of the Argentine sources above says that in 1833 the Falklands had barely 20 inhabitants (En 1833 las Malvinas contaban con apenas 20 pobladores). According to Admiral Laurio Destefani's well sourced book [1]prior to Vernet's conflict with the US sealers, the settlement used to have 100 to 120 inhabitants (with some people sent for short-term assignments by Vernet's company) comprising some gauchos, criolles, and apparently a majority of recent colonists of various nationalities (mainly German, also English, French and Spanish). That population was greatly reduced by the US Navy (see Commander Silas Duncan's original 1832 reports to the US Navy Secretary Levy Woodbury) removing some 40 colonists that Commander Duncan believed included virtually all the population excepting some gauchos in the interior of East Falkland. The US Navy also detained on piracy charges and brought to River Plate seven persons including Vernet's deputy Mathew Brisbane. Britain did not expell anyone during those events.

The Royal Navy ships Clio and Tyne left the Falklands in January 1833 without leaving any new person on the islands. If the claim that Britain expelled the Argentine settlers were true, then Port Louis would have remained uninhabited, which simply was not the case. According to the 1833 narrative by Port Louis settler Thomas Helsby, after the British left, the following 24 residents of Port Louis remained — to the last one settlers brought by Vernet:

Captain Matthew Brisbane (superintendent), Thomas Helsby, William Dickson, Don Ventura Pasos, Charles Russler, Antonio Vehingar (known in Buenos Ayres as Antony Wagner), Juan Simon (Capitaz), Faustin Martinez, Santiago Lopez, Pascual Diego, Manuel Coronel, Antonio Rivero, Jose Maria Lune, Juan Brasido, Manuel Gonzales, Luciano Pelores, Manuel Godoy, Felipe Salagar, Lattore; three women: Antonina Roxa, Gregoria Madrid, Carmelita and her two children.

Helsby reports also the presence of 12 "temporary residents" of Port Louis since before the arrival of the Clio, namely:

The sealer William Low and his crew members Henry Channen, John Stokes, Daniel MacKay, Patrick Kermin, Samuel Pearce, George Hopkins, Joseph Douglas, Francis Marchedo, Jose Manuel Prado, and a black man known in the settlement by the name of "honest John", as well as Antonio Manuel from a US schooner.

On August 26, 1833 eight of the settlers (allegedly expelled!) murdered five other settlers (allegedly expelled too!), thus further reducing the population of Vernet's settlers. The British authorities (HMS Challenger under Lieutenant Henry Smith) did not appear until January 1834, when the 8 murderers were arrested and removed from the islands, and the settlers restored their business. (A side remark: For Spanish speakers, here is a thoughtful modern Argentine reading of those events[2].)

In the following years, according to various sources quoted by Admiral Laurio Destefani's book the population of Port Louis varied around 41-45 settlers (with more children) including Antonina Roxas, Manuel Coronel and another gaucho, and several seamen. During his visit to the Falklands in March 1834, Charles Darwin was accompanied by some gauchos (expelled by the British in 1833 no doubt!) to carry out his research in the interior of East Falkland, as narrated in the Charles Darwin's 1834 diary.

Another interesting authentic XIX century evidence of Argentine presence on the Falklands is an 1869 publication in the newspaper Rio de la Plata by the prominent Argentine naval commander Augusto Laserre (who later founded Ushuaia). His account of Port Louis mentions the local family of a Pampa Indian and an Englishwoman. (By that time the settlement had been moved to Port Stanley).

So much for the '1833 expulsion'.


  1. ^ Laurio H. Destefani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982
  2. ^ Rolando Mendez, Las Malvinas de Rivero: Toda la historia que engloba este personaje

Apcbg 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Now thats thorough. And informative. Thank you :) (And if it is as referenced as it seems, this should definatly go into the article under British claims or British resposne to argentinian claims or something) Narson 17:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I said that a number of argentinians had been expelled. I did not say that every argentine settler was expelled. In your "left settlers" list are missing the 4 argentine natives that fighted with Antonio Rivero and the Pampa indian that, acocrdign to you, married an englishwoman. I tell you that because in the list there are only european names (english and spanish). So this "well sourced" Laurio Destefani is wrong. I know you hate me when I cite argentine books because you can not check them, then I'll repeat what you say. Rivero was imprisoned by british officers. That is one example. Since I don't think I'll ever convince you I'll let the lead section in the status quo erat before I edited it. --Argentini an 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you read first the text you are commenting. Rivero's fellow natives (7 not 4) are on the list:
Jose Maria Luna, Juan Brasido, Manuel Gonzales, Luciano Flores, Manuel Godoy, Felipe Salagar and Lattorre;
and 5 Indians are on the list too, actually all of them were part of Rivero's gang:
Manuel Gonzales, Luciano Pelores (probably misspelling for 'Flores'), Manuel Godoy, Felipe Salagar, Lattore.
They seem to have Spanish names. What names would you expect? 'Argentine'? Apparently you have not consulted the given original source; Destefani has nothing to do with the quoted list which was made by one of Vernet's settlers who took part in the events — Thomas Helsby.
Yes Rivero and his fellow murderers were imprisoned. What else would you expect, they killed innocent people, their fellow settlers!
I am removing the reference to 'Historia General' as a source of the statement in the introduction that "... the Argentine population that the Argentinians claim was expelled after the British invasion of 1833." If I am not missing something, the quoted chapter of 'Historia general' says:
"... when the original population has been dispersed and small groups of colonists of the occupant Power have settled in the region. ... These authorities and settlers were evacuated by the violence, not allowing their permanence in the territory."
"... cuando la población originaria ha sido dispersada y pequeños grupos de colonos de la Potencia ocupante se han instalado en la región. ... Estas autoridades y pobladores fueron desalojados por la violencia, no permitiéndose su permanencia en el territorio."
Britain is not mentioned here at all. At the same time, elsewhere in the same source the expulsion of Argentines from the islands by the US Nay is explicitly detailed. Apcbg 23:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nootka Sound Convention[edit]

Uhm. I have to challenege this section at least in part, beyond reading a little bit like OR, the first part is totally irrelevent (Who /cares/ who can fish in the pacific when it comes to the falklands?). I will leave any further delving into the facts as regards what the references say to someone who can understand spanish, however this is most definatly an argentinian claim and should be indicated as such. (As well as not gelling with the rest of the article, are we now saying that the Argentines claim they didn't control the islands from 1831-1833?). I will hold off editing until the morning so I can study the convention some more and give people a chance to respond or for more knowledgeable people to take a glance.

On a secondary matter related to this, can we not find other sources, even within argentina, other than to replace some of them? Relying on one source for so much in an article is never great if other sources do exist.Narson 23:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

About the 1831-1833 the british do not recognize the existance of a government, because the armegican ship decalred the isalnds res nullius.
Searhcing for Nootka in Englsih: "Signing of the Nootka Convention on Oct. 28, 1790, "gave Great Britain virtually everything she sought," Lamb writes. That included return of the British ships, compensation, and the freedom for British subjects to trade and establish posts north of areas already occupied by Spain."
"Nootka was signed October 28,1790, and the threatened war was averted. The treaty stipulated that all buildings and tracts of land on the northwest coast of America of which Spanish officers had dispossessed any British subjects should be restored; that just reparation should be made by both parties to the agreement for any acts of violence committed by the subjects of either of them upon the subjects of the other; that any property seized should be restored or compensated for; that subjects of Great Britain should not approach within ten leagues of any part of the coast already occupied by Spain; that north of that point both parties should have equal rights, as well as south of the limits of Spanish settlements in South America.
More info, including something I did not know "Upon her withdrawal in 1774 Britain left behind a plaque asserting her claims, but in 1790, Britain officially ceded control of the islands to Spain, and renounced any and all colonial ambitions in South America, and its adjacent islands, as part of the Nootka Convention. In addition, the Nootka Convention provided for equal British, Spanish, and US rights to fish the surrounding waters of, as well as land on and erect temporary buildings to aid in such fishing operations, in any territory south of parts already occupied by Spain - the Falkland Islands being one of them since 1770. From then on Spain ruled the islands unchallenged under the name "Islas Malvinas", maintaining a settlement ruled from Buenos Aires under the control of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata until 1811."

Even if the US's right to fish had been nullified with the 6th article by Argentina's occupation, the Lexington re established the Nootka Sound Convention. Because of this I'm going to change the article to include the US involvment. --Argentini an 00:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The above sources say nothing about the impact of third parties on the validity of the Convention. The last source is simply confused — the Americans claimed fishing rights in the Falklands based on their decades of traditional use not on the Convention to which they were not a party. Spain and Britain recognized no rights to third parties according to the Convention, which gave exclusive rights to the two countries alone. Apcbg 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
US was not a signatory, and US involvement is mentioned in the 1833 article I believe? Though a sentence can't hurt within this one (to make it clear that in the period that multiple countries were still involved in adding or removing people from the islands). However, I'm not sure that we can justify having a huge section on this, especially a stand alone section. It is mentioned in argentinian claims, maybe expand its mention there rather than add in a new section, which is full of treaty law that might better belong in the convention article?
I would keep it as a sub section of the Argentine Claim, since it is extremely important: it is the key reason for the change in the british arguments from "they are ours, therefore we invaded them" in 1833 to "we invaded them, therefore they are ours" after the war with the self determination thing. --Argentini an 01:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Argentini an, you wrote:
“The sixth article would not have been aplicable if a foreign power occupied a territory.[17]. If the UK had not recognized the Argentine Sovereignty over the Islands with the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, signed with Argentina in 1825 [18], then it recognized the Spanish sovereignty over the archipellago, and thus their invasion in 1833 was illegal because the Nootka Conventions forbid the British settlement on the islands, since they had been occupied by Spain before the signation of the Conventions. The sixth article of the Conventions would have been nullified if Argentina had occupated the islands in 1833[19], but the previous year a warship of the United Satates had destroyed the argentine settlement and declared the territory "free of all government". Since there was no foreign power anymore, the British invaded a territory they recognized as a Spanish Colony.[20]”
This paragraph is a messy original research that should better be removed.
First, the essence of this paragraph of yours (being in the section on the Nootka Sound Convention) is that Britain violated the Convention, and that violation supposedly gave some advantages to Argentina. But this part of the article is presenting the Argentine position, and for Argentina to maintain that there was a violation of the Convention in 1833 Argentina must first recognize that the Nootka Sound Convention was in force on the Falklands in 1833. So it’s up to you to provide sources confirming that it is the official Argentine position that the Convention was in force on the Falklands in 1833. Without such source your paragraph has no place in its present place.
Second, Britain could not have violated the fourth article in 1833 because that article banned British ships from approaching Spanish settlements closer than 10 leagues (50-odd km), and with no Spanish settlement on the Falklands in 1833 there was no way for Britain to violate the fourth article.
As for the sixth article, in order to be violated it must have been in force in the first place. Having in mind the provision that the sixth article is not in force if there is a third party occupation, your second hypothesis is based on the assumption that there was no Argentine occupation of the Falklands in 1833. That may well be true, but definitely is not the official Argentine position. Once again, your original research is out of place.
(Because this section is supposed to present the Argentine position, I leave aside the question – so what if Britain violated its bilateral treaty with Spain, that’s Spain’s concern that cannot create any rights to third parties, and Spain did not protest against the British action in 1833, nor later up to the 1860s when it eventually recognized Argentina’s independence; that is, Spain acquiesed to Britain's action. Argentina could not derive any rights from the Convention nor from its possible violation, because Argentina was not a party and could not ‘inherit’ Spain since according to International Law (Convention on the succession of treaties) Argentina could have only become party to the Nootka Sound Convention with the consent of both Spain and Britain which we know never took place.) Apcbg 02:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
"Second": you are wrong. It does not say "spanish settlements". The text is "coasts of south america that had been already occupied by Spain" in 1790. It does not say that the british re-acquire the rights if the Spanish leave.
With the argentine garrison expelled, there is no more foreign power occupation.
"So what if Britain violated its bilateral treaty with Spain" in that case the invasion was illegal. --Argentini an 19:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not the article on the 1833 invasion. The treaty has no bearing on Argentina (though they claim it does, as was already mentioned). The treaty also stipulates that any breach of the treaty is to be pursued amicably by the parties (spain and Britain) though the respective courts.
The full text of the 6th Article in English is:

It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and wester coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects

Now, from my reading, it says we will not establish any settlements on the coast south of the coast occupied by spain or on the coast south of any island occupied by spain. But anyway, there is the full text in English taken from a canadian book (British Columbia from Earliest Times to the Present) by Ethelbert Olaf Stuart Scholefield, available on the canadian 'Our Roots' website.
Now, if we accept coasts includes islands, then the secret article of the convention reads:

Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respect the eastern and western coasts of South American, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts acctually occupied by spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.

Thats what I've found. Narson 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The only difference I find with the text in Spanish is that the Spanish version of "this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power" is this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment is occupied by the subjects of any other power.
But the result is the same because Argentina did not form an establishment, we used the Spanish buildings etc. I think it is more correct to use the actual English words. --Argentini an 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have given a first attempt at compressing the section, altering the refs to the scanned in copy of the history of British Columbia from the Canadian 'Our Roots' sites, English language sources being more accessible on an English language wiki plus its nice to have extra sources in there. We need to find some refs for the British and Argentinian views however. Narson 01:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Argentini an: An establishment in this case means a settlement of people not buildings. The Spanish left in 1811. Argentina (any other power) made a new settlement in 1829 therefore nullifying article 6. Dab14763 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Argentina ... citing that ... the Argentinians claim This is cleary a major exaggeration and a British POV , or we use citing or we use claim but not both in the same sentence Jor70 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cite: to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example: He cited many instances of abuse of power.

Claim: to assert or maintain as a fact

They are not synonyms. They cite them not being aboriginals. They are not. No-one has ever said they were. They are citing a fact in support of their argument. The expulsion is not the universally accepted fact, this they claim. Its not an exaggeration or a British POV. It is simply the English language. Narson 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Im not agree, this version sounds more pro british than the already consensued a long time ago: Argentina does not recognize self-determination rights to the inhabitants since they are As you said, if you recognize that they are not aboriginals what is the problem with the original version. The current is British POV Jor70 10:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Because it works better in a sentence that goes on, in the latter half to make claims. It needed to be clear that the first half of the sentence was seen as a fact. It seems the issue here is that you don't have a totally fluent understanding of English, while this is not a problem, it does mean eventually you will have to trust those of us who do. Narson 11:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely it does work better for you, but I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a Brits-only encyclopedia. "That they claim" is your point of view, and following the same logic we could say that the UK is "claiming" an unsuitable right to govern the islands, etc. By the way, I'd appreciate you to stop questioning the language fluency of other people, I don't think it's necessary or even relevant with this issue. —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 16:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
His complaint was based on a misunderstanding on his part of the English language (believing cite and claim to be synonyms), hence the point about fluency. I have no idea what an unsuitable right is in this context, nor am I quite sure to what you are referring. Read the research in the sections above from other editors and you will see the events in 1833 are not clear. That they are is your POV. Note that it has not been edited to say 'Argentina wrongly claims' or 'Argentina wrongly believes' or other language that denigrates the Argentinian claim. It simply makes it clear it is not a universally accepted truth. Narson 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Proposed change:

The contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British and, after the 1982 war, have British citizenship, although Argentina does not recognize the right of the inhabitants to self-determination due to their ancestors not being native to the Islands, having been brought to the Islands after the British invasion of 1833.

Avoids the whole issue I think? Narson 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Struck that due to the problems pointed out in the wording from annother editor (in that it went on to say things I did not mean it to) Narson 13:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)