Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 10

FI Dependencies

I have removed the paragraph:

Argentina has never recognised British sovereignty, and formally protested when the Falkland Islands dependencies were established. Argentina also began to claim all other British held islands in the South Atlantic, following the creation of the Falkland Islands Dependency.

Aside that the first part is disputed (notably by the leaflet mentioned at the FI talk page) and also a direct repetition of the preceding sentence, the second part is false.

I say this based on this document (p20):

Despite the establishment of the meteorological station in 1904 [on South Orkney], neither Argentina nor Chile objected to the promulgation of the British claims in 1908. The Argentine Foreign Office addressed a note to the British Minister in Buenos Aires, asking for information about the matter. The Minister forwarded him a copy of the Falkland Islands Gazette carrying the letters patent, and received a brief and routine note of acknowledgement, without further comment, which prompted him to report to London that Argentina presumably recognized the British claim.

This interpretation was strengthened by the fact that an Argentine company, the Compañía Argentina de Pesca, applied for and obtained a British lease to land on South Georgia Island. A similar request was received from a Chilean company, the South Georgia Exploration Company, and another Chilean company, the Sociedad Ballenera de Magallanes, took out a British whaling license. (The Chilean Government cites the operation of this company in the South Shetland Islands in support of its claim.)

The same source (on p20) states that the Argentines did not overtly claim any part of the area covered by the 1908 letters patent (by which Britain created the FI dependencies) until 1925, when they claimed Laurie Island in South Orkney. Pfainuk talk 16:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


This article omits the moves within the Falklands towards greater autonomy. While I think few favour independence as an option, it has been discussed. Many though, as far as I can tell, favour more devolution. For geographical reasons, the islands have always had a degree of autonomy disallowed Scotland and Wales for many years. Suffice to say, before the Falklands War, the islands were hardly a household name in the UK, and as the war recedes into the past, they have become remote again in more ways than one. As I understand it, islanders are aware of this problem to some degree. One way round this isolation is the ever stronger link with Chile.

On the other hand, the last twenty years have seen the islands' infrastructure strengthened and their economy diversified, meaning that greater self-reliance is possible.

The islands' identity as an entity in their own right should be better reflected in this article. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can source it, put it in under a section on future sovereignty proposals? Narson (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd have no objection, I'd contemplated something similar as I knew there was a consultation on the proposed new constitution. I was waiting for the details to be published - did I miss it.
On a tangent, the links to the Tierra del Fuego seem a bit like overkill. Not sure they're appropriate but I don't have a strong feeling about it. Justin talk 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Position of the Governor as executive power

Justin A Kuntz, Please read section 50 of the 1985 constitution see this link to the text of it. Subsection 50. (2) "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive authority of the Falkland Islands shall be exercised on behalf of Her Majesty by the Governor, either directly or through officers subordinate to him." Subsection 62. (1) goes on to say that that he does not need to take advice from the Executive Council "In any case in which the Governor consults the Executive Council, he may act against the advice given to him by the Council if he thinks it right to do so." ThinkingTwice (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no worries hopefully I can explain, in theory the monarch has many powers, in practise they're not exercised. For example, in theory at least, the monarch can dissolve parliament at will, in practise the Queen would only do so if requested by the Prime Minister of the Government of the day. Its one of many quirks of the way the British system works. In the case of the Falklands, the power lies with the Executive council, in theory, the Governor as representative of the sovereign can do that, in practise if he did he would find himself or herself on the next plane home. In practical, terms all of the British Overseas Territories are self-governing. Does that explain it? Justin talk 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Just by way of sourcing, the British government say that ([1]):

As is usual in British Overseas Territories, the elected Councillors have a substantial measure of responsibility for the conduct of their Territory's affairs. The Governor is obliged to consult the Executive Council in the exercise of his functions (except in specified circumstances, for example on defence and security issues, where he must consult and follow the advice of the Commander of the British Forces in the Islands). Although he has the constitutional power to act against the advice of the Executive Council, he would be required, without delay, to report such a matter to the British Government with the reasons for his action. The governor retains responsibility for external affairs and the public service.

In the 2009 constitution, assuming it's accepted, this power will be removed (per the section Draft Constitution Ready for Public Consultation, dated 20 June 2008) with the exception of those rights held by the UK government and which are exercised by the governor's authority. Pfainuk talk 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, I was just looking for that on the FCO website, you beat me to it. Justin talk 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem. We edit-conflicted the first time I posted it, and copy-pasting doesn't take long, even with small changes :). Pfainuk talk 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
My objection was to the words "purely a figurehead with no executive powers", if he exercises his power or not he does have it. The wording of the line I took out miss represents the constitutional position of the Governor. I feel it would be better to say something like "Members of the FIG are democratically elected and exercises the Governors executive powers on behalf of the Queen." ThinkingTwice (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No that doesn't work, because the Governor is a figurehead, in the same way the Queen is a figurehead. Its quite bizarre to someone outside of the UK but thats the way the constitutional monarchy works. Whilst in theory the Governor can exercise executive power on behalf of Her Majesty, in practise and custom it just wouldn't happen. We need to explain the difference between theoretical powers and actual powers in this case. If you're happy to change it to, "the Governor is effectively a figurehead. Theoretically the Governor has the power under the 1985 constitution to exercise executive authority, in practise he is obliged to consult the Executive Council in the exercise of his functions. The main responsibilities of the Governor are external affairs and public services."[1] Justin talk 07:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, OK I agree with that ThinkingTwice (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
And done. Justin talk 22:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Attitudes in Argentina Section

The Argentine attitudes section completely ignores the prevailing and strongly held view of most of the population that Las Malvinas Son Argentinas. People from Salta to Patagonia have bumper stickers and messages in the windows of their houses, while state or federally sponsored road signs declare that the Falklands are Argentine in a number of places (as noted in this article). The press links the Falklands to everything - the front page of national daily Clarin after the first day of the Russian invasion of Georgia was Russian Forces Enter Georgia - Situation has paralells with the Malvinas ! All schoolchildren are taught that the Falklands are Argentine, and all maps in the country do not even note that the islands are not adminstered by Argentina, they simply state "Islas Malvinas, Argentina" and proceed to name all places in Spanish.

People who express the views given in this section of the article exist but are by no means the majority. The article gives undue importance to this section of society and should give more details of the majority. I will start looking for sources now, although it would be best to get some of the myriad paper sources from Argentina itself.

Chrisfow (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Up to a point I agree, it would be fine to put in an edit to reflect that there is a bombardment of imagery that asserts Las Malvinas Son Argentinas. To extrapolate that to the attitudes of the population is where I disagree. I actually tend to the view that we should remove the attitudes section, it doesn't add much to the article and its difficult if nigh on impossible to generalise attitude within a population. What do others think? Justin talk 10:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a side remark (sorry for the diversion), I don't think that Russian Forces Enter Georgia - Situation has paralells with the Malvinas goes far in substantiating supposed public attitudes. That parallel is quite appropriate (and has been made by non-Argentines too) at least in two points: (1) In both cases there were attacks on the armed forces of another country, which under International Law qualifies unquestionably as aggression giving the attacked party the right to respond by force; and (2) The two conflicts differ in that, after considerstion, the British refrained from attacking military targets on the mainland however tempting and desirable from a military point of view that might have been (alleged or possible covert action doesn't count), while the Russians embarked on a large scale invasion of Georgia proper, which most probably amounted to unproportional response that could not be justified under International Law. A good parallel indeed. Apcbg (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A more neutral comment on number of cities/places named Malvinas Argentinas might be elocuent enough, yyet still neutral. Mariano(t/c) 12:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as they have over a dozen Malvinas Argentinas already, still another one more or less wouldn't make much of a difference one reckons ... :) Apcbg (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Attitudes within Argentina section do not represent at all the strong opinion here nor the public neither the political class. Also wouldnt this [2] be a good addition to the Attitudes within the United Kingdom ? --Jor70 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think it would, it isn't representative of British opinion in the least. I still tend to the view of removing that section as more trouble than its worth. Justin talk 23:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
LoL,, I think I get the point about this guy Escude ;-) --Jor70 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry? You're going to have to explain that one. Justin talk 00:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Argentine claims

I don't claim to be an expert on Falklands history but it did appear to me that Argentina or the preceding government after independence from the Spanish always did claim the Falklands, and even if they didn't, they claimed that they did!

I did make some edits in good faith that were reversed. Fair enough even though I had documented my edit with a link to an official document. If my source was unreliable as evidience of Argentine claims, please enlighten me. Michael Glass (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and that is why I reverted them, no they didn't. Drop me an email and I'll email you back some reference material. Justin talk 00:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Have done, but the article as it now stands contains two contrasting statements:

  • The Argentine government has maintained a claim over the Falkland Islands since 1833.
  • Argentina has always claimed the Falklands, and never renounced its claim.

If the United Kingdom officially recognised Argentine independence in 1825 [3], at least one of these three statements cannot be true.

Note that an official claim doesn't have to be true. If we are recording the claim then we record it as it is but point out other evidence. For example, the Ministry of Defence might have claimed that HMS Coventry sank 10 miles off Pebble Island. However, if the co-ordinates of the sinking reveal that the Coventry sank 11.5 nautical miles off the coast we might have to note both facts.

I should add that I have no personal involvement in either of the competing claims. All I want to do is to get at the truth. Michael Glass (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah the inevitable search for the truth! Ryan4314 (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In those time that the islands were under effective rule of the United Provinces or the Confederation, can we say that there was a "claim" over them? Isn't the term limited to circumstances were a party does not have such control but considers it should? MBelgrano (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that isn't actually correct, that may be what Argentina now claims but the islands were effectively under no one's control. But you are correct in saying that Argentina has only effectively maintained a claim since 1833, since it doesn't have control but thinks it should. Justin talk 09:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Error in article - request assistance in fixing

The USA flag is incorrect. The 1831 version should be used, not the 1960 version. Help! Unsure how to fix. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

US flag as of 1831
You are right, must be the 24-star flag on the right per 1831 in the United States. Apcbg (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. For the template, it's the version adopted in 1822 (and used until 1836). Pfainuk talk 12:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Time-line of De Facto control

This paragraph:

[Sir, I have the honor of informing you that I have arrived in this port with a commission from the Supreme Government of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata to take possession of these islands on behalf of the country to which they belong by Natural Law.]

Clearly establishes that between October-November of 1820, the islands had being occupied in name of Argentina. I added a reference to the Argentine constitution; which clearly declares “Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata” as name of Argentina.

So I added the 1820 period to the timeline, with references, and it was deleted by Apcbg. Since the Apcbg action has no fundamentation, I consider it just vandalism.

Pfainuk removed the references to the Argentine constitution, arguing “remove irrelevancy” but that text fundament my editing of the time-line, so is completely relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marraco (talkcontribs) 22:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading a declaration is no effective control; as for occupation, the Falklands were occupied at that time by American and English sealers (50 ships witnessed by Jewett), had been before that, and remained occupied by American and English sealers until 1829, and even after that Vernet cohabitated with them. Apcbg (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I'd add that the fact that "United Provinces of the River Plate" is in the current Argentine constitution (adopted in its original form in 1853) does not demonstrate anything as regards events in 1820. Pfainuk talk 13:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Argentine declared independence in 1816. That is the date in which Spanish territories switched from Spain to Argentina, and the date in which Argentine state initiated his independent existence. What you mean with your reference to the 1856 constitution?
(in answer to Apcbg ) To be compatible with that argument, you should remove the USA control in December 1831 – January 1832, because it intended to stop the Argentine control, but not take control of the islands.
And you should also remove the Argentine December 1832 – January 1833 period, because hundred of ships from USA, England and another countries also had presence in the islands, as in the continent, but they don't claimed possession.
Is clear that Jewett was commissioned by Argentina to take possession. The other sealers did not that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marraco (talkcontribs) 18:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You tried to argue that the fact that the words "United Provinces of the River Plate" were included in the modern-day Argentine constitution (adopted in its original form in 1853) implied something about events in 1820. I removed that sentence as irrelevant because it was irrelevant.
If Argentina commissioned Jewett to take possession of the islands then that does not imply that Jewett ever actually had effective control over the islands. Reading out a declaration does not constitute effective control, and there's no evidence that Jewett had effective control over anything bar his own ship and crew (in the same way as the sealers did). On the other hand, Duncan of the Lexington did hold effective control over Port Louis in 1831-32, and Pinedo did have effective control over the same settlement in 1832-33. The fact that there was a permanent settlement that they could be in control of makes a difference. Pfainuk talk 20:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change: 'bearing in mind the interests' is not 'in the interests'

The current version reads "UN Resolution 2065.... added that all the settlements... had to be peaceful and, in this case 'in the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands'". This is simply not true. That resolution (taken from UN site invites the governments to find a solution bearing in mind the provisions of the UN Charter, of UN resolution 1514 and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). To arrange settlements 'bearing in mind the interests' is something completely different from 'arrange settlements in the interests' of the islands population. So, I propose that the wording of this sentence is changed in order to reflect the true content of Resolution 2065. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andarin2 (talkcontribs) 02:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent events

Regarding the recent innovations around the dispute, and the various statements on the issue, or political actions about it, maybe we should add an specific section taking note of these novelties. Please, take part on the related: discussion topic. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As per Narson in that section, we don't need to go into huge detail every time something happens. I think this particular flare-up may be worthy of a paragraph or so in the history section, and the Rio Group could be added to the supporters of the Argentine claim at the bottom (with wording depending on whether we can demonstrate that it has supported Argentina since its inception). But unless there are consequences that we can't yet foresee, I don't think it's worth more than that.
Do you want to try and come to a consensus as to exactly what that paragraph should be, or are you happy with the existing paragraph? Pfainuk talk 18:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, I apologize for not having reviewed the talk page before editing, though you might understand why the revert-to-start-a-conversation tactic appeared to me to be surprising if not counterproductive. In any case, the statement on the Falkland Islands talk that "Unless a fact meet notability should not be included" is patently false, notability only refers to article topics. The real question is where does info about the "2010 quasi-dispute over Falkland oil drilling" belong - as this topic is in of itself notable and perhaps deserves an article. If it doesn't get that, the next best place is here. Argentina – United Kingdom relations is a joke, and it certainly is more relevant to Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute than just the Falkland Islands article. I fail to see how adding a single sentence is WP:UNDUE. WP:NOTNEWS may be more on the mark, but as I see it, the spirit of that policy is more in not reporting the latest robbery down the street, or the latest concert of your favorite singer, not ignoring declarations made by some 30+ heads of governments. If you truly feel that the information is too much for this page, than I'd suggest a new article along the lines of Falkland Islands oil drilling dispute. Joshdboz (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
From my perspective, the fact that the Rio Group has stated that they support the Argentine position is not surprising. Every Ibero-American Summit and every session of the Organization of American States produces a similar statement, and none has ever had any practical effect on anything (we mention this under Supporters of the Argentine claim, late in the article). The fact that the Rio Group - which contains most of the same countries - has done this is, as I said on your talk page, a bit like Hugo Chavez having condemned the United States again. Nothing new, nothing exceptional or even particularly unusual or unexpected.
My concern about having a new article is WP:NOTNEWS. This might run and run. Or it might quieten down after a few days - particularly if no oil is found. If the latter, we have a perma-stub created based on crystal ball-ing. The longer and the more acrimonious it gets, the more likely it is we need a dedicated article, obviously. But I don't think we're there yet.
But let's watch the situation. I'm certainly willing to reconsider my position on this if this statement or indeed this dispute has a significant effect on British-Argentine relations or on the dispute as a whole. If the oil drilling starts going further, an article may be a good idea. But right now, we can't speculate on this per WP:CRYSTAL, and we really don't have enough stuff for a dedicated article IMO. Pfainuk talk 23:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Pfain on this, we have no deadline, we can wait for things to pan out. For the news side of things, we have --Narson ~ Talk 23:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Heh, ok you win, I honestly don't give a darn about Argentina and who says what, but it seemed semi-important. If this does go to the UN and drag on for a few more weeks/months, I would strongly suggest a separate article on the drilling dispute. Remember, we have articles on bus crashes and individual Office episodes.... Joshdboz (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Map depicting international position towards sovereignity dispute

International position on the Falklands.png

This map should be updated according to recent changes of stance brought about by the last Rio Group and Caribbean Community Unity Summit that took place on 22 February 2010, as detailed here.

Namely: Guyana and Surinam as UNASUR members; Belize and Jamaica as Rio Group Members; Caribbean Community nations as per the aformentioned Summit declaration; all of them now endorse the Argentine claim.

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, Belize and Jamaica, as members of the Commonwealth, have consistently supported the UK's claim. It seems they change their stance depending on which meeting they are attending. --Philip Stevens (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Then, if they frequently change sides, we should upgrade the map each time, and reflect the latest side they had took. Even if they supported frequently the UK claim, we can't say for sure that they will do so again. Same as, if they make such change, we shouldn't kept them as supporting the Argentine claim, as we wouldn't be sure either if they would return to it or not. MBelgrano (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree quite strongly. If they have been inconsistent in the past, we have no reason assume that they will cease to be inconsistent in the future. In such a case, we must say that they have been inconsistent. Pfainuk talk 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's an editorial judgement. On paper, the stance of a country about a topic is the last one they had taken, until the point, if it ever comes, when they change their opinion. We are not talking about a source that may be reliable or not, we are talking about countries MBelgrano (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
If they change their response depending on who's asking, we cannot reasonably say that they support one side or the other. Taking a blinkered look at the last statement without considering longer-term trends is misleading and inappropriate IMO. In terms of the map, I'd actually suggest that it may be better simply not to have a map if things are not simple enough to be depicted in this fashion. Pfainuk talk 18:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The official statement: Declaration "on the issue of the Malvinas Islands, Pro-Tempore Rio Group Secretariat official statement. Whatever the changing positions of some CARICOM states, Guyana and Surinam are for the Argentine as long as they are UNASUR members, the same for Belize and Jamaica being Rio Group members. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide me a cite for your suggestion that support for Argentina in this dispute is a prerequisite for membership of UNASUR or the Rio Group? That is, that it is impossible for a country not supporting the Argentine side of this dispute to join either organisation, that any who fail to do so are to be expelled? Because I find this to be rather an extreme suggestion.
We need to take a much longer view of this. We cannot say that these four will always support Argentina based on our crystal balls. It doesn't work like that. Pfainuk talk 18:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd add, per the above, that I find it unnecessary to list every single declaration of a regional summit in support of the Argentine position. There have been literally dozens of these, and I fail to see the need to list the latest one to come along, or to suggest that it is somehow more significant than any of the others. We aren't a newspaper, we're an encyclopædia, so we need to take a long view of this: we cannot assume that this particular statement is any more likely to have an impact than did any of the others. If Britain agrees to talks, then yes, it should go in. If there's a new General Assembly Resolution, it should go in. But we can't assume that either will actually happen. If it, or other current events, go on to have some other clear and measurable impact on the dispute, they can go in. But right now, we have no evidence of this.
I'm happy for mention to go in the image caption - as an example of such a statement. I agree with MBelgrano that that image is rather more appropriate. But I don't think we need to mention every statement by a Latin American regional body.
As a practical matter, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Primary sources (such as the text of the statement itself) have to be treated with much more caution. For this reason I have reinstated the old cite alongside the text of the statement.
Now, before we re-add all this, let's get a consensus text together on talk that we can all agree on. The current changes do not have consensus, so let's get a consensus. Pfainuk talk 19:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here the CSN (previous name of UNASUR) endorsement of Argentine position on Malvinas: Andean Community webpage. As for you complaining about the primary sources... I don't get it: no news reports, no editorialists, no official statements. Give me a break! Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, as if those documents were open to differing interpretations! Nah. --IANVS (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In the longer view, with none of the countries, not even Argentina or the UK, we can "be sure" that they will "always" support a certain side. Anyone may change sides at any time, for any reason, international or local. The opposite of using a "crystal ball" is using factual information, and the best way for doing so is making a map showing what do countries support today in such a factual way. In the unpredictable circumstance that a country changes side, we change the map, as long as nobody does so, we keep it as it is. MBelgrano (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rio Group decleration is meaningless. It says they support Argentina's legitimate rights, but doesn't assert what those rights are. The only thing it acctually says is the bit about the Association of Overseas Territories. That is why the cited news reports were so fluffy. It was Balfourian in its wording. Or if you prefer, the Rio Groupe has said 'Je vous ai compris' --Narson ~ Talk 23:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Now, Narson, yours is truly an WP:OR WP:POV opinion. Let's move on to reach some consensus wording. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I see little prospect of consensus until blatent falsehoods stop popping around (such as 12 commonwealth members being in the Rio Group) and while users here insist on favouring primary sources over secondary. I never proposed an edit based on my primary document analysis, what I was refuting was the idea that it is some clear cut document that we should clearly use rather than secondary sources. It is for reliable sources to make the assumptions, not us. Because on primary sources we can argue the toss all day. Also I find it is those who scream 'POV' the loudest who are usually the ones with the biggest axe to grind. --Narson ~ Talk 07:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the map, it would be trying to condense complex international politics into just four categories with criteria such as "neutral countries which generally support the..." What's the definition of neutral? Who decides they're neutral? What does generally support mean? How many times make up generally? This map puts the US into the same category as Latvia, did Latvia give the UK Sidewinder missiles or let them use there airfields??? Ryan4314 (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Narson, what are you asking for, exactly? A reliable news source stating that, as the document itself declares, the members of the Rio Group support the claim of Argentina? Anyone will do that. There's no "original research" in pointing that a country did what all news sources say they did and a specific document states that they did. Please don't complicate the discussion with unneeded wikilawyering.
Ryan, the definition of neutral is easy: neutral are those who defines themselves as neutral. The US did some days ago MBelgrano (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That declaration says in tarticular that:

They further state that, in respect of the Treaty of Lisbon ... the inclusion of the Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands in the regime of “Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories” is incompatible ... with the existence of a sovereignty dispute over the said archipelagos.

Given that the Treaty of Lisbon did confirm the Falklands status as an EU overseas territory, then it follows (according to the authors of the declaration) that there is actually no sovereignty dispute. Apcbg (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Respect" can mean either "deference" or "acknowlegment", or "in relation to X topic", among other uses. Context makes it very clear that it is the later: when they say "in respect of the Treaty of Lisbon" they are saying "this is our opinion about the Treaty of Lisbon", as they are actually rejecting it MBelgrano (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Surely means 'in relation toX topic' but it's not up to them to reject as the Treaty of Lisbon doesn't need their approval. My comment was that according to that declaration the Treaty and the dispute are 'incompatible' i.e. cannot coexist in the same reality. Well the Treaty is very real, which means the dispute is equally virtual. Apcbg (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a problem with the "announcement" made at the Rio group. First of all the Argentine president announced it, claiming that it was a statement supporting Argentina's sovereignty claim. The document itself is support for Argentina's opposition to the drilling for oil and has only actually been supported by Mexico, Ecuador, Chile, Guatemala, Bolivia and Venezuela not the unanimous support of the entire group. However, few of the major news sources have bothered to report the fine detail following the bold claims made by Argentina. So arguing based on that announcement by Argentina, which is what is reported, doesn't reflect the support of the countries involved. Please let us rise above narrow national posturing one and all.
Dealing with the issue of the map I would suggest it isn't included. First of all ask ourselves what it is doing to the article? Its not adding to the reader's understanding. Secondly, by its very nature it is down to the original research of the editor who compiled it. Thirdly, as the discussion here has shown it is difficult, nigh on impossible, to condense the complex matter of international relations into a single image that would literally require editing on a day by day basis to keep current. Justin talk 14:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
According to the BBC, hardly an Argentine media, the backing to the Argentine claim has been unanimous. Unless I see greater evidence of the contrary, I will take that "unanimously" means "unanimously". In respect of the map, international relations do not change "day to day", and it is perfectly possible to upgrade a map in the case such a change takes place. MBelgrano (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This is just a restating of their 2007 position, and it does not say it supports Argentine sovereignty. It says it supports Argentina's legitimate rights. Hence my reference to 'Je vous ai compris'. Each side can read something different into it. The real question is why is this worthy of seperate inclusion now when it wasn't in 07 or at any time back to 93? --Narson ~ Talk 14:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the difference between what Argentina claims and what actually was said. One is reference to oil exploration and the other refers to sovereignty, let us not confuse the two. Anyway, to bring matters rapidly to a focus rather than going down a rabbit hole your comments do not address the fundamental point that the map is original research and thus violates a fundamental tenet of wikipedia policies. A map that has to be edited as you propose is also fundamentally useless, you may as well use a Rorschach print. It does not add or aid the reader's understanding, that is how consensus is supposed to progress rather than trading national interests. Could you address the point please. Justin talk 14:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Justin!, nice to see you back, the rio summit declarations can be found on the hosting country [4] [5] --Jor70 (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, as I said there was more than one declaration, each of which received varying support. Nice to see people on both sides putting aside national sentiment to focus on the issue at hand. This is one of those occasions where wikipedia can work. Justin talk 16:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That secondary sources are preferred is nothing more than a statement of policy - and it's like that for precisely the reasons others give and indeed have demonstrated. We can argue the toss all day about what primary sources mean, but that's not really our job. On the map, I believe it should be deleted. It's impossible to reasonably maintain such a map, based as it is on inference and original research. Too many countries don't clearly fall into any of the boxes - and that's always going to be the case. On the text, we need to make sure that we're being accurate: that we don't overstate the case for some of these states, where the support for Argentina that is claimed is actually debatable. We shouldn't be writing based on the last statement that was made, but should work based on longer-term trends. Pfainuk talk 20:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree and removed the map on that basis. Justin talk 21:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What is a spat?? [6] --Jor70 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A falling out, or a brief argument. It's the sort of word you hear on the news but not so much from real people - at least in my experience. Pfainuk talk 23:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That came from Wiktionary, incidentally - sounds about right to me, though I'd note that it doesn't necessarily imply that there was no dispute before: only that the dispute has intensified suddenly and temporarily. Pfainuk talk 23:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Argentine Claims

Did I miss something? I've reverted the removal of that section. Justin talk 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you were right. Although I removed two points from the list (one of them was dubious and the other off-topic), I agree that the rest of the section should stay. Laurent (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't have removed them, we're reporting what Argentina claims. We don't comment on whether they have merit or otherwise. That we leave to the reader. Justin talk 00:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If those really are Argentina's claims I'm fine with it, but do you have any source? The one about the UN Convention on the Continental Shelf in particular has a "citation needed" tag since 2007. So per Wikipedia's conventions, the statement should be removed if it's not sourced.
Then regarding this point - "Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier". Although that may be true, it is not a claim but an accusation, which is why it's off-topic. Maybe the statement could be moved somewhere else in the article? Laurent (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you'll find it is sourced, there is a link to the Argentine Government website. Yes Argentina does claim on the basis of a convention it never ratified. Justin talk 01:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks but I couldn't find the source. For your information, any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged may be removed, and since this statement has been unsourced for two years, it should either be sourced or removed. Also you haven't replied to my second point either - how is the statement above a claim? Laurent (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the foregoing is to be corrected. "Supporters of the Argentine position make the following claims:". None of the followings are claims, there are facts or remarks. It should say "Argentina (and its supporters) claims based on the following:", and there the list of reasons that justifies the claim. Then "Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier" will stand like the others, it's an accusation but in context it gives a reason to un-legitimate (sorry my invented word) UK's claims. pmt7ar (t|c) 21:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
PS: the section "Argumentos 〇〇 respecto a sus derechos de soberanía" of the Spanish article have interesting information, I think it will sum to the article if someone translates it. pmt7ar (t|c) 21:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thing is, they aren't really facts. Most of them (on both sides) are debatable in terms of accuracy, some are plain false, and all are POV - but it's balanced because we give the same treatment to both sides. "Arguments" might be a better word in general.
I've added a cite for the 1958 bit, incidentally. Pfainuk talk 22:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The other thing that I should mention is that the Spanish Wikipedia's Falklands coverage has a very bad reputation over here - mostly because they seem to have rather abandoned the notion of WP:NPOV in favour of a pro-Argentine position on most of the major points. I am generally reluctant to use their articles without taking a lot of care. Pfainuk talk 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Just in case, if it's not in your POV id doesn't mean others aren't NPOV. I see the spanish article quite neutral, and even all they are debatable, its a fact both sides are using those to support their claim (I agree renaming it "Arguments"). So I see a great value to adding them, even if there is no "true word" here. "Why Argentina claims it?" is a good question so having the arguments could give an idea of what the dispute is. Alas I see the english version quite pro-UK because some arguments aren't mentioned or are said as false, it tells any reader "there is a minor claim by Argentina. no big deal. period.", just like UK actions of no-action and ignoring any chance of dialog, and that's not how it is. UK says that "there is no doubt about the sovereignty of the islands" (which discredit the Argentine claim), but that's exactly the same Argentina says, thus the dispute. Also naming the Falkland War "recovery" on the Argentine side is soon reverted, but allow "re-establishment" or "re-assert" if its the UK. Back into topic, both side arguments are valuable information, it doesn't mather the veracity of each, the source should be "if it really say that", not "if what it says really happened". pmt7ar (t|c) 00:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't actually think anyone actually likes the word "re-establishment" for the events of January 1833. It's just the best we've come up with that avoids the misleading terms "invasion" (there was no military force used), "occupation" (the British didn't leave anyone on the islands), "surrender" (Pinedo left without surrendering) and "return" (but there was a settlement there before the British arrived) - all of which are POV one way or the other. If you've got a better way of putting it, then I'm sure we'd like to hear it, but we need to be careful about using a term that accurately reflects what actually happened. In 1982, I note we do not use the Argentine POV word "recovery" - but equally we don't use the British POV word "liberation" for the response - they're both POV.
The article has changed significantly since I last read it (at that time it presented the Argentine arguments as fact and mentioned the British side only to rebut it), and I haven't studied the more recent version in detail. But things like their claim that Argentina had effective control from 1820 to 1833 stand out immediately. Buenos Aires didn't even know that Jewett had claimed control until 1821 because Jewett didn't mention it in his official report (or indeed - so far as we can tell - to anyone else after he left the islands). The news reached Buenos Aires by way newspapers in Salem, Massachusetts, London, Gibraltar and Cadíz.
In the same table, they announce that British de facto control was only in Port Egmont - true, but to be neutral they'd have to also say that Spanish and French de facto control was only in the variously renamed Port Louis/Puerto Soledad/Puerto Luis - and that Argentine and British de facto control in the period prior to about 1840 didn't reach much further than that. It's not neutral to mention the one but not the other. In these two instances, just in that table, takes a strongly pro-Argentine line. I notice further their complete failure to give proper recognition to the English-language name for the islands. It may be a relatively small point, but I think it a not unreasonable gesture of neutrality to include the names used by both disputants pretty early on in an article about their dispute.
We need, obviously, to distinguish between the historical facts of the case from the arguments put forward - mostly because many of the arguments put forward on both sides are debatable at best and rubbish at worst. We base that section at the moment primarily on the Falkland Islands country profile on the UK Foreign Office website and the webpage produced by the Argentine government to state its case. If there are more significant arguments on both sides then we can of course add them. But we do rather need to demonstrate that they are actually used. Pfainuk talk 18:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


Anyone else feel there is a compelling need to substitute English for British? Justin talk 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two problems I can see:
  • "British" is sourced, "English" is not. If we're not using "British" we need to be sure that "English" and not "Scottish" is correct: we need a cite that says that Strong was a member of the English Royal Navy as opposed to the Scottish Navy. Shouldn't be that difficult to find (one would think), but it is needed.
  • In terms of narrative, switching to English means that everyone changes nationality mid-paragraph without explanation. This has a strong potential for confusion, far outweighing the benefit of strict accuracy.
For these reasons, I cannot accept a simple change from "British" to "English". If we can come up with a way of doing this better, without going into too much irrelevant detail, then I have no objection to a change. But I don't see a pressing need: while the current sentence is not strictly accurate, I don't feel that it's an unreasonable simplification given the wording we have. Pfainuk talk 21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:DFTT. --Narson ~ Talk 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@Narson. don't be a WP:DICK


There are some flaws in what your saying. Firstly regardless of whether he was a Scotsman in the English navy or an Englishman in the Scottish navy (unlikely) that wouldn't make him "British". It would be an Anglo-Scottish expedition if it were a joint national operation or simply an English expedition commanded by a Scot. British is a nationality, which no one in 1690 would have. Secondly the narrative. In most article's English is used until 1707 with no problem. I'd say a vast majority of people know that the modern ethnic English are British national's also baring in mind most people tend to confuse them together at the best of times (something i'm trying to correct),so i can't see any problem there. I've not had any problems anywhere else on wikipedia other than here and the Gib articles (with the same user's) and i can't see why there's such a mountain out of a molehill. The reference's point to "British" is a simple mistake, probably stemming from confusion over the union of the crowns and the Acts of Union and the confusing of British and English as the same thing, which proves my point above. The Darien Scheme and other's about 17th century Scotland never have this problem. I know we may not have got of to the best start (which i regret and apologise for my part) and hopefully you'll see what i'm saying is perfectly reasonable with no hinderence to the artcle.Cheers.--English Bobby (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Port Stanley Airport

Argentina didn't build the strip at Port Stanley. The permanent strip was built by and paid for by the British. Argentine engineers constructed a temporary strip in 1972, it blew away in a storm in the early '70s. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 18:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in the conversion factor

There is an error in this sentence:

Despite the new restrictions, Desire Petroleum began drilling for oil on 22 February, approximately 55 nautical miles (100 km; 60 mi) north of the Islands.[2]

The source gives 100 km as the distance. This is almost exactly 54 nautical miles and about 62 land miles. Regardless of the order in which the units are presented, the actual figures should be accurate. Michael Glass (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

The sentence now reads:

Despite the new restrictions, Desire Petroleum began drilling for oil on 22 February, about 54 nautical miles (100 km, 62 mi) north of the Islands.[3]

Please note that:

  • The sentence gives the accurate conversion from km to nautical miles (54, not 55).
  • The order of the units is identical.

Please check the text as displayed. Michael Glass (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
My reasoning for putting it like that originally was that the distance is approximate. It could be 54 nmi (100 km; 62 mi) - but it could also be 55 nmi (102 km; 63 mi) or 52 nmi (96 km; 60 mi). Better, IMO, not to be overprecise. Pfainuk talk 22:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sovereignty Discussions

The point that the British Government discussed the possibility of a sovereignty transfer was already in the article. Also, Thatcher's Government discussed leaseback, transfer to Argentina and then leasing the islands back; ie a fudge. The only Government to discuss an outright transfer was Wilson's in the '60s. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The points not mentioned in the article but discussed in the source were that the talks between Thatcher's government and the Argentine Government were held in secret and that the Thatcher Government was involved. I believe that these facts are important enough to be included explicitly in the article. The heading of the article in the Guardian, "UK held secret talks to cede sovereignty Minister met junta envoy in Switzerland, official war history reveals" [7] is of great importance. Michael Glass (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Two things Michael. The information about Freedman is out of date and Ridley's unofficial trip to negotiate lease back is well known about. The Guardian article is overblowing the significance of the event. No it really isn't of great importance. There is still no need to cover the same point twice. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there is no need to cover the point more than once in the article. However, when there is evidence that the Thatcher Government had been undertaking secret negotiations with the Argentines to cede sovereignty, I think that this is a very important point, especially in the light of subsequent events. I would be interested to see what other editors think of this point. Michael Glass (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Michael, is it a secret when everyone knows about it? This came out in Parliament back in 1980. It was not about ceding sovereignty, it was to discuss the proposal called leaseback, whereby Britain would transfer sovereignty to Argentina, then immediately lease the territory back for 100 years. It foundered on two points, one the islanders wouldn't accept it, and two the Argentines wanted a much shorter period 10 years. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 13:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Spanish view

Spain has removed official support for the Argentine position. Anyone who knows what they are doing may be able to add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we ought to wait until the Spanish government confirms this. The word of a Falklands MLA is all very well, but I think hearing it from the horse's mouth would be better. Pfainuk talk 21:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, this article's claim that Spain supports Argentina is uncited. (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I've added a reference to the UNSC resolution that Spain and Panama proposed during the Falklands War (calling for an immediate ceasefire, vetoed by the US and UK) and put a fact tag side Spain's "tacit support". I've done a brief search and not found anything obvious, though someone with better sources may be able to do so. Pfainuk talk 16:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Did the British or the English land in the Falklands

An edit war is brewing up as to whether it was teh British or the English who landed in the Falklands in the 1690's. I think that one of the editors is drawing attention to the fact that England and Scotland were separate countries until 1707. Would the editors concerned please clarify whether or not this is what they were referering to? Martinvl (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This article deals with British sovereignty of the Falklands, the section where Captain Strong is mentioned is titled “British claim”, and anyway Britain is a successor state of England. Therefore, it would be somewhat distracting for the readers if we start that section (assuming Strong was English that is) by “The English first landed etc.” (more so that no subsequent English landings are mentioned either).
Naturally, in a John Strong article (which we presently don’t have) it would be quite appropriate to stress his ethnicity – be it English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, whatever.
By the way, it's the same with Argentina; the section “Argentine claim” starts with “Argentina declared its independence etc.” even though the name of the country at that time was different. Apcbg (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Expedition sponsored by the Royal Navy, under the combined English and Scottish crowns, the two crowns were unified in 1606, full union of the two countries was achieved in 1707. Most historians and reliable sources refer to the British landing in 1690. English Bobby may have strongly held opinions but they don't trump policies. And he has declined to discuss it, instead preferring to leave various insulting messages on my talk page. Whilst I may have retired from editing I will still drop by and say hi to cut off his next drive-by insult. Off to scramble my password again. Justin talk 15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My opinions? Your the only guy with whom i've ever had a problem. Despite apparently "retiring" you've come strait back with your kettle and pot routine again.

As for the matter at hand I can't see any problem referring to the English at the start. Its done in every other article on wikipedia. Ethnicity doesn't equal citizenship, and considering Scotland's navy was made up of roughly three ships i can't see how they contributed.--English Bobby (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC) No problem here. › Home

These all say he was an Englishman.--English Bobby (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue is clearly beyond the topic of the sovereignty dispute, and may apply to many articles of very diverse topics (even popular culture ones). It should be discussed at some wider place with more users involved (perhaps the Village Pump), and included at some guideline or style page. That is, if it hasn't been done so already. MBelgrano (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So? Its WP:OR and WP:SYN to then transform that into saying the English rather than the British landed in 1690, for the reasons stated by Apcbg above. Feel free to adopt your customary bad faith presumption as to my motives. Water off a ducks back. Lets not say adieu, simply au revoir. I'm sure you'll be back.
As MBelgrano this isn't an issue that is relevant to this article, if you feel so strongly about "correcting" wikipedia, this isn't the place to do it. Get a policy formulated, far more productive than a slow revert war because you won't listen to other's arguments. Justin talk 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to provide evidence that Capt John strong was English so i did. You please feel free to adopt you kettle and pot routine (not that you ever need reminding) and perhaps rename your self Justin the Kettle for next time.

Please avoid talking to other users that way, no matter how much you disagree about this or that topic. Try to stay civil all the time, as if you were adressing someone at a library MBelgrano (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We are dealing with an English captin under an English and Scottish (and the rest) monarch, on an expedition sponsored by the Royal Navy which served that same English and Scottish monarch and also sponsored by a Scottish Peer who was a member of court (which was held in England). Seperating them is rather difficult in ths period and I don't believe we should. If we were discussing Strong himself, that is one thing, but the nature of the mission? A complex discerning we don't need to make. Let the EDL and the English Democrats kvetch. --Narson ~ Talk 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well thats your unionist opinion. It still doesn't change the fact that there was no union in 1690 and no British nationality. You keep trying to use the "it would be too confusing" yet its no problem in the other articles (including the Falkands one). I beginning to think this has as much to do with your political beliefs as it does with my apparent beliefs since you and justin are the only people i've met so opposed to the word "English".--English Bobby (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. It's not a simple case of "English" or "Scottish" here, and the waters are a bit murky. I see no need to go into detail and I see serious issues with everyone suddenly changing nationality from one sentence the next. Pfainuk talk 17:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
How are the waters murky. Its pretty simple, England and Scotland were separate states with seperate Armed forces and governments, regardless of one court. I mean are you going to include the Dutch because of King William III. Neither of you seem to concerned them. I've proved John Strongs ethnicity which you said was the problem and now you've tried to create a new one. The Darien Scheme doesn't have this problem because its only a simple confusion between English and British frequently made these day's, stemming from the restoration rather than the Union of the Crowns.--English Bobby (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anyone ever saying Strong's nationality was the issue, but the nature of the expedition. You constructed the strawman there, do not try to sign it over to one of us. --Narson ~ Talk 18:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually its above if you cared to read the comments instead of trying to bait me.

Here are some more... -

Not that any of this matters any more since this doesn't seem to have much to do with me finding references but rather a conflict of interest between two opposing sides--English Bobby (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have changed the article Falkland Islands, which seemed to highlight Strong's nationality over his occupation as a Captain in the Royal Navy. The latter point is far more significant in explaining what he was doing there. Pfainuk talk 17:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
On further inspection, I don't think we have any evidence that he was in the RN. Sources are happy to say that Davis was, but studiously avoid saying that Strong was. Then this refers to the ship's owners. So, possibly a bad assumption on my part. Pfainuk talk 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

But many still say he was an Englishman which is the issue here.--English Bobby (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't the issue. It's the nature of the expedition, not the nationality of its captain, that is significant. No source yet provided demonstrates that it was a purely English expedition as your edit suggests: given that the expedition was part-funded by a Scottish nobleman, this is unsurprising. As I noted before, I still have issues with having everyone switch nationality mid-paragraph. Pfainuk talk 19:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but as i've said before, even if it was English AND Scottish before 1707 that wouldn't mean their British. It would be Anglo-Scottish. You, Narson and Justin seem to trying to push British when it has no relevance then. The fact that the king was Dutch is another factor. Shall we assume Dutch participation. None of you seem to be bothered with the Dutch despite the fact their navy and general resources were considerably greater than Scotland's. If there was any foreign assistance it would have been more likely Dutch than Scottish.--English Bobby (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Also i still can't see any problem with the nationality changing mid paragraph. Your making a mountain out of a mole hill. There's never any problem elsewhere.--English Bobby (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Translation

Why is the Spanish translation of this so different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the Spanish language version is dominated by Argentine nationalists with no respect for WP:NPOV. 06:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)