Talk:History of the Falkland Islands/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

January 2004

Could you please let me know where can I find supporting documentation to the claim that Spain yielded the islands to Britain in 1771 ? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:29, 4 January 2004 (UTC)

June 2004

Is this article NPOV? Looks terribly biased to me. At least, it should be merged with Falkland Islands' historical notice. It should also give notice of the United Nations resolutions on the issue. The claims to sovereignty should not be treated as facts, just as claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:03, 2 June 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's as if there are two separate Falklands articles more or less talking about the same thing. This needs revision! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reverend Distopia (talkcontribs) 23:47, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Although I didn't put it on Wikipedia, the article does state that it is based on the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, with other input, although, judging by the comparable paragraph in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, some of the dates and events were mixed up. The EB source explains the aricle's POV--even though at that time the EB was now owned by an American corporation, it still tried to foster a British view and spelling. I agree that it is virtually one sided, and needs some Argentinian input. I also don't understand why the original EB article was split into many sections. Now that the other articles have been updated, they probably shouldn't be merged, but this history should be, otherwise I don't see how all points of view can be accommodated in a synopsis. I have found some Spanish sites which offer the Argentinian view, but I don't read Spanish (relying on machine translation like Google), so I would prefer that a bilingual person merge them, keeping in mind that this is the English version of Wikipedia, and being mindful of others' copyrights.
For reference, here is the 1911 EB printed version:
The Falkiand Islands were first seen by Davis in the year 1592, and Sir Richard Hawkins sailed along their north shore in 1594. The claims of Amerigo Vespucci to a previous discovery are doubtful. In 1598 Sebald de Wert, a Dutchman, visited them, and called them the Sebald Islands, a name which they bear on some Dutch maps. Captain Strong sailed through between the two principal islands in 1690, landed upon one of them, and called the passage Falkland Sound, and from this the group afterwards took its English name. In 1764 the French explorer De Bougainville took possession of the islands on behalf of his country, and established a colony at Port Louis on Berkeley Sound. But in 1767 France ceded the islands to Spain, De Bougainville being employed as intermediary. Meanwhile in 1765 Commodore Byron had taken possession on the part of England on the ground of prior discovery, and had formed a settlement at Port Egmont on the small island of Saunders. The Spanish and English settlers remained in ignorance, real or assumed, of each other's presence until 1769-1770, when Byron's action was nearly the cause of a war between England and Spain, both countries having armed fleets to contest the barren sovereignty. In 1771, however, Spain yielded the islands to Great Britain by convention. As they had not been actually colonized by England, the republic of Buenos Aires claimed the group in 1820, and subsequently entered into a dispute with the United States of America concerning the rights to the products of these islands. On the representations of Great Britain the Buenos Aireans withdrew, and the British flag was once more hoisted at Port Louis in 1833, and since that time the Falkland Islands have been a regular British colony.
A flawed online version is at
Joe Kress 19:04, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
Men, this is everything but serious, starting with the "Republic of Buenos Aires", which never existed. When the islands were invaded by the UK in 1833, Buenos Aires was then leading _province_ of the Argentine Confederation (Confederación argentina), under Juan Manuel de Rosas.
Argentina, and not Buenos Aires, had sent people to the islands, who were living there, and they were invaded and expelled by the English, so your definition doesn't sounds like NPOV.

June 2005

As a Brit living in Argentina, this issue is interesting to me - should the site have a section somewhere, either on this page or the main Falklands site discussing the two competing claims for soverignty - Neither this one or the Spanish language one seems to have a section that lays these out? Just a question - PYsProblem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pysproblem (talkcontribs) 22:50, 30 June 2005 (UTC)

--on second thoughts, I think it would be more appropriate on the main page... PysProblem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pysproblem (talkcontribs) 15:47, 1 July 2005 (UTC)


In 1816 the Argentine independence was claimed not gained; there was an independence war ahead, as a result of which the national territory was to be formed.

The Argentine settlement was established in 1826. Apcbg 21:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Where is that plaque now? Somebody has a photo? -- 15:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I doubt it exists now. I can't find any record of it. Astrotrain 21:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
In 1780 the plaque was removed and sent to Buenos Aires. During the British invasions of the Río de la Plata (1806-7) it was recovered but never reached the UK. See [1], footnote #63 (in Spanish). Ejrrjs | What? 23:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there says that when the Spaniards left in 1811, they left a plaque too. Any information about the whereabouts of that one? -- 01:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

(v. late reply) Probably both destroyed. Neither side would wish to countenance the other. --MacRusgail 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


I've removed this text:

An interesting episode for those investigating the sovereignty claims is the true story of Antonio Rivero ("El Gaucho Rivero"): Rivero, who in August 1833 was involved in an incident where a number of important figures on the islands were murdered (all of whom were Argentine citizens and members of Vernet's settlement), was taken to London to be judged, however when the case came before the High Court it was dismissed because the court felt that the British Crown had no authority over the islands at this time, and Rivero was returned to Argentina.

This is actually disputed. Argentina claims that the Crown did not prosecute for lack of jurisdiction and elevates Rivero to a folk hero leading a rebellion against the British. British version was they did not prosecute for lack of witnesses and evidence. See comments at, together with additional information on the Gaucho murders. Justin A Kuntz 11:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The explanation I consider most plausible is as follows (unfortunately I cannot recall the relevant source). In the British colonial system, colonies used to be distinct countries not part of the United Kingdom; they had their own, distinct governments, finances, and judicial systems. English courts had no jurisdiction over India or Australia for instance, never mind that it was all British sovereignty. A person who had committed his crime in India or Australia, if arrested in England would be sent for trial in the respective colony (and vice versa). Likewise, no English court had jurisdiction over the Falklands, never had, and doesn’t have now. Rivero was not tried and sentenced because the British local government and local judiciary had not yet been installed in 1834; these were created later, by the 1841 British Letters Patent. Apcbg 07:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
So the original text was distorting the history to push a POV? If it is relevant I'd say put it back but make it neutral or offer an explanation. Justin A Kuntz 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Apcbg - you're right in a way, but if things go horribly wrong (legally) in the Falklands, it returns to England. The British have a way of overruling these things - English law has overridden Scots law on some occasions, which is technically illegal, but has still happened. --MacRusgail 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Please elaborate and provide sources. Normally any judiciary has several levels, and the right to appeal to a higher court is a natural part of the legal process. In the British case, there are such higher courts situated in London I suppose but that does not make them 'English' and their ability to confirm or revert decisions by lower courts is quite legal. Apcbg 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think they certainly are "English". The House of Lords certainly is. It's not Scottish or Welsh in any historical sense (the Scottish parliament was unicameral). As I understand it, Falkland matters can be sent to England. Anyhow, due to the small population, the police force is mostly recruited from London, and so are several unelected figures such as the governor, who plays a part in the process. --MacRusgail 10:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Rivero should get at least a mention. One of the Argentine names for Stanley was/is Puerto Rivero, which is worthy of mention - I'm sure the people who landed on the racecourse there in '67 also referred to him. The Rivero incident is one thing I've been hoping to expand. --MacRusgail 18:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Gaucho Murders" are a notable element of the history in themselves so I would be happy so see it in there. There is a witness statement on this site:

More details here:

The only reason for removing the text in the first place was the POV push. To avoid in future I think there needs to be a NPOV explanation of why Rivero was never tried. BTW the reason Puerto Rivero was pushed as a name by the "condors" is that he was elevated to a folk hero, gallantly leading a rebellion against British occupation. Rather a weird transformation since his actions effectively ended Vernet's operation and Argentine interests in the Islands. Justin A Kuntz 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested edit:

Initial British plans for the Islands were based upon the continuation of Vernet's settlement at Port Louis. An Argentine immigrant of Irish origin, William Dixon, was appointed as the British representative and provided with a flagpole and flag to be flow whenever ships were in harbour.[1] In March 1833, Vernet's Deputy, Matthew Brisbane returned and presented his papers to Captain Fitzroy of HMS Beagle who happened to be in harbour at the time. Fitzroy encouraged Brisbane to continue with Vernet's enterprise with the proviso that whilst private enterprise was encouraged, Argentine assertions of sovereignty would not be welcome.[2]

Brisbane re-asserted his authority over Vernet's settlement and recommenced the practise of paying employees in promissory notes. Due to Vernet's reduced status, the promissory notes were devalued, which meant that the employees received fewer goods at Vernet's stores for their wages. After months of freedom following the Lexington raid this accentuated dissatisfaction with the leadership of the settlement. In August of 1833, under the leadership of Antonio Rivero, a gang of Creole and Indian gauchos ran amok in the settlement. Armed with muskets obtained from American sealers, the gang killed five members of Vernet's settlement including both Dickson and Brisbane. Shortly afterward the survivors fled Port Louis, seeking refuge on Turf Island in Berkley Sound until rescued by the British sealer 'Hopeful' in October 1833.[3]

Lt Henry Smith was installed as the first British resident in January 1834. One of his first actions was to pursue and arrest Rivero's gang for the "Gaucho Murders" the previous August. The gang was sent for trial in London but due to a quirk of the British Legal system could not be tried as the Crown Court did not have jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands. In the British colonial system, colonies had their own, distinct governments, finances, and judicial systems.[4][5] Rivero was not tried and sentenced because the British local government and local judiciary had not yet been installed in 1834; these were created later, by the 1841 British Letters Patent. [6] Subsequently, Rivero has acquired the status of a folk hero in Argentina, where he is portrayed as leading a rebellion against British rule.[7] Ironically it was the actions of Rivero that were responsible for the ultimate demise of Vernet's enterprise on the Falklands.

Smith then set about restoring the settlement at Port Louis, repairing the damage done by the Lexington raid and renaming it 'Anson's Harbour'. Lt Lowcay succeeded Smith in April 1838, followed by Lt Robinson in September 1839 and Lt Tyssen in December 1839.[8]

Vernet attempted to return to the Islands but was refused permission to return. The British Crown reneged on promises and refused to recognise rights granted by Captain Onslow at the time of the reoccupation. Eventually, after traveling to London Vernet received paltry compensation for horses shipped to Port Louis many years before.[9]

Text revised Justin talk 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement, revision gratefully received. Justin talk 20:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Minor spelling point BerkEley Sound. Also, I might suggest that "Gaucho murders" might be an inflammatory title (although that's pretty much what they were) - something like the "Rivero Incident". I think it should get its own article. Otherwise, very good, and well referenced. --MacRusgail 10:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of material

I disagree strongly with the removal of certain material. I have tried to add things which are not directly related to Anglo-Argentine squabbling (which Falkland history is frequently reduced to), but many of these have been removed.

It is perfectly justifiable to include material from other articles in this one. Particularly direct quotes, which it has taken time to source and type. --MacRusgail 19:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheeps entrails shorting out telephone lines don't strike me as an essential part of the History of the Falkland Islands, what was removed was largely trivia and made no positive contribution to the article. Most of what is left is not related to Anglo-Argentine squabbling thank you. Has the article suffered? No. Is it improved? Yes. At the end of the day that is the purpose of this project. Justin talk 20:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually they do, when they refer to the islands' first telephone line, an important part of their history. Just because it doesn't relate to Argentina doesn't mean it has to be removed. --MacRusgail 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Information on the first telephone line may vaguely be of encyclopedic interest, sheeps entrail anecdotes no. Justin talk 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's all of encyclopedic interest. Where is the problem? Just because it is quirky, doesn't make it unencyclopedic. Otherwise this article is about the "two bald men fighting over a comb" as Borges put it. --MacRusgail 16:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Its of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Justin talk 16:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Presumably you think Marconi's transmission over the Atlantic is of no value either. I will continue to add stuff which doesn't refer to bald men and combs. I may even put something in about the Stanley railway, but no doubt you don't think that's "encyclopedic" either. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll continue to remove material that has no encyclopedic value, please don't threaten to edit war over such trivia. Justin talk 20:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That is your personal opinion, however you do not "own" this article, and you have failed to produce any justification as to how it is "unencyclopedic". You don't like it, fair enough, but don't confuse your dislike for something with a balanced opinion. The first phone line in the islands (outside Stanley) is of utmost importance - even if radios were being used until fairly recently. The history of communications is completely encyclopedic. I'd like to see you go to the articles at Category:Telecommunications_history and tell them it's all somehow "unencyclopedic". I'll say it again - you do not "own" this article. I have the right to my opinion, and it's only you seem to have a problem with that, for some bizarre reason. --MacRusgail (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
No I don't own this article, I don't claim to own this article. But your continued insistence on inserting trivia is exhibiting signs of attempting to own this article. And your comments seem little more than a thinly veiled personal attack to me. I have explained why I removed content, because it was trivia, instead of responding to such comments you have repeatedly tried to re-introduce the same material verbatim without discussion. Is your actions intended to improve the article, when others have indicated that it is not, or merely because in your personal opinion Wikipedia is improved by reference to a past telecommuncications breakdown caused by sheep entrails shorting out a line. Please review your own conduct before criticising the actions of others. Justin talk 11:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The first telephone line reads as being pretty notable to me. Justin, you appear to be reverting simply because of the quote about sheep entrails, which I agree is trivia. However, you both appear to be coming closing to own. Justin's last reversion also wiped out "with British nomenclature", and this wouldn't be covered by the explanation of why it was reverted. I suggest you both review your conduct and come to some reasonable agreement. Stephenb (Talk) 13:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Stephenb, your intervention is most welcome an independent 3rd party input does help to clarify things. Indeed my main objection is to the quote about sheep entrails as I considred it trivia but in my defence I had indicated that already. I had also indicated that the first telephone line may be of interest and I would have no objection to a suitably sourced edit. I have re-introduced the material I had inadvertently removed. Justin talk 13:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I take much the same opinion as Stephenb. The first telephone line is of interest. The quote about sheep or geese flying into line is not really. (Hell, Geese/Swan flying into the line is a standard excuse given across England by the power companies, I wouldn't expect to read it in an article about East Midlands Electricity or such). I do think you both need to WP:AGF. Having seen Justin work, while he is over zealous at times, he is generally willing to accept criticisms or accomodate compromises so, yes, work on a compromise rather than an edit war. Far more productive. Then we can all get back to writing about how important the UK's only source of penguin (a valuable natural resource) is. Narson (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
With respect, what purpose does inserting random figures that are not remotely linked to the text serve? Justin talk 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Random figures? It was an historical picture of people in the 1930s!!! In a country as young as this one, that's a long time ago. --MacRusgail 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
They were completely random, what reference was made to the subject in the article? Justin talk 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The picture shows the typical dress of working Falklanders in the mid 20th century, which relates to the islands' agricultural and economic history. There is no way that such an impression can be conveyed succinctly in words. --MacRusgail 16:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You might have a point if there was any reference to the subject in the text but there wasn't. Justin talk 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Also what is the purpose of randomly inserting links to unrelated articles? This isn't improving things its reducing the quality of the article. Justin talk 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The geology refers to the pre-human history of the region. --MacRusgail 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Partially Added Telephony Material

I've added back the telephony edit but not the bit I objected too, I noted it had been introduced into another article and have done the same there. Justin talk 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to split things up a bit. We have sections under 'British Colonisation' that I think large sections of our 'Twentieth century' section should likely be moved to. Cannery etc should be moved into the 'Explotation of natural wealth' or whatever that section is, and a new section opened (If there isn't one already) for infrastructure (where telephony can go). It seems now that you have to dig through alot of (relativly) unimportant crap to acctually read through the Island's 'important' history in the 20th century section, about its import as a base for the Navy etc. Whats the view? Narson (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I was already thinking that it needed some re-arrangement. Personally I'd suggest its only the 20th century section that really needs some work, the previous sections have essentially related linear time. The addition of some level 2 headings and a little re-arrangement would distinctly improved the readability. Happy to make some suggestions if that helps. Justin talk 23:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
OK had a stab at it, not sure if it improved a great deal. Comments? Criticisms? Justin talk 00:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The new edits are fine, I think this stuff has to be included. I disagree with Narson that some of this is "relatively unimportant crap" - it provided people with jobs, a livelihood, and improved their lives, so hardly "unimportant". You try living without a telephone in the modern age - it can be done, but it's difficult. Even more difficult when you're forced to emigrate due to lack of choices in employment.

What would in fact be unimportant to the islanders, would be the fruitless rambling between London and Buenos Aires, which didn't involve them, and frequently involved only "sabre rattling". When some British minister shuttles to BAs and comes back with nothing, without consulting the islanders, then that's actually unimportant, although it may well generate fears. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Uti Possidetis

My understanding of the doctrine of Uti Possidetis is that it refers to sovereignty gained from the occupation of territory after a conflict. Spain left her colony in 1811, 5 years before Argentina's declaration of independence, its war of independence and Argentina never actually occupied the islands till much later. So arguably the doctrine would not apply but I realise this is WP:OR and don't propose to edit on that basis.

I nonetheless have concerns that whilst this claim is allowed to remain in the article it reflects Argentina's claim and fails WP:NPOV - Argentina's claim is adequately explained under the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. I would suggest that a more neutral intro would be to state that Argentina asserted a claim to the Falklands as the "Malvinas" had been administered from the Vice Royalty of the Rio de la Plata. Thoughts and input welcome. Justin talk 15:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of an edit summary - finger trouble. Justin talk 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Argentina doesn't claim the Falklands on the basis of Uti possidetis but on the basis of Uti possidetis juris a very different legal concept. This link gives info on how the concept evolved:

Since South American countries didn't ratify its implementation until the Congress of Lima 1848 (it's called Uti possidetis juris of 1810 because the South American countries that subscribed to it decided to use the borders of Spanish administrative divisions as they were in 1810 as the basis for their international borders -in Central America it's known as Uti possidetis juris of 1821) and since it didn't become a feature of international law till the second half of the 20th century its implementation regarding the Falklands conflicts with the principle of non-retroactivity of new laws. Dab14763 (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


Argentina claims taking possession in 1820 through the actions of David Jewett, however, there is no evidence he was tasked with that mission and other sources give alternate motivations for his actions. There were no Argentine possessions in the Falklands till 1828 when Vernet finally managed to establish a permanent presence. Justin talk 14:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was Argentina's intention to take possession, however that failed to materialize — not until the brief occupation of the Islands in 1982. Jewett did not even establish a presence, as for possession (effective control and national law enforcement) that did not happen even after 1928 as the Argentine settlers were a tiny minority vis-a-vis the resident English and American sealers who were not 'effectively possessed' by Buenos Aires, indeed they recognized no Argentine law and authority because their countries did not recognize Argentina's claim. Yes Argentina attempted to establish effective control by force in 1831, which attempt failed as it was opposed by superior force (first American then British). Claimed possession, sure. Actual possession, no, by virtue of all those 1828-1833 historical facts that Argentina itself invokes. Apcbg (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is it was Argentine (B. Aires) intention to claim all previous Spanish South American territory (including the Falklands, but at the time I think they were much more concerned with other territories such as, say, Paraguay), but lacked the ability to enforce said claims. This is circa 1810. In 1820, an American (Jewett) under the employment of the Argentine government "took" the Falklands under his own initiative, fluffed around for a while, and then left having achieved little if anything. In retrospect, this is the first claim of possession Argentina has to the Falklands, although it was not recognised as such at the time (and shouldn't be now). Vernet's venture was a private one, that did enjoy support from the government, but because of political realities he was forced to appeal to the British as much as the government in B. Aires, which could not enforce sovereignty. Essentially, I think the article should reflect that Jewett's actions were inicidental to Buenos Aires' claims over the Falklands (it can be said that Argentina was claiming them under uti posseditis if it is acknowledged they were Spanish territory when the colonial power withdrew from the Southern cone). Furthermore, Vernet commanded more official support from the Argentines, but was not in a position to enforce authority with his colony (I don't think it counts against Vernet that he was private, anymore than it should count against Bougaineville when he set up the first Falklands settlement, or the Virginia Company when they set up a presence in north America). In summary: Argentina had a legal claim under uti posseditis (juris), but the British (and Americans) had more stregnth to enforce their claims over the use of the Falklands. So it's about legality (if I was Argentina, I would be arguing from that stand point) as opposed to actual possession (where the Argentine claim is a little weak, but still factors). (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
Just out of interest and a couple of points, Argentina claims uti posseditis juris, a legal concept that didn't evolve till the conference of Lima in 1848. You were aware of that? Ergo, hence, the fact tag. Its also a legal concept that was evolved as a means of solving boundary disputes between South American states and has never been applied to a dispute with a European state. So you are in fact claiming that Argentina applied a legal concept in 1820, that didn't evolve until some 28 years later and applying a legal concept to a situation that has never been tested. Interesting. Justin talk 08:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
For further information, Spain withdrew its officials in 1807 and evacuated the colony in 1811. Spain's abandonment predates the Argentine independence in 1816. And uti posseditis has a slightly different legal context, it has the literal translation as you possess and essentially refers to territory seized as part of a war of independence. You might call it a land grab. Justin talk 08:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You'd have to find and show soures disputing the Argentine version of events, Justin. I mean, it seems to be pretty accepted, even by some British historians. Narson (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the course of the events, the events are reported accurately enough for my liking - and to a NPOV. However, the claim of uti posseditis juris is a later spin applied to these events and I'm not sure it belongs in the article History of the Falkland Islands. Equally I'd be happy to point out that the modern claim applies the doctrine but it didn't actually evolve until 28 years AFTER the events. I'm opening it up for debate. Justin talk 08:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we have sources stating when the claim of UPJ was first used, that might be useful? If you can't find a source stating when, we can at least find a source using the term and date it back to at least then? Narson (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sources are easy, there is a link to one above in the preceding section.... ;-). Justin talk 10:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thats what I get for wiki-ing while half asleep. Though I admit, I rarely read big PDF files for gits and shiggles ;) Narson (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
What actually takes place here (as in all similar discussions) is participants making claims regarding a more recent Argentine claim of an alleged earlier Argentine claim. Apcbg (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<--[arbitraty unindent] I think what Justin was trying to point out to me (forgive me if I have it wrong) was that uti posseditis juris came along later than the uti posseditis that existed as a legal term when the Spanish left the southern cone. What I would say is that it was the wrangling out of uti posseditis in South America in the context of a colonial power leaving and its former states becoming independent that led to the development of uti posseditis juris, which was later used extensively in Africa. So what existed with Argentina becoming an independent state was a sort of proto-uti posseditis juris, where precedent was being set for later decolonisation. This is, of course, OR but I'm only making this case for the discussion page as opposed to it being on the article, just to clarify my former claim (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)).

Pretty much so, Argentina actually claims on the basis of uti posseditis juris, which as I pointed didn't emerge till 1848 i.e. the article asserts a claim in 1820 on the basis of a legal concept that did not then exist. Uti possidetis fails because a) Spain abandoned the Falklands in 1807 or 1811 depending on a particular viewpoint (well it kept its claim on the basis of a plaque, as did the British) and b) Argentina did not possess the Falklands at the end of its War of Independence. It attempted to possess them but did not establish effective control. I have been meaning to include some detail to dispel the myth of the "60 year absence" by the British but I'm still working on that. So it would fail on a third basis, that being the Americans and British had used the islands unhindered and so third parties were also asserting rights to the islands. Anyway leaving that tangent behind uti possidetis is currently included in the article, Argentina didn't actually claim on this basis in 1820 (it didn't claim at all really) but Jewett made a declaration claiming them by right, no legal terms were mentioned. I personally think this should go to a dicussion on the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article and this article should merely state the events that happened; not the modern interpretation of them. At least I'm opening up that debate. Justin talk 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's see what's being analyzed here. A sovereignty dispute between two parties is judged according to the principles of law applicable to the dispute at the relevant moment, i.e. binding to both parties i.e. principles that were either universal or specifically endorsed by the parties concerned. In this case we have a principle (uti possidetis) that was yet to take some time to come into being, one party (Argentina) that was in the process of becoming a party (Argentina's independence was not a one time act but a process formally started in 1816 and eventually completed in 1859 with the peace treaty between Spain and Argentina), and another party (Britain) that could not have been bound by the principle in question even if it were to exist at that time (third parties cannot be bound by principles devised by others, same like Britain, Holland and France could not have been bounded by the Tordesillas Treaty devised by Spain, Portugal and the Pope; uti possidetis might have been used subsequently in Africa but between countries that so wished and not in disputes involving non-African states I suppose). So weak, that claim of a claim is hole upon hole upon hole. Apcbg (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
uti posseditis existed before uti posseditis juris and they have seperate meanings, from my understanding. I think it's useful to talk about the Buenous Aires government, as opposed to Argentina, because this is where the state was built from (and FYI, it was the governor of B. Aires who made the descision to kick the Brits out of the Falklands in 1770). UPJ was used in Africa to avoid cases of a bunch of newly independent states lobbing bits off each other or fracturing into a million shards. It was also used when the USSR was dissolved. I'm not sure about the logic of third parties like Britain not being expected to consent to legal principles they were not involved in. I mean, it's not like Britain is allowed to waltz in and claim Algeria because it wasn't a party to the independence talks between Paris and Algiers. But on another note, I didn't realise there was a soveriegnty page. With that in mind, I agree this page should reflect events and the modern legal arguements that concern those events shouldn't appear here. However, I will have to go looking for sources because I have found one in a peer reviewed journal that supports the conclusion that Argentina did claim UP in 1820, and none that refute that claim. Am looking forward to seeing information dispelling the myth of the sixty year abadonment (as long as it is more than a plaque :P). (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC))
uti posseditis and uti posseditis juris do have seperate meanings. uti posseditis is actually a Roman concept for territory gained by conquest. The correct denomination would actually be the United Provinces of the River Plate as Argentina was more or less known by on the international stage until around 1836. To some extent Argentina and the United Provinces were used interchangeably by various internal political faction but overall it was recognised as the United Provinces. The Republic of Buenos Aires was also used but I don't believe it is generally recognised as referring to Argentina, simply one of the provinces of the United Provinces. Any chance you could scan and email me a copy of some of those journal articles? Always interested to read more. I would be interested to learn of an Argentine claim from 1820 that mentions uti posseditis as a legal principle for their claim, the usual language I see is theirs by "natural right". Justin talk 09:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
To Pez Dispens3r: In 1770 Buenos Aires was Spain and that military action was the action of Spanish authorities and Spanish armed forces in support of the Spanish claim not the nonexistent Argentine claim of nonexistent Argentina; furthermore, claims and treaties are not inherited (Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties), and even if they were inherited there would have been no way for Argentina to inherit the Spanish claim in 1820 or 1828 or 1833; Spain was not dead then (still alive and well today), and the transfer of rights from Spain to Argentina happened by means of their 1859 treaty (well after 1833) and it concerned territories effectively possessed by Argentina which the Falklands were not. As for the applicability of "uti possidetis", it's a basic principle of International Law that agreements between particular countries cannot increase their rights vis-a-vis third parties that are not part of the agreement. Thus if the African states accepted the "uti possidetis iuris" as a new principle, that acceptance had limited application as nobody had empowered the African states to issue universal principles of International Law compulsory for everybody, hence that action of the African states could have no implications for third parties i.e. could not strengthen the position of any African country in its sovereignty dispute with a non-African state. That is, if France had a territorial dispute with say Italy over some African territory and upon granting independence to some African state transferred its supposed rights to the newly independent state (which Spain didn't do in the Falklands case, certainly not as of 1833), the latter would have a claim as strong (or weak) as the French claim had been before, and the relevant Italian claim could not be affected by any agreements between African countries (adopting "uti possidetis" or whatever). Britain didn't claim Algeria not because of the "uti possidetis" principle but because it had no basis for such a claim, having recognized French sovereignty before. Apcbg (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Duly noted (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Uti possidetis

I have been flipping through Rudolf Dolzer, The Territorial Status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas): Past and Present (New York: Oceana Publications, 1993) and have found some stuff relevant to the Argentine claim of uti possidetis that can be used to achieve NPOV in conjunction with the Christopher Bluth article I cited earlier. It states "Legal effects may emanate from the principle [uti possidetis] in relation to newly established territorial units or between a new territorial unit and a third state. In the first context, the principle stabilises the existing borders; in the second relationship, the principle operates so as to avoid new colonialisations in the territory in question by third states, by establishing the sovereign rights of the new unit within the borders previously recognised. However, the question concerning the acquisition of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) by Argentina did not fall into either of these two categories... in consequence, it has to be concluded that Argentina did not acquire the Islands in 1816 automatically after independence, without regard to the principle of effective occupation." (this is pages 60-61). He goes on to conclude that the Spanish territorial rights continued over the period of 1811-1820. Two things: he says on page 59 that "The British conduct between 1774 and 1811 shows that a British claim no longer existed after 1811." and he later says (page 62) that "In the year 1820, Spain attempted to take formal possession of the Islands. At this point, Argentina sent a frigate [Jewett's], with special instructions to acquire possession of the Islands."

So I'm at a slight impasse... I'm not sure Jewett was sent to Falklands for that purpose, although I agree with the other statements, but others may not. I guess I was just opening it up for discussion. Another problem is Bluth claims Argentina invoked uti p., but Dolzer only says that uti p. wouldn't work but doesn't say whether or not Argentina actually tried to use it at the time. I guess, with what I have now, I would have the article say that the Argentines claimed it, but it wouldn't work, so the Spanish retained the rights (all verifiable), but I might dig up another tome from the Law library and see what they have to say (although I think Dolzer is the most recent available anyway. I can't find any reviews of his book to see what points other academics picked at, unfortunately...) (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

A browse through google books revealed the arguement of one Lowell S. Gustafson with his The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands (New York : Oxford University Press, 1988). He cites J.C.J. Metford ( in Goebel when he says that Jewitt was "sent", which is debatable, but then goes on to say that Jewitt found fifty ships of various nationalities and told them he was claiming the islands in the name of the Republic of Argentina. Gustafson then argues that he was doing this under uti p. (but doesn't claim Jewitt actually named the legal principle), but anyhow Jewitt had made a public claim, and the Argentina government had the right to confirm or deny the claim at a later date (which they eventually confirmed). This is on page 22, should be easy to find via google books. He later admits (page 25) that in 1831 it was difficult to establish how uti p. should be applied. I think Dolzer makes Gustafson's claim of uti p. invalid, but Gustafson makes a nice case for Jewitt being an official representative of the Argentine government even if the government didn't know it at the time. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC))
Speaking about the legal status of the Falklands in 1814-1833, all possible actions and interpretation should be placed in the context of the existing international, Spanish-British legal regime of the Islands introduced by the Nootka Sound Convention which was extensively applied in practice by British citizens pursuing their substantial presence, industry and activities there. That legal regime preceded any Argentine pretensions and had specific provisions (cf. the Secret Article paragraph) authorizing Britain and Spain to react against possible incursion of third parties (such as Argentina for instance). Which Britain did. As I have discussed the Convention and the international legal regime it introduced in the Falklands in greater detail before, I'm not going into further analysis here. Apcbg (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Jewett was not sent to the islands, he ended up in the Falklands after a disastrous 8 month voyage, in which he'd attempted a privateer mission against Spanish shipping in the North Atlantic. He was singularly unsuccessful. He only managed to take one ship, Carlota, and that was Portuguese, which effectively made him a pirate. Jewett wasn't an agent of the Argentine state, he was an American mercenary employed by a Buenos Aires businessman to captain a privateer Heroina, that was owned by Patrick Lynch and his business associates - note not a single connection to the state. Not a particularly good commander, he was relieved of command on return after taking an American ship as a prize, which his letters of marque did not allow him to do; effectively he acted as a pirate again. Further, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone in the United Provinces were even aware that Jewett had made that declaration. It only became known in Argentina late in 1822 following a commentary that was published on the incident in an American newspaper (1821) after the return of an American captain and we only have a copy of the declaration thanks to it being published in Weddel's book in 1825. Witnesses to the event indicate that many didn't believe that Jewett was there for an act of possession (he'd blundered into the islands after nearly wrecking Heroina in a storm, having lost the Carlota in the same storm), Jewett had been there a month making repairs and he'd only made it into harbour with Weddel's assistance. Instead the witnesses indicated that having failed in his privateer voyage, Jewett intended to establish an exclusive salvage claim to the wreck of the Uranie (a French ship that had foundered in Berkeley Sound).
If Dozler has made a case that Jewett was an official representative of the Argentine state, then that is a creative interpretation indeed. Dozler should also well know that even if that were the case, an act of possesion has to be followed by establishing effective control over the territory and by no stretch of the imagination did the United Provinces ever achieve that. BTW you were asking me about the "60 year absence" that wasn't, well notice the comment about 50 ships already present. Justin talk 08:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Addendum, I placed a copy of the declaration from Weddel's book in the article some time ago. Justin talk 08:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep no I got that from the Pascoe/Pepper article you sent me the link to. That was why I was questioning the interpretation of how Jewitt was "sent," specifically that word "sent." Undoubtedly he was sent to do some things but I do take the point that in all probability he was not sent to make an official claim on the islands. I also get that the Argentines didn't find out he'd done it until later. But Gustafson leaves open the possibility that it doesn't matter, that when they did find out they could choose to just go along with it. And I think the fact that he was a pirate is besides the point. Anyhow, the real issue for discussion is I found a source which says uti posseditis is invalid, from Dozler, who is cited extensively by Pascoe and Pepper. So, we could use that, in the sentence where it says that up was claimed by Argentina. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC))
An act claiming possession is meaningless, Capt. John Strong did that in 1690 but it was followed by a formal settlement. Ironically the Argentines claim that means nothing because he was a privateer. I can't see how Dozler can argue that, I do know he is rolled out by Argentina regularly as supporting his claim but its going to be pretty inventive to argue that event means anything. Vernet's settlement is about the best argument they have but that is kind of holed below the waterline as he asked British permission for his settlement and later for British protection. Justin talk 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
A couple more links that deal with the state succesion/territorial inheritance/uti possidetis juris issues
Though it deals specifically with Quebec, the questions of international law it covers would be applicable to the Falklands eg 1) the paragraph that defines state succesion: "....It should be stressed that the law of state succession assumes that a change of sovereignty has occurred in accordance with international law" ie the law as it was in 1816; and sections 8 and 9. (Argentina's declaration of independence was a unilateral act)
Which argues that Argentina could not have inherited Spanish claim in 1816 because Spain hadn't yet given it up, and that the only state that had any right to complain about what the UK did in 1833 was Spain itself. (Ironically it's on a pro-Argentine website) Dab14763 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now there seems to be a lot of cross over between the history and sovereignty pages. Perhaps if I sandbox something tonight to differentiate the two, and dip into the respective arguements regarding uti p. on the sovereignty page. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Richard Hawkins.jpg

The image Image:Richard Hawkins.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Colonial Aspirations/Colonisation

I reverted that change as it seemed to me to favour a certain POV. I don't think anyone would argue with Argentine colonial aspirations but to describe it as colonisation seemed inaccurate to me. The settlement formed by Vernet wasn't a Government settlement but a private venture and was never self-sustaining. Regards, Justin talk 21:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That section also describes Jewett's claim in 1820, which hardly qualifies as colonisation since there was no settlement. Pfainuk talk 21:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

FitzRoy's narrative

FitzRoy, R.] 1839. Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty's Ships Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836, pp. 148–162, provides copies of correspondence on disputes over the islands 1771 – 1834. Seems to me a useful source. . dave souza, talk 09:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL indeed it is, we've used it a lot on Falklands articles. Thanks for the tip. Justin talk 15:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem, had a glance through but didn't see these pages linked. Good stuff. . dave souza, talk 19:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


This image has the current president of Argentina making a speech related with the Islands. It is much more ilustrative than a photo of the previous president asuming as president, which has no relation at all with the Islands save for "this is the face of the president talked about". Another alternative can be this image, Kirchner making a speech at the United nations (where the topic of the island's sovereignty was included in the speech). It's the former president instead of the current one, but it's also more related with this article than a generic image. MBelgrano (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The caption you chose is not relevant to the topic at hand, the topic of the article being the History of the Falkland Islands. It is perhaps of relevance to Argentine politics but not to the Islands' history. Nestor is actually more relevant, seeing as in taking a hard line he tore up what few agreements that had been achieved and ceased co-operation on areas of mutual interest. Cristina apart from using the issue for grand standing hasn't done anything, the resolution of the problem over the cemetery inauguration was the initiative of the FIG. So respectfully I would disagree with the proposed change. Justin talk 00:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Then what about the second one? MBelgrano (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Second one, with an appropriate caption would be fine. I would suggest either the current caption or "During the Presidency of Nestor Kirchner, Argentina unilaterally withdrew from agreements achieved since the 1982 War and ceased co-operation on areas of mutual interest. His wife Cristina Fernández is the incumbent." Justin talk 00:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
As an addendum, I note that Kirchner tearing up the agreements isn't mentioned. I would suggest we remedy that. Justin talk 00:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
To keep a neutral point of view, the article should cite as well that Kirchner made explicit statements rejecting the idea of an armed conflict, and keep the pursuit of the sovereignty by peaceful means. MBelgrano (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
No offence intended, but have you considered that you are suggesting that in the interests of NPOV we need to say that a democratic Argentina promised to obey international norms and not resort to armed aggression? I only ask because to say it like that implies that people would assume otherwise. You may like to rethink that, just a suggestion. However, if thats what you want I've no objection. Justin talk 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Missionary station

I am thinking of adding some material about the Keppel Island missionary station (see here) for Tierra del Fuegans. However, the dates seem a bit vague. I take it that it was occupied between 1856 and 1869. Any comments?--MacRusgail (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to consider it from two directions. 1. Its a link to the mainland, and it did operate for nearly 50 years. 2. It was an isolated settlement, almost a hermitage, that had no practical or lasting impact on the islands. Per WP:DUE the case for inclusion here is not compelling, I'd suggest the existing coverage is sufficient. At most it may merit a sentence or two. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The Keppel Station surely deserves an expanded article of its own. Apcbg (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
[2],[3] Couple of links for background info. I agree that a specific article would be better. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Admiral George Grey's quotation.

Several points:

  • The quotation needs to be footnoted.
  • "The weather, however, was not called" Is this a typo? The context suggests that the meaning most likely is "The weather...was not cold"
  • The "thermometer was 63 degrees" Fair enough to insert [Fahrenheit], but what about those who don't understand Fahrenheit? Giving the equivalent in Celsius would be handy for those who are not familiar with the Fahrenheit scale. How could it be done? Michael Glass (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
A footnote? That way we could remove Faghrenheit as well. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
A few points from WP:QUOTE -
  • Firstly, the quote should not be in italics - we should use the Wiki construction {{quotation|text}} - WP:MOS states that italics are used for emphasis or for foreign language text, not to identify quoted text. This applies to both quotations in the article.
  • Secondly, additions to the text should be in square brackets and the additional text should be such that if the square brackets were removed the resultant text would make sense. Putting aside for the moment the discussion of whether we would use celsius or fahrenheit, we would write "... 63 degrees Fahrenheit ...", not "... 63 degrees ie Fahrenheit ...", so the correct way to add the word "Fahrenheit" would be "... 63 degrees [Fahrenheit] ..." which shows that we have added the word "Fahrenheit" to the original text, but have not changed its meaning.
  • Having established how the square brackets should be be used, we now need to consider how to follow WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. In this case the quoted text should take precedence but we need to include the celsius temperature as well, so we add the text "(17°C)" after the word "Fahrenheit" by writing "... 63 degrees [Fahrenheit (17°C)] ...". Thus, if we remove the square brackets we have text that flows but have preserved the sense of what was written. The square brackets merely show the deviations from the original text.
I trust that this shows the logic behind what I wrote. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does, thanks for explaining it. I have clearly misunderstood the policy, I will self-revert. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Martinvl (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty stupid to remove "Fahrenheit". -MacRusgail (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Eurpoean Discovery

Removed the tags to start a talk page discussion.

I hadn't noticed the page hadn't been updated to reflect recent evidence. See [4] previous theories of the Warrah being transported to the islands by the indigenous people of South America have proven to be unfounded. The section needs re-writing.

Also the lack of trees is well known, does it need a cite?

Regards, Justin talk 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be useful. It's an important claim, and readers without strong knowledge on the topic may want to confirm it. MBelgrano (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I agree, its a well known fact. But I'll see if I can find one, I presume you'll do the same?
I'll propose a re-write on the first topic. Justin talk 00:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I read this article. In actual fact, it raises more questions than it answers. Firstly, it says that the warrah's ancestors split from those of living mainland foxes/wolves around about 70,000 years ago. But it also admits that there's never been a land bridge to the islands, and that no other land mammals, not even small rodents managed to reach there. As I understand it, the Falklands are geologically related to southern Africa, rather than continental South America.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thats correct, they originate from a different part of Pangea than the rest of South America. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is another interesting Warrah discussion: The Falklands fox: foolish dog of the south. I would just remind that while the last glaciation ended 12500 years ago, it started 110000 years ago, and there were other glaciations before that during the current Ice Age which started 2.58 million years ago. Apcbg (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This still doesn't resolve the main question i.e. how the hell did it get there? Why is it the only indigenous land mammal? Surely we should expect smaller mammals which could cling to drift wood etc, or which would have come across on any land bridge.-MacRusgail (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, they shared a common ancestor on Pangea but the Falkland Islands and the South American mainland broke away from separate parts. The two species then evolved separately. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
You're still not getting me. Pangaea ceased to exist before canids even evolved. It's irrelevant here. Seriously, read the article, we're talking the Age of Dinosaurs here, not mammals.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia (a notoriously unreliable source, lol):


"supercontinent that existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras about 250 million years ago"


"Carnivorans evolved from miacoids about 55 million years ago during the late Paleocene.[4] Then, about 50 million years ago, the carnivorans split into two main divisions: caniforms (dog-like) and feliforms (cat-like). By 40 million years ago the first clearly identifiable member of the dog family Canidae had arisen. It was called Prohesperocyon wilsoni and was found in what is now southwestern Texas."

In other words, Pangaea existed around two hundred million years, before the first dog-creature evolved. In the case of the Warrah, we're talking about tens of thousands of years ago. The timescale is completely wrong, and still begs the question of why other land mammals were not present, as in other similar cases.

Regarding the colonisation of the Americas, there is a pretty fiery debate, on how exactly far back human inhabitation goes. About the only thing that can be agreed upon is that humans have been there for 10,000 years+.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Overfishing and the Mike Bingham episode

I feel that this article should mention the environmental crisis in the islands, which appears to have lasted from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s, if not to the present day.

Here are a couple of sources, the second one being somewhat more controversial -

Basically, it's claimed overfishing and/or the oil industry has caused massive number of penguins to die, and that it's affecting whales too (see first link). This has knock on effects on tourism, of course. Mike Bingham, who was a conservationist on the islands, has made allegations of a Falklands Government cover-up, and that he was framed and persecuted for pointing this out.

In particular, some of the folk running conservation organisations in the islands are also involved with oil and fishing concerns, which must rank as a massive conflict of interest.

Bingham's story got coverage in the UK press, and he apparently took the matter into the UK supreme court, where he won his case on human rights abuses in the Falklands.

I don't know quite how to cover this material in a neutral manner. Some of it I find plausible, since I have personal experience of the cliques which run small islands, but I don't know how much of it is true, or can be put on Wikipedia, without the website itself being made guilty of libel.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right to be cautious about this and like you I'm concerned about neutral coverage. It is illuminating to read the Supreme Court Judgement as you don't often see a full disclosure of everything that was said, for instance Mike Bingham is described as the author of most of his own misfortune. A lot is not in fact true and a lot of untrue allegations were bandied about that would a WP:BLP minefield. We should IMHO be guided by WP:NOTNEWS and decide content based on encyclopedic value. Binghams own website is clearly not neutral and shouldn't be used as a source IMHO. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Like I say, I have seen island cliques in action before. I imagine one runs Gibraltar, and Bermuda has its own. This is certainly true. I believe Bingham probably was set upon, but it is a question of just how much he was, and what certain people were or were not trying to hide.
There seems to have been some serious conflicts of interest, with the same people involved in both fishing/oil concerns and environmental organisations, which cannot be excused at all.
However, there does seem to have been some kind of collapse in the marine ecosystem around the islands in the last twenty years which has caused massive deaths of penguins etc. This does qualify as history in my view, as it raises questions over economic diversification, and an incestuous political system.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not aware of some kind of collapse - contrary to what Bingham alleged and the Falkland Islands fishery has won awards for conservation. There was an issue with Penguins deaths about 10 years ago but from memory that turned out to be disease related, rather than over fishing as Bingham alleged. Bingham alleged there was a collapse but the evidence is far from conclusive.
Whether Bingham was set upon, or as the judge observed he was a difficult person to deal with and "the author of much of his own misfortune" is not a matter for us to judge. If I may observe you appear to be pre-judging the matter. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There has been some kind of collapse. There are some pretty horrific pictures of beaches full of dead penguins. The various explanations should be noted IMHO.
Over-fishing wouldn't surprise me that much, since the Falklands have let Korean vessels into their waters. Korean vessels are notorious for "hoovering out" the sea wherever they go. I think there is also the additional point that Falklands fishing seems to be orientated towards selling licences to outsiders, rather than developing any new local employment, industries.
"If I may observe you appear to be pre-judging the matter." - Erm, no I'm not. Since when was it appropriate for people in the oil industry to be in positions of authority in conservation bodies? That in itself is damning. On the other hand, while I've read Bingham's book, and it does appear he actually has had an unhappy life in some ways, I also "know the type".--MacRusgail (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I take it you have not noted by earlier comments that the deaths appeared disease related, that this is no longer the case and that FIC has won awards for conservation?
Your comments do indicate pre-judgement, for example "Over-fishing wouldn't surprise me", "I have seen island cliques in action before" and "an incestuous political system". You're allowing personal experience to colour your judgement.
You're also wrong about the fishing industry, since one its aims is to develop local employment. In fact, local processing etc is very much part of development. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did read it, thank you very much. And while it clears up certain issues, it still leaves others hanging.

"You're allowing personal experience to colour your judgement." - Erm, aren't you? You sound as if you know some of the people involved personally. Small islands invariably have incestuous political systems - look up the recent political history of Antigua, for example. Or the system in Pitcairn, which protected incest and paedophilia for years. I apologise for never actually visiting either Antigua or Pitcairn, but presumably this information must be coloured by my personal experience. L.F. ...

From what I know of Falklands fishing, it is a cushy number for a small number of Falkland rich people. And you still haven't resolved the issue of conflict of interest, that I raised. Why are people running the oil industry also involved in running local conservation bodies? -MacRusgail (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Erm, aren't you? No I'm not and no I don't know the people personally. If you're resorting to personal abuse, then all I will finish by saying per WP:NOTNEWS I don't believe this is material for encyclopedic content. I will close by saying I don't believe you're the right person to comment as you're allowing personal experience to colour your judgement. TBH you sound like someone with an axe to grind. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I'm just talking to you the same way you're talking to me. You are behaving as if you know all of the people personally. I don't know any of these people so I have no axe to grind, as you put it.
As for penguin deaths, yes, I think this is worthwhile including on here. Whatever the actual reason. It makes a change from the usual Falklands are English/Malvinas son Argentinos narrative.
However, you still haven't managed to explain why people in the oil industry should be allowed to work in conservation. -MacRusgail (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:BLP and WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Bingham alleges a Conflict of Interest for an elected official. The official was there in a government supervisory role, not directly engaged in conservation work; all relevant interests were declared and in the public domain. I would be very wary of repeating such allegations per WP:BLP. Secondly that person is no longer in that role, this person [5] holds that portfolio. Thirdly, I don't see anything that would preclude someone with a declared commercial interest in oil exploration from holding a portfolio in conservation. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"I don't see anything that would preclude someone with a declared commercial interest in oil exploration from holding a portfolio in conservation." - Really? Sorry to be personal, but that is naive. Oil pollution is one of the most likely causes of any forthcoming environmental trouble in the Falklands. I would say intensive fishing would be the other main one. I'm presuming you're from Scotland with that name, so I expect you remember the MV Braer disaster, and are probably aware that an oil spill has occurred in one of the North Sea platforms recently. I also needn't remind you that the Scottish coastline (particularly Shetland where the Braer crashed) and/or marine environment is extremely similar to the Falklands (albeit much more depleted), and is an excellent model of what would happen there.

"that person is no longer in that role" - This is a history article. I think involvement with the chemicals industry, nuclear power plants, other fossil fuel extraction and so on, would also be a conflict of interest. Fortunately none of these exist in the Falklands context.

What I'm trying to do here is work out some way of mentioning this stuff, without getting WP into trouble. From a neutral POV, the following can be mentioned... that there was something causing large numbers of penguins to die (not necessarily what Bingham says), and that the case reached major British newspapers. It is very rare for the Falklands to be mentioned at all in the British press, unless it's related to the war or territorial claims. That in itself suggests that it's noteworthy, and it would be nice to have more material relevant to this article which isn't connected to either of those areas.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I remember the Braer and I am Scottish and an oil spill would be disastrous in the Falklands. However, are you aware slicks are a problem in the South Atlantic as a number of vessels still clean tanks illegally?
But the potential for environmental impact is not the same thing as a COI. And wikipedia reports facts neutrally we don't invent a COI unless a reliable 3rd party source has alleged it and Bingham doesn't fall into that category.
Propose an edit if you feel it should be added but I fear a WP:BLP problem and WP:NOTNEWS for a stale news story applies. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It certainly is a COI. As much as the American surgeon general moonlighting for a tobacco company. I think that the Bingham court case got enough coverage to be notable but that it is probably not worth mentioning too many of the details. I will add the penguin deaths separately, because I believe in a Falklands context it probably counts as history.
"are you aware slicks are a problem in the South Atlantic as a number of vessels still clean tanks illegally?" - No doubt. The Falklands have a long history of environmental abuse, especially when people killed excessive numbers of whales, seals and penguins for oil etc. The environmental history of the islands even deserves its own article IMHO. It is a serious threat to tourism as well, and the maintenance of sustainable fisheries.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't wish to hear your opinion - you need a reliable 3rd party source to make that allegation and again WP:BLP comes into play if you wish to make such an allegation.
Mmm, the Falklands are a good example of sustainable fisheries, they have excellent environmental policies and they're responsive. They cut one season short to conserve stocks and took a financial hit in doing so for example.
And btw the FI were the first territory to ban sealing to conserve the species - at a time when such considerations were not fashionable. And the history of whaling is not unique to the Falkland Islands. The worst excesses took place before the establishment of British rule. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
"you need a reliable 3rd party source" - Have you been following anything I've said about newspapers?
"And the history of whaling is not unique to the Falkland Islands." - how does that make it any less of a problem for the Falklands? Various waves of settlers have decimated the local wildlife, not just the warrah. If the Falklands were the first country to ban sealing, why aren't we mentioning it here?--MacRusgail (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Newspapers - none of which allege a COI and reporting Bingham's allegations do not make one per WP:BLP. And the banning of sealing is mentioned at Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands.
Do you have an edit proposal or not? Nothing you've proposed so far is suitable. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
"Nothing you've proposed so far is suitable." - In your opinion. For what it's worth I consider some of your edits to Falklands articles highly biased, but there you go. I had been hoping to hear some other responses, but they haven't been forthcoming.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You know I've had Argentines calling my edits biased in favour of Britain, Brits claiming my edits are biased in favour of Argentina, so I guess they're somewhere in the middle as they should be. Your accusations of bias merely reinforce that belief. I have given you an honest opinion that your comments show a strong bias - may I ask if you actually read the trial transcript or published criticism of Bingham's science? I suggest you do they're illuminating. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Corridor at RAF Mount Pleasant

Article currently reads in part's longest corridor.... See Talk:RAF Mount Pleasant#Corridor. Andrewa (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Leopoldo-Galtieri.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Leopoldo-Galtieri.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Leopoldo-Galtieri.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

References vs wikilinks

One would think that a reference in the article is preferable over a wikilink to another article. That way we can be sure about verifiability without needing to "trust" on another article. Establishing such trust relationships could lead to WP:CIRCULAR situations. --Langus (t) 15:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A duplicate reference was and is unnecessary, do you think just for once, you might actually recognise an edit made in good faith? Your attitude to anyone correcting your edits is really irritating. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no doubt it was done in good faith! I really do! Nonetheless, I'm only saying that to me it would make sense to bring that source into this article. Are you saying that two identical references in two different articles constitutes a unnecessary duplication?? If so, I'd very much appreciate that you point me to the relevant guideline. Thanks. --Langus (t) 22:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
If a reliable source exists for the material in question, go ahead and add it. Taroaldo (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This unarguably needs a reference. WP:CHALLENGE states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation". This is part of WP:V, a core policy. Note that an inline citation is required, not some citation that may or may not be found through following a wikilink. Wee Curry Monster, you were completely wrong to remove the {{cn}} template and even more wrong, bordering on disruptive, to remove the subsequently supplied reference. It is particularly egregious in this case because the identification of the Falklands in the Piri Reis map is controversial. SpinningSpark 10:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, there is no need to add a reference here to a wikilink, as the material is referenced on the wikilink ie it conforms to WP:V. I strongly object to your accusation of disruptive editing and consider it a remark in bad faith. Its a wikilink, since when did we need to reference a wikilink? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I doubt if the quoted web page by fr:Diego Cuoghi is a "reliable published source" in the first place. Its author might be an expert on art but hardly on history and mapping. The general claim that the relevant Piri Reis map is "remarkably accurate" cannot be substantiated either. While it is indeed accurate as far as Brazil's coast is concerned (Portuguese map sources acquired through good work of the Turkish intelligence), further south there is no similarity to the Patagonian coast or the Falklands – or the Antarctic mainland as Cuoghi claims. No wonder as there had been no European voyages to those regions yet; Cuoghi's reference to Vespucci and de Gonneville is based on no historical evidence whatsoever. Therefore, it is my opinion that unless a reliable source is provided (which is hardly forthcoming), the text in question should rather be removed. Apcbg (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Fine, remove it if you earnestly feel it will result in an improvement to the article, I don't. The Piri Reis map does have some remarkably accurate features and some scholars think it shows Antarctica before it was discovered. But the material wasn't contentious in the way it was written, the text says:
The article makes it plain it is not certain, what is the actual issue? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
[6] I don't consider this improved the article but you know what, I've reached that point where wikipedia is becoming a chore again and I really can't be bothered to argue anymore. Hasta la vista. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
"maps of the region" — says who? "may well have been the Falkland Islands" — says who? "remarkably accurate maps" — says who? The quoted source is a self published questionable source authored by a non-expert. Unsourced, the removed text has no encyclopaedic value. If duly sourced, it would be welcome back. Apcbg (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I share your doubts, but rushing to remove a statement without giving the time to look for sources is not the way to do it. I've restored the statement back, with a 'citation needed' tag. --Langus (t) 22:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Adding the material back seems somewhat pointy. Removal of the text by another editor seems reasonable, especially in light of its weakness in the first place. Your actions are contrary: restoring text and then requesting a citation for that same text. Taroaldo (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems this map is connected with all kinds of FRINGE and crackpot theories. See for instance Rober Finlay How Not to (Re)Write World History: Gavin Menzies and the Chinese Discovery of America, or even worse Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods. Given the strong desire of the pseudo-science camp to give this map credit for exceptional and unexplained ancient cartographical skills, I think any referencing needs to be chosen with care and absolutely must come from an authoritative scholarly source with expertise in the field. SpinningSpark 11:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Taroaldo and Apcbg, I apologize, it seems I did wrong here. I restored it with a {{cn}} tag trying to follow the spirit of WP:NOCITE, but I've just noticed that WP:BURDEN of evidence also applies to restored material.
I will say in my defense, that my intention was to ask for time to find reliable sources. I had not much luck... I could only find one non-related to fringe theories, but it it is from an Argentine ambassador which seems to have no other qualification. There is another one non-related to aliens, but a fringe theory nonetheless (he argues that the Chinese reached America before Columbus --it seems that the author is prone to fringe theories) I found here (in Spanish) a negative opinion on these works by an Argentine historian and Senator. --Langus (t) 05:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Terragno's opinion is shared by most if not all historians, and "prone to fringe theories" is a very mild way of referring to Menzies indeed! This stuff has its proper place in the Piri Reis map article, not here. Apcbg (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Piri Reis map is worth a mention. If those aren't the Falkland Islands down there, they look quite like them. They seem to be represented as a single large island. The map appears to have been derived from second hand sources.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Early colonization context

The "Early colonization" section currently states that France and Britain both established early settlements, and this nearly caused war between Britain and... Spain? A short explanation of what Spain is doing here, and why France was convinced to hand over its colony to them, would not go amiss. Jpatokal (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Hopefully it's clearer now. --Langus (t) 13:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Ta! Much better now. Jpatokal (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


I'm very sad to see that there's just POV in the English Wikipedia :(. The article affirms that Argentina set in the 1820s a penal colony, olimpically ignoring the non-penal settlement, under Governor Juan Vernet, when a group of people were taken to the islands in order to colonize them.

>> Quote a reference and change it if you think it's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

River Plate relevant?

The River Plate is thousands of miles from the Falkland Islands - is the WW2 battle there really relevant to the history of islands? FOARP (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Since no-one objected to the above, I took the liberty of reducing the bit about the battle of the River Plate to a single para about the actions of the ship that was refitting in the Falklands area at the time and added a few paragraphs of information about what happened during the war on the islands specifically. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Source for corrected Byron date

Found the date I used to correct the date for Byron at this site: [7]

Dennis (talk) (Wiki NYC Meetup)[[]] 21:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Important information

The 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands article states:

After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right and seized them. The Englishman who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered. A British officer was next sent, unsupported by any power: and when we arrived, we found him in charge of a population, of which rather more than half were runaway rebels and murderers. (The Voyage of the Beagle.)

If this is true, maybe the Argentine government renounced sovereignty with that sale and the Falklands are really British, but the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article also says:

Great Britain abandoned their settlement in 1774, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention.

So apparently the Falklands are neither Argentine nor British. Is this correct?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 28 February 2006

Unblock main article

The main article MUST be unblocked NOW! The claim of "consensus" is a LIE. There is none, merely a capitulation. This is unacceptable. As if this were not bad enough even the talk page had been blocked. ENOUGH!!!!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20 May 2006

Soda ash from kelp

Material exists that asserts Britain's interest in returning to active control of the islands was for commercial demands for soda ash in the their manufacturing centers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 26 April 2010‎

  1. ^ [8] A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, Part 3 - Louis Vernet: The Great Entrepreneur
  3. ^ [9] A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, Part 3 - Louis Vernet: The Great Entrepreneur
  4. ^ [10] British colonies - Hutchinson encyclopedia article about British colonies
  5. ^ Karsten, Peter, Between Law and Custom, "High" and "Low" Legal Cultures in the Lands of the British Diaspora - The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, 1600-1900
  6. ^ Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982
  7. ^ Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982
  8. ^ [11] A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, Part 3 - Louis Vernet: The Great Entrepreneur
  9. ^ [12] A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, Part 3 - Louis Vernet: The Great Entrepreneur