Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

"New" UN fact

The UN Decolonization committee just rejected again (Nth time) the issue of self-determination, I think we should mention this Jor70 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sod them and their anti-white policies. It's nothing to do with them. They only accept "self-determination" when it results in independence (or integration). The sooner the Falklands are intergrated fully into the United Kingdom the better.YourPTR! 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its worth putting in Jor. Find the ref for it, put it in. While the UN policy is to de-colonize, as it puts it, this does not take away from the fact that they are one of the most recognisable 'governmental' organisations in the world and certainly have the notability and the prominance for their view to be important. Narson 10:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Argentine bias?

This all reads rather Argentinian biased... That Argentina had de facto control from 1826-1833 is disputable- Vernet was French and most of his men came from places other then Argentina. In his actions on the Falklands he got the permission of both the Argentinian government and the British consulate. He himself was unsure who owned them and stated he would prefer to be governer under the British (not to say he thought it was best- just it offered the most protection).

That of course is just a example of how even the major Argentinian claim is exagerated here. A lot of the other wording seems quite pro-Argentina... Its the same on a lot of Falklands articles actually--Josquius 11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

General feel of the article is a strong bias towards the Argentine claim and is thus highly unenyclopedic. Comments such as "signaled the end of any pretensions that Britain may have had to act as a global power" read as rather anti-British. Also subtle undertones are used in an attempt to discredit the British claim such as "Similar reasoning is used to defend British policy in Gibraltar and Northern Ireland" which implies a negative view of British standing in these territories as well as in the Falklands. Attempts are made to discredit French support of the British sovereignty by speculating that their own overseas interests are at heart. The article is written to suggest that Spain generally supports the Argentine claim which it does not. The use of "de facto" in some places is inappropriate and also leaning towards an Argentine bias. Finally there seems to be a great lack of citations in some paragraphs. Article possibly should be deleted.(217.42.160.154 (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

The article presents Argentina's claims and British claims but gives no weight to either. It leaves it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Believe me, this article is nowhere near as biased as when I started to edit it. Given the Brtis call me pro-Argentine and the Argentines label me as having a streak of pro-British bias I guess I must be close to a NPOV. Justin talk 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Vernet's Colony

A common misconception is that Vernet's colony was expelled. It wasn't, some of the current inhabitants of the islands can trace their ancestry to Vernet's colony. This really should be corrected in this article in the interest of NPOV. Justin A Kuntz 12:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen sources that confirm this from the Falkland Islands page, and yes, I think it's relevant. The fact that the Argentines claim this should however be mentioned as this is part of the basis of the Argentine claim. NPOV requires that we put the bases of both claims without favouring one over the other (though if part of either side's case is demonstrably false, I don't see a problem with pointing this out). Pfainuk 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If the Argentine claim the colony was expelled that should go in the Argentine claim section. The history should reflect the actual facts. Thats a NPOV Justin A Kuntz 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That claim isn't mentioned or implied in the "history of the claims" section - which is in line with history. In the lead it says "that the Argentinians claim was expelled after the British invasion of 1833" - which is true, they do. Pfainuk 10:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The history of the claim section mixes history of the islands, with history of the claims. Personally I get confused reading what the exact purpose of the article is. A general clean up would be useful but if a claim is demonstrably false it should include relevant history as a refutation. That would be NPOV but its debateable whether its OR. Justin A Kuntz 10:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nootka Convention

I see the Nootka convention is snuck in here. This is an Argentine POV, the text of the convention is available on makes no reference to the Islands. Islands some 300+ miles of the coast of South America are not part of this convnetion. I suggest this reference is removed. Justin A Kuntz 12:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Nootka Conventions are part of the basis of the current Argentine claim. The fact that the Argentines consider them relevant to the sovereignty debate makes them relevant to this article, never mind what the conventions say and do not say. We obviously can't say that Britain did not renounce its claim to the islands under Nootka, because Argentina claims they did. And we can't say Britain did renounce its claim, because the British say we did not. The conventions themselves are unclear - they don't even mention the islands (a fact that we should mention). But failing to mention them while mentioning the basis for the British claim would be to accept the British POV over the Argentine. Pfainuk 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The "British claim" is based solely on the right to self-determination of the islanders. Let us not fall into the Argentine trap of basing land claims on 200-year-old treaties that have long since fallen into abeyance. TharkunColl 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Again if its part of the Argentine claim thats where it should go, not in the main history. There is nothing in thge convention about giving up existing rights - British claim on the islands predates Nootka by many years so it simply isn't relevant. If you're going to mention the Nootka convention it should also be mentioned that the "secret" clause makes the convention null and void should a third party attempt to establish itself - the existence of Argentina and its territorial claim makes the Nootka convention null and void. Also if we're mentioning Anglo-Spanish treaties, what about the treaty of 1771 that enabled the British to return after the spanish raid on Port Egremont - it recognises British claims. The text of all of these is available and relevant. At the moment the article is favouring Argentina. Justin A Kuntz 07:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is entitled "History to the Claims". The history of the Argentine claim (including the Nootka Conventions) is surely relevant to the "history of the claims". The British claim is based on self-determination, but also on the prior discovery and claim in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; if it wasn't, then Argentines would be quite right in saying that the 1833 invasion was an illegal occupation of Argentine territory. Moreover, while Nootka doesn't specifically disclaim any land, it does base all claims on the 1790's pattern of settlement (not on claims, but the locations of actual settlements) - and we say that there was no British settlement on the Falklands in 1790. Your interpretation of Argentina as a "third power" for the purposes of the secret clause is precisely that - your interpretation - and is thus original research.

I'm concerned that the treaty of 1771 isn't included - if relevant it should be - but I failed to find a reliable reference online. By all means add it if you can do better. Pfainuk 10:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Theres a copy of the agreement loaded on Wikipedia. I've a suitable reference somewhere and I'll make an edit later. BTW the British decided to leave in 1774 but didn't actually leave till 1776. I'll put in a reference for that as well.

Generally, as I've noted above, the history of the claim section mixes in history that isn't relevant. I'm tending to the view that this needs a re-write. Justin A Kuntz 10:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, open to debate but the treaty is between Spain and Great Britain. It states clearly that it becomes void if a 3rd party is involved. Now I don't think anyone disputes that Argentina is a 3rd party. At which point does that become an interpretation? In the interests on NPOV pointing out a flaw in a claim is surely neutral? Justin A Kuntz 11:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it a bit more, would it be better to point to the convention, note that the convention is between two parties and it becomes null and avoid should a third party become involved. That is a NPOV is it not? Justin A Kuntz 11:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) I've seen the copy at User:Apcbg/Nootka_Sound_Convention. Your comment makes sense, and yes, I think that's a fair way of making NPOV.

More generally, I agree the history needs a bit of a rewrite to make it clear exactly what it's saying. I've been working on a bit of a rewrite which includes:

• History of the Claims
  • French Claim
  • British Claim
  • Spanish/Argentine Claim

Giving the specific refutations at each stage (of the British claim by the Argentines, and of the Argentine claim by the British) where necessary. Since this is potentially contentious, I'll edit the article and self-revert to give an idea of what I mean, then post a link to the version I've written here. Pfainuk 13:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's here Pfainuk 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a great improvement, it flows much better. Probably better written that I would have done.

Couple of points. Argentinian Independence dates from 1816 but they did not assert a claim until 1820. That 1820 claim was disputed by Great Britain. Argentinian declarations regarding the islands were in all cases disputed by Great Britain.

Vernet's expedition of 1826 was a failure and didn't establish a colony. The Brazilian blockade disrupted sailings and they found that they couldn't harvest the Island's wild cattle as expected. The colony did not become established till 1828.

Not that I necessarily agree with all of this but the Captain's report of the 1831 Lexington raid makes some interesting reading. He refers to the miserable conditions on the islands. Vernet's grant to the islands required a colony to be established within 3 years, it would then be tax exempt. There was a financial incentive for Vernet to exaggerate the success of the colony. That it was a flourishing and established colony rather depends on your POV. Now I agree that this is basically original research so my suggestion is to refer to Vernet's claims of success, adverts for further colonists but also reflect the less attractive picture painted by the American captain. Would that be NPOV? I tend to think so.

Back to Vernet's 1826 and 1828 expeditions. Vernet was a clever operator. He knew of the British claims to sovereignty and went to the British Consulate and sought British permission on both occasions. He also agreed to provide written reports to the British Government.

1833 possibly POV but Pinedo chose to withdraw, it wasn't a British demand. I agree with the outgunned, out numbered and the mercenary comments.

1833 again, Vernet's settlers remained. I see what you have done in the Argentine Section. The British also allowed Vernet's deputy Matthew Brisbane to return and encouraged them to continue with the colony. There is an online record under the Charles Darwin site. I suggest that the British section of the history of the dispute would include the fact that Vernet's settlers.

1841 - I'll need to dig to find this but the Argentines offered to withdraw all sovereignty claims in return for cancellation of some debts.

you can find links to most of the above in the history at: http://www.falklands.info/history/narra.html Justin A Kuntz 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While I remember Vernet renamed Puerto Soledad to the original name of Port Louis. Perhaps because he was French? Worth mentioning I think given the sensitivity of names in the islands. Justin A Kuntz 13:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done a bit of an edit of the Vernet years based on that source (I think we could do with other sources to back it up but this'll do for now). I propose that we replace the History section with the one which I will put up at User:Pfainuk/History of the Claims. If there's no objection, I'll replace it with this version 24 hours from now. (That's 19:00 UTC or so on 20 July). I'll replace it by copy-paste move (I don't think there's a better way in this case), so for licensing reasons you can discuss changes on that talk page but should not change the text until it goes up here. Pfainuk 18:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK it's going up now. I'll put up the direct version, then edit it slightly, just so the original is in the history. Pfainuk 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeh... sorry for filling up the history but I'm completely failing to amalgamate my references so I'll have to go and have a play on a sandbox and come back (or let someone else do it)! Pfainuk 19:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a go at it, I think the article reads much better now. Thanks for all your efforts. Justin A Kuntz 09:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thule

Really, expelling the settlers on Thule Island, the Thule base was an Argentinian Military base. Justin A Kuntz 12:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No complaints. I've made the edit. Pfainuk 10:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Self Determination

I see an Argentine editor has sneaked the claim that self-determination is irrelevant. Quoting the Argentine ambassador in a UN press release is not NPOV. Justin A Kuntz 07:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Look under the section entitled "Background". This states that it's sourced from "a working paper (document A/AC.109/2007/13) prepared by the Secretariat on the Non-Self-Governing Territory of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), which is administered by the United Kingdom and claimed by Argentina". IOW, a working paper produced within the UN.

"The paper says the United Nations acknowledges that the Falklands (Malvinas) question is different from the usual, given that granting self-determination to the Territory’s people would imply the disruption of Argentina’s territorial integrity. For that reason, General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 excludes the application of the self-determination principle in the case of the Falklands (Malvinas), urging Argentina and the United Kingdom to resolve their claims through negotiation. The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) has held debates on the issue, and the General Assembly has decided that the item will remain on the agenda for consideration “upon notification by a Member State”. However, in a letter addressed to the President of the General Assembly last September, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom remarked that the elected representatives of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) had asked the Assembly to recognize that they were entitled to exercise the right of self-determination, and that they did not wish for any change in the Territory’s status."

To my mind, this pretty clearly backs up the point that "The United Nations do not recognise self-determination as a means to solve the dispute and have called on both countries to begin dialogue over the sovereignty claim.". Pfainuk 10:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, thats an interpretation of what is written and original reasearch. My version still refers to the UN document and the call for negotiation but leaves it to the reader to determine what the UN means. Justin A Kuntz 10:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW I noticed that had been sneaked in before and reverted as it was POV and not in line with consensus. Justin A Kuntz 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that - in any case, I don't object to your edit particularly, which states that the UN General Assembly has called for dialogue, and retains the reference. Pfainuk 13:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

UN background papers are not the official word of the UN (There is a note on them which says so) They often reflect the Argentine point of view in Falklands matters. I have read this one previously and noted this error. 2065 (XX) of 1965 says no such thing. The Argentine interpretation is based not on what the Resolution says, but what it does not say. In other words if it is not there it does not count. However this resolution clearly refers back to the relevant Resolutions on self detremination which it says must be borne in mind e.g. 1514. The Argentine ploy is to mention their point of view in as many bodies as they can e.g. the territorial integrity red herring, then interpret their own words as the words of the UN because they have been quoted widely in UN documents and meetings. If anyone can quote me an original official UN documentary source for the argument quoted I would be more than surprised.Malvinero 21:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Would a timeline of claim and counterclaim help the balance of the article? Justin A Kuntz 09:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. We have a timeline of effective sovereignty already, but a timeline of the history of the claims of either side would make some things a lot clearer. Pfainuk 10:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Article modification

Why people continue to change things already discussed ? Also, I will like to know which are the parameters to measure NPOV. Richard Gott is an "anti british" writing in guardian.co.uk (a well known antibritish media too I suspect ) so he cannot be included, in that way for example I could suggest that the BBC is "anti argentine" so should not be included neither. --Jor70 20:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jor on Richard Gott. It is the Guardian, hardly non-notable and there is/war some degree of anti-war sentiment in the UK. As for the long sentence, while clumsy, was reached after quite some debate. Plus, the fact the Islanders are British is indeed a fact (They have British citizenship), by the same token, it is a fact they arn't aboriginals. One that I don't believe any sane person argues against. While I will freely admit (and I'm sure Jor will attest) I have no love for the argentinian view, I think the article /is/ fairly neutral these days, so I would suggest we edit it in degrees rather than sweeping edits and removals. The big sweeping edits just result in metronome POV as it swings widely back and forth. Narson 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, note that the islanders also technically have Argentine citizenship, having been born on what under Argentine law is Argentine soil. We can't say that they're British any more than we can say that they're Argentine, but we can accurately say that they consider themselves British.

My real problem is that in an effort to produce NPOV, we've lost clarity. In particular, we confuse the history of the claims to the islands with the history of the islands themselves. The two subjects are related - and the articles on the two subjects will contain much of the same information - but they are not the same. And here we should be dealing with the former, leaving the latter to History of the Falkland Islands.

The idea of my rewrite is to differentiate the two by separating out the different claims to the islands and dealing with their histories separately. General historical information that is not relevant to the claims should not have a place in this article. My first suggested rewrite (here) took pretty much all of its content out of the old version, including taking some paragraphs verbatim. It just takes them in a different order.

Of course there are issues: maybe the French claim should be considered with the Spanish/Argentine claim. Maybe the stuff I've written is not quite factually accurate. Maybe this page, and History of the Falkland Islands are woefully under-referenced. This is the main reason why I've taken it to talk rather than making the edit unilaterally, but I will stand by the principle. As I say, let me know if you think there are problems with this principle - I'd like to hear them. Pfainuk 23:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

well, first i do not understand why the sentence The United Nations do not recognise self-determination as a means to solve the dispute was eliminated when it is a central part of the sovereignty issue, there was not a case here if that not apply. Second The argentine refuses sounds to me like to there is their fault and third which is your thought about Richard Gott being censured here ? cheers Jor70 00:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right - yes I agree with your second point - it appears to me to regard the British POV as the normal viewpoint in the dispute while the Argentine one is an aberration. And I commented on the UN bit above. I was happy to compromise, but I do think the UN reference backs up that claim. Pfainuk 08:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In a spirit of good friendship and cooperation, and why not to balance the links section too, I would suggest put back Richard Gott article or remove Escude's one too. --Jor70 15:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, I would rather get rid of all of the external links, unless they're actually being cited as references. Pfainuk 16:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, what about put both of them at the end of Current claims ? --Jor70 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We could do - as you say, it's got to be both or neither - but I would simply remove both because the viewpoints they express come (I believe) from small enough minorities in their own countries that including them would overstate their importance.

I would also point out that Sr. Escudé's view (that Argentina is not pursuing its claim in the right way) is not quite as sweeping as Mr. Gott's view (that Britain's claim is invalid) - this could cause POV issues. Pfainuk 18:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, rm them --Jor70 18:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the Gott article because I don't think it passes WP:RS on a number of points. I also removed the sentence "The United Nations do not recognise self-determination as a means to solve the dispute" because I note that previous discussion and edits had removed it as it was POV. Really it is pushing an Argentine POV, the text in the UN release is more neutral and your wording doesn't reflect it. I left in the central message that the UN calls for negotiations and a link to the original reference. What was wrong with that. Please note that I haven't done any edits without a discussion first. It would be courteous to do the same. Justin A Kuntz 08:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also changed cite to claim and tidied up the wording, Argentina claims that the British replaced the Argentine settlement. This is not factually correct, the original settlers remained and became part of the later settlement. There are plenty of sources to back this up. Justin A Kuntz 08:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC) = NOTE = partially self-reverted back to the original wording.

General tidy up, added various references, personal opinion but I think the article is considerably improved. A little grammar polishing etc is still required but I think the basics are there. Justin A Kuntz 09:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that some of the changes made recently do not reflect the reality of History and some items have been changed when the inclusions were already established facts. For instance Heroina was a privately owned (by Patrick Lynch) Argentine ship flying the Argentine colours under the command of Jewitt who was a privateer with Letters of marque issued by the Buenos Aires Government. Some of the changes made seem to me to be gratuitous. I will look through more thoughly and make some suggestions to restore better accuracy which perhaps we can discuss. By the way I am a Falkland Islander who has both Falkland Islands Status and British Citizenship, neither of which qualify me to be authoritative I know. However I can assure you that I am not an Argentine Citizen. Malvinero 16:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem with Argentine citizens editing here - sometimes they help to keep the Brits in check. As the one who wrote that bit (and as hardly an authority on the subject myself), it seemed to me based on the sources cited that the Heroina was an American-owned ship being hired by the Argentine government - I've just clarified that in the article. We already mention (in terms of the British invasion of 1833) that the Argentines were no naval power at the time, so this did not seem to be an unreasonable situation. But I may well have been overly bold in inferring the ownership of the vessel from the captain's nationality. If I'm wrong, by all means correct the article.

And that goes for other things as well. Correct the article if it's wrong, preferably citing reliable sources. Might be a good idea to take most things to talk though first, since things do get contentious here: if in doubt, discuss. Pfainuk 19:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am relatively new here and have only done one edit so far which has in fact been changed. With regard to Jewett and Heroina. In his book 'Malvinas o Falklands?' ISBN: 950-694-614-0 by Conrado Etchebarne Bullrich, he tells us that the ship Heroina and was an armed frigate owned by one Patricio Lynch (It is a fact in Argentina that must you have a Spanish first name) an Irishman, who employed Jewett as a corsair (Privateer) and persuaded Jose Rondeau the Supreme Director of Buenos Aires to grant Jewett the rank of Coronel in the army to confirm the legitimacy of his privateering exercise. There is no known record of any instruction to Jewett to make any declaration in favour of Argentina, if there was it would be available to see on the Argentine National Archive, at least I cannot find it nor do any authors refer to it, if they had a copy they would display it prominently for all to see as they do with other Falklands historical documents. Jewetts prime task was to capture Spanish shipping, after all that was what Lynch employed him for, and he sailed to the North Atlantic in March 1820 with a crew of 200, making one capture only, one ship a Portuguese corvette 'Carlota'. Due to privation disease and a mutinous crew he arrived at Port Louis towards the end of October 1820 with only 70 of his crew left alive. One has to answer the question that if his official mission was to claim the Falklands for Agentina why it took him eight months to get there? Strangely in his well known declaration he says he is acting for the United Provinces of South America. Vernet on the other hand in 1829 claimed the Islands for the 'Republic of Buenos Aires'.http://www.mininterior.gov.ar/agn/escuela_malvinas_doc12.asp Wikipedia contains a number of errors in the History of the Falkland Islands and David Jewett's biog. Too numerous to mention here. I guess what I have to decide is whether I have the time to correct the all given the effort needed to ensure everything has a recognisable reference. Malvinero 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have you on board, as you correctly point out there are a number of historical errors. Please help us to to correct them. One tiny criticism could you add a source for your comments? Justin A Kuntz 21:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd echo that (in case it wasn't clear already). I apparently based the new wording of the reorganisation on faulty information from the previous version of the article - and we could probably do with the help to iron out the mistakes. Don't worry about fouling up too much - we can always revert if it goes pear-shaped. You seem to know a lot more about this subject than I do, and probably have access to better sources - though I suppose that's to be expected! I've added a Welcome template to your user talk page to help you get started.

On the privateers/pirates, I would - in fact I will - remove the pirates as unsourced and unlikely. Privateers are more likely as I said in the other bit, but I'll keep the fact template as it's not been verified.. Pfainuk 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Soledad

Just for clarification, Vernet renamed Puerto Soledad to Port Louis, the original French name. So in the Argentine claim section I've reverted to the name used by Argentina at the time. After 1833 the British briefly renamed it Ansons Harbour before later reverting back to the original name. Its not to start an edit war, trying to strike a balance. Any objections? Justin A Kuntz 10:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem here - I was aiming to do the same thing but obviously missed it a couple of times. Pfainuk 11:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Privateers

I don't have a cite for the privateers (I took it either from the old version or from History of the Falkland Islands which similarly lacks sources IIRC) - but it isn't that implausible. Privateers were certainly used in the Napoleonic wars by both the British and the French - and I should think most other countries in the world. The American Constitution, drafted 18 years after the 1771 date given in the article, specifically reserves the right to issue letters of marque to Congress.

Bearing this in mind, it would have been quite useful for the British to have a staging post for their privateers (along with Naval vessels) near Cape Horn in 1771. Pirates though? Probably not, I think - the difference between piracy and privateering might only have been a piece of paper, but the respect difference was huge between them. By definition, no government approved pirates - that being the only distinction in theory between pirates and privateers - and pirates of any nation would be executed when caught. Pfainuk 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, if it fits leave it in but I think it needs a source. Justin A Kuntz 23:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Weren't the Barbery Pirates sponsored by the little North African city states or somesuch (though that could be a misnaming like the Bayeaux Tapestry)? Though they were what, 19th century? Definatly plausible to have the parrot loving folk in the 18th. Narson 23:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A little research refers to British Privateers as a late as 1812, so it may be true. But just cause its plausible doesn't mean it should go in. I have tried and can't find a reference for it so far, both on the web and hitting the books, so it seems to be failing the requirements of WP:V. There are several I think we need to work through them. Thoughts? Justin A Kuntz 09:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry - I'm not disputing that it doesn't meet WP:V as it is. I've just gone and looked for sources, and found this and this. Neither are very good - the first is a 2005 editorial in an American newspaper - and I wouldn't be surprised if the author used Wikipedia as a source - and the second records a 1708-9 privateer (Woodes Rogers) using the Falklands as a staging post on the way to picking up Alexander Selkirk from Juan Fernández. Pfainuk 10:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Been spending some time on this, found a good source of references:

http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft3489n8kn&chunk.id=0&doc.view=print

There is also a lot of good material on the Project Guttenberg website. Basically, I can't find a reference to privateers, most of the available sources refer to establishing a strategic base for ships going round the Horn and exploration of the Pacific. Example:

The initial strategic aim was to secure claim to the Falkland Islands, an independent way station for assisting ships on the Cape Horn passage; their possession, as Lord Anson had remarked, would make the British "masters of those seas." Anson was First Lord of the Admiralty and was thinking mainly of the problem of supporting naval expeditions to the Pacific in time of war, though he also spoke of the potential advantages of gaining a commercial foothold in Chile. The Earl of Egmont, the First Lord who presided over the dispatching of Byron's expedition, was thinking along identical lines. A secondary objective of the 1760s was to see whether any islands or continents existed in the Pacific which might be made to serve naval or commercial ends. But the immediate concern was a base in the Falkland Islands. The Admiralty had pursued a policy of establishing permanent overseas bases since the 1720s; the interest in the Falklands harmonized with this trend.

I think perhaps the article needs revision. Justin A Kuntz 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left it a few days now with no response. I take it no-one objects if I edit the article to remove the references to privateers and pirates? Justin A Kuntz 08:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

UN Resolution 2065

Removed reference in the Argentine claim section to UN Resolution 2065 as it was POV. The actual resolution is reproduced below. It makes no reference to Self-Determination as claimed in the Argentine reference originally cited. Justin A Kuntz 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

16 December 1965

The General Assembly,

Having examined the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

Taking into account the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), and in particular the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee with reference to that Territory,

Considering that its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

Noting the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands,

1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);

2. Requests the two Governments to report to the Special Committee and to the General Assembly at its twenty-first session on the results of the negotiations.

Timeline of De Facto Control

In 1831, the Lexington removed the Argentine Government representatives declaring the Islands to be free of all Government. The Argentina claims relies on this to make the Nootka Sound Convention Applicable. Between 1811-1828 the islands weren't exactly uninhabited being used by sealers of various nations. What do you guys think of this amendment, I've already corrected a couple of dates. Justin A Kuntz 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Amended to reflect Islands have been self-governing since 1985? Justin A Kuntz 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of de facto control

1764 – 1767	France
1765 – 1776	Great Britain
1767 – 1811	Spain
1811 – 1828	res nullius
1828 – 1831	Argentina
1831 – 1832	res nullius
1832 – 1833	Argentina
1833 – 1982	United Kingdom
1982 (April – June)	Argentina
1982 – 1985	United Kingdom
1985 – Present	Falkland Islands Government

Terra nullius is the appropriate term, not res nullius. I'm not sure that it is open to us to make this judgement - the right of the US to declare the islands free of government is legally arguable - coming down on one side or another is POV. I would suggest No de facto government or similar? Additionally I wouldn't include the Falkland Islands Government in the table - the UK still exercises overall control over the islands; adding the Falkland Islands Government seems to suggest a degree of independence which isn't really there.

Xdamr^talk 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unindent.

Terra nullius, I tend to agree but Res nullius was used in the past. I'm happy to make the change if there is a consensus.

Aim is to achieve a consensus on a NPOV, hence, the posting here first. I was in two minds about using it in the 1831/1832 period. On the one hand the Argentine claim relies on the American declaration to argue that the Nootka convention applies. On the other I tend to agree that the Americans right to declare the Islands free of Government is legally dubious, it relies on the accusation of piracy against Vernet. It also doesn't recognise that the British had endorsed Vernet's enterprise and considered him a legitimate business man at the time.

I tend to disagree about the presence of the Falkland Islands Government in the table. To all intents and purposes they exercise Government control over the Islands and have done since the 1985 constitution. Britain may be able to exert pressure and has control of Foreign Relations and Defence but in every other respect the Islands are governed by the Islanders. Justin A Kuntz 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue of the FIG being in there is a simple one....does the FIG have the same rights within the UK that Canada, for example, had? Full control of domestic issues? If so, then we should include it. If not, we shouldn't. While I accept Wiki is not a good resource for ideas for itself, we use Canada (with its flag etc) for Canada even when it was within the Empire. Narson 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands Government has full control of domestic issues, which was the main reason I thought of including it. To some extent they have some control over foreign relations, they represent themselves at the UN in New York. The only area they're not self-sufficient is defence. Justin A Kuntz 22:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

re. FIG - your points are well made, but my view essentially revolves around the nature of national claims. The Falklands are not claimed by the FIG, but by the UK - a claim not opposed by the FIG. To my mind the FIG are essentially a form of internal municipal government - important in understanding the nature of the government of the Falklands today, but largely an internal UK administrative division rather than one of de facto independence.

Xdamr^talk 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that the Nootka thing is a red herring as far as analysis goes - there are so many ways it can be construed to give either side benefit (do we use 1790 or 1814 as the date of settlement? Is Argentina a third party or do they inherit the Spanish claim?) and I think that we should not try to interpret it in trying to write Wikipedia.

I would judge that Argentina's settlement on the Falklands was represented (as I understand it) by an Argentine governor (or deputies) at Port Louis for the entire period 1831-33, and that as such Argentina was in de facto control of the islands. I agree with User:Xdamr that Britain, and not the Falkland Islands Government, is in de facto control of the islands today, as they have a non-trivial role in the islands' governance (in the area of defence).

I would argue for that Vernet and his successors ran an Argentine settlement for its entire period (1828-33), ignoring the fact that he got British permission for it as well, and ignoring the fact that Vernet was not technically made governor until midway through this period. It was Argentina they looked to for help when things got rough, not Britain.

I would not use the legal terms "terra nullius" or "res nullius" in a timeline of de facto control because this is a legal term. Instead I would refer to the islands as being "uninhabited" as we do now. That implies no de facto control without judging the legal merits of the case. Pfainuk 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unindent.

OK I updated it, I'm unhappy with using the term uninhabited, there were people living there. There was simply no Government control. What do you think about this iteration?

I was dubious about the 1831/1832 period, although effectively there was no control from the Lexington raid until late in 1832, it was Pinedo who dealt with the 1832 mutiny. The only reason I thought of including it related to Argentine claims about Nootka. I agree its a red herring but its part of the Argentine claim. Its also a bit schizophrenic where in one part of the claim they claim Nootka applied because America declared the islands free of all government but in another that they had de facto control.

Regarding FIG, I tend to take Narson's example to mind, where as part of the Empire Canada was claimed by Britain but self-governing. It therefore had de facto independence. They have their own flag, constitution, elected representatives, decide all fiscal policy, make their own laws, raise taxes etc - everything a Government does except defence. Its only because of the threat of invasion from Argentina that a garrison is maintained and they have a dependency on the UK for defence. As the table deals with who is in de facto control of the islands rather than who claims the islands I still lean to the view that FIG should be in there. As a possible compromise, what do you think about a comment on the 1985 constitution in the main text? At the moment the article by omission could give the misleading impression the Islands are governed from the UK. Justin A Kuntz 08:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of de facto control

1764 – 1767	France
1765 – 1776	Great Britain
1767 – 1811	Spain
1811 – 1828	None
1828 – 1833	Argentina
1833 – 1982	United Kingdom
1982 (April – June)	Argentina
1982 – Present	United Kingdom

My understanding was that there weren't people living there in 1811-28. In there were, then yours is better. I don't object to mentioning the 1985 constitution - but it's only that we make a big thing about Argentina's claims and Britain's claims, only to then attribute de facto control to the FIG. In 1831-32, as I say, I'm inclined to say that Argentina was in de facto control due to the presence of an Argentine settlement - it just makes life easier. If we don't decide based on that, the view of the Lexington's captain is relevant, but not his legal view, only his description of the state of the colony he left - did he leave a colony that was viable under an Argentine governor? I'm concerned that answering that question would be collective original research... Pfainuk 09:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Between 1811-1828 there were various itinerant groups of sealers, whalers etc of various nationalities that were using the islands. As soon as the settlements were abandoned, they were occupied. Much like the way Port Egmont was after the British left in 1776. There wasn't a static population as such but there were people living there.

I don't think the de facto control of the islands by FIG has a bearing on the claims does it? If the islands were fully independent Argentina would still claim them. For example, it didn't stop Guatemala claiming Belize. Justin A Kuntz 10:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, in that case, your current version is fine. No de facto control aside the ships' captains, whom we don't really need to add! I think you're right in saying that the '85 constitution has no bearing on the claims, and I don't think this is an NPOV issue. I think this is to do with clarity: I think it would be clearer for our readers if we attribute de facto control since 1985 to the British than the FIG. Pfainuk 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The article's Timeline of de facto control table ought to be factual and thorough, not falsely attributing de facto control for the period December 1831 - January 1832 to Argentina which everybody knows to be untrue.

Indeed, it is a notorious and well documented historical fact (1), (2) that from 31 December 1831 until 21 January 1832 Argentina had no de facto control of the Falkland Islands.

Military occupation and de facto control throughout that time was fully and unquestionably exercised by the US Navy.

The USS Lexington arrived to the Islands on 27 December, on 31 December took control of the Argentine settlement, brought onboard and arrested seven settlers including Vernet’s manager Brisbane, occupied the area until 31 January 1832, and eventually left taking onboard most of the Argentine settlers (39 persons).

During that period of military occupation, Argentina had no de facto control whatsoever, neither in Port Louis nor elsewhere in the islands (where Argentina never succeeded to take control in the first place, their only attempt to control by use of force the English and American sealers exercizing their industry there was countered by the US Navy, changing the course of the Falklands history as a matter of fact).

Therefore, the table of timeline control should show US control in December 1831 - January 1832 rather than Argentine control. Apcbg 06:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unindent

Apcbg's knowledge of the history of this period is pretty impeccable. It is a good point, Mestevier wasn't appointed till November, he was murdered almost immediately on landing and Pinedo didn't establish control till December, at almost exactly the same time the British landed at Port Egmont.

Also with respect to the Lexington. A raid sounds like a few days not a month long occupation. A month long occupation is de facto control over the islands. Rather like the 1982 occupation was de facto control by Argentina

Its debatable about whether to start the British timeline at December 1832, we are talking a matter of days since they went to Port Louis on January 1st.

So it might look something like this?

I think I now prefer none to terra nullius, reading up on it, it implies there is no territorial claim and that doesn't stand for the Falklands. Although I'm not sure including it would be POV, it implies a no man's land which does accurately describe the state of the islands at the time. Justin A Kuntz 08:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of de facto control

1764 – 1767	France
1765 – 1776	Great Britain
1767 – 1811	Spain
1811 – 1828	None
1828 – 1831	Argentina
1831 – 1832 {December – January}	USA
1832 – 1832 {January – December}	None
1832 – 1833 {December – January}	Argentina
1833 – 1982	United Kingdom
1982 {April – June}	Argentina
1982 – Present	United Kingdom

I'll bow, in that case, to Apcbg's greater knowledge. I'm inclined to believe that many of the sealers' and whalers' occupations - and full de facto control - will likely have been a month or more long in the period 1811-1828, but I won't argue for their inclusion because such information is difficult to research and not really relevant. The current revision implies that the settlement of Port Louis was in anarchy between January and December 1832 - is this accurate? (I assume that the beginning date of 1831 for the second "none" is an error.) My understanding was that it isn't. Another thing, maybe "December 1831 - January 1832" and "April 1982 - June 1982" might be a clearer way of putting these. Pfainuk 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The reformatting of the dates is a good idea, I was unhappy with the way it looked. I think it is accurate to reflect that the between the Lexington raid and Pinedo arriving the islands were effectively in anarchy. The Gauchos were unhappy at being paid in Vernet's own paper money (which was the motivation for the Gaucho murders in August of 1833), part of the motivation for the mutiny on Metivier's arrival was that they didn't want control to return to Vernet. Justin A Kuntz 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - no objections to that. Pfainuk 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok if there are no further objections and we have a consensus I will make the changes this weekend. Justin A Kuntz 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We need to recall another item of controversy (imo) from the leaving of Pinedo in January 1833 there was also no administration whatsoever in the Islands until the arrival of the first British authorities in January 1834, this fact is often ignored completely. True Vernet's manager Brisbane arrived back in Port Louis to manage Vernet's interests in the islands, Capt Fitzroy, who was there in the Beagle for a few days witnessed his arrival and ascertained his instructions from Vernet which he said were simply of a commercial basis not political. Brisbane of course was murdered in August 1833. On the whole I agree with what Apcbg suggests apart from this one ommission. By the way Vernet was not appointed Politcal and Miltary Commander until 10 June 1829 and took up the post in August so this could be interpreted as the beginning of Argentine de facto control. Previous Vernet efforts being simply commercial. Malvinero 21:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, do you want to have a go at modifying the table to correspond with what you just suggested? Sounds like that point needs to go in the main article as well. BTW do you know anything about British privateers using the islands? I can't find any references to support the claims here and on the history page? I have a suspicion that it may be the result of a spot of vandalism at some point as the Argentine frequently refer to the Brits as pirates. Justin A Kuntz 21:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new at this game I would not like to make a mess of your pretty table!! No, my family have lived in the Islands since 1840's/1850's (Though I live in the UK) and I have never heard of Privateers in or around the Islands except Jewett. Pirates equals any Englishman in Argentina. Francis Drake was a pirate to them also, well certainly in Chile where he raided the coastal cities. (There werent any in Argentina then to raid except BA which I am sure he did not attempt.) My father spent a lot of time in Chile when he was younger and he told me that if children were not going off to sleep they would be threatened by being told "Go to sleep or the Pirate Drake will get you" So the term English Pirates is quite common and not to be taken too seriously. I believe the privateer/pirate Woodes-Rogers paid a passing visit to the Falklands but he was never based there. Privateers were commonly used by the emerging Latin nations, Jewett worked for Uruguay and Argentina, after his Port Louis episode he was dismissed within a few months and joined the Brazilian Navy where he ended up as a Vice-Admiral I believe and lived there for the rest of his life. Malvinero 22:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about messing it up, we can always revert. The beauty of the wiki is that you can make mistakes. Seriously, feel free to have a go. Justin A Kuntz 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I've had a go. William Dickson was appointed as the first British representative (despite being one of the Argentine colonists) , he was murdered in August of 1833, so I have no de facto control till January of 1834 when Lt. Henry Smith arrived and restored order. I think its also appropriate to record in post 1982 that the FIG has effective control.

Proposed text:

Under the 1985 constitution the Falkland Islands Government became a parliamentary representative democratic dependency, with the governor as head of government. Members of the FIG are democratically elected, the Governor is purely a figure head with no legislative powers. Effectively under this constitution, the Falkland Islands are self-governing with the exception of foreign policy, although the FIG represents itself at the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation as the British Government no longer attends.

Unless there is any objections I'll install this on the main page tomorrow. Justin A Kuntz 12:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of de facto control

1764 – 1767	France
1765 – 1776	Great Britain
1767 – 1811	Spain
1811 – 1829	None
August 1829 – December 1831	Argentina
December 1831 – January 1832	USA
January 1832 – December 1832	None
December 1832 – January 1833	Argentina
January 1833 – August 1833	United Kingdom
August 1833 – January 1834	None
January 1834 – April 1982	United Kingdom
April 1982 – June 1982	Argentina
June 1982 – Present	United Kingdom

Looks OK to me except I would rather see 1985 onwards as FIG control. I agree about Dixon although he was not effectively in charge of the settlement except in Brisbane's absence. Fitzroy refers to him as the British Resident but Onslow did not give him this title as far as I can see, he merely asked him to display the British Flag on Sundays and to visiting ships. He was employed by Vernet/Brisbane as storekeeper. I will get my act together as I go along on references but may be away for some days shortly. Technically also I think Argentine de facto control should be dated from August 1829 when Vernet made his 'Formal act of Dominion' over the Falklands on behalf of the Republic of Buenos Aires.http://www.mininterior.gov.ar/agn/escuela_malvinas_doc12.asp Malvinero 20:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't disagree but so far I've been in the minority on that, I originally put it in since the 1985 constitution makes the FI self-governing. All of the negotiations with the Argentines since have had to be accepted by FIG before they are accepted. The British Government can't act without their agreement but they have gone along with the British Government on a number of things (such as Argentine visitors). Personally I'd put it in, FIG is the ultimate authority on all items of the domestic agenda, which to my mind means they have de facto control. Justin A Kuntz 22:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Progress"

"The only visible progress in the talks was the authorization given to Argentina for the construction of the Port Stanley Airport."

"Although the sovereignty discussions had some success in establishing economic and transport links between the Falklands and Argentina, there was no progress on the question of sovereignty of the Islands."

"Progress" in this article seems to be just a barely concealed euphamism for move towards Argentinian sovereignty. Given that Argentina's sovereignty claims are far from sound and rejected by the inhabitants, I don't think this sort of slanted use of language has any place in an encyclopedia. BriKaBraK 12:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Acctually in those sentences progress is a euphamism for some kind of outcome that both sides accept, from how I read them. No progress in talks indicates there is no agreement, though this may indeed be the desired results from one or both sides. Narson 13:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to side with Narson on this, there was an impass, neither side would move, ergo this is no progress. Justin A Kuntz 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That table again

An anonymous edit changed the table to:

Timeline of de facto control

1764 – 1767	France
1765 – 1770	Great Britain
1767 – 1811	Spain
1771 – 1776	Great Britain
1811 – 1829	None
August 1829 – December 1831	Argentina
December 1831 – January 1832	USA
January 1832 – December 1832	None
December 1832 – January 1833	Argentina
January 1833 – August 1833	United Kingdom
August 1833 – January 1834	None
January 1834 – April 1982	United Kingdom
April 1982 – June 1982	Argentina
June 1982 – Present	United Kingdom

I'd actually agree with the edit, since it reflects the expulsion of the British from Port Egmont in 1770. I reverted because it was done without consensus. Is there general support for putting it back in? Justin A Kuntz 20:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Table

Hello, I am the anonymous. I didn't think this change would be a problem. However, I agree, off course.

193.253.199.143 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, as you may have spotted above, a lot of effort went into getting the table right. I basically think what you're suggesting is sensible, though it may need the detail of referring to the months to clarify as we did when things changed rapidly from 1829 onward. Justin A Kuntz 20:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It did occur to me just after I posted the above comment, that it may well be a good idea because it clearly shows the often complex history of the Islands. Justin A Kuntz 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've re-reverted the grammar correction you inadvertently (I assume) reverted with your edit. I hope you don't mind! I agree, it improves the table, and am happy to see us putting months in up there as well. Months might not be a bad idea throughout the table, where available - for consistency's sake.

To the anon: this is a fairly contentious article and it's normally a good idea to get consensus here before any major edits are made. But check out the bold - revert - discuss cycle - that's basically what happened here and unless we get some objection it will improve this article. Pfainuk talk 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right I'd missed the grammar correction, no apologies necessary. I'll have a go at the table again, with the references I've got I think I can do a complete set. Suggest we do the same again, prototype it on the talk page and put it in when we have consensus? Justin A Kuntz 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Pfainuk talk 20:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of de facto control

February 1764 – April 1767	France
January 1765 – July 1770	Great Britain
April 1767 – February 1811	Spain
September 1771 – May 1776	Great Britain
February 1811 – August 1829	None
August 1829 – December 1831	Argentina
December 1831 – January 1832	USA
January 1832 – December 1832	None
December 1832 – January 1833	Argentina
January 1833 – August 1833	United Kingdom
August 1833 – January 1834	None
January 1834 – April 1982	United Kingdom
April 1982 – June 1982	Argentina
June 1982 – Present	United Kingdom

I took the table on the right based on the Brief History of the Falkland Islands. The month of the Spanish departure in 1811 is not mentioned in that source - do you have a different one that says it? It gives January in the article but I've been using the dates the settlement/abandonment actually happened rather than the dates which they were ordered because of the words "de facto" - and the article fairly clearly gives January as the date of the order rather than the date it was carried out.

I suggest that this table be used as testbed (or if you want you can incorporate this into your table above - I didn't want to confuse this with the original edit). Pfainuk talk 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Did a quick bit of digging. June of 1806 the Spanish governor, Juan Crisostomo Martinez left the islands. In 1811 the remainder of the settlement was withdrawn. Source http://www.history.horizon.co.fk/chronology.html

I have a date of January 8th 1811 from the book Toward Resolution: The Falkland Malvinas Dispute, Edited by Wayne S. Smith, Published 1991 by Lynne Riener Publishers, ISBN 1555872654. Its a collection of papers that includes "A Short Historical Chronology" by Mauricio Reina and Enrique Velasco-Ibarra. It isn't clear whether this is the date of the order or the date of the departure. It also includes the common mistake of putting the British departure from Port Egmont at 1774, so I'm not 100% convinced its a reliable source. And before I'm accused of ignoring Argentine sources, I am just trying to be fair here.

As its the best we have for now, I've put January in the table. We could ask APCBG, his knowledge of the history is usually pretty impeccable. Justin A Kuntz 08:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, 8th January is the date for the decree calling settlers to leave the islands. Issued in Montevideo, I doubt that it was acted on for several weeks/months. Justin A Kuntz 10:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that was my feeling (I was assuming that based on the article). In context, during the Napoleonic Wars, I can see them waiting for weeks to pick up a passing ship to relay the message, a couple of weeks to get from Montevideo to Puerto Soledad, and then if the ship was just carrying the dispatch rather than ferrying the settlers direct, weeks waiting for a ship arrive in Puerto Soledad to evacuate the settlers. I did a quick google search, but only got "1811" or "January 1811" without distingushing the decree and evacuation. I see you've asked User:Apcbg - let's see if he can shed some light on the matter. Pfainuk talk 11:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The last Spanish Governor Pablo Guillén, and all the residents of Puerto Soledad (46 men) left the islands on 13 February 1811 (or the next day). Source: Islas del Atlántico Sur : Islas Malvinas : Historia : Soberanía Española: Puerto Soledad. Apcbg 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd know that answer, cheers. Justin A Kuntz 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note on consistency of the Argentine Claim

Added and then self-reverted a comment on the consistency of the Argentine claim

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands&oldid=156465512#Argentine_claim

Wiki at the moment gives the impression that Argentina has consistently pushed the case for sovereignty since 1833. I've seen some things posted here where Argentine authors are still angry about the British occupation later in the 19th century. And I've seen other sources claim that the claim was largely forgotten till revised in the 1930s. Proposed edit is based upon one source at present, would that source pass WP:RS? I'm not so sure with this edit, that particular source may be POV. Thoughts everyone? Justin A Kuntz 11:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This comment at the end concerns me about this source:

"This article first appeared in the Falkland Islands Newsletter, Edition 14, May 1983. The Falkland Islands Association is an independent organisation which brings together those who support the continuing freedom of the people of the Falkland Islands. Its Constitution states that its objectives are to assist the people of the Falkland Islands to decide their own future for themselves without being subjected to pressure direct or indirect from any quarter."

IMO this is clearly a pro-British publication and not a neutral source. I don't think we can add your edit without qualification from this source - we need to balance it with the Argentine POV as well. Pfainuk talk 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pro-British and POV was also my take on the source, thats why I reverted. I suppose a little more research is in order. Justin A Kuntz 15:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Unindent

I found an Argentine source that goes some way toward showing that the Argentine view on sovereignty has varied over time and been manipulated for political gain in Argentina. Its a rather turgid academic text by Carlos Escude.

http://www.argentina-rree.com/documentos/culture_escude.htm

Example

Regarding the treatment of the Falkland Islands, the survey shed interesting results. These islands were present in almost every text throughout the century under study. Nonetheless, before 1940 there were six significative exceptions (out of a total of 31 texts) in which sovereignty was not attributed to Argentina, whereas after that date there was not a single case in which such an attribution was not made (in a total of 46 texts). Another indicator pointing in the same direction is that the use of the British name of the islands was registered seven times up to 1941; after this date, the term Falkland is replaced by Malvinas without exception. By and large, the language used to refer to the British occupation of the islands was considerably more moderate before 1945. This is not to say that there were no cases of a passionate attack on Britain in the early years, which there were. Nonetheless, before 1945 there were several cases of a surprisingly mild treatment, whereas afterwards the treatment became standardized and more homogeneously severe. The paradox is thus that indoctrination became more intense well after a century had lapsed since the British takeover of 1833.

Oblquely it indicates that the Argentine position has hardened due to indoctrination in the education system. Justin A Kuntz 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

From that quote, Justin, it does not overtly refer to educational indoctrination. It is entirely possible it is a wider more general cultural indoctrination, the same thing that happens in the modern world (The bias of media trickling down to the people etc). A minor note, but if you were going to argue for the inclusion of educational indoctrination, judging from the responses here I'd agree on a personal level but, a better source would be needed for encyclopedic use. Narson 20:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That was just an example, if you have time read the text (and it is heavy going), it does support the general conclusion that educational indoctrination has changed views. I've also got a doctoral thesis and a Guardian article backing this source. TBH I'm not sure where to go on this. I've seen references to Argentina reviving the largely dormant claim in the mid-20th century, finding a reference to back it up is proving tricky. I'll keep digging. Justin A Kuntz 20:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No any indoctrination was enforced since the 1930s. This mild change of actitude is the indirect consequence of many factors. First, in the nineteenth century Argentina was focusing on other things, like the conquest of Patagonia, the indipendence of Uruguay, the Paraguayan war, the shaping of a state and a constitution, or the assimilation of european immigrants. Second, since the destitution of Yrigoyen in 1930, the country entered a period of political instability and systematic putschs. While the different leaders tried to obtain support through nationalist rethoric, it was Peron's emancipation policies who changed the wind. He tried to free the country from foreign economic domination and political interference, and England was the major investor. The government nationalized many infrastructures and redefined trade agreements, and at the same time public opinion remembered Unites Kingdom still occupied the islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.217.121 (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So the inference that the premise that the claim was essentially revived in the 1930s is essentially correct? Justin A Kuntz 19:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation Request

Original text of the declaration at Puerto Soledad, 6th November 1820 by Col. David Jewett of the Frigate Heroina

Señor, tengo el honor de informarle que he llegado a este puerto comísionado por el Supremo Gobierno de las Provincias Unidas de Sud América para tomar posesión de las islas en nombre del país a que éstas pertenecen por la Ley Natural. Al desempeñar esta misión deseo proceder con la mayor corrección y cortesía para con todas naciones amigas; uno de los objetos de mi cometido es evitar la destrucción de las fuentes de recursos necesarios para los buques de paso, que, en recalada forzosa, arriban a las islas, y hacer de modo que puedan aprovisionarse con los mínimos gastos y molestias, dado que los propósitos de Usted no están en pugna y en competencia con estas instituciones y en la creencia de que una entrevista personal resultará de provecho para ambos, invito a usted a visitarme a bordo de mi barco, donde me será grato brindarle acomodo mientras le plazca; he de agradecerle - a si mismo - que tenga a bien, en lo que esté a su alcance, hacer extensiva mi invitación a cualquiér otro súbdito británico que se hallare en estas inmediaciones; tengo el honor de suscribirme señor, su más atento y seguro servidor.

My attempt at translation using my very crap Spanish, google translation and Spanish/English dictionary.

“Sir, I have the honor to inform you that I have been commissioned to come to this port by the Supreme Government of the United Provinces of South America to take possession of these islands in the name of the country to which they belong by Natural Law. In carrying out this mission I desire to approach with the greatest respect and courtesy towards all nations as friends; one of the objects of my assignment is to avoid destruction of the resources necessary for sailing ships, that, in unavoidable landfall, arrives at these islands and do so with the minimum of annoyances and expense, since your intentions are not in incompatible with or in competition with these institutions and in the belief that a personal interview will be of benefit for us both, I invite you to visit on board my boat, where I will be pleased to offer a mutually beneficial arrangement; I would be grateful to you - of itself – if you are able within your reach, to extend my invitation to any other British subject who will be in these environs; I have the honour to remain gentleman, your kind and obedient servant”

Putting in a request for help with the translation. Justin talk 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this letter originally in English? In which case what you have is a backtranslation. Colonel Jewitt was American and he was addressing British people. By googling I came across a version at JSTOR

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2168(192911)9%3A4%3C471%3ATFIDBT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J

I don't have access but maybe someone here does Dab14763 02:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The English version given in the book: Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982:

“State frigate Heroina, in Port Soledad, November 2, 1820. 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. While carrying out this mission I want to do so with all the courtesy and respect all friendly nations; one of the objectives of my mission is to prevent the destruction of resources necessary for all ships passing by and forced to cast anchor here, as well as to help them to obtain the necessary supplies, with minimum expenses and inconvenience. Since your presence here is not in competition with these purposes and in the belief that a personal meeting will be fruitful for both of us, I invite you to come aboard, where you'll be welcomed to stay as long as you wish; I would also greatly appreciate your extending this invitation to any other British subject found in the vicinity; I am, respectfully yours.” Signed, Jewett, Colonel of the Navy of the United Provinces of South America and commander of the frigate Heroina.

My note: The “necessary supplies” and “resources necessary for all ships passing by” refers to the wild cattle left by the Spaniards (not to the seals as someone might think!), which the sealers traditionally used to hunt for free, while Jewett suggested they should pay for it in the future. Hope this helps. Apcbg 06:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, helps a lot. Shows my translation was way out, like I suspected. Justin talk 08:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The English version and Spanish versions have only tiny differences. The Spanish version makes a bit more sense in at least one spot, and has some formalities that are lacking in the English. Because of that, and because Wikipedia claims that David Jewett was working for the government that would become Argentina, I'm guessing that that speech was written originally in Spanish. But, obviously, I don't know. AnFu 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article David Jewett claims Jewett was working for Argentina: "After that conflict Colonel Jewett offered his services to the newly-independent United Provinces of the River Plate (later Argentina), which accepted his proposal and authorized his corsair activities against the Spanish; he was appointed a Colonel in the Argentine Navy." The article has a bit more info about his journey to, and arrival at, the Falklands as an 'Argentinian'. AnFu 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Destefani, it was originally delivered in English. Jewett was American. BTW I've written a lot of the Jewett article. Justin talk 08:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that Destefani has taken what was originally a letter from Jewitt to Weddell the British explorer and entrepreneur dated 2 November 1820 and published in full in “A Voyage Towards the South Pole” written by Weddell and published in London in 1825. If this was really the text of a general proclamation issued to all and sundry at Puerto Soledad or Port Louis why would it be issued as a personalised invitation? There may well have been a similar general proclamation made on 6 November 1820 when Jewitt came ashore and raised the Buenos Aires flag and fired a 21 gun salute, but this text cannot in truth be it because it seems that Destefani has cobbled his “Declaration” together from the contents of the letter to Weddell, perhaps to give it authenticity and the nationalistic overtones he is trying to achieve by so doing.

This is the letter to Weddell:-

" National Frigate Heroind at Port Soledad, " November 2. 1820. "

Sir,

I have the honour to inform you of the circumstance of my arrival at this port, commissioned by the supreme government of the United Provinces of South America to take possession of these islands in the name of the country to which they naturally appertain. In the performance of this duty, it is my desire to act towards all friendly flags with the most distinguished justice and politeness.

A principal object is to prevent the wanton destruction of the sources of supply to those whose necessities compel or invite them to visit the islands, and to aid and assist such as require it to obtain a supply with the least trouble and expense.

As your views do not enter into contravention or competition with these orders, and as I think mutual advantage may result from a personal interview, I invite you to pay me a visit on board my ship, where I shall be happy to accommodate you during your pleasure.

I would also beg you, so far as comes within your sphere, to communicate this information to other British subjects in this vicinity.

I have the honour to be, Sir

Your most obedient humble Servant, " (Signed) JEWITT, "

Colonel of the marine of the United Provinces of South America, and commander of the frigate Heroind."

I think this puts a slightly different perspective on it.

Weddell give a full account of his meetings with Jewitt in his book, (freely available on Google Books online) He says among other things:-

“He told me his business was to take possession of the Falkland Islands for his government, and that everything necessary for an establishment would be procured from Buenos Ayres so soon as he could purchase a cutter, of which there were several among the islands. It evidently appeared, however, that his principal business was to refresh his crew; for never, since the time of Lord Anson, perhaps, had an instance occurred where the scurvy had been so destructive to a ship's company. Though they had been at sea about eight months only, and had frequently during that time been supplied with vegetables from the Cape de Verds, this dreadful disease was making rapid progress among those unfortunate people.”

Of course in effect Jewitt was a licensed pirate, his ship was in fact privately owned and his voyage a commercial one to capture Spanish shipping for the profit of his principle, one Patrick Lynch of Buenos Aires who actually owned the Heroina.

Weddell was also of the opinion that the pantomime of taking possession had much to do with Jewitt taking ownership of a wrecked French ship.

He says:-

“In a few days, he took formal possession of these islands for the patriot government of Buenos Ayres, read a declaration under their colours, planted on a port in ruins, and fired a salute of twenty-one guns. On this occasion the officers were all in full uniform, being exactly that of our navy, which but ill accorded with the dilapidated state of the ship; but he was wise enough to calculate the effect of such parade, upon the minds of the masters of ships who were in the islands; and as he had laid claim to the wreck of the French ship before mentioned, to the entire exclusion of several vessels which had arrived, bound to New Shetland, he was aware that an authoritative appearance was necessary. In fact he struck such a terror on the minds of some ship-masters, lest they should be captured or robbed, that one of them proposed taking up arms against him; but on my pointing out to him how groundless were his fears, and introducing him to Captain Jewitt, he confessed his mistake, and his fears subsided. — On the 20th of November I sailed from Port Louis, and left Captain Jewitt completing his repairs.

I have since learned that he took the ship to the river Plata, and that he is now in the Brazilian service. “

Weddell was correct. In effect Jewitt was sacked after his disastrous voyage and he then offered his services to the Brazilian navy rising to the rank of Vice-Admiral and eventually died in Rio.

Commenting on the state of Jewitt’s ship and crew Weddell says:-

“During the first days of their arrival here, they died to the number of 5 or 6 in a day. I was glad to give any information in regard to the country, which might be the means of assisting in the recovery of these poor men; and by the use of fish, wild fowl, and indigenous and other vegetables;, I had the pleasure of seeing them soon become convalescent. The sick were landed at the ruins of the town of' St. Louis; and though there were no roof's to the houses, they found an immense oven in which they were well sheltered from the weather. The complement of men, when the ship sailed from Buenos Ayres eight months before, was 200 : they had not now more than 30 seamen and 40 soldiers fit to do duty; 50 had been put on board a prize, so that about 80 were either sick or had died of the scurvy.”

I can find no evidence that the Buenos Aires government had ever given Jewitt instructions to take possession of the Falklands, I think he was a bit of a chancer in this regard and needed a ‘saver’ to present to his employer on arriving back in Buenos Aires. His act of ‘possession’ was really not acknowledged in Buenos Aires for nearly an year by which time he was long gone. Nothing was done by Jewitt to establish any authority in the islands he simply made his declaration and sailed away. To that extent it really had no validity whatsoever.Malvinero 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right, Apcbg found a Spanish version here[1], which is a pretty true Spanish translation of Destefani's English original. It could be after a disastrous voyage, Jewett chanced his arm with the claim on the islands then represented his letter to weddel as a general declaration. Trouble is that is veering into OR territory which is not acceptable according to wiki policy. We would need a source to make that claim, then we could report it. Justin talk 19:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That reference of Weddell confirms the ceremony claiming the islands. There is not mention of issuing a warning which is what the uncited text used to say. Could be that Jewett used the same text from the letter. Interesting book there. Justin talk 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Maps

Don't like the two maps, it looks "clunky", it would be better to have one map with both names - though no doubt that'll cause arguments over which name comes first. Justin talk 20:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There are four maps in this article, seems too many to me. Justin talk 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, of the two international position maps, I'm not sure what exactly the maps have to do with that section. In general, I prefer the one with the English names purely on a quality level (The spanish writing is 'bleeding' around the edges at my resolution, making it look a little gauche) Narson (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merging of both maps, why not adding the Argentinian names (in brackets) to the English map? Also, why not move the world map into the article's lead? it would be a better introduction than a bunch of flags. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of work went into that table, which is intended to convey the complex history of the islands and puts the various claims into context. I'd prefer to keep it, we can definitely lose one of the world maps. Justin talk 22:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say remove the table, i said use that image as a heading of the article, right on top of the table. Justin thinks that four maps is too much, i think that it's not too much but that the world map and the Argentina one are too close together, if they were further apart it wouldn't be so annoying to the eye plus it would give people unfamiliar to the subject an idea of what the article is about (the islands). I'll try and do an example of the table and the map later. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry I misunderstood what you meant. I'm just installing Inkscape to have a go at the map. Justin talk 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

De-Facto Sovereignty

The table-timeline of sovereignty is very confusing, since some periods overlap others. I think an image could be done, showing each nation in a different color200.26.164.235 (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy to consider any suggestions how it might be improved but a lot of work and research went into producing it, so please do so here first. Justin talk 09:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I imagine it as a graph which showed the years in one axis and nations in the others, with lines meaning sovereignity. The same information from the table could be used.200.26.164.235 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may pop out of the woodwork briefly, I have thought of this before. My concerns are clarity and NPOV. Clarity because 2 months in the middle of over 170 years' otherwise unbroken occupation is not necessarily going to notice. There are times when more significant things can happen in a few months than normally happen in several decades, and Falkland history includes more than one good example of that. We would also no longer show exactly which months we were talking about, which would potentially be a loss of information.

On NPOV I would also be worried that if we were to show the 150-odd (1834-1982) years of British unbroken occupation in full graphically at the top of the page this would put the British case for sovereignty (which based at least partly on the long period of occupation) overly prominently. If we were to skip out a few decades in the middle of that, we would potentially mislead our readers into assuming that Argentina has occupied the islands for longer periods than they really have.

I'm not intending to put a case to veto any suggestion - if it can be done well then I have no problem and I will of course accept a consensus made in my absence (per my user page, for various reasons I am not checking Wiki frequently at the moment). But we must take care. Pfainuk talk 03:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Current claims section

A few edits I want to make, but seeing as this is potentially controversial I thought I'd check here first:

• Remove the Argentine point

  The islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.

  This has been unsourced since October and it looks like original synthesis to me. I very much doubt the implication that the 1958 Convention mentions the case of Argentina and the Falklands, and I also doubt that it applies to inhabited islands - otherwise one could argue that Great Britain is part of France or vice versa.
• Add the text

  Whether or not this includes the islands is disputed.

  to the bottom of the Nootka section, to more accurately state the situation in this regard. Since we have a source and the conventions are mentioned, I think we should make this point clear.
• The Argentine section currently looks like a set of arguments while the British section looks like - for the most part - "they're ours, deal with it". Since the Argentine section puts Argentina's claim pretty much verbatim ("Self-determination principles are not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population expelled by the British invasion of 1833."), I see no reason why the British sections shouldn't do the same. Source no. 34 is the history section FCO's country profile of the Falklands (whose link I have just updated). To produce something similar to the Argentine section we could use the following, based on that source:
  • The British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim (This directly contradicts the Argentine section, but it is the British POV, which we are trying to present)
  • The islands have been continuously and peacefully occupied by the UK since 1833, with the exception of 2 months' illegal occupation by Argentina (Similarly, we call the events of January 1833 "illegal" in the Argentine section, so this is fair)
  • Argentina's attempts to colonise the islands in 1820-33 were "sporadic and ineffectual" (The colony existed for 3½ years straight before the British arrived, which hardly sounds "sporadic and ineffectual". Argentine governance may have been sporadic and ineffectual, particularly in 1832, but the colonists were clearly there on a permanent basis pre-1833. We allow for similar lapses of history in the Argentine section)
  • The islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement. (This is clearly false with reference both to the 1765-76 settlers, predated by the French, and with reference to 1833 when the British took control of the existing colony. But in the Argentine section we say the British expelled the Argentine colonists in a similar way, and that's also false)
  • In an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances (I'm surprised it wasn't higher)
  • UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future." (Clearly, the British Government's opinion, not an indisputable fact, but this is the same as we allow for Argentina)

The Argentine government has produced a similar document here (that's source no. 2 from the text) - so sourcing their statements shouldn't be too difficult and using both would make NPOV by balancing two opposing POV's. I'm not sure this is the best way of presenting this section though. Pfainuk talk 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the Argentine document is available here in English Pfainuk talk 15:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Regarding the Argentine colony.

First attempt in 1824 to establish a colony was a complete disaster and was abandoned within months.

Second attempt in 1826 was also abandoned, partially as a result of a Brazilian blockade, partially because they couldn't cope with the conditions. The second attempt was also sanctioned by the British. Arguably Vernet was playing both sides off against the middle but he did ask for British permission first,

The third attempt in 1828 did manage to establish a presence but again Vernet sought British permission first. However, the progress of the settlement is debatable. Vernet claimed it was successful and advertised for further colonists. However, his brief was that the colony would be exempt from taxes if it could be up and running within 3 years. Testimony from Duncan describes the settlement as somewhat squalid and many of the colonists who left with the Americans expressed the view they were mislead as to the progress of the settlement and were glad to avail themselves of the chance to leave. Brisbane laid the blame for the squalid conditions observed by Fitzrot and Darwin in March 1833 upon Duncan. So Vernet had a financial incentive to exaggerate his progress and anecdotal evidence would to some extent seem to contradict his claims of progress and Duncan provides the perfect excuse.

BTW Is this the three and a half year settlement you talked off, because if you look at the timelines its actually less than 3 years. Also nitpicking on the detail, Vernet wasn't appointed as Governor till 1829 (an appointment he denied to the British as he claimed his interest was purely commercial), so it wasn't an officially endoresed settlement till then. Further nitpicking on the detail, the reason for Vernet's appointment was that he asked for military support but a) got none, b) the appointment was the result and c) there was no attempt by the United Provinces to establish a presence.

Vernet didn't establish effective of the islands as the first time he attempted to assert control it provoked the Americans into sacking the settlement. The Americans may downplay their role these days but if you read contemporary accounts of the event, the Americans were quite bullish about it - it was included in the presidents state of the union address. So whether this was an effective settlement is debatable.

Again you can argue that Vernet was playing both sides, he provided regular reports to the British and also urged the British to establish a permanent presence. Arguably the British could form the view that the settlement was there with their blessing and was not establishing a presence by the United Provinces.

The fourth attempt to re-establish the settlement in 1832 was an unmitigated disaster. There was a mutiny resulting in the murder of the senior military commander that was only put down by the presence of an Argentine navy ship.

So, whilst I note some of your other points "sporadic and ineffectual" seems an appropriate description in light of the true circumstances, not the gilded version extolled by Argentine propaganda; in particular when you consider the progress of settlements that were not sanctioned by the British. Aside from that, commenting on the British opionion is veering into WP:OR territory. Whilst, I would like to write a criticism of the Argentine position, I do not for that very reason.

This is a roundabout way of saying I agree with your proposition that the British section should be expanded to put forward the British argument. But I feel that we should not be commenting upon it per se as it goes beyond the wikipedia principle of verifiability. May I respectfully suggest that you think about this and consider striking out some of your comments above in that light.

My personal suggestion, is to include the claims of both sides but to not comment upon either.

BTW the Argentines do claim that under the 1958 convention the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina. The argument is somewhat bogus as it would not apply in the circumstances of the islands and Argentina although a signatory never actually got around to ratifying it. Nevertheless it is included in their claim. Justin talk 16:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should probably have made it clearer - for the record my italic comments were always intended to be talk-page commentary, justifying the use of POV in this instance to balance the Argentine POV just above, and not to be added to the article.

In any case, I should probably have reread the article to get the small details right! The 3½-years I was referring to was August '29 to January '33 - specifically, I was nitpicking that there were colonists there before the British arrived in 1833 - there was what I would call a "settled population", even if conditions were appalling and much of the population wanted to leave, and even if there was no effective Argentine authority for much of that time (that's what I meant when I said "Argentine governance may have been sporadic and ineffectual" - it was), we don't have evidence that they were actively trying to get out, so far as I know. Of course, this is an academic point of what things are called that I don't think we should raise at this point in the article, especially since we already describe the history in detail. Vernet's applications to the British are a point that could be argued, I think, though obviously there was no British control in any practical sense before 1833.

I will leave the '58 convention in that case and see if anyone else wants to comment on the rest before I make the edit. Pfainuk talk 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking over details again but Vernet's settlement is generally assumed to have ceased in December 1831. There was no authority at all till Pinedo quelled the mutiny in December 1832.

IMHO the Argentine Government falls into a classic trap when it presents its claim. Throwing in things like the 1958 convention are really weak arguments, you see this time and time again where people have a range of points to make that vary in strength and they decide to throw them all in together. A decent advocate in opposition will then attack the weak arguments first, which will then cast doubt on the stronger arguments. In point of fact, the strongest part of the Argentine argument relates to Vernet but even that is tainted by his complicity in allowing the British to think that their claims were recognised.

We need to be careful in that presenting both claims we do not add weight to the feebler claims on either side. I would suggest working up a joint effort in a sandpit linked from the talk page. That way we can get a consensus text we can work on together before putting it into the main text. Justin talk 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here we go: Pfainuk/Current Claims. Pfainuk talk 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, we can do it that way but I actually meant of this talk page. I'll have a go later. Justin talk 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you want you're welcome to move it, or whatever really. Pfainuk talk 17:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through with this edit. Obviously if there's something wrong with it, discuss if controversial or not if not. :) Pfainuk talk 16:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10