Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 1

One of the reasons...
"One of the reasons that the name Falkland Islands is rejected by Argentina is that it reflects British colonialism." "One of the reasons that the name Malvinas is rejected by the British is that it reflects Argentine claims." I'm removing both sentences. The British reject the name Malvinas simply because the English name is Falklands and the Argentines reject the name Falklands simply because the Spanish name is Malvinas. (Some use Falklands in Chile, but that's material for the main article, if at all.) --84.42.146.44 01:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that's one reason for using different names for the archipelago. But let's not forget that throughout southern Argentina and Chile there are plenty of non-Spanish place-names, of which quite a few are English or (Anglo-Irish). And while Falkland is surely English in origin, Malvinas is French (or possibly Franco-Norman). --Big Adamsky 23:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Invasion, schminvasion
In Argentina it is considered that in 1982 Argentine forces retomaron ("retook") the islands, while in the UK the word "invaded" is normally used.

The article says that. As I already raised on Talk:Falkland_Islands, it seems that while the word invasion describes the act, some view the word with a bad connotation. Since "attack" also describes the act and it doesn't have the connotation, maybe the intro should use that word without losing accuracy.

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Invade would be correct. Especially since the native population resisted the takeover. A reader with no knowledge of the war may also interpret "attack" differently (ie they may think that no actual Argentine occupation took place). Astrotrain 21:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it should be invasion, SqueakBox 21:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, good point, Astro. I guess I can live with it... --Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Table
I've added a table to the page showing the occupier of the islands since the original French colony in the 18th century. I also removed the war memorial images which are not really relevant here, they relate to the Falklands War rather than the Argentine claim. Astrotrain 21:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I like it, I took the liberty of touching it up a little bit, hope you don't mind. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I won't discuss the history (it is consistent with History of the Falkland Islands, and that is the place to do that), but
 * uninhabited = no sovereignty? That's a novel concept. Is this island (for example) free for taking?
 * according to Sovereignty, it is an exclusive right. The first three entries overlap, so choose one (won't be very difficult ;) or change the title of the table to History of settlements in the Islands or something like that.
 * Greetings. --84.42.146.44 05:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It might be an exclusive right now but in the 17th, 18th and 19th century there are plenty of instances of one "country" as we know today being split into different parts. We can safely assume that all three powers were sovereign in at least a part of the islands.
 * --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dunc, you have this thing about making changes without entering the debate here. Why would you make a change like that if there is people disagreeing with the anon? "De facto control" doesn't make any sense... --Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How on earth can 3 powers control something at the same time? If you don't like sovereignty, how can you use control? For God's sake, PLEASE come here and comment before making more changes. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I just left the word "Timeline", and I hope that you get yourself in the talk page and discuss the changes before making them. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Calm down. The problem with "sovereignty" is that it suggests legitimacy, when either side doesn't recognise the other's legitimacy. Rhe problem with "occupation" is that it suggests illegality.  De facto on the other hand is neutral.  It also follows the wording of the Falkland Islands article.  One or two years when there were >1 colony doesn't make too much of a difference over 200 years. Dunc|&#9786; 16:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am calm now that you decided to follow common practice and give reasons here. After the protection issue yesterday, I have to admit I expected a tad better... De Facto might be a nice word but nobody controlled anything, as evidenced by the continuous changes and the fragilty of their bases. Occupation is the correct word, it has taken that meaning sometimes because of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but to occupy is the correct word in this case. On the other hand, nobody can argue that the Falklands are under legitimate British sovereignty, even when there's an Argentine claim which disputes that legitimacy... I would be more than happy to compromise on another word, although at at this point no ideas come to mind. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I would argue that the British sovereignty over the islands is not legitimate. I hope your POV doesn't permeate to the article. --84.42.146.44 12:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Good for you, kindly contribute to the article if you feel that my "POV" is permeating the article. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I realised at the time of writing, that "Timeline of Sovereignty" was not the best wording. I think Dunc's edit is the best solution- since defacto control is a completely neutral term, and is a better description for the purposes of the table (ie it is supposed to show how the control of the islands has passed over time) Astrotrain 17:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with control is the same one that with sovereignty... "De Facto" is cool, but I don't see that much sense unless we maybe change control for "posession"... --Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

British protest

 * The first Argentine Governor was appointed in 1823. In response the British consul in Buenos Aires protested the move and restated the UK's original claim.

Source? Here says that the Argentine take of posession (?) of the islands was published in USA and Spain in 1821 and GB didn't even mention it then, and neither when the treaty of 1825 was signed (it doesn't say that the British didn't protest in 1823, but a source would be nice). Sorry the English, I know it is atrocious :-/. --84.42.146.44 01:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm... I should read the whole section before commenting. Ok, the British regained interest in the islands in 1829 and then protested when Vernet was appointed governor (protest filed in november 1831). At the same time, Vernet, who had exclusive fishing rights there, tried to stop the fishing of the US ships in the area. Finally, the Argentine authorities captured three and sent them to Buenos Aires for a trial (he went there too). They arrived 19 november 1831. Big diplomatic fuss follows. The US consul wants the immediate release of the capturing ships, and free fishing rights for US ships; the Argentine government says they are investigating; the consul goes to speak with the captain of USS Lexington (then at Bs. As. port) and then sends an ultimatum to the Arg government: return the ships or the Lexington will sail to the islands on 9 december 1831. (Apparently, the Arg couldn't stop a single corvette (!).) Unacceptable ultimatum, of course, so the Lexington goes (under French flag), arrives (28 dec), destroys, takes prisoners, declares res nullius and returns to Montevideo (8 feb 32). In the meantime the consul teams up with the British one, and they start denying Argentine sovereignity over the islands.

Argentina sends another governor with some soldiers. They disembark (nov 1832) and the ship goes to inspect the zone. The soldiers revolt and kill the governor. The ship returns and finishes the revolt. The captain (Pinedo) assumes authority. USA consul snorts :-/.

20 dec 1832, Clio and Tyne arrive to Pt Egmont. 2 jan 1833 they arrive to Soledad. The captain says to Pinedo that he should take the Argentine flag down, and raise the English one. He refuses, the British do that themselves. Outnumbered, Pinedo leaves. The end.

That's what my source says. Please see if yours differ substantially. If not, I will adapt the above to the section. What the section says now has serious inaccuracies (according to this source, that is). Greetings. --84.42.146.44 02:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your right, the consul protested after the appointment of Vernet (the 4th governor) and not the 1st governor. I also expanded the section to include more detail on Vernet and his actions. Previosuly I had only summarised the events. Astrotrain 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV revert
I have reverted this article. It's important to understand that there are two sides to this issue especially regarding the actions of 1833 (Invasion/Return) - 1982 (Liberation/Invasion). The existing article reflected boths sides better. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands&diff=30287241&oldid=30245057 Megapixie 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Megapixie. If the 1982 was an invasion, then the same standard should be applied to the 1833 incident. Sebastian Kessel Talk 03:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. Mariano (t/c) 09:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Invasion is a standard term for armed conflict to capture territory (eg it is common to describe D-Day as the begnining of the Allied invasion of France), regardless of Sovereignty. However the 1982 invasion by the UK (to recapture the islands) could legitmately be described as "liberation", as they were removing an occupier with the support of the native population. Astrotrain 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You probably mean the 1833 invasion by the UK. But it can't be described as Liberation because there were no UK citizens in the islands to liberate, whereas an Argentine settlement (as well as a penal colony) where occupied by force (yet without resistance), and without help from native population because there was no native people on the islands. What's more, when the Argentinians settled on the islands, they where abandoned, so you can't consider that Argentine government was an occupier from which the land should be liberated. Mariano (t/c) 10:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I do mean the May 1982 invasion by the UK during the Falklands War (to recpature the islands from Argentina who invaded in April 1982). This could be described as liberating (basically just the opposite of the situation you describe in 1883). Astrotrain 11:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just re-reverted the page after some edits by User:212.120.226.135 (including the new Spanish interwiki link). Megapixie 02:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

To describe that as liberating equates to recognize the legitimacy of the UK de facto occupation. No, it is not legitimate; it's just a POV perspective. User:Ejrrjs says What? 07:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am meerly going by the definition of liberation. It doesn't matter about legitimacy of the UK position, if an army invades another territory to remove a force occupying that territory against the will of the people, it is perfectly acceptable to describe that act as "liberation". In any case, the article doesn't currently state the word "liberation", although the Islanders do celebrate a liberation day. Astrotrain 16:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Astro, the article doesn't mention the word "liberation", let's leave this here since the point is moot. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the legitimacy of the claim. The issue is that the articles present state is WP:NPOV - and presents both sides' arguments as to the legitimacy of their claim. Any changes should maintain the NPOV-ness of the present article. Let us not get distracted by discussions of one claims legitimacy over the other. Megapixie 07:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the recent changes may be an attempt to involve this article in the ongoing edit war at Disputed status of Gibraltar. Obviously any POV edits should be reverted on site. Astrotrain 16:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we've all made a very good effort to keep this article NPOV. I agree 100% with astro. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Discovery
According to the article History of the Falkland Islands, the first discoverers of this archipielago were the Spaniards at the beginning of XV century, around 190 years before than the British, but this article, Sovereignty of the Falklands Islands, gives to understand that do not there was Spanish presence before 1713. I believe that this point should be corrected.--Menah the Great 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is really about the claims on the Islands. Discovery doesn't mean they were claimed by Spain. And I can't see the 1713 claim you are talking about? Astrotrain 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1713 is the Treaty of Utrecht year, when Britains recognized the Spanish sovereignty above the antartic archipielagos near South America.--Menah the Great 13:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Important information
The 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands article states:

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

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

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

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

Historical names
The islands had different names through time, would that be something to add to the table with the different countries occupying it. Makes sense in a historical sense. KimvdLinde 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Made a table with names, but they might be incorrect. KimvdLinde 18:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should avoid the name dispute, and not put them in the table. The names are used at different points, and do exist at the same time. During the 1982 occupation, they were still offically the Falklands. Astrotrain 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with " During the 1982 occupation, they were still offically the Falklands"? I'm not sure I undertand. What is an official name? For whom? If Argentina had de facto control over the islands, then it also had it over the name of the islands. At least that's what seams logical to me. Mariano (t/c) 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. I think that clarifying the names in the table facilitates the under standing of the people that there are different names. The current version looks like suppression of the historical names. KimvdLinde 17:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To start with, the invasion and occupation in 1982 was illegal- therefore Argentina could not change the name. Since 1833, the name has been offically the Falkland Islands. Perhaps the key fact is that there has always been different names for the Islands, so we can't state what is offical for a large part of the time. Astrotrain 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with illegal? Against which law? Is there any legal occupation? The British Occupation of 1833 was legal? I don't see your point. Mariano (t/c) 11:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The table gives the de facto control, and the it makes sense to use the de facto name in that case. Illegal or not. Otherwise, why indicate the de facto control at all, just say mention what is official. There is always a name related to the country that had the soevereinity over the islands, and giving that name in the table makes sense. The current situation makes it really hard for people to find the official names at historical times..... KimvdLinde 01:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

These flags are inconsistent. Quite correctly they show the British flag without the Cross of St. Patrick during the 18th century - but they also show the post-revolutionary Tricolour for France, which, needless to say, was not used until after 1789. TharkunColl 10:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so that one needs to be changed in the article, but doyou agree that clarifying the changes in names is a good idea?KimvdLinde 14:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If names are dependent on political control, then why is "Malvinas" in the Falkland Islands article? The list also gives the erroneous impression the "Falklands" came after the French name, whereas in fact it dates from 1690. TharkunColl 15:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not start the same stuff here. There are two aspects on naming, official naming and names that are commonly used. In the falkland islands article, it is about commonly used name, the table is about the official name. KimvdLinde 15:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why the double standards? TharkunColl 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Double standards, no, different angle at different locations. But maybe we should give a list of officially used names, their first usage and whan it was used officially and commonly. KimvdLinde 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you would need different lists for different languages. Falklands has been the common name in English since 1690. TharkunColl 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I see we now have the Spanish name twice in the lead. I really don't think this is necessary or encyclopedic. --Guinnog 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not so I removed it again. Vintagekits does this from time to time, SqueakBox 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no need to overpersonalise it. I have reverted a second time and discussed in his talk why I think it is a bad edit. I will leave it at that unless there is further discussion here or it is added again. --Guinnog 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Malvinas Islands or frequently The Malvinas is an alternate English language name and should be shown alongside the other English language names for the disputed territory.--Vintagekits 18:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. It is the Spanish name and as such is already mentioned in the article. --Guinnog 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The facts show otherwise - so what should we do, going along with what you believe or what the fact show?--Vintagekits 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

French flag is wrong!
I've said this before, but nobody has done anything. The French tricolour was not used until after the revolution. TharkunColl 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Apcbg edits
User:Apcbg introduced some changes I would like to discuss: He stated that between 1811 and 1826 UK and USA sailors had de facto control of the islands (even if they fished around them that doesn't mean they have any control). He also changed the year of the Argentine colony's foundation from 1820 to 1826, adding a "source" that doesn't support the statement.

I would like to revert both changes. Mariano (t/c) 07:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Until 1826 the only inhabitants of the islands were the English and American sealers – in 1820 Jewett was sent to announce the Argentine claim to them not to the seals, and that he did in the islands not 'around'. That the Argentine settlement on the Falklands was only established in 1826 is a well known fact, indeed confirmed by the quoted reference Historia de las Relaciones Exteriores Argentinas, Obra dirigida por Carlos Escudé y Andrés Cisneros, desarrollada y publicada bajo los auspicios del Consejo Argentino para las Relaciones Internacionales (CARI), GEL/Nuevohacer (Buenos Aires), 2000:


 * “A first attempt of Pacheco to settle down in the islands failed. The second attempt, made personally by Vernet, was successful in 1826 (12). So that until this date an establishment of the United Provinces in the islands had not existed.” Apcbg 11:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'm still wondering why google didn't find that link. Mariano (t/c) 11:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The source says:
 * After Spanish personnel left Puerto Soledad, the islands became uninhabited again. To American historian J. C. J. Metford, they became res nullius. During that time, the Malvinas (Falklands) were only visited by whaling ships of several nationalities, looking for the shelter their ragged coast provided.
 * Nowhere is the nationality of the whalers stated, no sealers are mentioned, and it doesn't say that the island where inhabited--on the contrary. I'd suggest taking future sourced contributions of Apcbg with a grain of salt. --193ypico 16:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ivanov's book
I removed the link to the book Apcbg has been spamming all wikipedias with. (It's the story of a trekker and his daughter, who live a couple of weeks in the islands, are charmed with its people, and then go on writing a book defending the British claim/rights on the islands.) I consider it no more than a pamphlet and not worthy of being in the Sources section. --193ypico 16:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference book & Timeline table
(1) Here follows the opinion of Dr. Ivanov’s work by the Falkland Islands Legislative Councillor the Hon. Mike Summers – presently he happens to be also the Falkland Islands Government spokesman – as presented in his foreword to the book:

(Quote)

FOREWORD

by Mike Summers Legislative Councillor Falkland Islands Government

''In this paper on the Future of the Falkland Islands and its People, Dr. Ivanov has produced a remarkable and interesting piece of work. He has accurately analysed and assessed the current state of political development in the Falkland Islands and the options open to us. There is little doubt that the Falkland Islands will continue to develop at a pace that suits the people, and it is very unlikely that the Falklands would choose, in the foreseeable future, any route other than some form of devolved integration with the United Kingdom.''

''It is interesting to see Dr. Ivanov’s comments on the possible position of the Falklands as a bridge between Europe, South America and the Antarctic. It was the late Dr. di Tella, one of the most intelligent and free thinking of Argentina’s foreign affairs leaders, who first said to me that he thought the Falklands had a real place in the South West Atlantic. The calming influence of a European power could have a positive effect in an area where Latin temperament predominates; he was half joking and deadly serious.''

''The contrasts and parallels drawn by Dr. Ivanov and the distinguished commentators on his paper amply demonstrate the importance of both internal and external self-determination, in developing as well as developed nations. It is an interesting interface where devolution and decolonisation meet.''

''But it is in particular the contributions on self-determination from a worldwide perspective, that enhance and broaden Dr. Ivanov’s paper into a very significant contribution to debate in this area. They are all to be commended.''

Stanley, 7th August 2003

(End of quote)

Furthermore, besides that paper the book comprises papers specially contributed to that collection by experts from several countries including:

Prof. Carlos Escudé, Ph.D., Argentine National Council of Scientific Research (CONICET), Uiversidad Torcuato Di Tella, Buenos Aires;

Howard A. Fergus KBE PhD, Professor of East Caribbean Studies, University of the West Indies (Montserrat);

Hon. Jan Cheek, Legislative Councillor, Falkland Islands Government;

Mark Sandford, Research Fellow, The Constitution Unit, University College London;

Hon. Mike Summers, Legislative Councillor, Falkland Islands Government;

Dr Noel Cox, Senior Lecturer in Law, Auckland University of Technology;

Government of St Helena etc.

Therefore, this is a duly published relevant reference, which I suggest not to remove without due procedure, if necessary a vote, and certainly not with misplaced ad hominem allegations as above.

(2) That there were English sealers on the islands is proved by Colonel Jewett’s letter distributed among the sealing ships in the bay when he arrived to the islands in 1820; Jewett wrote:


 * "... 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". Firmaba Jewett, Coronel de la Marina etc.

The presence of US sealers is corroborated by President Andrew Jackson in his 1831 State of the Union Address:


 * "In the course of the present year one of our vessels, engaged in the pursuit of a trade which we have always enjoyed without molestation, has been captured by a band acting, as they pretend, under the authority of the Government of Buenos Ayres".

Should anyone claim that in 1811-1826 there were sealers from other nations too, please produce sources. Until then, I suggest not to alter the timeline table in the article, at least not without due procedure if necessary a vote. Apcbg 19:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) I still consider your book a pamphlet and your pushing of it spam. But if people are OK with it, I won't deny you Wikipedia-provided fame and fortune. (2) (a) Are you using Wikipedia as a source? No-no. (b) I hope you understand, that when one speaks on the year 1831 and says “in the course of the present year”, one can't be possibly referring to something that happened in 1811-1826, do you? Please, present your sources here for review before editing the article per discussion again. --193ypico 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First, personal criticism of the book itself and its authors (like the one presented above in this talk page) is original research; what matters for Wiki sources such as the book is their relevance established outside Wikipedia. A Google search for the book’s title ‘The Future of the Falkland Islands and Its People’ produces a number of non-Wiki hits dated well before the first mentioning of the book in Wikipedia.  These are citations, reviews, abstracts, entries in topical reference lists, comments and references to the book or particular chapters, reprinting of particular chapters etc.  The Google hits include (1),(2), (3),(4),(5),(6),(7),(8),(9),(10),(11)(12),(13),(14), and dozens more.


 * Second, Jewett’s letter is a well known quote not Wikipedia text – you may find it say here.


 * Third, President Jackson’s “In the course of the present year” refers to the act of that “band acting, as they pretend, under the authority of the Government of Buenos Ayres”; about the American sealing on the islands he says something else: “pursuit of a trade which we have always enjoyed without molestation” (indeed the American sealers came to the Falklands as early as 1792, cf. www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/nepa/antarctica/finaleis/chapter_03.pdf).


 * Fourth, I have already invited the application of some procedure to resolve the 1811-1826 entry in the table, so I am not going into reversals but leave it to the people here to have their say. Apcbg

Kudos from a neutral in this war
I was impressed to see how neutral this article was (at least in my eyes). I can also tell from the talk page that it took a lot of effort and forbearance on the part of both the Argentine and British editors to make this happen. I know that wasn't always easy. I'm sure that to the truly well-informed there may still be some flaws, but I can't find them. Your diligence and tact should be an example for editors on so many other controversial Wikipedia articles.--A. B. 06:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Uti possidetis
This principle of international law has nothing to do with inheriting colonial possessions. Simply put, what is states is this: that at the end of a war, the winning party is allowed to keep any territorial gains it made during the conflict. Presumably the Argentines invoked this principle in the early 19th century when they assumed control of the Falklands from Spain, but since they lost them a few years later to the British, the true benificiaries of uti possidetis are in fact the latter - both in 1833, when they ejected the Argentines, and again in 1982, when they did exactly the same again. TharkunColl 10:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That could be, but one thing is a militar operation and another is a declared war. As everybody knows, there has not been a declared war for the islands since the 1770s. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article on this principle makes no reference to a requirement that war be 'declared'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.155.39.209 (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Weakness of Opening Paragraph?
I feel that opening paragraph does not do justice to the rest of the article. At best it probably doesn't reflect how the population would assess the sovereignty of the islands and at worst it may conjure up images of an island in a state of civil war. The first paragraph is the most important; some people may not read anymore.

The opening paragraph talks of "de facto control" and "administration by the UK" which might easily draw parallels in a reader's mind with a Kashmir type situation i.e. (to an uninformed observer such as myself) population with split loyalties and an ethnicity not wholly in accordance with the de-facto control or administration. In my view, that would be a complete distortion. In fact the situation is entirely different: the population of the Falklands unanimously consider themselves to be British (apparently more than the UK gov. did at the time of the Falkands War) and consequently they are and were, at the time of the Falklands War, satisfied with the status quo i.e. British administration.

The first paragraph should make it clear that it is not a population in dissent about ownership or administration of the Island. I am not aware of the existence of the Malvinas Liberation Front on the islands. Any dispute over ownership is entirely external to the Falklands, presumably confined to Argentina. This is not a population of conquered Spanish speakers dreaming of the day when they will be liberated by Argentina and allowed to drive on the other side of the road and speak Spanish free of oppression. Perhaps some information on the ethnicity and ancestry of the population of the Islands throughout the dispute would lend more context. Ratuk 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your view. I think the opening paragraph reflects a good NPOV view of this issue and later elaborates on it. The dissension of the islanders is pretty clear throughout the article and even though their opinion is important to the world (as it should be) to WP is just one more POV. Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of de facto control
Regarding the article's Timeline of de facto control table:

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 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.

On the right, the current version of the table is shown amended to reflect this timeline fact. Apcbg 09:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have amended the table still further to include the 24-star US flag that was in use at the time. TharkunColl 10:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding banners, the French flag presently shown in the table was the Bourbon royal banner not the relevant national flag of France; the latter would be gold on white rather than gold on blue I believe. Apcbg 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to the correct pre-revolutionary national flag found at Flag of France. Unfortunately it looks a bit crap at this scale. I am also a little concerned about the accuracy of the Spanish flag that we have in the table, because the flag itself is described as a "war ensign", which was, moreover, only in use from 1785. TharkunColl 07:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt this is the correct French flag; it seems to be the French Royal Navy ensign not the national flag which had only 3 lilies. It should be the same as the previous flag shown here, except for the blue replaced by white.  See that image. Best, Apcbg 09:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not keen on the USA being included. The Americans never claimed sovereignty over the Islands, and it is disputable whether they actually "occupied" the Islands during the time stated. I would still say the Argentines controlled at this point. Astrotrain 09:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you maintain that Argentina had de facto control of the Islands from 31 December 1831 until 21 January 1832, then you ought to provide some verifiable sources refuting the notorious and well documented historical facts narrated e.g. in (1), (2) -- that would be something new indeed! Apcbg 10:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not refuting what happened- I am refuting the interpretation of this- ie that the USA took control of the Islands. There was claim of sovereignty by the USA, or any attempt by the USA to colonise or settle the Islands. The American ship was not acting on the authority of the United States government in its actions. Astrotrain 10:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As you accept what happened, then effective control is effective control not interpretation. That it was the US Navy that did it is fact not interpretation.  Your other points are interpretation that could be discussed elsewhere; who had what orders does not change the fact of effective control. Apcbg 10:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Provide a flag for the US Navy (that was in use at the time) Or, what's wrong with the US flag itself? TharkunColl 11:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * TharkunColl, the US flag would be fine; here you may see a picture of USS Lexington itself flying the US flag.


 * And here finally is the national flag of Royal France.


 * Your penguin looks nice, but during that period of time the Islands were not left to them; usually there were an average 50 sealing ships with over 1,000 English and US sealers pursuing their industry without anybody's effective control; that continued until the Argentine short-lived attempt to impose control by using force against US citizens in 1831, which was opposed and lead to the termination of the Argentine presence in one year or so.


 * Astrotrain, I have to object to your unilateral imposition of your POV and edits over the article, even as the issue is being debated in the talk page.


 * As already pointed out the table is on effective control not sovereignty.


 * Your other allegation of the USS Lexington's action on the Falklands not being supported by the US Government -- which wouldn’t have changed the status of effective control on the Islands one way or another -- is substantiated by no factual evidence.


 * The official US Government statements and action refute your claim, for instance the US Secretary of the Navy Levi Woodbury wrote to the Captain of USS Lexington:


 * "The President of the US approves of the course which you followed and is gratified by the firmness of your measures" (in: Record Group 45, National Archives, Secretary of Navy letter to Master Commandant Silas Duncan, 4 April 1832)


 * I am not going into reversals of the article, but invite you to reconsider, and other participants here are welcome to have their saying; as it is now the table would suggest that there was no effective control sometime in 1831-32, which was not the case during the US military occupation. Apcbg 12:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The USA did not claim the islands- they did not have an administration on the islands- they did not settle any citizens on the islands. All that happened was that the US Navy destroyed the Argentine settlement, then departed. A bit like a Viking raid. Astrotrain 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There was effective control (military occupation), and there was authority (US military command) during a well defined period of time. The rest is not for this table.


 * None of your additional requirements is actually needed for effective control. Surely there could be effective control without sovereignty claims (e.g. the German control of the Channel Islands or Norway during WWII); otherwise the USA did not need to send Americans to the Islands, for they were there already, had been on the Falklands since well before the Argentine claim, and in greater numbers than Argentina had at that time too.  Indeed, the whole development started with the Argentine use of force against local American citizens:


 * "... occurrences which have lately taken place at the Falkland Islands, in which the name of that Republic has been used to cover with a show of authority acts injurious to our commerce and to the property and liberty of our fellow citizens. In the course of the present year one of our vessels, engaged in the pursuit of a trade which we have always enjoyed without molestation, has been captured by a band acting, as they pretend, under the authority of the Government of Buenos Ayres." (President Andrew Jackson in his State of Nation address, Washington, DC, 1831-12).
 * Apcbg 14:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"And here finally is the national flag of Royal France." Apcbg

Unfortunately that image is no doubt copyrighted. However, reading the text, it is evident that there were four different French flags all in equal use:

"Prior to the French Revolution, there was no national flag which represented France. A variety of flags were used by troops, different types of ships and for other purposes. From 1590-1790 this flag is one of four that was used on warships and fortresses. The plain white flag, known as the Bourbon Banner, and this white flag with three golden fleurs-de-lis, a white flag with many fleurs-de-lis, or a white flag with many fleurs-de-lis with the arms of France in the center."

In other words:
 * A plain white flag (the Bourbon Banner), which it would be very easy to create an image of for Wikipedia.
 * A white flag with three fleurs-de-lis.
 * A white flag with many fleurs-de-lis, which is the one we've got in the info box at the moment.
 * A white flag with many fleurs-de-lis, and the coat of arms of France in the centre.

None of these, it would appear, were in more common use than any of the others. TharkunColl 15:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * At least the second flag [[Image:French Fleur-De-Lis (White).jpg|35px]] would look better on the table, and is now available in the Commons. Apcbg 19:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's much more aesthetically pleasing - I've just added it. But what about the Spanish flag though? It still seems a little dubious. TharkunColl 23:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It would seem that in 1785 one Spanish flag was replaced by another. Apcbg 00:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV statement
Note to Abcbg - What are you on about ? I reverted the following edit ; If you can't be bothered to check out the rv don't blame me. The edits you changed were not altered by me..... Apologies please ?

The United States supported mediated talks and initially took its familiar neutral stance, although in private, substantial material aid was made available to the UK from the moment of invasion. The USA finally publicly supported the UK's position following the failure of peace talks and pressure from Margaret Thatcher on Ronald Reagan.

Hardly NPOV on "familiar" no ?


 * As my edit does not interfere with yours in any way and your edit stays, I have no idea what you might be talking about. Apcbg 12:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Already debated, please do not change without prior discussion in the talk page" on the rv of my article. Was not discussed on talk page. See edit history of page if you don't believe me. Nevertheless, let's move on. Pete Orme 12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My edit summary (quoted above) naturally explains the edit I made. I did not revert your edit, so my summary simply cannot refer to your edit — is it still unclear?  Your misplaced accusation in this talk page is not appreciated, I would expect you to reconsider and withdraw it together with its offending title. Apcbg 12:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Climbing down from this, with apologies. Pete Orme 12:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies accepted. Best, Apcbg 12:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Britain's position as a global power has it accepted the occupation
I am trying to add the following point to the Criticism from within Britain section of this article, as a further argument from those defending government policy (ie. the war):


 * "In addition [to the arguments for the Falkland's self determination], many Britons felt strongly that a surrender of sovereignty in the face of Argentina's actions would have signalled the end of any pretentions that Britain may have had to act as a global power, whether at the time or into the future.

This point is taken from the following source (one which incidentally satisfies WP:RS):


 * Sunday Times Insight Team - The Falklands War, Sphere Books, (1982) - p262

Now, for some reason, User:TharkunColl seems to take exception to this point, reverting it on sight despite it being properly referenced, NPOV, and relevant. I'm not aware of having stumbled into the middle of an edit war, so I do not see any reason for it to be removed.

When first adding this contribution I neglected to provide a reference. User:TharkunColl reverted me, quite properly requesting in his edit summary that I:


 * "Please provide a source for this assertion".

Source duly provided, point reinserted. A second reversion follows,


 * "Point removed again, with the reference".

I add it back with the summary:


 * "rv. Why are you removing referenced material? Discuss on talk page - insisting on referencing is one thing, but removing properly referenced points constitutes vandalism.".

It is reverted once more with the explanation:


 * "It is you who should discuss it on the talk page. Any further revision by you will be in breach of 3RR." (Which incidentally is wrong - I have made only two reversions).

If User:TharkunColl would be good enough to explain his continued reversions then I would be very grateful. Perhaps I am missing something blatant here.

X damr talk 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to put it in then I have no further objection. TharkunColl 09:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm obliged.


 * X damr talk 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction, British Sovereignty
Can the introduction make clear that though the question of who should have sovereignty over the Falklands is disputed that the United Kingdom has sovereignty over them not that it only claims them along side Argentina. Somethingoranother 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It was there and someone removed it, SqueakBox 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder, what does '{current occupiers}' add? The intro already notes that the UK had de facto sovereignty (along with a note that both the UK and Argentina claim de jure sovereignty).


 * X damr talk 04:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)