Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

The term "de facto control" has been re-inserted after we'd decided it could be changed.

"De facto" control is clearly a subjective concept, and the sources don't agree on what it meant. Concocting a table measuring "control" out of events where sources don't agree on their meaning or significance is the definition of WP:SYNTH. Please come up with a better name or address these concerns. I would do it on my own but I don't have the power to make the sources agree if they don't. Keeping "de facto" means getting rid of one of the British settlements, as we're told in some reliable sources it was only there by non-British permission, which doesn't imply control. This page is supposed to outline and illuminate the dispute, not make it look like there isn't one. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you come up with a better name? You seem to be demanding that everyone do the work to address concerns without doing any of the legwork yourself.

I don't believe anyone is saying that the title cannot be changed. I'm certainly not. But that does not mean that I am willing to accept any change, regardless of accuracy or appropriateness.

By a reasonable definition, there have been countless instances of "military presence on the Falkland Islands" - every time a naval vessel berths, or an air force plane lands, for whatever purpose, and whether or not they attempt to exercise any form of control - there is military presence.

By what I believe is the intended definition, the change made the table very clearly inaccurate. For example, there was no Argentine military presence until late in 1832. There was no British military presence on the islands during the period 1833-1841. Such a wording is far worse than anything I've seen you claim for the current wording - because the resulting table is unambiguously and indisputably misleading. And I suggest that it is not an accurate measure of control of the islands, according to the conventional understanding as found in reliable sources.

So please do not cast aspersions about my motivations, such as your claim that I am trying to "make it look like there isn't [a dispute]". Experience shows that no consensus is possible if editors are not willing to assume one another's good faith. I fixed an erroneous change by reverting to the existing consensus. If you want a better fix, you are welcome to propose one. Kahastok talk 22:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop being snotty about "legwork". I've already worked to make this article less problematic and will do more without complaint. The only demands we have here are to verifiability and neutrality. I was giving people time to deal with policy concerns in their own time and way. Your re-insertion of the previously contested "de facto" was your change to justify, not mine. I don't have to make a clearly synthesized table "work" if it's making arguments that exceed the sources. But per your suggestion I'll make changes to improve the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that my good faith attempt to deal with some of the problems I've raised regarding the article has been met with a blanket and indiscriminate reversion by Wee Curry Monster, I'm confused. I feel like WCM has just slammed the door in my face instead of reverting when he had the time to discuss it. This isn't a great response. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a pretty significant difference between not agreeing with some of my changes and rolling back all of them unread. All of my edits were intended to make the article better and I would like them restored or given some reason for why they've been removed.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear E L A Q U E A T E, while I believe that your editing effort is made in good faith and aimed at improving the article, so far the result would seem to have been rather negative and rightly reverted. For instance, could you please explain what might "Some settlement with contested significance and allegiance" mean as applied to the period February 1811– August 1829? Apcbg (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It's from the article. It seems to be contested whether the use of the islands was more beholden to British, non-British or any authorities at that time. The "none" implies a false certainty that does not reflect the events listed in the article. I don't mind if someone comes up with better wording, but "None" isn't it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

'None' refers to 'de facto control'. You spoke about "some settlement with contested significance and allegiance," and now you are trying to explain the latter in terms of "the use of the islands." These three concepts are essentially different. Taking once again the period February 1811 – August 1829 as an example, what "settlement" could a reader deduce from the article text, and what "use" might be meant by your explanation in this particular case. Apcbg (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to add a {{fact}} tag, it's reasonable to ask you first to make at least some good faith effort to actually find a source that satisfies your concerns. I was able to find dozens of sources for Tordesillas (for example) with a single Google search, and I can't believe you couldn't have done the same: the only reason why you would not have found any is because you did not look. We're all supposed to be improving the encyclopædia, and you can use Google just as well as anyone else can. If you don't, particularly given the above, it looks like you're being WP:POINTy.

I do not believe that the revert was a matter of "rolling back all of [the changes] unread", but a legitimate reaction to said WP:POINT violations.

I note that the standard rule on Wikipedia is that in the absence of new consensus the old consensus stands, and that I do not need to justify the old consensus (and I've said I have no problem in principle with changing it) if I believe a proposed change makes it worse, as was the case with "military presence on the Falkland Islands" and "contested and uncontested settlements": see WP:BRD.

I cannot accept "Timeline of contested and uncontested settlements" for various reasons. Firstly, I find it makes a meaningless distinction: what is the difference between a contested settlement and an uncontested settlement? Are there any settlements that are neither contested nor uncontested? Secondly, I find it implies that each listing marks a fundamentally new settlement, which is not the case: the only point where you could even claim a new settlement since 1829 is the move to Stanley in 1845 (and reliable sources do not treat it as such).

I have the same objection as Apcbg to "Some settlement with contested significance and allegiance", though I find that this also implies new settlement. Again, it appears to me to fail to adequately put the state of settlement across to the reader (this is not a problem at present because the table is not attempting to describe settlement). I suggest that any future proposal is probably best made on talk - that way we can discuss it and come to an agreement to mutual satisfaction. Kahastok talk 10:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to explain what the chart describes, that would be great. It's not "de facto control" because there's no agreement on how it's measured here (it's never consistently military control, nor settlement, nor bureaucratic control) and there isn't agreement on the term in sources. I think as it's written it's closer to an attempt to describe "allegiance" of some sort. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not "Claim of sovereignty", after all that is all any of these periods are?Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A timeline of the claims of sovereignty would be something else again, little if at all similar to the present one. Apcbg (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing one of the settlements as it was only there with "none-British permission"? Which one pray? I presume you are of course going to back this particular claim up with a source?

As others have pointed out, I reverted your changes because frankly they did not materially improve the article. In point of fact you took a table that has been an established consensus for years now and butchered it with your own WP:OR and from the discussion above the table itself is not contested or controversial (more later). For someone alleging others are conducting WP:OR, your work was based entirely on your own WP:OR and given your comments here it seemed to be a case of WP:POINT. I also do not care for editors who personalise discussions over content. I've explained why I reverted you, I did not intend to reply further on the reasons for my reverting you. WP:BRD, the D part is not Drama its DISCUSSION (emphasis added). Let me make it plain, if you do this again I will simply ignore your remarks.

As to Langus' change, I saw it earlier in the week but did not care for it much. It was a good first effort but I felt it had some of the problems Kahastol alludes to above. However, I did not feel it was so bad that I needed to revert it but i can see why others might. I'm also willing to consider alternatives.

But to make a few points first:

• The table has always been intended to provide a summary of the dates of the various times in which a national appointed official was present to assert some measure of De Facto control. It has never been a date of various settlements, for example Port Egmont remained occupied till 1780 when it was destroyed by the Spanish.
• De Facto does not imply that it extends over the entire archipelago. You will notice there is an overlap with the British and Spanish. We also included the month in which Port Louis was occupied during the raid of the USS Lexington; a key event.
• For a WP:NPOV we look to how the dispute is describe in (ideally) secondary academic sources. As regards this, the key dates are not controversial and sources are in agreement. This is why I and other maintain that none controversial dates reflecting later content in the article don't need to be cited in the lead. Per WP:LEADCITE this is acceptable.
• As another editor alludes to above, we often have editors editing with a nationalist agenda changing the British occupation from 1592 or claiming Argentina ruled from 1820-1833. The claims of POV motivated editors do not make an established academic consensus become controversy.

Finally, I was going to make my own suggestion: Summary Timeline of Key Dates in the Occupation of the Falkland Islands Wee Curry Monster talk 11:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You say the table is a chart is a summary of the dates of the various times in which a national appointed official was present to assert some measure of De Facto control? It's a schedule of effective officials? That is not clear from the chart as it stands, and it's clearly not a simple timeline of key dates in that case. It's making arguments.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It isn't, though, is it? Aside the fact that I'd lose the title case (because it looks like it's referring to an event called the "Occupation of the Falkland Islands"), it doesn't actually describe what we have, which is the detail of the periods that each country has actually held control over the islands - a useful summary of the details in the article. That list would be a single list of dates, not a list of start- and end-dates. Kahastok talk 21:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Graphic of Timeline

On an unrelated matter, I see the graphic has found its way back into the article. I've never cared for it, I think I've made my position well known on that previously and think it has POV problems with the rathe large bar showing the British settlement of the islands in comparison with others. Does anyone object if I remove it again? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Since I attempted to remove it, I agree. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it, but if we can't reach an agreement respecting the caption/title of these events, then both have to leave. I don't see a POV problem, honestly. --Langus (t) 02:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Then put it back, you'll notice the edit summary saying anyone can revert. The nuclear option of removing both is WP:POINT. Not helpful Langus, not helpful at all. Wee Curry Monster talk 06:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to make a point, it is the actual solution to the WP:OR problem. If Kahastok is not willing to accept any proposal and won't make any suggestions either, as usual, effectively dragging this debate for ever, I say let's finish this now and remove the material. Right now Wikipedia is claiming that, for example, Spain had "de facto control over the FI" from 1778 to 1811, something to which not every author in literature agrees with; or that BOTH the UK and Spain had "de facto control over the FI" for a brief period in the 1770s. How is that even possible? --Langus (t) 10:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite easy, its an archipelago, with multiple islands and two settlements co-existed at the same time, with both claiming to exert control. And it doesn't state "de facto control over the FI", in fact nowhere is it claimed to be control over the entire archipelago. The title has been a stable consensus for some time precisely because it doesn't claim to be indicative of control over the entire archipelago.

I don't think it is helpful to comment on editors rather than content. You are alleging an editor isn't willing to accept any proposal, and won't make any suggestions either, even though they've indicated a willingness to consider alternatives and explained the problem with your suggestion.. I have also made a suggestion above and you appear to have ignored it. I could easily infer something about your conduct but I would hope you'd realise by now how negative it can get if you comment on editors and not content?

Now do you think you could comment on the proposal I made? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful to comment on editors rather than content. That hasn't stopped you from doing it. These multiple accusations of WP:POINT are toxic. I don't think anyone has made changes they are against in order to harm the article to prove a point. This accusation is being used here as a battlegrounding bludgeon with editors you disagree with about content. Please refrain from using this argument with little cause in the future. I think there's a problem with the table, it's not about the accuracy of specific dates; it's about what it says those dates mean, which is contested. I don't think it currently has a harmonious consensus regarding what it means now, regardless of whether there was consensus in the past. (Looking back over the archives, it looks like this was an issue you battlegrounded over in the past. Maybe it's time to approach it in a new way?)__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you said the chart measured "nationally appointed officials" shows that it's currently based on strange original research and is still inconsistent within that measurement. Were there clear "nationally appointed officials for all of the early eras? In any case the constant failure to define what the chart is arguing, is a clear sign that we don't have a reliable source we can point to that hard-defined these eras as we have here. We have a laundry list of dates that historians said were important, we've connected the dots ourselves, and now we're trying to decide what the shape should be called because we don't have a source that makes that assertion for us. That's why it's WP:OR. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a bizarre view among some editors here that if someone rejects a particular proposal because of issues with the details of the wording, they are necessarily "not willing to accept any proposal", regardless of the wording. I've seen similar arguments here before - to the point where an editor insisted on his edits being accepted sight-unseen - and they are entirely fallacious.

Failing to accept one particular proposal does not equate to refusing to accept any change. Willingness to accept a good change does not mean you have to be willing to accept whatever change is proposed. I have given reasoned objections to those proposals that I have not accepted, and no-one has disputed those objections. The fact is that I've yet to see a proposal that I think is better than what we already have, which I believe is appropriately backed up by the sources. For all the hand waving, the fact is that no-one has actually managed to identify a specific problem with the status quo.

On the chart, the record I believe shows that I was never entirely comfortable with it for the same reasons as given by Curry Monster: that the very long bar of British control risks putting a key British argument rather too strongly. I don't think it's biased per se, but if used it should be used with care. Kahastok talk 21:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"No-one has actually managed to identify a specific problem with the status quo" -- and here's the proof that this issue is being delayed indefinitely. Kahastok, my "bizarre view" is based on months/years of interaction with you.

As to the graphic, I'll elaborate: I believe that the long bar of British control is balanced out with the unstable first years, and the long period of lone Spanish control. All in all, I think that both British and Argentine arguments are clearly depicted there, and equally visible.

I suggest we submit this matter to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard --Langus (t) 11:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

...and fascinatingly, you do not dispute my objections to any of the wordings. If you feel that my reasons are unfair or unjustified, you do actually have to say so. At the moment, you're insisting that I'm acting in bad faith while at the same time apparently accepting the substance of my objections.

We've had a month of someone telling us that some of the dates are obviously controversial or disputed, but refusing outright to tell us which. We can't resolve the issue without knowing what it is. It may well be that the dates claimed to be controversial actually turn out, given the preponderance of reliable sources, not to be so. Or, it may be demonstrable that there is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. We don't know. Without knowing what's being objected to, we can't really say either way. If you don't like that, perhaps you can persuade Elaqueate to tell us which dates s/he objects to? Kahastok talk 18:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, long on accusation but little of substance behind it, I'm not the only one wondering what exactly is objected to. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've said multiple times that it's not a specific date that is at issue. The entire chart is not a simple list of dates; it's a list of "control" eras. Let me put it in a different way. As an example, let's take three dates of three events involving "Bob", and let's pretend they're agreed upon and backed up by sources: January 1st - Bought milk, February 2nd - Bought jam, March 3rd - Bought bread. Now let's say I make a chart that says January 1st-March 3rd, groceries were bought by Bob alone. Do you see how that's synth? Now what happens if there is controversy over who bought the jam among reliable sources?
Now if you'd like to show me a Falklands Island historian who's constructed a chart as we have here, parcelling out control with hard beginning and end dates, then I could compare it with ours. Right now it appears to be the Kahastok-Wee Curry Monster hypothesis of de facto control, an interpretation of events not found in the sources, but provided for Wikipedia alone.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You've also said multiple times that you consider some dates to be controversial - but never told us which. Even in this message, you're telling us that there is a controversy, but do not tell us what it is. We can't help you if we don't know what specifics you are arguing and you refuse to tell us.

There certainly is a parallel to your three events involving Bob on this talk page. But it isn't in this section - it's in the RFC above. In that section, an editor wishes to pull together sources and use them to draw conclusions not made in any of them.

But that doesn't apply to this section. The sources we have - provided in the body of the article - don't just give dates, we have text descriptions and a narrative. It is not OR to summarise or collate information from reliable sources where no original interpretation or conclusion is drawn. That is what this table does. Kahastok talk 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's not so much about the dates but about the description: "de facto control over the Falkland Islands".

You could start by telling us where specifically you get that:

1. both Spain and Britain had "de facto control over the Falkland Islands" in, say, the period 1767-1770;
2. Spain had unique and lone "de facto control over the Falkland Islands" from 1774 to 1811 (well actually I know sources for this, but I seem to remember that you had sources to the contrary --maybe I should ask for those instead. Or maybe I should just include this claim in the body of the article, if it is uncontested).

Oh! And I've just remembered a controversial date: starting point of British settlement (Port Egmont). Because British-POVed literature tends to emphasize the date in which Lord Byron landed, claimed the islands, planted a flag and a vegetable garden and then left (25 January 1765, as currently shown); Argentine-POVed literature tends to mark the beginning of this settlement at the date in which the actual ocuppation begun (with a fort erected and permanent military presence deployed), in January 1766, by Capt. John MacBride aboard the Jason. --Langus (t) 22:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If Kahastok disagrees about the amount of OR in the chart that's their argument to make. But to say I haven't been clear that I'm talking about more than the bare accuracy of specific event dates is, at this point, childish and misleading, especially after I've taken the time to repeat my concern at their request. I've mentioned dates specifically in connection with the interpretation we've made of them, and no, that interpretation is not always in the article itself or interpreted the same way by the listed sources. Sources disagree about when nations had control of these islands, and whether the dates we've included are indicators of "control" or not. That should be indisputable. It's not an oblique point. The chart maintains that we can assert exactly when specific nations had "control" of these islands. If all reliable sources agreed on the interpretation of these events regarding what they meant for "control", we probably wouldn't have this article on the "dispute". Again, if you could point me to a Falkland Islands historian who divvies up history with the same hard dates as we've done, I'd be able to compare our work with theirs. That's what WP:V is all about. If the claim is a simple Foo country controlled the islands from x-month to y-month then it needs to be directly supported by a source saying that for every era in the chart, without us drawing conclusions and without ignoring other interpretations of the meaning of that date from reliable sources. We shouldn't go beyond the sources (removing their qualifications, neutral wording, or disagreement) just to have a chart that gives a decisive single answer to an unsettled question.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A question Elaqueate, could you enlighten me on the sources you are using? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's fascinating to be asked to provide sources when I'm not adding claims to the article, while being stonewalled for weeks when I ask for specific sources for what's in the article. This is more than a little bass-sackwards regarding WP:BURDEN. But assuming that you're asking in the interests collaboration, I can say the shortest answer is that I'm using the sources listed in the article itself. If you're looking for random examples of where our current determination of "control dates" don't jibe with all of our listed sources you can look, for instance, here, or where Gustafson roughly sets Spanish "control" some time earlier than the formal handover in 1767 (if the chart is supposed to cover non-formal control, it sometimes sticks to formal dates regardless of control on the ground), or where this source backs up Langus's claim that British "control" didn't happen precisely in 1765. If you look, you'll find more discrepancies.
But the main thing to remember is that I'm not the one claiming to know what every event specifically meant for who was "really" in charge. This isn't a partisan issue, sources nominally on the same "side" don't agree about what some of these events meant. The problem is that we are giving a more certain and untempered answer to the question "Who was in control?" than any single one of our reliable sources. We're not supposed to be more certain if the sources aren't. I can't point you to sources that will unequivocally state what really happened in the eighteenth century, but it's clear the sources given here aren't as unanimously certain in their interpretations as we've presented. I think the article would be improved if we didn't rely on or present conclusions not made in the sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not an unreasonable question. A NPOV requires access to a range of sources, which enables editors to judge what is the range of opinions in the literature. You are making broad sweeping accusations that this article has problems, I am simply asking on what basis you have made this conclusion? So far from your comments, it appears you were relying for that conclusion on comments from editors who sought to advance a national agenda of one sort or another to infer that there is controversy. If you were to say I have read Source A and it says this, which contradicts what Source B says then I am sure your comments would be taken more seriously. But this isn't what you've done and you're continuing to bad mouth other editors as "stonewalling" and adopting a generally confrontational manner.

Gustafson puts the founding of Port Egmont in January 1765, as does Strange, Cawkell, Destefani and Graham-Yool. There is an academic consensus that the settlement was founded on 15 January 1765. Equally they all report that the fort and Blockhouse was not established till McBride landed on 8 January 1766.

Equally, whilst Port Louis was founded on 5 April 1764, Bougainville left the islands on 8 April 1764, returning in January 1765.

In both cases, there is an academic consensus in sources on the dates. So I ask you to refer to sources independently to confirm this to be these case.

What you appear to be giving credence to, is an attempt to move the foundation of a British presence to 1766 by editors making the distinction between founding and settlement, whilst at the same time ignoring the French colony went through a similar process normal to the establishment of a presence in a remote place of repeated round trips to build up a supply base. This is a case of editors not reporting what the sources are saying but to put their own spin on them and to do in a one sided manner.

You have a copy of Gustafson? Could you point me to where Gustafon makes a claims the Spanish had a measure of control prior to 1 April 1767 when the settlement of Port Louis was handed over? Thank you in anticipation. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling the dates of the French "de facto control" into question is a strange thing to point out. I think you've failed to recognize that you're directly conceding my point. The dates are not unanimously agreed on as to whether they represented actual, "on the ground" control (not sovereignty or spoken territorial claim, but "de facto" control, the putative measuring stick for this chart) , or whether they were exploratory but not "controlling". By your own admission, the dates of French occupation, the very first line in the chart are not settled in academic sources by whether they constituted actual "control". I wouldn't dream of holding the French settlement to a different standard than the English one. My standard is "Do sources agree about when de facto control started" and in both cases the answer is "no".

And look, I may not be from Glasgow and I hope I don't offend your sensitivities, but around here a statement like Gustafson puts the founding of Port Egmont in January 1765 is known as full-tilt unsupported, not to be rude, mind you. I'm sure you're making the statement with good faith, but that doesn't stop it from being, well let's use strong words, and call it incorrect. According to Gustafson, Byron's surgeon planted a vegetable garden in 1865 and Gustafson does not place this as a foundational act, he ridicules it. In Gustafson's words, deriding the idea that this is foundational, Showing that nothing can be too trivial in the history of the Falklands dispute, this garden has been mentioned as proving possession. Has the bar for "de facto" control been set? Is this the foundation the chart for "de facto control" was built on? He goes on to say that On 20 July 1765, the secretary of state for the Southern Department, Henry Conway, advised the lords of the admiralty to send a settlement expedition to the islands. A frigate, a sloop, a store ship, military equipment, and twenty-five marines were to go there. The secretary argued that the garden had been the beginning of the settlement. Gustafson mentions that the British government official arguing the claim the vegetable garden represented a settlement, but Gustafson most certainly does not make that argument himself. He does say a geographic feature was named for Lord Egmont, that a garden he calls trivial was planted, and that a settlement of 25 people happened a year later. He does not place the founding of a settlement in 1765. Or I can put in the form you requested: I have read Gustafson and it contradicts what Wee Curry Monster says about Gustafson. The "settlement expedition" did not get there until 1766, but you knew that as I just noticed on the Falkland Islands talk page you're basing an argument that there was no settlement until 1766. Does "de facto" control mean "We said we were going to come back and control it?" Do you see how the definition of "de facto control" has been arbitrarily and inconsistently applied? Are all verbal pronouncements given equal weight? Keep in mind that that my ultimate point is that the claim in the chart is contested; I'm not stating that one side is true or not. But it's certainly challengeable material among reliable sources and that's not how we portray it.

As for your request for where Gustafson makes a claim the Spanish had a measure of control prior to 1 April 1767 I submit that France lost "actual" control before they gave up de jure control, at this point: The French government, not wishing trouble with Spain after having just lost the Seven Years' War to Britain, instructed Bougainville to sail to Madrid to make his terms with the Spanish. In April of 1766 Bougainville accepted just over 618,000 livres for the colony. The French never made claim to the islands after the purchase. This event is the beginning of "The Spanish Intrusion... It's strange to mark a change in "informal" control (where the governor was forced from the island, making terms in 1766) by pointing at the "formal" ceremony that follows it a year later. Again, sources interpret actual control (still only defined by Wikipedia editors here) differently, but our chart suffers no doubt.

Finally, as far as your stated mis-speculations about my motives and access to reading material, I do not care whether one side or the other of this dispute is strengthened. That shouldn't be the goal of the article. We're supposed to outline the dispute, not make stronger claims about it than the sources. What I am "giving credence to" is the sources themselves and Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability and neutrality. I don't personally think that any of these events, pre-1833, will have any effect on actual claim of actual land in today's world. That doesn't mean we should misrepresent them. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just out of interest but you may not be aware there is a problem with the reference to the significance of the Garden. I would suggest you refer to Goebel (The Struggle for the Falkland Islands, Julius Goebel) the reference cited by Gustafson, as he doesn't accurately report what was in that document. Goebel ridicules a statement made in reference to the planting of the garden, this is made in Dr Brown's account of the Falkland Islands dispute Anglo-Spanish Relationships in America in the Closing Years of the Colonial Era p.387 (I would give you a better reference but Goebel isn't too hot on his Bibliography). Gustafson incorrectly attributes the statement to Conway. The British reference to the founding of Port Egmont is based on the formal ceremony claiming the islands for the King that took place in January 1765, not the founding of a Garden. It is perhaps understandable as Goebel's language is loose but Conway refers to completing the settlement begun earlier. As I said it helps if you have access to a range of sources.

Not to denigrate Gustafson but he got that badly wrong, its an otherwise excellent resource.

And as you refer to the incident in 1766, yes Bougainville received monies and agreed to hand over the settlement then. He didn't do so until the date mentioned in the article. Spain didn't take control till 1767, academic sources don't claim otherwise.

In the three cases, in the summary we ascribe the dates to the same event in each case. The formal date on which control is supposedly founded. Its just intended to be a simple summary and the detail is there in the article. The detail is not being obscured or misrepresented. And no I'm not conceding your point, I am pointing out how it can be abused - which you're leaping upon to imply something else. Your example above is simply another example of spinning sources to shift dates.

I also did not speculate about your motives, my comments referred to other editors (and not specifically yourself) promoting one date whilst denigrating another as an example of how sources were being abused. So whilst there was an academic consensus, this wasn't being reflected in articles. And yes even Gustafson acknowledges Byron claimed the islands in 1765, he doesn't contradict the academic consensus.

Neither did I speculate about your access to material, I asked what you were basing your comments on in an effort to understand what was driving it. Please go and look back as it is far from clear.

Now I have honestly expressed the opinion that the article benefits from this type of summary in the lede, with detail in the article. What is your suggestion for improving it? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute the assertion there was a "formal ceremony claiming the islands". It's a great event to have in the article and is easily sourced. And if the chart was "Timeline of solemn invocations" then it would make perfect sense to include it in the chart. As it stands, some "formal ceremonies" are given the weight of "de facto control" and some are not. The chart is conflating a "Claim of Sovereignty" with physical control, or whatever definition is used on any particular line. You say that Byron "claimed the islands" as if that is supposed to make it clear that Britain now had a measure of "de facto" control, even setting aside they didn't interact with the French who were already hanging out on the island before them. Do you believe the sources are asserting that the French were "controlled" by this formal proclamation? In fact, it doesn't matter if you do, because the sources themselves don't claim that this represented "control", they are clear this is where a demand for recognition was voiced, but not necessarily made good on. I hope you can see where the chart falls apart here. I don't think anyone on the planet would contest that Britain had "de facto control" in say, 1962. I think it's silly to assert we know exactly who "really" had control for the entire period from the first settlement onward. If there is a different set of goalposts for every determination of what "de facto control" means, then the chart cannot stand as is.
As far as looking back, I also invite you to look back at the answers I received to what sources directly backed the claims made in the chart. I was told it's all in the article, or perhaps I could look at other Wikipedia pages, or the subject was changed to focus on MOS considerations. These answers are also "far from clear". I've gotten at least three different and contradictory definitions of how we measure "de facto control", I've investigated and found that no source agrees with every definition all of the time, regardless of their political sympathies, and I've been repeatedly told there is a longstanding consensus among sources on the meaning of events when the same sources say there is often-fierce debate. My honest belief is that the chart would be great if it didn't summarize uncertainty and disagreement about who actually controlled things as agreement on a set of dates. But it does.
I don't think the reader is served by offering a false certainty about what events meant. (As worded, the table shouldn't be there at all.) I especially don't think it's appropriate to not have direct citation when these interpretations are contested. (If the table stays, the reader deserves to be able to look up who's asserting the claim, directly and directly supported, without any whinging that the interpretations of control could never be seen as controversial.) I don't blame any editor for failing at making a chart like this, it doesn't look like any of the sources would commit to a summary as we've created for this page. I suspect the summary was an attempt at "de facto control" because somebody once decided it would be too hard to defend a "formal legal claims" timeline. Well, I think it's also to hard to assert that all sources agree on the meaning of all dates for control. The current chart admits no doubt. No source admits no doubt. If the text of the article adequately and neutrally relates what the sources say, giving all necessary context to maintain neutrality, then a chart that removes any of that needed context or neutrality for the sake of looking simpler is not helpful. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Timeline proposal

Timeline of de facto control

February 1764 – April 1767	France
January 1765 – July 1770	Great Britain
April 1767 – February 1811	Spain
September 1771 – May 1774	Great Britain
February 1811 – August 1829	None
August 1829 – December 1831	United Provinces
December 1831 – January 1832	United States
January–December 1832	None
December 1832 – January 1833	Argentine Confederation
January–August 1833	United Kingdom
August 1833 – January 1834	None
January 1834 – April 1982	United Kingdom
April–June 1982	Argentina
June 1982 – present	United Kingdom

I would propose some additional notes to the timeline in order to facilitate its understanding by the reader, and help avoid some possible misinterpretations too. The amended timeline looks as follows. Comments and suggestions would be welcome. Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're helping explain the underlying assumptions of the timeline. It's a step forward. Your additions do make it clearer what's being argued, but not who's doing the arguing. I still think that anything based on "de facto control" is still a subjective label that is not in use in the sources we have. It's something cooked up here and not directly sourced. I don't think wikipedia editors should be the ones to say who had "control" at various times when the sources don't always commit to the term.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement, and would support it - though with markup changes in that I think we can group some of the identical notes together. Kahastok talk 19:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate Apcbg for an excellent idea, one that clearly has merit. Rather than referring to De Facto, it can simply refer to the settlement themselves, perhaps amplified by wikilinks to relevant parts of other articles. EG Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Simplified as suggested by Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster. Apcbg (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Much better, I'd also suggest adding the Lexington raid to explain the US flag reference. Perhaps change the title? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added the Lexington note, seems a good idea. As for the title, maybe that needs some further separate discussion and possibly a new look at the timeline. Apcbg (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Did WCM just revert me in order to take credit for my earlier suggestion? This was made in good faith, specifically bad-mouthed as unproductive, then asserted here as a new suggestion by the person who removed it. This has happened to multiple changes I've made. This isn't collaboration, some would consider it rude or worse. And this chart still needs to be sourced. Asking for sources for opinions that might be challenged should not be considered an unreasonable request.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't know about the readers, I for one am quite unable to see it as a timeline of settlements. The present version is essentially different from the 'Lexington' one (which I like better) and ought to be displayed separately to keep both of them visible I believe. Apcbg (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have restored a clean copy of my last proposed version of timeline; the removed subsequent text ought to be displayed separately like I suggested above — with a full new copy of the timeline and its notes if deemed necessary. Apcbg (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The "key settlements" title sounds like they're separate settlements, when for the most part they aren't. I thought of "periods of settlement", but again, that implies that settlement occurred (i.e. people actively arrived from outside in significant numbers) during the periods in question, when that isn't really true for most of the period post-1833. Kahastok talk 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

How about "Key Events", I would agree the Lexington raid, which lasted for nigh on a month is a pertinent event to mention that doesn't correspond well with the title "Settlements". Wee Curry Monster talk 21:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily mind "key events" - but we'd need to refactor the table into something more like the one collapsed:

Key events table

Timeline of Key Events February 1764 French settlement founded at Port Louis January 1765 British settlement founded at Port Egmont April 1767 French settlement taken over by Spain July 1770 – September 1771 Falklands Crisis May 1774 British settlement abandoned February 1811 Spanish settlement abandoned 1820 Jewett reads his declaration 1824 First failed colony by Vernet at Puerto Luis 1826 Second failed colony by Vernet at Puerto Luis 1828 Third colony by Vernet at Puerto Luis December 1831 Lexington Raid October 1832 Arrival of Mestevier November 1832 Murder of Mestevier December 1832 Restoration of order by Pinedo January 1833 British take control August 1833 Gaucho murders January 1834 Arrival of British governor 1850 Arana-Southern Treaty 1885-1888 Affair of the Map April–June 1982 Falklands War March 2013 Referendum Just to be absolutely clear: I'm describing the structure that "key events" would imply to me, not giving a detailed proposal. I've done this mostly from memory, so I'm not saying that the detail is either neutral or accurate. We would need to agree the details if we went with something like this.

That's a long way from the sort of table we have at present, and I think the present table is better because it is clearer what belongs.

We're not going to get away from the fact that the table as it stands is describing the country that was in control on the ground, and I'm struggling to think of any wording that does not use the word "control" that would accurately describe it. "Timeline of control", "Periods of control", work. Kahastok talk 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest alternative titles, I tend to agree with you and would not disagree with changing the table as you suggest. But if we do the graphic goes. Equally remove the title altogether? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what are we trying to do here (I think it implies the removal of this graph), but even if the list is not intended to be a proposal or final version, I'd like to point out that:

• British settlement was proclaimed in 1765 but built/populated in 1766;
• "Jewett reads his declaration" is an euphemism for "Jewett claims the islands";
• "1850 Arana-Southern Treaty" isn't really a key event to many sources, only to the new British-POVed literature that regards it as having a legal effect over the dispute;
• Referendum: same as above, it has no meaning to the pro-Territorial integrity literature.

Anyhow, I want to state that Apcbg's attitude in seeking consensus is remarkable, and definitely a step forward. Thank you. --Langus (t) 23:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the words:

Just to be absolutely clear: I'm describing the structure that "key events" would imply to me, not giving a detailed proposal. I've done this mostly from memory, so I'm not saying that the detail is either neutral or accurate. We would need to agree the details if we went with something like this.

...would have been enough to make it blindingly obvious to everyone concerned that this was not an active proposal in its detail. But apparently it wasn't. I thought that that text made it impossible to fail to understand that the detail did not get enough research to have any claim to being accurate or neutral. But apparently I needed to put more.

Seriously, should I have just filled the entire space next to the table with disclaimers about how the detail wasn't based on reliable sources? About how it was intended as an outline rather than a detailed proposal? About how the detail of the table would have to be agreed on talk? I shouldn't need to, but it looks like that's what you would have demanded. Kahastok talk 18:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Kahastok, if it looks like de facto control, it feels like de facto control, and tastes like de facto control, it is de facto control. If we don't like having a timeline of de facto control in the article, then fine, we remove it. As far as the actual timeline in the article is concerned, I just wonder what might be the reader's benefit from having 'de facto control' replaced by some euphemism of it. Apcbg (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kahastok: "Apparently it wasn't"??? Have you missed the part where I say "even if the list is not intended to be a proposal or final version, I'd like to point out that..."? Or are you just being rude at me in the hope I somehow go away?

I hope is the first option, because otherwise your comment is an unwarranted breach of WP:CIVIL --Langus (t) 02:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Rejected citations

“ The new state, the United Provinces of the River Plate, was formed by provinces of the former Viceroyalty of the River Plate and as such claimed sovereignty over the Falklands. ”

Kahastok argued that Reisman "demonstrates disagreement" suggesting "that this is opinion".[1] Quote follows:

Reisman, p.303.: "A possible obstacle to Argentina's title is that even though Spain may have originally owned the islands, Argentina, as a former colony, could not claim them. Weber devotes more attention to this issue, but concludes that Argentina did not succeed to the islands. I disagree. Upon acquiring independence, a former colony ordinarily inherits all the territory of that colony. This principle, enshrined in Latin America and, a century later, in Africa, would certainly appear to apply to the Falklands. Spain treated the islands as part of the Vice-Royalty of Buenos Aires, and did not occupy them. Moreover, the short time that elapsed before Argentina took control of the islands does not seem to warrant the conclusion that Argentina was derelict, thereby transforming the territory into a res nullius. International law has traditionally tolerated temporary lapses in the control of central authorities over peripheral territories caused by internal disruptions." [emphasis added]

Note that Reisman talks about "the Falklands" and "the islands", i.e., the entire archipelago.

I presume Kahastok refers about Weber. It must be noted however that our WP article does not claim that Argentina inherited the territory: it only explains why Argentina claimed the islands. The disagreement between Reisman and Weber is about title, not about the fact that a) the new state was formed by provinces of the former Viceroyalty of the River Plate; or b) that the new state claimed sovereignty over the Falklands.

Or is it the real argument here that Argentina didn't claim the islands? --Langus (t) 13:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on the editor adding or restoring information to come up with a cite for it. Per community consensus, a point such as this "may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source". This point has been tagged uncited since March 2013 (not October 2014 per the current revision), which is plenty long enough to find a source. When it was removed, it should not have been replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source as it was in this revision.

The point in question states that Argentina automatically inherited Spain's claim to the islands on independence. It treats this as undisputed fact, not open to debate. By contrast, the source provided does not treat it as undisputed fact that Argentina inherited Spain's claim, but as the author's opinion and open to debate. The author even cites another author who makes the opposite argument (that Argentina did not inherit Spain's claim). The source patently does not back up the claim that Langus wishes the article to make, that this is undisputed fact.

There being no reliable source backing up the claim made (and apparently reliable sources suggesting that it is inaccurate as it stands), I will remove the claim per WP:BURDEN. And I will note that even if the status quo were to remain, the cite tag should be dated March 2013 and not October 2014. Kahastok talk 16:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've offered 2 (one, two) reliable sources in line with current text. As such, the singling out of my last edition restoring the sentence with a {{cn}} is most inflammatory. Also, the assertion that there are "no reliable source backing up the claim made" is thus not very accurate.

Let's remember what's being discussed:

The new state, the United Provinces of the River Plate, was formed by provinces of the former Viceroyalty of the River Plate and as such claimed sovereignty over the Falklands.

The "claim" that you removed is that Argentina considered Spain's territories as its own. This is not a claim; this is a fact. You may think that the wording above is ambiguous; if that's the case it should be changed. But you cannot remove it just because you understand something different of what it actually says. --Langus (t) 21:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It is fact that you restored the original text, with a {{fact}} tag, after it had been removed as having been unsourced for over 18 months. Per WP:BURDEN this was inappropriate.

Your sources are discussing whether Argentina automatically inherited Spain's claim to the islands and treat it as a matter of opinion. Your text, whether you like it or not, claims that Argentina automatically inherited Spain's claim to the islands and treat that as a matter of fact. You can't do that because the sources don't treat it as a matter of fact but as a matter of opinion. They may agree with your opinion but that does not make that opinion factual and does not make it appropriate for us to treat that opinion as factual.

You seem to be arguing that it in fact makes a general point totally unrelated to the islands that you consider factual: it doesn't, and even if it did, that point would be unsourced - because that's not what your sources are discussing. Kahastok talk 22:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

UN

What specific legal status of the territories according to the UN? I see that in the documents of the UN (for example here -http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/pdf/falkland_islands.pdf) the name of the islands look like - Falkland Islands (Malvinas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.204.86 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Citations needed

Some of the text that Prkprescott contested reads:

In 1833, Manuel Moreno (representing the United Provinces) protested against the British occupation of the islands, and the issue was then debated annually in the Argentine Congress until 1849 with a formal protest issued each year.

Manuel Moreno's protest is easily addressed, but I fear that the annual, "formal" protest idea comes from P&P's wacky theories. Wee Curry Monster do you have a source for this?

I tried to fix it with a copy-edit to accommodate a proper source[2] and you reverted.[3] If no source exists perhaps you would prefer to apply WP:BURDEN and delete the whole idea? ----Langus ^TxT 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I hsve a few things in mind, I'll be working with Prkprescott to fix it. Don't worry. WCM_email 16:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Will you be working together outside WP? Or at his talk page? Why not here instead? I want to get involved, as surely other editors watching this page do. ----Langus ^TxT 20:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Mauricio Macri

Mauricio Macri has just been elected the new president of Argentina, ending with 12 years of Kirchnerism. According to The Guardian, he said he will have a less aggresive stance over the dispute. Should we write this, or should we wait for him to take office and show his actual diplomatic activity? Cambalachero (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait and see, this kind of falls into the WP:NOTNEWS category for now. WCM_email 10:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, my additions (re: current updates) were deleted

I did get a note from W indicating that the primary Falklands article did not benefit from updates on the Sovereignty issue. OK, I bought that concept.

In my reply, I wrote that ... my experience on Wikipedia has been that editors who wrote most of an article take a proprietary attitude to it, resisting any changes by a new editor, whether the additions to it make sense or not. So, it will be interesting to see how the other editors of the Sovereignty section will respond.

My question has been answered. "Someone" owns this article too, and refuses any updates. So be it. I won't start an Edit War or file for Dispute Resolution. (btw, I added a bit about both Argentina's new government's position AND David Cameron's position as detailed in mid December). So, all Wikipedia articles about The Falklands are frozen in time. (The same happened with my mother's set of Encyclopedia Britannica ... but we took those books to the garbage dump because updates were no longer provided.) Best of luck, folks. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If this represents a change in the status quo of course the article will be updated. I actually quoted WP:RECENTISM at you, since the edit you made became out of date as you wrote it by the statement issued by David Cameron this evening - hence why we don't tend to report events as they happen. I also pointed out that the 3rd January is the anniversary of the British return and Argentina always issues a statement on this date about the British usurpation. As regards your accusation of WP:OWN, my reply WP:EGO. WCM_email 22:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Granted, there is a more recent comment by Cameron which I just found. I would have quickly modified my edit to use the new one instead of his mid-December comment but now, that is all academic. David Cameron issues 'hands off' warning to Argentina over Falklands .. David Cameron has warned Argentina that Britain will not hand over the Falklands after the country's new government called for fresh talks on the islands' sovereignty https://www.politicshome.com/foreign-and-defence/articles/story/david-cameron-issues-hands-warning-argentina-over-falklands#sthash.mkqUY5O6.dpuf

And what statement was issued by the Argentine Government last month and what was the UK reply? Will it be any different in April on the anniversary of the Argentine invasion. Or in June on Liberation Day. The biggest news of recent times was when James Peck destroyed his Argentine ID card in December, I'm still waiting to see how that pans out before editing the article. WCM_email 23:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070815113612/http://www.cpel.uba.ar:80/filargenta/correo/malv0020.htm to http://www.cpel.uba.ar/filargenta/correo/malv0020.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928023835/http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/seree/ditra/uk.html to http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/seree/ditra/uk.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516060801/http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXXI/treaty4.asp to http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXXI/treaty4.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604215413/http://www.senado.gov.ar/web/interes/constitucion/english.php to http://www.senado.gov.ar/web/interes/constitucion/english.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121106192913/http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html to http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120213161530/http://www.asociacionatta.com.ar/aviones/avion30.htm to http://www.asociacionatta.com.ar/aviones/avion30.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222051340/http://www.asociacionatta.com.ar/aviones/avion23.htm to http://www.asociacionatta.com.ar/aviones/avion23.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.casarosada.gov.ar/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6926
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132021481000/http://www.senado.gov.ar/web/interes/constitucion/cuerpo1.php to http://www.senado.gov.ar/web/interes/constitucion/cuerpo1.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110524122425/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/south-america/falkland-islands/?profile=politics&pg=7 to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/south-america/falkland-islands/?profile=politics&pg=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

UNCLOS

Slow rural broadband whilst on holiday means its very slow to pull the links off. There has been wildly inaccurate reporting all weekend on the UNCLOS story. The CLSC commission has awarded Argentina an extension on its continental shelf only in those areas that are undisputed. It has not as widely reported given Argentina control around the Falkland Islands. Documents from the hearing is here, you will note that the commission specifically excludes the area around the Falkland Islands as that is subject to a sovereignty dispute. In addition, UNCLOS has no bearing on sovereignty. Please don't add inaccurate material to the article. Even the Argentine Government announcement hasn't claimed this [4]. WCM_email 10:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The reference used by D Eaketts (an article by Sky News) says "has increased its maritime territory in the South Atlantic Ocean to include the disputed Falkland Islands and beyond."; but then it says that "the decision will be key in its dispute with Britain over the islands which it calls Las Malvinas." (which is just the writer's analysis, and does not make any further mention of an actual inclusion of the islands in the ruling). I think that the first portion of the text is simply a faulty summary of the article. Cambalachero (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, By the looks of it Cambalachero, it's in the early stages from the UN and the UK has just dismissed its ruling on the Falklands (an article by The Guardian) plus does this include the South Georgia Islands see BBC News Link: - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35914839 D Eaketts (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2016

See [5]

“ Article 9

The actions of the Commission shall boy prejudice matters relating to delimitation of boundaries between States with opposite or adjacent coasts.

”

This committee has no powers to rule on the matter and pointedly it hasn't. There will be egg on faces before end of week. WCM_email 16:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Committee itself does not extend the continental shelf rights of coastal states, it only determines if the submitted intended extention complies with the technical LOS provisions. If so, then the actual extension is done by the relevant country owning the coast and its territorial waters and 200-mile EEZ. In this case, that would be done by the UK once the Commission rules on the UK submission regarding the shelf of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. This decision is pending, it's just that the Argentine submission was filed with the Commission a little bit earlier than the UK one, which entails no priority. There is no doubt the UK submission will be approved too, making necessary amendments should the Commission find any technical inaccuracies (the UK and Argentine submissions differ in some minor details). So any possible mineral or other shelf resources in that area would be exploited by the UK, respectively by the Falklands in their portion of the shelf extension. Apcbg (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

My previous comment was based on that specific reference. I have checked the issue in more detail. The Guardian says "Argentina’s government is celebrating a decision by a UN commission to expand its maritime territory in the South Atlantic Ocean by 35% to include the disputed Falkland islands and beyond". They also mention that the finding includes a caveat pointing the dispute. The Falkland government asked the British government if this changes anything, which has not been answered yet (at least, when the article was written). RT acknowledges that the expansion includes the islands, but also says that Downing Street rejected it as "not legally binding". The telegraph points that the Argentine foreign minister said that this will be key in the dispute. Daily mail also points that this is legally binding. Other references say basically the same.

I think that we should include a mention to this, as well as the reactions (Argentina celebrates it, the UK says it's not legally binding) and all the information that may be related and useful to understand this. It comes from the United Nations, and it involves one of the topics used by Argentina to justify the claim. It is not a recurring event, such as those annual summits voicing a point of view. Cambalachero (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed my mentioning of this, but I agree with Cambalachero (talk) that something should be said about it. ESND (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If you read the Argentine statement, the text proposed goes rather further in the pro-Argentine direction than the Argentine government is prepared to go. Specifically, the proposed text claims that the committee sided with Argentina. The Argentine government do not try to make this case. The Argentine government notes that the committee did not analyse that part of their presentation and present this as a positive for their case for three reasons:

• The fact that the committee did not analyse that part of the presentation - rather than rejecting it - recognises the existence of a dispute.
• The fact that the committee have not started considering the British submission on the region, again, recognises the existence of a dispute.
• The fact that the committee did not analyse that part of the presentation does not prevent Argentina from claiming the region (but it means that the Argentine claim is not definitive and binding on other countries).

Reading between the lines (in a way that we can't use for article creation) one might actually come to the conclusion from this document that the government were bracing themselves for criticism that the committee had refused to recognise Argentine claims in the region. Which of course they did - as required by their mandate. The committee sided with Argentina only in the sense that it didn't actually side with Britain.

The more I read about this from the more reliable sources - taking account of the sloppiness of the reporting - the more it appears to me that the story is just hot air and that what the committee did was what everyone in the know expected them to do. So, here is my view. For now we leave it out. If this becomes an important point in reliable secondary and tertiary sources in a few months' time, we reconsider.

(Sloppy reporting happens. Many years ago I was dealing with territorial claims in the Arctic. The status of the Northwest Passage is under dispute, and the mainstream reporting held that the Canadians said it was their territorial waters and the Americans that it was international waters. We could find many media sources to that effect. But it made no sense. Surely the US would not argue that it had the right to set up oil rigs in the Davis Strait. And Canada's objections to US shipping clearly contradicted the doctrine of innocent passage. When we looked harder, we found better (more reliable) sources that were more consistent with the claims actually being made and used them in place of the media sources. The point is now better reported - very plausibly because we corrected the error.) Kahastok talk 19:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said earlier there would be egg on faces before the end of the week. This "story" has been the subject of some very sloppy journalism. For a start the Commission on the Law of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) [6] has no powers to decide a sovereignty dispute. The Argentine submission was in 2009, when it was made the commission made it plain it couldn't consider areas under a sovereignty dispute [7]. (Scroll to CLCS/76 Argentina's presentation paragraphs 53 - 57, Likewise for the UK, UK submission 11 May 2009, presentation 7 April 2010, For UK scroll to CLCS/66, UK's presentation paragraphs 55 - 60). On 28 March 2016 the CLCS issued a press statement that its judgement did not affect areas subject to a sovereignty dispute [8]. In 2010, Durham University prepared maps showing claim and counter claim [9], this shows the area awarded in light blue. To be clear the area around the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and Antartica is not included in the judgement. At least we can take comfort from the fact that wikipedia reported this story better than most of the Argentine and British press. WCM_email 22:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

[10] UK Government official statement. WCM_email 19:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

De facto control chart

The article describes the British claim as dating from 1690, but the chart demonstrating de facto control starts 70 years later (because the claim comes from an initial landing, not the establishment of a settlement). I think this should be clarified either in the introduction to the article or on the chart itself.185.41.44.249 (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

no 86.138.244.59 (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

FAQ

I have added a FAQ at the top, for some common answers to issues that frequently show up in this page, either at the talk page or in bold edits to the article. One is for the lead saying "the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas in Spanish)", and the other for most modern news about the dispute that are just recentism. The FAQ can be edited at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/FAQ. I hope that I had understood correctly the current consensus on those issues, but feel free to fix it if made a mistake, the explanation may be improved, or there is some other issue worth pointing there. Cambalachero (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Good idea and I like the points you make. Support your effort 100%. WCM_email 08:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Help with another article

I'm re-writing the article of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, president of Argentina from 2007 to 2015. As you may remember, she had several diplomatic conflicts with the United Kingdom over this dispute, which I detailed in a paragraph at the "Foreign policy" section. I mentioned the 30th anniversary of the war, the oil exploration dispute, and the referendum. Is that enough for a brief summary, or did I forgot some other aspect of the dispute in recent years worth mentioning there? Cambalachero (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006063029/http://www.falklands.info/history/history2.html to http://www.falklands.info/history/history2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006063014/http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html to http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928023835/http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/seree/ditra/uk.html to http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/seree/ditra/uk.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401100750/http://www.falklands.info:80/history/history3.html to http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927190313/http://www1.hcdn.gov.ar/proyxml/expediente.asp?fundamentos=si&numexp=4812-D-2006 to http://www1.hcdn.gov.ar/proyxml/expediente.asp?fundamentos=si&numexp=4812-D-2006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070114052302/http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar:80/conflicto/1971_1982.html to http://www.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar/conflicto/1971_1982.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516060801/http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXXI/treaty4.asp to http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXXI/treaty4.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting new sources of information?

Everytime I add a new, and free, source in order that people can see the whole picture, it is sistematically deleted keeping just a biased approach of the topic. I think this is not the spirit of these topics. I think that every source counts in order that people can arrive by themselves to their own conclussion. It seems that somebody is afraid of the truth... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catito14 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No we want to know why this site of of more interest then all the ones we already link to. Also it does not "give the whole picture", it give a polemical one, which adds to the question "why should this site be included", what does it add we do not already know?Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A polemical one? The link provides information backed up with primary sources and opinions of world class jurist (internationally recognised). Something that the other links lack off. This site should be included due to the fact that it provides another view of the sovereignty dispute. I think this is useful to keep this site unbiased, unpartial and it gives the WHOLE picture and information to people who is interested in this Question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catito14 (talk • contribs)

What view, that we do not already have?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It´s not about what do "YOU" or "I" have ... it´s about the whole picture to the unpartial people looking unbiased and complete information about the dispute. Don´t you think that listening both sides of the dispute is better in order that people can take their own conclussions?Catito14 (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Catito14 (talk)

You have not answered the question, what does information does this add we do not currently have?Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Information about the Paix de Amiens, Arana-Southern Treaty, Eviction of argentine population and authorities in 1833, legal analisys of the Spanish-British treaties, analysis about the principle of Self-Determination at the light of ICJ jurisprudence and international doctrine, etc. But, since i only added a link and i didn´t modify the info that the page contains, i don´t understand how this can be "polemical" .... the aim of this is giving a new, and free, source to the unpartial people who is looking complete info about the dispute. Catito14 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The material is polemical as it (by it's own admission) is a refutation of one side of an argument. It puts the other side, it is not neutral but rather puts argentinas case. Also much of this is already covered in the article (such as the Arana-Southern Treaty). I'll let others reply to you now. In fact much of this is covered in our article or refutes claims our article does not make.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

But i only added a link, i didn´t add info to the article, that´s why i don´t understand how this is polemical. I´m only providing a source to different information, the "other side" information as you said. I think this will be richfull to the debate and to people who come to this articles knowing nothing about the subject. Giving both positions and letting people to take their own conclussions, in my opinion, is the best what we can do. I thank you for you time and for this polite exchange. I really hope you can see what i´m trying to say here and re-consider the option to add this new source. Regards Catito14 (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We have a discussion, can we at least be courteous enough to explain our objections.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

As the link I posted on your talk page explained, its a WP:SPS. Wikipedia does not permit the use of Self-Published sources, its that simple. Both the book in Spanish and the website are self-published and as such are not suitable as a source. It might be used for uncontroversial facts but given that can be cited to other sources unlikely. The source does not add anything, having reviewed both the original Spanish version and the website there are no new arguments presented, the book is simply a regurgitation of previous claims that are already represented into the article. You will also find if you check the online version against the Spanish version, the Spanish version presents some photoshopped documents as the original. That alone would cast as an unreliable source and one not to be encouraged on wikipedia. As to your comment why can't you just post a link, see WP:LINKSPAM, wikipedia is not a repository of external links and this is strongly discouraged. Further, your behaviour at the moment we would class as edit warring see WP:3RR, this is considered disruptive and could well see your account blocked on wikipedia. I think we can pretty much see what you are trying to do and I for one don't see a motivation to promote and improve the encyclopedia. Thats the only thing wikipedians care about, improving this encyclopedia.

Turning now to other matters, your persistence does lend itself to the suspicion that you have a personal interest in promoting this work. If you have a conflict of interest, per WP:COI you should declare it. Are you one of the authors? WCM_email 17:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, as for his persistence, this also appears to be a SPA, indeed a single document account almost.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the knowledge of wiki syntax does rather suggest a throwaway account of an established user too. WCM_email 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear friends, it is clear that you have not read the work, either in Spanish or in English. From what you are saying, I can clearly see that someone else is "dictating" what you should answer me. It is a pity that the article you are editing is so biased and therefore so unserious. You want that only a part, erroneous by the way, of the history be known, restricting that historical and legal facts, proven with primary sources, be known (something that you have doubtlessly seen), and be seen in its small propaganda page for fear that English-speaking people, who are interested in the truth of the facts, will discover the weakness of your position. I had been warned of how certain people handle the Falklands/Malvinas articles in english, but I tried to give you an opportunity by appealing to your goodwill and a to a "united interest" in the search of truth. Clearly I was wrong. Saying that the book is a "regurgitation" is a clear proof that you didn´t read it. The book refutes the nonsense arguments that many of you repeats on social media. That is the real reason why you do not accept that this work appears on your site. Because, in that way, the whole structure of lies would fail. It is by no means a self-published source, the work contains hundreds of quotes from primary sources and even images from those sources. The "photoshop" argument (I see who is dictating what you have to say) is nonsense and only falls into an ad-hominem fallacy that seeks to discredit the work. The content of that image was not modified AT ALL. Only the title of the newspaper was placed above the news so that the reader could see the name of the newspaper that was being talked about. In that work there are unpublished historical documents, used even by some British "authors". It is a pity that you are so afraid of the truth, or worse, that you are afraid that readers will know the truth. Once again, the British fled the debate because of their legal (and historical) weakness. Catito14 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I've actually read it in both Spanish and English, whether you choose to believe me or not I don't care but clearly your comments indicate you do not WP:AGF. The manipulation of images is well known on Wikipedia, seeing as the Argentine embassy in London also produced a pamphlet with the same photoshopped image, Argentine editors have already tried to force that into wikipedia before. As to your allegations, pish to use a Glaswegian expression, in a serious historical work you don't manipulate images. WP:SPS

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources.

It is most definitely self-published and as such not suitable for wikipedia. Its that simple. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs, its not a forum, its not a debating site, its not many of the things you wish to use it for. WCM_email 20:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't respond when I asked if you had a connection to this website. Do you? WCM_email 20:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)