Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:31, 13 May 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: South America This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  South American military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. South America: Argentina / Falklands High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Argentina (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as High-importance).

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Sept 2005 – Dec 2006 January 2007 – June 2007 June 2007 – June 2008 June 2008 – August 2010 Sept 2010 – June 2011 June 2011 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Obama and Cameron

Regarding this recent inclusion:

1. Obama didn't publicly supported the status quo, as the text implies: David Cameron claims he does. In any case, this should be properly attributed to him;
2. Even if presented correctly, I have serious doubts about this failing WP:NOT#NEWS. About nine months ago, Hillary Clinton's repeated calls for talks were rejected for inclusion on the grounds of not being relevant enough to show a change in US policy. If that's the case then Obama and Cameron's private meeting certainly doesn't show a shift either. Citing Pfainuk: "this section should describe long-term trends in policy, not individual instances of votes". --Langus (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I rather agree. I don't see that this represents sufficient evidence of a change in long-term US policy - particularly since it seems to be based on interpretation by the Telegraph (the New York Times does not make the same interpretation).

We do actually discuss the US position - but under the subheading, so away from most of the other countries that are noted individually. I think it may be useful to reorganise this section somewhat to remove the subheading and put all the countries we discuss particularly together. I'd remove a couple of those we have (there doesn't seem much point in mentioning Mexico and we can replace it with a more relevant state if needed). Kahastok talk 09:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

De jure and de facto

"De jure" means by law, so whose law applies here - British, Argentine or International? International law has never been tested in a court and as both Britian and the Argentine claim the Falklands, the statement that Britain has exercised "de jure" control over the Falklands is WP:NOP. Best to leave it out. Britain certainly exercises de facto control. Martinvl (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"whose law applies here" — exclusively Falklands Law, a variety of British law. Absolutely, that is the law that applies on the Islands. No other law does. International Law has a different sphere of application, it is no substitute for national law and national sovereignty; there is no international sovereignty either. Apcbg (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And fpor a brief period in 1982 Argentinaian law applied there. Sorry De-facto seems a reasonalbe compromise to a disputed claim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Between 1939 & 1944 German law applied to large parts of France, does that mean the French only exercise de facto sovereignty over France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.44.4 (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly it was 1940, not 1939. Secondly, large chunks of French law (especially civil law) probably still applied - people were born, got married, got divorced, died inherited property, had commercial disputes and the like and the law relating to the handling of these events probably remained unchanged, so saying that German law applied is stretching a point. The situation was that Germany was in de dacto control of France and as such they gave high level guidance to French administrators on how to implementing local law. They only amended those parts that suited them. It is debatable whether or not they were in de facto control of Vichy France - that depends on whether you regard Vichy France as being a puppet state or one who avoided upsetting the Germans. As regards the de jure governemnt - one might go as far as to say that Britain recognised de Gaulle as the de jure representative of the French people. I hope that this puts things into perspective. Martinvl (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That’s right, excepting Alsace-Lorraine (Elsaß-Lothringen) which was reunified with Germany and where German law applied I believe. Despite their German origins, the local people there predominantly prefer association with France; after WWII they were reunified once again, this time with France. Anyway, wartime law and administrative arrangements don’t count – unless you win the war, that is :-). Apcbg (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We are no lawmakers here legislating for the Falklands, therefore we are in no position to make 'compromises' regarding the law that applies on the Islands. Apcbg (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Since we are not lawmakers (or interpreters of law), we cannot say anything about a "de jure" claims unless it is backed up by a reliable (and preferable impartial) source. There are plenty of reliable sources about the "de facto" situation - the a British military presence, the Union flag flying, the Qeeen's head on stamps and coins. Martinvl (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no 'claims', it's just the Argentine claim.

Britain used to have a claim in 1690-1833.

Since then — you do not claim what you possess.

Your "whose law applies here" is not the military presence, flags or coins (the same QEII appears on Australian etc. coins), it's the everyday laws that regulate economy, social life, politics etc.

And there is no question what that law is, as already explained above. Apcbg (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Actualy you do claim what you posses, I claim to own the computer I am writing on.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and the UK claims England, Scotland and Llandudno Junction. Apcbg (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

{

If you visit The Free Dictionary you will find the sentence "A de jure government is the legal, legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other states. In contrast, a de facto government is in actual possession of authority and control of the state." In the case of the Falklands, there is sufficient dispute about who the legal government is that it is POV to state that the Britihs presence is or is not legal.

May I also suggest that you look up the use of the words "de jure" and "de facto" in respect of the governemnts of Rhodesia and of South West Africa, also of Zimbabwe and of Namibia during the 1970's. (BTW, I was living in South Africa at the time). Martinvl (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

“... and is so recognized by other states” – by which and how many other states? Could you please exemplify that by advising when exactly did the government of Argentina (United Provinces, Buenos Aires, whatever) become a de jure government?

Rhodesia and South West Africa were attempts to usurp the self-determination of the peoples of those countries (and that was the explicitly stated reason for non-recognition). Not so in the Falklands case; Argentina would like to do that but has no effective control of the country, hence there is no actual usurpation. Apcbg (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for its inclusion, so stop edit warring and leave it out untill you get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring, as in making too many reverts? I’ve made none. And consensus is achieved by way of talk page discussions – precisely what’s going on here. Apcbg (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Argentinians ever instituted and legal reforms on the island, nor did they change the judiciary, so it clearly false to say during the brief period of the invasion the falklands switched to operating under the argentinian legal system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.152.9 (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that they did - as far as I am aware they applied martial law (ie control of all branches of government by military authorities). Martinvl (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Summit of the Americas

"The Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly has repeatedly endorsed Argentine proposals calling the United Kingdom to restart the negotiations. However, at the 2012 Summit of the Americas Argentina perceived a failer to gather support for a joint statement on the Falklands dispute by the other American countries."

Second sentence casts doubts over the first one. That's however an entirely wrong interpretation on our part (that is, WP:OR). If you read the sources:

Mercopress:

More specifically on the Falklands/Malvinas issue, Holguin said it was “a bilateral issue” between Argentina and the UK, and called for a dialogue between the parties involved , while the war against drugs “is a matter of concern to all”

AlJazeera:

" was furious, we are told, because of the lack of full, complete support for Argentina's claim of control of the Falkand Islands," Newman said.

The New York Times:

Another obstacle this time was Argentina’s unsuccessful demand for language in it that would support its claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, a British dependency in the South Atlantic that Argentina calls the Malvinas. In that dispute, which boiled over into a war between Argentina and Britain in 1982, Mr. Obama said the United States remains neutral.

In short, worded as it is right now, the article implies that the support for calls for negotiations is falling apart. While I'm not saying that in the future this tendency can be reverted (next OAS General Assembly meeting is in June), right now that clearly isn't the case (see interview to Holguin). Argentina pursued a declaration of support for Argentina's POV (that's a step further from neutrality), and it didn't got it. --Langus (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it does. The sentence reads "...Argentina perceived a failer to gather support for a joint statement on the Falklands dispute...", which did happen. Perhaps the word 'full' could be added: "...Argentina perceived a failer to gather full support for a joint statement on the Falklands dispute..." to make it more clear. Gaba p (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Langus (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is already distinctly equivocal about this, in that it refers to a perceived failure to gather support for a joint statement. Which seems to imply that there's another interpretation of events that says Argentina succeeded in getting support for such a statement. Which I doubt.

Referring to "failure to gather full support" suggests that such a statement was supported by a substantial number (a majority at least) of members but was thwarted by one or two hold-outs. Do we have evidence for this in the context of this particular summit?

I note that it refers only to a statement on the Falklands dispute. It doesn't say what that statement is supposed to have said - no statement was made at all. This doesn't necessarily imply that there's waning support for negotiations (though that is a possibility) - only the plain fact that the islands were one of the factors that prevented a joint statement being released. Kahastok talk 22:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That one sentence alone doesn't imply a fading support, I agree. But without any clarification and delivered right after the idea that "The OAS has repeatedly endorsed Argentine proposals calling the United Kingdom to restart the negotiations. However...", it certainly does. Something has to be done, IMHO. --Langus (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

1806 withdrawal

Cawkell notes the withdrawal of all troops along with the Governor in 1806. Only settlers remained who nearly starved due to the British blockade preventing supplies. What supporting cites exist to support the claim troops didn't leave till 1811? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your question. I've self-reverted myself until I can bring the references. Cheers. --Langus (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sovereignty discussions

These two sentences: "The issue was debated annually in the Argentine Congress and a formal protest issued until 1849. The matter was not raised again until 1941." plus this one "In International Law, territorial claims are usually considered defunct if there is a gap of 50 years or more between protests over sovereignty." would appear to confirm Britain's Acquisition of title by prescription argument since it implies a 92 year gap between protests. I think this needs some clarification, since that's definetily not what this source (referenced in the last sentence quoted) states at all. The source reads:

It can be argued that the conditions for acquisition of a title by prescription were not satisfied because of Argentina's continued protests at the British occupation from 1833 to the present day. Furthermore, in 1884 Argentina offered to take the case to arbitration. Britain refused. This further strengthens the case against a British title by prescription.

The one point in favour of the British case is the gap between 1849 and 1884. During those 35 years no protest occurred, but Argentina stressed that silence should not be taken to mean abandonment of the claim.

It is possible that thirty-five years is long enough to allow the conclusion that Argentina had acquiesced in British possession and therefore Britain had acquired the title by prescription. The length of time required for acquiescence has never been determined by a tribunal, but most writers on international law suggest that fifty years or more without interruption are required for the acquisition of title by prescription to occur. Gaba p (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could use "debated" instead of "raised"? "The matter was not debated again until 1941". --Langus (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Given as the rest of the paragraph goes into some detail on the point of protests during this period, I see no problem here to be addressed. We need to assume that the reader is going to read the article. Worth also noting the obvious bias in the source. Kahastok talk 21:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, the article written by Professor Christoph Bluth, from the University of Leeds, looks much more neutral than the "Getting it right" counter-pamphlet, which is being used at large lately. After all, the introduction clearly states that "It is found that both Britain and Argentina have a strong, but not conclusive case".

Back to the issue, despite that the protests are detailed below, I do see a potential problem, and I reason that a clarification wouldn't hurt the article. Au contraire.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence The matter was not raised again until 1941 needs clarification or a clear source. Where is this stated? I could not find it in the source referenced in the article (I couldn't find it anywhere really) This fact is also mentioned here twice, but no reference is given either. Gaba p (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the source is exactly Pascoe & Pepper's Getting it Right. They stress the amount of time that the issue wasn't discussed in the chambers because, you know, they're trying to strengthen/defend the British position (bias?). They even put it in numbers in page 23 ("the Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress for 91 years until 1941").

Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That can't be right, that source is amazingly biased. This is the literal conclusion of that pamphlet:

We conclude that the Argentine seminar of 3 December 2007 and the two Argentine 2007 pamphlets do not make a case for Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. All these islands are rightfully British.

The Falklands dispute was ended over 150 years ago with Argentina’s agreement; there is no need for any "solution".

(bolded in the original) Is this an acceptable source? What are WP guidelines about such biased sources? Are there other sources used in this article as biased as this one? Gaba p (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes its an acceptable source as it generated by academics, published and peer reviewed not to mention impeccably sourced. The fact you dislike an author's conclusions that contradict your own nationl viewpoint is immaterial.

And you are both putting the cart before the horse, the paper is written in response to a factually flawed and highly biased document issued by the Argentine Government, amongst which it quotes Roberto C. Laver. That author attempts to cover up the rather embarassing 91 year gap in Argentine protests by creatively intepreting what constitutes a protest. So for instance he claims an Argentine claim to be responsible for venereal disease in the Falklands as a protest or exchanges with the postal union as a protest, neither of which would qualify as a diplomatic protest to the British Government. On the one hand you wish to quote Laver extensively yet on the other you seek to disqualify the inclusion of a rebuttal. That is non-neutral and seeking to turn wikipedia into a nationalistic propaganda piece.

Its not as if Pascoe and Pepper do not make this plain in the preamble to their document. 11:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Arana-Southern Treaty

Who exactly? I'm particularly intrigued about Argentine authors.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class South American military history articles
• South American military history task force articles
• B-Class South America articles
• High-importance South America articles
• B-Class Argentine articles
• High-importance Argentine articles
• WikiProject Argentina articles
• B-Class Falkland Islands articles
• High-importance Falkland Islands articles
• Falkland Islands articles
• WikiProject South America articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics