# Talk:Irredentism

Since a irredentist desire is in the constitution of the Republic of Ireland it is in the wrong section. The change in 1999 removed the territorial claim, but did not remove the irredentist desire from its constitution:
Articles_2_and_3_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

"Article 2
   It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Article 3

       It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions"

@Roger 8 Roger:. The article discusses the conflict between historical disputes, sometimes based on the people or ethnicity of a land, and the conflicting or disregard that an irredentist claim may have for its people. I quote: "Usually, irredentism is defined in terms of the motivation of the irredentist state, even if the territory is annexed against the will of the local population." If we are discussing the rationale for the ongoing status of the Falklands, it is relevant to address the historical land claim in context of the people who live there and not merely a diplomatic maneuver or argument over rocks in the ocean. The article as written before also implies that the Falklands remain only in British hands because of firepower. It was a very oddly phrased paragraph and should expand on the claim's context after the Falklands War, when 40 years of history have passed.
Zkidwiki (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Zkidwiki and thanks for the explanation. The point of the history section is only to give a very condensed characterization of some of the most discussed examples of Irredentism. These examples are usually discussed in more detail in the main articles. In this case, the article Argentine irredentism. While the claim you added is interesting, I don't think it's necessary to understand why this is a form of irredentism. So I tend to agree with Roger 8 Roger on that point. Have you thought about adding that claim to the article Argentine irredentism instead? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@Zkidwiki, the Argentine claim to the Falklands is more complicated than you say. To describe it narrowly the way you have is misleading. From an Argentine position the 1982 war and the opinion of the islanders changes nothing. I agree this is not the place for detail. BTW, in a wp:BRD situation like this, the idea is to discuss, as you have done, but to leave the revert alone while attempting to gain a consensus opinion, which you have not done. Doing otherwise, as you have, starts an edit war. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I know the Argentine opinion--theories of irredentism address not only the context and beliefs of the claimants but also the inhabitants. I quoted a part of the article that led me to include more information and you have completely ignored what I wrote.
Furthermore, I have been on Wikipedia for nine years and I have no intention of being lectured by someone whose entire contribution to the article, BTW, was undoing an edit and hoping no one would notice. Doing this, as you have, starts an edit war. Zkidwiki (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to leave out if we take a perspective of "understanding why this is a form of." My concern is that it wasn't written well to reflect that purpose already. I think the other examples keep more to the point. As you've said though, it seems a whole oversight that it isn't included on the actual article over Argentine claims to the Falklands, so I will definitely add that when time permits. Zkidwiki (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Current text:

I don't think this explains the issue at all well.  The text as written focuses on the war, with the none too subtle implication the UK prevailed because of might not right.  As such it implies some support for Argentina in Wikipedia's voice.  I welcome the addition of reference to the referendum, since it introduces the voice of the islanders in a neutral manner; they are usually forgotten.  If I may suggest changing to the following.

.
A suggestion only, feel free to improve.  WCMemail 14:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Wee Curry Monster and thanks for the suggestion! The article is currently a GA nominee so I'm open to ideas on how to improve it. Your suggestion removes various points that seem to be relevant. For example, it's relevant that Argentina had a longstanding claim. The international opinion on this issue and how it affected the outcome is also relevant.
The original version is the following: Argentina's invasion of the Falkland Islands is often cited as an example of irredentism in South America. In 1982, Argentina tried to seize the Falkland Islands. They were under British control since 1833 but Argentina's claims on them date back before that. Britain managed to decide the conflict in its favor and remained in control due to its superior military force and strong international support. Despite its defeat, Argentina has upheld its claim on the Falkland Islands to this day.
To my ears, it sounds more neutral since it uses less evaluative terms (like "unpopular" or "aggressive diplomatic campaign"). If we wanted to use these terms we would need high-quality reliable sources to support that. The main thing that may give support to Argentina in the old version seems to be that they had a longer claim. But that is a simple fact. The international support against Argentina seems to counterbalance that. But maybe you are seeing some NPOV problem with the original version that I'm not aware of. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
A simple fact that the Argentine claim is older than the UKs?  In which universe?  The British claim dates to 1592, Argentina didn't declare independence until 1816.  In 1825, when negotiating the Treaty of Friendship, Argentina was required to delineate all its territory, it made no claim to the Faklands but now asserts the UK somehow recognised Argentina with the Falklands.  It makes various attempts to backdate its claims but the first overt act wasn't until 1829, by an illegal government, whose edicts were then disavowed by the following administration.  I could go on but the current text is not appropriate for an article seeking GA status. WCMemail 16:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Further, I take your point about referring to the Argentine diplomatic claim as aggressive, easily fixed by simply removing that word.  However, I am confused why you would dispute that the Argentine Military Government was unpopular, seeing as there is no source that would dispute that claim. WCMemail 16:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
According to the old version, Argentina had made claims before 1833. This is supported by Ackermann 2008a, pp. 147-148: Disputes over the sovereignty of the islands have occurred since the 18th century, as the islands are actually located within the Argentinean continental platform. However, in spite of many Argentinean claims, in 1833 British troops and inhabitants took possession of the islands.
I don't dispute that the Argentine Military Government was unpopular. But we need a good source for this type of claim. Some of the claims in your version are not supported by current sources (but not contradicted either). For GA, we would need reliable sources to support them. If we can find them then maybe we can settle on a mashup between the old version and your version. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster I think your initial comment made a great observation that distilled my impressions much better than I expressed. Maybe we could take the essence of your narrative and leave a more straightforward story.
Argentina's invasion of the Falkland Islands is often cited as an example of irredentism in South America. In 1982, Argentina under the government of the National Reorganization Process attempted seize the Falklands and the island of South Georgia, two British Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic. After a brief conflict, British forces resisted the invasion. Falkland Islanders have since voted twice (in 1986 and 2013) to remain a British overseas territory, the latter concluding with 99.8% of votes in favour. Argentina continues to press its claim to the Falkland Islands. Zkidwiki (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
My initial thought put simply is my understanding of the word is that there has to be a reason why the claimed land somehow "belongs" to the aggressor, usually historically or linguistically. Eg, Germany's claims to much of central Europe after WW1, or Russia's view of getting back Crimea. See this interesting website [1] for a definition closer to my thinking. I don't think Argentina's claim in that regard is tenuous at best with other reasons for claiming the Falklands being just as valid an explanation as irredentist. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I do not wish to provide a particular opinion on "who should win." My observation is that the discussion you linked to includes "which demanded the annexation of neighboring regions where a part of the population was Italian-speaking." In the context here, it would thus become an interesting story that the Falklands are neither members of any ethnic group in Argentina, there were no indigenous people in the Falklands to appeal to, nor do Falkland Islanders speak Spanish. My goal is really to identify: there is a longstanding claim by Argentina, they are held by the United Kingdom, there was a war over it, the inhabitants have weighed in on the question, and there remains an outstanding claim. Zkidwiki (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth or twist what I am saying. I never said the islanders are Argentine or speak Spanish. Argentina's connection with the Falklands, ie the reason for an "irredentist" claim ('irredentist' as defined by the linked page, which is also my view), is weak. WCM has illustrated that weakness above. You have taken two connected events - the war and a post war referendum - in isolation, to show that Argentina's claim is irredentist, ignoring other reasons why the war happened or why the vote went as it did. There isn't space here to go into the sort of detail needed to explain why Argentina's claim has an irredentist spin to it, or why that spin is at best weak. It is therefore better IMO not to go into any detail. Using the war as an example can come across as being gung-ho. IMO, if you are going to say anything it should be a one-liner about one of the reasons Argentina makes its claim to the islands, the one that best fits the definition of irredentism. The war is not it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Phlsph7: Do you perhaps mean Juan Ackerman the Uruguyan historian who argues that the islands should be Uruguayan?  His being very much a WP:FRINGE opinion, albeit a logical application of the utis possidetis juris principle to the Spanish colonial boundary of 1810.  In an case, whilst an interesting diversion is not addressing my point that the current wording implies the Argentine claim is older than the British claim, which is a nonsense.
I'm talking about the source in our article used to support the claim: Ackermann, Marsha E.; Schroeder, Michael J.; Terry, Janice J.; Upshur, Jiu-Hwa Lo; Whitters, Mark F., eds. (2008a). Encyclopedia of world history: Volume 6. New York: Facts on File. ISBN 9780816063864.. This is not the "Juan Ackerman" you are referring to. Does that address your concern about WP:FRINGE?
I don't think the sentence They were under British control since 1833 but Argentina's claims on them date back before that. implies that the Argentine claim is older than the British claim. But if that is a concern, we could reformulate this phrase to make it explicit: They were under British control since 1833 but Argentina's claims on them date back before Britain took control. If we want to emphasize that both Argentina and Britain had claims before that, we could use They were under British control since 1833 but both Argentina's and Britain's claims on them date back before that. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Please don't break up my comments, which violates talk page guidelines. Whilst the second phrase is better it is still implying an equivalence that doesn't exist.  The Argentine claim is cited as a colonial inheritance from Spain, when in fact there is no mechanism in Intl Law for such an inheritance, and in any case sovereignty was disputed with Spain and the UK.  The wording doesn't convey why the Argentine claim is irredentist. WCMemail 08:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for breaking up your comment. The sentence about Argentina's claims prior to 1833 is supported by a reliable source. I'm not aware that this view is controversial. Do you know of any reliable sources that explicitly deny this view?
I'm not opposed to the idea of mentioning that part of Argentina's motivation for the invasion was to exploit nationalistic sentiments. We could change In 1982, Argentina tried to seize the Falkland Islands. to In 1982, the Argentine military government exploited nationalistic sentiment in its attempt to seize the islands. to address that issue. We would need to add the following source to support this claim: Goebel, Michael (1 January 2011). Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History. Liverpool University Press. p. 182. ISBN 978-1-84631-238-0.. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@Roger, [2] Irredentism, has a number of meanings including advocating for the restoration of territory due to a past connection with the territory, it isn't just based on a shared ethnicity.  Aregntina's claim to the Falklands is frequently cited as an example of irredentism.  Many such claims are inextricably linked to nationalism and it would be difficult to argue against the fact that the Argentine claim is heavily intertwined with Argentine nationalism.  I don't see the example of the conflict as a problem, since it was precisely to exploit that feeling that the junta chose to invade.  If we're going to mention the war we need to mention that it was to exploit the feelings engendered by Argentine nationalism that the war was launched, which is missing from the latest draft. WCMemail 06:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I am confused by your point. Your argument necessarily boils down to that the reference should be removed from the article if we are actively resisting any attempt to "show that Argentina's claim is irredentist." If we are going to include it in an article about irredentism, which we should, then the context discussed addresses the definition and applications of irredentism in the article itself. Zkidwiki (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with all that. My point is that the space it takes to express that isn't justified in this article, although someone with the necessary skills might be able to sum it up in a couple of lines, as you have sort of just done. If anything is to be mentioned about Argentina's irredentist claim I think it should be about supposedly inheriting the Spanish claim, but that isn't straightforward either. Alternatively, mention of being evicted from a legitimately established settlement in 1833 (according to Argentina). I agree if the war is mentioned it should be as an expression of a (weak) irredentist claim  either. The way the was inserted though, reads as if the war and the referendum should have put an end to Argentina's irredentist thinking, which it doesn't. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented the suggestions regarding nationalistic sentiments and the earlier claims of both Argentina and Britain. In regard to the votes, there seems to be no consensus either way. As a compromise, maybe we could insert a very short characterization instead, something like the following: Despite its defeat and popular votes by the local population to remain part of Britain, Argentina has upheld its claim on the Falkland Islands to this day. instead of the detailed sentence explaining these votes. As a source, we could use "Falklands referendum: Voters choose to remain UK territory". BBC News. 11 March 2013. Retrieved 1 July 2023. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I've edited the section, expanding to explain the historical context.  My comment ref might is right wasn't addressed and the edit gave the false impression it was a walk over, the Falklands conflict will continue to be studied by military analysts since the prevailing view is that Argentina started out in a pretty much unassailable position being in prepared positions, supported by a modern airforce that outnumbered the British 5:1 and with no land bases within 1000s of miles available to the British.  So it was by no means a certainty.  Secondly the impression is given of the UK simply turning up out of the blue and taking over that is far from the case and it said nothing of the nationalist element of Argentine education which ensures generation after generation believes in Argentina's claim to an almost religious belief system.  I'm by no means happy with the fact it seems to be much longer than other sections but it at least explains it better to my mind.  I will look at continuing to reduce it in length. WCMemail 14:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
After spending some time tweaking and condensing I'm a lot happier with the latest draft, feel free to suggest further improvements.  Thanks to @Achmad Rachmani: for help with formatting a citation. WCMemail 16:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for putting all the effort into this. Since this section has been under discussion for a while, it would probably have been better to propose the changes on the talk page first. It's still significantly longer than the other paragraphs and should probably be further reduced. Part of the GA review is a source check which evaluates whether the sources support the claims they are used for. I checked a few of the sources but was unable to find the passages that support them.
Both the UK and Spain claimed sovereignty of the remote archipelago and Argentina claims the islands as a colonial legacy[51].: Could you cite which passage supports this?
President Juan Perón exploited the issue to reduce British influence in Argentina, instituting reforms to the education system, whereby children are taught the islands are Argentine[53]: what is the page number for this claim?
In 1982, the Argentine military government sought to exploit this deflecting attention from domestic concerns.[54].: I couldn't find a passage that supports this on the cited page.
An unofficial referendum in 1986 and one organised by the Falkland Islands Government in 2013 show a continued preference for British sovereignty among the population. ...[57]: I don't think that this claim is supported by the sources.
Phlsph7 (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Interesting, you've put some effort into that comment, I see this as still a work in progress with some rough edges.  Some cites have become detached whilst I've been focused on condensing and reducing the text. This is rather OTT to dissect in this detail at this stage whilst its in the midst of improvement.
I've added a cite separately for Spain and the UK in that sentence, it is over the top but I could see where this was headed.  Its not like this would be difficult to find suitable cites that you could simply have added to help.
I've given you a link to the Escude paper, you can read it in its entirety. What exactly are you claiming is uncited?
The purpose of that cite was to support the claim that the junta didn't believe the UK would respond, which it did but its now redundant as I removed that passage in an effort to condense the paragraph further. I've added another cite lifted from Falklands War as a quick fix.  Curious, why you acknowledge this is correct but rather than fix it you're quibbling?
OK I'll play the game and add another cite, the wikilinks provide more than adequate information and you could easily have done this.
I'm happy to work with any editor on a text and I've acknowledged a preference to condensing this further.  But again this is a work in progress, still requires work and more polishing.  I also need to reformat all the references to fit in with the article style.  Feel free to help with that if you're free.  WCMemail 18:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Excuse me if I did not attempt to fix the problems in your version but I'm not yet convinced that it is an improvement. Before attempting to solve the different issues with references that don't support the text, it might be better to assess whether we want to go with that version. Personally, I would favor a slightly modified form of the original version:
Argentina's invasion of the Falkland Islands is often cited as an example of irredentism in South America. In 1982, the Argentine military government exploited nationalistic sentiments in its attempt to seize the islands. They were under British control since 1833 but both Argentina's and Britain's claims on them date back before that. Britain managed to decide the conflict in its favor and remained in control due to its superior military force and strong international support. Despite its defeat and popular votes by the local population to remain part of Britain, Argentina has upheld its claim on the Falkland Islands to this day.
It's more condensed and it does not have the source problems associated with your suggestion. It might be helpful if some other editors could weigh in on this. If we don't get a consensus, I would also be fine with restoring the original version. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
What problems?  Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort, it seems your definition of collabortion is at odds with mine.
It isn't encouraging when you put in a lot of effort to explain your concerns over an edit, only for them to be ignored and to carry on insisting a particular wording is used which ignores those concerns.  I've already objected to the text, since it implies an equivalence in the chronology which doesn't exist.  Formally, when the UK negotiated the Treaty of Friendship in 1825, a major feature of the negotiations was the need for Argentina to delineate the territory it claimed.  The UK, like the US, was wary of inadvertently recognising Argentine claims to territory in which the UK had an interest.  It was without a claim to the Falklands that Argentina was recognised by the UK, only for the illegal Lavalle government to declare a claim in 1829, resulting in an immediate diplomatic protest from the British consulate.  I am aware that the Argentine Government claim is now rather different, claiming the islands from independence and was quite prepared to acknowledge in the edit that the claim is backdated to independence.  But an edit that obfuscates centuries difference in the chronology is misleading readers, favouring a national narrative and fundamentally at odds with a NPOV.
You've alleged a deficiency in my citation, which I have asked you to elucidate further.  I'm unhappy that after spending some effort to improve matters you're not prepared to explain your concerns and appear to be threatening to revert to a text I've already expressed a concern over.  Fine, per WP:BRD I guess you can do that but only if you are prepared to discuss matters.  I will however insist that is accompanied by a {{npov}} tag to invite other editors to the discussion, since you'd be reverting to a text with an acknowledged POV issue.  @Kahastok: for a second opinion on my concerns and for a review of my content proposal. WCMemail 17:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

WCM's paragraph is better than what was there, quoted above by Phlsph7, simply because it is more accurate. I haven't checked the WCM sources (I will do later)  but if they don't back what is written, which I assume they do then some other sources can be found. I said earlier this topic isn't straightforward and this discussion just proves that. IMO there is a lot of information on WP that follows society's prevailing mood and doesn't stand up to detailed analysis. Statements from national govt's are often used as RSSs and not challenged which I think is not ideal but sometimes necessary and should be used with care. Govts are not neutral by definition. In a very general sense, the Argentine claim is not total invention but it is weak and most certainly does not come anywhere near equality with the UK claim. I do not even like referring to the UK position as a claim, which implies there is some doubt as to its sovereignty. Sometimes we have to write comments here that might appear to be contrary to the facts but are backed by good RSSs, not what is written in many newspapers or what is controlled by a government. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
If there is agreement that WCM's paragraph is better text-wise then we can start working on its sources. In response to the previous criticism, some new sources were added but not all concerns were addressed.
Argentina's invasion of the Falklands is cited as an example of irredentism in South America[2] supported by the source.
Argentine military government sought to exploit national sentiment over the islands to deflect attention from domestic concerns.[3][4]. not supported by source [4]. Source [3] is in Spanish and discusses both nationalism and the Falkland islands (Islas Malvinas) so there are good chances that it supports the claim.
Referenda in 1986 and 2013 show a preference for British sovereignty among the population[7]. supports the claim for the 2013 referendum.
Argentina claims the islands as a colonial legacy from independence in 1816[9]: I don't think this is supported by the source
President Juan Perón ... instituting educational reform teaching the islands were Argentine[10]: I had a look at the pdf but I couldn't find this claim. It's a 55 page document so it's possible that it is there but I missed it. What is the page number for this claim?
creating a strong nationalist sentiment over the issue.[10] supported by the source
Argentina did not agree to cease hostilities until 1989...[11] I don't think this is supported by the sources. [11] includes 3 sources, the main one is Ackermann et al. 2008a. I couldn't find it in there. Could you cite the passage in case I missed it.
We could use [3] for this claim. It talks about a "formal cessation of hostilities" in 1989. Were there still actual hostilites after 1982? As a side note: we should mention somewhere that the invasion took place in 1982.
@Roger 8 Roger: Your help in checking some of the remaining sources would really be appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a quote from p197 of the first reference used (Goebel, 2011): As a result, throughout the twentieth century many of the most wavering irredentists had also been the most dedicated defenders of Argentina’s ‘liberal’ pantheon and civic-republican patriotism. The author is reliable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This quote and other passages from p. 197 seem to be relevant. The current version only cites p. 196 so we could add p. 197 as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

References

 Phlsph7 (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Apologies dealing with some real life issues that limits my editing time this week.  I will get back to you on those questions, feel free to remind me if I don't.  Lot on my plate at the moment. WCMemail 07:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I understand, please take your time. As an interim solution, I've restored a modified form of the original version since there has not been much progress on the draft. I removed the passage you criticized as implying an equivalence in the chronology to avoid potential NPOV problems. This is only a temporary measure and I've no issues with your version once its remaining problems are sorted out. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Since I just noted I was pinged to this discussion (comes with not logging into your account for a couple of months).
I'd agree with WCM that some rewording would better reflect the situation.  But before getting into that, my immediate question is, is the History section of this article actually adding to the reader's understanding of the concept of irredentism?
My issue is that this just seems to be a set of random examples of the same concept in different parts of the world.  If there are particular cases in history that advanced the (real-world) academic or legal understanding of the the concept then maybe these belong in a history section.  But - other than a point about Italia irredenta that's already made in the definition section - that doesn't appear to be what we have here.  Plus, it's a time sink for editors which leaves them less able to improve the article in other ways.
On this basis, my inclination would be to propose that the entire History section be deleted as a net negative to Wikipeda. Kahastok talk 17:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Kahastok and thanks for the input! I think your criticism is valid: the current history section just provides a few examples while the title "history" implies a comprehensive overview. But I also think that the history section has a point: to give the reader some concrete and often-discussed examples so they can better relate to the concept. And a comprehensive article on this topic should discuss at least the most notable examples. One alternative to deletion would be to rename the section. A more fitting title might be "Often-discussed historical examples" or something similar. Another alternative would be to delete the section but include the contents of this section somewhere else in the article. What do you think? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the sentiment introduced by Kahastok, I'd be happy to see that section removed, too often I've seen this sort of input drawing the attention of various nationalist groups.  Is the disruption worth it?
Assuming you disagree, you asked for a page number in the Escude paper that supported the use of the education system by Peron.

There is much more material from p.24 onward noting Peron's use of the education system to reinforce his policies. I trust this will direct you to where you can verify the source supports the text without having to read the whole thing? WCMemail 11:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for citing the text. Your lengthy quote supports the claim that Perón used the education system to reinforce his policies. But it does not support the claim that "President Juan Perón ... instituting educational reform teaching the islands were Argentine". But we could reformulate this passage in the draft to make it into a more general claim to express that Perón used the education system to reinforce his policies.
Concerning the removal of this section: I agree very much that this section attracts the wrong kind of input and that maintaining it can be rather time-consuming. My main concern is the following: Broad coverage is one of the GA criteria. Since the examples in this section are often mentioned in reliable overview sources, they may be required to fulfill this criterion. If you feel strongly about this then we could try to figure out how to rearrange the contents in that section so that they are discussed in the article without having this specific section. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Since the purpose of the paper is to present how the education system has reinforced Argentine attitudes to territorial claims, I have to say I disagree with your comment.  It very much does support the claim made, particularly the 3rd quote and I've pointed you to the relevant section of the paper so you can read it.  I note the text you've restored still contains elements that are unsupported by sources and which I've already objected to.  Pinging @Roger 8 Roger: and @Kahastok: for input. WCMemail 09:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the educational reforms: I'm not sure that the source directly supports the claim but I will not insist. I added the page numbers from your quotes to the source.
I also added another reference for one claim that was not supported by its references. As far as I can tell, there remains one claim that is not supported by its reference: Argentina claims the islands as a colonial legacy from independence in 1816[9].
In regard to the faults of the paragraph currently in the article: I suggest that we first try to fix your draft. If that fails, we can try to deal with the issues of the current version. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
With respect to WCM's version, which I take to be this, I would make a comment with respect to Many analysts considered the Argentine position unassailable but the UK prevailed in the Falklands War - that it's not clear what Argentine position is considered unassailable.  A better wording might be, The UK prevailed in the Falklands War, even though many analysts considered the Argentine military position unassailable.?
More widely, I might be inclined to reorder it for stylistic reasons, to be more roughly chronological.  Of the seven sentences, I'd suggest moving sentence 2 (Many analysts considered... in the Falklands War) to after sentence 6 (President Juan Perón exploited... over the issue), and sentences 3 and 4 (The islands are now... among the population) to the end.  We'd probably need light edits for style, but I think it would flow better in terms of the substance without jumping back and forward.
On that claim - that should be pretty easy to source.  Modern Argentina claims that before independence and fell within the borders of the Spanish possession that would become Argentina - and that Argentina therefore has rights under uti possidetis juris.  The case is made for example in this recent statement of the Argentine government's position.  Britain does not accept either claim - neither that the islands belonged to any possession of Spain before South American independence, nor that uti possidetis juris would apply even if they had. Kahastok talk 19:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The version you linked is an older version. The most recent version is found somewhere in the middle of this lengthy discussion. I copied the text to the new subsection below to avoid confusion. It's not that different but the sentence numbers in your description are probably off. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I also added the source you suggested. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


### Draft
Argentina's invasion of the Falklands is cited as an example of irredentism in South America, where the Argentine military government sought to exploit national sentiment over the islands to deflect attention from domestic concerns..  Many analysts considered the Argentine position unassailable but the UK prevailed in the Falklands War. The islands are now self-governing with the UK responsible for defence and foreign relations. Referenda in 1986 and 2013 show a preference for British sovereignty among the population. Both the UK[7] and Spain claimed sovereignty in the 18th Century  and Argentina claims the islands as a colonial legacy from independence in 1816. President Juan Perón exploited the issue to reduce British influence in Argentina, instituting educational reform teaching the islands were Argentine and creating a strong nationalist sentiment over the issue. Although defeated, Argentina did not agree to cease hostilities until 1989 and successive Argentine Governments have continued to claim the islands.

I had hoped to get some input from @Roger 8 Roger: but taking @Kahastok:'s input:
Argentina's invasion of the Falklands is cited as an example of irredentism in South America, where the Argentine military government sought to exploit national sentiment over the islands to deflect attention from domestic concerns..  President Juan Perón exploited the issue to reduce British influence in Argentina, instituting educational reform teaching the islands were Argentine and creating a strong nationalist sentiment over the issue.  The UK prevailed in the Falklands War, even though many analysts considered the Argentine military position unassailable. Although defeated, Argentina did not agree to cease hostilities until 1989 and successive Argentine Governments have continued to claim the islands. The islands are now self-governing with the UK responsible for defence and foreign relations. Referenda in 1986 and 2013 show a preference for British sovereignty among the population. Both the UK[7] and Spain claimed sovereignty in the 18th Century  and Argentina claims the islands as a colonial legacy from independence in 1816.
Do we have a consensus now to add this? WCMemail 06:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes from me. Some good sources used too. Possibly inserting 'overwhelming' before 'preference' is justified. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Irredentism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Augustios Paleo (talk · contribs) 18:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. More points will be added after the suggestions are implemented
Hello Augustios Paleo and thanks for taking the time to review this article. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


### Prose and other
*The word "dispute" is repetitive

Done.
*"There are various types of irredentism. One categorization distinguishes between cases in which the parent state exists before the conflict and cases in which a new parent state is formed by uniting an ethnic group spread across several countries. Another distinction concerns whether the target country is a state, a former colony, or a collapsed state." This sentence is confusing: what does "before the conflict" refer to? Please rewrite this

I split one sentence into two and tried to clarify the meaning. I hope it's more accessible now.
*Images on the left side of the page are needed, as all are on the right

Done.
Link words in captions that need them like "North Korea", "Falkland Islands", "Ethiopian", "Somalia", "Korean Peninsula", etc.
Done.
For "According to Naomi Chazan and Donald L. Horowitz," "For example, Benyamin Neuberger" and other names of people, state that they are political scientists, historians, etc. Tell that they are an expert on the topic.
Done. I hope I got everyone.
"et al" should be in italics
Done.


### Definition and etymology
link the first use of "Italian", "Italy",
Done.
Comma after "In particular"
Done.
"The disagreements matter for evaluating whether irredentism was the cause of a war" remove the word "a" before "war"
Done.
"definition characterizes irredentism as the attempt of the ethnic minority of the territory to be incorporated to break away and join their real motherland even though this minority is a non-state actor.[4]" the phrase "to be incorporated to break away" does not make sense
Done.
"Another issue concerns the reason for engaging in the territorial conflict. Some scholars hold irredentism is primarily motivated by ethnicity." these sentences could be reworded, something like "The reason for engaging in territorial conflict is another issues, with some scholars stating that irredentism is primarily motivated by ethnicity."
Done.
" On this view, the population in the neighboring territory is ethnically similar and the intention is to unite ethnically kindred people and to retrieve the area they live in.[4][8]" This sentence could be simplified, something like "the intention is to retrieve the area occupied by that ethnicity"
Done.
The word ethnicity is a bit redundant, maybe use "people"? I am aware of the complex definitions of nationality, ethnicity, etc., but if there are synonyms that would work it would help.
Done.
" It seeks to enlarge a state to establish a congruence between its borders and the boundaries of the corresponding nation." what is "it"? Irredentism?
Done.


### Types
"Not all theorists accept that the second type actually constitutes a form of irredentism. " The word "actually" is unnecessary
Done.
Link "Yugoslavian Slovenes", "Austrian Slovenes", and "Benyamin Neuberger"
Done. Please note that they are all red links.
" The typical case is between two states. A classical example of this is Somalia's invasion of Ethiopia.[11][20" Use a different word than "classical", something like "textbook".
Done.


### Explanations
"But only few are willing" change to " a few"
Done.
"It also matters whether the ethnic group is relatively dispersed or located in a small core area, and whether it is politically disadvantaged.[25]" remove the comma
Done.
"Structural accounts use a slightly different approach and focus on the relation" change "relation" to "relationship"
Done.
"On this view" is used twice. change "On" to "In"
Done.
"nation state" needs a hyphen
Done.
"primarily by a government that are not broadly supported by the population." change "are" to "is"
Done.
Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland is used a bit repetitively, maybe find other examples? Some could be the Bulgarian annexations in WW1 & WW2, Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Guayana Esequiba, the Toyota War between Libya & Chad.
Done.
This section could use another image or two
Done.
"Rational choice accounts are closely related but focus more on the internal power dynamics within the irredentist state. " what does this mean? could use a rephrase
Done.
link "per capita" or explain in parentheses
Done.
link "enclave"
Done.
"A further relevant" change "further" to a different word, like "additional"
Done.
"One reason cited is that their rule is more inclusive concerning all types of ethnic groups. " change to "One reason cited is that democracies often are more inclusive of other ethnic groups"
Done.


### Importance, reactions, and consequences
the word "countries" is repetitive
Done.


### Often-discussed historical examples
"Christians" and "Muslim rule" should be linked, the latter to the empire controlling Palestine at that time
Done. I linked Muslim rule to Muslim world because this could be a complex issue.
"For example, part of the justification of the crusades was to liberate fellow " change to "justification for the Crusades was to..."
Done.
"The term originally referred to an Italian movement after 1878 demanding that some predominantly Italian-speaking areas in Switzerland and the Austro-Hungarian Empire should become part of Italy.[6][44]" This section is repetitive, simply say in the sentence before when the word was created
Done.
"Sudeten Germans" can be linked
Done.
"The invasion escalated into a major war of attrition that lasted about eight months. Somalia was close to reaching its goal but failed in the end, mainly due to a massive intervention by socialist countries.[20][47][48]" the words "major" and "massive" are unnecessary
Done.
"They had been under British control since 1833." change "they" to "the territory"
Done.


### Related concepts
This section needs images
Done.
"Nations are usually based on ethnicity. But what sets them apart from ethnicity is their political form as a state or a state-like entity. " combine these two sentences
Done.
"The term ethnicity originates in the Ancient Greek term ethnos, meaning "peoples".[64]" this is not needed here
Done.
"This spawned various nationalist revolutions in Europe around the mid-nineteenth century. They often resulted in a replacement of dynastic imperial governments." link "nationalist revolutions" and "dynastic imperial governments"
Done. There was no meaningful direct link target for the full expressions so I linked partial expressions.
The second paragraph of the "Secession" section could use an example, maybe the Confederate States of America?
Done.
"But they differ concerning the motivation fuelling this attempt. Irredentism has a positive goal of building a "greater" state that fulfills the ideals of a nation state." don't start sentences with
Done. (I assumed you were going to say "but")
VERY well done, this article needed attention. Thank you! Will promote once suggestions are implemented.
Looks good, just needs some images. I think these could work:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ParisPeace-Venizelos-Map.png
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:China_map.png
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Morocco.svg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Assyria_Paris_Peace_Conference_1919.jpg
@Augustios Paleo: Thanks for all the concrete and helpful suggestions! I hope I managed to cover all the main points. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I noticed some problems with this section.
"President Juan Peron exploited the issue to reduce British influence in Argentina, instituting educational reform teaching the islands were Argentine"
"Argentina claims the islands as a colonial legacy from independence in 1816"
The text doesn't say when the dispute started. Without proper context, these statements could make an uninformed reader believe it started in 1816, or sometime during Peron's rule.... (1940s, 1950s, 1970s)
"Although defeated, Argentina did not agree to cease hostilities until 1989" 
Similar issue- the text doesn't say when the war ended. It only says it started in 1982. This could make people believe it lasted nearly 7 years. 
The article completely omits mentioning the rest of Argentina's territorial claims (South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands) these could be included in a map, replacing the current one.
I take issue with the statement "Peron introduced education reform teaching the islands were Argentine", I think this is a misinterpretation of Escude. 
"The seed of this strategy was law 11.904, from 26th September 1934, ordering a synthesis of Paul Groussac's work, Les Iles Malouines, to be distributed in the nation's schools" (escude, 2000)
The draft was submitted by senator Alfredo Palacios, who was later imprisoned by Juan Peron for political reasons. This is in line with Escude's other observations- that the claim is "transversal" to Argentina's many political movements and parties. It is not a purely Peronist cause. 
Law 11.904 wasn't even the first of its kind. This is actually a very interesting subject. On January 25th 1892 Argentina's Senate passed a resolution doing the same with the book "apuntes sobre la geografia de las gobernaciones nacionales e islas malvinas" by Raul B Diaz (Registro nacional de la República argentina, 1892) other educational materials used in the 1880s and 1890s describe the islands as Argentine, albeit without the provocative and antagonistic tone that would come later. the "Compendio de história argentina para el uso de las escuelas y colegios de la República" (1883) by Nicanor Larrain even mentions the "inheritance from Spain" argument. Others simply say "all the islands east of the Magellan strait belong to Argentina" (Programas razonados de instrucción primaria, 1882) the "Curso de instrucción cívica adaptado al programa de los colegios nacionales" (1897) which provides a list of various educational materials to be used in schools, lists maps of "the Argentine republic with its Islas malvinas" so the claim was being taught in Argentine schools long before Peron became president. I hope this information can be of use to anyone interested in researching this further. Interestingly enough, none of the materials I've found claim that the population of the islands was expelled by the British in 1833. I haven't found any mention of Rivero either. It seems these claims were added later. But I'm veering into original research here. 
I have to ask- are the specifics about how the dispute is taught in Argentine schools event relevant to this article? This information probably belongs in an article about nationalism or education in argentina in general, or maybe about the history of the dispute itself.
Ookipik (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about irredentism and I could go into considerable detail about the topic as related to Argentina but that would be inappropriate.  The core point as Escude and other scholars have noted it was Peron's reforms of the education system that lodged the idea in the national consciousness and has reinforced that national sentiment ever since.  Its worth mentioning because its key to why what was an obscure issue that only a few ardent nationalists even cared about became a national obsession.  I don't dispute the other issues you raised, Palacios certainly planted the seeds but it was Peron who seized upon it as an issue to (in his own words) "unite the people" and "drive out the British influence".  Prior to Peron Argentine textbooks were a mixed bunch with many still referring to the common name in South America of Islas Falkland rather than the RAE approved Islas Malvinas.  After Peron it became nuestras Islas Malvinas exclusively.  I would suggest if you're still thinking of editing you float your ideas here first.
As to your tangents.  The first example of what Gustafson calls the expulsion myth was Ruda's speech to the UNGA in 1965.  Argentina sought to exploit a UN doctrine about an implanted population in conquered territory not having the right to determine the future of that territory as a means to counter Article 73 of the UN Charter, which states self-determination of the people of NSGT is a fundamental right.  So they simply invented the expulsion myth, which is still trotted out regularly, though I note they've tempered the claims on their website as more academics has dismissed it as myth.  The Rivero mythology is an example of Argentine revisionist historiography first put forward by Mario Tesler in his 1971 book "El gaucho Antonio Rivero la mentira en la historiografía académica". Argentine revisionist works aren't reliable sources, at arbcom and WP:NPOVNB they've been declared unreliable.  Academics such as Michael Goebel of Berlin University are openly contemptuous of such works and their tendency to "make stuff up".   WCMemail 16:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to edit it but I changed my mind. There's no simple way to describe the origin of the dispute. Something like "...the dispute started in 1833 when an Argentine garrison was expelled from the islands" suggests the expulsion was arbitrary and that they had been there for a long time. But completely omitting the events of 1833 also suggests that Argentina claims the islands without ever having had a presence there. Someone is bound to feel offended either way. There's just no way to keep it under 200 words like I wanted to. Good luck to anyone who tries to fix these issues. Ookipik (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I said at the start the Argentine claim wasn't simple - thanks for confirming that! The other detail here is interesting and I've no doubt will be subject to detailed discussion later, but this isn't the place for that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Ookipik and thanks for sharing your concerns. They are about the paragraph on the Falkland Islands. There was already a lengthy discussion on this paragraph, see Talk:Irredentism#Falkland_Islands_Details. The current paragraph is the result of this discussion.
Roughly simplified, as far as I can tell, you bring up 4 concerns
the text doesn't say when the dispute started
the text doesn't say when the war ended
the text about Peron's education reforms is a misinterpretation
the information about the educational reforms is too specific to be included in this overview.
Regarding (1): I think this is covered by the last sentence. Given the space available here, I hope this is sufficient.
Regarding (2): I slightly modified the sentence, see if that solves the issue.
Regarding (3) & (4): this was already part of the debate of the earlier discussion. I have the impression that it will be difficult to find a consensus here. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
it's alright. Thanks. Ookipik (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Should there be a mention of irredentism motivated by the belief that it is the will of God, or a divine being? Greater Israel clearly falls into this category, as do (arguably) certain variants of the Moscow as the Third Rome and Akhand Bharat concepts. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:6466 (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the suggestion. It's true that there are some cases where irredentism is linked to religion. However, religious irredentism does not seem to be a major category in the academic literature on the subject, at least not in the overview sources that I'm aware of. But if you have a good source on the subject then I could take a look at it. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion of Israel and Palestinian irredentism? 216.67.40.181 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello 216.67.40.181 and thanks for raising this issue. The Israel-Palestinian conflict is not the most typical form of irredentism and this article is not meant to provide a comprehensive list of all irredentist conflicts. But the page List of irredentist claims or disputes might interest you since it has a section on this conflict. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)