Talk:Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)

message: I have reverted wholesale a series of POV changes.
1. The reference to Weddel is incorrect, his book wasn't published till after the Treaty of Friendship in 1825.
2. The claim that the Treaty of Friendship in 1825 was recognition of Argentine sovereignty is purely invented POV propaganda.  In fact, as part of the treaty negotiations the British required each state in Argentina to define it's territory in detail.  Ignacio Nunez did this for the Republic of Buenos Aires and at no point is the Falklands mentioned.
3. Repeat of the myth that Jewett was sent, this is controversial and many scholars doubt that this was the case.
4. The so-called extract from the Times is in fact a Photoshop montage.  In reality the article was a minor footnote on Page 2 of the Times under the theatre section.  By the time it was published in the UK a year after the event, Mason (Jewett's replacement) had left some 6 months earlier and to say the British were ignorant of this, belies the fact that 40-50 British whalers were routinely in the islands regularly reporting back to the UK.
5. I've seen the Sarratea claim before, its bogus, Sarratea was appointed after Jewett had left.  In fact, it's difficult to suggest which Government may have sent Jewett, if any since there were over 20 governments that year (3 in one day).  It's known as one of the most anarchic years in Argentine history - the country fell apart.
6. The Argentine Government never expressed any concern over seal hunting, the only person to do so was Vernet who claimed all the seals were his.
7.  Jewett actually arrived in October, only putting into the islands because his ship was damaged in a storm.
These claims are from Argentine revisionist sources, who have already been declared as unreliable both in an arbcom case and at WP:RSN. WCMemail 12:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have often thought about an article on those lines, something to draw the different threads together.  There are certainly plenty of good quality academic texts on the subject.  The difficulty would be in the vocal opposition you would get from ardent nationalists.  Part of the the youth wing of the La Campora seeks to promote the Peronist movement in social media, particularly in support of Cristina Kirchnerm, and they do disrupt what they see as opposition.  One of the weaknesses of wikipedia is that many admins will simply see that as a content dispute.  WCMemail 23:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wholesale Revert 

message: Today's revert - see talk here Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Kohen and Rodriguez

message: The United Provinces in its 1831 configuration is the predessesor of "Argentina" as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is the one for the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland".
Essentially the stress in that United Provinces in its 1831 configuration would very different from Argentina is a classical British-POV trope that ultimately seek to claim that "Argentina did not exist" back then. Wikipedia should clarify the matter in that regard rather than contribute to specific POVs. Dentren | Talk 06:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't, the borders of the United Provinces are very different from that of the Viceroayalty of the River Plate.  Chile, Peru, Paraguay and Uruguay are not part of Argentina.  As regards the United Provinces, Uruguay has seceded (and in the Spanish the outpost in the Falklands was a presidio run from Montevideo), Argentina itself took Patagonia and essentially blackmailed Chile into ceding Tierra del Fuego during the War of the Pacific.  I believe the current text is more accurate and invite you to demonstrate how the "British-POV trope" attempts to claim that Argentina does not exist forms any part of the official British position. I really don't see the "British-POV trope" you're alleging and really such language does not make for a reasonable discussion on the matter.  May I recommend WP:OWB as you will recognise many traits described there in your comment. WCMemail 08:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Worth mentioning that while edit summaries and talk page posts have referred to the United Provinces "in its 1831 configuration", nothing in the proposed edit to the article did.  It simply claimed the United Provinces of the River Plate as "the predessesor state of Argentina" (sic). Kahastok talk 17:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: United Provinces as of 1831

message: User:ReggNichols is attempting to edit war this into the article.
I do not think it is appropriate because this section is attempting to give background to the events specifically surrounding the switch from Argentine control to British control in 1833.  It is not a general history of the Falkland Islands.
The fact of the prior British settlement is significant to this background.  However, details of what the Spanish may have done in the period immediately after 1774 is not so clearly significant.  The significant background on the Argentine side is the fact of the establishment of the settlement by Luis Vernet.
I would also contend that the proposed text is biased, emphasising irrelevances (such as the number of Spanish governors) in apparent attempt to bolster the Argentine argument by proxy.  I thus oppose its inclusion.
I do not necessarily oppose a more neutral mention in context of the French and Spanish colonists.  But that should be a mention, not a paragraph like this. Kahastok talk 16:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem with both your text and the original text is that it fails to mention the existence of the Spanish colony in the first place except in passing.  If we're going to introduce it (and the reference to the Falklands Crisis doesn't make sense if we don't) we need to introduce it in a sensible place.  I will try and write a proposal to resolve the issue and see what you think of it. Kahastok talk 15:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support for ReggNichols's text. It is well-known there is a group of users in Falkland-related articles that have for long behaved as if they owned the articles, pushing to give the British narrative on the sovereignty issue the best possible spot. This has been going on for 12+ years. Apparently, text detailing on British abandonment of the archipelago and the continuing Spanish actions does not serve this purpose. Behaviours that amount or resemble WP:OWN are to be discouraged. Sietecolores (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support text added by Kahastok, which neutrally describes events.  Getting rather tired of the accusations of POV behaviour from those who seek to do precisely that, suggest they read WP:OWB. WCMemail 07:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed detailed passage on period 1774-1811