Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 1

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

message: In Argentina it is considered that in 1982 Argentine forces retomaron ("retook") the islands, while in the UK the word "invaded" is normally used.
The article says that. As I already raised on Talk:Falkland_Islands, it seems that while the word invasion describes the act, some view the word with a bad connotation. Since "attack" also describes the act and it doesn't have the connotation, maybe the intro should use that word without losing accuracy.
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion, schminvasion 

message: :The first Argentine Governor was appointed in 1823. In response the British consul in Buenos Aires protested the move and restated the UK's original claim.
Source? Here says that the Argentine take of posession (?) of the islands was published in USA and Spain in 1821 and GB didn't even mention it then, and neither when the treaty of 1825 was signed (it doesn't say that the British didn't protest in 1823, but a source would be nice). Sorry the English, I know it is atrocious :-/. --84.42.146.44 01:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  British protest 

message: I have reverted this article. It's important to understand that there are two sides to this issue especially regarding the actions of 1833 (Invasion/Return) - 1982 (Liberation/Invasion). The existing article reflected boths sides better. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands&diff=30287241&oldid=30245057 Megapixie 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Megapixie. If the 1982 was an invasion, then the same standard should be applied to the 1833 incident. Sebastian Kessel Talk 03:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Mariano(t/c) 09:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Invasion is a standard term for armed conflict to capture territory (eg it is common to describe D-Day as the begnining of the Allied invasion of France), regardless of Sovereignty. However the 1982 invasion by the UK (to recapture the islands) could legitmately be described as "liberation", as they were removing an occupier with the support of the native population. Astrotrain 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You probably mean the 1833 invasion by the UK. But it can't be described as Liberation because there were no UK citizens in the islands to liberate, whereas an Argentine settlement (as well as a penal colony) where occupied by force (yet without resistance), and without help from native population because there was no native people on the islands. What's more, when the Argentinians settled on the islands, they where abandoned, so you can't consider that Argentine government was an occupier from which the land should be liberated. Mariano(t/c) 10:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do mean the May 1982 invasion by the UK during the Falklands War (to recpature the islands from Argentina who invaded in April 1982). This could be described as liberating (basically just the opposite of the situation you describe in 1883). Astrotrain 11:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Astro, the article doesn't mention the word "liberation", let's leave this here since the point is moot. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ignoring the legitimacy of the claim. The issue is that the articles present state is WP:NPOV - and presents both sides' arguments as to the legitimacy of their claim. Any changes should maintain the NPOV-ness of the present article. Let us not get distracted by discussions of one claims legitimacy over the other. Megapixie 07:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the recent changes may be an attempt to involve this article in the ongoing edit war at Disputed status of Gibraltar. Obviously any POV edits should be reverted on site. Astrotrain 16:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've all made a very good effort to keep this article NPOV. I agree 100% with astro. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV revert 

message: According to the article History of the Falkland Islands, the first discoverers of this archipielago were the Spaniards at the beginning of XV century, around 190 years before than the British, but this article, Sovereignty of the Falklands Islands, gives to understand that do not there was Spanish presence before 1713. I believe that this point should be corrected.--Menah the Great 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1713 is the Treaty of Utrecht year, when Britains recognized the Spanish sovereignty above the antartic archipielagos near South America.--Menah the Great 13:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discovery

message: Timeline of de facto control
Era              	Country       	Name
1764 - 1767      	France        	Îles Malouines
1765 - 1774      	Great Britain 	Falkland Islands
1767 - 1811      	Spain         	Islas Malvinas
1811 - 1820      	Uninhabited   	
1820 - 1833      	Argentina     	Islas Malvinas
1833 - 1982      	United Kingdom	Falkland Islands
April - June 1982	Argentina     	Islas Malvinas
1982 -           	United Kingdom	Falkland Islands
The islands had different names through time, would that be something to add to the table with the different countries occupying it. Makes sense in a historical sense. KimvdLinde 18:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a table with names, but they might be incorrect. KimvdLinde 18:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean with " During the 1982 occupation, they were still offically the Falklands"? I'm not sure I undertand. What is an official name? For whom? If Argentina had de facto control over the islands, then it also had it over the name of the islands. At least that's what seams logical to me. Mariano(t/c) 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I think that clarifying the names in the table facilitates the under standing of the people that there are different names. The current version looks like suppression of the historical names. KimvdLinde 17:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To start with, the invasion and occupation in 1982 was illegal- therefore Argentina could not change the name. Since 1833, the name has been offically the Falkland Islands. Perhaps the key fact is that there has always been different names for the Islands, so we can't state what is offical for a large part of the time. Astrotrain 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean with illegal? Against which law? Is there any legal occupation? The British Occupation of 1833 was legal? I don't see your point. Mariano(t/c) 11:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The table gives the de facto control, and the it makes sense to use the de facto name in that case. Illegal or not. Otherwise, why indicate the de facto control at all, just say mention what is official. There is always a name related to the country that had the soevereinity over the islands, and giving that name in the table makes sense. The current situation makes it really hard for people to find the official names at historical times..... KimvdLinde 01:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, so that one needs to be changed in the article, but doyou agree that clarifying the changes in names is a good idea?KimvdLinde 14:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If names are dependent on political control, then why is "Malvinas" in the Falkland Islands article? The list also gives the erroneous impression the "Falklands" came after the French name, whereas in fact it dates from 1690. TharkunColl 15:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not start the same stuff here. There are two aspects on naming, official naming and names that are commonly used. In the falkland islands article, it is about commonly used name, the table is about the official name. KimvdLinde 15:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the double standards? TharkunColl 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Double standards, no, different angle at different locations. But maybe we should give a list of officially used names, their first usage and whan it was used officially and commonly. KimvdLinde 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you would need different lists for different languages. Falklands has been the common name in English since 1690. TharkunColl 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: This principle of international law has nothing to do with inheriting colonial possessions. Simply put, what is states is this: that at the end of a war, the winning party is allowed to keep any territorial gains it made during the conflict. Presumably the Argentines invoked this principle in the early 19th century when they assumed control of the Falklands from Spain, but since they lost them a few years later to the British, the true benificiaries of uti possidetis are in fact the latter - both in 1833, when they ejected the Argentines, and again in 1982, when they did exactly the same again. TharkunColl 10:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be, but one thing is a militar operation and another is a declared war. As everybody knows, there has not been a declared war for the islands since the 1770s. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I feel that opening paragraph does not do justice to the rest of the article.
At best it probably doesn't reflect how the population would assess the sovereignty of the islands and at worst it may conjure up images of an island in a state of civil war.
The first paragraph is the most important; some people may not read anymore.
The opening paragraph talks of "de facto control" and "administration by the UK" which might easily draw parallels in a reader's mind with a Kashmir type situation i.e. (to an uninformed observer such as myself) population with split loyalties and an ethnicity not wholly in accordance with the de-facto control or administration. In my view, that would be a complete distortion. In fact the situation is entirely different: the population of the Falklands unanimously consider themselves to be British (apparently more than the UK gov. did at the time of the Falkands War) and consequently they are and were, at the time of the Falklands War, satisfied with the status quo i.e. British administration.
The first paragraph should make it clear that it is not a population in dissent about ownership or administration of the Island.
I am not aware of the existence of the Malvinas Liberation Front on the islands.
Any dispute over ownership is entirely external to the Falklands, presumably confined to Argentina.
This is not a population of conquered Spanish speakers dreaming of the day when they will be liberated by Argentina and allowed to drive on the other side of the road and speak Spanish free of oppression.
Perhaps some information on the ethnicity and ancestry of the population of the Islands throughout the dispute would lend more context.
Ratuk 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your view. I think the opening paragraph reflects a good NPOV view of this issue and later elaborates on it. The dissension of the islanders is pretty clear throughout the article and even though their opinion is important to the world (as it should be) to WP is just one more POV. Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weakness of Opening Paragraph? 

message: Note to Abcbg - What are you on about ? I reverted the following edit ; If you can't be bothered to check out the rv don't blame me. The edits you changed were not altered by me..... Apologies please ? 
The United States supported mediated talks and initially took its familiar neutral stance, although in private, substantial material aid was made available to the UK from the moment of invasion. The USA finally publicly supported the UK's position following the failure of peace talks and pressure from Margaret Thatcher on Ronald Reagan.
Hardly NPOV on "familiar" no ?
:As my edit does not interfere with yours in any way and your edit stays, I have no idea what you might be talking about. Apcbg 12:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Already debated, please do not change without prior discussion in the talk page" on the rv of my article. Was not discussed on talk page. See edit history of page if you don't believe me. Nevertheless, let's move on. Pete Orme 12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My edit summary (quoted above) naturally explains the edit I made.  I did not revert your edit, so my summary simply cannot refer to your edit — is it still unclear?  Your misplaced accusation in this talk page is not appreciated, I would expect you to reconsider and withdraw it together with its offending title. Apcbg 12:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Climbing down from this, with apologies. Pete Orme 12:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies accepted. Best, Apcbg 12:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV statement