Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:43, 14 March 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 –

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

Caribean CARICOM etc

I was about to revert the latest edit per WP:NOTNEWS, when I noticed that is was in counterpoint to an earlier edit so I paused. I believe both should be removed. Comments? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's legitimate point in noting that CARICOM has recently supported both sides - but the status quo gives too much detail. I thought of:

The Commonwealth of Nations recognises the islands as a British territory, though members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) have appeared to support both sides in the recent past.

I wouldn't oppose removal, mind. Pfainuk talk 19:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually those members issued a clarification this week, they didn't support Argentina as Argentina claimed. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK - we should definitely remove that part altogether then. I've removed the rest as well. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

I believe the timeline is somewhat misleading in showing September 1771 – May 1776 British flag after the Spanish flag, as this gives the impression that Argentina's ocupation of the islands followed British ocupation, when it actually came after spanish ocupation and several years after the British had abandoned the islands. Even though the correct timeline can be seen in the text reversing the order is more accurate. I think this should be changed, it is important as the absence of british presence in the islands and the fact that argentina`s ocupation followed spain's around the time of Independence is a central argument in Argentina`s claim. I think the spanish wikipedia version is a better way of showing the timeline, also more accurate at showing 1820 as the first argentine ocupation, and 1833 as the end of it.

current timeline is also inaccurate at showing a period of US control of the islands, they destroyed much of installations and left, but did not ocupy nor raise american flag in fact when Britain invades in 1833 it is the Argentine flag and garrison that is removed, not american.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.1.100 (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

I believe the article is not neutral when it calls the 1833 ocupation a "Re-establishment of British Rule" and on the other hand in 1982 it is called an invasion- this is the British POV. I have edited both to be re-establishment as an alternative they can both be called invasion, otherwise it is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.1.100 (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Invasion is not neutral, it implies unwarrented agression. Rightly or wrongly, Britain had de-facto control before the events of 1982. In 1982 Argentina did not 'establish control' as they spent all of that time preparing for the British forces coming to remove them. That's hardly 'control'. I suspect this page will be accused of British POV unless it is renamed Islas Malvinas Bevo74 (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

thats nonsense wikipedia is soposed to be neutral not british POV or in anycase it has to say so if that is what it is talking about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.249.234 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We describe them in different ways because different things happened. The word "invasion" is accurate for Argentina's action in 1982, but inaccurate for 1833 (as no force was used in 1833). Pfainuk talk 18:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Again that is not correct, force was used, certainly at a smaller scale first because USA had attacked before and the size of population and invading forces where smaller, but this does not make it any less a use of force, People are not arrested and sent out of the islands just because they asked them to leave, it was british military force, even if not actual use of it was needed.

In any case considering the considerable difference in magnitude the Argentine landing in 1982 had minimum casualties (all argentine) with the island ocupied without any loss of islanders or british life. In any case ,using your argument of use of force, the task force attack in 1982 was in any case the only one that could really be called invasion as the previous two (British invasion in 1833, and argentine in april 2 1982) where won pretty much by showing overwhelming force to a much less armed occupant of the islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.249.234 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To Pfainuk and Curry , please calling vandalism on an edit that i sincerely believe adds neutrality to an otherwise moderately British Point of View biased article is not very un polite, much less deleting my reply to the message accusing me of vandalism and seems you have not read what vandalism is, it does not include edits, what i have added is definately not nonsense nor attempting to destroy the article, i think in any case we can call them all invasions, see Merriam Webster online definition of invade "to enter for conquest or plunder" Britain in 1833 definately entered for conquest, the definition of invasion does not imply active use of force (in fact it does not even mention passive use of force, or threat of use of force, which did ocurr in 1833 as much as in 1982, granting that april 2 did use some low scale active use of force as there was actual shooting, but in any case much less than in the subsequent task force invasion. I think it is quite neutral to call all of these invasion or ocupation or something similar but all on the same ground.

My edit on the timeline on the other hand i have already expressed my point of view and however it was reverted with no counter argument what so ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.249.234 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Alex you were blocked for sock puppetry and disruptive editing, you're fooling no one. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

May i ask who is Alex, and what does this have to do with discussing the proposed changes to the page. I see that Wee Curry seems to be acting as owner of this page, maybe you should sign the article as yours so it is known by everyone that colaborating is only under your permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.249.234 (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Four stances

there are four stances regarding the dispute:

1. pro-Arg
2. pro-Bri
3. neutral
4. pro-negotiations

I added some words in order to prepare the reader before. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I call on the editors to be careful assigning support or refusal to any stance. For example, this is a support but neither XX Ibero American Summit nor ibero summit XIX are a support for the Argentine sovereignty on the islands. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Spain

Spain didn't support Argentina in the 502 resolution. Spain abstained, like China and SU. We shouldn't expand the relate to Gibraltar, Goa, Martin Garcia, Beagle or Hong Kong. It would result too long. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

map restored

I've never seen that map before and its quite relevant to the issue. Argentina now claims that Britain relinquished its claim to the Falklands as a result of the Nootka Convention, Britain maintains that it did not as Nootka was never intended to apply in the case of the Falklands - noting that neither Britain nor Spain applied the treaty they signed to the Falklands. Here we have a map from 1794, 4 years after Nootka clearly showing the British did not relinquish any claim. It is of great relevance and interest to this article. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

the map was drawn 1787 , that is 5 years before the end of the last NK. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The full map is now under File:1787 map of South America.jpg. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, if you look the map is from 1794, there are several reprints of the book each with updated maps. Make sure you don't confuse it with earlier editions. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say we should take the first edition of the map, that is the relevant time, as the geograph studied the situation, the later editions are only slightly modified copies of the first. The map didn't mention the Nootka convention, that could be a hint that the map editors ignored the last treaties. Any way, the map is too big in the article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The map mentions the presence of a British settlement at Port Egmont, but that settlement was abandoned in 1776. This may suggest that it may not have been entirely up-to-speed with later developments. Pfainuk talk 16:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Compare

I propose to bring the referenced and relevant arguments in a table. That could be better for the reader:

Criticism?, WP:OR?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Likely WP:OR - you're interpreting it as point and counterpoint. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The connections are clearly point and counterpoint in some cases, but it's not so clear in others. (By the way, would this be an appropriate source here?) Pfainuk talk 16:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In view of the fact that this table is built only from the (two) lists of issues (already) presented in the respective "Arg. claims" and "Bri. claims" of the current version of the article, it can't be considered WP:OR. The content of the table is already in the article.

WP:OR is the fact that I have tried to bring them together, to confront the arguments. But we have to present the facts anyway: as lists, as prosa, as diagram, as timetable or even as table.

We can see that the items don't match together. This is very annoying and confusing notonly for us, but much more for the uninformed reader interested in the dispute. For the first reader would be very helpful if we could bring the arguments and contra-arguments together.

Of course we can improve the content of the table as we can improve the article, the last link is a good basis. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I found an Argentine official document, in English language, that expose exhaustively every argument of the Argentine position and a corresponding English document, not official, that try to confront the former.

• Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
• Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas

I will try to bring them together in a table in Compare and every one is encouraged to edit and improve the table. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

But that would be a) WP:OR on your part and b) as the second document is not official presenting the author's opinion as fact violating WP:SYN and WP:FACT. Overall its not a good idea to try to present a comparison, since inevitably you will be making a value judgement on the claims and counterclaim. It is better IMHO to simply present both positions and allow the reader to make their own minds up. This is not a good idea and I would strongly encourage you not to pursue it - I cannot see a consenus emerging. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

USS Lexington raid

Silas Duncan didn't have instructions form his government to retake the confiscated property.

Francis Wharton, A digest of the international law, 2nd. Edition 186.124.56.52 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes? The article doesn't say that, it states that he was sent under the direction of the consul in Buenos Aires, which is correct. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well isn't that worth mentioning? Also in this other article states "As a reprisal, the United States sent Captain Silas Duncan of the USS Lexington to recover the confiscated property". 186.124.56.52 (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No I wouldn't say so. The US Government did not disavow his actions, in fact they lauded him for the action he took. In addition, the Lexington was sent to beef up the Brazil squadron because of concerns of Argentine action against US ships in the region. Duncan was following orders to protect US commerce when he acted, getting direction from the USG over those distances was simply not practical in that day and age. The other article has now been corrected. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:25, 19 February

2012 (UTC)

Laver, Roberto

I moved folowing controversial text from Falkland Islands:

• As soon as Argentina became aware of what it described as Britain's "takeover" of the islands, it filed a protest with the British representative in Buenos Aires. A formal protest was filed to the British Foreign Office on 17 June 1833. Argentina protested on 28 other occasions, both before Britain and in international forums, before the UN was created. Argentina also made four different offers to submit the case to arbitration. All four were rejected or ignored by Britain

(ref)((cite web |url = http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=cNKtX4mYVZUC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=%22as+we+shall+see,+argentina+took+a+number+of+actions%22&source=bl&ots=i9zbj_SmxV&sig=Lues0EBrGZMkg1F_iha4JHLEn1g&hl=es&sa=X&ei=ao9KT_H9BobqtgevpfzuAg&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22as%20we%20shall%20see%2C%20argentina%20took%20a%20number%20of%20actions%22&f=false |title = The Falklands/Malvinas case: breaking the deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine sovereignty dispute |last = Laver |first = Roberto C |date = 2001 |publisher = Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, pp. 88-89))(/ref)

I think the text belong to this article AND hope on a civilized discussion. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the text mis-represents what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It does. It rather implies that the protests occurred throughout this period, which is not true. In fact they were fairly concentrated in a few discrete periods. It's worth noting that the British government states that it received only a single formal Argentine protest to Britain on the subject during the entire period 1850-1940.

It seems to imply that this was a large number (otherwise we wouldn't mention it in a summary history of the dispute) - but even if we accept the unsourced figure, modern Argentina would probably get through 29 protests "before Britain and in international forums" in the space of a year or two, let alone the 11 decades we're discussing. If we're saying that Argentina offered arbitration, it seems fair to point out that it was after having not made any claim at all for over 35 years and (if this is accurate) that it was on condition that Argentina chose the arbitrator.

But all in all, I don't see the need for it. To my mind, this is too much weight for this and as such I'm removing it. Pfainuk talk 21:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a place for this, it does represent an argentine view.Slatersteven (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article appears such protests and they are considered very important by the Argentine claimers. "Too much weight" is a reason to modify the text but not to delete it. Pfainuk, How would you express the Argentine protests?. Can you provide a RS supporting your view?. To say "the protests ocurred from year X to year Z only" is OR. Is it?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"When Argentina became aware of what it described as Britain's "takeover" of the islands, it filed a formal protest with the British representative in Buenos Aires on 17 June 1833. Over the next 130 years Argentina made over 27 sovereignty claims, both to Britain, domesticly in Argentina and to international bodies, regarding the status the the falklands. in 1888 Argentina also made an offer to have the dispute settled through arbitration, it was rejected by Britain."Slatersteven (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems a good proposal. I re-inserted it. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 22:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that with Keysanger over the importance and need for this information. Although I will look for confirmation about the 1888 arbitration request. Cheers. --Langus (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it: "The map controversy lasted four years, and the correspondence contained two references to the Argentine suggestion that the matter should be decided by arbitration, but that is all." // "La controversia del mapa duró cuatro años, y la correspondencia incluyó dos referencias a la sugerencia argentina que la cuestión debía ser decidida por medio de un arbitraje, pero eso fue todo". From the British POV text Getting it Right. Also mentioned here. --Langus (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with putting a suitable edit into this article, saying Argentina revived its claim in the period 1885-1888 and made a suggestion for arbitration. Equally you would have to state that it made no further comment to the British Government till 1941. However, claiming it continued to make regular complaints is stretching it. It simply did not. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe you're the one stretching it. You may be right in saying that "Argentina made no further comment to the British Government till 1941", but that is not the same as "Argentina dropped its claim till 1941", or "Argentina remained silent till 1941". Quoting the book:

• On January 22, 1908, the Argentine foreign minister, Estanislao Zeballos, submitted a protest to the representative of Italy in Argentina resulting from the inclusion of the islands as a British colony in the Postal Convention of 1907.
• On August 31, 1908, a similar protest was submitted resulting from the inclusion of the islands as a British colony in the Berlin Convention of Radiotelegraphy.
• On 1919, the Argentine Marine Ministry instructed all radiolegraph stations in the Argentine maritime zone no to accept messages dispatched from the Falkland Islands.
• Argentina registered a protest in 1924 in the context of the extension of the Bruxelles Convention, on venereal diseases, of December 1, 1924, to the islands.
• Argentina protested in 1927 against the British government for the establishment of a wireless station in the South Orchades Islands
• In 1933, Argentina sent a communication addressed to the Universal Postal union stating that the Argentine jurisdiction extended to the Malvinas, South Orchades, and South Georgia Islands.
• In 1927, the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs acted favorably on a Falklander's petition of enlistment in the Argentine army as an Argentine citizen.
• In 1929, the Argentine government required payment of custom taxes on all postal packages proceeding from abroad and bound for the Malvinas.
• In 1933, the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs required the granting of Argentine passports and not visas to all Falklanders with British passports.
• In 1933, the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Postal Union that all mail received in Argentina with British stamps issued on the occasion of the centennial of the 1833 takover would be considered to lack stamping.
• In 1935, a federal court in Argentina denied a petition for naturalization by a person born in Port Stanley on the grounds that the islands are part of Argentine territory.
• In 1939-40, Argentina makes reservation of its sovereignity rights in occasion of the Panama Declaration of American Security Zone and the Convention of Provisional Administration of European colonies and possessions in America.

The proposed text is absolutely correct: "Over the next 130 years Argentina made over 27 sovereignty claims, both to Britain, domestically in Argentina and to international bodies". Regards. --Langus (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you've pulled off the web some of the propaganda material used to cover the fact that there is an embarassingly large gap in Argentine protests. None of those events you just listed qualify as a protest to the British over sovereignty for the purposes of International Law. I was well aware of for example the Argentine claim to be responsible for venereal disease in the Falkland Islands - this does not however qualify as a protest. Its the classic example of scraping the barrel for excuses, as fringe material it does not qualify for inclusion. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You're the one POV pushing by labeling the edit as "propaganda" and "fringe". It's very relevant to this article and should be reinstated. STSC (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, if you look above I indicate my willingness to consider an edit covering the topic. However, the material above is fringe and it is propaganda to advance a particular nation's sovereignty claim. I would equally reject a British source doing the same and have at various times been accused by nationalists on both sides of being pro-Argentine or pro-British - once on the same page. Now instead of actually composing an edit that meets the requirments of NPOV, we have a whole cut'n'paste of fringe material pushing a particular national agenda. That the material is fringe is clearly demonstrated by the claim that the "protest" over Venereal Disease represents an assertion of national sovereignty for the purposes of International Law. One author's opinion does not represent the weight of opinion in the literature and here we have one author's opinion presented as such. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RS versus OR

The last list given by Abelyosef were protests by third countries and/or international Organitations (except "wireless station in the South Orchades"), not by the UK. WCM is right when he says "A. didn't protest by the UK in a long time". But both AJ and WCM went too much in the OR, I think. Can anyone provide another reliable source about the same issue: Argentine diplomatic notes regarding the FI?. @WCM: what is your proposal?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I will propose an edit presently - written according to NPOV. I would appreciate it, if following BRD this is discussed here rather than forcing POV text into the article. Watch this space. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I found () and propose:

When Argentina became aware of what it described as Britain's "takeover" of the islands, it filed a formal protest with the British representative in Buenos Aires on 17 June 1833. Argentina claims to have made, over the next 130 years, Argentina made over more than 27 sovereignty claims, both to Britain, domesticly in Argentina and to international bodies, regarding the status the the Falklands and in 1888 Argentina also made an offer to have the dispute settled through arbitration, it was rejected by Britain. But the United Kingdom rejects this view and asserts that in 1850 both countries resolved all territorial disputes in the region and that in the following 90 years Argentina made only one diplomatic protest

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would propose:

Fondest regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 12:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is too long, it shows the British view as neutral statement and the Argentine view is dimissed. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Show me an Official Argentine Government document that makes the same claims as Mr Laver - this is the problem with your text. You say in my text that the Argentine view is dismissed, I believe the above is an accurate summary of events that doesn't favour either side, which unlike the versiom you present above does not ascribe them to claims. If you can point to the text you feel is a problem we can move forward. The above response is useless in helping me to improve the text. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 14:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As Keysanger noted, that text is excessively long for this article and it's too biased, as it ridiculizes (out of 27 protest it mentions the one about venereal diseases) and completely dismiss the Argentine claims. You obviously have a source that has a very strong British POV, but you can not censor other views just because one source contradicts the other. --Langus (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Gustafson was the source I was planning to use, who is American - you quote him all the time and generally most authors praise his work for its neutrality. It largely is, though aspects of it are more favourable to the Argentine POV stemming from the fact he lived there for several years and doesn't question certain dubious claims. I do find it amusing that Argentina claimed it was responsible for Venereal Disease in the Falkland Islands, if it makes Argentine claims look ridiculous that really is not my fault (I could not mention it if it didn't exist). You were in fact the one who listed it above as one of many "protests" demonstrating Argentina's claims of sovereignty. On the other I find your claim I'm censoring views to be grossly offensive - once again you resort to personal accusations and no doubt will shortly claim thats what I'm doing. Again can someone show me a source showing the Argentine Government endorses Mr Laver's claims? And btw is it not censorship to demand we don't mention Argentine claims to be responsible for VD? Have a nice day now. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I still didn't find a official Argentine list of protests. But in The British Resort to Force in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict 1982 by Christoph Bluth, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 5-20, Marzo de 1987, Oslo, Noruega, the author asserts that although During those 35 years no protest occurred the British claim to sovereignty over the Falklands on the basis of prescription is rather tenuous. I don't believe that we have to describe the situation "in extenso" but your proposal lacks the shadow of the doubt over the British reasons.

All in all, I cut minor facts and I would propose a slightly modified version of your proposal:

When the Republic of Buenos Aires became aware of events in the Falkland Islands it filed a formal protest with the British representative. The following year the British Government rejected it. From 1841 to 1849 Argentina sent annually a formal protest towards the British Governemnt. According to the British goverment, the Convention of Settlement settled all existing differences between the two nations and in fact there were no further protests or debates in congress until the affair of the map in 1885, when Argentina once again raised the subject of the Falkland Islands. In 1888, Argentina made an offer to have the matter subject to arbitration but this was ignored by the British Government. The British Government don't know about further Argentine protests until the 1940's, although the official Argentine version asserts that During the first half of the twentieth century, the successive Argentine governments made it standard practice to submit protests to the United Kingdom but don't list the protest notes. Other sources, like the Rattenbach Report only mention the abundant bibliography or like Roberto Laver claim "27 sovereignty claims, both to Britain, domestically in Argentina and to international bodies". In International Law, territorial claims are considered defunct if there is a gap of 50 years or more between protests over sovereignty

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you're going, I'll clean up the English grammar later if thats OK. I would suggest we might list the protest notes in an inline cite - if only because the VD claim amuses me. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure if the length is appropriate, the text is certainly balanced. Well done! A slight change: in the last sentence we should present the assertion as the source does: "Most writers on international law suggest that...".

@WCM: I left you a message in my talk page.

Cheers. --Langus (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that "the affair of the map" is not discussed at present, so the current wording is awkward from that perspective. And I also note that we are to some extent overlapping with the end of the "British claim" section (which reaches as far as 1976). Maybe it would be a good idea to put everything post-1850 into a new section after the Argentine claim bit, or a brief section on each period in the dispute post-1850 (say, 1885-88, 1908-40, 1940-82, 1982-present)? The 1850-85 hiatus certainly seems a good break point where we can merge the stories. Pfainuk talk 18:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK here goes.

I think we should consider how we could use Pfainuk's suggestion as it seems a good point to me. Another point that may be of relevance is Argentine cartography in the mid-19th Century. Argentina produced many maps showing the Falklands as foreign territory, it was only after the Affair of the Map that it started to produce maps showing the territory as Argentine. A couple of authors have commented on this, citing the Beagle Channel Dispute, since Argentine cartography was a factor in the decision favouring Chile.

Another point for consideration is Moreno's protest which was based on the claim of inheriting Spanish territory and claiming that the British had made a secret agreement to vacate the Falklands. The British rejected that claim and did search the archives for any evidence. The modern claim is significantly different.

Thoughts? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The affair of the map could be briefly explained: "The British Government considers that the Convention of Settlement settled all existing differences between the two nations and there were no further protests until 1885, when Argentina included the Falkland Islands in an officially sponsored map."

Moreno's protest seems too much detail. And, in any case, the British claim has in fact shifted completely: in those days, it was based upon alleged prior discovery, and now it is strongly based on the principle of self-determination.

A proposal to improve coherence: I would move the sentence that reads "The matter was not raised in the Argentine Congress between 1850 and 1941" to right after "The issue was debated annually in the Argentine Congress and a formal protest issued until 1849", because that first part talks about the formal protests raised by the Congress and then switches to other types of formal and informal protests, like the exchange of 1885 ("the map affair"):

I wouldn't oppose to the inclusion of the list in the Laver ref.

Cheers. --Langus (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving the sentence is fine but the context of the Argentine Congress has been lost - it really should go back.

There is a subtle difference in the way the claims have evolved. Britains reasoning has changed as International Law has developed together with the establishment of the UN Charter, whereas Argentina keeps adding to its claim eg the 1958 Convention or Groussac's interpretation of the Nootka Convention in the 1880s. But I'll see what others think on that point.

What do others think on the point of cartography, prior to the Affair of the Map, Argentine cartography showed the territory as foreign and generally used English nomenclature as well as Spanish. Some commentators think it significant - especially with the role cartography played in the Beagle Channel Dispute. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by "the context of the Argentine Congress has been lost"? That position is the most coherent, although I understand that my prose may not be the one of a writer.

What worries me is that by saying "The matter was not raised in the Argentine Congress between 1850 and 1941. In International Law, territorial claims are usually considered defunct if there is a gap of 50 years or more between protests over sovereignty" -- we will surely confuse the readers by inducing them to think that no protest was raised for more than 50 years. --Langus (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

" but authors such as Roberto Laver", should read "Roberto Laver". "claim's "27 sovereignty claims, both to Britain, domestically in Argentina and to international bodies" should read "claim's over 27 sovereignty claims, both to Britain, domestically in Argentina and to international bodies"Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or did I not make it clear that moving the sentence was fine? Its really irritating to have every comment interpreted in a negative fashion. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't actually found that quote in Laver, but I may be missing it. Could I have a page reference please?

The current proposal reads to me like 27 protests (domestically, internationally or to Britain) during the first half of the twentieth century. I count 16 events during 1900-1950, and not all of which could be credibly described as "protests" (but rather acts implying a claim to sovereignty). It reads to me as though we have Laver clarifying/supporting Argentina's claim, but I don't actually think his list and Britain's claim that they received only one protest from 1850-1940 are incompatible. Pfainuk talk 19:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I count 29 actually listed (one to the USA) (pages 88-89) and he says “including the following” (page 88), this its not an exhaustive list.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - but the list for this period seems to pinpoint at least the largest events - presumably if there was another formal diplomatic protest to Britain in this period, he would have listed it. I do think we may need to do without the quote, though, and reword a bit.

Added an extra word in there to clarify what I meant in the above. Hope that's not a problem. Pfainuk talk 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

@WCM: apologizes, I didn't realize that that was its original position, and when you said 'but' I got it wrong. I apologize.

On the other hand, please, it would be civil of your part to respond to the questions I left in my talk page. I don't like being ignored, no one does. Thank you, cheers. --Langus (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Laws

I have to put the role of cartography in the decision straight. The Beagle Channel Arbitration Court reviewed in-depth the cartography of the zone and stated that:

§163

Finally, the Court wishes to stress again that its conclusion to the effect that the PNL group is Chilean according to the 1881 Treaty has been reached on the basis of its interpretation of the Treaty, especially as set forth in paragraphs 55-111 above, and independently of the cartography of the case which has been taken account of only for purposes of confirmation or corrobation. The same applies in respect of the particular maps discussed in, and from, paragraph 119 onwards.

The internationale tribunal, (five judges from Sweden, Nigeria, France, UK and USA), decided on the basis of the 1881 Boundary treaty not on the basis of cartography. The story about the cartography-decision and also the story that the Queen Elizabeth II decided are baseless rumours planted by people displeased with the award.

I agree with yours plans to improve the text and hope soon to cooperate, --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks that is very useful. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Vernet's Nationality

Vernet had a somewhat elastic relationship with nationality at various times claiming to be French, German, American and Argentine. It may be worthwhile noting this in the section. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perminant US presence?

The table of perminant settlement list the US, did the US ever have a perminant settlement? Also the US never exercised control, it was a raid and no more. I would susgest remoivinig the US from the list of perminant settlemants and the list of effective control (the American captain declared the Islands free of government, not under US government).Slatersteven (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not a table of settlement, it identifies who was in de facto control. The US held the islands for over a month during the Lexington raid. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Falklands.permanence.png, also is ther a source for the claim the Islands were held for a month by the US? Sis the US maintian a settlemant?Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy to see that graphic removed, I never liked it. As regards settlement there were regular temporary settlements established by British, French and American whalers. As regards the claim the islands were held for a month, take your pick from Goebbels, Destefani, Cawkell or Strange. Its fairly well known the Lexington stayed for a long time. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is OR, you have to have a source saying that the US exercised defacto control, not that there was a US warship based there.Slatersteven (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me, it was not based there - the settlement was under military occupation and de facto control of the USN. Would you suggest it is WP:OR to claim Argentina controlled the Falkland Islands during its occupation? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I see no evidance in your two sources that there was any occupation by the lexington. To be under occupation there would have to have been a perminant preseance, not one raid. In fact one of your sources makes it clear that the Lexginton in fact left Gauchos and other cowboys on the Falklands. Everything I have read inbdicates it was nothing more then thyat, a single raid.Slatersteven (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

They were there a month. What do you mean by a single raid for starters? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is that the two sources you have provided (plus what I have read) does not say they were there a month, it says they made a single raid and that is all. In fact there is reason to belive the enitre 'occupation' was no more then an hour http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cNKtX4mYVZUC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=how+long+was+the+lexington+in+the+falklands&source=bl&ots=i9zblZOqBW&sig=rdThNV6TRtXgbbABML4BWHDVTmM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s2dNT57QNoWk0QXiyZieBQ&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=how%20long%20was%20the%20lexington%20in%20the%20falklands&f=false .Slatersteven (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected, this says they were occupying the falklands for nearly a month http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dxpOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA144&dq=how+long+was+the+lexington+in+the+falklands&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0GhNT5eGHIiu0QXY16CeBQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=how%20long%20was%20the%20lexington%20in%20the%20falklands&f=false.Slatersteven (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've put back the timeline with a different caption that I hope will satisfy you. Regards. --Langus (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really, the problem I have is the graphic is visually rather biased toward the British position. I've always thought it gave undue prominence to it by the rather obviously large bar in the UK's favour. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

To add, my reason for removing it boils down to WP:IDONTLIKE, so I won't object if you put it back. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like it very much :) I appreciate the gesture of putting it back. I believe it's very valuable, as it presents in a blink of an eye a summary of lots of info, that helps the reader to better grasp the whole picture. I don't believe it to be supportive of either claim, as it presents a lot of different facts that are empathized by one or the other POV: the long and successful British establishment, the French colonization, the prevalence of the Spanish settlement after British withdrawal, etc.

I really enjoy charts and computer graphics: they help me a lot.

Cheers! --Langus (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Argentinian settlement

I'm restoring the information that Vernet's settlement was Argentinian, which was removed without a consensus.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: the issue is under discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands#Vernet established an Argentinian settlement‎ Cambalachero (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And should be removed until the matter is settled - an experienced wikipedian would know that. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

For a new approach to the sovereignty issue

The current version of the article puts forward a chronological view of the dispute, very lineal. First the colonial era, then the 1820's and 1830's events, then the negotiations in the 70s, the war, etc. In every phase of the relate are mixed allusions to treaties, uses of force, abandonments, etc. In fact, the article could be confused with some kind of "History of the Islands".

Although the sovereignty dispute is a legal one, the article lacks a systematic approach to the sovereignty issue from a legal perspective. The idea of "sovereignty" isn't defined, just not in a short sentence. In the course of time, meanwhile 500 years, the international law has changed radically, but this is adressed nowhere in the article. Concepts like use of force, Decolonisation, cession, self-determination aren't explained to the reader in order to improve the comprehension of the matter. A easy wikilink doesn't serve to understand the dispute.

The differences between the Spanish empire (or Viceroyalty of the River Plate), the United Provinces of the River Plate, the city of Buenos Aires and Argentina or the differences between the Falklands, the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is unknown for the reader, who is abandonned under a lot of dates, names, places and events without a logical structure.

I propose to change the structure of the article towards a legal view of the theme. The article has to explain briefly the issues enumerated above in a legal plan: occupation of terra nullius, Accretion, Cession, Prescription, discovery. The historical data should be used (only) as documentary evidence for one or the other side. To repeat the history of the Falklands again doesn't make sense.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 00:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have thought of something similar in the past but it is a bit of a minefield. Explaining the legal concepts is one thing, however, it needs to be very carefully done to avoid accusations of rubbishing one claim or the other. Historical data and significant events should remain IMHO but we can look at restructuring. Might I suggest a sandpit to work through the changes before it goes into the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have done some work about this undertaking and it isn't so easy. My first idea was an article with only 4 or 5 sections: 1)Discovery and settlements France-UK-Spain-Argentina 2)Cessions France-Spain-Argentina 3)Prescriptions British-Spain-Argentina 4)Self-determination and /or Decolonization. Most of the essays in internet are structured in this way.

The problem is that they assume a (reader's) cabal knowledge of the history of the islands. The article can't explain, for example, the pros, contras and consequences of the Spain-Argentina cession without dates, world situation, background, etc. The sole mention of legal stuff explains nothing.

In order to overcome the obstacle, I remembered Pfainuk words about a more strict chronological report of the cases and came to a TOC:

1 The legal frame of the dispute

2 The Falkland Islands case

2.1 Discovered but not settled

2.2 Settlements

2.3 First cession: France to Spain

2.4 Second cession: Spain to Argentina

2.5 The turmoil years

2.6 From 1834 to 1850

2.7 From 1850 to 1888

2.8 From 1888 to 1940s

2.9 From the 1940s to the 1970s

2.10 The negotiations

2.11 From the war

3 The South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands case

Of course I separated the cases FI and SG+SSI. They are different. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see why you've done it but I can see issues raised by other parties. I can see problems with Argentine editors claiming this is favouring British claims. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

How's that? Speaking for myself, I'm open to this change, although I can't say I'm fully convinced yet. The TOC does looks good. --Langus (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

References

1. Argentine diplomatic protest for the occupation of the Malvinas in 1833
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference ArgentineMinistryForeignAffairs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Rupert Cornwall Could Oil Exploration of the Falklands Lead to a Renewal of Hostilities?. The Independent, 23 February 2010; cited by the Global Policy Forum
4. Although a signatory to the 1958 convention, Argentina never ratified the convention. Convention on the Continental Shelf, Geneva, 29 April 1958. UN.org. The 1958 Convention was superseded by 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratified by Argentina in 1995.
5. Luna, Félix (2003). Los conflictos armados. Buenos Aires: La Nación. pp. 12–17. ISBN 950-49-1123-4.
6. ^ "Country Profile: Falkland Islands". Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 13 April 2007. Retrieved 27 April 2008. The Argentine Government has argued that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right of self-determination, on the (false) basis that they replaced an indigenous Argentine population expelled by force. However there was no indigenous or settled population on the Islands until British settlement. The people who live in the Falklands now are not a transitory population. Many can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early nineteenth century. Britain is committed to defend their right to choose their own future. The Islanders are fully entitled to enjoy the right of self-determination. It is a right which cannot be applied selectively or be open to negotiation, and one which is recognised in the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Self-determination does not necessarily mean independence. Britain has willingly granted independence where it has been requested, and will continue to do so where it is an option, while remaining committed to those of its Overseas Territories which choose to retain the British connection. In exercise of their right of self-determination, the Falkland Islanders have repeatedly made known their wish to remain British.
7. Cite error: The named reference Bryant was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Laver, Roberto C (2001). "The Falklands/Malvinas case: breaking the deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine sovereignty dispute". Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, pp. 88-89.
9. United Nations, Department of Public Information, Press conference by permanent representative of United Kingdom, on 10 February 2012
10. ^ Christoph Bluth, in The British Resort to Force in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict 1982, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 5-20, March 1987, Oslo, Noruega Cite error: The named reference "bluth" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
11. Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
12. Informe Rattenbach, §17:

    Los restantes antecedentes históricos se omiten, en bien de la brevedad y de la abundante bibliografía existente al respecto

13. Laver, Roberto C (2001). "The Falklands/Malvinas case: breaking the deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine sovereignty dispute". Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, pp. 88-89.
14. Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
15. Laver, Roberto C (2001). "The Falklands/Malvinas case: breaking the deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine sovereignty dispute". Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, pp. 88-89. (I suggest a list goes here)
16. Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
17. Laver, Roberto C (2001). "The Falklands/Malvinas case: breaking the deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine sovereignty dispute". Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, pp. 88-89. (I suggest a list goes here)
18. Beagle Channel Arbitration between the Republic of Argentina and the Republic of Chile, Report and Decision of the Court of Arbitration

Reason for rv

I performed two minor edits to the article: 1- a 'citation needed' tag to the claim "France has been particularly supportive of the British position." and 2- Uruguay's position supporting Argentina's claim as stated here: http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/87911/malvinas-uruguays-mujica-shows-solidarity-with-argentina quoting:

Uruguayan President issued an official statement today ratifying the country’s position regarding recent developments on the Argentine - United Kingdom conflict over Malvinas Islands. (...) "We have repeatedly supported Argentina on its Malvinas Islands claim,” he explained.

I'd like to know why this minor edits were removed twice by Pfainuk and Wee Curry Monster.

Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Pfainuk gave his own reason, its in the edit history. My reason for reverting was you claimed he didn't explain it, well he did, its in the edit history. Deal with the revert rather than claiming it was for no reason - and I would imagine it can easily be resolcved. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's Pfainuk's reason: "Pfainuk (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,579 bytes) (-563)‎ . . (rvt POV and addition of Uruguay (we don't need to list every supporter of each side individually)" My particular problems with that statement are: 1-It doesn't explain why he also removed the 'citation needed' tag from France position; 2-I disagree with not showing all supporters of each side, it's important information regarding the international view of the issue. Can he give a better reason not to add Uruguay other than his own sense of it being irrelevant? Gaba p (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Take it up with him. He might not have noticed this discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We could have a gigantic list, giving details of each country in the world and detailing the statements that they have ever made on the subject. But it would take up most of the article, and would add very little to the reader's understanding of the dispute. In a lot of cases, support is claimed by one or both sides because the third party government concerned doesn't give two hoots about the whole thing and wanted to avoid a diplomatic disagreement. When it comes down to it, we should be summarising the situation, avoiding putting masses of detail and only giving examples that are of clear and direct relevance. Listing every supporter of each side fails to do that. Pfainuk talk 18:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So you think the international position is worth nothing? Why mention any other country then? "Would add very little to the reader's understanding of the dispute" I disagree. If 90% of the world supported one position over the other, don't you think this would constitute relevant information? "In a lot of cases, support is claimed by one or both sides because the third party government concerned doesn't give two hoots about the whole thing and wanted to avoid a diplomatic disagreement" can you back this claim with anything other then your own ideas of how governments work? A list of every supporter of each side gives a clear picture of the world's position IMO. Also, why remove the 'citation needed' tag on France? I actually couldn't come up with any article stating France's position so I wouldn't say it's an obvious statement. If you can find one please add it, otherwise I'll add the tag, ok? Gaba p (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Would have to agree, claims have to be backed up by RS, so if no RS say that France had been "particularly supportive of the British position" then we cannot claim that. If 90% of countries back seething we can say "90% of countries support it" but we don't list each countrySlatersteven (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we ought to consider that the revert concerned was this. (I also reverted standard POV stuff from an IP at the same time).

The idea that every country in the world has a strong and hardened view on every dispute in the world is quite surprisingly naïve. There are plenty of cases internationally where support for one side or other is offered up to the highest bidder and can change quite rapidly (you might take recognition China and Taiwan in the South Pacific as an example). In this case, there are several countries that have - within the space of a few weeks - signed up both to the principle that the Falkland Islanders have a right to self-determination, and the principle that they do not have a right to self-determination. This does not indicate that these governments are deeply passionate about this dispute.

We might also note that there is a difference in approach. Because Argentina wants a change in status, Argentina feels the need to increase the international profile of the dispute. Britain would be perfectly happy for it to be completely ignored internationally because that can be taken as implicitly accepting the status quo. Campaigning for people to bring it up could be taken as implying that Argentina has a case, which Britain does not accept. As such, Argentina is likely to be more forward in soliciting support.

A list of countries with their positions would make up a large majority of article and for the most part would give massive undue weight to countries that are simply irrelevant to the dispute. For the same reason, saying 90% of countries support something would be potentially misleading even if sourceable (and I doubt any figure is in this case). I don't think too many Bhutanese are likely to be too offended if I suggest that their country's (probably non-existent) position on this is probably not as important to the dispute as, for example, Chile's or the USA's.

You also risk suggesting black and white when what there is is mostly grey. If, say, Bhutan makes a statement, then that does not imply a strong position, or one that cannot change. This is why we got rid of the maps that attempted to do this: it was simply impossible to do it without misleading the reader about some of the nuances. Pfainuk talk 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A claim "90% of countries support xxx" is almost impossible to reference, that's why I think we need to list all positions. Also, as Pnainuk puts it, not all countries' position is equally important/relevant so hiding positions behind a percentage would be misleading. But Pfainuk's position appears to be to just flat out disregard any international support (to any side). That's just unacceptable. The world's position on the issue does matter and can't be dismissed because it would take too much space or because he feels governments change their minds too often. If a country clearly supports any side, how is that not important information??

I'll go ahead and add the 'citation needed' tag to France. If nobody can come up with a reference in a couple of weeks, I'll remove the sentence entirely.Gaba p (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll save you the bother, I'm surprised you found it difficult to find a cite. France's support for the UK is well noted. Pfainuk gives a well argued case, I would suggest you respond to it rather than resorting to an ad hominem attack. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The specific page from the ebook you reference (166) is not available for preview, can you provide another reference please? According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books "A link to a specific page in a Google Books should only be added if the book is available for preview". If it is as well noted as you say then it shouldn't be difficult to find a reference to a publicly available online article, right? How should we resolve the country-listing issue? Because I think the international position on the matter is a very important piece of information. Also, could you please cite which part of my comment you took as an ad hominem attack on Pfainuk? I'm surprised by this accusation.Gaba p (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirment for surces to be avialible online.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct, there is no requirement for a source to be online. I am not required to provide another cite. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you are right, offline sources are accepted (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Offline_sources) so I guess that one will do. I just thought that the topic being as well noted as you said, it shouldn't prove too hard for you to come up with a more available (ie: online) source. Anyway, that leaves us with two topics to be resolved: 1-The international position on the matter which I say should be expanded maybe even to it's own article (if the length of it is the problem) and 2-my ad hominem attack on Pfainuk which Wee Curry Monster accused me of a couple of comments ago but never did tell me specifically where I could find it. Regards.Gaba p (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So nothing to say Wee? You just make accusations and then never bother to back them up with any kind of evidence?Gaba p (talk) 11:43, 14 March 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