Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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, 22: 30 days

Military history: South America C‑class

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 articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not 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

British Overseas Territories High‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

South America: Argentina / Falklands High‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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).

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why does the article include the name in Spanish at the top?

A: Because as this article talks about a sovereignty dispute, and the name is part of that dispute, both ones are referenced in the lead. The rule is to name the islands as Falklands, with a reference to the Malvinas name on first use in the article, and from then on call them simply Falklands. This rule is detailed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands. This rule only apply to articles that deal with geography or the dispute itself.

Q: The newspapers are talking about the dispute! Shouldn't the article include that info?

A: In most cases, the likely answer is no. This article tries to keep a summary of the dispute from a historical point of view, and avoid recentism. Most of the times that the press talks about this, it is either the anniversary of some old event, or something that can be shortened as "A British politician said that the Falklands must remain British" or "An Argentine politician said that the Falklands must be Argentine". Those things rarely have an actual significance for the dispute, as they are just a confirmation that both sides are simply staying at their regular positions. Sometimes, a modern event may have the required historical significance (such as the Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013), but those are rare, and do not take place on a regular basis.

Page move (reverted)[edit]

A recent editor was quite right to restore this article to its original title - Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. This article is about the sovereignty dispute: a well understood juristic concept. Other aspects of the Falkland Islands dispute e.g. warfare have their own articles.

The rule that page moves require consensus was overlooked, probably because the editor concerned was not aware of it. Ttocserp 03:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline correction[edit]

Argentina (in those years called the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata) had annexed the Falklands Islands on November 6 by David Jewett and created the Military Command of the Malvinas (Falklands) Islands, informally although none of the inhabitants of the Islands were involved. I resisted. Putting the United States as if it had controlled the Islands after the USS Lexington attack is incredibly wrong because they did not even land on the Islands. After that attack, Luis Vernet stopped being governor and became Esteban Mestivier (he was even appointed by Juan Manuel de Rosas). What is clear is not that the island belonged to 'none' but that it continued to belong to Argentina. At that time it was called the Argentine Confederation. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you agree, Argentina did not exist in 1820, or 1826 or 1829 or 1831. Good, let's move on. Who or what authorised Jewitt to do what he did in 1820? This so-called military command - you say it was created informally, meaning it had no connection with anyone or anything in Buenos Aires. Who was in actual control on the islands, or even just in the town, after the Lexington raid? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this editor deserves a rather more principled answer than that. What the country was called can make no difference since, even if it was only the government of Buenos Aires, present-day Argentina stands in its shoes according to the usual laws of state succession. That there is an answer to the Jewett point I have no doubt, but it should be stated. Ttocserp 00:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Based on that logic Bavaria is in Prussia, because in 1871 a unified Germany was proclaimed and Berlin was the capital of Prussia. According to what you seem to be saying that means the unified Germany, with its capital as Berlin, was really an expanded Prussia, that happens to have changed its name to Germany. This isn't a question of a state expanding, it's the creation of a new state from a collection of separate parts. Anyway, this discussion is meant to be about the Falklands and Jewett. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody or other said, we await your argument. Ttocserp 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not accepting an argument is not the same as not being given one. And we need a source for this claim. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the answer to your question is almost certainly that nobody at all authorised Jewitt to take possession of the islands. Jewitt was a privateer with a letter of marque from Buenos Aires. He claimed the islands in the name of the Supreme Government of the United Provinces of South America but - as Cawkell points out - there were in 1820 at least 24 separate governments in the United Provinces, none of them Supreme. It is highly unlikely that any of them gave any thought at all about a few small islands several days' sail from the nearest European settlement (which at this time would have been Viedma) as they were all far too busy dealing with the anarchy at home.

In any case, Jewitt did make an official report to Buenos Aires at the end of his voyage. That report makes no mention any declaration or annexation or any other act of sovereignty or taking of possession over the islands.

Several of the claims made by the edit are false. Jewitt did not establish any kind of military command over the Falklands. He left no settlers, no commander, nobody in control. Jewitt was not Argentine. He was American by birth and if it weren't for this incident he would be best known as an important early figure in the Brazilian Navy. Moreover he could not have told the local population that they were now Argentine, because at the time the islands had no permanent population.

I would note that this table describes de facto control - i.e. control on the ground - rather than legal claims. Nowhere else in the table do we accept claims of legal authority (whether made at the time or later) without actual control on the ground, and there is no reason for this to be an exception. Kahastok talk 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]