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

Major WP:NPOV problems with proposed edit

Just a few of the examples of bias and other problems in the proposed change:

• The infobox for miltary conflicts is used, and the entire infobox treats this event as a war. There was military conflict here. There was a polite exchange of messengers in which the British asked the Argentines to leave and the Argentines agreed to do so.
• "Place: "Puerto Soledad, Malvinas Islands, Argentine Confederation" - debatable at best. The "nationality" of Vernet's colony is not as clear-cut as one might like, as evidenced by the fact that it continued after January 1833.
• Changing "the re-establishment of British rule" to "the establishment of British rule" denies the existence of a colony in 1765-74.
• "The British occupation of the Falkland Islands..." - there was no occupation. At the end of the events described, there were no military forces of any nation on the islands asserting any form of claim to sovereignty.
• "...was a military operation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland..." - no it wasn't. It was a polite exchange of messengers.
• "Despite being in peaceful relations with the Argentine Confederation..." - so, again, you're saying it was the British as aggressors.
• "...the United Kingdom, with two warships..." - at least one of them was not large enough to count as a ship - oh and it's emphasising "war" again.
• "...evicted the Argentine garrison of Puerto Soledad that had 26 soldiers, who left two days later" - again, a polite exchange of messengers in which the British asked the Argentines to leave and the Argentines agreed to do so. Worth bearing in mind that the garrison in question had just mutinied and killed their commander, and so were probably headed for the wrong end of an Argentine gallows whatever happened.
• "The Government of the Argentine Republic considers that..." - lede fixation. This is an article on a historical event, not modern reactions to it.
• "...considers that on January 3, 1833, "the islands were occupied by British forces that evicted the population (of Argentine origin) and the Argentine authorities legitimately established there, replacing them with subjects of the occupying power."" - so you want to place a highly prominent mention of a series of claims that are known to be entirely false, without mentioning the fact that they are known to be entirely false, under cover of attribution to the Argentine government.
• "On that date the Argentine authorities immediately demanded the unjustified aggression carried out in peacetime and friendship between the two nations, demand that has continued to be expressed diplomatically as of today. " - this is where you use the Argentine government as a source for what appears to be intended to be neutral fact written in Wikipedia's voice. The idea that this is neutral is absurd - it very clearly puts Argentine arguments as factual in Wikipedia's voice.
• "The Government of the United Kingdom describes..." - again lede fixation. This is an article on a historical event, not modern reactions to it.
• "...describes the action as "reaffirmation" of its domain". The quote isn't sourced. The phrase "reaffirmation of its domain" is meaningless.
• "...which was established on January 23, 1765, one year after the arrival of the Bougainville from France by British commodore John Byron who arrived at the small Trinidad Island..." - clearly attempts to make the prior British involvement seem minor compared with the Argentine involvement. Note no mention of the fact that that colony lasted 9 years, and note the prominent mention of the French, aimed at undermining the British position by pointing out that they were first. Strangely, no mention of the fact that the British were there before the Spanish and long before the Argentines.
• "...arrived at the small Trinidad Island, named by the British "Saunders Island"" - so why does the standard English name (which was most likely the one that came first) get treated as some kind of aberration, while the modern Argentine name gets treated as primary?

This isn't a close call. It's not something that could go either way. You are directly and explicitly writing Argentine propaganda in Wikipedia's voice. Explicitly because you're using the Argentine government as your source. There is absolutely no way I could ever accept any part of the edit as being in any way acceptable.

Finally, in response to this edit summary, this title has been long subject to discussion, because it's a difficult event to discribe succinctly. There was a previous title ("Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands"), but when we had discussion, the Argentine editors in the discussion felt that this one was better, and I and others did not object to it. Kahastok talk 21:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

To add, re: this edit. It's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRR. You are the one wanting to make the change here, so as at the other page, the burden of consensus is on you here. Kahastok talk 18:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources around that can back the various claims. There are also plenty of less reliable sources out there. I think a lot of these discussions could easily be avoided by sticking strictly to the wp policy on reliable sources, even if that means having to reference every second sentence. That means govt publications should be avoided as should some other sources that look informative but are really just original research. (I have recently removed a couple of those). If the OR citations are helpful, as many are, we can keep them in the article by adding them to external links. Sticking strictly to policy will also involve weeding out a lot of weaseling, synthesing as well as plain biased language. There is far too much agenda pushing from both sides. If an editors position is correct the evidence, correctly presented, is all that is needed. This is an encyclopedia: it is our job to present the evidence in as neutral a way as is possible, and not to interpret it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

An example of why you, Kahostok, are treading on very thin ice is the way you, in today's edit, that you dismiss the Argentine govt source as propaganda, which is a blatant POV. It should not be used because it is primary evidence, which is no different from many UK govt sources being used on Falklands articles. This is wp policy and policy breaches do not require consensus to be changed, which I am sure you know. I note from all the talk page discussion on these Falkland articles that there is a pattern of concern being raised about the neutrality of these Falkland articles going back many years, sometimes by experienced editors such as Langus and Jay D. Easy. You would achieve your aim much more easily if you stuck to presenting the evidence rather than telling others what it means. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using government or other biased sources, provided that they are used with care, as per WP:PARTISAN.

Treat with care: I am glad we agree. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The text that you want to put in - that is based on an Argentine government source but that you (by putting it in Wikipedia's voice) effectively claim is neutral and widely-accepted fact - is: the Argentine authorities immediately demanded the unjustified aggression carried out in peacetime and friendship between the two nations, demand that has continued to be expressed diplomatically as of today.

I have never said I want that or any of the recent additions put in (if you refer to the additions by the presumably Argentine editor). What i want is for those additions to be mentioned on this talk page first and then, if suitable, removed or changed. They were inserted in good faith and deserved better than a blunt reversal with the editor being accused of being a propagandist. Even if it is tedious to do so that effort should always be made. I have "effectively claimed" nothing of the sort - any belief otherwise is entirely your assumption. this gets back to what I see as your sometimes overly enthusiastic curt dismissal of detail you disagree with. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That isn't neutral and widely-accepted fact. It is propaganda. And actually I would be very surprised if there was any instance on any Falklands article where a UK government source was used as a basis for a similar claim in Wikipedia's voice. Kahastok talk 17:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not break up my comments as you did above, this is not acceptable per WP:TPO.

You have made that claim, that that is a neutral and widely-accepted fact, by repeatedly adding the text in question to the article. If you did not want to make such a claim, then perhaps you should not have added it to the article.

It is absolutely standard practice on Wikipedia for bold edits, when reverted, to be discussed. It is also absolutely standard for proposed edits that do not reach consensus not to be added to the article. We can all see the proposed edit in the history. There is no reason why this should be an exception to that standard should not apply here.

Given this, and given that you now also claim to oppose the text that you repeatedly put into the article, will you now accept that this - the last stable version - should be the version used in this article for the duration of this discussion? Kahastok talk 17:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Roger I'm afraid it's you who are reading on rather thin ice. Whilst I might agree that some of the older sources used in the article could do with being replaced by more authoritative sources, which is something I'd be happy to do, what you are doing is converting an article that was neutral in tone to one that reflects a major POV. Argentine government sources are problematic for their partisan nature and for the fact they contain myth presented as fact. One of those would be the expulsion myth or the claim≠ of a violent expulsion of the garrison, which even Guatafson who is pro-Argentine dismisses as myth. I just have to ask were you aware of that, ie that authoritative academic sources dismiss what the Argentine Government claims? ×I would suggest that you stop edit warring, calm down and discuss matters. WCM_email 09:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

We agree on the need to upgrade sources. I am puzzled at why you assume I am trying to turn a so-called neutral article into one with an Argentine slant. In answer to your question about my awareness of quality of Argentine govt publications (in fact almost anything published in Argentina), the simpler answer is, er, Yes, I am aware. Before reading this latest post I had just spent a painful hour ploughing through Falklands or Malvinas: Myths & facts by Manuel Pedro Peña. But that is not and never has been the reason for my concerns. It is the way we treat them that is the problem. It is not up to us to tell readers that Argentine sources are propaganda, even if they are. It is the way we edit and comment on, the various Falkland articles, not necessarily what information is supplied. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just an hour? I read it cover to cover several times. Interested to hear your opinion on the conclusion of the book, having read it I can't square his conclusion having debunked all Argentine claims and myths. WCM_email 11:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Argentine government sources are partisan but UK sources not? What do you base that conclusion on? Seem a biased personal opinion to me. Sietecolores (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I specifically spoke of using neutral academic sources, I take it your mischaracterisation of my comments was deliberate. There lies the majority of the issues in articles of this nature. WCM_email 16:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is an interesting double standard - comparing Argentine government sources with all UK sources. Kahastok talk 17:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kahastok, correction, I was meaning government sources which was the issue Roger 8 Roger is concerned about. Else it would be as you say an "interesting double standard". Wee Curry Monster: I urge you to follow WP:AGF and comment the topic and not the users. Sietecolores (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I do follow WP:AGF but that is a little stretched, when you mischaracterise what I had to say! I specifically referred to the use of academic sources and not government sources. I can if you like expand on why many Argentine sources are problematic but your comment that is seemed a biased personal opinion did not lead me to conclude you were inclined to listen - you were commenting on the user not the topic. WCM_email 10:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there currently a rule that we do not use any sources published by the UK or Argentine govts? If not then should we make it a consensus rule? That might seem unfair to some of us who think the problem is entirely on the Argentinian side, but it does at least remove any evidence of possible bias. I have no problem using only top notch reliable sources as defined by WP. It would be good if it were only academic but that won't always be possible -- there are quality non-academic sources and, as mentioned above, there are academic sources that are suspect. I have also seen what appear to be very useful OR sites that contain detail that I have not found elsewhere such as [1]. To keep that information then we would have to incorporate it in a different way rather than using it as a RS2, which in this example is how it is used in this article. BTW, I did not read the above post by Sietecolores as comparing Argentine govt sources with all UK sources. He seemed to be comparing Argentine govt and UK govt sources. Is this an example of being over sensitive and always assuming every editor who posts a contrary opinion is in the pay of the Argentine ministry of propaganda? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me repeat once again, the text that you and others have tried to force into the article, treated as neutral fact and sourced only to the Argentine government:

“ On that date the Argentine authorities immediately demanded the unjustified aggression carried out in peacetime and friendship between the two nations, demand that has continued to be expressed diplomatically as of today. ”

If the text was properly attributed to the Argentine government in-line, if it was placed in an appropriate section of the article, if it was either written in less emotive terms or as a direct quotation, if it was evaluated in an appropriate way, with any significant claims of factual inaccuracy noted - if all of those things were done, then we might be able to put such a text into an appropriate article neutrally. None of those things are done here.

You're trying to push this into a question of whether we accept government sources at all. You write as though there were no difference between on one hand explicitly using a government source to provide that government's position - attributed to that government and neutrally worded - and on the other, openly taking that government's side in a point of dispute. A better question would be, are there any circumstances in which government sources are unacceptable. Because if there are, this is one of them.

I note that there is no response given to any of the other objections that I raised. I shall therefore assume that they are accepted. Kahastok talk 18:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I note with interest that you have ceased to defend the edit discussed in this section, and also that you have now disclaimed most of it. Given that there is clearly no consensus for it, and given its strong bias, I will remove the text back to the most recent consensus version. I suggest that proposals for improvement in this area be made on talk and that we discuss them, and put them into the article once consensus is reached. The slow-motion edit war in the background is not necessary or beneficial. Kahastok talk 21:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me repeat, I have never defended the edit as being correct, just not completely without merit. I have defended an editors right to be heard in the face of what appears to be a pretty closed mind by certain long standing editors. By taking such a blunt approach you are weakening your own argument and falling into the hands of the propaganda merchants. I mean blunt approach in the way these articles are presented, not factual correctness, or otherwise, of information given. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You will now doubtless now point out where I have removed someone's talk page post or prevented them from putting their opinion on talk, thereby preventing them from being heard? Because if you can't, that would be the sort of personal attack that you're accusing me of.

On two separate occasions this was actually your edit. Whether you now like it or not, these two edits were an endorsement of the edit as it stood as being suitable for inclusion. If that's not what you intended, then I suggest that in future, you shouldn't put things into articles that you don't want to see in the article.

It is of course, perfectly possible to discuss a proposed edit without forcing it into the article. Every other talk page on every other topic seems to manage it, there's no reason why this one should be different. Kahastok talk 07:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Name of the article

I have always found the title of this page strange: "Reassertion" of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)... this is sort of the only WP article with such strange wording. What was re-establish was it rule or sovereignity, old sovereignity is so far I am concerned no clear issue as it was disputed even back in the 18th century, so how can you re-establish something that was not [beyond dubt] yours? Correct me if I am wrong. Dentren | ^Talk 18:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Note that the title is "reassertion" and does not use the word "re-establish".

This is a very difficult article to give an accurate title for. The events defy simple description using a noun phrase. Most reliable sources not taking a side tend to describe events or to use a verb phrase (where Wikipedia titles are noun phrases). Those who favour the Argentine side tend to argue for "invasion", even though the word is entirely misleading. Those favouring the British side tend to refer to a "return", airbrushing the existing colony out of the picture completely. Eliminating the "re-" element would be incorrect as it is clear that Britain did assert sovereignty in the 1760s. Kahastok talk 16:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This might be going over old ground, that I have intentionally chosen not to read so as to come at this fresh, but there is nothing wrong with looking at it again. I would be grateful if Kahastok or anyone could summerise why this heading is being used. To me it is clearly wrong. "Re-establish" means it was there before and that is clearly not certain, as evidenced by quality (UK) sources. Therefore to use "re-establish sovereignty" is based on POV which makes it bias. I really cannot see a reason for not using another word or phrase that is not contentious, such as re-possess, establishment of order, or one of many other variations. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help us all understand your objection if you - either of you - explained where exactly where you found the word "re-establish" in the phrase "Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)"?

There was clearly some measure of British control on the Falklands in 1765-1774, and the British clearly asserted sovereignty during that period, notably during the 1770 Falklands crisis. It is incorrect to suggest that the existence of a British settlement before 1833 is somehow disputed. Kahastok talk 21:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

My mistake in using 'establishment' immediately above. It was probably on my mind due to the earlier use of the word. However, that does not change the very misleading and one-sided nature of the heading as a whole. To re-assert something also means that there was something there (sovereignty) to reassert in the first place. What I think you are trying to say is that the UK was re-asserting the sovereignty that it believed existed. That is a totally different heading and to use it would be clumsy, so rewording the title is still necessary. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you are drawing vast inferences from "reassertion" that the word itself does not support. What precise change are you proposing? Kahastok talk 07:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with this -- The British return to the Falkland Islands in 1833', to suggest just one example. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes - that's the term preferred by British-biased sources, which are traditionally written to imply that there wasn't anyone already there in 1833.

The equivalent on the other side is "British invasion", which implies a military operation that never took place and draws a false parallel with the 1982 invasion.

We also considered "British occupation" - which is problematic because of the implication of illegitimacy and because the British themselves left three days later and left no personnel of their own on the islands (only the existing colonists). And also "Argentine surrender" - which is problematic because there was no formal surrender. Kahastok talk 08:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the succinct summary. I agree that all those options bar one are unsuitable because they are subjective and depend on a POV. 'Occupation', the best of the rest, in one sense is not subjective but in others it is, so yes, that word is not suitable either. The one that is objective though is 'return' and I chose it for that very reason. I am having trouble seeing how that word can imply that there was nothing already there. Eg: 'He returned home after a hard day's work' does not imply anything about someone else being at home, or not at home. The British biased sources use all sorts of non-neutral words, a lot that have crept in to these articles (as with the pro-Argentinian sources and words), but to call a completely bland word like 'return' as being one of those bias words seems to be stretching it a bit. Looking at what we currently have there is no real comparison: both 'reassertion' and 'sovereignty' are just dripping with opinion. Can you give examples of how the best available academic sources refer to this event? The first four sources I looked at used these terms: invaded; occupied; reclaimed the Islands through the use of force; arrival of HMS Clio. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"Occupation" is not accurate in any sense. The British left no additional colonists, no civil administration and no military personnel on the islands. Everyone who was on the islands when the British left had already been there when they arrived.

You may see bias in the current title, but our Argentinian friends did not, when the question came up when it was changed to the current title - in fact they dismissed these concerns entirely.

Neutral sources tend describe these events using a verbal phrase. For example, they might say that Britain retook control of the islands in 1833, or has had control over the islands since 1833. Where they don't, they very often fall into one of the traps that we're trying to avoid. The chapter in Cawkell calls it the "British repossession" - but that makes it sound like the islands were repossessed as a result of a non-payment of debt.

When history books refer back to events, they may well rely on the fact that you already already had a description. Cawkell refers back to the "Clio Affair", for example, which is pretty meaningless to those not already aware of events. Kahastok talk 13:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that 'occupation' is not suitable. If a verbal phrase can be found then that might be suitable, so long as it's not too unwieldy. I am not sure about giving much weight to the Argentinian editors, even assuming good faith. One, there is the language issue - they might not be completely familiar with the nuances of meaning in English. Second, if they have been indoctrinated with misinformation, as seems to be the case throughout Argentina, and therefore whether acting in good faith or not, what would they think to be the best option if given the choice between 1/ re-assertion of UK sovereignty (that they disagree ever existed), 2/ return of the British (to disputed islands). If I were an Argentinian I would choose no.1. The reason being is that it is better for their side to maintain the belief that the islands were stolen from them rather than that the actual ownership is not clear. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the suggestion the title be looked at again, I have personally never been entirely happy with it but have accepted it as a compromise. My personal preference has always been the use of Return as Roger suggested. However, it's always been problematic as Argentine editors see this as a "British POV", since this is the term used in most British work. I fear that if we were to suggest using it, it will become mired in unnecessary controversy as it has always done in the past. WCM_email 10:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW the one good thing going for the current name, is that it is used by third parties. Not always neutral either, eg the Iranian News Agency, who could not be described as pro-British. WCM_email 10:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if the Spanish word for return also has a slightly different meaning to the English when used in the Falklands context: implying something like 'returning to what is yours'. That might explain their objections. It might of course mean exactly the same as the English word though. Alternatively, they might simply object to anything that refers to the earlier British settlement, a denial of the facts. If so then I don't think we can do much by way of compromise. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't, volver has the same meaning in Spanish. Where I think the issue is the Argentine phrase volveremos in relation to the Falklands see the following google search for context [2]. That I believe is the nub of it. WCM_email 11:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting pictures and yes I think that is the problem. Meaning in Spanish is here [3]. I wonder then if this English language article should not use a normal English word just because another group of people connect it loosely with a word in their language that they use to promote an opinion. It makes me more inclined to use 'return' in the title. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think perception is important in these things. Even if we accept that the word "return" as neutral based on its plain English meaning, I think using a word that is particularly associated with one side and rejected by many on the other side stores up trouble for the future and damages our credibility. It's no good being neutral if a large segment of our readership sees the name of the article and assume from it that we're taking a side.

(Now, one might argue that those people who will notice that it's a term associated with the British will assume we're biased anyway, because what we say is different from what appears in Argentine school textbooks. And one might have a point. But I'm not convinced the two groups will overlap that strongly.) Kahastok talk 17:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Wholesale Revert

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. WCM_email 12:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• [4] I have wondered for some time about the merits of creating an article about this line within the Argentine psyche. There are already some good articles out there, like this link, but often they only cover what I think is the tip of the iceberg. The necessary citations, and editor knowledge is out there but it is plastered all over the place and needs to be corralled. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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. WCM_email 23:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

unneeded qualifier in the title

I moved it earlier, but was reverted. There's no ambiguity in the title, so the disambiguating qualifier is unneeded. The other supposedly ambiguous articles are not referred to as the "reassertion of British sovereignty" in their articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the whole title is not ideal and sounds a little awkward. A while ago I thought it needed changing but after looking into the matter more deeply I could not come up with anything better. The current title has problems but the other options have even more, in my opinion. About your specific issue with inserting 1833, I am a little puzzled as to why you think it is unnecessary. The 1982 recapture can without doubt be seen as a form of British reassertion of sovereignty, so disambiguation from the 1833 event is surely needed? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree and support the restoration of the qualifier. As noted by Kahastok without it, it could be confused with events of 1771 or even 1982. Whilst the original poster makes the point that other articles (currently) have different names, they can still be confused without the qualifier. As such I oppose removing it. The current title is a compromise, since Argentine editors saw the normal English language name as POV. I've never been happy with it either but no one has put forward a better suggestion. WCM_email 10:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"topics could be confused" is not the same as "title is ambiguous". The other articles did not mention "assert" at all. The current "disambiguation" at the base name is just a list of articles on related topics, not a list of topics that could have had (or been referred to by) the title. But that information, is true, could be added to those articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The current title is a descriptive title per WP:NDESC - a compromise that I think nobody has ever been very happy with but that has proven better than all the alternatives.

Re: "But that information, is true, could be added to those articles." There are an infinite number of phrases that we could describe each of these events and it helps nobody for the articles to attempt to list them. That fact that this article happens to use this description, which could apply to (elements of) any of the three events if taken without the qualifier, does not mean we have to shoehorn the phrase in where it isn't necessary or useful. Kahastok talk 19:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Kohen and Rodriguez

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

United Provinces as of 1831

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)

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. WCM_email 08:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

Proposed detailed passage on period 1774-1811

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)

The paragraph is shorter than both, the one describing British departure, and the Argentine settling attempt. Is already a summarized extract from a reputable source, the official British historian Lawrence Freedman. Since there's a mention to sealers and whalers activity in that period, the presence of the Spanish outpost should be also relevant. If the number of commanders appointed is an issue, I agree to leave it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReggNichols (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. WCM_email 07:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)