Talk:History of the Falkland Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of the Falkland Islands article.
Article policies

As a Brit living in Argentina, this issue is interesting to me - should the site have a section somewhere, either on this page or the main Falklands site discussing the two competing claims for soverignty - Neither this one or the Spanish language one seems to have a section that lays these out? Just a question - PYsProblem --on second thoughts, I think it would be more appropriate on the main page... PysProblem

Could you please let me know where can I find supporting documentation to the claim that Spain yielded the islands to Britain in 1771 ? Thanks.

VerySeriousPerson@yahoo.com

Is this article NPOV? Looks terribly biased to me. At least, it should be merged with Falkland Islands' historical notice. It should also give notice of the United Nations resolutions on the issue. The claims to sovereignty should not be treated as facts, just as claims.

I agree. It's as if there are two separate Falklands articles more or less talking about the same thing. This needs revision!

Although I didn't put it on Wikipedia, the article does state that it is based on the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, with other input, although, judging by the comparable paragraph in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, some of the dates and events were mixed up. The EB source explains the aricle's POV--even though at that time the EB was now owned by an American corporation, it still tried to foster a British view and spelling. I agree that it is virtually one sided, and needs some Argentinian input. I also don't understand why the original EB article was split into many sections. Now that the other articles have been updated, they probably shouldn't be merged, but this history should be, otherwise I don't see how all points of view can be accommodated in a synopsis. I have found some Spanish sites which offer the Argentinian view, but I don't read Spanish (relying on machine translation like Google), so I would prefer that a bilingual person merge them, keeping in mind that this is the English version of Wikipedia, and being mindful of others' copyrights.
http://webs.sinectis.com.ar/mcagliani/malvi.htm
http://www.todo-argentina.net/Geografia/provincias/Islas_Malvinas/
http://www.geocities.com/macrisferrari/malvinas/
For reference, here is the 1911 EB printed version:
The Falkiand Islands were first seen by Davis in the year 1592, and Sir Richard Hawkins sailed along their north shore in 1594. The claims of Amerigo Vespucci to a previous discovery are doubtful. In 1598 Sebald de Wert, a Dutchman, visited them, and called them the Sebald Islands, a name which they bear on some Dutch maps. Captain Strong sailed through between the two principal islands in 1690, landed upon one of them, and called the passage Falkland Sound, and from this the group afterwards took its English name. In 1764 the French explorer De Bougainville took possession of the islands on behalf of his country, and established a colony at Port Louis on Berkeley Sound. But in 1767 France ceded the islands to Spain, De Bougainville being employed as intermediary. Meanwhile in 1765 Commodore Byron had taken possession on the part of England on the ground of prior discovery, and had formed a settlement at Port Egmont on the small island of Saunders. The Spanish and English settlers remained in ignorance, real or assumed, of each other's presence until 1769-1770, when Byron's action was nearly the cause of a war between England and Spain, both countries having armed fleets to contest the barren sovereignty. In 1771, however, Spain yielded the islands to Great Britain by convention. As they had not been actually colonized by England, the republic of Buenos Aires claimed the group in 1820, and subsequently entered into a dispute with the United States of America concerning the rights to the products of these islands. On the representations of Great Britain the Buenos Aireans withdrew, and the British flag was once more hoisted at Port Louis in 1833, and since that time the Falkland Islands have been a regular British colony.
A flawed online version is at http://3.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FA/FALKLAND_ISLANDS.htm
Joe Kress 19:04, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
Men, this is everything but serious, starting with the "Republic of Buenos Aires", which never existed. When the islands were invaded by the UK in 1833, Buenos Aires was then leading _province_ of the Argentine Confederation (Confederación argentina), under Juan Manuel de Rosas.
Argentina, and not Buenos Aires, had sent people to the islands, who were living there, and they were invaded and expelled by the English, so your definition doesn't sounds like NPOV.

Contents

[edit] POV

I'm very sad to see that there's just POV in the English Wikipedia :(. The article affirms that Argentina set in the 1820s a penal colony, olimpically ignoring the non-penal settlement, under Governor Juan Vernet, when a group of people were taken to the islands in order to colonize them.

[edit] Source for corrected Byron date

Found the date I used to correct the date for Byron at this site: [6]

– Dennis (talk) (Wiki NYC Meetup)[[]] 21:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plaque

Where is that plaque now? Somebody has a photo? --84.42.146.44 15:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I doubt it exists now. I can't find any record of it. Astrotrain 21:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
In 1780 the plaque was removed and sent to Buenos Aires. During the British invasions of the Río de la Plata (1806-7) it was recovered but never reached the UK. See [7], footnote #63 (in Spanish). Ejrrjs | What? 23:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there says that when the Spaniards left in 1811, they left a plaque too. Any information about the whereabouts of that one? --84.42.146.44 01:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

(v. late reply) Probably both destroyed. Neither side would wish to countenance the other. --MacRusgail 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important information

The 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands article states:

After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right and seized them. The Englishman who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered. A British officer was next sent, unsupported by any power: and when we arrived, we found him in charge of a population, of which rather more than half were runaway rebels and murderers. (The Voyage of the Beagle.)

If this is true, maybe the Argentine government renounced sovereignty with that sale and the Falklands are really British, but the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article also says:

Great Britain abandoned their settlement in 1774, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention.

So apparently the Falklands are neither Argentine nor British. Is this correct?

[edit] Unblock main article

The main article MUST be unblocked NOW! The claim of "consensus" is a LIE. There is none, merely a capitulation. This is unacceptable. As if this were not bad enough even the talk page had been blocked. ENOUGH!!!!

[edit] Timeline

In 1816 the Argentine independence was claimed not gained; there was an independence war ahead, as a result of which the national territory was to be formed.

The Argentine settlement was established in 1826. Apcbg 21:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rivero

I've removed this text:

An interesting episode for those investigating the sovereignty claims is the true story of Antonio Rivero ("El Gaucho Rivero"): Rivero, who in August 1833 was involved in an incident where a number of important figures on the islands were murdered (all of whom were Argentine citizens and members of Vernet's settlement), was taken to London to be judged, however when the case came before the High Court it was dismissed because the court felt that the British Crown had no authority over the islands at this time, and Rivero was returned to Argentina.

This is actually disputed. Argentina claims that the Crown did not prosecute for lack of jurisdiction and elevates Rivero to a folk hero leading a rebellion against the British. British version was they did not prosecute for lack of witnesses and evidence. See comments at http://www.history.horizon.co.fk/chronology.html, together with additional information on the Gaucho murders. Justin A Kuntz 11:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The explanation I consider most plausible is as follows (unfortunately I cannot recall the relevant source). In the British colonial system, colonies used to be distinct countries not part of the United Kingdom; they had their own, distinct governments, finances, and judicial systems. English courts had no jurisdiction over India or Australia for instance, never mind that it was all British sovereignty. A person who had committed his crime in India or Australia, if arrested in England would be sent for trial in the respective colony (and vice versa). Likewise, no English court had jurisdiction over the Falklands, never had, and doesn’t have now. Rivero was not tried and sentenced because the British local government and local judiciary had not yet been installed in 1834; these were created later, by the 1841 British Letters Patent. Apcbg 07:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
So the original text was distorting the history to push a POV? If it is relevant I'd say put it back but make it neutral or offer an explanation. Justin A Kuntz 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Apcbg - you're right in a way, but if things go horribly wrong (legally) in the Falklands, it returns to England. The British have a way of overruling these things - English law has overridden Scots law on some occasions, which is technically illegal, but has still happened. --MacRusgail 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Please elaborate and provide sources. Normally any judiciary has several levels, and the right to appeal to a higher court is a natural part of the legal process. In the British case, there are such higher courts situated in London I suppose but that does not make them 'English' and their ability to confirm or revert decisions by lower courts is quite legal. Apcbg 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think they certainly are "English". The House of Lords certainly is. It's not Scottish or Welsh in any historical sense (the Scottish parliament was unicameral). As I understand it, Falkland matters can be sent to England. Anyhow, due to the small population, the police force is mostly recruited from London, and so are several unelected figures such as the governor, who plays a part in the process. --MacRusgail 10:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Rivero should get at least a mention. One of the Argentine names for Stanley was/is Puerto Rivero, which is worthy of mention - I'm sure the people who landed on the racecourse there in '67 also referred to him. The Rivero incident is one thing I've been hoping to expand. --MacRusgail 18:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Gaucho Murders" are a notable element of the history in themselves so I would be happy so see it in there. There is a witness statement on this site:

http://www.history.horizon.co.fk/articles/murders.html

More details here:

http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html

The only reason for removing the text in the first place was the POV push. To avoid in future I think there needs to be a NPOV explanation of why Rivero was never tried. BTW the reason Puerto Rivero was pushed as a name by the "condors" is that he was elevated to a folk hero, gallantly leading a rebellion against British occupation. Rather a weird transformation since his actions effectively ended Vernet's operation and Argentine interests in the Islands. Justin A Kuntz 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Suggested edit:

Initial British plans for the Islands were based upon the continuation of Vernet's settlement at Port Louis. An Argentine immigrant of Irish origin, William Dixon, was appointed as the British representative and provided with a flagpole and flag to be flow whenever ships were in harbour.[1] In March 1833, Vernet's Deputy, Matthew Brisbane returned and presented his papers to Captain Fitzroy of HMS Beagle who happened to be in harbour at the time. Fitzroy encouraged Brisbane to continue with Vernet's enterprise with the proviso that whilst private enterprise was encouraged, Argentine assertions of sovereignty would not be welcome.[2]

Brisbane re-asserted his authority over Vernet's settlement and recommenced the practise of paying employees in promissory notes. Due to Vernet's reduced status, the promissory notes were devalued, which meant that the employees received fewer goods at Vernet's stores for their wages. After months of freedom following the Lexington raid this accentuated dissatisfaction with the leadership of the settlement. In August of 1833, under the leadership of Antonio Rivero, a gang of Creole and Indian gauchos ran amok in the settlement. Armed with muskets obtained from American sealers, the gang killed five members of Vernet's settlement including both Dickson and Brisbane. Shortly afterward the survivors fled Port Louis, seeking refuge on Turf Island in Berkley Sound until rescued by the British sealer 'Hopeful' in October 1833.[3]

Lt Henry Smith was installed as the first British resident in January 1834. One of his first actions was to pursue and arrest Rivero's gang for the "Gaucho Murders" the previous August. The gang was sent for trial in London but due to a quirk of the British Legal system could not be tried as the Crown Court did not have jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands. In the British colonial system, colonies had their own, distinct governments, finances, and judicial systems.[4][5] Rivero was not tried and sentenced because the British local government and local judiciary had not yet been installed in 1834; these were created later, by the 1841 British Letters Patent. [6] Subsequently, Rivero has acquired the status of a folk hero in Argentina, where he is portrayed as leading a rebellion against British rule.[7] Ironically it was the actions of Rivero that were responsible for the ultimate demise of Vernet's enterprise on the Falklands.

Smith then set about restoring the settlement at Port Louis, repairing the damage done by the Lexington raid and renaming it 'Anson's Harbour'. Lt Lowcay succeeded Smith in April 1838, followed by Lt Robinson in September 1839 and Lt Tyssen in December 1839.[8]

Vernet attempted to return to the Islands but was refused permission to return. The British Crown reneged on promises and refused to recognise rights granted by Captain Onslow at the time of the reoccupation. Eventually, after traveling to London Vernet received paltry compensation for horses shipped to Port Louis many years before.[9]

Text revised Justin talk 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement, revision gratefully received. Justin talk 20:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Minor spelling point BerkEley Sound. Also, I might suggest that "Gaucho murders" might be an inflammatory title (although that's pretty much what they were) - something like the "Rivero Incident". I think it should get its own article. Otherwise, very good, and well referenced. --MacRusgail 10:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ [1] A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, Part 3 - Louis Vernet: The Great Entrepreneur
  2. ^ Fitzroy, R., VOYAGES OF THE ADVENTURE AND BEAGLE. VOLUME II.
  3. ^ [2] A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, Part 3 - Louis Vernet: The Great Entrepreneur
  4. ^ [3] British colonies - Hutchinson encyclopedia article about British colonies
  5. ^ Karsten, Peter, Between Law and Custom, "High" and "Low" Legal Cultures in the Lands of the British Diaspora - The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, 1600-1900
  6. ^ Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982
  7. ^ Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982
  8. ^ [4] A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, Part 3 - Louis Vernet: The Great Entrepreneur
  9. ^ [5] A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, Part 3 - Louis Vernet: The Great Entrepreneur


[edit] Removal of material

I disagree strongly with the removal of certain material. I have tried to add things which are not directly related to Anglo-Argentine squabbling (which Falkland history is frequently reduced to), but many of these have been removed.

It is perfectly justifiable to include material from other articles in this one. Particularly direct quotes, which it has taken time to source and type. --MacRusgail 19:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheeps entrails shorting out telephone lines don't strike me as an essential part of the History of the Falkland Islands, what was removed was largely trivia and made no positive contribution to the article. Most of what is left is not related to Anglo-Argentine squabbling thank you. Has the article suffered? No. Is it improved? Yes. At the end of the day that is the purpose of this project. Justin talk 20:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually they do, when they refer to the islands' first telephone line, an important part of their history. Just because it doesn't relate to Argentina doesn't mean it has to be removed. --MacRusgail 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Information on the first telephone line may vaguely be of encyclopedic interest, sheeps entrail anecdotes no. Justin talk 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's all of encyclopedic interest. Where is the problem? Just because it is quirky, doesn't make it unencyclopedic. Otherwise this article is about the "two bald men fighting over a comb" as Borges put it. --MacRusgail 16:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Its of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Justin talk 16:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Presumably you think Marconi's transmission over the Atlantic is of no value either. I will continue to add stuff which doesn't refer to bald men and combs. I may even put something in about the Stanley railway, but no doubt you don't think that's "encyclopedic" either. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll continue to remove material that has no encyclopedic value, please don't threaten to edit war over such trivia. Justin talk 20:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That is your personal opinion, however you do not "own" this article, and you have failed to produce any justification as to how it is "unencyclopedic". You don't like it, fair enough, but don't confuse your dislike for something with a balanced opinion. The first phone line in the islands (outside Stanley) is of utmost importance - even if radios were being used until fairly recently. The history of communications is completely encyclopedic. I'd like to see you go to the articles at Category:Telecommunications_history and tell them it's all somehow "unencyclopedic". I'll say it again - you do not "own" this article. I have the right to my opinion, and it's only you seem to have a problem with that, for some bizarre reason. --MacRusgail (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
No I don't own this article, I don't claim to own this article. But your continued insistence on inserting trivia is exhibiting signs of attempting to own this article. And your comments seem little more than a thinly veiled personal attack to me. I have explained why I removed content, because it was trivia, instead of responding to such comments you have repeatedly tried to re-introduce the same material verbatim without discussion. Is your actions intended to improve the article, when others have indicated that it is not, or merely because in your personal opinion Wikipedia is improved by reference to a past telecommuncications breakdown caused by sheep entrails shorting out a line. Please review your own conduct before criticising the actions of others. Justin talk 11:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The first telephone line reads as being pretty notable to me. Justin, you appear to be reverting simply because of the quote about sheep entrails, which I agree is trivia. However, you both appear to be coming closing to own. Justin's last reversion also wiped out "with British nomenclature", and this wouldn't be covered by the explanation of why it was reverted. I suggest you both review your conduct and come to some reasonable agreement. Stephenb (Talk) 13:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Stephenb, your intervention is most welcome an independent 3rd party input does help to clarify things. Indeed my main objection is to the quote about sheep entrails as I considred it trivia but in my defence I had indicated that already. I had also indicated that the first telephone line may be of interest and I would have no objection to a suitably sourced edit. I have re-introduced the material I had inadvertently removed. Justin talk 13:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I take much the same opinion as Stephenb. The first telephone line is of interest. The quote about sheep or geese flying into line is not really. (Hell, Geese/Swan flying into the line is a standard excuse given across England by the power companies, I wouldn't expect to read it in an article about East Midlands Electricity or such). I do think you both need to WP:AGF. Having seen Justin work, while he is over zealous at times, he is generally willing to accept criticisms or accomodate compromises so, yes, work on a compromise rather than an edit war. Far more productive. Then we can all get back to writing about how important the UK's only source of penguin (a valuable natural resource) is. Narson (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
With respect, what purpose does inserting random figures that are not remotely linked to the text serve? Justin talk 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Random figures? It was an historical picture of people in the 1930s!!! In a country as young as this one, that's a long time ago. --MacRusgail 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
They were completely random, what reference was made to the subject in the article? Justin talk 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The picture shows the typical dress of working Falklanders in the mid 20th century, which relates to the islands' agricultural and economic history. There is no way that such an impression can be conveyed succinctly in words. --MacRusgail 16:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You might have a point if there was any reference to the subject in the text but there wasn't. Justin talk 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Also what is the purpose of randomly inserting links to unrelated articles? This isn't improving things its reducing the quality of the article. Justin talk 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The geology refers to the pre-human history of the region. --MacRusgail 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partially Added Telephony Material

I've added back the telephony edit but not the bit I objected too, I noted it had been introduced into another article and have done the same there. Justin talk 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to split things up a bit. We have sections under 'British Colonisation' that I think large sections of our 'Twentieth century' section should likely be moved to. Cannery etc should be moved into the 'Explotation of natural wealth' or whatever that section is, and a new section opened (If there isn't one already) for infrastructure (where telephony can go). It seems now that you have to dig through alot of (relativly) unimportant crap to acctually read through the Island's 'important' history in the 20th century section, about its import as a base for the Navy etc. Whats the view? Narson (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I was already thinking that it needed some re-arrangement. Personally I'd suggest its only the 20th century section that really needs some work, the previous sections have essentially related linear time. The addition of some level 2 headings and a little re-arrangement would distinctly improved the readability. Happy to make some suggestions if that helps. Justin talk 23:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
OK had a stab at it, not sure if it improved a great deal. Comments? Criticisms? Justin talk 00:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The new edits are fine, I think this stuff has to be included. I disagree with Narson that some of this is "relatively unimportant crap" - it provided people with jobs, a livelihood, and improved their lives, so hardly "unimportant". You try living without a telephone in the modern age - it can be done, but it's difficult. Even more difficult when you're forced to emigrate due to lack of choices in employment.

What would in fact be unimportant to the islanders, would be the fruitless rambling between London and Buenos Aires, which didn't involve them, and frequently involved only "sabre rattling". When some British minister shuttles to BAs and comes back with nothing, without consulting the islanders, then that's actually unimportant, although it may well generate fears. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uti Possidetis

My understanding of the doctrine of Uti Possidetis is that it refers to sovereignty gained from the occupation of territory after a conflict. Spain left her colony in 1811, 5 years before Argentina's declaration of independence, its war of independence and Argentina never actually occupied the islands till much later. So arguably the doctrine would not apply but I realise this is WP:OR and don't propose to edit on that basis.

I nonetheless have concerns that whilst this claim is allowed to remain in the article it reflects Argentina's claim and fails WP:NPOV - Argentina's claim is adequately explained under the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. I would suggest that a more neutral intro would be to state that Argentina asserted a claim to the Falklands as the "Malvinas" had been administered from the Vice Royalty of the Rio de la Plata. Thoughts and input welcome. Justin talk 15:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of an edit summary - finger trouble. Justin talk 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)