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

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)

POV Pushing re: "occupation"

An editor today is trying to force this article to refer to this event as an "occupation". This is, as has been discussed repeatedly before, both inaccurate and severely biased. The British in fact did not "occupy" the islands in any meaningful way in 1833. They left no new settlers, no new troops, no new additional people of any kind. As the article describes, this "occupation" consisted of asking the existing settlers to run up a Union Jack whenever they saw a ship.

The rest of the edit is similarly strongly pro-Argentine POV, including using WP:SCAREQUOTES around the word "re-assert" (which is a perfectly accurate word in context, as has been repeatedly discussed before) and adopting the WP:FRINGE usage the Spanish name of the islands in English. Kahastok talk 23:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the use of "reassertion" does not connote legitimacy although I can see why someone might perceive otherwise. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:C5E1:1685:F8CC:6D84 (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)