Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#rfc 2B48A1B

@Roger 8 Roger I understand you may feel as if the Perón-Wilson Condominium Solution has a problem of weighting, but you would realize it is definitely not a minor point if you read its content. On the contrary, it even called my attention that it was never even mentioned once in the article. The importance of the proposal is evidenced by several reasons:

• It was the occasion when Argentina came closest to regaining sovereignty over the islands through diplomatic means (as President Perón had already expressed his approval of the British proposal).

• It was, in turn, the closest occasion to a change in the political status of the islands.

• Not only that, but it also happened a few years before the Falklands War, making it a key precedent to the conflict.

In conclusion, even if you disagree with the weighting, it is a relevant event that needs to at least be covered. As a solution, you can add it in the way you believe is most suitable for the article's weighting. Rax9000 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:Those reasons for its importance are just your opinion. You need a secondary source to confirm their importance. If the idea was so important, why has it never been raised before and why have you had to resort to a low grade Argentinian source and a primary source - the copy of a page from the Daily Mail? There is a lot more to the post WW2 discussions between Argentina and the UK than just this condominium idea, which went nowhere. IMO, and others will disagree, this article is far from ideal and would benefit from a major overhaul, but adding bits here and there like your condo contribution doesn't really do anything to improve the article - it just adds something else that has to be removed or put in context when that larger re-arrangement does happen - if it ever does. Why not reduce your paragraph to a phrase, or at most a sentence? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

::I found better sources backing the existence of the proposal, it took me a bit of time, so I hope you appreciate it ☺:

::Here are two pages by the Argentine government (one being the chancellery) affirming the existence of such proposal:

::* https://cancilleria.gob.ar/es/politica-exterior/cuestion-malvinas/antecedentes/periodo-1966-1982

::* https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/malvinas_e_islas_del_atlantico_sur.pdf (page 41)

::In the news source I used (which is one of the most important in Argentina and its content was approved by The Trust Project) the former Argentine ambassador to the United Kingdom, Ortiz de Rozas, is interviewed and he affirms the existence of this proposal:

::* https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/la-propuesta-secreta-de-los-ingleses-a-peron-por-las-malvinas-nid1455991/

::Here are some achaedemic sources from different universities affirming the existence of such proposal:

::* https://dspace.unila.edu.br/server/api/core/bitstreams/2a125e3e-1c8c-4567-937e-79f8332bccb5/content

::* https://revistas.uvigo.es/index.php/mns/article/download/3114/2911/6223

::* https://cupea.unr.edu.ar/index.php/revista/article/download/152/143/313

::{{Blockquote|text=your condo contribution doesn't really do anything to improve the article - it just adds something else}} As you said, if adding this information does not improve the article then that is just your personal opinion, and I explained before a few reasons for its relevancy.

:: {{Blockquote|text=There is a lot more to the post WW2 discussions between Argentina and the UK than just this condominium idea, which went nowhere.}} If you read the content, you would know that it simply did not go nowhere, Perón died 20 days after the proposal, and Argentina fell into a huge political chaos because of that. Regardless, I do not understand why you brought this up: I never denied post WWII discussions between Argentina and the UK, nor I see why the existence of other discussions prevents me from adding this one. Still, none of them went as far as the British proposing a condominium status over the Islands and the Argentines agreeing to it, making this much more relevant. "why has it never been raised before" as i said in my previous message, I was surprised myself it has not, and that is why I'm here.

::{{Blockquote|text=Why not reduce your paragraph to a phrase, or at most a sentence?}} If it only deserves a sentence is completely subjective, but I don't mind reducing it. Even still, it is a mildly complex idea to reduce to just a sentence. Only if you want, you can give me a hand writing it. Rax9000 (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:::(BTW, the Daily Mail clip I said was primary, isn't primary).

::: I think you're missing the point. This article is about the sovereignty dispute, 1764 onwards. There is a lot involved in the dispute, more the a whole paragraph dealing with what is only one part of another part (1965-82 relations) of another part (post WW2 relations). That's why weighting becomes an issue and why I suggested writing no more than a sentence (that still has to be in context with the text around it). Being so important it deserves a whole paragraph is only your opinion. It went nowhere - good, we agree. The UK discussed ceding the Falklands to Argentina on a leaseback scheme, which is more of a concession than a condominium, but that also went nowhere, so why not add a paragrapgh about that too or instead? It has better sources too. About sources, IMO. most Argentine sources have to be treated with care because there is a lot of false information (UK sources also have to be treated carefully at times but IMO less so for fabrication.) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:::It's not about what I want - it's what the community wants. As I said, I think this article needs a complete overhaul, which is why I try to keep away because others might disagree and a complete overhaul takes a lot of time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

::::I'm looking through your various sources, which are sort of interesting, but they all amount to Argentina trying to strengthen its very weak hand. Sovereignty is with the UK, that is an undisputable fact whichever way you look at it. What Argentina and most Argentine sources are trying to do is convence people that morally sovereignty should be with Argentina due to events that took place 200 years ago. There are very good moral arguments that say sovereignty should be with the UK based on events 200 years ago as well.

::::There were negotiations between 1965-1982 about resolving the dispute, which included sovereignty, but they went nowhere, except to a war started by Argentina. Your paragraph is simply one part of those negotiations. Your Argentine govt source above is making out that sovereignty would have been ceded if only the UK government hadn't listened to the UK public, so we should all feel sympathetic to the Argentine position. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{Blockquote|text=but they all amount to Argentina trying to strengthen its very weak hand}}

:::::{{Blockquote|text=What Argentina and most Argentine sources are trying to do is convence people that morally sovereignty should be with Argentina due to events that took place 200 years ago.}}

:::::{{Blockquote|text=Your Argentine govt source above is making out that sovereignty would have been ceded if only the UK government hadn't listened to the UK public, so we should all feel sympathetic to the Argentine position.}}

:::::What you are saying can most definitely be true, but I only wanted to prove the existence of the Condominium Proposal. The focus of the discussion here is not the type of rhetoric used by most Argentines, as I will only limit myself to add the existence of a Condominium proposal and that's it. As I said, you can give me a hand writing it, so there is no need to worry about all that.

:::::{{Blockquote|text=The UK discussed ceding the Falklands to Argentina on a leaseback scheme, which is more of a concession than a condominium, but that also went nowhere, so why not add a paragrapgh about that too or instead? It has better sources too.}}

:::::I have not heard from this discussion so I lack context. But from what you are telling me, that seems quite relevant and interesting too, so it would seem like a good idea to add it. In fact, it really interested me actually, so aside from this discussion, if you can please pass me any sources so I can read it about I'd thank you a lot.

:::::Anyways, we can do this if you agree. As you said, I will try to add it in a much more reduced way, and if you believe somethings needs to be changed, you can just modify it yourself instead of just undoing everything. As I mentioned it only happened a few years before the war, so it is a key precedent to add. Rax9000 (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::I think there you may have one issue. it did not go anywhere. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::@Slatersteven "As I mentioned it only happened a few years before the war, so it is a key precedent to add." It is not a discussion about whether it happened or not, because we all agree on that (and if proposals that did not happen do not deserve to be added is completely subjective to begin with, as they are part of the attempts to resolve the dispute, but that is not the point). What matters is that it was a few years prior to the war, and the only reason it went nowhere is because Perón died and not because any side regretted the idea istelf. It is relevant for the context and precedents behind the start of the war. Rax9000 (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::::No , was it a significant turn of events that had an impact (see wp:undue)? Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:I support adding the condominium proposal to the article, its one of the few instances both sides came close to reaching a diplomatic solution and that makes it relevant. It also adds some valuable details about the pre-war negotiations. But, you should definitely shorten the text. It's too long. The condominium proposal can't take up the same amount of space as the 1982 war. One event is clearly more relevant than the other.

:Speaking of weight, I will be removing the Jewett quote. It doesn't add any interesting details that aren't already provided by the preceding paragraph and it just takes up space. Bob meade (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

::Yes, I compromise to shorten it as much as I can Rax9000 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:::"From the 1960s until the 1982 invasion, ongoing discussions to resolve the dispute took place, which included the options of a condominium and leaseback arrangement." How about that? You could add one of your sources about a condo and find another about leaseback, at least one of which should also confirm ongoing discussions. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Yes that works. Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

::::I'd like to see Rax9000's revised proposal before commenting. Bob meade (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, new contributor here. Just wanted to point out an inconsistency in the "Timeline of De Facto Control" infobox as it currently stands:

> January 1765 – July 1770: Great Britain

> February 1767 – February 1811: Spain

> September 1771 – May 1774: Great Britain

Specifically, both the start and end for Spanish control overlap the surrounding time ranges. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how more than one country can be in "de facto" control of a territory at the same time. So who was in control in 1769? Was it Spain or Great Britain? As a reader I can't tell from this infobox.

I would edit myself but I don't know what the correct years are for Spanish control, if any. Jotto69 (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:Because both nations controlled part of it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::Ah, ok. I see now that there's information in the article supporting disputed/conflicting sovereignty claims at that time. However, I still think the way the infobox is currently organized is a confusing way to present this information (as a reader I don't expect a linear timeline to have overlapping dates). Perhaps it could be amended to something like:

::> April 1764 - January 1765: France

::> January 1765 - February 1767: [disputed between France and Great Britain]

::> February 1767 - July 1770: [disputed between Great Britain and Spain]

::> July 1770 - September 1771: Spain

::> September 1771 - May 1774: [disputed between Great Britain and Spain]

::> May 1774 - February 1811: Spain

::[no change to the rest of the table as there aren't any other overlaps]

::Please ignore my comment if this sort of change violates established Wikipedia consensus on sovereignty timeline infoboxes. Jotto69 (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The problem is, that there was not a dispute between England and Spain, as then Falksdbna con sits of two islands we had one, they had the other and both sides seemed OK with that. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The "First Sovereignty Disputes" section of the article sure reads like there was a dispute, and that both claimants wanted the entire territory. If each side only wanted one of the two islands as you claim, then that section of the article should be edited to make that clear (assuming you have sources to back that up).

::::Anyway, I'm not married to the word "disputed". I'd just like to find some solution for the infobox that explicitly addresses why the timelines overlap (I did find the chart a little further down very helpful; perhaps the infobox could have a note linking to that chart?) Jotto69 (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:Is not a surprise the info is given in a specific order to support the British claims over the territory. Just like the info about America's discovery being supposedly the Vikings the ones arriving first, which will make the British being once again "the rightful owners" of the territory for "always" being the first to arrive everywhere and the rest of the world are always the invaders. In English narrative the facts will always be Great Britain arrived first, established first, owned first, people identify as British and nothing more, etc, etc. Always re-writing history to make it fit to their claims about owning the entire planet. Nin2n (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)