Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

Foradori-Duncan Agreement

Using this as a cite [1] this edit was added [2]. It was removed with the comment that this isn't a rolling commentary, due to the long standing convention that we don't report on every pronouncement made on demands for negotiations. I do note that the Foradori-Duncan agreement wasn't mentioned.

The article is incorrect, the agree to disagree pact was made in 1989 and is part of the Madrid accords. The main elements of the Foradori-Duncan were:

1. 2nd flight from Brazil with a stop over in Argentina
2. Provision for DNA identification on Argentine soldiers buried as unknowns.
3. Co-operation on topics of mutual interest eg fishing, since Argentina withdrew from sharing quota and catch data in 1999.
4. A bunch of other "stuff" setting up a bilateral exchange.

It was hated from the moment it was signed by the Peronists, who jumped on the excuse that the Foreign Minister was allegedly drunk - based on a UK conspiracy website. It was only a matter of time before a Kirchner government would kill it.

Personally I think not mentioning the agreement was a mistake, it should be mentioned in the article and other agreements all broken by Argentina, if for nothing else to show that Argentina has broken every agreement made with the UK. However, I'd suggest that the edit based on an erroneous newspaper article is perhaps not the best. Knowing the passions raised by any mention of the dispute bringing it to talk to get a consensus before editing.

Couple of sources to set the ball rolling [3], [4], [5], [6] WCM_email 14:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Page move (reverted)

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)

Timeline correction

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)

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)

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)