Jump to content

Talk:Arana–Southern Treaty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content

[edit]

This article explains too much about what is not mentioned in the treaty, and too little, if anything at all, about what was mentioned in it. The military conflict that led to this treaty, and the things in dispute during it, had not been the Malvinas. It was about the free navigation of the Argentine rivers, and the role of Argentina supporting Manuel Oribe against Fructuoso Rivera in the Uruguayan civil war (for some people, it was a conflict between Rosas and Rivera, with Oribe supporting Rosas, and others it was between Oribe and Rivera, with Rosas supporting Oribe). Yes, it's XIX century stuff that may be "boring" for modern readers, but it is the core and reason of the existence of this treaty, not a side consequence. You may explain the consequences over that soveregnity dispute at a section, but the body of the article should be about the actual content of the treaty. Cambalachero (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. The Treaty of Utrecht article doesn't even have a mention to the Falklands dispute. --Langus (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because Utrecht has nothing to do with the Falklands dispute. May I remind you both that wikipedia isn't censored. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not censored: the articles on sex or body parts will not have their images removed simply because some republican may find them offensive. Which is the relation with the Arana-Southern treaty? Cambalachero (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because I have seen both of you apparently seeking to justify the removal of content on the basis it contradicts Argentina's modern sovereignty claim to the Falkland Islands rather than relevance to the article. It should be expanded with material about the military conflict and the dispute rather than have material removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed rather than rewritten because of an alleged "copyright violation". Mmm, my point is proven I think. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WCM, you're hurting your credibility. Have you even read WP:COATRACK? Here's a relevant section:
Regards. --Langus (t) 23:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have noted had you reviewed my edit that I had trimmed off the excessive references to the Falklands and reduced it to a balanced comment. The relevance is clear as can be evidenced by recent statements e.g [1]. Your accusation of producing biased content is highly offensive. As regards notability thats clearly established and what is needed to round off the article is more background material not "fluff". Wee Curry Monster talk 08:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, copyright violations are non-negotiable and must be removed immediately, period. This is a step higher than any other concern about the content. I removed the copyright violations immediately, as WCM would have done as well if he had noticed it first (having them linger around waiting for some cosmetic changes is not an acceptable solution either). And the word "alleged" may be removed, the site is mentioned in the edit summary and the copyright violations are still in the article history, anyone can check that they copyright violations indeed. Having said that, I must clarify that my interest in the islands and the sovereignty dispute is just the same basic interest I have for all topics related to my country, it is not a priority for me when I choose which articles I will create or edit. My main interests are the war of independence and the civil war... and that's precisely the reason why I'm here, not because I may be interested in minor side consequences of the Arana-Southern treaty, but because I'm interested in the topics the treaty was really about, and I don't like it being treated as a mere coatrack article. Even if the article was refactored to remove the copyright violations, it still focus too much on a side consequence and neglects the actual content of the treaty. The context is an advance, but it is not enough: the article is about the treaty, not about the military conflict, so it must specify and explain the content of the treaty. By the way, the original article lacked a very important info: the derogation of the treaty, by British request and Argentine agreement (Rosas was no longer in power by then), just 3 years afterwards. Without it, it seemed as if the treaty was still in force, when it is not. I may go into full detail, if needed, into the Argentines opposing Rosas, who supported the British against him, saw the treaties as a "betrayal", and sought to erase any remain of his rule after deposing him in Caseros (so to expect them to desire that the treaty continued is plain unrealistic, and in fact it did not happen). And of course, the British did not want the treaty, they were forced by circumstances into signing it, and gladly undone it all as soon as Rosas was removed from the scene and a loyal government was ruling instead: just 3 months is a clear proof of such desire. Cambalachero (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would have removed a copyright violation the moment I recognised it but I would also have re-written the article to remove the offending material. Equally I not unnaturally take exception to the accusations being levelled. The derogation of the treaty is of course relevant and the British did want free navigation but and its a big but this does not mean that pre-existing disputes were revived. Thats the meaning of derogation vs abrogation. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the treaty was derogated, but it was not. All you've pointed to is references which say that the diplomats suggested it - not that it was carried out. In fact the material sourced from the same place says that a navigation agreement was signed - nothing about the treaty being actually derogated. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Arana

[edit]

I've found a drawing of Felipe Arana in es.wiki and I tried to include it in the article, but I couldn't get it to work. Also I don't know if we should transfer it to en.wiki or just use it from there.

I really should be going, so I'll leave you the link for you to decide: http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Archivo:Felipe_Arana.JPG

I couldn't find one of Henry Southern, but it would be nice to have both.

Regards. --Langus (t) 23:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK tag

[edit]

Slapping tags as a mark of shame, rather than improving the article as requested is disruptive. As evidenced by the removal of content yesterday, the issue appears to be dislike of the content for reasons of nationalist ideology rather than lack of notability. The details have already been trimmed to remove unnecessary duplication so the WP:COATRACK tag is unneeded. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism or personal tastes have nothing to do with this: the article focus on a minor side consequence, and not the actual content of the treaty, as detailed above. Cambalachero (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for notability, Google is your friend. 91 books mention the exact words "Arana Southern" (no surprise, this is a very specific and detailed topic). No results for the exact words "Convention of Settlement" plus the word "Rosas" (there are other "Convention of Settlement"). And certainly no results (besides this very wikipedia article) for "Arana Southern" plus the word "Falklands". Which means that no book link the two concepts (this treaty and the sovereignty dispute) toguether. So, doing it here is incorrect. With or without a template pointing this problem, the article should talk about its real topic, and fit the impact into the dispute in a single section, if kept at all. Cambalachero (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, Google is sometimes your friend, you'll note 3 books referenced in the article (2 x Argentine and 1 Mexican) that make the link, as well as statements by the British Government and Argentine officials. Notability has already been established and thats a rather weak attempt to claim it hasn't. Its not entirely unsurprising that Google Books Argentina doesn't turn up too many hits with "Falklands" in the search term [2] the English wikipedia does however. And whilst you assert you're not acting out of nationalism or personal interest and I accept that claim in good faith, I merely comment that you're seeking to remove information that is embarassing to the nationalist agenda of your country. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derogation

[edit]

The page "False Falklands History at the United Nations How Argentina misled the UN in 1964 – and still does" does not say what it is referenced to say: it simply skips the whole Hotham-Saint Georges mission, and does not say a word about it. Of course it does not: it would weaken their argument. Better to say that Argentina signed the treaty, and leave it at that, so that the reader may understand by that ommision that the treaty simply stayed. That's a half-truth, not the truth, and the article must reflect all aspects of the topic. Even those that weaken the Argentine claim... and those that weaken the British claim too.

We should not forget either who are we using as a reference. Read again the title of the work: just from there, it is evident that it will not be impartial or follow a neutral point of view. If I bringed "lasmalvinassonargentinas.com" or "fuerapiratasdemalvinas.org" as references, they would be rejected and with good reason; I expect the same thing from the other side. Cambalachero (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err it wouldn't actually Derogation Derogation is the partial revocation of a law, as opposed to abrogation or the total abolition of a law. Removing part of the treaty, the navigation of the river, does not invalidate other elements or revive settled disputes. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urquiza's navigation agreement

[edit]

After reviewing the Argentine sources we've been able to refine the Derogation section, rename it and strengthen the text to reflect the Hotham-Saint Georges mission and focus on the purpose of that mission, which was to open the rivers of Argentina to trade ships. The Argentine documents show that an agreement was signed. It does show that it was suggested that the Arana-Southern treaty was derogated, but there is no evidence that this was ever put into effect. The treaty only mentions in section IV:

IV. Her Britannic Majesty's Government recognizes the navigation of the River Parana to be an inland navigation of the Argentine Confederation, and subject solely to its laws and regulations, in the same manner as that of the River Uruguay in common with the Oriental State.

The navigation agreement reached between Urquiza and the agents of Britain, France and the United States allowed trade ships to navigate the Argentine rivers without having to stop at Buenos Aires first. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arana-Southern Treaty and its unclear relationship with Argentina's claims.

[edit]

The Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article currently states:

I'd like to know which part(s) of the treaty 'end all possible claims by Argentina' on the islands, as neither said article nor this one seem to clarify it. Thank you in advance. --190.19.75.190 (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Pascoe & Pepper papers make it quite clear that under international law, as Argentina had not included the Falklands/Malvinas issue in the peace treaty, they had acquiesced. Under international law, any dispute has to be re-issued every year, or the claim is lost. Argentina not only failed to mention it was outstanding, but they failed to raise the issue as a dispute with Britain for years afterwards. Therefore the claim lapsed and failed. Even Argentine historians and politicians agree that this one point alone could completely invalidate the Argentine claim. A peace treaty has to include any outstanding issues and as Argentina didn't, they mucked up. In my view, General Rosas was more concerned with getting the treaty than with including the Falklands issue, because he knew it would be a sticking point. Britain was not going to sign the treaty if there was an ongoing issue. Rosas was also an Anglophile. He admired the British and recognised that peaceful relations meant that trade could restart sooner, which meant taxes, which meant revenue for Rosas personally.

The introduction and the ratification document of the Convention speak of “putting an end to the existing differences” and to “the settlement of existing differences” between Britain and Argentina, and the title and Article VII say that “perfect friendship” or “perfect relations of friendship” between Britain and Argentina are restored by the Convention. So, once the Convention had been ratified, “the existing differences” between Argentina and Britain had been settled and “perfect friendship” between the two countries had been restored. It is noteworthy that the Falklands were not mentioned once, neither during the negotiations on the Convention, nor in the text of the treaty itself. From Britain that was to be expected: Britain’s position was that the islands were British and were nothing to do with Argentina. But from Argentina that was remarkable – a peace treaty normally “resets the clock” in the relations between its signatories, and in signing and ratifying it without adding a reserve of sovereignty, or even any mention of the Argentine claim, Argentina was allowing the new situation to reflect Britain’s view that the islands were British. The Convention of Settlement ended Argentina’s protests over the Falklands. After the Message to Congress in December 1849, the Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress for 91 years until 1941. The Messages had been a natural forum for Argentina’s annual protests from 1833 to 1849 inclusive, and remained a top-level diplomatic forum that sometimes dealt in detail with Argentina’s territorial disputes with other countries (Chile and Brazil), but the Falklands were not mentioned at all. Argentina did not mention the Falklands in any way to Britain for 34 years until 1884, and there was no Argentine diplomatic protest against the possession of the Falklands by Britain for 38 years until January 1888. And after the protest of 1888 there was no diplomatic protest by Argentina to Britain for the rest of the 19th century and well into the 20th. The totally different behaviour of Argentina before and after the Convention of Settlement strongly supports Lord Palmerston’s statement about Argentina’s acquiescence. Not only that; in the decades following the Convention, Argentina gave many clear indications that the Falklands dispute with Britain had ended. It is impossible to reconcile the Convention of Settlement with any idea of a continuing Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands. By that Convention, Argentina accepted that the Falklands were British.Nigelpwsmith (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several parts of the Convention mention the desire to seek perfect relations of friendship, in accordance with the wishes manifested by both Governments;(preamble) and the desire of putting an end to the differences which have interrupted the political and commercial relations between the 2 countries (Article I). But it is this Article (VII) which is the clincher:

VII. Under this Convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.

Any outstanding dispute would be incompatible with a state of perfect friendship or good understanding and cordiality.

By agreeing to perfect friendship, Argentina accepted the sovereign ownership of the Falklands, held by Britain at that time.Nigelpwsmith (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside...

The strongest British claim is the rights of the Falkland Islanders to their own land and self-determination. Argentina persists in ignoring them, because if they were to recognise them, then they would have to give up the claim. However, as far as the British are concerned, it is the wishes of the Islanders that comes first. So Argentina will never get sovereignty talks unless the Islanders wish it and because Argentina refuses to recognise them, the Islanders will refuse to have talks. It's a classic Catch-22.

The basic Raison D'etre for any Government is to protect its citizens from foreign attack. Hence the belligerence of the United States after 9/11. If the 9/11 attack had been outside America, then the response would have been muted, because Americans would not really care. But because it was on American soil and threatened the security of Americans in their homes and place of work, the US Government was obligated to respond with everything short of nuclear weapons.

In the same way the British Government is completely obligated to defend the Falkland Islanders, no matter what. Any Government that failed to do so would not only fail to be re-elected, but the Monarch would be compelled to dismiss Parliament to force an election. The extent of the obligation is such that the United Kingdom would use all of its resources to recover the islands - no matter what the cost. If conventional weapons could not yield a clear victory, then the United Kingdom would not hesitate to breach treaty obligations to ensure victory. To put it simply, there is no way that Argentina could get away with aggression twice.

With that in mind and the fact that Argentina continues to ignore the Islanders and their rights, there is a permanent stalemate in effect, in which Argentina's constitutional and national aspirations can never be achieved. That is until they remove the obligation to recover the Falkland Islands.Nigelpwsmith (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This interpretation of what the Arana-Southern Treaty might or might not imply is truly very interesting, but it's unclear for me why it is here. As an example, I looked at the Diego_Garcia article, which touches on the subject of the claim mentioned by Nigelpwsmith regarding right of self determination. One could easily draw a relationship with the Falklands/Malvinas subject, as it has been made and there are original works about it, but looking at the mentioned entry in Wikipedia there are no references to that relationship, because (and this is my guess) it really isn't pertinent to the article about the Diego Garcia island. Just as the matter of the Falklands/Malvinas is not pertinent to this article about the Arana-Southern treaty.
There are indeed tons of treaties, legal precedents and articles that an imaginative mind could (and do) use to try to tip the scale in one way or another, but should the Falklands/Malvinas matter be pinned to them?
I personally still find the argument interesting, as it obviously does Nigelpwsmith, but my point is: that's irrelevant. Perhaps this treaty should be mentioned in a Wiki article discussing the claims of sovereignty, but not the other way around, like it is the case here.192.109.190.88 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question...

[edit]

I don't understand the reason for this removal... Wee? --Langus (t) 19:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the same recommendation you did. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But those documents are not being used as a reference... Am I missing it? --Langus (t) 22:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that wasn't the only reason listed. Is there a particular reason you only want to listen to half the advice. I've restored both links waiting for your answer. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a question right above you that basically says: what is the other part of the advice that you allege this reference doesn't fullfill? --Langus (t) 04:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Quote advice


Whilst there is a lot of background material in the form of correspondence, could you point to the treaty? And yes I did look. Now did I really have to point this out? Were you unable to figure it out? And does the edit summary "oh good lord" indicate your presumption of good faith? Or am I to blame for your presumption of bad faith, same as it was my bad faith that missed your courtesy notice. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tiny mention, but P&P's pro-UK pamphlet does actually mention the A-S Treaty, so by that editor's advice, it should be included. I'd argue more on the basis of including such a biased source, but that's another discussion.
"Or am I to blame for your presumption of bad faith, same as it was my bad faith that missed your courtesy notice", you mean like the courtesy notice you forgot to leave when you raised the argument being talked about here in the NPOV Noticeboard and which I had the fortune to find by myself? I guess it's bad faith only when another user does it uh Wee? Gaba p (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STALK Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha sure Wee, it's either that or... maybe, could it be that I'm watching this article just like you are? Remember: assume good faith. Gaba p (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gaba, how politically incorrect of you to point out Wee's double standards ;)
(but you're right)
The P&P's pamphlet has to be removed because it is already being used a reference. This was suggested in accordance to WP:ELDUP.
On the other hand, this link has the correspondence between Felipe Arana and Henry Southern, which constitutes a great insight to the conflict and the negotiation process. It doesn't refer to it as "the Southern-Arana treaty" for obvious reasons, but pages 101 to 161 show the diplomatic interchange which ultimately led to the Convention.
So yes, it was pretty much impossible to figure out what you meant, WCM. --Langus (t) 01:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it doesn't have a reference to the Southern-Arana Treaty as I thought and the very guideline you're referencing (copied and bolded above) suggests its removal. Double standards eh? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're smart enough as to understand that a topic can have more than one name or one way to refer to it (see Opium Wars and Anglo-Chinese Wars for example). When the source talks about "the Convention of Peace" is talking about "the Southern-Arana Treaty". Am I missing something here? Is that your argument for removal? --Langus (t) 00:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3] oh good lord, [4] Sigh and then the above. Gaba, how politically incorrect of you to point out Wee's double standards ;) and (but you're right) and I believe you're smart enough and Am I missing something here? Is that your argument for removal? . Yet again you're more interested in making smart alec remarks but if I make the slightest objection you'll scream like a girl that I'm assuming bad faith.

I have taken the trouble to explain why I removed it but it seems you're more interested in picking a fight. I restored both as a gesture of good faith but now I'm just going to remove both again. Good day. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there a particular reason you only want to listen to half the advice", "same as it was my bad faith that missed your courtesy notice" (when you don't follow that rule yourself as Gaba P pointed out), "double standards", "you'll scream like a girl that I'm assuming bad faith". It takes two to tango. I wouldn't use such remarks if you were not so elusive. E.g. you didn't address my last comment: when the source talks about "the Convention of Peace" (p.101-161) it is talking about "the Southern-Arana Treaty". Do you agree? --Langus (t) 19:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That I might be econonical in my replies may have something to do with the fact you subject every one to forensic examination and argue endlessly and tediously over every point. Which you'll then use as an excuse to revert my edits claiming we don't yet have a consensus.
That I may differ from my usual modus operandi and not bother with a courtesy notice maybe because I know my contributions are being watched.
And I didn't bother answering your so-called question, mainly because I'd already answered it, twice. The treaty isn't mentioned in any of its guises, and I didn't answer for a third time mainly because I didn't feel the need to point out you were being WP:DICKish about it.
Now this may come as a surprise to you but I would much rather be working on articles that indulging you in your predilection to subject every edit to nitpicking. Get a sense of perspective, if you can't accept your edits are going to be tweaked by other editors, you really should think about finding something else to do. You insist on taking things to ridiculous lengths every time there is the smallest disagreement Wee Curry Monster talk 21:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you don't seem to wish to take my word for why this is not suitable for the external links section, see WP:ELYES and if you're still not convinced take it to WP:ELN. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha that's an entirely new argument!
I gladly accept tweaks when they have a reason, but not when they are based on false premises. Doing so wouldn't feel right, it's totally unfair. To me, it's morally wrong to just accept such an action.
I don't understand what you saw in WP:ELYES, but I've been advised that a link to a book would be more appropriate in the WP:FURTHERREADING section. That is a good reason, a point that makes sense. However, I fear that we would need a similar British source to maintain a balance, according to the draft guideline at WP:Further_reading.
Oh and I assure you I'm not watching your contributions. You're not that important, my friend. ;) --Langus (t) 00:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an edit proposal and is that an admission I was correct that it isn't a suitable External Link? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.falklandshistory.org/getting-it-right.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arana–Southern Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arana–Southern_Treaty&oldid=1204937103"