Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 8

Archiving

I've been bold and archived this talk page as yet again it was getting unmanageable. I assume the discussion was finished, if not it can always be resurrected. Justin talk 09:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice way to kill discussion in the discussion page. Can't have any of that. Bravo.66.190.29.150 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh grow up and stop trying to start an argument, any topic can easily be resurrected from archive. Justin talk 19:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You telling people to grow up is quite rich. You are an abusive, british POV pushing wiki stalker who would rather destroy wikis than add anything useful to them if that information is ever so slightly not favorable to your british biases.66.190.29.150 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh Justin, you imperialist pirate, when will your secret conspiracy to "destroy wikis" end??? LOL!!! Ryan4314 (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that user about british bias. I think that is needed a not NPOV tag. I read the page and is british POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.105.227 (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:

2) Now on the articles' issue here, I always understood that the islanders want to be Islanders ...............Shame.Charlie (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Its more of a shame that there are long pointless rants here. --Gibnews (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The article History of the falklands covers quite a lot of the details about the white carc etc, mostly unsourced of course unfortunately. BennyTec (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, if its just rants for you, then i'll just delete it and leave it at that Charlie (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

BennyTec, Thanks, I'd forgotten about that and its a good decent article. I hope you do find sources soon though, maybe from local texts or newspapers Charlie (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I will have more of a dig around at some stage. There must be some more sources out there somewhere but finding ones online may be more difficult.... BennyTec (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want a source for the "white card" I introduced that from material in Graham Bounds book. Justin talk 19:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Trains

Are there any railways on the Islands? Drutt (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't, just planes, boats and cars mostly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.65 (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A Mere Bagatelle

The article now informs us that the area of the Falkland Islands is 4,700 square miles or 12,000 km². This piece of information is attributed - by means of a broken link - to the CIA Factbook, which actually says that the islands have an area of 12,173km² [1]. The difference between what the source says and what the CIA Factbook actually says is, 173km² or 66.796 square miles or 42,749 acres or two thirds of the area of Weddell Island.

Some rounding error!

Justin A Kuntz introduced this inaccuracy into the article. It is his responsibility to correct the inaccuracy and fix the broken link. Michael Glass (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that 4700 square miles is exactly 12173 km² see [2]. The CIA factbook converted a square mile figure into different units. Nice to see you checking figures. Justin talk 15:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And see WP:MOSNUM for guidelines on figures, your concern is appreciated. Justin talk 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Very close but not exact.. See [3] Where is your evidence that the CIA factbook converted a square mile figure into square kilometres? Your primary source is the CIA factbook and it is your responsibility to ensure that the primary source is not misrepresented. It is also your responsibility to repair the broken link to the evidence. Michael Glass (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't misrepresented. You seriously need to get a sense of perspective. Justin talk 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin, nearly 43,000 acres is an error of some magnitude. It's an error of more than 1% of the total area of the Falkland Islands. All I am insisting on is that the article quotes the source accurately. That means, letting the figure 14,173 stand. Not a big ask, is it? Have you got what it takes to let that figure stand? Michael Glass (talk)

Except it isn't an error, 4700 sq mi is that 12173 sq km you're obsessed with. And as per WP:MOSNUM it is perfectly acceptable to round up to 12000 sq km. The edit is perfectly acceptable, you're being unneccessarily disruptive merely because you didn't get your own way. Now give it a rest. Justin talk 08:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

14,173 does not equal 14,000. All I am asking is that you change one number to agree with the figure given in the source quoted. If you regard this request as being disruptive then it is not a rational reaction. Michael Glass (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do regard your compulsive niggling about this to be disruptive. Please stop. Justin talk 14:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith on both parts. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Units of Measurement: What is the consensus?

Let's admit it, the subject of units of measurement in this article has been one of acrimonious debate this year. There are several possible positions that people could take:

1 Metric first as a general rule.

2 Imperial first as a general rule.

3 Imperial first as a general rule, except for temperatures in Celsius.

4 Follow the source of the information as a general rule.

I favour the metric system, of course, but the general rule of following the source of information would be fine by me.

What do others think, especially those who actually contribute to this article? Michael Glass (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Imperial first as per the existing consensus and returning to this subject on this article is getting more than a little pointy. As does your final pointy point; way to go to avoid acrimony. For your information I have contributed extensively on Falklands related articles. Justin talk 12:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Metrics first. Let's have no hint of British imperialism here. In fact, the article needs a little cleansing of POV in that respect. Some people would be offended; and Argentinians outraged after their 1000 drowned men, all with families. Tony (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That comment is outrageous and totally out of order. Justin talk 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. You (Tony) entirely fail to assume good faith, and this is totally inappropriate. Pfainuk talk 17:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The current consensus is imperial-first as discussed here extensively previously (including in the last discussion which ended just last week) - and any change from that standard requires a change in consensus. My own personal preference, of the options listed, is option 3 - imperial first except for temperatures - but will also support the status quo (imperial-first). I object to a move to all metric-first: we should use the units in common use on the islands - and the Islanders are generally more likely to use imperial units than even the British are.

For the record I have also contributed extensively on this article and other Falklands-related topics. Pfainuk talk 17:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see that there's imperial sensitivity coming out of the woodwork. It's understandable that after such an unfortunate history, those who live on the Falklands or have an interest in it from a British perspective might be keen to cling to colonial signals, and what better one than imperial units. I note also that there's a certain skew in the article towards a self-justifying stance, apart from the current discussion on units. This should be examined carefully and corrected, I think. Tony (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you make a point of being gratuitously offensive about your fellow editors? It has nothing whatsoever to do with colonialism or Empire, there is no attempt to add a skew to anything. We've been accused by both Argentine and British editors of bias so clearly we're neither. You have entirely failed to assume good faith, from the very outset you've impugned the motives of other editors and that is not acceptable. Justin talk 12:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin, calm down. It was wrong of me to bait, and I apologise. I do, however, believe that a few aspects of the article need looking at from the NPOV perspective, although it's way down the list of my priorities. And I think metrics first is far more appropriate, but I'm not going to press it. Tony (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, 'colonial signals' if any are coming to the Falklands from their Argentine neighbours who aspire to take over a different nation against its will. However, should you feel offended by the term 'imperial measures', please feel free to use 'commonwealth measures' instead :-) Apcbg (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

With so much ocean, I wiould consider Nautical Miles to be more interesting. No real problem with having metric with no NM. 100 km is (supposed to be) exactly 54 NM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.69.144 (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I usually call them "US units". Tony (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine if the US and imperial systems of units were the same - but they're not. If a British bar served draught beer in US pints, its owner could expect a hefty fine. And they could expect the same fine if they were selling it in metric units. An imperial pint (this being the unit that UK law uses to define measures of draught beer) is fully 20% larger than a US pint - this is not an insignificant difference.

Similarly, if I took a 9-ton (imperial) British truck to the US, and tried to cross a bridge with a weight limit of 10 tons (US), I would be breaking the law. My truck would weigh 20,160 lbs, and the weight limit would be only 20,000 lbs. The ton of 2240 lbs is the only one that exists in the imperial system, but the US system has two different tons (the unadorned "ton" weighing only 2000 lbs).

By calling it the "imperial system" we are clear that, if any such units are to be used on this article, we will use the imperial versions as primary and convert to US and metric versions, as opposed to using US versions as primary and converting to imperial and metric versions. Pfainuk talk 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And last time I checked the USA used to be a colony (several colonies actually) in the relevant Empire, not the metropole where that system had had its origins :-)

Answering Michael's appeal for a straw poll. Personally, I am more accustomed to the metric system (metres, litres, Celsius etc.), the Imperial system is not my 'native' one so to say. But then I am contributing here in English that is not my native language either. Therefore, I would rather support keeping the present convention (Imperial first), and frankly, this controversy over the systems of measurment seems rather counterproductive to me, wasting good editors' time that could be better used for the advancement of Falklands-related articles. Apcbg (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just gone straight to the climate section, and been confused by the temperatures (55? 55!?), and I am English. Weather forecasts in the UK have been in Celsius for many years. TV and most publications don't give a Fahrenheit conversion. However, I don't know what standard usage is on the islands -- if it's different from Britain fair enough. Looking at .fk websites, government uses metric, everything else mixes (there is more metric, but still plenty of distances in miles). I don't see any Fahrenheit. ƕ (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As I count it, it appears that of actual editors of this article, two people have expressed a preference for imperial, one has expressed a preference for imperial plus Celsius temperatures, and one has expressed a preference for metric or following the source. One other has expressed a preference for metric. As no-one else has troubled to express an opinion the vote has been three to two in favour of Imperial. It's not exactly a consensus in my opinion, but I won't press the issue any further at this time. Michael Glass (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Metric. Imperial is illogical and hurts my head. :pSimonm223 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was over and that I was too late to cast a !vote, but I'm afraid to say it seems imperial seems more logical in this case. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that sometimes miles is abbreviated to "mi". This is fine in the US, but "mi" as an abbreviation does not exist and probably unknown to the average Briton. At most in the UK, the mile is badly abbreviated to "m" on road signs. I would suggest miles be written out in full. 212.203.105.186 (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So, err, the government references use metric units exclusively, most other references use almost exclusively metric units except for miles, and none of them use farenheit - why exactly does the article use non-metric units, call them what you will? I think the onus here needs to be on providing strong arguments for imperial|commonwealth|whatever units, otherwise they should be changed. (By the way, can we just call them imperial, since that's what they're known as, without being accused of colonialism??) CheesyBiscuit (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of Weatherbase

The weather chart in the article is based on information gained from Weatherbase. Who is weatherbase? A better known source is the BBC and this web page is relevant: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT004760>. As the Falkland Islands is a British territory, wouldn't it be preferable to use this respected British source? Michael Glass (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the table to the BBC version. Pfainuk talk 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Great work! Just one thing: I think it should be noted that the original is in metric units. Michael Glass (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. If people want to know what the source was, they're quite welcome to follow the link. I would note that the table is coded in metric units, and set by the parameters of the table to take imperial as primary as per consensus. Pfainuk talk 18:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Weatherbase is used often on pages to source that information, there is nothing to say it isn't reliable. One thing in its favour is it specifies the way it was calculated eg 8 years average, which the BBC does not. Personally I would have left it as it was but won't revert it and I'd remind our metric obsessed editor that the consensus on this article is to be consistently imperial first. Justin talk 09:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• The BBC is far better known than Weatherbase. In fact, it is not clear who Weatherbase is, except that it is an American site.
• The fact that the BBC is known and respected gives it the edge over a relatively obscure website. Reliability doesn't come into the equation.
• I asked that as the original is in metric units, this should be noted. I did not ask for the table to be metric first, even though this would be in line with the original and in conformity with modern British practice.
• "Metric-obsessed editor" is an example of incivility that I find unacceptable. I would ask Justin Kuntz to behave better. Michael Glass (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the sayings involving glass houses as well as geese. You are quite possibly one of the most uncivil editors it has ever been my displeasure to deal with. Justin talk 13:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Try a little common courtesy, Justin, and we'll get on better. However, if you resort to bullying and name-calling I'll stand up to you. Michael Glass (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not portray yourself as a victim, you instigate conflict with any editor that disagrees with you. Don't try to shift the blame to other editors either, when you're the one acting in a bullying and hectoring manner. I'm perfectly civil, if a little direct but I will not be bullied off a page by you. That is my final word, I'm not joining you in a slanging match. Justin talk 14:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My final comment at this point is to thank Pfainuk for his explanation about the coding of the table. I wondered why the table worked that way. I believe it would be better to have a note about the source units, but I won't press it further at this point. We don't always agree but I respect his contribution to the articles and the discussions about them. Michael Glass (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision of the history section

I have been trying to revise the history section of the article from this:

The English name of the islands is "[The] Falkland Islands". This name dates from 1690 when John Strong, who led an expedition to the islands, named the channel between the two main islands after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland. The Spanish name for the islands, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name "Îles Malouines", after the mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo who were the island's first known settlers, and bestowed on the islands by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764. The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".

to this:

The English name, "The Falkland Islands" derives from the English mariner, John Strong, who encountered the islands in 1690. He named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name extended to all the islands. . The French name "Îles Malouines", was bestowed on the islands by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764, after the mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo who were the island's first known settlers . The Spanish name for the islands, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name . The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" .

Please note the differences:

• The first one is without references, the second one is fully referenced.
• The first one is not in chronological order, the second one is.
• The only part of the wording that has been objected to is the part about John Strong.

Perhaps people can suggest a way of improving my suggested revision. Michael Glass (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My first suggestion would be to get the facts correct first. My second suggestion would be not to be antagonistic toward editors who point out your mistakes. My final suggestion would be not to act in high dudgeon where you're actually wrong.

You also fail to mention that Strong's landing was part of the expedition sponsored by Lord Falkland. Justin talk 14:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Where are the facts wrong in the version above?
• Where is your evidence that Strong's landing was part of the expedition sponsored by Lord Falkland? Could you cite your source? If the expedition was sponsored by Lord Falkland, was it to find the Falkland Islands or to find other territory? The source that I used said: "John Strong in the Welfare was heading for Port Desire too. But, driven off course by contrary winds, he reached the Falklands instead, landing at Bold Cove in January of 1690. His landing is well documented and accepted as the first. One of the owners of the Welfare was Viscount Falkland and Strong named Falkland Sound after him. Soon this was extended to all the Islands. " <http://www.falklands.info/history/histarticle19.html> If the source is wrong or there is better information elsewhere, please cite it.
• You have made several personal comments. I have no intention of responding to them here. They are irrelevant to a discussion about the wording of the article. Michael Glass (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

[4] and The History of the Falkland Islands Mary Cawkell, though I no longer have my copy. Justin talk 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, are you blaming me for failing to quote a book that you just failed to quote?

But let's say that your memory is clear, and the facts are as you have stated. This simply means that my version omits information that you want to include. But this information is also omitted from the version that you restored. It simply says, ":The English name of the islands is "[The] Falkland Islands". This name dates from 1690 when John Strong, who led an expedition to the islands, named the channel between the two main islands after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland."

The version you restored,

• also fails to mention that the expedition was sponsored by Lord Falkland.
• implies that the expedition was to the Falkland Islands when my source says that he arrived there because of contrary winds.

If my source is correct, then your restored words are misleading, giving a wrong impression of the intentions of Strong and his party, because they were aiming to go somewhere else.

If your wording is defective and my wording omits important facts, what is your suggested wording, Justin? Michael Glass (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I have waited 24 hours and you have not responded. I will therefore try a different tack. You have objected to the sentences about John Strong but not the other changes. I therefore plan to replace this sentence:

The Spanish name for the islands, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name "Îles Malouines", after the mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo who were the island's first known settlers, and bestowed on the islands by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764. The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".

with this:

The French name, "Îles Malouines", was bestowed on the islands by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764, after the mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo who were the island's first known settlers . The Spanish name for the islands, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name . The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" .

These two sentences put the facts in chronological order and cite the sources of the information. I'll wait 72 hours before posting them. That will give you and others ample time to comment first. Michael Glass (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would actually suggest chronological order is immaterial in the case of talking about the name. The two important names are the English and Spanish names, so they should come first. The French name is basically of low importance and is used nowhere else. Your point about sources is also immaterial since the material is sourced later in the history section.

I would suggest doing nothing with the prose, I certainly see your edits as unnecessary and detracting from the article. If you wish to be utterly and unnecessarily pedantic, add sources if you must but they really aren't necessary. Justin talk 09:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring other issues for a moment, the current version flows a bit better. TBH it is much of a sameness between the edits. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael changed the text to state that Strong discovered the islands in 1690, which was an obvious error. Much as I hate to concentrate on editors rather than the edit, he seems to have a problem accepting what he does isn't necessarily an improvement. Apparently correcting obvious errors is now classed as "edit warring". Justin talk 10:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin seems to forget that I fixed that error as soon as he pointed it out. I cannot understand why he still goes on about it. I draw people's attention to the fact that the present wording suggests that John Strong led an expedition to the Falkland Islands. As far as I can see, he encountered the islands by accident after being blown off course by contrary winds. If people have other or better information, I would be grateful if they would present their evidence. As for stylistic and other matters, I said I'd wait for 72 hours for other feedback, and that is what I'll do. Michael Glass (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you then introduced further errors, and more recently went to an admin telling tales and accusing me of edit warring. In case you hadn't noticed people don't agree with you. Justin talk 13:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. The administrator accused us both of edit warring and both of us put our cases to him. This is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woody#3RR_Warning.

You say I introduced further errors. What errors are these? What about the error in the first version? It implies that the expedition was to the Falkland Islands when it only got there because it was blown off course. Don't we need to look at both versions and work out just exactly what happened and how best to express it? Michael Glass (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a parliamentary debate full of points scoring guys. I need to re-read the lede and what not before I can comment really, see what things read as at the moment. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Response on comments on the wording

Narson, I'm sorry that the debate strayed into other questions. Perhaps it will help if I try to summarise the points about the wording. Apologies in advance if I don't get it exactly right. I'm trying my best.

The paragraph in question reads thus:

The English name of the islands is "[The] Falkland Islands". This name dates from 1690 when John Strong, who led an expedition to the islands, named the channel between the two main islands after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland. The Spanish name for the islands, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name "Îles Malouines", after the mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo who were the island's first known settlers, and bestowed on the islands by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764. The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".

The proposed revision (above) reads thus:

The English name, "The Falkland Islands" derives from the English mariner, John Strong, who encountered the islands in 1690. He named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name extended to all the islands. . The French name "Îles Malouines", was bestowed on the islands by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764, after the mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo who were the island's first known settlers . The Spanish name for the islands, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name . The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" .

Arguments for the first version are:

• Proposed edits are unnecessary and detract from the article
• The first version flows a bit better.
• Version 1 puts due emphasis on the two main names, English and Spanish, whereas the other puts too much emphasis on the French name.
• Chronological order is not necessary.
• Citing sources of information are not necessary as it's done in the history section.
• "Add sources if you must but they really aren't necessary."

Neutral comments

• Much of a sameness between the edits

Arguments for the second version are:

• The first version gives the wrong impression that Strong led an expedition to the Falkland Islands, when he was blown off course.
• The second version is properly sourced.
• Citing sources is in accordance with Wiki policy.
• The second version is in chronological order.

My responses

• Unfortunately, the history section is not sourced at that point, so this is something that needs to be dealt with.
• I have revised the wording to improve its flow and to put less emphasis on the French name. One possibility might be this:

Revised proposal

The name, "The Falkland Islands" derives from the English mariner, John Strong. In 1690 he named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name extended to the island group. . Louis Antoine de Bougainville names the islands "Îles Malouines" in 1764, after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France. . The Spanish name, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from this name . The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" .

I hope that this reads better. It's certainly shorter, and that usually helps. Are there any further comments or suggestions? Michael Glass (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested revision, keeping the current ordering.

The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" [15]. The English name, "The Falkland Islands" derives from the English mariner, John Strong. In 1690 he named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name was later extended to the island group. [12]. The Spanish name, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name for the islands, "Îles Malouines" [14]. Louis Antoine de Bougainville named the islands in 1764, after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France. [13].

Justin talk 12:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you want the ISO designation first (as above) or to keep the current ordering of sentences (as in your comment). I was of two minds about it, too, but decided on keeping the present order of sentences. Which do you prefer? Michael Glass (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not bothered whether it is first or last, personally i prefer the current text I was trying to find an accommodation acceptable to everyone. Justin talk 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. Here is the text that I propose to put in the article. I hope that it is acceptable to everyone. If not, please let me know:

The name, "The Falkland Islands" derives from the English mariner, John Strong. In 1690 he named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name extended to the island group. . Louis Antoine de Bougainville names the islands "Îles Malouines" in 1764, after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France. . The Spanish name, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from this name . The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" .

No its not acceptable, for the reason previously stated and which you're ignoring. You're insisting on a chronological order, ignoring the sensitivities attached to the name. English, Spanish and French as per the text I suggested. Justin talk 21:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Justin, I prefer to have the facts in chronological order because that makes more sense. Yes I did miss the fact that you had reversed the order of the French and Spanish names. What are the "reasons previously stated". As far as I am aware there are no errors of fact in either your version or mine and the sentences are largely identical, although the order is different. In the version immediately above. The first sentence is identical to the second sentence in your version. The second sentence above is almost identical to third sentence, though yours contains two extra words was later which I have no trouble accepting.

So the only substantial difference between our two versions is that mine is in chronological order and yours is not. Do you really mean that the Spanish name is so sensitive that it must be mentioned before the French name, even though the Spanish name was derived from the French one? If so, why? Here is another version that brings my version even closer to yours in wording, but preserves the chronological order:

The name, "The Falkland Islands" derives from the English mariner, John Strong. In 1690 he named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name was later extended to the island group. . in 1764 Louis Antoine de Bougainville named the islands "Îles Malouines" , after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France. . The Spanish name, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name . The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" .

If you would still prefer the ISO designation to come first, please let me know. If you still want the facts out of chronological order, please explain why in detail. If there are any other problems, please let me know. Michael Glass (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Again no, for the reasons stated, and how about actually reading them before dismissing them in such an arrogant manner. Names are incredibly sensitive and, yes, the order does matter. If you don't understand that, try looking through the archive and you might just get a flavour for the minefield you're stomping across in size 10 steel caps. Justin talk 09:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin, please calm down. I don't appreciate abuse. Holding a different opinion from you is not evidence of arrogance. I was trying to minimise the difference between your wording and mine. Here is your wording and your word order, together with references (Please check that they are correct):

The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" . The English name, "The Falkland Islands" derives from the English mariner, John Strong. In 1690 he named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name was later extended to the island group . The Spanish name, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name for the islands, "Îles Malouines" . Louis Antoine de Bougainville named the islands in 1764, after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France .

Here is my wording:

The English name, "The Falkland Islands" derives from the English mariner, John Strong. In 1690 he named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name was later extended to the island group. . in 1764 Louis Antoine de Bougainville named the islands "Îles Malouines" , after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France. . The Spanish name, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name . The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" .

As there appears to be an intractable difference between our two opinions, perhaps others could express their opinions and help settle the matter. Michael Glass (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm and I am not being abusive, you're pig headedly refusing to listen to why names are important. Take the time to look through the archive and you might just appreciate why. Justin talk 21:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Justin. Calling someone pig headed is also abusive. I find it much easier to listen to people like Pfainuk, whose example you would be advised to follow. Michael Glass (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Better to mention the Spanish name first: per Justin's point this is a bit of a minefield. We really do have to be careful in this. A better version would be something to the effect:

The English name for the islands, the "Falkland Islands", derives from the English mariner John Strong, who in 1690 named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name was later extended to the island group. The Spanish name, Islas Malvinas, is derived from the French name, "Îles Malouines", named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France. . The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" .

Which I note is very similar to the existing version. You need to understand that names of the islands are a very controversial topic, and we need to tread very carefully around them. Pfainuk talk 21:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Pfainuk. I accept your wording, which is an improvement on the present wording. If the naming of the islands is so sensitive that chronological order is a problem then your wording is best. Michael Glass (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Offensive Spanish names"

At the moment, one paragraph reads:

As a result of the continuing sovereignty dispute, the use of many Spanish names is considered offensive in the Falkland Islands, particularly those associated with the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands.[10] General Sir Jeremy Moore would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document, dismissing it as a propaganda term.[11]

When I checked one source [5], this is what I read:

IV Confidence Building

2. The Argentine Government is prepared to look at the question of toponomy in the Falkland Islands. To that end it will continue to consult the appropriate national institutions.

Note (by the Editor of the Falkland Islands Newsletter of the Falkland Islands Association) - The word toponymy (not toponomy) in the Joint Statement is the study of place names. The reference to it in Article IV.2 is an undertaking by the Argentines to remove the offensive names that were imposed on the Falklands during the Argentine occupation in 1982, the best known of these being the name "Puerto Argentina" for Stanley.

The other quoted source [6] stated:

British Major General Jeremy Moore flew in to Port Stanley at 2300 on 14 June, 1982 to meet with General Menendez. General Menendez is allowed to strike "unconditional" from the surrender document since he had been promised by the British PSYOP broadcasts that the surrender would be with "dignity and honor". General Moore does not allow him to insert the Argentine propaganda term Islas Malvinas after "Falklands." By 2359 the document was formally signed and the war was officially over.

The documents link the hostility to Spanish names to the Falklands War period. Also, General Moore's hostility to the use of Islas Malvinas and the Islanders' hostility to names that were imposed on them during the Argentine occupation could be two different things. Perhaps it would be better if the wording went like this:

There sensitivity about the use of Spanish names for places in the Falkland Islands, General Sir Jeremy Morre would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document, calling it a propaganda term [10]. Names imposed in the Falkland Islands during the Argentine occupation 1982 are offensive to Falkland Islanders and Argentina has agreed to consider this question [11].

I think it is worth mentioning that the Argentines are prepared to look at this question as part of confidence building between the two parties. Also I think that it is important not to claim more than the source documents state.

What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree, Argentina agreed to look at that back in 1994 and have done nothing about it. Not only that but there is still a commission in Argentina that "renames" features that have no Spanish language equivalent to their English names. Its not only the Falklands War and the insistance on continuing to use names associated with the invasion that is considered offensive but also that new names continue to be imposed; this is in spite of the promises back in 1994.

The current text does not claim more than the source documents state, so I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Justin talk 12:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it highly offensive for a foreign government to even "consider" what places in another country should be named? It's as if they're claiming some sort of jurisdiction. ðarkuncoll 14:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They are claiming jurisdiction. That's the whole point. That said, exonyms are not, generally speaking, considered offensive. Pfainuk talk 20:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Exonyms are not, indeed, generally considered offensive. Except when they come as part of a package of foreign military conquest and continuing claims to ownership. ðarkuncoll 00:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with Justin. In particular, I don't see that what Argentina said ten and a half years ago warrants a mention - particularly when nothing has changed as a result. On List of Falkland Islands placenames, yes, we can and should go into more detail - and it is mentioned there. Pfainuk talk 20:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm easy about not mentioning the Argentine agreement to "look into it". That's an agreement to do nothing in particular! However, renaming Stanley and the other name changes imposed during the invasion so incensed the Islanders that they insisted that it be mentioned in the 1994 agreement. The Argentines, for their part, tried to mollify the islanders without committing themselves to doing anything concrete.

As I understand it, the hostility of the Islanders - as stated in the document - was directed at "names that were imposed on them during the Argentine occupation", most notably, "Puerto Argentina" for Stanley. This was such an important issue for them that they had it included in the 1994 agreement. However, General Sir Jeremy Moore's hostility to the term "Islas Malvinas" is something different. Firstly, it's a well established term. It derives from the first settlement on the islands by the French, and so is different from later attempts to rename Stanley and other places. It is quite likely that many islanders would heartily agree with Sir Jeremy's opinion, especially after the invasion, but this is not established by the documentation. If there is documentary evidence that Islanders also object to "Islas Malvinas", then we could make this statement, but at the moment the documentation doesn't quite go that far.

I think that the wording could be adjusted, perhaps like this:

There is sensitivity about the use of Spanish names for places in the Falkland Islands. General Sir Jeremy Morre would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document, calling it a propaganda term [10]. Names imposed in the Falkland Islands during the Argentine occupation 1982 are offensive to Falkland Islanders. [11].

These two statements are abundantly established by the documentation. However, I think we need more documentation if we are to state or imply that Islanders also object to Argentines using the term "Islas Malvinas." Does anyone know of such a document? Michael Glass (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The name Islas Malvinas is considered highly offensive in the Falklands, I really don't see the need to change the text as it is more than supported by the sources. Justin talk 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any direct documentary evidence for this opinion? Michael Glass (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In nine days, no-one has come up with any direct documentary evidence for the assertion that the name Islas Malvinas is considered highly offensive in the Falklands. It may be, but the evidence is not there, and the sources quoted do not support this assertion. I suggest that the following wording be considered:

There is sensitivity about the use of Spanish names for places in the Falkland Islands. General Sir Jeremy Morre would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document, calling it a propaganda term [10]. Falkland Islanders were so concerned about names imposed in the Falkland Islands during the Argentine occupation 1982 that they raised this issue in talks with Argentina in 1994 [11].

Michael Glass (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you didn't. I'd prefer you to do some research if you feel it needs additional cites rather than simply removing it. Unfortunately, I am a little busy right now so I would find it difficult short term to assist. May I suggest Graham Bound The Falkland Islanders at War and also [7]. Justin talk 00:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a particular hostility to the use of Puerto Argentino and other names to refer to Stanley. This is clearly stated in the document that you refer to. However, the term "Malvinas" to refer to the Islands themselves is in a different category. As the document clearly states:

Most other Spanish names, most notably Islas Malvinas itself, have a much longer historical pedigree and, although unofficial in terms of sovereignty, have a genuine role in the Spanish language. [8] see page 6.

Perhaps it would be better expressed like this:

There is sensitivity about the use of some Spanish names for places in the Falkland Islands, especially using Puerto Argentino or other names instead of Stanley, to refer to the capital [9]. General Sir Jeremy Morre would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document, calling it a propaganda term [10]. Falkland Islanders were so concerned about names imposed in the Falkland Islands during the Argentine occupation 1982 that they raised this issue in talks with Argentina in 1994 [11].

Does anybody else have any more evidence about the use of the term "Malvinas" or other matters? Remember, we need the evidence to establish the text. If we don't have the evidence we can't make the claim. Michael Glass (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are foreign names being used at all? The article on England doesn't say (Spanish: Inglaterra). ðarkuncoll 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As per every other time you've asked this, the Spanish-language name is included for neutrality because of the Argentine claim. Pfainuk talk 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Draft proposal

I propose changing this:

As a result of the continuing sovereignty dispute, the use of many Spanish names is considered offensive in the Falkland Islands, particularly those associated with the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. General Sir Jeremy Moore would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document, dismissing it as a propaganda term.

to this:

Because of the 1982 occupation and the continuing sovereignty dispute, there is sensitivity about the use of Spanish names for places in the Falkland Islands, especially Puerto Argentino or other names for Stanley, the capital . Falkland Islanders were so concerned about names imposed in the Falkland Islands during the Argentine occupation that they raised this issue in talks with Argentina . Also, General Sir Jeremy Moore would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document, calling it a propaganda term..

The idea is to underline and fully document the sensitivity of Falkland islanders to names imposed on them during the occupation and to record General Sir Jeremy Moore's objection to the term "Islas Malvinas" but to distinguish it from the Islanders' objections as we don't have direct documentary evidence that Falkland Islanders objected to this particular term. Michael Glass (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DominicConnor (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)I do not think the fact that a term is seen as offensive by some is sufficient grounds not to use it. IMO the test should be whether it is widely used. Conversely, if there is notable argument over the real name, then that is a valid topic for coverage.

Perhaps a less contentious example ? The English word for the capital of Italy is Rome, but Italians call it Roma. Similarly London is called Londra, Londres etc in various languages. Beijing, Kolkata, etc each have had name revisions, indeed it seems to be the mark of a major city that it has a specific word in other languages. I live in Buckhurst Hill, which I believe is called exactly that on the rare occasions Russians, Greeks, and of course Argentinians talk of it.

But obviously arguments over names should not dominate this article.

Not sure of your point, its used in the article, all this section does is discuss the sensitivity on names. Justin talk 13:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

French name at the head of the article.

Just a quick and friendly note to explain why I think that the French name of the Falkland Islands is worthy to be added to the head of the article.

• It's historically important because it's the basis of the Spanish name.
• It's handy to have more than two names at the head, making the beginning more NPOV and less likely to be seen and read as Falkland Islands vs the Malvinas.
• It silently acknowledges the French contribution to the history of the islands.
• That's a lot of good for just 29 extra bites!

Therefore I put the French name back. Michael Glass (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The French name is of historical interest only and does not belong in the lead which describes the territory today. it took a long argument to achieve a consensus wording and it really needs to be left alone. The mention of it later is quite enough. --Gibnews (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. The etymology of the Spanish name is sufficiently dealt with in the name section, and France's brief direct role in Falklands history is sufficiently dealt with in the history section. If all our articles listed names based on these considerations, we'd have some pretty enormous first sentences. FWIW I cannot see any way in which the inclusion of the French-language name makes the text more neutral. If anything, I'd say it makes it slightly less neutral.

Just as a suggestion to all editors for the future, it's a good idea to follow the advice in the section marked "READ THIS FIRST!" regarding the first sentence - particularly when dealing with the prominence (or otherwise) of names in that sentence. That is, if you have overriding new arguments, bring them straight to talk. Pfainuk talk 14:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Malouines is the current French name (see [[10]]), so it's not just historical. I can't see how mentioning it in the first sentence could in any way make the text less neutral. The French made the first settlement on the island so this is notable. I think it's worth those few extra words, but others disagree. Does anyone else have an opinion one way or another? Michael Glass (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is but to put it in the lead is to give undue prominence to the fact. It has nothing to do with neutrality and it is mentioned later. Justin talk 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As it is clear that my proposal does not have support I will let the matter drop. Thanks to all for your comments. Michael Glass (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My reason for suggesting that it might make it less neutral is that it might appear to some that putting the Spanish name on a par with the French name downplays the sovereignty dispute by relegating the official Argentine name for the islands to the same level as a name that is not officially used by either claimant. Chances are, it's not an issue - when I said "if anything" I really meant "if anything", and if no-one else noticed this possibility then I may well be reading too much into it - but I don't see any way in which adding the French name makes the article more neutral. Pfainuk talk 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted in the caveat on the page, the lead was subject to a long argument and any change is likely to restart that. The French name is detailed in the history section where it belongs. As the French are not involved in the dispute over the islands adding another foreign name in the lead is simply a tactic that cause contention and add nothing positive. Surely there must be better things to do? --Gibnews (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My humble opinion would be rather in favour of having the French name in the lead, I have thought about that in the past and maybe even proposed it once (don't remember for sure). The article is about the Islands not about the dispute (which is covered in detail by several other articles), and putting the Spanish name in the lead possibly places undue weight and stress on the Argentine claim (even if I am aware that the Spanish name is used along with the English one in the UN etc.). The French name has a special relevance to the Islands that other names (German, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese, whatever) do not have; perhaps it could appear in the form "The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas from French: Îles Malouines) etc." I am also aware that the first sentence is a compromise resulting from a lengthy discussion (or several discussions) between numerous editors, so I'm not objecting to its present version, just sharing my opinion in case there is a renewed discussion on the matter. Apcbg (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to accept Apcbg's wording. How do others feel? Michael Glass (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You have already had my opinion twice and its still NO. --Gibnews (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Having been involved in the controversy over the opening, I have no desire to open that can of worms again. It is a compromise born of a lengthy, tortuous process so I am very reluctant to support Apcbg, an editor whose opinion I have the deepest respect for, on this occasion. The name is amplified in the article, so I do not see the need to change the lead. Justin talk 20:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So be it; as a matter of fact my preference is not quite 100% in favour of having the French name in the lead and 0% against, but let's say 60% vs. 40%. Apcbg (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

UN Resolutions and more argentinian references need to be included in this article.

Hello there! I don't mean to offend anyone here. I know this is a delicate matter, but I really feel some things have to be said. I'll try to summarize it first to make my point clear: one of wikipedia's cornerstones is the "neutral point of view" approach, which requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. To be honest, I was not able to find many (in fact, I think there are only 2) references to argentinian documents which express their point of view.

That being said, I think some paragraphs should be "completed", expressing the argentinian point of view, so that they are not so biased. For example, this one:

In 1945, upon signing the UN Charter, Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The United Kingdom responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN Resolution 1514 (XV) regarding the de-colonisation of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders first had to vote for the British withdrawal at a referendum to be held on the issue.

Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.

An important matter, completely forgotten here, is that:

On 14 December 1960, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” which proclaimed “the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations“, enshrining two fundamental principles that were to guide the decolonisation process: self-determination and territorial integrity.

The principle of self-determination does not apply to the Question of the Malvinas Islands Question.

The specificity of the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow its return, thus violating Argentine territorial integrity. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. It is important to note that Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples” stipulates in paragraph 6 “Any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.

The General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine in the “Question of the Malvinas Islands”—it applies the principle of territorial integrity taking into account the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands—in its resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 which was reaffirmed by other resolutions in 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) y 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute and reaffirm the invitation made in resolution 2065 (XX) to the Parties “to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)“.

[Ref: http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html]

To make it brief, not only is this the argentinian position (completely forgotten and ignored in this article), but also what UN resolutions dictate. That's why

As of 2004, by virtue of a process of revitalisation of the General Assembly, the Argentine government ensured that the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” appeared on the permanent agenda and in the Document of the General Assembly Bureau. The topic may be discussed subject to prior notification by a Member State.

So, as you can see, sadly it's not Argentina the one who is not willing to negotiate and discuss the sovereignity of the islands, as implied by this article:

Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.

Lastly, I know this might sound a bit harsh, but as the UN Resolution 2065 (1965) states: taking into account that the original population of the island was completely replaced since british occupation (I would rather call it invasion, because otherwise the only "invasion" here is the argentinian...this is clearly unfair...we need to call it both the same way) it's "the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands" what matters.

And yes, before you ask, I'm argentinian. However, I'm not writing this because of any "nationalist" claim or whatever, just because I found this article (and also the spanish one) to be far too biased. I hope this contribution helps making a better wikipedia. Is there any problem if I try to "complete" that part of the article? Then, of course, you could add the british POV regarding this particular matter.

Oh! I encourage any of you how speak spanish to try to complete the spanish version too. You know, I firmly believe that if we can't start knowing each other and knowing what both of us believe in and think of, we'll never end this quarrel. Many of you, as well as many of us, just believe things that are being said to us since school, without ever listening what the other "part" has to say. So please, if you have anything to say, make it a sharp comment, not a vulgar offense.--Earendil i510 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "... the UN Resolution 2065 (1965) states: taking into account that the original population of the island was completely replaced since british occupation etc." This is patently untrue, for that UN Resolution reads as follows:

Please try not to quote me out of context. What I said is the plain truth. You know that. The "original" population was expelled and never allowed to return. Regarding the UN Resolution, if it's so favourable to the british position, why don't you just add it as a reference in this article as I clearly proposed in the title of my comment? I just asked for that. I think that would enrich this article without violating the wikipedia's neutral POV policy --Earendil i510 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What Apcbg says is true. While Argentina may have mentioned expulsions during the debates that led up to the resolution, the resolution itself does not mention any expulsions. http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution2065.html

And regarding the expulsions, the UK expelled the military garrison, not the original population. While Argentina has never presented any contemporary evidence that the original population was expelled, there is plenty of evidence that it wasn't. Dab14763 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I missed that one, yes thats quite true, Argentina claims the population was expelled but they weren't. In fact they were positively encouraged to stay. Justin talk 22:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Military garrison" rather implies a permanent presence - which is debatable at best - and "expelled" rather implies something stronger than what actually happened.

In December 1832, the islands had been without effective Argentine government ever since the USS Lexington left, some twelve months beforehand. The Argentines had sent down a governor, Mestevier, in November - but he was promptly killed by his own mutinous soldiers. Pinedo went down to restore order in December, and the British arrived pretty much as soon as he was done. The British asked Pinedo to leave, and he agreed to do so. When the British left, they did not leave any new colonists or any military forces on the islands, but rather left the existing colony with a British flag to hoist when they saw a ship. This is all attested by reliable sources.

The idea that the British expelled the islanders and refused to let them return quickly becomes untenable when you consider that those self-same islanders were living on the islands just two months later, as attested by Charles Darwin's diary. What are we supposed to think - that they swam back? Or that the British just happened to drop off settlers with exactly the same names and life stories as those who are supposed to have been expelled? Occam's Razor suggests otherwise - particularly when combined with said reliable sources. Pfainuk talk 22:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A more comprehensive and well sourced (including authentic contemporary Argentine sources) presentation of the early demographic developments on the Falklands can be found in the article Origins of Falkland Islanders, where the movement of early settlers is followed virtually on a person-by-person basis.

That's what happened in the 19th century. The alleged 1833 expulsion ("in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow its return") is a 20th-century event :-). Apcbg (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(Quote)

UN Resolutions

Resolution 2065 (XX)

Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

16 December 1965

The General Assembly,

Having examined the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

Taking into account the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), and in particular the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee with reference to that Territory,

Considering that its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

Noting the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands,

1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);

2. Requests the two Governments to report to the Special Committee and to the General Assembly at its twenty-first session on the results of the negotiations.

(End of quote) Source: www.un.org/documents

As a matter of fact, this article is rather POV in placing too much stress and prominence on the Argentine claim, even though this is an article on the country not on the claim (the latter is presented in much detail and various aspects in a number of topical articles). Apcbg (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. You can say who you are without saying something about your personal history. The same way, you can't say anything at all about Malvinas/Falklands without mentioning the Argentine-UK dispute. --Earendil i510 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You can say a lot of things actually, because the Falklands are not solely about Argentina's irredentist claims. The article does in fact place too much emphasis on Argentina's claims. Justin talk 09:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As Apcbg points out, the source you're quoting is incorrect. It presents an Argentine view as the "UN view", which is a misrepresentation. The article here as written conforms to our policy of WP:NPOV and has taken great pain to do so, it is certainly not biased. It is great failing of many Argentine sources to misrepresent UN sources. As it happens I'm half-Spanish, I do have some Spanish (but its appallingly bad) but I have given up on many es.wikipedia articles related to the Falklands as biased and beyond salvation as the editors there are not amenable to change.

I agree with you concerning the spanish article. I said it before and I say it once again: it's all biased. However, you appear to believe everyone else, except you people, are super narrow-minded. My friend, please try some autocriticism. English articles are as biased as spanish (or whatever other language you can think of) are. And, believe me, the spanish editors are also doing incredible efforts to avoid it, but surpassing school, the media, the "official POV", etc. is a huge task. That is both true for you and for us. Needless to say, our errors don't make your articles better. Last but not least, english editors are also not amenable to change articles. You are the living proof. --Earendil i510 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Living proof? That I'm not amenable to skewing the article to favour a POV, which is actually what you're suggesting. Starting from the premise of assuming bad faith is not a good way to proceed. Justin talk 09:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're an expert at twisting everything I say, seriously. I never accused you of bad faith. I just said you were not being neutral. There's a huuuuge difference. I hope you are able to understand now. --Earendil i510 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No I think I had it pretty much on the money, I'm not English either. Justin talk 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As regards the English language literature, its not a subject that has extensive coverage. The coverage that exists is confusing and includes many "facts" from Argentine sources that are in fact untrue. I'd also point out that the UK does not teach its version of events, sadly that is a uniquely Argentine phenomenon.

Ohh... sure, tell the Irish, the Africans or maybe the indians your version of the facts... apparently you really think to posses the one and only truth: yours. It seems you kind of adore being "superior"...however, you embrace ignorance and live happy with it: that's the worst kind of slavery. And please don't get offended, I'm just giving you some of YOUR "politeness". --Earendil i510 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No I do not, I suggest you read what I said again and if you resort to accusations of bad faith again then I will simply stop conversing with you. I have politely and in good faith attempted to address a concern of yours, I expect the same in return. If you want to know what I mean, then the Argentine version has the British expelling Vernet's settlement in January 1833, something that never actually happened. Justin talk 09:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You did not answer politely nor in good faith my friend. Read again your comments. Saying, and I quote, that "I'd also point out that the UK does not teach its version of events, sadly that is a uniquely Argentine phenomenon." is not ridiculous, but also false and quite insulting. And don't come to tell me that's not it because you know you clearly crossed the line here. On the other hand, this statement of yours clearly suggests you believe that all UK version of events are neutral (how could that be I really don't understand). So, as you can see, my dear friend, you are the one not beeing neutral. In fact, you discart every argentinian document because you consider it biased, when you should not be doing that, just including BOTH POVS and positions trying not to suggest one is true or the other is not. That's what neutrality is: describing, not facts, but what the different POVs are and their justification of facts. --Earendil i510 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No that isn't neutrality at all. Neutrality is objectively reporting the facts and if a version of events is contradicted by documentary evidence we are obliged to report that. It happens to be a fact unfortunately that the version of events taught in Argentine schools happens to be full of exaggerations, half-truths and the omission of inconvenient facts. This is a version of events endorsed by the Argentine Government in its curriculum. And your assertion that I discard documents merely because they are Argentine is also false, I have made extensive use of Argentine documents and equally I question English language sources that are in disagreement with others. What you don't seem to realise is there isn't a UK endorsed version of events, what there is has been put together by largely amateur historians and in many cases the only reliable sources are original sources dating from the period such as eye witness testimony. Justin talk 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also that in general, the Argentine and British editors in this area do work together well and in an atmosphere of mutual respect. We work together to present a neutral summary, not to favour either side. Justin talk 17:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said you were being biased "on purpose". Besides, the core belief beyond the neutral POV is to describe facts as neutral as possible and, when necessary, make it clear what are the different POVs or positions. Take this quote, for example, when it says

Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.

From my POV, this is completely false, specially because this is not the only and maybe not even the most important cause of jammed negotiations. --Earendil i510 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Then to be frank you completely misunderstand the issues around this, it was the Falkland Islands Lobby that stymied the FCO efforts to rid itself of the islands onto Argentina. Justin talk 09:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, that's YOUR POV, not everyone elses'. What I just expected is that you could include both POVs. I think you believe in objective neutrality, which, in fact, does not exist, specially in this kind of disputes. So, EVERYTHING I said was that it would be a good idea to include some argentinian and UN references to the article as to compensate the MAAANY british references in this doc. Is it right now, am I clear?? Apparently, you just play the victim and never really addressed this issue. Actually, it's quite simple.

Frankly, no it isn't. Nothing to do with playing the victim, you really don't get it. Justin talk 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and to correct the position you asserted in your edit. The position of the British Government is that it will enter talks on sovereignty only at the request of the Falkland Islands Government. The current constitution of the FI devolves responsibility for administration of the islands onto the FIG, with the UK responsible for defence and foreigh relations. The FIG has proposed direct talks with the Argentine Government, who in turn will talk with no one but the British Government. In 2003, the Argentine Government under Nestor Kirschner unilaterally repudiated the agreements achieved by the Menem Government with the UK and no longer co-operates on fisheries and oil exploration. That is the current position of all parties. Justin talk 17:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this paragraph should be included somewhere in the article. However, I would say it differently: The position of the Argentine Government is that it will enter talks on sovereignty only with the british, who in turn will only do so at the request of the Falkland Islands Government. The current constitution of the FI devolves responsibility for administration of the islands onto the FIG, with the UK responsible for defence and foreigh relations. The FIG has proposed direct talks with the Argentine Government, who refused them arguing that UN Resolutions urges both parts (Argentina and the UK) to proceed without delay with the negotiations (See UN Res 2065). In 2003, the Argentine Government under Nestor Kirschner unilaterally repudiated the agreements achieved by the Menem Government with the UK and no longer co-operates on fisheries and oil exploration stating that the sovereignty question, the issue that is central to the dispute, has not yet been addressed due to the reluctance of the United Kingdom to include this topic in the negotiations, despite the many calls of the international community in favour of a definitive solution. That is the current position of all parties. --Earendil i510 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite properly a paragraph for the sovereignty article, not convinced such an extensive coverage belongs here. A small part of the above as a summary would suffice. Justin talk 09:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally, as regards the events of 1833, there have been extensive discussion on that area. To describe it as an invasion is misleading, the Argentine version of events is somewhat POV laden and being polite, economical with the truth, and in no way comparable with the events of 1982. If you would like to know more I would be happy to discuss this privately with you rather than cluttering up this talk page. Justin talk 17:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you're right...whatever...this discussion is endless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands is far more neutral than this article. I'm sorry, that's my POV. And happily, I'm free to write it down here. --Earendil i510 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that by and large I wrote the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Justin talk 09:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that. That's why I mentioned it. You know, I don't like wasting my time and quarreling with someone I don't even know. So, if I'm writing this is because I want to help and make this a better article (not the other one, which is quite good, despite some minor issues). I hope you have the same inspiration and we can stop making accusations and insulting each other and start improving this article. Apparently, you find everything I say to be biased and you seem to believe everything you think and say to be "neutral" or THE truth. And that's not the case. In fact, that's the only thing that irritated me from you or your comments. --Earendil i510 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No I don't, you were the one presenting a source that misrepresents what the UN actually said. Apcbg produced the original, which bears no relation to that article. You're operating on the basis of a presumption about people's motives, I am perfectly prepared to listen to what you have to say. Justin talk 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Proven reserves of 8bn barrels" apparently not supported by cite.

The lead had included a statement on "increased speculation on the amount of oil in the area, with proven reserves of at least eight billion barrels", cited to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8520038.stm .

Perhaps I'm missing something, but as far as I can see the cite doesn't support that.
It actually says:

"The often-used figure based on geological surveys is that the Falkland Islands have the equivalent of about 60 billion barrels of oil in total. But Ben Brewerton, spokesman for the UK-listed Falkland Oil and Gas, told the BBC this figure is "slightly mythical" and no-one knows where it came from. ... Falkland Oil and Gas - which has the exploration rights for the south and east of the islands - said it estimates its four biggest prospects in the area have 8 billion barrels of oil."

As far as I can tell, this is not a statement that there are "proven reserves" of eight billion barrels.

Please clarify and/or add additional cites for this if necessary.

Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A later BBC cite says that "no-one has yet proved that any commercially viable oil field exists there". That article goes on to make it quite clear that we're discussing potential oilfields, not proven oilfields. Good catch. Pfainuk talk 21:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, misread it when I added. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Belonger

The Demographic section says: "People from the United Kingdom who have obtained Falkland Island status are known locally as 'belongers'."

Surely people from anywhere who have obtained Falkland Island status are known as 'belongers'. The Falkland Islands constitution says regarding Falkland Islands status:

22

(5)For the purposes of this Chapter, a person shall be regarded as belonging to the Falkland Islands if he or she has Falkland Islands status and a person has such status if that person is—

(f)a person who has been granted Falkland Islands status under an Ordinance providing for the grant of that status to persons who have been ordinarily resident in the Falkland Islands for a period of at least seven years, or such period not exceeding seven years as the Ordinance may prescribe, and has not, in accordance with that Ordinance, lost or been deprived of such status

(7)Without prejudice to the right of any person to apply for the grant of Falkland Islands status, the following shall have a right by virtue of this Constitution to apply for such status under an Ordinance referred to in subsection (5)(f)—

(a) a British overseas territories citizen by virtue of having been so naturalised or registered while resident in the Falkland Islands;

Someone from the UK wouldn't need to apply for BOTC

In any case, see Belonger_status article which says people normally have the status by birth or ancestry. Is it different in the Falklands? Is the term 'belonger' only used for those who have obtained Falkland Island status and not for those who are born with it? Dab14763 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The key part of the statement is known as. "Native" Belongers do not refer to themselves as such, instead using local pseudo-national terms. In Gibraltar they are "Gibraltarian", in the Cayman Islands they are "Caymanian", and so forth. People who have (belonger) status, but are not born-and-bred,-fifth-generation types are often given a slightly different name. In Bermuda, for example, they are "Paper Bermudians" (the insinuation being, Bermudian on Paper Only). Compare it to, say, Virginia in the United States or Scotland in the United Kingdom. Citizens of the US and the UK, respectively, have full rights to vote, buy and own property, and so forth, if they decide to move to those places. But if you just moved there, the locals will be a little irate if you call yourself "Virginian" or "Scottish". In the British Overseas Territories, a person with Belonger status is seen as the equivalent to that citizen who just moved.

PS: This is not an endorsement of the claim that status-belongers from the UK are, indeed, called "Belongers" in common speech there.199.172.210.153 (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Invasion?

Why says "invasion". For Argentina was recovery, that's no neutral. Alakasam (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We call an invasion because it was an invasion. Not only is it a neutral term, it's the only neutral word I can think of using to describe it. Pfainuk talk 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

One could hardly 'recover' what one never possessed in the first place; leaving that aside, the alleged 'recovery' was accomplished by nothing but an invasion. Apcbg (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I fear I must agree: "Invasion" is not a pejorative term, and it isn't meant to judge rights or wrongs in the previous or resulting conditions, or the way the invasion is accomplished. Few people in the world, besides some extremists, support the nazi germany, and yet that doesn't stop anyone from calling the Invasion of Normandy, a key victory of the allies, an invasion.

However, to be neutral, terms should be applied in a consistent manner. The reluctance in calling the british arrival of 1833 an invasion, while keeping the term for the 1982 war, can be questioned. MBelgrano (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I also refer to Normandy as an "invasion" and I'm British. I believe the "reluctance" is because the events of 1833 were not violent, no shooting etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I agree on the connotations of the word "invasion". I would use the word "invasion" to refer to the invasion of Normandy. But "invasion" does imply that some kind of military force was used.

But no military force was used in 1833. In 1833, Onslow (British) exchanged polite messages with Pinedo (Argentine) while both had ships anchored off Puerto Luis. Onslow asked Pinedo to leave, and Pinedo agreed to do so. The British then switched the flags and gave the Argentine one to Pinedo before he left. Calling the events of 1833 an "invasion" would imply that there was military force - which would be an error of fact. There's nothing wrong with calling the events of 1982 by a different name from the events of 1833 because different things happened. Pfainuk talk 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Former Agentine Links?

This section appears in the History bit but it deals solely with transport connections between the Falkland Islands and Argentina. Would it not be more sensible to put in under Transport section? Discojim (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be acceptable, we could also possibly copy the information about the requirement for permits to travel from Argentina to the Falklands to the Transport section as well. Rtdixon86 (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. The information is primarily historical in nature, and is significant as evidence of the British attitude to the islands and the sovereignty dispute in the years before 1982. The transport section very much reflects the current situation, and the only current transport link with Argentina is the monthly flight to Río Gallegos. Pfainuk talk 20:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Rtdixon86, If you mean the recent Argentine decree stating that ships travelling from Argentine ports to the Falklands need to have a permit, it's probably not a good idea yet to put it as it is not yet clear what the decree means. Does it apply to vessels only? Or does it apply to passengers and crew? Does it apply to all vessels, including cruise ships transporting tourists? Or only vessels transporting freight?

Pfainuk, there are also cruise ship links between Ushuaia and the Falklands Dab14763 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, cruise ships - but I think it's kinda different: I would imagine few islanders rely on cruise ships in order to travel abroad, for example.

The section I think we're talking about is the section that mentions the air link to Comodoro Rivadavia in the period 1971-82. The recent decree can probably go into the transport section once it becomes clear from reliable sources exactly how things are working in practice - but, per your reasoning, not before. Pfainuk talk 09:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"and is significant as evidence of the British attitude to the islands and the sovereignty dispute in the years before 1982" Thats the crux of the issue. That is interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves. I don't want to be ruffling feathers but by putting it into the history section and giving it its own sub section you are drawing attention to these facts and saying they are more important than the rest. why not have a subsection for the British Settlement of 1833? This could also be historically significant of the British attitudes to the islands and the soverenty dispute in the 1830s. If you think that the information merits including in the History section I propose removing the title and absorbing it into the main body text as a separate paragraph. Discojim (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Discojim. About the recent issue of the permits required by Argentina I think it's enough as it is under "Relations with Argentina" as there is still no significant change since then. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 02:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Two solutions. One, it remains in the current location, the title is removed and the bulk of the paragraph cut down because it does not need all the information on aircraft, routes etc.

e.g.

In 1971 the first scheduled[?] flights to and from the island started, Operated by the Argentinian Air Force (FAA), it provided air transport between Comodoro Rivadavia and Stanley using Grumman amphibious aircraft.[26] This Service remained in place until 1982.

Two, it gets moved to the beginning of the transport section, showing the development of air links to the Islands and keeping most of the text

e.g

There were no flights to or from the islands until 1971, when the Argentine Air Force (FAA), operator of the state airline LADE [was it LADE or the FAA operating thse flights? what i mean to say is were these commecial aircraft or military ones], began amphibious flights between Comodoro Rivadavia and Stanley using Grumman HU-16 Albatross aircraft.[26] Following a FAA request, the UK and Argentina reached an agreement [source?] for the FAA to construct the first runway. Flights began using Fokker F27 and continued with Fokker F28 aircraft twice a week until 1982. Commercial Air travel to and from the island was unavailable after the Falklands War until [insert date] when a regular scheduled service was resumed.

The Sentence about the energy provider. Is this vital to the article? Am I right to assume that YPF were acting like any other comercial company and selling the Islands fuel? is this really historic?Discojim (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

LADE is an airline operated by the FAA but used by civilians. Such an arrangement is used in various parts of South America to provide transport links to areas where scheduled flights would be uneconomical. They weren't FAA flights, but LADE flights. I have no problem with incorporating this into the main prose of the history section, though I'd tweak your wording a bit. The information on the YPF is useful for the same reason as the air link to Argentina: bear in mind that the perception that the British were not interested in the islands is often cited as a reason why the Argentines invaded in 1982. That's what makes these facts relevant. They probably don't need their own subsection is probably unnecessary, but I do think they belong. Pfainuk talk 17:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Were flights to and from Argentina banned before 1971? I could understand their historical merit if the UK had relaxed restrictions on travel to and from Argentina, but if there was no impeding factor then I cannot see the historical significance other than it was the first scheduled air service to the islands. It would definately not point to any change in attitudes of the British government, on the contrary it would indicate a change in attitude of the Argentinian government to the islands status. It would be useful to put in why the service started in 1971 and not before. Give the event a context other that it being cited as a indicator for the perception of the UK govts possible change in attitude, with was then given as a reason for invasion.

I still don't see the historical importance of the The Falkland Islands sourcing their fuel from Argentina. It was/is the closest country with the facilities to ship the supplies. Financially it seems sensible. I do not know all the facts relating to this but more background has to be added to give context Discojim (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Prior to 1971 there was no airstrip. The British allowed the Argentines to build one in 1971.

Yes, from the British perspective this was the whole point at the time. But coupled with the sovereignty negotiations, ongoing at the time (they went nowhere - Britain refused to hand over sovereignty without the islanders' consent, and Argentina would accept nothing less), and various other factors, the Argentine government was left with the impression that the British were no longer interested in defending the islands - an impression that obviously turned out to be inaccurate. This part of the history of the dispute is better handled at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, and it might be worth drawing a summary from there, rather than from here. I don't think we need massive detail - just enough to explain what was going on. Pfainuk talk 18:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To progress matters, I have removed the subsection title as the majority have no objections to its removal. The text remains but the bit about YPF needs to reworded as it jars with the rest of the paragraph. Discojim (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

News

Should we add a news section as the islands are a hotter news subject at the moment? Flamejob (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No. No article should have a "news" section. Informaton from the news should be treated as historical information, if it is, or left out if it isn't. For each news information that you read (here or at any article) consider: Will we care for it 20 years from now? MBelgrano (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is impossible not to mention the 22 February 2010 strong support the Rio Group summit (of Latin American and Caribbean nations) gave to both the Argentine sovereignity claim over the Falklands and the other Southern Atlantic Islands (this being usually a rutinary statement, this time it featured the top priority), but especially -a much more relevant statement at this particular time- the complementary document that supports the Argentine stance regarding the conditions for economic exploiting of the surrounding waters. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly possible not to mention it, and indeed that we should not mention it, unless that statement in particular goes on to have a significant impact on the islands themselves (as opposed to the sovereignty claim). This is not an article on the sovereignty claim, it is an article on the islands, and there is far more to the islands than the dispute. We should, at this stage, be briefly describing the current dispute - which we do now. All else should be left for the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, which is the primary article on this dispute. Pfainuk talk 17:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news report. Unless a fact meet notability should not be included --Jor70 (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The report does meet the threshold of being of historical importance, so it should be included in the article. By the way, "Notability" is about topics that deserve or not to have an independent article, not about the content of bigger articles whose notability as such is out of discussion. MBelgrano (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

IANVS, I think you should add the new support at Foreign relations of Argentina#Sovereignty claims --Jor70 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If the current topic is important enough as to be included in the article, the international impact must be provided. As it is written now, it seems as if Argentina was alone in this, which is no longer the case. MBelgrano (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to wait after everything has played out a bit before altering and adding to the article. As someone has already said, this is meant to be an encyclopaedia with verifiable sources. Unless there is some kind of unofficial race to see who can add the information first?Discojim (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The meeting and the support of latin american presidents to Argentina in this topic is already of historical significance, independently of whatever happens from it MBelgrano (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree quite strongly. I do not see that we have evidence that this statement is significantly different from other statements made by regional bodies in favour of the Argentine claim, which are appropriately mentioned at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Given these statements' negligible practical impact on the islands themselves, I see little reason to include them here. As I say, this is an article on the islands, not an article on the dispute. Pfainuk talk 17:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting canadian post [11] --Jor70 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It does seem pretty biased. I note in particular the claim that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) states that the outer maritime limit for territorial claim by any country is 22 nautical miles (22km) from its coast... The self-declared British territorial claim around the South Atlantic islands of 200 miles (370km) is simply that: a self-declared claim that has no basis in international law.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does indeed give a territorial sea limit at 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi). But states also get an Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) over which they have exclusive rights to exploitation of natural resources. Drilling 100 kilometres (54 nmi; 62 mi) off the Falklands coast is clearly within the Exclusive Economic Zone pertaining the the Falklands (whether British or Argentine), unless it's closer to some other coast (which in this case it isn't). The claim that states cannot extend their claims further than 12 nautical miles from their coasts can be considered demonstrably false, and I would say that this error would cast doubt on the reliability of that source in its entirety. Pfainuk talk 18:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, drilling is covered by section on the continental shelf, not the EEZ, which only covers waters, not the seabed and subsoil. A state's continental shelf is also 200nmi if the shelf has that extent or more Dab14763 (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We should not report every storm in a tea cup. We all know that nothing will come of this, but just incase it does thn we can go into silly depth over the latest spat. Until then it just remains the usual low level whining that crops up every time the islands make a decision. It is a bit like mentioning every time Hugo Chavez attacks America or documenting everytime someone declares the Iraq War illegal, it is just background these days. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Pfainuk talk 18:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is different, and it justifies specific mention, because it's not just about the sovereignity issue, but also about the new topic of oil extraction. All significant views about such topics must be provided, and what can be more significant than a summit of national heads of state? Concealing it would be a fault towards NPOV. Yes, this is an article on the islands, but living in an island does not mean living isolated from the world. If an action done by the people at the islands motivate an international summit to reject it and support Argentina instead, that's not something that can be omited.

International? It was a regional summit. Regional summits often come out in support of those within the region. I view this all as rather similar to those various accusations Mugabe spouted about Briain trying to kill him or what not, as a whole they are notable and worth including, but not in the minutiae. By all means a mention should be made, but it should be one iners or maybe a paragraph in the sovereignty dispute, continuing from the economic side. If Argentina makes the foolish decision to toss away more of its youth trying to reclaim them or if the British start sending warships to escort ships or deploy an SSBN, then it becomes worthy of some great comment, until then, lets leave it to wikinews --Narson ~ Talk • 19:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) What can be more significant than a summit of national heads of state saying something they've said many times before? Quite a lot, actually, particularly when what they say has no practical effect on anything at all - as normally happens in these cases. So, what evidence do we have that this is any different to what has gone before? I got nothing beyond the new Argentine permit system - which we already mention.

If the oil extraction or Argentina's protests (including this declaration) come to something - if they have a significant and demonstrable effect on the islands - then we can add details of it. Any such addition will include details of both sides' positions. But right now any assumption that this is any different from previous declarations is predicated on WP:CRYSTAL, and we can't work based on that. Pfainuk talk 19:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here a british account of the truly relevant Rio Group support of the Argentine stance on the issue: The Guardian. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS (see bullet number 4). Pfainuk talk 19:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My reading of that is that Argentina has reported it and the summit itself hasn't, personally I'd suggest waiting for clearer info. Again, we are not doubting that Argentina has the support of such upstanding and respected world leader as Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro, merely that it is currently a news item rather than anything more and needs to be dealt with as such. Once there is clearly lasting effects/implications we can go into detail. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (ecx2)

If you want to play the "Not news" cards, we may consider deleting all mentions to this topic on its entirely, at least until the machines finish their work and determine if there is or isn't oil in there. We can't mention something that is in the news but doing it in an incomplete and misleading manner because the complete summary involves news. MBelgrano (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not 'playing a card', it isn't a game. Just that while I am sure Pfain is ok, as I am, with something saying 'In February 2010 <insert company name> began prospect drilling for oil in the British claimed exclusive economic zone around the islands, despite protests from Argentina (supported by other countries in the region) that refuted the British claims.' or what not, we just don't think reams and reams of detail, which frankly will just rehash a lot of the old arguments over sovereignty, are necessary. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not just Castro and Chavez supports Argentine position, Narson, but also the Caribbean Commonwealth nations... and the big players Mexico and Brazil. Lula said a few hours ago (my translation): "What is the political reason for the lack of definitions from the UN (on this issue)?... Would it be that the UK is a permanent member of the Security Council so it has the right to do anything it wants, whether we cannot do anything?"

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Belize and Jamaica are the only two commonwealth nations within the Rio Group. The vast majority of commonwealth natons in the area are not members. Nor are, obviously, any of the BOTs in the area. Really though, I don't see what grumbling from the usual suspects has to do with the article or how it is anything new that warrants massive detail. Lets wait a week or however long it takes for something to genuinely happen and lets stop trying to fill the news void with silliness. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We not only support our sister republic's claims to the Malvinas islands but every year we present its case to the United Nations' Special Committee on Decolonization. [12] Even Chile!, you figure :-) --Jor70 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on changing the article with each news that appears. There has been a lot of fuzz recently since the oil exploration and Argentina's decision to require permits. Wikipedia is not a news report. This article should reflect facts and only updated if these things actually have a confirmed consequence. It's still too hot to consider them in this article, plus this is not a debate forum. If these things (Argentina supporters or UK supporters declarations) worth mentioning it would be on another article more according (Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute). -pmt7ar ^(t|c) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as I said before I think should be at Foreign relations of Argentina#Sovereignty claims and an update to Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Supporters_of_the_Argentine_claim should be in place too --Jor70 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, to the news section. Stuff like that belongs on a forum. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Falklands map with Spanish terms - Request for Comment

Hi, I would like to call the attention to an editor who keeps reverting my contribution. I have made a map with the names given in Spanish to some areas of the Falkland islands. It is clear enough to me that the Falklands are British. I have made this map as a contribution to the article because it includes the names of some areas in Spanish matched with the correct geographic terms in English. For example, the term Isla de Aguilas has been replaced by the term Aguilas Island. I made this map because it fills the gap between maps that are completely in Spanish and the ones that are completely in English. The map is not intended to defy the British sovereignty over the islands, nor does it intend to overlook the British official names. I have added and made this map as an easy English version with the Spanish proper names so it is easier for an English speaking person to relate to the proper geographic terminology in English. I think the reversions to my addition are biased since the editor is an English citizen who lives in England as stated in his userpage so it violates WP:NPOV Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that this summary is POV, in violation of WP:RFC, but there we are. It also fails to assume good faith by announcing that my nationality makes any contribution I make POV - something that I reject. He accuses me of being biased, but then announced that the Argentine-derived names are "the proper geographic terminology in English" - something that is clearly biased.

I also think it rather odd of you to call RFC after very little attempt to actually discuss the issue with me. I have made exactly one comment on talk, and then you call an RFC. No prior mention of this image even on this talk page. This RFC is far too early, and unnecessary.

On the point in question, my objections are these:

• The map in question uses constructions as English words that are rarely if ever actually used in English - certainly not by neutral sources. This gives undue prominence to the notion that these are English words at all. This is an English-language encyclopædia, and we in general use names that are in common use in the English language.
• The map in question gives higher prominence to faux-English names that are not used locally than to actual English-language names that are used locally - despite this being an article on an English-speaking territory.
• This article is not an article about the dispute, and the Argentine names for the individual islands are not relevant to the Falklands themselves. They are given, as appropriate, on the articles on the islands themselves. A Spanish-language map with full Argentine naming is already given on Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.

All in all, I think the addition of this map is severely pro-Argentine POV, and thus I oppose it. Pfainuk talk 20:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment When I say proper I refer to the use of English terms for the geographical features (bay, strait, island) rather than the same terms in Spanish. I do not mean the naming of those features. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a map complete with misnamed items. I do not see the purpose or the value in it. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Pfainuk, "this map is severely pro-Argentine POV, and thus I oppose it" is a comment you can save for yourself, as that is not a NPOV criteria at all. The map is strange per se, it is correct english to begin with? I'm not english native, but the names are still strange. Camilo Sanchez, I appreciate your collaboration and initiative to enrich Wikipedia, but if your contribution is reverted you need to get consensus if you think the contribution was correct. Also, I don't see the need of a RFC yet. I'm Argentinian, and I wish the Malvinas will return to Argentina's control, yet that's my personal opinion. I don't see the need of your map on this article. This is the english Wikipedia, thus english names are enough for this case, as there is no significant meaning on the spanish names. You don't see on England: "England, Inglaterra in spanish, エゲレス in japanese, 英格蘭 in chinese", right?. Thus, no need of spanish names here unless they have historical or other kind of value. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 21:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I must disagree that POV maps have nothing to do with NPOV. I would oppose a picture of the islands wth a Union Jack layer on top of the land mass, I would oppose one marking all the Argentine defeats. Equally using invented place names with no actual basis in reality simply because it supports one POV is equally pointless and only serving to further a point. We even use Mombai now, as we must recognise that reality, we must recognise the reality of Stanley. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The map has a number of factual errors (meaning errors with respect to the approach proposed by its author himself, which approach is not established in English common usage); if the specific part of the place names should be Spanish/Argentine with the generic part in English, then the capital city would be not 'Puerto Argentino' but 'Port Argentino' — quite outlandish indeed. (By the way, that 'Puerto Argentino' is actually situated at another bay not the one shown on the map.) This map would be suitable neither for the English Wiki nor for the Spanish one. Apcbg (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change Puerto Argentino, to Port Argentino or Argentinian Port as it is a Proper noun. My goal was to change the generic geographical features in Spanish to English. If that had been the case then I would have used Saint Julian Bay and not San Julian Bay. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Then your 'Great Malvina' is wrong, as is the use of 'Colinas' and 'Seno'. I'm trying to imagine a situation in which such a map would have made sense ... perhaps if the Islands were in Argentine possession with the Spanish/Argentine place names used in practice, and the map was published for English-speaking visitors. Which however is not the case. Apcbg (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also worth adding it is the Argentine Sea. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious..they are proper nouns, that's why i didn't change it. Great Malvina is a common translation too. As far as Argentine Sea, the name in Spanish is Mar Argentino which is more appropriately translated as Argentinian Sea, rather than Argentino Sea. Also, the names are not included in regard of possession or lack thereof from any country. My intention is to provide an easy accessible map in English with the Spanish naming.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Argentine is the adjective for something regarding Argentina (Argentine Navy, Argentine Republic etc). I'm really not seeing a use for this map, especially in its current inaccurate state. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: What about having two maps; one in English and a second in Spanish??Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - what about just having a map using the language of the place in question? Having a map showing Argentine names - "Anglicised" or not - is the equivalent of showing a map of the Channel Islands with the all the names expressed in German. ðarkuncoll 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the map would add anything to the article as --Camilo Sanchez admits, these are not the official names of the places they mark. It does look like you are trying to shoehorn the Argentinian names into the english language wiki even though these are not used by the inhabitants of the islands, the local governign authority or the UK government. Discojim (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In this form most of the names are used by nobody (the Argentine authorities included). As for having two maps, that's done in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article; this particular article is about the country not about a dispute that, after all, is a side issue here. Apcbg (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• No new map - While I see where you're coming from Camilo, I think the combination of 1) the fact that this is Wikipedia Enlgish, and 2) The Falklands belong to Britain (at least in the context of this article). If either of those weren't true it might be worth considering. Quick due disclosure here, I'm half British. NickCT (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is too POV for this particular article. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It is not customary practice on the English language Wikipedia to include maps giving Spanish language names for places when English language names and maps are available. Ray^Talk 23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Warrah

The reference to the extinct Warrah is slightly misleading. The text reads "The extinct Warrah was the only native animal found on the islands upon discovery by the Europeans." If it was extinct, how did they find it? The dodo was found on Mauritius by the first settlers, but becameextinct later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garstonboy (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem on the sentence. It's implied: "The (now) extinct Warrah....". The "extinct Warrah" implies its current situation, no the one when it "was found" (past). pmt7ar ^(t|c) 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can kinda see where Garstonboy is coming from, but I think that the implication is clear enough. Pfainuk talk 20:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Flag

Is this not the correct flag of the Falkland Islands? http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/south-america/falkland-islands Flosssock1 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The CIA's factbook shows the current one. I also found both on this site, the blue background one with FIS CS*/*S*, and the red background one with ***/*S* . The official flag seems to be the current one. Actually, I've never seen the other one until now. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 23:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither have I, it's just that it comes from such a reliable source which has given me a second thought on the issue. Flosssock1 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The red background one is an ensign, usually used on ships. http://flagspot.net/flags/fk.html Discojim (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Welsh Origin of Malvenas?

A British BBC program "Material world" broadcast on 25th Feb 2010 suggested that the Spanish version of the Falkland islands "Las islas Malvinas" derives from an early Welsh colony on that archipelago who used the name St Malo. I could not find any supporting material, so simply note it here, in case anyone actually knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpo (talk • contribs) 08:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by this notion (particularly that it might be reported by the BBC), and if there's no supporting material I would suggest that it is probably a myth. Certainly, the mainstream explanation is that Malvinas derives from the French Îles Malouines, which in turn derives from the Breton port of Saint-Malo (founded by the saint you mention). Pfainuk talk 09:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The welsh colonies are in the mainland. See Gaiman, Chubut. --201.253.141.169 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthem

"Hidden behing their fog mantel We mustn´t forget them

THE FALKLANDS ARGENTINE

the winds clamors,the roars of sea. from neither ofthose horizons ouer emblem mustn´t be uproot cause its white is in the mounts and its blue is paiting the sea.

Due to its abscence, conquered by and strange pavilion, there isn´t any land loved more, like and extension of our homeland Nobody here is speaking of forgetfulness, or even gives up, o pardon there asn´t any land loved more like an extension of our homeland.

Hidden behind their fog mantel like a sun our ideal THE FALKLANDS ARGENTINE in domain is to be inmortal and facing the sun of our emblem pure,well-defined and victorious shine ¡oho Homeland! in its diadem, our argentine pearl

Chorus Due to our national pride, shine ¡oho homeland! in its diadem,our argentine pearl."

I'm guessing that this "Falkland Islands Anthem" whose lyric currently appears at the end of the article is actually a rough translation of a nationalist Argentine song. Yes? It certainly doesn't read like anything that would have been written by a British Falklander. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not the anthem. I don't know if Falklands has its own anthem, or it's the same as UK, but that's a translation of an Argentine march song, certainly not the anthem. Looks like vandalism. I removed it. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 20:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

History Section Corrections

Perhaps the history section should be corrected. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html In various parts of the History Section there are several instances of information that aren't supported by sources, or are supported by what has proven to be erroneous sources. I would correct it myself, but I don't have an account and it could be taken as being defacing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.186.152 (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

just list the changes you would like to see here so people can review and inplament as needs be. As this book been used as a source for anything? Discojim (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we have already noted those errors and the corrections are in the article. Have been for some time. The problem with the History of the Falklands Islands is the English language references are usually compiled by authors focusing on the Falklands War with scant attention to verifying the historical details. Freedman fell into the same trap and has basically admitted he relied on 3rd hand information and didn't give it the attention it deserves. Justin talk 08:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)