Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Falkland Islands. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Re: Anthem

Although words remain "God save the Queen" the official name for the Anthem remains "God save the King" regardless to gender of Monarch to the Commonwealth. [1] Sammy Jay 03:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not convinced by this claim. It's referred to as GSTQ in every version I've read (at least during Elizabeth's lifetime). It's also not the Falklands anthem, really, but that of the UK. As far as I know, the Falklands don't have an official one of their own as Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey etc do. (In the case of Scotland, it's contentious, but GSTQ is only used in British contexts) --MacRusgail (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Its explained on The Official Website that the title of the song is 'God Save the King' although the words sung are changed to reflect the current sovereign.

The verse about crushing rebellious Scots is usually omitted. --Gibnews (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To quote Billy Connolly "rebellious Scots to crush, I don't fucking think so".... Justin talk 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont make me send Lord Marshal Wade up there Justin! Narson (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gibnews, when I said "it's contentious", I was meaning that we have reams of articles about which our anthem is, whereas with Wales, it's long been settled on. Is there anything that approximates to a Falklands anthem, rather than the default UK one? --MacRusgail (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

First Sentence

First sentence has been changed to be factually correct. Falkland has a different etymology to Malvinas - the latter is not a Spanish translation of the former - they are two different names for the same thing. Furthermore, Spain does not recognise the Falklands has being "islas Malvinas," so in so far as the latter name could be said to be a Spanish translation at all, it is peculiar to an Argentine dialect. Praetonia (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in that claimed Islas Malvinas was a direct translation. It does appear to be the general spanish name for the island judging from what I can find. As I put in the summery I'm also not sure on using a ferry booking site as a source. Narson (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page the first sentence is a consensus that was achieved after a long debate. Changes will be reverted immediately if you don't achieve a consensus here first. I would suggest you refer to the wiki guidelines I pasted on your talk page.

PS @Narson we can add "ignorant propagandists" to our list of epithets. ;-) Justin talk 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, it says "Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas[2])". Are you, in fact, disagreeing that this is wrong, or do you just believe it doesnt imply a translation (in which case my edit is merely clearing up something you never intended to say, so there is no problem). We can have a debate if you like, but I think the facts are fairly clear cut, and my edit was given the appropriate citations. I apologise if I have offended any of you, but there's really no need to beat about the bush. Praetonia (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, there are numerous examples where names in two different languages are not direct translations. Your edit implies that its a uniquely Argentine name, it isn't. Justin talk 23:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying "Spanish: Islas Malvinas" suggests a translation to me (saying "Spanish speakers often call them the Islas Malvinas would imply a different name, not a translation). To be honest, I don't know why the name appears at all. Non-English names of places aren't generally given other than for the one used by the people who live there, but there's been enough wrangling on that topic in the past so I'll leave it be. Riedquat (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think because it is better for the project to let it be, for now, and get on with other things. It /does/ have a fairly prominent spanish name, so I imagine it would get mentioned anyway. Narson (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To be quite honest, to claim that there is no translation implied and then leave the reference verifying that mention with a translation resource seems two-faced. To comment further, I have never once seen {{lang}} or its children used as anything other than as a means of indicating a translation on this website. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 21.01.08 0850 (UTC)

Well be BOLD and change it if you like. What will happen when it is removed is that Argentine nationalists will descend en-masse and demand that it is restored, the article will be disrupted until they get their way. Look at the many pages of tendentious arguments where they demand that the name of Islas Malvinas be included in the article. Justin talk 09:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you insist. Direct their comments to my talk page if I don't respond right away, if you will. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 26.01.08 1525 (UTC)

I've reverted before an edit war breaks out. For the record I would generally agree with your sentiment and reasoning, however, experience tells me the article will only be disrupted. I would suggest you agree a consensus here first if you've a burning desire to see a change. You'd also better be prepared to ask an admin to protect the article as well. Justin talk 15:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]

Can I also draw your attention to the hidden comments.

The first sentence has been established as a compromise consensus between many editors in a long and difficult discussion (see talk page). Trying to change the sentence will be reverted on sight without discussion by many of the editors part of the discussion. If you have overriding NEW arguments, please bring them to the talk page first! Also note that the NPOV tag is in place because this text and its sentiments are in dispute.

And also

Do not edit this article to include or remove any Spanish names without first discussing it on Talk. Any substantial changes without consensus on Talk may result in an immediate block from editing.

Justin talk 15:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Have inserted Unit Conversion templates within first sentence. No change to text. Tim P (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

I realise that this is your baby and you've done a wonderful job with the article - respect - but again, there's no relevance. The article states that the majority of the population is British in origin. It then says that a lot of people are also of Scottish and Welsh ancestory. It professes a confusion of the meaning of British. British people are English, Scottish and Welsh and all those identities contained therein. If the article said that most people were of English origin then it would make sense to say that a lot too were of Scottish and Welsh. Otherwise it's like saying that McDonald serves burgers. It also serves Big Macs and McChickens. I'm not denying the origin of people in the Falklands but I don't see the relevance in adding redundant information that sticks out like a sore thumb. That it states clearly and truthfully that most Falkland Islanders are Britons, why include a piece that goes further to imply that what has been said is actually incorrect? Enzedbrit (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would guess because Welsh and Scottish are very distinct nationalities (same as the English) within the general British-ness. I agree that the section does need to be re-worded, the only reason I didn't revert the change myself was the hideousness of the wording and the lack of time to go in and poke around with it. If we have sources that say they are Scottish and Welsh, I would even say that /rather/ than saying they are British. It is like preferring to say Western European over French or German. Lets use the most precise terms. Narson (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the text slightly. I'd agree with the above comments that whilst you can be both Scottish and British, I'm first and foremost a Scotsman. The source clearly indicates that the majority of the population are of Scottish and Welsh descent and I think it should be included. (BTW in your wedding photo which one of you is wearing the kilt?) Justin talk 13:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No.Enzedbrit (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1833 invasion

This article in the first paragraph has a link with the one who talks about the "1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands". That article clearly says "1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands" and not "re-assertion of British sovereignty in 1833". If it was an invasion, and i am sure it was, it has to be clear with no distortions at all. It is not vandalism when the truth is said. --88.23.116.36 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is (and I meant to write this in the revert summary), when I look at your edit history, it's quite obvious you have a POV agenda and are not interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia. I suggest you read this policy; WP:SOAPBOX and also WP:TEND. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've never been entirely happy with that article. I have a problem with describing the actions of 1833 as an invasion - a military engagement. What happened was that two British ships arrived at Puerto Luis, Captain Onslow sent a note to Pinedo which basically said they were there to enforce British sovereignty (after numerous diplomatic protests to Argentina) and asking politely that they took the Argentine flag down. Pinedo thought of resisting but thought better off it (mainly because the majority of his men were British mercenaries) and complied. He returned to Argentina with ams and colours intact, which for the period is quite a magnanimous gesture. So all in all "invasion" does not describe the very genteel and terribly polite affair that it was. It also does not reflect that contrary to Argentine claims the existing settlers were not molested in any way and were encouraged to remain. Justin talk 08:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with Wikipedia, when it comes to naming things. Ya see, whether it's called an invasion or not is pretty irrelevant, what matters is what actually happened on the day. However the name of something often becomes a cause célèbre for un-neutral parties to rally behind and push their cause. Then they'll start arguing by quoting dictionaries, over what a word means (which by the way is original research and we're not supposed to do that). All this debate is unconstructive to the encyclopaedia as it often doesn't involve adding any content to an article (LOL which is ironic as one of the first words these parties normally spout out is "truth" or "fact"). In this article for example, people will read it, and decide for themselves what sort of invasion it was. A similar debate is occuring on the Iran-Iraq War article at the moment here if anyone's interested. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has been a controversial subject. Me, Justin and a few other editors debunked the myth being promulgated by a few editors that the British expelled the entire population of the islands in 1833, the sources for which were merely Argentine propaganda. There was a brief discussion on the name IIRC, the issue is really what you would name it other than 1833 Invasion of the Falkland Islands. It is not a hugely covered subject in English literature (It is hardly a 'sexy' engagement. "We are here. Give up" "OK. We give up" "Cool". Not quite the makings of a blockbuster) which poses a problem. Justin might have some more literature on this than me and so might have some books that refer to the incident by annother name. I have a sneaking suspicion that 1833 Invasion of the Falkland Islands might be the term used by Britannica. One of those popular misnomers, however, when referring to it in a sentence, we are not bound by the article's name. Re-assertion of British Sovereignty is a pretty neutral phrase though, lets here alternatives if people want.

Hrm. As i look for sources while I read this, 'Occupation' seems a popular one for the 1833 incident. Reclaimed is popular too. 1833 Invasion seems to be entirely wiki mirrors or wiki rip offs. OTOH 1833 invasion does keep the same style as 1982 invasion. I really am flip flopping on this Narson (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The name doesn't bother me, although I was wondering how this article came to be named, but I can see you're well ahead of me there. Unfortunately someone makes up a hasty but logical name, then if it's left for ages it becomes lore. Perhaps a name change is in order then... Also can anyone point me in the direction of this nifty little table I saw ages ago, it shows who held the Falklands when, I can't remember what article it was on. As I remember it went France, Britain, Spain, Argentina, Britain, Argetina, Britain is that right? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands it took weeks to put that little table together. ;)

BTW most of the English language text books refer to the events of 1833 as the British Return to the Islands, which by itself is a misnomer as they never actually totally left. The islands were used from the 1770s right up to the British return by British merchant shipping. Part of the reasons for 1833 was that the United Provinces of the River Plate ignored the first diplomatic protests in 1829 when Vernet was announced as "Governor" and again in 1831 when Vernet proclaimed a monopoly on seal hunting and began to interfere with shipping in Falklands' waters. Interestingly though he left the British well alone.

The other objection I have is that its not even consistent on Wikipedia. In 1770 Spain expelled the British from their settlement on Port Egmont. Do we rename that the 1770 Invasion of the Falkland Islands?

The original cause célèbre was that a number of Argentine contributors wanted to rename the 1982 Invasion of the Falkland Islands to the Argentine return (as the 1833 article reflected English language text books). The renaming of the article was in my opinion a poor compromise since it effectively caved in to a POV push. Justin talk 11:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, well to be honest "return" sounds better. "Invasion" conjures an image of a battle, which there wasn't in 1833. On the flip side, there was battle between Argentine and defending British marines in 1982. Plus there is sources stating the term "British Return to the Islands" right? If we've got the sources I think we should push for name change (to the "invasion" title), what do you think guys? Ryan4314 (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

British Return is probably as bad as invasion. It makes it sound like we came back from a holiday. Re-occupation would be good term, I think. Occupation doesn't confer any sovereignty or rightful claim arguments. Narson (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Either would be acceptable to me, its an improvement over the current version. Nonetheless I would expect houls of protest from certain quarters with their own agenda. Justin talk 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Re-occupation" is fine by me, although I'd prefer "return", just because it has sources. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

'Occupation' sounds to me like what the Germans did to the Channel Islands in WW2 and is perjorative. I chose the phrase 're-assertion of sovereignty' as its neutral and best describes the actual events. I suggest the article is renamed to that, but was waiting to see some discussion on whether people agree.

--Gibnews (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to insist with the invasion term. An invasion do not necessary needs battles or a bloodbath:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/invasion

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/invade?view=uk

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=41780&dict=CALD

If we don´t name things with the most accurate term, why are we here?. It is not an encyclopaedia anymore?. If there is, it is necessary to find the correct term, and i think "invasion" is the one.--88.23.116.36 (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(add) LOL Did you even read this discussion? Look at my 2nd comment up there. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm overly fussed with renaming it, but, the more I look at it, sources don't name the 1833 events as an invasion with the exception of those mirroring or ripping off wiki, which leaves us with a problem. What we need to do is look for sources and see what they name it, the two I found were Occupation and Reclaim. Justin, I'm sure, will come up with something definitive from a book if we give him time. He usually does :) Narson (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Yeah I was worried about the use of "occupation" too, it implies a temporary status which is un-neutral to the pro British side. However if we have a source for it, I'd rather have that over invasion. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. Our anonymous contributor should realise you don't get to insist on anything on Wikipedia, you have to build consensus. Pray tell, playing your game, what military action was there in 1833? Do you classify the exchange of polite notes a military action? It seems obvious that you haven't actually read the discussion so far - the reason for the discussion is that "invasion" does not accurately describe the events. Other than Wikipedia or POV Argentine propaganda can you cite a source that describes it so? It would be fairly easy to name a number of sources that describe it differently. Justin talk 08:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to start the debate all over again but I propose "Re-assertion of British Sovereignty through coercion." I've adapted it from Sir Freedman's official history, which could be used as a reference: Sir Lawrence Freedman, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: Volume 1, The Origins of the Falklands War (London: Routledge, 2005): 8. (appropriate italics for title need to be added). I think he is a balanced historian (British but has previously collaborated with Argentine historians) and my proposed sentence reflects his views which also accurately summarise the events. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Well, having read Freedman I can't actually see where you'd get that one from and I presume you're thinking of his collaboration with Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse? (Of which I also have a copy). You're also way out of date, the article has already been renamed and I think you appear to have been considering the interim compromise that no-one was happy with. Personally I'd be extremely unhappy with that suggestion, since it appears to favour the Argentine POV, it also fails to take into account some recent material that you may not be aware of. Not to labour the point but we were seeking to come up with a title that didn't favour either POV, you may not have thought of this but your version imples that Sovereignty was British to re-assert in the first place i.e. favouring the British POV. Anyway your comments are in the wrong place, the correct place would on the article Talk Page. I guess we'll see you there. Justin talk 08:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I went back and looked it up, that seems like a rather unfunny joke as it is nothing like Freedman says. In fact to put that in would be to favour the Argentine POV, because that is how Freedman expresses the Argentine POV. The article as written, includes the fact that Pinedo would have found it difficult to resist. It doesn't favour the British POV by claiming it was persuasion; though I would point out there are a number of elements of the events, such as the way Onslow avoided humiliating Pinedo by allowing him to keep his weapons and colours, that indicate it was not overtly coercive. Finally, I would point out that although several Argentine contributors have claimed POV, none have been able to come up with a better compromise than we have at present. Oh and as an aside, on the one hand the Argentine contributors claim POV, the British side have complained that the compromise favours the Argentine POV. So I guess by annoying both sides we're somewhere in the neutral ground. Justin talk

it wasn't meant to be a joke. Freedman implies that it was persuasion with elements of coercion, or at least he leaves the interpretation open that it was coercion. The fact is the Argentines didn't have much of a choice in the matter, at a time when the British legal claim was a lot more dubious than it was in 1981 or today (of course, these things didn't matter as much back then). Having said that, I am content for the sentence to remain as is, I was just proposing a wording I legitimately believed was closer to the evidence. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

[2], if I've got the link right that should be the relevant page (8). That source doesn't support the edit you proposed, Wikipedia policy doesn't allow us to interpret, that is original research, or to synthesise an argument from original sources. This is generally a controversial topic, so if I came across as a little heavy handed I apologise. We regularly have editors pushing POV, so I can be a little brusque on occasions. Anyway this account by Freedman is a little short on the historic details, there are many nuances that you might not be aware of. Feel free to ask. Justin talk 08:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Offical Language

Shouldn't Spanish be included as a major language for local citizens , even if it's a british territory ? A M M A R 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, no, it isn't by any stretch of the imagination an official language. Justin talk 15:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody there speaks Spanish. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite true, there is a number of Chileans as well as about 20 Argentines living there. Its also a reasonably common second language - though like most English speakers a second language isn't all that common. Its still by no stretch of the imagination an official language or common enough to warrant mention. Justin talk 17:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish is a second language for the English speaking people of Gibraltar, however it is not an official language any more than the euro is the official currency. --Gibnews (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Llanito is the indigenous language of Gibraltar, not English. Anyway, I would suspect that Spanish would be the most common foreign language, if only because of the links with Chile. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspicions and assumptions are not a good basis for an encyclopedia. --Gibnews (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's commonsense. Spanish speaking countries are the nearest, and most of the other countries which the islands are in contact with speak English. By the way, I do apologise for reminding you that English is a foreign language in Gibraltar. But I suppose by now you're completely anglified, so it doesn't matter. Wouldn't do to admit you had your own culture, would it now? --MacRusgail (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

<deident>Not to spoil the fun little tete a tete, but isn't this fairly simple? Find a list of the official languages. If it includes spanish, spanish goes in. If it doesn't, then spanish doesn't go in. CIA factbook only lists English as a language of the Falklands....Narson (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

English is the Official language in Gibraltar. The laws are written in it and the schools use it for teaching with Spanish and French as foreign languages. The same applies in the Falklands. --Gibnews (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

English is a foreign language in Gibraltar, just like it is in the Channel Islands etc. The local language is Llanito, a form of Andalucian, which is heavily anglicised. A bit like Gibraltar. I guess British rule means becoming plastic English, and forgetting about your own culture...--MacRusgail (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, as I have already told you English is the official language in Gibraltar. Llanito is a dialect rather like the incomprehensible babble the indigenous people of Glasgow use to communicate. --Gibnews (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK quit it the pair of you or I will issue a wikiquette alert. Justin talk 14:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Act of Union

For the record the date of that was 1707 according to Wikipedia although I thought it to be 1710, in any event NOT 1800 as someone suggested, not that it matters much. --Gibnews (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There are various act of unions, one of which was in 1800 (The union with Ireland). The act in 1707 created Great Britain, the act in 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, then a 1927 act restyled the union as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Despite the Irish Free State having been created a few years earlier, so some date the UKOGBANI to the creation of the Free State in a 1922 act despite the delay in introducing a restyling bill). Narson (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Climate - tundra rather than maritime?

The article claims a cold maritime climate; however according to this climate data, the warmest month is below 10°C, which make it a tundra climate rather than a maritime climate. Even the Cfc need at least one month above 10 degrees. It is, according to the data provided, an extremely maritime tundra climate, as all months are above freezing. Orcaborealis (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That figure is the 24 hour average, [3] gives the average max and min not sure which is supposed to be used for the maritime climate definition though... BennyTec (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Climate classifications always use the 24 hour average. Orcaborealis (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

interesting, are there any other factors in climate classifications or is it just temperature? I always thought tundra had permafrost... BennyTec (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Precipitation is also important, and especially if it is spread out over the year or concentrated in one season (like in winter in Mediterranean climates). See Köppen climate classification. Most tundra areas have permafrost, but not all. Vardø in Norway (the only town along the Norwegian mainland with tundra climate) has no permafrost, as the year average is above freezing. But, some of the coldest inland climates, as in Siberia, have permafrost even in parts of the forested subarctic area (south of the tundra area) because of very cold winters giving a year average below freezing.Orcaborealis (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear, it would be interesting to see what the average recorded temperatures are now, the weather station moved from Stanley in 1985 and is now at Mount Pleasant airport which being inland will presumably get very slightly higher temperatures in the summer and slightly lower in the winter... It is remarkable the difference between Stanley and Cape Pembroke, the two are only seperated by a few miles, but Cape Pembroke is stuck on the end of a very exposed point. Fascinating site! BennyTec (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Martime climate is surely just that - climate that is dominated by the sea. This is abviously the case. It is, however, not warm enough to be classed as cold maritime. Wouldnt it then fit the description of subpolar maritime - despite only being 51 degrees south or so? I cant see tundra being appropriate for the Falklands but rather South Georgia which is notable colder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamE (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem with broad climate classifications. According to the Köppen classification, the climate is a tundra climate as there are no month warmer than 10°C. On the other hand, it is very rare indeed for a tundra climate to have all months above freezing! Maybe explain some more in the article, and mention that the warmest month is about 9°C and the coldest approximately 2°C (depending on which weather station on the island is used) A sheltered spot, say near a brick wall facing north, could probably reach 10 degrees and have a hardy tree growing. Orcaborealis (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

About Flags

Why is Argentinian flag added? This change should be removed, because:

Falkland Islands belong to UK, that's the first thing;
Furthermore, there is an official flag of Falkland Islands, recognised in UK.

It was just petty vandalism that gets quickly reverted. Don't worry about it. Narson (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

no. the falkland islands do not belong to the UK. that is why they are disputed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.239.7 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sticking Point

I note that the inhabitants preference to remain under British Rule is given as a "Sticking Point" in negotiations between Britain and Argentina. This wording pre-supposes that such negotiations could only conclude in the handover of the islands to Argentina, rather than acceptance of their British Sovereignty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scruffy brit (talk • contribs) 12:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the '60s the British Government decided that disposing of the Falkland Islands by transfer to Argentina was a) worth improved relations with Argentina and b) removed the FCO headache of administering the islands. Talks were conducted in secret but when the islanders found out they organised a very effective parliamentary lobby that stymied the FCO plans. Most of the '70s was then spent trying to convince the islanders they would be better off with Argentina and a series of measures enacted to "encourage" dependence on Argentina. The instructions to a series of Governors was to monitor and spy on islanders resisting the change and to do everything possible to facilitate economic and social dependence on Argentina to encourage the islanders to change their minds. The impetuous invasion in 1982 changed all that, the policy of appeasing Argentina is now a political anathema, forcing the British Government to defend the islands has led to massive investment and the changed political circumstances allowed the Falkland Islands Government to fully exploit natural resources that the FCO had previously vetoed for fear of upsetting Argentina. The Falkland Islands has left behind a downward economic spiral and has become a vibrant and successful economy. So after that briefly rambling precis, handover of the islands was what was being discussed, in complete defiance of the islanders wishes and they very effectively stymied that policy. I think the description is therefore quite aposite. Justin talk 12:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Very nicely, and comprehensively put, thanks for putting me straight! :-) Scruffy brit (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Small Change

Would anybody object if I change the words "British Antarctica" to simply "Antarctica" in the intro? Claims for Elephant Island are held also by Argentina (and I believe Chile as well). If we simply leave Antarctica we would be enforcing NPOV and being more factual; especially given the fact that no country's claims to Antarctica are recognized, being therefore an arbitrary designation.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me English peasant 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Elephant Island was discovered and claimed by the British some 120 years before Argentina contrived a claim to the territory, then your proposed edit is in fact caving in to a POV push. Similarly the British Antarctic territory was claimed in 1908, 40 years before Argentine contrived a claim, and originally without protest from Argentina. For that reason I would object to your proposed edits as they would not be NPOV. Justin talk 08:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the U.K claims are recognized by certain countries i.e France, Australlia, N.Z.

I also would object to any change, and believe this section should remain as British Antarctica. --Rockybiggs (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support the change. It is not the role of Wikipedia's editors to interpret history to our readers. Rather, we should give them the facts and allow them to draw their own conclusions. The facts behind the Argentine, British and Chilean claims to Antarctica can be put on a suitable page (or pages), but three countries currently claim that particular part of Antarctica, and simply calling the area Antarctica dodges a controversial side-issue that we don't need to tackle in this article.

In any case, formal name for the British Antarctic claim is the British Antarctic Territory and not British Antarctica.

I tracked down the edit in which it was added. I must admit, if I'd seen it at the time I would have reverted it as nationalist vandalism. The user who added it origianlly it has holds an extreme pro-UK POV which he peddled in a way considered unconstructive by many. He has since been indef. blocked for other reasons as documented on his talk page. Pfainuk talk 12:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the formulation on List of islands of Argentina, which I had a hand in writing (as User:Xaghko) was:

Argentina's claim to Antarctica overlaps with the claims of Chile and the United Kingdom. All these claims are subject to the Antarctic Treaty and none have gained wide international recognition.

Pfainuk talk 12:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it was that user who'd made the change, I would suggest British Antarcic Territory is more relevant as it used to be administered as a Falkland Islands Dependency. Justin talk 12:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think if the situation were explained at some point in the article, then maybe it would be suitable. Maybe a formulation such as "...and 584 miles (940 km) north of the British Antarctic Territory (which overlaps with the Argentine and Chilean claims to Antarctica in that region)." would be suitable. To my mind though, we're only really trying to locate the islands in the minds of our readers in that sentence and I don't see that this is a can of worms that we need to open. Pfainuk talk 14:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That would possibly be an acceptable compromise. But I would suggest that editors have a look at es.wikipedia.org and have a look at the Falkland Island articles and the blatant POV edits by Argentine contributors. They are clearly biased and POV and I sometimes wonder if bending over backwards on the English Wikipedia to accommodate Argentine sensitivities we go way beyong being fair. Just a thought. Justin talk 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I won't argue with the comments on the Spanish-language Wikipedia - all of them basically take the Argentine POV as fact. Trouble is, those articles are basically controlled by a set of pro-Argentine editors who do not distinguish their POV from NPOV. They'd be better off with nothing at all about the islands than with that rubbish. My reasoning is that if nothing else, we should be able to show that we can be NPOV despite writing in the language of only one of the disputants - if only to show the es-versions up.

For the record, Sebastian Kessel is an Argentine who has a good record for NPOV on this page but who stopped editing significantly when he tired of the constant edit warring that was taking place. I'm sure he'll correct me - or not, that's his prerogative - if it's changed, but his previously stated opinion on the islands is that he does not care either way.

If there's no objection or improvement, I suggest my compromise text goes into the article. It places the British version first, this being the more significant in this case as the BAT was considered a Falkland Islands dependency, but notes the competing claims which should be good enough for NPOV. Pfainuk talk 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I would support that. I may have been a bit cantankerous today but for information my wiki email account was filled with a load of hate mail from Argentina recently. Its pathetic really but it did darken my mood somewhat. Justin talk 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As an Anglo-Argentine I find it difficult to give a toss about a bunch of cold rocks that caused the death of so many extremely young servicemen in the Atlantic and strengthened the Thatcher regime to last another 8 years. In my opinion both sides lost badly from the conflict. As for the Antarctica issue, I don't think arguing to keep wording added by someone as rabid as any Argentine editor (here or on es:wiki) is worthwhile. As someone who is fairly neutral on the whole thing Sebastian's suggestion seems fair, but maybe we should ask someone from a reasonably neutral state like India or Norway for their opinion? English peasant 21:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to retort that I would have far more respect for Argentine contributors if they were to tackle the serious lack of NPOV on es.wikipedia.org. Pardon me if I consider you far less than NPOV whilst you do not. Justin talk 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we've had three days without further discussion, I've made the edit. Pfainuk talk 16:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I left the comment alone for a week, it's good to see what happened! Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I did indeed stopped editing because of the edit warring.

PPS: Justin, I agree with you 100% on what you say about es:wiki. I am no contributor of that Wiki for two reasons. a) English is becoming a lingua-franca and I'd rather edit where the whole world can read; and b) The current politics of South America make it very difficult to push NPOV in a spanish language open project. It is unfortunate, but I have better things to do with my time than argue with a hardheaded nationalist about whether the FI are Argentine or British. Better minds have tried and failed already. :)

However, I hope you still respect me as an editor on the virtue of the edits I made, rather than on the ones I didn't do.

Thanks to all for an example of how constructive conversation helps and produces good work. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to simply change the first sentence of the intro to this:

"The Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas]) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, located 300 miles (483 km) from the coast of Argentina, 671 miles (1,080 km) west of the Shag Rocks (South Georgia), and 584 miles (940 km) north of the British Antarctic Territory (which overlaps with the Argentine and Chilean unrecognised claims to Antarctica in that region)."

but it was immediately reverted as being "totally irrelevant". I think it's a useful and important fact that deserves to be included. The British Antarctic Territory is recognised by all nations that make claims to Antarctica except Chile and Argentina and it is also recognised by the European Union (it is a "special overseas territory" of the EU), but no country recognises Chilean or Argentine sovereignty over parts of this British overseas territory except the nation making each respective claim. In total 30 countries recognise British Antarctic Territory, giving its legitmacy far more weight, that and the fact that the United Kingdom claimed its part of Antarctica first.

And people can look up that info on the articles about the various Antarctic Claims, however this is not the article to go into the various legal and international standings of the various antarctic claims and the legal limits on what might occur. We have articles for that. However, you do bring up a good point in that there shoudl be some wikilinks there so people can easily navigate to those pages. I will poke around and make sure those are in place. If we included clauses and details for everything mentioned in every article, we'd have an unworkable mess on every page, so we have the simple (and suprisingly fun) wikilinks to let people navigate around for additional detail. Obviously, we go into such details as is relevent but as the antarctic reference is just there as more of a geographical thing, the political situation surrounding the various claims doesn't need to be repeated. Narson (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Name of islands

I notice that the Spanish article doesn't even have the English name for the islands. Since "Malvinas" is not used by the islanders at all I suggest we remove it from this article altogether. It is a foreign name - an exonym. TharkunColl (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Using the spanish articles for this is a bad idea. Having looked at their 'featured article' of the Falklands War, they don't seem to have the same standards as we do here on en.wiki. Why do we include it (And why should we continue to?)? It is a common and well recognised name that is not simply a translation of the English (and is thus informative to some degree), many users expect it to be here and, frankly, it isn't worth the running edit war with the Argentine and Irish Republican editors over it. Narson (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It can easily be included later in the article as part of the history section. Putting it as an alternative name in the first paragraph is the equivalent of listing Reichsprotektorat Böhmen und Mähren as an alternative name for the Czech Republic. It was a name imposed by an invading fascistic state. TharkunColl (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It may surprise you given my comments above, that I was the editor who placed the spanish names for the conflict in most of the articles on this subject. Frankly I did it to ensure the English wikipedia set the standard for NPOV, in return I would set the challenge for the Spanish language version to do the same. To some extent I agree with your sentiment but I would argue that we're better of taking the moral high ground than descending to the level of those editors. I would not agree with the comments of the previous editor, the name Malvinas was simply obtained by the Spanish pronunciation of the French name Iles Malouines. Justin talk 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The name may have a perfectly innocent origin, but the events of 1982 stripped it of its innocence forever. Its inclusion in the lead violates Wikipedia policy on naming and is POV. TharkunColl (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No is still the Spanish name for the islands, not all the Spanish speaking parts of the world supported Argentina. The sensitivity surrounding the name is noted. That should suffice. Justin talk 23:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments are unconvincing and well worn. They've been rejected before and they are not sufficient reason to start the big edit war up again. The fact that the Spanish Wikipedia has already chosen to abandon NPOV does not mean that we have to - better that we keep NPOV to show them up as I said in the previous discussion.

If Germany still claimed the Czech Republic under the name Reichsprotektorat Böhmen und Mähren, and actively pursued that claim, then yes, NPOV would require us to include that name in the lead of the Czech Republic article. Wikipedia is not censored. Pfainuk talk 23:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The reaction I got from adding the picture of Stanley to the .es article was interesting to say the least. --Gibnews (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This may be the wrong place to put this (sorry!) but is there any way we can convince the .es wiki to contain less POV because I just read it (good old A-level Spanish) and...it's what can only be described as..biased to the max.--Eight of Hearts (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You can go over there and edit it? The problem you will face is that there are smaller editing numbers on those wikis, and it is dominated by native speakers. So expect to be reverted. Narson (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never actually tried to edit the Spanish versions of these articles, but my impression is that I'd have to stick it for the long haul with lots of stress to get the British versions of events even a vaguely fair hearing, let alone to achieve NPOV.

There are better articles and there are worse articles there (es:Soberanía de las Islas Malvinas is in the running for the most biased article I've ever seen), and but none of them stray very far from the Argentine government. Pfainuk talk 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"It is a foreign name - an exonym." - yes, it may well be, but I have seen it ued in English, esp. in Ireland, and some wikipedians who are not native English speakers may need this extra information to avoid confusion. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New analysis

This may be interesting to read and refer to:

http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=13412&formato=html

--Gibnews (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The booklet mentioned is available here:

http://www.wildisland.gs/atlantis/gettingitright.pdf

Dab14763 (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, is the Argentine brochure online anywhere ? --Gibnews (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

According to that booklet you can download it from the website of the Argentine embassy in Washington. Justin talk 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be it. It's really just a restatement of the Argentine POV. Pfainuk talk 10:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper have made available to the public a remarkable plentitude of important original documents, making the doctoring of Falklands history more difficult ... and providing valuable relevant sources for all the Falklands related articles here. Well done, congratulations! Apcbg (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina

I've filed a requested move of the article Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province (the province that, according to Argentina, the Falklands belong to) and thought people here might be interested in taking part. Thanks. Pfainuk talk 10:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

no Argentinian links before 1971 ??

Well, there were some links before 1833, when it was invided by Britain. Can someone change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.255.49 (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I can safely say there were no air links to the Falklands from Argentina before 1833. That is what that section is about, air links, as it clearly says. Narson (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Military Garrison

"The island has a number of Royal Marines stationed on it at most times," Before 1982 maybe, the only RM now probably stationed on the islands is the Permanent Staff Instructor of the FIDF. The garrison these days is based around a British Army infantry company, supporting services, four RAF fighters, an RN frigate, or destroyer and HMS Endurance. That section really does need to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Update it then! that's the point!BennyTec (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It was locked when I first noticed the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.177.146 (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

oops good point... my apologies ;) BennyTec (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)