Talk:Flag of the Falkland Islands

Edit War

The edit summary is not a place for arguments. Talk here, agree on something and then request unprotection.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have had no part of the edit war, and indeed was unaware of it until Nkcs went round numerous talk pages attempting to drum up support. IMO, the inclusion of the Tierra del Fuego flag is inappropriate and irrelevant, NOT (at least in the first instance) because of any judgement regarding Argentina's claim, but for the simple reason that it is not the flag of the Falkland Islands.

As I write this, I am in Hampshire, England. Hampshire has no flag of its own - any flags of national/regional identity flown around here are either the Union Flag or St George's Cross. It would be quite wrong to characterise either flag as the "Flag of Hampshire", and if anyone were to create a Wikipedia article Flag of Hampshire, showing either of these flags, I would have no hesitation in putting it up for AfD.

If Argentina were officially to create a flag specifically for the islands, I would support the creation of a new article Flag of the Malvinas, and the inclusion of a "See also" link (though nothing more) in the present article. In the absence of such an "official" flag, however, the repeated attempts to insert some Argentine element, no matter how tangentially relevant, starts to look suspiciously like a violation of WP:POINT. Vilĉjo 18:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you're in an urgent need of updated information. Let me clarify some things:

1) The flag of Tierra del Fuego province is, according to Argentina's federal government, the only true flag of the islands. According to the Argentine constitution and Tierra del Fuego's laws, the province encompasses Argentine claims to Antarctica, and to the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. See Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina), and don't make a statement like "starts to look suspiciously like a violation of WP:POINT" when you don't know what are you talking about.

2) The Falklands and the Malvinas are in fact the same islands, obviously with different names due to their historical dispute. We don't have two separate "Germany" and "Deutschland" articles, so we don't need any "Flag of the Malvinas" page.

3) As stated several times before, the islands are a disputed territory, and as such both sides have equal rights to show their own political perspective. Given that the information is properly referenced and sourced, I don't see any reason for Astrotrain and TharkunColl's deletionist behaviour. --Nkcs 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I am well aware that Tierra del Fuego province encompasses the Argentine claim to the Falklands. My point is that this does not make it correct to call the TdF flag the "Flag of the Falkland Islands". It is simply the flag of TdF, of which the Falklands/Malvinas are claimed to be part. Let me repeat that I am passing no comment on the Argentine claim here. But we do not list the flag of X as being also the flag of every conceivable subdivision of X. When there is a distinctive flag for such a subdivision, we list it. If there is not, we leave it as what it is, i.e. the flag of the parent entity. Vilĉjo 23:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia give equal billing to every specious territorial claim in the world? We are here to report facts, not what some people would like to be facts. The people of the Falklands do not accept the Argentine claim in any shape or form. TharkunColl 23:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim is a fact, it even led to a war a fact that the people of the FI are very much aware of. I personally think the islanders should be heard, but we can't just erase things from the encyclopedia because they aren't popular with one group or another. NPOV means NPOV, not just the popular POV. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Argentine claim may well be a "fact", but the fact that they have not been able to make it stick is also a fact. TharkunColl 08:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, and that is properly stated on the FI page, Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Vilĉjo, is that the islands are not a subdivision of Tierra del Fuego. As stated on the province's 1991 constitution, its full official name is PROVINCE OF TIERRA DEL FUEGO, ANTARCTICA, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC ISLANDS, and therefore the provincial flag can be directly considered the standard of the Falkland Islands; note also that, during the Argentine administration from 1826 to 1833, the islands were considered more like a subnational entity than a subdivision of an existing province. It should also be noted that the Argentine bases in Antarctica use exclusively Tierra del Fuego's flag, and if the islands were administered by Argentina, I'm pretty sure that the same rules would be applied. The province of Tierra del Fuego does not encompasses the islands as a subdivision; in fact, the governor of Tierra del Fuego is also de jure the Argentine governor of the Falkland Islands. --Nkcs 04:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The de jure governor of the Falklands is Howard Pearce. TharkunColl 08:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you I'm not mistaken. I've said "the governor of Tierra del Fuego is also de jure the Argentine governor of the Falkland Islands", not the British one. --Nkcs 12:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a de jure Argentine governor of the Falklands. TharkunColl 13:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is. See Tierra del Fuego's 1991 provincial constitution. --Nkcs 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Argentines have no right to make laws with regard to a territory they do not control and which is not part of their country. Therefore there is no such thing as a de jure Argentine governor of the Falklands. It is really very simple. TharkunColl 16:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, Argentina doesn't believe that the FI aren't part of their territory. They see the British as usurpers. Whether they are right or wrong is a different issue. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Argentines do not control the Falklands, that is a fact. The people of the Falklands do not want to be controled by Argentina, that is a fact. Argentine laws concerning the Falklands are mere fantasy, with no practical reality whatsoever. TharkunColl 17:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

(resetting tabs) The first two statements are facts, the second is a POV. Please read this excerpt from WP:NPOV.

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

. This means that while the Argentine position need not be the most prominent it has the right to be stated, although not necessarily with the same importance. IMHO, the article is almost right but I would add a link to the Flag of Tierra del Fuego, explaining the Argentine position. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Let us imagine for a moment that the islands are under Argentine rule. Of course it would be entirely correct to fly the flag of the Province there, just as in Argentine Antarctica, because they are part of that Province. It remains, however, the flag of the Province; the fact that they are mentioned in the full official title of the Province (well, actually they're not, because "South Atlantic Islands" includes South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, but that's by the bye) merely points up the fact that they are a part of a larger entity. For your case to hold, you'd need to cite Argentine legislation making this flag (to use your word) directly that of the Falklands, rather than their flag by virtue of being part of the Province whose flag it "directly" is. Vilĉjo 08:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As stated on my previous comment, the islands, along with the territories of Tierra del Fuego and Argentine Antarctica, ARE the province, not PART of it. If you didn't noticed before, the denomination of "Tierra del Fuego" is merely a short name for designating the full province, see the 1991 provincial constitution. As such, in case of another Argentine rule all provincial laws would be automatically applied on the islands, including of course the one regulating the flag. --Nkcs 12:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And FWIW, even Flags of the World, on its article about Tierra del Fuego province, recognizes it as the Argentine official flag of the islands. --Nkcs 12:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can be bothered pursuing this argument any further, as you seem to be resorting to increasingly desperate word-play. "[T]he islands, along with the territories of Tierra del Fuego and Argentine Antarctica, ARE the province"—quite right (at least from an Argentine perspective). It follows that the islands themselves are PART of the province, which has been exactly my point all the way through. I think I shall leave it at that and allow any interested third parties to judge for themselves how coherent your position is. Vilĉjo 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not sufficiently clear about this.

1) Decree 1794 of Tierra del Fuego states: "The official flag of TIERRA DEL FUEGO, ANTARCTICA, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC ISLANDS is..." As the document clearly explains, the Falklands are obviously included on the "South Atlantic Islands" category, not as a subdivision, but rather as a subnational entity.

2) Until the adoption of a local emblem, the Argentine national flag and coat of arms were used in the region. In April 26th, 1990, by Federal Law 23775, the state of TIERRA DEL FUEGO, ANTARCTICA, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC ISLANDS was upgraded to province status, and the new emblems were adopted in short term on all the territory. (According to Flags of the World)

3) Nevertheless, the name SOUTH ATLANTIC ISLANDS does not solely include the Falklands, many Argentine islands like the Isla de los Estados are also under this category, and as such they regularly use Tierra del Fuego's flag. If the Falklands were under Argentine administration, exactly the same rules would be applied. --Nkcs 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, mainly because the Falklands are not part of Argentina. It's actually quite simple. TharkunColl 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And what does that mean? That the Argentine claim shouldn't be stated? Currently, the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Palestine (they are part of Israel, and the country of Palestine doesn't even exist). Does that mean that we shouldn't show the Palestinian view of things? This is all regardless of "who's right", NPOV doesn't care about that. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are people in Palestine who dispute the current arrangements. This is not the case in the Falklands. It really is very simple what the difference is. TharkunColl 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the difference is irrelevant. Wikipedia can't care about what the parties to the conflict think, Wikipedia is NPOV and thus has to stay neutral. I think that if you manage to understand this particular law you'll realize that WP is not a place for politics and tirades only for facts, and you yourself recognized above that the Argentine claim is factual. Whether is valid or not, neither I nor WP care. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Because something is claimed does not make it true - Wikipedia is about what IS not an alternative view of reality. That a claim exists, is itself a fact and deserves to be mentioned. That the claim encompassed a desire to fly a foreign flag on British territory is something that can be mentioned as part of a page detailing that claim, along with it being rejected. It does not belong on a page describing the flag of the Falkland islands, because it does not.

If the Martians wanted to invade they stand more chance, but their flag need not be included at this time.

--Gibnews 12:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is about what IS not an alternative view of reality." I'm afraid not. You can put these arguments (from either Argentinian or British perspectives) on thousands of Wikipedia entries (Mayor McCheese, Twiggy, California Redwoods, etc) and I doubt anyone will report it for having a POV or for being totally unrelated to the topic. What is amazing to me is that the posters here actually seem to care. That is both remarkable and pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.45.99 (talk • contribs)

When I put the flag of the Tierra del Fuego province in the article, Im not saying that it actually IS the flag of the islands. It is just an image that is related to the subject of this article.

Most people who reads this article already knows that there was a war between Argentina and UK for the islands.

The article states: "Currently, Argentina maintains that the islands are part of the Tierra del Fuego Province and considers the province's flag to be the islands' flag" So, what is so wrong about ilustrating that information??

Be reasonable, be neutral and understand that hiding information for political reasons is not Wikipedia´s purpose. People who reads the article wants to be informed, that´s all. Aletano 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Although most people know there was a war, by putting a foreign flag there they may not understand that Argentina lost. Its simply not the 'Flag of the Falkland Islands'. --Gibnews 10:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That can be fixed easily. The article already states that the flag has never been flown on the islands. Also, you can give that explanation in the caption.

Chek out the United states flag article: There you will find flags of Cuba, Liberia, Malaysia and British India. Why? Because the information is related to the article.

Lets be reasonable. Some guy said that it should be of a smaller size that the actual flag of the islands. I agree with that. And there might be an explanation in the caption of what you are saying, I also agree. But hiding the information from others, that is not OK for Wikipedia. Aletano 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That flag didn't even exist in 1982, so has never been flown on the Falklands even by the fascist occupiers, let alone the islanders' own government. TharkunColl 16:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"OK, but What Flag?"

See what I mean? this is just to illustrate the article, to provide relevant information that the people who reads this article might want to know.

Why do you keep trying to hide it? That is as "fascist" as the invaders that took the islands. Give the information to the people and let them take their own conclusions. Aletano 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Did I understand you correctly? Did you say that not wanting to include a foreign flag in this article is the equivalent of invading a sovereign territory? TharkunColl 00:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I said that hiding information from people is quite a "fascist" thing to do. As a matter of fact, those fascists who took the islands also hid information from people, all the time. The image is an ilustration of an information that is already on the article. Also, as I said before, give people the information and let them take their own conclusions. Aletano 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That a foreign government mistakenly thinks that a different flag applies to the territory is a fact that deserves mentioning in the article, the flag itself does not because it is not the flag of the Falkland islands and currently they are not part of the province of Argentina that it applies to in any manner whatsoever, except imagination. That is the information. I don't know who you are calling 'fascists' but its not really productive. Just remember the democratic principle that the people who live in the Falklands determine what flag they fly, and its currently shown on the page. --Gibnews 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Most Latin-American nations, Spain and China would say that the Flag of Tierra del Fuego IS the actual flag of the "Falklands". (Since they support the Argentine claim). As a matter of fact, they dont even call those islands "the Falklands".

I understand that the current flag is the one shown right now. However, according to Wikipedia´s NPOV policies, the other should be shown as well.

Who are you to deny information to the people that reads the article? Stop hiding hinformation just cause it affects your pov. Understand that wikipedia is Npov and NO-Censorship.

And what is that about "it is not the Falklands Flag"? Is that a new Wikipedia rule that you just made up? ANY PICTURE WHICH IS RELATED TO THE INFORMATION GIVEN ON AN ARTICLE CAN BE SHOWN. There is no rule that states that in an article about a Flag, the only picture allowed is the actual flag. For example, check the United States flag article: Surprise!! There are a lot of flags which are not from the United States!! What is this people thinking??

This image is related to the information given here, thats good enough to be included. Aletano 04:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats your opinion. However, show some pictures on that flag being flown on public buildings in the Falklands and there might be some point in showing it on Wikipedia. The article is about 'The flag of the Falkland Islands' and the flag that is flown there is pictured. Its reasonable to mention the existance of alternatives, but not to picture a flag that is not actually flown. --Gibnews 07:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The FACT that several nations recognize the Tierra del Fuego flag as the true flag of the islands -including a major great power like China, two european nations like Spain and Portugal and almost all Latin-American nations- makes the image relevant enough to be shown on the article. You are still making up rules. First the rule stated "in an article about a Flag, the only picture allowed is the actual flag." The one you are making up now seems to state "in an article about a Flag, the only pictures allowed are flags that have been flown on the territory."

You see the problem is that those rules dont exist. It just has to be relevant, connected with the article in a way. And it is undoubtly relevant, since the Tierra del Fuego flag is actually mentionated in the article.

One more thing. If you actually believe the last thing you said, you should have no problem in showing the Argentina national flag then, since it has been flown on this islands several times, as you seem to demand. But Im guessing there will be a new rule that wont allow it for some reason, right? Aletano 11:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell can't we just agree with the compromise and leave a link to Tierra del Fuego flag in the text. I understand your point Aletano, but surely if you wish to remain neutral then you should advocate showing the current de jure (albeit disputed) flag, as desired by the residents, and discussing the claim in the text. To pretend that the desire to show the TdeF flag is being anything other than deliberately imflammatory is wrong. (Battens down the hatches in preperation!!) :) --BennyTec 14:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I never even tried to remove the de jure flag. Of course it would be wrong and stupid to remove the Falkland Islands flag from the Falkland Islands flag article. I do "advocate showing the current flag".

The problem is, I think the TdF flag should be shown too. People -british people- keep removing it for the same reason: "It is not the Falklands flag". However, as I said before, there is no rule that states that the only pic that can be shown in an article about a flag is the actual flag. No one could give me an answer to that.

The truth is that there is not a valid reason to remove the TdF flag. It is removed for political reasons: some people just dont like that flag being shown on the article, we all know it.

But no one here can deny that the TdF flag is related to the information given on this article, since the TdF flag is actually MENTIONATED. So, that is all it takes to show it. It doesnt need to be the Falklands flag. It doesnt need to be flown on the islands. It justs need to have some relation with the topic. And it does. Aletano 05:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your point about the United States flag articles, the reason why they are included there is because they are similar in design, which bares little importance in this context. The current article came out of a compromise over a previous edit war over the exact same issue, and as far as I'm concerned, and most of the other editors of this article, it is acceptable. While we all have our own opinions about Argentina's claim to the islands, it is nevertheless important to mention these clams, since it is a fact, which this article does. However, your arguments don't change the fact that the flag of Tierra del Fuego is not the flag of the Falkland Islands, it is the flag of Tierra del Fuego. If you look at the article for the Flag of Mayotte you will see that there is no flag of the Comoros there, even though they clam it. The situation would be different if the flag had actually been flown in the past on the islands, as it would be historically relevant, but its only significance here is Argentina's claim to the islands, and I don't think that merits the flags inclusion in this article, and it would be wrong to include it only for political reasons, since they are addressed elsewhere. Danielnez1 09:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree --Gibnews 10:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise

This subject is taking too long, we should try and reach a compromise here. WP:NPOV states that we have to show all POVs, giving each POV a prominence preponderant to its importance and sources. I believe that there are enough sources to consider the flag issue Verified but not enough to argue equal importance.

I like the fact that the article already states that the Argentine Flag was raised during 1982 and maybe we can just add a little explanation as to the "Flag of Tierra del Fuego" and link to the provincial article. This is my proposed amendment, then:

Current

During the Falklands War, when Argentina occupied the islands, the flag was banned and in its place the Argentine Republic's flag was raised.

Amended

During the Falklands War, when Argentina occupied the islands, the flag was banned and in its place the Argentine Republic's flag was raised. Currently, Argentina maintains that the islands are part of the Tierra del Fuego Province and considers the province's flag to be the islands' flag.

Opinions?

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been following this debate with interest although this is my first comment. Sebastian's compromise seems fair to me, although I think it is worth adding (for the uninformed) the words ", but this flag has never flown on the islands, which remain a British dependency." (Not everyone reading this page will know the history).

I would also like to add that if an image of the Tierra del Fuego flag is included, it should be smaller to indicate its lack of relevance to Falklanders (previously it was larger than the other flags, which may have added to the irritation of some editors). The Singing Badger 18:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I like that. How about

Amended

During the Falklands War, when Argentina occupied the islands, the flag was banned and in its place the Argentine Republic's flag was raised. Currently, Argentina maintains that the islands are part of the Tierra del Fuego Province and considers the province's flag to be the islands' flag, although it was never flown on them.

The fact that it remains a British dependency is clear in the rest of the article.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have been following the debate with interest, and support this compromise. I disagree that the flag image should be smaller in order to indicate a lesser relevance, however -- I think its placement at the end of the article and the accompanying disclaimer is sufficient to indicate its status. Instead, I think the flag should be the same height as the others on the page, so that its difference in proportions is clearer -- i.e., that we follow the practice established on the Gallery of sovereign-state flags page in this regard. Since TDF uses a 2:3 ratio it will be indeed be smaller in this scheme than the other 2:1 flags on the page, but only as a side-effect of its ratio, not a commentary on its importance. --ScottMainwaring 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The flag is NOT the flag of the Falkland Islands, it is not flown there and its inclusion would undoubtedly be deeply offensive to the people of the Falklands - it does not belong on an encyclopedia page. From what I remember the only flag flown, when they were illegally occupied, was the plain Argentine one.

There is no need to compromise facts.

--Gibnews

Honestly, Wikipedia couldn't care less about offending anyone. Please Read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. The Argentine claim is also a fact that nobody can hide, whether you like it or not. Compromise is always necessary in an encyclopedia and if you are not prepared to make concessions then you probably should rethink your level of involvement here. There is no absolute truth, not yours, not mine, not anybody's. We can't live in a black-and-white world, where things are "our way or the highway" and pretend that everybody agrees to it. I would urge to you please reconsider your position and try to improve this encyclopedia instead of waging political wars in pursuit of your ideals. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't find any need to apologise for having ideals and wanting to read the truth rather than politically correct twaddle.

Its good policy not to offend people, and that is exactly what achieving a compromise is about. As I have indicated, the correct place to deal with 'a flag for the malvinas' is on a page explaining the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands.

National symbols are important to many people, in some countries you would end up in jail or worse for messing with them. The Falklands flag is as shown, please show respect for it.

I'm not saying we should ignore the claim, it should be documented but a reference work needs to be accurate when presenting facts as opposed to opinion or it is worthless. This particular page we are discussing is about fact not indulging in alternative realities.

Time to read 1984 again.

--Gibnews

You are asking me to show respect for the Falklands Flag? Where did I ever disrespect it? "Politically Correct twaddle"? My proposal doesn't even include an image!!!! And sincerely the fact that national symbols are important to people is as relevant to this page as the lebanese-israeli war is (i.e.: No relevancy at all).

I personally despise the generals that prompted that f**ing war and the whole political stupidity that emanated from it. Let the islanders do whatever they feel like doing and forget about the whole deal. Forcing the Islanders to be Argentine is a punishment. I lived in Argentina 25 years and can't wish that torture on anybody. But what I personally think is even less relevant!!!

This is about making sure that Argentine POV is also represented, and that this page doesn't just cater to one half of the readers but instead is a thorough representation of facts. And if you deny the fact that Argentina has a claim to the islands is like denying that 1+1=2. Just can't happen.

I hope that you learn to leave your national feelings aside and understand that including the Argentine paragraph is not a disrespect to the islanders or the UK but instead a representation of a existing claim, a claim that may be stupid but it's sourced, verifiable and relevant. And that's all that Wikipedia cares about.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But one needs to distinguish between fact and fiction, or rather comment. By all means include it on a page describing that claim, and include a link from the flag page to that. Its a practice in news media to clearly identify what is comment and what is presented as factual material. I thought you were advocating giveing a foreign inappropriate flag equal billing as some suggested, however I propose a link as a compromise.

On a clear day I can see parsley Island as its uninhabited might one day go across and establish a territorial claim and open a page describing it Wikipedia. I need a good flag design. --Gibnews

I never advocated giving the flag equal footing, if you carefully read my text you'll see that I specifically advocated against it.

Re: Parsley Island, when you (as a person) become a notable entity, we'll have your claim in WP, no need to plant a flag. :)

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

only one comment, Bah! spelt Baaaaa --Gibnews

Wiki is not censored - the territory is disputed and the flag is disputed - all relevant flags should be represented.--Vintagekits 12:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is NO dispute on which flag actually flies in the Falkland Islands; However, in for example Ulster, there are a variety of flags flown which some editors wish to supress. I also note that Spain claims Gibraltar but including a Spanish flag on that page would be highly inflamatory and considered vandalism. --Gibnews

You mean YOU would find it "inflamatory and consider it vandalism" - thankfully that has little baring on this article just like you wanted the wishes of the people of Ballymena "respected" as the reason to have the Ulster Banner incorrectly used as the flag of Northern Ireland. There are two sides to Malvinas issue and both should be present, not just the British POV.--Vintagekits 17:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the Ulster Banner has actually been flown in the territory, where a significant number of people support its use. There may be two sides to the dispute over the Falkland Islands, however this page is not about the dispute, it is about the flag and that is shown correctly. --Gibnews 00:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A historical question

When the Argentines occupied the Falklands in 1982, what did they declare the islands' status to be? Did they declare them part of Tierra del Fuego province? Or just part of Argentina? Or in fact just a piece of territory under military occupation? Or what? This is important, because those few weeks in 1982 are the only time the Argentines were in possession. Whatever they delare to be the case since then is irrelevant. If it's the case that the Argentines made the Falklands part of Tierra del Fuego in 1982, then we need to discover what that province's flag was in 1982, because it certainly wasn't the one shown, which is new. Reading the relevant article gives the impression that it didn't have one, and just used the Argentine national flag. In other words, the only Argentine flag flown on the Falklands for those few brief weeks in 1982 was the national one. Because of its transitory and brief nature, and because the people of the Falklands opposed it, I don't think it deserves to be shown in this article - a mere link to its relevant page is all that is required. TharkunColl 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its importance is minimal. As stated before Tierra del Fuego's constitution was created after the Falklands War, modifying all existent Argentine laws regarding the islands' status. Times have changed; on 1982 Tierra del Fuego was considered a national territory, now is a province. Learn some history before talking, ok? --Nkcs 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing that the Argentines have done since 1982 is relevant, because they haven't been in possession since then. Why don't you try and learn a bit of history? TharkunColl 16:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant, who's denying it? If you didn't noticed before, my statement was regarding your "opinion" about the flag flown during the 1982 Argentine administration of the islands. Perhaps you should calm down a bit, it seems that every comment sounds offensive for you. --Nkcs 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Tharkun, in 1982 the province didn't exist. It was called a Territory, and it function somewhat similar to the US's Organized territory. Therefore, it didn't have flag of its own. As you can see from my previous answer to Gibnews, I don't advocate the flag, but a link to it. If we decide to show the flag, it shouldn't have the same prominence as the current flags. And, for the record, the Argentine were in posession from 1826 to 1833. (Please see Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands). Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

Seeing that both Tharkun and GibNews (along with other users, who weren't part of the argument) agreed to the compromise I proposed (albeit in a strange way, I must say). I will make this changes and unprotect the page. I won't hesitate to protect again and I will not engage in an edit war. I hope we can keep it civil.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version is perfect. Thanks for your help! =) --Nkcs 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just returned to find that this compromise has been hammered out while I was away. For the record, I'm happy with it too. Vilĉjo 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Flags look and feel

Now that we moved away from the text and format, can I ask one of our British editors to reduce the size of the flags a little bit to improve the appearance? Right now we have more flags than text, maybe changing the size a tad will make the article look better... I'd rather not do the change myself to avoid potentially hurting sensibilities. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I shrunk them from 250px to 200px, how does it look? (Of course it depends a lot on your monitor's resolution; it looks fine at 1280x1024, but may still look cluttered at lower resolutions.) The Singing Badger 21:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Much cleaner... maybe we can move the civil ensign to the 1st para... Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Flagwavers on the South American mainland

Argentinian irredentism about pre-British times and being the sore loser of the Falklands War, has no place here. The flag associated with Tierra del Fuego is not the official flag hoisted by Falklanders. Self determination is a human right and if you have a problem with it, contest your case before the United Nations. Have you heard of Aztlan? Well, it is a similarly sick and twisted game (Flag of Aztlán) that Mexico plays with the United States. Please keep your territorial ambitions to yourself. If the Falklanders and UK or Commonwealth authorities decide they want to hand over the Falklands to Argentina, they will do so. The flag is more appropriate to the Falklands War article, so put it there.

Another thing; if the Îles Malouines could belong to anybody, it would be the townspeople of Saint-Malo. Since I am Breton, Argentinians can kiss my ass. 68.110.8.21 08:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Governors flag

In all the fuss about including other flags the article seems to have lost the flag of the Governor of the Falkland Islands. Was there any particular reason for this ? --Gibnews 10:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Falkland Islands flags

Is there a particular reason for having separate List of Falkland Islands flags article? ZIt seems that they could be easily covere here, as that page onlyhas 2 or 3 flags that aren't already listed here. I'm not familar with Flag project guidelines, so is there something in them that requires having two separate pages regardless of their size. - BilCat (talk)

Revert War

Please stop adding irrelevant and tangential material, this article concerns the Flag of the Falkland Islands, it is not the place to grand stand political gestures declaring it an "illegal" flag. It is not relevant to the topic. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User César has requested me to speak on his behalf, because he has little knowledge of the English language. I concede that his text was gramatically incorrect, and not as neutral as it could be, but the core idea is legitimate. The information is specific to the flag, so it belongs here. Any case where a state declares another's one flag to be illegal is legitimate information: it always comes as a consequence of higher and important disputes, it's never mere trivia. The Flag of Tibet is forbidden in China as well, and the article mentions that. I propose this text.

"On November 2010, the 12 nations members of Union of South American Nations UNASUR signed a document, declaring the flag to be illegal. This was done in support to the Argentine claim in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. As a consequence, vessels using the flag will not be allowed to dock on ports in these countries."(same reference)

I hope this will solve the concerns. Notice that it says that the flag was "declared" illegal but not that it "is" illegal (which ultimately depends on the legal system used as reference, absolutes have no room here), so it's attributing a point of view to their proponents. I have also avoided the conflict with the way of naming the islands. --MBelgrano (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No I do not accept that. Not every article on the Falklands has to be turned into an article on the sovereignty dispute. The article is about the Flag of the Falkland Islands, that declaration is at best tangentially relevant if at all. Its a classic WP:COATRACK to include yet more details on the sovereignty dispute and per WP:NOTNEWS we should not turn this article into a repository of news stories about such declarations. Its a pointless declaration in any sense as the only Falkland's flagged vessels operate with Falkland's coastal waters. Falklands registered vessels fly the Red Ensign. We already include a due note that Argentina disputes the Falklands Flag that is more than sufficient - we already have an article on the sovereignty dispute which might be a home for this. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The information is relevant and is part of the history of the flag. To eliminate this information is one non neutrality. No boat that uses a flag of the Falklands Islands can arrive at a port of South America, that is important information envelope she.--Cêsar (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is irrelevant and is not part of the history of the flag. This has nothing to do with neutrality, indeed quite the converse it being used as a WP:COATRACK to grand stand a sovereignty claim where it has zero relevance for the article in question. Again for information Falklands vessels fly the Red Ensign and not the flag of the Falkland Islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I adree, the Argentine claim is quite irrelevant here. Apcbg (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This information is irrelevant here because the subject is another: Currently, Argentina maintains that the islands are part of the Tierra del Fuego Province and considers the province's flag to be the islands' flag, although it has never been flown on them.

This information is relevant here because the subject is the flag of the Falklands Islands (Red and Blue Ensigns of the Falklands Islands): On November 2010, the 12 nations members of Union of South American Nations UNASUR signed a document, declaring the flag to be illegal. This was done in support to the Argentine claim in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. As a consequence, vessels using the flag will not be allowed to dock on ports in these countries.

Is this is a censorship case where information is hidden according to whether or not to serve British interests.? I hope not.--Cêsar (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If what we are looking for, is to provide information about the flag of the Falklands, the aggregate is very important. It provides information about the legal status of the flag in America. I think it's an important point for anyone who is looking for information about the subject. We are not talking about a claim. We are talking about a legal situation. I think not to allow the publication of such as relevant information like this, can only respond to a reason of political censorship. You can see in the discussion, some people that just give reasons like say no to Argentina claims, like in the stadium. I am sure this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Of course I agree with the publication. --fredfed(talk) 04:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of censorship? I would suggest both of you read WP:AGF. This is clearly not censorship, its about not allowing an event to be used as a WP:COATRACK upon which to pin irrelevant details about the sovereignty dispute.

A document was signed, so what, per WP:NOTNEWS wikipedia is not a news site and we do not have to cover every pronouncement made by UNASUR. We already cover Argentina's view on the Falkland Islands flag in this article already - with what I consider more than due coverage. What is proposed would cover it again ie twice. This is giving undue attention, an article on the flag becoming dominated by the sovereignty dispute with Argentina.

If your best argument is to level false accusations of censorship, clearly there is no compelling reason to include this. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt if the paragraph about the Falklands flag during the brief Argentine occupation in 1982 belongs here either, not in its present form anyway. If you look at the Flag of Poland article for example, which is much more detailed, it deals with the instances of using the Polish flag during the 1939-1945 German occupation of Poland, not with Germany banning the Polish flag and replacing it by the German one both in the General Government and in the annexed Polish territories. Similarly, the Flag of the Czech Republic says that, since the official approval of that flag in 1920 "it has been used continuously, excluding the World War II occupation years", without specifying what other flag was used in those year. The Wikipedia practice seems quite clear in this respect indeed. Apcbg (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed and I've just noted and corrected that it was already raised a 2nd time in the gallery. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine but your correction does nothing to address my point. Both the use of Argentine flag in 1982 and the present non-use of TdF flag are inappropriate content in this article, that should be moved to those flags' articles. Apcbg (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I support that bold edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, but I fail to see how a formal declaration by twelve South American nations regarding the Falklands flag is not relevant in the main article about that flag. Should it be the central focus? Certainly not, and I'm sure the concerns listed above are in good faith. However, to avoid mentioning it altogether is a mistake and one can see how it could easily be misinterpreted as a biased decision. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem being that until Apcbg's edit, the article was considerably longer, mostly dedicated to the sovereignty dispute and there isn't a vessel in existence that would be affected by this declaration. What do you suggest? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't that much longer, nor was it mostly about the occupation. The answer lies, though, in finding more material about the flag, rather than removing stuff simply because it is too short. I did a quick mock-up of a version here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ckatz, I see your point; have added a sentence to cover that aspect. Apcbg (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've shortened Apcbg's text, it still covers the salient points without favouring any particular viewpoint. Is it worth noting it doesn't actually affect any ships whatsoever? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not in the form you suggest, I believe, for the article is not on that UNASUR decision or its applicability. In another form, perhaps it could be formulated as part of the section on the use of the Falklands flag, that Falklands ships use the Red Ensign (plain?) instead outside their territorial waters (if so)? Apcbg (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You're correct the only vessels to use the Falklands Flag are those operating in Falklands coastal waters. The rest use the Red Ensign. I would consider that. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the Falklands Red Ensign, that most likely would be considered a Falklands flag in the sense of the UNASUR declaration. Apcbg (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No its simply the normal "Red Duster", as a declaration it is actually utterly meaningless. It doesn't affect anything. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The place for explaining the practical implications of that declaration would be the Falklands sovereignty dispute article I believe; here it could be mentioned (properly sourced) that the Falklands Red Ensign is not actually used? By the way, one wonders if Brazil has opted to regard the White Ensign as a Falklands flag too :-) Apcbg (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed the reference to the supposed ban, as it refers to the Falklands Red Ensign, ships do not fly the flag referred to by this article. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Refimprove

1. I added the refimprove tag because the article had previously had an unreferenced tag, which was inaccurate, as it had references.
2. If consensus is that the article is sufficiently well cited the tag can be removed. Alternatively if there are specific places that need references they can either be referenced or tagged {{Cn}} and the {{Refimprove}} tag removed.
3. Adding a second cite to a given fact need not be a problem, however it is generally more useful to find references for uncited facts.

Good luck, Rich Farmbrough, 15:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. Hopefully that will help. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rich. So I understand that the second reference is hasnt to be a problem. So I will add it againg. I still waiting for logical reasons for not to improve references from the other guys... (Moncho2002 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC))

Thanks Richard, apparently not, again no its not needed it is already referenced. References for other material would be useful. Las referencias de otro material sería útil. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? What does it do to improve the article? The whole idea of that refimprove tag is to add additional citations to improve the rest of the article. Of all the points that are cited, you chose to add additional cites to one that is already cited for no purpose whatsoever. Why? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Curry. As I told you before, an administrator of Wikipedia -Richard-, asked to improve the references. I understood he was talking about the last improvements of information, that were controversial too. They had a reference from Fis (Fishing Info Services ), that can be for some people not much reliable. So I added that. But if you don’t want more than 1 reference, and is important for you, thats ok. I leave the one from Mercopress that I understand is better than the other. Besides I usually see more than one reference in a lot of articles and that is not bad. Even, I usually see references in other languages when they are relevant. That’s why I added the link of Unasur. But I desisted from add that information in order to get an agreement with you. I really don’t like this kind of “edit wars”, but your position is sometimes hard and illogic. Thas why I asked Richard about what he wanted when he asked for referencies. I give you my hand to have a friendly talk. As always. (Moncho2002 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

The original reference was perfectly reliable and had a neutral title, you've chosen to replace it repeatedly with one that directly quotes one side. So I will revert to the previous text, while you explain why you think this is helpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

MercoPress, as you can read, is a neutral media and I think is more reliable and appropriate for this subject than Fish Info Service. I give up with Unasur link, and two references. But please, don’t start again. Regards.--Moncho2002 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The title of that link is not neutral, I made no comment on the media and your command of English is more than adequate for making the distinction, it is presenting the view of one side only. We do not introduce POV text by the back door, which is effectively what you're doing. I invited you to discuss why you insist on this link, please do so and don't revert until any such discussion is finished. WP:BRD is appropriate here. Start? You have continuously sought to impose your view over an existing consensus. Please stop and use the talk page. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Former flags

• 
  Flag used 1876–1925
• 
  Flag used 1925–1948

Can we please have a more up to date svg versions of these former colonial flags of the Falkland Islands please (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:4523:B00B:9EF:F101 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC))

Merge proposal

Support the 2020 proposal to merge List of Falkland Islands flags to here; both articles are short and overlap. Klbrain (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)