Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Question on vandalism 2 Malvinas Day today 3 Bias 4 Reason for invasion 5 Reordering material in intro 6 Name discussion again 7 Name = Falkland Islands, NOTHING ELSE 8 Pledge 9 "Consensus"?????? 10 Oxford English Dictionary 11 Exonym 12 Etymology of a foreign name that is not used on the Falklands 13 We may get some peace now 14 My two cents (which have nothing to do with the debate!) 15 "Less frequency" 16 Vandalism to lead 17 Lead 18 "Long-standing" claim 19 Gibraltarian 20 Edit by Mdkarazim 21 The established version is WRONG 22 Nootka Sound Convention 23 Uti possidetis 24 WTF? 25 Toleration of blatant and uncompromising bias 26 How is there so much controversy? 27 Unprotecting 28 Bad news 29 Inappropriate Use of an External Link 30 In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, forced to repatriate the remainder of the Argentine settlement, and began to repopulate the islands with British citizens. 31 "almost all", "universally" and other misc. 32 Islas Falkland 32.1 Islas Falkland (Continued) 33 Tharkun's Edits 34 Comment by an IP 35 Consensus Version 36 Governance

[edit] Question on vandalism

Is there anyway the page could be protected against unsigned edits? These amount for over 95% of the vandalism acts! Regards, Asterion 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is called semi-protection. You can request it here: Request for Page Protection. However, I suspect the admins will say that the vandalism rate is too low for protection, and that we should just revert when it happens. You may wish to try. -- Gnetwerker 23:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think theres a good case for everything to be semi protected, but this is not the place for that level of policy change. In any event guess the real vandals would just register new names.--Gibnews 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

and , by the way the UN names the Falklands "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" , I think that ends that line of discussion.

I will wait and see how it goes. If this sort of actions continues, I shall be requesting semi-protection. Regards, Asterion 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have quietened down. I note that simple vandalism on the Gibraltar pages is reverted in a minute or so, so someone is watching closely. --Gibnews 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Forget semi-protection, it needs around 10 vandalistic acts a day. So, just keep it on your watchlist and revert when you see it.KimvdLinde 15:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malvinas Day today

Today, 2nd April, is Malvinas Day in Argentina: Day of the War Veterans and the Fallen in the Falkland Islands. May the fallen from both sides rest in peace. Asterion 16:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I've been looking at this quite carefully, and I'm afraid that I detect a rather significant bias. Look at these two sentences from the first paragraph:

In 1982 the islands were the site of the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Their name continues to be a matter of dispute.

This statement appears to give the impression that both sides in this dispute were equally at fault. It gives no hint whatsoever that the aggressors were the Argentines. Let us change it. TharkunColl 23:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be in the business of apportioning blame, however what is there currently is not a good decription of what actually happened. The phrase I previously proposed does that, and explains the context of the conflict; Argentina invaded the Falklands that is a fact, thats what they said they did and that what I saw on Spanish television. The British sent a task force and recaptured the territory thats also a fact which was grudglingly admitted on TVE and announced more enthusiastically by the BBC. It asserts no POV in relation to the reasons for the invasion or the subsequent recapture. We all know what happened, so why not state it instead of trying to be 'politically correct' and waffle that it was 'the site of the war' - it was not technically a war anyway, although it may be convenient to refer to it using that term. The invasion/recapture explains what happened in words everyone can understand. I don't know why it was taken out.--Gibnews 10:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is easily fixed with:

In 1982 the islands were the site of the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom after Argentina invaded the Islands. Because of that, their name continues to be a matter of dispute.

Clear, factual. KimvdLinde 15:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would support Kim's version, but (with respect) I don't think TharkunColl and Gibnews represent an unbiased position, any more than those who support the Argentine position. The tone of the article, including references to the "Britishness" of the residence, conveys (IMO) a much more accurately nuanced position than the use of various "war words" in the intro. -- Gnetwerker 16:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be no dispute on the name of the isles here: it can only be the Falkland Islands. That is the English language term, and this is the English language Wikipedia. Now, as a matter of additional information, and for obvious reasons, the article also states the Spanish name: Malvinas. If possible, that statement should be made without prejudice or bias. If the article needs to add that the word Malvinas is offensive, it should simply point out clearly who is offended by the word and why. Regards - Andres C. 17:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Havn't got time to talk. I think you should add a link somewhere to the March of the Malvinas 201.235.46.65 18:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If so we also need a link to This--Gibnews 16:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, did you see this? --Nihil aliud scit necessitas quam vincere 04:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I Raise you This --Gibnews 17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I make no pretense of being neutral, my sympathies are with the Falkland islanders. However the words chosen were neutral, made no judgement, and described the important facts concisely.

Health warning: living somewhere harassed by Spanish speaking nations who have no respect for peoples rights may damage your bias.--Gibnews 08:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My simpathies are with neither of the parties involved, but as I said, there's room for improvement. I'll give it a try. Andres C. 12:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There are actually three parties involved, and the people of the Falkland Islands deserve your sympathy; they have had the peacful occupation of their homes dissrupted.--Gibnews 17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I do not see the relevance of that opinion on this Talk Page. Were I to respond in kind, we'd soon be arguing about everybody's sympathies for the Irish people, the Boer families, the Iraqi civilians, the Dervish tribes, the inhabitants of Dresden in 1945 or of Washington D.C. in 1812, and who knows what else. That wouldn't add much to the discussion, would it? Andres C. 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you do not see the point, then you are missing something; The Falkland Islanders are alive today and its their views that are important, they live there. There are no Malvinians.--Gibnews 23:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

We're way off-topic now, but yes, I'm missing something here, like for example: what has sympathy to the Falklanders to do with an international encyclopædia at all? Having said that, and considering that the islanders were not mistreated on purpose by the Argentinians, I'd guess my sympathies would be with the kids who were left there to their own luck, to face in combat a much better trained professional army. I'd say this has to do with some intrinsic ethnic/geographical bias (I'm also from SouthAm). No disrespect towards the islanders, of course, who where as innocent as the Argentinian youngsters. Regards. Andres C. 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that the name "Malvinas" has always been the Spanish name. It only dates from the late 18th century French occupation, as it was the French who coined the word. "Falkland" is almost a hundred years older, and older still is the Dutch "Sebald", which was also used in Spanish. TharkunColl 18:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe you Tharkuncoll, but it so happens that the modern Spanish name is Malvinas. I don't quite follow you on this one. Andres C. 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys actually think it is useful to restart this argument from the top? I don't care if you call the place Jelly Doughnutland, we have argued and (I thought) come to a consensus compromise about how to refer to the Islands, taking into account the various names given them by various countries at various times. TharkunColl, Andres C., and others, can't we leave this settled, and get together on something more interesting like (e.g.) how awful we Americans are? -- Gnetwerker 19:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was just trying to give you guys a couple of suggestions re the Malvinas as an offensive name matter, from the perspective of a non-Argentinian Spanish speaker contributor. Turns out emotions run high on this Talk Page, so I'd better go now. That should teach me a thing or two about following the wrong RfC :) Cheers everybody. Andres C. 20:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Christ, are they still arguing about this? I wish I had that much time to spare! Just zis Guy you know? 18:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for invasion

I seem to recall someone wanting a source for the claim that the junta began the invasion to distract attention from unrest at home: The Guardian quotes [1] a recent speech in which President Kirchner blamed "cowardly aggression" by the then military dictatorship. The junta, said the centre-left president, wanted to shore up its position at home by embarking on a nationalist adventure abroad, while he also reasserted Argentina's claim. The story is also covered here. ..dave souza, talk 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reordering material in intro

I have tried to reorder the material in the intro into a more logical sequence (while doing my best not to upset the fine balance of sensibilities over other things!) The islands should be described first, before we get into any stuff about sovereignty, wars etc. After that, it makes no sense to talk about the war without first stating the islands' present status and the Argentine claim. The stuff about the name certainly belongs in the intro, but is logically subsidiary to physical description and sovereignty issues. (This is not meant to be controversial!) Vilĉjo 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a good edit. I hope it survives. -- Gnetwerker 19:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Second that. KimvdLinde 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to have to put up with alternative foreign names, at least lets not give them the same prominence. Given the way this has been changed in steps from the consensus we arrived at - in a few more moves it could become Las Malvinas (falkland islands)--Gibnews 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to me the nearest we are likely to get to the Holy Grail of NPOV on this matter: Put it in the first sentence (even though it is, in English-language usage, very much a minority term, as any Google search will verify), but distinguish it visually from the official name by different styling. Maybe it'll make no-one completely happy, but at least if everyone's equally (and oppositely) unhappy ...! Vilĉjo 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this ussage of only Malvinas was a very hard negotiated compromise, and if you would look at the straw poll above, most were in favour of much clearer language. Malvinas is a english term, so italic is unlogical as that is used for foreign words. If people want that, use than the Spanish version, Islas Malvinas and put in parenthesis like (Spanish: Islas Malvinas). This slowly eroding of the compromise is not acceptable. KimvdLinde 09:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name discussion again

It seems that we have to start the name discussion again. The long negotiated compromise is actively violated. What are the NEW arguments to change this conpromise? KimvdLinde 09:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Italicising Malvinas has to be one of the lamest pieces of edit-wearring I've ever seen. We have now been through this so many times that I have it in mind to block anyone who italicises instead of bolding that word, for disruption. It's gone well past a joke. Just zis Guy you know? 09:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable to me, perhaps you need to consider why it is so important to you to demand that an inapporpriate foreign name is given prominence. As for blocking people for simply disagreeing with you, if you do that, you are not acting responsibly.--Gibnews 11:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a fine candidate for WP:LAME. (I changed it once in the obviously forlorn hope that it might be an acceptable compromise—some hope!) But why would you block for italicising and not for bolding? That seems unduly partisan—aren't both disruptive? Kim seems to be claiming that the style, not just the wording, was the subject of a consensus. I can't see any evidence of that on the talk page—or in the edit history, if it comes to that. (If anything, italicisation seems to have been the unstated norm in all the discussions.) I'm hardly going to pursue an edit war over two apostrophes, but I'm bothered by the assertion that this is violating a "long negotiated compromise"—and also by a sysop's threat to unilaterally impose one version rather than another. Vilĉjo 10:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also dispute the assertion that "Malvinas" - even without the "Islas" - is actually an English word. When is the word ever used in English, except in edit wars on Wikipedia? True, foreign words can indeed become naturalised, but has this really happened to the word "Malvinas"? Does any English speaker actually call the islands that, without making a conscious decision to do so? I doubt it. TharkunColl 10:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is either a English word, or you have to indicate which language it is. KimvdLinde 10:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Or not use it at all. TharkunColl 10:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wich has been decided already long time ago. KimvdLinde 10:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a new suggestion: The Falkland Islands, also called the Malvinas (though not by the inhabitants), are an archipelago... TharkunColl 10:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No. A compromise solution has been arrived at. One or two people who dislike the compromise solution (which was in any case largely a response to the fact that - you - they don't like the way Britannica, ISO and the CIA World Factbook name the islands) have taken it upon themselves to try to override or subvert that consensus. It is tendentious and disruptive, and that is not on: they know perfectly well that their preferred format is contentious, they know that if they come back here with it they will get the same result as last time, so they are edit warring. And I'm not disposed to sit back and let them do it. Just zis Guy you know? 10:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We did indeed reach a consensus, but its been erroded. As for sources The FCO calls the territory the Falkland islands, so do the people living there, its only foreigners that use any other name and this is the ENGLISH wikipedia, but you know this.--Gibnews 11:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If we reached a consensus, why break it? Eroded? by what? You continue to go around the same subject without giving any valid reasoning considering the nature of the Wikipedia. And if a user decides to systematically go against a consensus that we reached so difficulty, then how is that not vandalism? Mariano(t/c) 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument that this is english wikipedia is a bullshit argument, see WP:NPOV#Anglo-American_focus. KimvdLinde 14:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it wrong to point out at the outset that the islanders don't use the term? Why is an extra fact unwelcome here? TharkunColl 10:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the talk page. You are now just disruptive. If you can not deal with how wikipedia works, I suggest you leave it. KimvdLinde 11:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the talk page? They wrote most of it! The point TharkunColl wants made in the first para is already covered in detail in the third para, complete with context. Nobody who reads that will be left in any doubt whatsoever as to the islanders' views on the matter. What we have now is a compromise between the "No Malvinas" editors' initial demands and the original text; they now apparently want to go back for a second round and come up wth a "compromise" between the compromise and their original demands - a process which will, presumably, continue until such time as the article says what they wanted it to say in the first place. Well bollocks to that. As written, it is neutral and satisfactory to moat of us here, as evidence the discussions above. Not everyone agrees? Welcome to the real world. Just zis Guy you know? 13:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the dispute here still over the issue of italics vs bold? If so, no consensus was ever reached on the matter (if I am wrong, please point out where it was reached). It appears to have been mainly Kim who has consistently been insisting that bold must be used, and misleadingly putting "per consensus" or similar in the edit summary. Though it's a desperately lame thing to edit-war on, please don't claim that consensus was reached where AFAICS it doesn't even seem to have been discussed. Vilĉjo 14:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Since that's how the foreign names first appeared when someone added them (i.e. in italics), that's what I assumed the current version would be like. TharkunColl 14:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That holds true only for the (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) format. Mariano(t/c) 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. TharkunColl is being disingenuous, and he knows it. Just zis Guy you know? 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The first edit to use the current version of the opening wording gave Malvinas in italics. (Really, JzG, there's no excuse for making accusations like that against TharkunColl, when the facts are easily discovered from the edit history.) It was not until 49 edits and over 12 days later that it was changed to bold. That was by an anon, but Kim has been stubbornly reinstating it ever since—and now calls it "consensus"!! Vilĉjo 15:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The most recent version that I have been watching several times and reverted to because of vandalism was with Malvinas. So, a sudden change to Malvinas is weird. I checked the talk page, and the compromise discussed most of the timne contained Malvinas. At the last version, it became Malvinas and that one was inserted. Then I was gone from wikipedia for a long week, and when I came back, it was Malvinas. But I agree, the original inserted version was Malvinas, and I will respect that. KimvdLinde 16:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder who changed that? No matter: bold works best. End edit warring works worst, by a very long way. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Kim, I trust that can now be changed back. However, in the last couple of days the point that "The formal name of the islands is a matter of dispute" which was an essential part of the first paragraph in the agreed compromise has been lost. I would consider it acceptable to have that as added as the last sentence of the current first paragraph, but if that is not agreed we can revert to the wording as as of 16:45, 9 April 2006[2]. ...dave souza, talk 17:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That edit claims that Malvinas "has always been the geographical name for the islands in Spanish". But TharkunColl wrote above: It is not true that the name "Malvinas" has always been the Spanish name. It only dates from the late 18th century French occupation, as it was the French who coined the word. "Falkland" is almost a hundred years older, and older still is the Dutch "Sebald", which was also used in Spanish. Better, therefore, to add your sentence at the end of the first para. (One would hope it could not be regarded as controversial—even those who think the name "Falkland(s)" should be used by everyone, everywhere, can hardly deny that the name is, in practice, a matter of dispute.) Vilĉjo 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name = Falkland Islands, NOTHING ELSE

The name of a territory can ONLY be decided by the sovereign power, and as such the territory in question is The Falkland Islands. We do not state on the United Kingdom page that in other languages it is known as Royaume Uni, Reino Unido, etc, therefore there is no reason for this to be called anything other than the name decided by the sovereign power. In any case a translation would be "Isle Falklands" "Islas Falkland" and so on.

It may be OK to mention on the text that others know it as "Malvinas" but NOT at the beginning of the article as if this had official status.

It is not for a group of people on the internet to reach a "consensus" on whether a territory should have a diferent name, this is the sole prerogative of the sovereign power, i.e. UK.

the beginning of the text os for commonly used names, not official stuff. That can be done at government websites. KimvdLinde 17:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is how you include it, I'm happy to have it there but not with equal billing, as it does not have any official standing, with the sovereign state. see this.

Full Country Name: Falkland Islands

Now, that is a definitive source for the name - Bill Gates encyclopedia is full of shit. For example the Encarta article says of Gibraltar "major factors of the economy are the processing of food products" - news to me. I thought we were trying to describe the truth not bend it to appease irredentism.

The Italics were strong enough.--Gibnews 18:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop the nationalistic stuff. Government sides are by definition NOT reliable to resolve encyclopedic issues. KimvdLinde 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not nationalistic to speak the truth. According to your ideas, the whole world and his wife should have a say in the naming of the place, apart from the people that actually live there. TharkunColl 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is, however, nationalistic to ignore the alternative name used by a substantial proportion of the world's population, including ISO, Britannica and the CIA. But we have been here before. The FACT is that the British Government, your preferred source, cannot be considered neutral, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. Just zis Guy you know? 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The British Government's opinion is DEFINITIVE.--Gibnews 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, are we ready for that Mediation/ArbCom case that I thought we dodged before? Gibnews and TharkunColl, are you rescinding your agreement to the previously-reached compromise? I have no wish to reprise the argument carried on at length only a few weeks ago, so if we've lost consensus I suggest we go straight to mediation. -- Gnetwerker 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Second that. KimvdLinde 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Not opposed, bu actually there does seem to be broad agreement from all but a couple of editors. Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• I think we should just leave the first line the way it is at the moment. Although I still think the entire intro is poorly written. Astrotrain 23:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How dare you suggest that it is I, and Gibnews, that are the cause of this latest outbreak. There have been dozens of sneaky attempts to subvert the consensus, not least the attempts to put "Malvinas" in bold, rather than italics. TharkunColl 23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I have misrepresented your opinion. It would appear that in the comment at the top of this very section, Gibnews has taken a position that Malvinas does not belong in the lead, and your previous statement "This statement appears to give the impression that both sides in this dispute were equally at fault" concerning another part of the lead contributed to my belief that you also were rejecting the previous compromise. If it's not so, please say so. Vis the italics vs. bold issue, I support the previous agreement, which was to use italics. -- Gnetwerker 23:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am happy to leave the M word in, but in italics as it is not an alternative legal name - so we are actually in agreement. That was the only change I apart from trying to describe the war correctly which also you were substantially in agreement. I'm not trying to score any political points, or for that matter blame Argentina - just state FACTS like is it.--Gibnews 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The compromise never held. People kept on placing increasingly anti-Falkland islander statements in it, based on their own political stance. Why are we treating this territory any different from any other? No one has yet satisfactorily answered why a non-native foreign language term should be included at all, and have most certainly provided no Wikipedia articles where this is the case. Their stance in this issue is clearly political. TharkunColl 23:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Their stance in this issue is clearly political." -- as is yours, of course. However, I take it that you are using the random vandals as the excuse to abandon the compromise? There is no point in further arguing with the partisans on either side, hence my belief that we need to bring this into the Wikipedia mediation process. -- Gnetwerker 23:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No! My stance is linguistic - as with all my Wikipedia edits. TharkunColl 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for an ArbCom case. Though it's only been a few hours, the present text appears to be stable, and AFAICS neither Gibnews, TharkunColl nor anyone else no-one from either side (with the exception of a single anonymous intervention from a possible sockpuppet of Gibraltarian) seems to be actively trying to subvert it. There are still outstanding issues, but no evidence at present that they can't be dealt with rationally without going to mediation. Is anyone out there objecting to the original compromise text, which I think we have now restored? Vilĉjo 23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm content with the current lead. Let it stand--Gibnews 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, seems okay to me as well. TharkunColl 07:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The next time calm down, why do you need to fight like that? You have been discussing for weeks, and arrived to an agreement, or something that looked like one. Why do you have to carry on? and why do you need to be so agressive? (Personaly I dont care much about a name but this isn't the way we are supposed to work here); and Tharkun, you have to understand our puint of view, the "non native foreign language" is the language of the people you expelled. You won't understand why after 180 years we still claim the islands, it is in our blood,it is part of of our argentinity and you won't change that. See, I'm 16, and don't like you very much. (But I'm happy; I know you don't hate us, as many of our connationals hate you, and as an argentine-italian I am not able to complaint, because I will be lucky eough to be allowed to visit if I want, after the EU's constitution.) Excuse me if I offended you - Argentino (Talk cont.) 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands are not part of the EU, and like the other British overseas territories, maintains its own immigration controls. Even British citizens need the permission of the territory's government if they wish to reside in the Islands (with the exception of the British military on active service). Astrotrain 14:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

After 180 years any people who lived in the Falkland Islands are dead and history. We the people (here) did not expell anyone and the Only people who have the right to determine the future of the territory and indeed its name are those people who live there today. Many countries are the result of successive invasions, for instance Britain and Argentina - there is no turning back the moving finger of time. --Gibnews 22:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your frankness, Argentino. I don't hate you - I've never met you - and I don't hate the Argentine people. But what I do hate is military aggression, especially by fascistic governments against a much smaller neighbour unable to defend itself. Galtieri was banking on the British not getting involved. It was a gamble, and he lost - big time. Why is it in your blood after 180 years? 180 years ago the British controlled a quarter of the world, but do I get upset that we don't any more? Hell no! I'm glad that we have created so many new countries all over the place - our legacy in history is secure. But I must point out that Argentina never controlled the Falklands. Spain did, but you Aregentines rebelled against your colonial masters. You cannot claim a territory that you never controlled, it makes no sense whatsoever. It is all propaganda by your government. TharkunColl 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As I recall it, Galtieri based his opinion that the Brits wouldn't care on the fact that the FCO was at that time already in negotiation about a handover (whether that was just an urban myth I don't know). He forgot, of course, that the old adage "when in trouble at home declare war overseas" applies to British Prime Ministers every bit as much as any other political leader, and there is no doubt that the Falklands conflict was exactly what Maggie needed at the time. But all that is an aside. Just zis Guy you know? 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I was never a supporter of Thatcher. If the Argentines had never invaded then who knows, perhaps a negotiated settlement would have happened. Thatcher destroyed the British economy and I can only think of two good things that she ever did - stand up to Argentine military aggression, and allow pubs to open in the afternoon. TharkunColl 16:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The sovereign power, i.e. UK has decided that the name of the territory is "The Falkland Islands". Who are we to reach "consensus" otherwise? Certainly the other name used by some can be mentioned in the text, but NOT as a header.

---

As stated multiple times above, what the UK decides is irrelevant to what other countries call it. The UK cannot wish away the territorial claim. It is, in any case, simply a case of squatter's rights. Just zis Guy you know? 19:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That phrase is most offensive; The people living in the Falklands are not 'squatters' - it is their home - they have built their houses and community and deserve respect. --Gibnews 20:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

At least four countries have claimed the islands as their own over time. Which one happened to end up there is an accident of history. Just zis Guy you know? 21:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No its not an 'accident of history' people have fought and died to make things the way they are. Count yourself lucky to have avoided that - read This and be nice to the guys in .fk they have enough problems already without being insulted. --Gibnews 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Going on that view of "squatter's rights", then JzG must also imply that the people form Argentina who are not native are squatters as well. And if you really want to pick at the bone, then you could say that everyone is a squatter, since we are descended form same place in Africa. It centenary is offensive, and is inappropriate coming form an administrator, not just some arrogant user trying to cause trouble. 82.26.177.44 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pledge

I pledge to swiftly revert non-consensus edits and vandalism to the intro from any point of view, British, Argentine, or other. -- Gnetwerker 15:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As it would seem that the version I have been supporting, fair and reasonable after all, is currently in place I will agree with you and act likewise, but I'm not signing the pledge--Gibnews 22:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree an am goingt to revert a non-consensused, and unsigned edit by User:212.120.224.250 in wich he/she deleted the name "Malvinas". He/she has contributed 3 times with something related with Gibraltar, 1 to request a page for protection and 2 for the islands (one is this talk). That makes 6 contributions in all, 50% of wich have something to do with Gibraltar. That sounds fammiliar to me. -Argentino 18:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems our old friend User:Gibraltarian is back... Asterion 18:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that too PS: Maybe RVERTING is a bit too much so i re-writted those 4 words and let the vandal to stay in the article's history. Argentino 18:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is, although there are at least two thousand ADSL users in Gibraltar, and 99% have no sympathy for other peoples territorial claims. However, we did finally reach a consensus on this issue and I'm now supporting Gnetwerker as above.--Gibnews 19:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The best solution would be to use the ISO denomination, as this is an encyclopedia and needs to stick to standards. Asterion 23:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We have been there and its not acceptable. The current formula as supported by Gnetwerker myself and others will solve the problem. We basically have a consensus and although extremists may want to go further, lets leave it there and move on.--Gibnews 08:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the only correct way is to have (Spanish Islas Malvinas]]) in the first sentence..... But I am not alone here, but if people want to start this discussion again by going back to original positions, I can and will do so also..... KimvdLinde 08:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is we originally agreed indeed. Gibnews and others, remember the straw poll? --Asterion 11:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember the straw poll, which I'd have voted in had it not been suggested that my vote shouldn't be counted. PhilipPage 01:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been promoting that all along, however you know very well that giving foreign names equal prominence is not going to work - what we have now is a compromise which stands a chance. The Argentinians have been very reasonable over the whole thing - however let me remind you that the Spanish Netherlands were stolen from their rightful owners under the Treaty of Utrecht and the .nl wikipedia should be re-written in Spanish... --Gibnews 08:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely have no idea what you are on about now. Stick to the subject of the article, please--Asterion 11:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because its in reply to KimvdLinde who seems to want to shift the goalposts on the agreed position because of a lack of understanding of territorial disputes.--Gibnews 14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is talking about territorial disputes or Spain or whatever but wikipedia guidelines and policy on naming conventions. Any revert of the status quo will need to be taken care of swiftly. We have previously agreed on keeping the Malvinas name there and I want a guarantee you will stick to this. Regards, --Asterion 17:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets be plain, the ONLY reason the name exists is to give credibility to a territorial claim. --Gibnews 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to change anything, but if people are going to push again for removal of the term, I equally could start pushing for the inclusion of the wider term in line with wikipedia policies on naming. KimvdLinde 16:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So if we can't have peace, we at least have detente. :-) -- Gnetwerker 19:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

P.s. -- To summarize, Gibnews, Tharkuncol, and others believe that the only correct name for the islands is Falklands, and others should be minimized; KimvdLinde, possibly Argentino and others think that the Spanish-language name (Islas Malvinas) should be more prominent; and Asterion and I (Gnetwerker) think the ISO name (Falklands (Malvinas)) should be used in the intro. We have implemented a fourth alternative that no one specifically supports but we're all (somewhat) comfortable with. Various parties continue to militate for their positions, and others speak of escalation in the event the compromise is breached, a sort of Mutual Assured Destruction scenario. Hence the pledge: think of it as nuclear non-first use treaty -- if we keep the compromise, we avoid an edit war. Best! -- Gnetwerker 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as promised I am keeping to that (see my last rv)--Gibnews 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I did see that -- it was great to see. If we stop fighting over the lead, we can move on to improving the article as a whole (which is already pretty good, I'd say). -- Gnetwerker 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we MUST avoid an edit war, but you are wrong, i dont think "Islas Malvinas" should be more prominent and nothing else; but In this encyclopedia we cal leave it like the ISO if you want (if it was as I want, we could start a real war)... maybe not so much... anyway, it is OK like this and we must leve it and forget it. I am not a mad ultranationalist after all. Oh, and I propose to vote: Do you want semiprotection to avoid this gibralarian guy? Argentino 21:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, and didn't mean to misrepresent your position, I was just quickly scanning the various sides. No offense intended! You have been eminently reasonable here. I have requested semi-prot to deal with Gilbraltarian, but don't know if it will be given. -- Gnetwerker 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The situation seems under control, and as I have pointed out there are at least 2000 Gibraltarian ADSL users, you may have problems with one called Gibraltarian for historical reasons - and although none of us have any sympathy for certain territorial claims, we understand the issues better than most. Indeed we nearly directly participated--Gibnews 08:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Consensus"??????

The naming of a territory is the SOLE prerogative of the sovereign power, i.e. UK. If others wish to call it something else, then of course this can and indeed should be reflected in the text, but NOT by giving it equal status to the one and only official name of the territory, i.e. The Falkland Islands.

There is nothing to reach consensus on, it is for the sovereign power UK to decide alone. If Wikipedians reach "consensus" on who should be the next UN Secretary General, do you really think that anyone should take notice? It is not possible to reach "consensus" to alter a fact. This is after all an encyclopedia and must deal in FACT. If we reach "consensus" here that the moon is actually made of cheese after all, nothing will alter the reality of it.

I repeat it is the SOLE prerogative of the UK as sovereign power to decide the name of the territory, and they have done so. It is "The Falkland Islands", nothing else. I am not suggesting eliminating any mention of alternatives, but none can be given quasi official status, no matter how many Wikipedians think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.120.236.223 (talk • contribs) sockpuppet of banned user Gibraltarian.

Remember, Do not feed the trolls, best answer to this sort of remarks is to ignore them. --Asterion 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford English Dictionary

Without wishing to re-start the edit war, I have just discovered that the word "Malvinas" does not occur anywhere in the OED. If we consider the OED authorititive, then the word "Malvinas" cannot be considered part of the English language. Personally speaking, I think this overstates the case. "Malvinas" does exist in English (though is very rare), and means something like "The name that the Argentines tried, unsuccessfully, to impose on the Falkland Islands by military force in 1982". It is never, as far as I can tell, used in any other normal context. TharkunColl 11:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop the British nationalism. This encyclopedia is NOT biased towards Anglo-American facts. KimvdLinde 15:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest some of us are trying to sleep;--Gibnews 16:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a great way to go about not wishing to restart the edit war: don't re-start the edit war. Simple, really. Just zis Guy you know? 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to talk about names, we can say thet "Falkland Islands" is the name imposed by the British Empire by military force in 1833.
I know I am not going to change your mind (and you are definitively not going to change mine) but I thought you had finished arguing, so I am not going to start arguing again but the matter was, or seemed to be, solved.
Accidentally: if the name "Malvinas" doesn't exist, it shouldn't mean anything, because, if a word has a meaning, it exists. So we decide, do we beelive an english dicctionary or the common speak? Another thing: I think I'm going to write down something like "the argentine point of view about..." in my userpage, because I found out in iternet that there are many people that think we are some kind of uncivilizated barbarians. Gnetwerker: don't apologyze, it was my fault if I semmend offended, I wasn't, and I find wonderfull theese news. Argentino (Talk cont.) 13:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) I wroted what i said up there, islanders wont like it very much, i guess, it is our POV afer all. It is NOT my personal POV. It is the POV of many argentines (i can't say most args., but most iv'e met). Possibly, some argentines wont love it but anyway here it is User:Argentino/Essay --Argentino 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to try and edit the page, but since the Oxford English Dictionary is currently offering a one-week free subscription, I thought I'd take the opportunity to check it out.

The name "Falkland Islands" was not imposed by military force in 1833 - it had already existed since 1690, long before "Malvinas". But the doings of long-dead generations has never been what I base my argument on. The land of your country, Argentina, was stolen from the Indians - should you give it back?

As for "Malvinas" not existing as an English word, if you had read my post you would have discovered that I think it actually does, albeit a very rare one. And its meaning is wholly negative.

And in case I get accused of nationalism yet again, I would like to state that my motivation is primarily linguistic. Here at Wikipedia foreign names for countries are given in the native language(s) of that country. Spanish is not native to the Falklands, therefore to include the Spanish name is to give undue credence to a foreign territorial claim. TharkunColl 16:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And on the last point, linguistic is not the criterion, but what is commonly used is. Besides that, if your argument was not nationalistic but linguistic, you would not make this argument: to include the Spanish name is to give undue credence to a foreign territorial claim. KimvdLinde 17:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an English encyclopedia, and "Malvinas" is hardly ever used in English. Furthermore, it is rejected by the islanders. Foreign territorial claims should be mentioned in the body of the article, not in the header. If you keep on accusing me of nationalism, I might as well accuse you of anti-English language sentiment. TharkunColl 17:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In international relations the name Malvinas is used often enough that we should include a mention of it so that people understand that they refer to the Falklands. DJ Clayworth 17:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

About recent disputes: "Malvinas" existed, as far as I know, since at least 1816, so it is probably not invented by a militar government. And about the non-existence of that name, I wrote that we had to choose between the dictionary or the common speek (with this I ment: Should we choose a dictionery wich says nothing about it or is the true existence of the name, let's say, "colloquialy" more important?). Anyway, i dont want to speak about this again. I won't pull the article on my side, and please dont try to pull it to your side. the NPOV can be slighty POVed, and i think that putting "Malvinas" bolded or normal is clearly pro-argentinian and not putting it is clearly pro-british. As we are supposed to be neutral I'd leve it just as it is now but please, bear this in mind: Wikipedia is not a soapbox (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). I dont publish my ideas in the articles, and hope other people dont publish their own. I know, it is realy unfair to put Malvinas bold or anything, but, even in forums, you can not try to win everything and make everyone think the same you think. So, because this is NOT a forum (and if it was i'd loose trribly because i dont have that level of english nessesary) and we have to respect all the points of view, and the article is OK to me just as it is now, I AM AGAINST ANY OTHER CHANGES IN THE HEADER. This represents my point of view now if someone has a really good reason, maybe i change my mind, in the meantime, i'm against. I hope i dont have to write anything more here.
Ad astra per aspera; Ad augusta per angusta
Argentino(Talk Contributions Edit Count) 17:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You, and all who support your cause, are making the fundamental error of assuming that both sides in this territorial dispute have equal claims. The reason why they don't is because the islanders themselves are not divided on the issue. This makes the Argentine claim frivolous. TharkunColl 23:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Argentine claim is irrelevant to this discussion, so its relative weight vis-a-vis the British claim and occupancy is also irrelevant. What the British government calls the place is similarly irrelevant, except insofar as it represents wide usage. The discussion should be about what the world calls the place, and as the extensive citations to other reference works, news media, and other sources indicate, the majority of the English-speaking world calls the place "The Falkland Islands", while a substantial minority call it by a variety of other phrases that include the word "Malvinas", and many in the Spanish-speaking world call it "Islas Malvinas". The why, who, and whether-appropriate of this are absolutely beside the point. This Wikipedia page does not support any position, but simply reports on the state of the world. If you wish to keep arguing about various national claims, please do so somewhere else. -- Gnetwerker 00:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

People who speak Spanish have all sorts of different words for things but that is no reason for giving alternatives in every article in the ENGLISH wikipedia, and certainly not one where the use of a foreign name is to assert ownership of the territory;

We have a compromise, the Argentine side agrees; so lets move on. Perhaps it should be called Malvinos because there are a lot of bad whines.--Gibnews 01:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT a case of British Nationalism, but simply one of the UK deciding what to call it's own territory. If UK unilaterally decided to rename Buenos Aires "La La Land", and a couple of wikipedians thought this a good idea, would we have to alter ALL references to the city of all language WP's? "E.G. Buenos Aires, also known as La La Land, is the capital city of Argentina" "Buenos Aires, tambien conocido como La La Land es la ciudad capital de Argentina". I think that this would be a ridiculous situation and make a mockery of an encyclopedia as WP claims to be. Insisting on calling The Falkland Islands, by a name other than it's correct one similarly makes a mockery of it. The alternatives should of course be mentioned in the text, but NOT given quasi official status. This is not something upon which "consensus" can properly be reached......it is for the UK alone to decide the name.

Why is calling the territory by it's name "British nationalism", but insisting on supplanting an alternative not considered "Argentine nationalism"?

Asterion, the ONLY troll here is you. Yanito. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.120.236.194 (talk • contribs) (sockpuppet of banned user Gibraltarian).

Actually the UK government has used the term Malvinas before. After the Argentine invasion in 1982, the British delegation to the UN Security Council redrafted (at their own suggestion) Resolution 502 condeming the invasion in order include the term Malvinas. Of course this was only a diversionary tactic, to give the government enough time to lobby the other members of the Security Council into voting to pass it. See Question concerning the situation in the region of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

I think we should stick with the current consensus which acknowledges the existence of the term Malvinas, but does not seek to give it any POV legitimacy. Astrotrain 14:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I brought it up again is because the Oxford English Dictionary is currently offering a one-week free subscription to anyone, but you have to access it through a BBC linked page like this (don't forget to tick the box) - [3]. TharkunColl 14:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I wroted what i said up there, islanders wont like it very much, i guess, it is our POV afer all and it is probably wrong and misspelled, it is NOT my personal POV but it is the POV of many argentines (i can't say most args., but most iv'e met) and possibly, some argentines wont love it. Anyway, althoug it is not perfect, here it is: User:Argentino/Essay
Argentino 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exonym

It might be worth including this term - exonym - in the article. TharkunColl 23:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of a foreign name that is not used on the Falklands

Why is this useful? Why don't we have an etymology of "Falklands" instead? TharkunColl 18:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a nonsense to give the derivation of "Malvinas" without giving the derivation of "Falkland". But etymologies don't belong in the first para. I have put both of them in the third para, in the same context.

But I'm a bit concerned about the first sentence of the third para: The islands are referred to by the islanders and in the United Kingdom as "(The) Falkland Islands". That seems to imply that that nomenclature is a slightly bizarre aberration shared only by people in those territories, rather than the normal English-language name – from which any other (English-language) usage is a self-conscious divergence, just as much as Islas Falkland is a self-conscious divergence from the normal Spanish-language usage. Vilĉjo 20:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that could indeed be worded better. TharkunColl 21:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The final stage of the edits including name origins seems good. I would ask that the parties carry on the discussion here in the future, not in edit summaries. -- Gnetwerker 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We may get some peace now

As I said before, I was keeping an eye to request semi-protection. Hopefully, we will be able to move on now with other parts of the article. Cheers, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 16:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be about twice as much space devoted to the etymology of "Malvinas" than of "Falklands". Why? TharkunColl 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think after the wars over the placing, the wording and even the type-styling of "Malvinas", the last thing we need is a war over comparative word-counts. If you want to flesh out the English derivation, feel free to do so – e.g. some basic info on John Strong and the nature of his expedition might be helpful. (But the etymological stuff shouldn't become too detailed if it is all to remain in the intro – it's actually pushing it for length even at the moment, IMO.) Vilĉjo 17:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That said, the phrase "the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville" turns up both here and in the "History" section (even complete with double wiki-linking). (The History section also tells us more about Strong.) In the interests more of style than balance, it ought not to be controversial to remove some of the duplicated detail from the etymology paragraph and allow the History section to do its job. Vilĉjo 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read the para (after Vilĉjo's improvement), and excepting the question of removing etymology from the WP:LEAD altogether, I cannot see how the para could be reasonably shortened, and each section (Falklands and Malvinas) seems to have parallel structure, which seems fair, except for the statement about "first settlers", which itself is reasonable and informative (as long as it is correct, which I assume others have checked). The real question is whether the word origins belong in the lead section at all. I would think not. -- Gnetwerker 18:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am increasingly inclined to agree. Both names are mentioned in line one, in a form which has consensus, and except for a handful of absolutists on either side that seems to be regarded as sufficient. Detailed explanations about origins are probably inappropriate in the lead. However, some stuff about origins was included in the original consensus version, so I want to discuss it here before doing anything substantial.

I would suggest removing paras 3 & 4 from the lead into a new "Name" section (to be the first after the lead itself). There may need to be some reworking of what exact details go into the "Name" section and which into the "History" section, given that they naturally overlap. (Even though it is not a current issue, the name "Sebald Islands" might want to go into the "Name" section.) One possible refinement of this is to retain in the lead (at the end of the first para) the sentence Some English-language media sources use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". Anyone wish to comment on this? Vilĉjo 21:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very delighted to here there is some kind of "peace" and consesus here. To avoid another month of discussions, I'd suggest to my connationals not to try to put "Malvinas" before "Falklands" and we may end this argue and start a dialogue.

I strongly suggest to write the section here in the talk before putting it in the article, or we will have full-protected article and many accounts banned for breakin the three revert rule.Argentino (Talk cont.) 22:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the general silence on this suggestion to indicate a preference for preserving the peace of the status quo for the time being. Vilĉjo 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There can be NO CONSENSUS to alter or impose a name upon the Falkland Islands. It is the sovereign power alone which decides it's name, and it is simply NOT acceptable to include imposed names in the first line! IT MUST BE REMOVED! The Falkland Islands is the ONLY name for the territory in question. It is fine to mention alternatives within the text, as is catered for in Para 3, but NOT under any circumstances as the article currently reads. The current first line is simply unacceptable, and MUST be altered. WP has no right to reach "consensus" on the name of a territory.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.120.226.72 (talk • contribs) suspected sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Gibraltarian.

I'm not going to write the accusation against Verres, but maybe "Cicero and his friends" can help you:

1. Primum non nocere.
2. Pacta sunt servanda.
3. Quosque tondim, Catilina, abuteris patientia nostra?

Resuming:
We were OK until you came here to argue, so please don't do it again. If you have anything to say, create an account. Argentino 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' --Gibnews 22:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My two cents (which have nothing to do with the debate!)

Came across this article, not sure how, saw some technical issues, but after reading the talk page I thought I should leave a note to explain my edits. They're not related to the name debate AT ALL, and I've really kept it in mind so as not to affect the issue in any way. There are only five tweaks:

• Split the first sentence into two, as it was too long. Only language change is "South America, and consisting" to "South America. They consist".
• Changed "km" to "kilometres" (it's customary to use the same standard for metric/imperial measures i.e. if you use "miles", you say "kilometres" (and vice-versa if you use abbreviations)
• Changed "with a number of smaller islands" to "with about 700 smaller islands" (slightly shorter, plus it's more specific and helps if you're only reading the first paragraph.)
• Flipped the terms "Falkland Islands" and "The islands" in the History section. (Again, custom - if the section were to stand on it's own, you would want the location identified right off the top.)(Plus, since I was there, I capitalised "Kingdom" in the Wikilink.)
• Changed "The islands" to "The Falkland Islands" at the start of the Geography section (same rationale as above)

So, do what you will with these. As I hinted in the edit summary, I've got no reason to step into this debate. I just wanted to fix what I thought were a few technical issues. (Although, for what it's worth, as a non-involved third party - i.e. not British, not Argentinian - I think you've done a good job of writing the first paragraph in a neutral manner.) The only change I might suggest would be to change "also called the Malvinas" to "also known as the Malvinas". It's a personal style thing, and I think that it implies a greater depth of feeling to both names. --Ckatz 04:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is ok.
In other news a guy just added "The F.I. sometimes called the M." Has anyone talked about that? Personally i'd revert it. The editor was an islander (at least Stalney001, sounds pretty islander) and I suppose Tharkun and Gibnews like it as it is now. Am I right or not? Should we revert it? --Argentino (talk/cont.) 15:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have already done so. Not that I necessarily disagree with it, but unilateral changes of emphasis – and there, of all places – are just asking for trouble. Ckatz's edits, on the other hand, seem fine and uncontroversial. And I'd be happy with "also known as" (better style). Vilĉjo 16:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The changes look fine to me, and the suggested change to "also known as the Malvinas" looks good. I tend to think that "miles" is too short a word to be worth abbreviating, while "kilometres" is a bit long and km is universally understood. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of Measurement sets out guidance which is not universally agreed: see its talk page. ..dave souza, talk 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I appreciate it. Oh, and I should say that I seem to have upset Gibnews when I stated that I am not from Gibraltar. He took it as a slight, and I'm sorry for that. However, the comment was purely and entirely a followup to Gibnews' own comment at the top of the Falklands article ("A NOTE TO POSTERS WITH GIBRALTAR IP ADDRESSES - Please give it a rest; if you don't you will be traced and your account suspended. Enough is enough. Gibnews.") It was an attempt to indicate that I had read the talk page and the comments (and thus was aware of the debate) before I entered my edits. --Ckatz 17:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK point taken; its just that because one particular user in Gibraltar is perceived to be a problem, its an unfair generalisation to label the place - thats all I was trying to say. That comment was there to try and discourage certain repetitive 'anonymous' changes from one user by making the point they are, in fact, tracable. --Gibnews 18:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Perceived" to be a problem perhaps, but unfairly so. My comments and edits were perfectly valid. The inclusion of the alternative name on the first line is totally unacceptable, as it gives it quasi-official status. The alternative names are adequately dealt with in the third paragraph, but have no place as at present. This is simply not something upon which "consensus" can properly be reached, as the SOLE prerogative for naming the territory lies with UK as sovereign power. It is not for a group of Wikipedians to usurp sovereignty over the islands and insist on renaming them, or giving credence to non-official names. The alternative names cannot be included in the first line as at present......the third paragraph takes care of it just fine. Gibraltarian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.120.225.7 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be completely accurate to the truth, though. It is supposed to be in line with other major published works on the subject. Once they've changed, then Wikipedia will change. I, too, never call the Falkland Islands by any other name, and see no reason for anyone else to (aside from the Germany/Deutschland thing etc.), but that doesn't mean i'm arguing for their removal from the article.

Now, can we stop arging about this, and get back to writing an encyclopaedia? ;) -- Lordandmaker 19:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you seriously claim that WP is not supposed to be accurate????? Of course it is! What is the point of an encyclopedia if not to provide accurate inforamtion??

[edit] "Less frequency"

I think it must be noted in the lead paragraph that it is more common to refer to these islands as "Falkland" rather than "Malvinas." Otherwise, it is giving an inaccurate assessment, and if wikipedia does not aim to be accurate, that means it is aiming to be inaccurate, which is well, wrong. Stanley011 20:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If you taked enough time to read the archives of the discussion, i think you may understand the reasons of the statement. And you'd be informed that the previous header was something like "The Falkland/Malvinas Islands are and archipelago..." so if you like that you can convince your connationals to put it.

("also called" is, in my opinion, enough reference about the "frequency")

I don't mean to be unkind, but maybe what i wrote is, if i offended you, I apologize.

--Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think when I wrote I was too angryly, look, I wrote "taked". I think I'll need a break, I'll be back in 2-3 days. (I wrote 8 times "I" (10 now)!) :-) --Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's still something wrong with the opening sentence. It should make it clear that the islanders themselves never call the place "Malvinas". TharkunColl 23:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its adequate and the first sentence needs to be short and sharp. That the Falkland islands have an alternative name used by the Irredentist element cannot be denied. That people and governments are unduely sensitive to calling something by its correct name in order to apease is also evident and wrong. However we have a working compromise, and unless the .fk guys take more interest in politics and the Internet and less in their sheep, enough is enough. --Gibnews 22:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the text to which you agreed on 13 April, and which was not thereafter a source of controversy until Stanley011 decided that the hornets' nest needed a bit of a stir. Your point is raised in the fourth para of the lead. I see no compelling reason why it has to be in the opening sentence. By all means firm up how it is expressed there, if you think that appropriate (e.g. the phrase "tend to consider", though probably correct for people in the UK, may be understating it for Falklanders themselves.) But in the mean time, I and other users will continue to revert any substantive changes to the opening sentence which do not have consensus. Vilĉjo 00:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Having just seen Stanley011's user-page conversation with JzG, I'd like to withdraw my somewhat barbed comment about his contribution, which was clearly a well-intentioned edit by someone not fully conversant with the history of this page. (Some others of us have been there, too!) Can we please now restore normality? Vilĉjo 00:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

But normality is when we're arguing about the name... ;) Lordandmaker 00:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We do not have a "compromise" what we have is an unacceptable capitualtion to demands to give alternative names legitimacy. That other countries use a different name to refer to the Falklands is of course true, and this information is adequately covered in the third paragraph. Its inclusion in the first line, and the credence which this lends is not acceptable. Gibraltarian.

[edit] Vandalism to lead

Tharkuncol, there is no reason to add your quip to the first line of the lead, as the same point is made in the 4th para of the lead. Additional attempts to re-insert it after the long- and hard-fought compromise here should, in my opinion, be considered vandalism, especially since you specifically signed on to the compromise. -- Gnetwerker 05:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is enough subsequently to explain the significance of the foreign name for the territory. Lets leave it there and move on. If Tharkuncol feels strongly about it, I would advise him to take the matter up with the lazy bastard at the BSI who has allowed the inclusion of that name in the ISO designation.--Gibnews 17:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, the first paragraph had already been altered when I inserted that short clarification (though I can't remember the exact details now - I'd just come back from the pub). Still, I have no desire to do so again if we can get that initial comromise to hold. This whole debate, however, is a symptom of a wider malaise affecting the whole of Wikipedia - the tendency for reasonable and fair reporting to be compromised in the face of a small but vocal minority. TharkunColl 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The "small but vocal minority".

! Please read this before continuing !
The number of wikipedians of argentina that have somehow taken part of the conversation is no bigger than 20. 40 milions/20= 2 milions, so there is one argentine wikipedian every 2 milions argentinians. The number of wikipedians from the UK and Gibraltar (not counting vandals) is no bigger than, say, 30. 60 milion/30= 2 milions. Same as Args, we are balanced by now.
'But The number of wikipedians from Falkland islands is 1 out of 3000, this means that if we had to have the same proportion, there should be 13.333 wikipedians from Arg. and 20.000 from the UK. (1 is to 3000 as X is to 40 OR 60 milions, SO, 40 OR 60 milions / 3000 = 13.333 OR 20.000).

Follows logically that:

• IF sthe tendency to compromise reasonable and fair reports is possesed by a small but vocal minority,
• AND there is one wikipedian from UK and Arg every 2 milion connationals,
• AND there here is one wikipedian from the Falkland Islands every 3000 connationals,
• AND the population of Argentina is 13.333 times bigger, and the population of the UK is 20.000 times bigger than the population of the Falkland Islands,
• AND THEN the falklanders are less (are a minority) and have more representation (are "vocal").

We deduce that, using logic, the user from the Falkland Islands has a tendency to compromise reasonable and fair reports. --Argentino (talk/cont.) 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Please don't feed the trolls! -- Gnetwerker 18:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Whose feeding who? It's a little rich to have an editor who has expressed their wish for another war suggest via "logic" the tendancy of Falklanders to compromise reasonable reports. PhilipPage 21:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? -- Gnetwerker 23:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about me, well, we were attacked with an ilogic argument, and I pointed that out, so nobody had any doubt. If you want, read all this talk page and perhaps, if my comments haven't been erased, you'll notice I've generally NOT critizied anyone without a reason.What I did is something called socratic answering, that is to defeat a rival with his own arguments (those are just before my intervention).

And can you please explain, where exactly have i expressed my wishes for a war? Because, as far as I know, to "express" something is to say it explicitly, and I don't remember to have done such a thing.

I recognize that showing publicly other people's errors is not generous, but this user has been particularly unkind to us, so I don't regret what I did, and yes, you are completely right, I am "feeding the trolls", though I don't like that very much.

You can say everything you want to me in my talk page, in fact, I have created a section called "Complaints & Critisism" specially for you.

Best wishes, Argentino (talk/cont.) 23:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Enough is enough". Weren't we supposed to revert any changes in the header that had no consensus here? Why did a guy tagg the article unsourced? Why did another moove half header into another section? and Why was the unsourcing tag deleted by Astorian but the "names" section was not? I'm going to revert it in a couple of minutes, unless there is a very good reason not to do so --Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the naming stuff is indeed logical in context of what was refered to WP:LEAD, but I do not care enough to fight about that. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have reverted the breaking of the lead if I had seen it in time. However, I deliberately left the {{{unreferenced}}} tag, as a simple observation of the page shows it doesn't use in-line citations and does not have a "references" section. I don't feel strongly about this, but think it might be a valid criticism (and while it's at the top of the page, it isn't stritly part of the lead). -- Gnetwerker 21:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There has been no "consensus" merely a capitulation. The undeniable facts are that the UK is the sovereign power of the territory in question and has decided to call it the Falkland Islands and nothing else. It is not for WP to usurp that sovereign prerogative. That some other countries use a different name is reflected in paragraph 3, and should not be included in the lead. Yanito.

The "undeniable facts" have never been denied, at least by argentines, they have not been recognized. Argentino 17:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section, material shouldn't be in the header if it's not present elsewhere in the article. I made an edit accordingly, which was purely procedural (no content delted), but Argentino said that things have gotten so tense here that I should post in the talk forum announcing my intentions, and then do the edit. So here goes. :)--M@rēino 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about Wikipedia rules here - they have been blatantly flouted by all those who wish to see an external foreign name in the header. No, Wikipedia guidelines mean nothing in the face of political posturing. TharkunColl 22:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of the lack of opposers, I think everyone like changes; finally we can have a bit of peace. I agree that Wikipedia guidelines are nothing, they can be interpretated from almost any point of view, and are so ambiguous that possibly the only thing they prevent is insulting other users, so i think they are politics.

I'm going to have little time to be watching all the time over the article because I've got tests in most subjects but I'll be keeping an eye over this. Goodbye. --Argentino (talk/cont.) 01:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Long-standing" claim

User:Jcmiller has removed the term "long-standing" from the phrase in the lead describing the Falklands as "the subject of a long-standing claim to sovereignty by Argentina", describing that term as POV. Regardless of one's view of the merits or otherwise of the claim, I can't see how it is POV to describe as "long-standing" a position which has been consistently maintained since Argentina's independence in 1816. "Long-standing" doesn't mean, and shouldn't be taken to imply, "correct" or "justifiable" (nor the opposite, of course; the two simply don't correlate in any way.) This seems (to me) so obvious as hardly to need explanation; but given the sensitivities over the lead I felt it was wise to place on record the reasoning for my revert. Vilĉjo 22:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

1816 isn't a particularly long standing claim in terms of sovereignty debates. Jcmiller 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that Argentina, as a sovereign nation, didn't exist before then, it could hardly in practice be any longer-standing! (And then there's the prior Spanish claim, which Argentina either inherited or usurped, depending on personal interpretation.) But I don't wish to be absolutist about this, so would happily invite any other comments ... My underlying concern is that those who don't read beyond the lead – i.e. probably the majority of readers, alas – might otherwise get the impression that this was something dreamt up by Galtieri and his chums in 1982, rather than something which (rightly or wrongly) has been a part of Argentine national self-identity throughout their history. Vilĉjo 00:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What about a reference to the first claim, so that the long-standing become fact and not opinion? That is the easiest way to solve conflict about it in the future. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think putting the date in there directly -- that the claim comes from 1816 is better wording than saying long-standing. Long-standing is a subjective definition. Do the Argentinians have a long-standing claim the same way native americans have long standing claims throughout the hemisphere? Do the British have a long standing claim since they have occupied it for over a hundred years? I think more technical language -- throwing in the date -- is better here. Jcmiller 04:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. agreed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In principle I'm fine with that, but we need to be careful that we're not simply creating a potential battleground for differing opinions over when the claim actually does date from (Argentina presumably regards its territorial claim as an unbroken continuation of the Spanish claim, rather than something new in 1816.) I have made an edit which is intended to make clear that the claim has been throughout Argentina's independent history, giving the year 1816 but as the date of independence, rather than the date of the claim. Does that fit the bill? Vilĉjo 08:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Shall we also point out in the first paragraph that the Argentine claim is totally rejected by the actual inhabitants of the place? It seems only fair. And furthermore, the "formal" name of the islands is not a matter of dispute - the government of the islands uses the formal name "Falkland Islands". It should also be pointed out, on the first line, that "Malvinas" is an exonym - it is a foreign language word that is not used by the islanders. So why is it in the first line at all? TharkunColl 08:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of points regarding the date. The original date of the Argentine claim could be (and is) a matter of disagreement itself, on the one hand Argentina claiming that its claim derives from the Spanish one, the other side pointing out that this inheritance of Spain was not agreed (as between Brazil and Portugal) but it was a war of independence where you get what you can, and the agreement between Argentina and Spain recognizing Argentine independence was not concluded until the 1860s (before that Spain had renounced no sovereign rights, while in the 1860s the islands were already in British possession), and that in international law what matters is the date when the Argentine claim was made known to the other countries and indeed to the local inhabitants of the islands at that time. The local inhabitants were English and American sealers; the former had pursued their industry for decades and had their rights recognized by treaty, namely the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention between Britain and Spain; the latter had traditional rights also exercised for decades without interference by Spain, so the US Government supported that industry and rejected the attempt of the new Buenos Aires authorities to establish effective possession in the late 1820s and restrict traditional American activities. So the Argentine claim was made known to the other countries and indeed to the local inhabitants of the islands in 1820, when Colonel Jewett visited the islands and informed the sealers of the Argentine claim as instructed by the Buenos Aires government. Apcbg 09:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes. It does all get a bit controversial when you start trying to give a date for the claim, and avoidable controversy is not a good thing in this lead! Which was why my intention was to deflect the date issue away from the claim and on to Argentine independence. But if anyone can think of a better way of doing it … Vilĉjo 10:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are we giving so much prominence to the territorial claims of a foreign aggressor? The so-called compromise is falling apart, and I shall no longer stand by it. TharkunColl 11:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this change has increased the prominence given to the territorial claim, or are you simply protesting that it is given any prominence at all? If the latter, then this is ground that we have been over ad nauseam, and I for one have no intention of revisiting it. If the former, then I am happy to revert to the version which appeared to be stable prior to Jcmiller's edit. But to restart the edit war, after a long(ish) period of stability, is hardly the most constructive approach.

(Just to clarify: the change is from "a long-standing claim to sovereignty by Argentina" to "a claim to sovereignty by Argentina since that country's independence in 1816". It's a few words longer, and is more precise. Is it really more prominent?) Vilĉjo 12:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It gives the whole thing credibility, as if the Argentine claim has some sort of validity. The claim has had very little effect on the history and development of the people and culture of the Falklands - with one brief and grotesque exception in 1982. Once again, why are we treating the Falklands any different to any other territory? Why are we recording a foreign exonym in the first line? TharkunColl 12:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss the claim's validity. It is a disputed territory, and that is a fact. By the way, have you noticed that Taiwan has the dispute matter stated in the header too? And if you go to Jerusalem's article, you'll find that the "disputed status" is described in the first parag.—Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And we must state that the Argentine claim had a detrimental effect on the islands in 1982 - insofar as they suffered a foreign military invasion. TharkunColl 23:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the change from "a long-standing claim to sovereignty by Argentina" to "a claim to sovereignty by Argentina since that country's independence in 1816" is "more precise". The present phrasing is controversial and certainly not neutral, see my points above regarding the date of the Argentine claim. Perhaps a more neutral wording might be, "a claim to sovereignty by Argentina since the early nineteenth century"? Apcbg 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I still think "long-standing" was better, but some people thought it wasn't long-standing enough to justify the term. I really don't know where we go from here, particularly as TharkunColl seems to treat any change to the lead as justifying the total abandonment of the consensus. Vilĉjo 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I support "long-standing"; does anyone want a poll? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

break indent.

In the first place, I would like that this article stay stable. Long standing is vague, and is very context depending. I agree with Apcbg that something along "a claim to sovereignty by Argentina since the early nineteenth century" would be more neutral, as it does not define something exactly (which might be incorrect) but clarifies the time frame enough to quantify the longstanding, nor does is use weasel words that can mean to many things. Just my 0.02 eurocents-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If that meets with general approval, I'm not going to stand in the way, but I don't think it solves any problems. Apcbg usefully points out that "the agreement between Argentina and Spain recognizing Argentine independence was not concluded until the 1860s (before that Spain had renounced no sovereign rights, while in the 1860s the islands were already in British possession)", with the implication that on one interpretation the claim didn't, in terms of international law, predate the 1860s, which isn't "the early nineteenth century". (BTW, the whole question of what constitutes "international law" in the 19th century is fraught with difficulties – but let's not go there just now …!)

My only other suggestion would be something along the lines of "… since the early years of Argentina's independence" – which is similarly vague but indicates (the significant point, IMO) that the claim is one that Argentina has consistently maintained throughout its independent history. Vilĉjo 23:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with the second suggestion, or we just drop early from the earlier suggestion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "... since the early years of Argentina's independence", seems a very good solution. Apcbg 05:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the Argentine government, recognised by Spain or not, had a colony on the islands shortly after the Independence of 1816, and before the British invasion of 1833. Anyway, either early years or early nineteenth century seams OK with me as long as its clear that the Argentine claims precede the British re-occupation. Mariano(t/c) 09:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's settle on one of the last two versions, "... since the early years of Argentina's independence" or "... since the early nineteenth century" that would seem to be accepted positively. And please let's not start historical discussions because any brief qualification like "... had a colony on the islands shortly after the Independence of 1816, and before the British invasion of 1833" should be placed in the relevant context e.g. some might point out that if the colony was established "shortly" after the year 1816 (whether 1816 was 'independence' is something else) then that colony lived even shorter, from 1826 to 1833, with most of the settlers removed already in 1831 by the US Navy in defence of the rights of the American sealers on the islands who (if we are to use bold script) inhabited the islands before Argentina even claimed independence let alone the islands. As for Argentina having a colony before Britain made good their early (1690) sovereignty claim in 1833, some would point out that the British sealers were present on the islands before the Argentines came and tried to push them out, and that that British presence was guaranteed by international treaty, namely the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention according to which Spain recognized the British rights of unrestricted economic activities on the islands (excepting the Spanish settlement); furthermore, it was only Britain and Spain that had such mutually recognized rights, Argentina has no such internationally recognized rights, and no legal grounds under International Law to interfere with the British internationally guaranteed rights; indeed, Argentina was not a party to the Nootka Sound Convention and could not even inherit the Spanish rights because according to the International Law, treaties are not inherited (the only way for Argentina to have inherited Spain with respect to the Nootka Sound Convention would have needed Britain's consent which never happened). So much for before. Apcbg 10:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the dissertation, Apcbg. My point was that the Argentine claim is not from 1860 but from decades before, which is what we are talking about. I already said that either version was OK with me. I just think it is important to notice that the Argentine claim starts when it took control of the islands in 1820, when they were under no political control. Mariano(t/c) 13:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't have the time, and probably this is not the right place for historical debate on the early Falklands history. The problem is, you make easy inferences from missing premises. Now you say, "the Argentine claim starts when it took control of the islands in 1820". However, it is beyond dispute that Argentina took no control in 1820. Only the first step was made, namely a claim was made public. (Britain and Spain had made that long before.) Control means to establish effective possession, make your law respected, guarantee law enforcement and security to one's own citizens and foreign citizens too, and achieve some measure of acceptance or recognition by other nations. Nothing of the sort in 1820 when an Argentine vessel visited a harbour with dozens of English and American ships, distributed a letter and left. When Vernet established his small colony after 1826, it started to coexist with the local English and American sealers, and no one controlled anybody. Argentina never established control over the islands (excepting the brief occupation in 1982). It is true that Argentina tried to establish control in 1829 by appointing Vernet as a sort of governor -- and that was a legitimate attempt to try but it didn't work because first, Britain immediately protested, and second, the Argentine attempted control by use of force was rejected by the USA who responded by force and prevented the Argentine attempt to establish control. Almost everything in the Falklands history could be disputable (and is disputed; generations of people have made their living out of that :-)) but all the events in 1826-33 speak very clearly one thing: Argentina failed to establish control. To have control is not just to claim control, it should be actually exercised which simply was not the case. Apcbg 14:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You really like to argue. Whether Argentine had the cotrol or not is not in discussion. We are talking about when did Argentine started claiming soverinity over the islands. Mariano(t/c) 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, thanks; then please don't bring into discussion what does not belong -- it was your previous comment that raised the control issue. Apcbg 16:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should the Argentine claim be mentioned in the first paragraph at all? It is Wikipedia's job to describe the situation as it is, not how others would want it to be. Any mention of the Argentine claim properly belongs further down, in the history section. And, by the way, Britain had a colony on the islands long before Argentina even existed as an independent nation. TharkunColl 11:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, because it describes actually the current situation. Or do you have a source that shows that the Argentinians have renounced their claim? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The current situation is that the Falklands are British and wish to remain so. The Argentine claim is external to this and should be treated as such. There are many territorial claims all over the world - but they are not given such prominence. TharkunColl 11:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am perfect aware of the Britishness of the islands, and I do not endorse the Argentinian claim, but it is irrelevant whether the claim is external, as wikipedia does not have a Anglo-American focus but an international focus. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If there was a constituency of opinion within the Falklands that supported the Argentine claim, then you would be correct. But there isn't. As such, the Argentine claim is an external matter and should be treated as such. TharkunColl 11:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, for reason I just gave to you. Wikipedia is not biased towards the opinion of a single group, regardless of whether they are the inhabitants of the geographical area described in the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Do what you want. You will anyway. From this point I repudiate the consensus, on the grounds that it has already been subverted. TharkunColl 11:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that does not change the consensus among the other editors. Good arguments from an encyclopedic pont of view does. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I see I was wrong. Maybe Acpbg's idea is the best. Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltarian

I just reprotected the page for a day or so. Something to remember with him is that if he posts here, he can be immediately reverted. He is a blocked user. He uses a consistent IP range. So. If you see him, revert him. And we have the arbcom behind on this. They confirmed his indefinite block several months ago. So. Don't hesitate to revert him. We don't have to put up with his posts. --Woohookitty^(meow) 19:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit by Mdkarazim

I Am about to explode because the edits by Mdkarazim are violating WP:NPOV. "The policy in a nutshell:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories, and portals." [quoted without copying format]

I don't want to say that he did it on purpose because, I assume he tried to help however, in order to pro-britishate the article (I repeat, probably not desiring it) he wrote in the edit summary the following:

"(Sentence split; removal of passive voice - the antecedent is "Islands," but the Falkland Islands were not defeated; Argentina was defeated.)"

And the paragraph was changed from this:

"Argentina has continued to claim sovereignty over the islands, and the dispute led them to invade and briefly occupy the islands before being defeated in the two-month-long 1982 Falklands War by a United Kingdom task force which returned the islands to British control."

To this

"Since then, Argentina has continued to claim sovereignty over the islands. The dispute over sovereignty led to Argentina's invation and brief occupation of the islands, which ended after the two-month-long 1982 Falklands War. A United Kingdom task force achieved victory in the islands, which returned them to British control."

Let me explain that there is no sintax problem, thus that there is no reason to change the text; syntax is part of "spanish" subject in every elementary school in Argentina so I beelive I'll do it right, or will find the same problems i'd find to solve a simple mathematical substraction. Syntax's aim is to determinate the role of every word of a sentence and find the cohordinated and subordinate sentences of a paragraph.

I start analising syntactically the deleted paragraph. Note That "()" enclose 1st degree subordinated sentences,and "[]" enclose 2nd degree (inside 1st)

Argentina has continued (to claim sovereignty over the islands,) 

(subject)      [verb]                   [object]


.         (subject)      (object)  (     verbs              )        (1st subord.)

.    and the dispute led them (to invade and briefly occupy the islands)(before being defeated

(coordination)      (verb)  (subordination)                  (OBJECT)               (verb)

.
.                                                                     (2nd subordination)

in the two-month-long 1982 Falklands War by a United Kingdom task force [which returned

(             place indication             )      (      agent           )        (verb)   



the islands to British control.])

(object)      (specification)

Now, "islands" can not be the antecedent because they are part of a separated subordinated sentence, it is separated because I can say "the dispute let them to a war before being defeated" and it is still a logical sentence with sence. That is why I am about to revert.—Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely follow your arguments as to why this violates WP:NPOV, but I do entirely agree that Mdkarazim's take on syntax is bizarre, to put it mildly. (I can't see any way that "islands" can be read as the antecedent.) The previous version was better and clearer (and spelled correctly, too), so please go ahead and revert – if you don't, I will! Vilĉjo 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I say not-NPOV because of makin the sentence british-friendly —Argentino (talk/cont.) 22:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The established version is WRONG

Why do we give a name in the first sentence that is hated by the islanders as associated with a fascist invasion of 1982? TharkunColl 23:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that is commonplace in Spanish, Italian, Albanian, Serbo-Croatian, and many other languages plus the ISO denomination Falkland Islands (Malvinas) may have something to do. You do not seem to understand they were referred as Malvinas way before 1982.E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But not in English though. That is the whole point. TharkunColl 23:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My preferred option was the internationally recognised denomination ISO Falkland Islands (Malvinas) as this is an encyclopaedia and we need to stick to standards. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No. The only fair option is the name assumed by the place itself. If it's in a foreign language, then there must also be an English translation. There is no foreign language on the Falklands. TharkunColl 00:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl, I am far from unsympathetic to your general line of argument. But barging in and making unilateral changes to a hard-won consensus version – no matter how much that version may depart from your (or my) personal preferences – is not the way to proceed. Part of the reason I revert your unilateral changes is that, if push really came to shove, I think we'd end up with a version far less agreeable to a British perspective than the one we have at the moment (remember the straw poll?) The present version, IMO, bends over backwards to minimise (though it obviously can't entirely eliminate) the offence to any particular party. Vilĉjo 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what I mean, I would prefer to go with the ISO denomination but I respect the straw poll. Otherwise, we are back to step one. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 00:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As the originator of the consensus introduction, I think it does the job. Personally I think the name Malvinas is a foreign name and is offensive. That it is appended to the formal name of the territory by ISO shows the problem of a terrirory who are represented by others and do not fight for their rights. I understand the name is omitted totally in telephone books to avoid offending anyone. However we have argued more than enough about it so let it be and lets do something more creative

I suggest TharkunColl contacts BSI and lobbies for a change. --Gibnews

Yesterday someone changed "The Brti. sized power" to " took power". I reverted that, but TharkunColl re-reverted me. Now, I'll make my possition clear: in 1982 there was a war, but it is internationally recognized that Argentina re-took the control of the islands for the following reason:

• The claim was considered valid (though only as a claim, the invasion was not "valid").
• There were no english/falklanders dead (in fact there was only one dead, arg., that day because argentinians had the order to shot to everything exept to people: they shot to the governor's office's roof and he surrendered.)
• It was not violent didn't carry any big material loss and didn't remove the locals' freedom (exept for forcing them to drive on the right way).

On the contrary, the 1833 british sized power because:

• They hadn't a valid claim (in fact they had renounced somewhere in the XVII century, I dont remember exactly when as explained here, to continue with their claim).
• The locals were expelled and forced to leave the islands (which, if done today with the present population, would produce a big war).
• It was violent (or at least "if you stay you die" doesn't sound peacful)

Of course Tharkun does not agree but I hope I get a consensus here —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For a start off, you might want to try spelling the word correctly. And your points are extremely POV, for the following reasons:

• If it is correct to use the term "re-took" for what Argentina did in 1982, after a gap of 150 years, then it is also true to say that the British "re-took" the islands in 1833, after a gap of only about 50 years.
• The Argentine claim was considered valid by whom? The Argentines themselves no doubt, though certainly not by the Falkland Islanders or the British government. This is pure POV.
• To claim that the Argentine invasion of 1982 was not violent is truly preposterous, and grossly offensive. What would you call hundreds of armed foreign soldiers landing in your home and forcibly taking control? TharkunColl 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tharkun, although making fun of somebody spelling skills (or lack thereof) is not considered good etiquette, and can be construed as a personal attack. Let's try to avoid that in the future. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Saying it is not "violent" is wrong, after all it was a war. The point is, the Argentine Army caused no material dammage to the local population, exept a couple of lost sheep and other minor problems, the cost of which was payed by the Argentine Army at the end of the war. The claim was legally valid only because they had not stopped to claim the islands, (they didn't wake up one day and thought invading the islands was a good way to spend free time). If what I said above is not acceptable, then I argue that the UK had expressely renounced sovereignty in the islands in the 1770s, as you can verify here, so it could not count as a "valid" claim. About the splelling, sorry, I didn't chose to have latin, history, philosophy and maths exams this week. Argentino (talk/cont.) 22:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources stating the international view on what happened in 1982? Danielnez1 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nootka Sound Convention

Much has been made of this by the pro-Argentine lobby, but the only source they cite is another Wikipedia article - Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands - and according to Wikipedia policy on the citing of sources this is unacceptable (and that article cites no sources, either). Doing a search on Google one finds a number of webpages all with exactly the same wording, proving they have all copied from a single website.

Unless someone can provide the text of this illusive document, I suggest we remove all mention of it from any article concerning the Falklands. After all, the treaty itself was about the Pacific Northwest of what is now the USA and Canada, and was not about South America at all. And even if South America was mentioned (which has yet to be proven), the treaty was between Great Britain and Spain, not Argentina. TharkunColl 10:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Uti possidetis; anyway if that is not valid for you: UK stopped claiming the F.I., the claim should be over (or at least following international laws). I'll look for the source. Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I found something:

"In fact, in 1790, England disavowed any colonial ambition in South America "and the islands adjacent"by signing an agreement with Spain in the Nootks Sound Convention." [4] .uk that says the same www.falklands.info

The convention is cited in [5], a .fk page in the "History" section. If it wasn't important for the island's history it wouldn't be mentioned, would it?. Maybe I don't reply again untill friday. Argentino (talk/cont.) 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uti possidetis

This so-called principle of International Law actualy favours the winners. Look it up. Argentina lost control of the Falklands, therefore Uti possidetis works in favour of the British.

But even despite that, the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, which Argentina claims jurisdiction from, included (in addition to what is now Argentina), Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay. So why don't the Argentines claim or invade those countries? TharkunColl 23:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The 9th July Declaration of Independence was siged by a couple of representatives from each province exept Uruguay and Paraguay who had separated and declared independence alone; then Bolivia left us. They left. The Falkland Islands' invasion was the end of many military actions taken by the British Empire against us, that started exactly 199 and years and 364 days ago, (25-6-1806) with the first Invasion of Buenos Aires

By the way, I'm not talking about today I'm talking about 1833: I say 1833 invasion was "illegal", therefore UK sized power, because UK had lost control of the islands and recognized it. Argentino (talk/cont.) 13:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The principle of Uti possidetis states, simply put, that the winner of any war has the right to keep any territory gained in the conflict. The British gained the Falklands - both in 1833 and 1982 - so Uti possidetis states that they have the right to keep them. Why on earth do the Argentines try and use it to back up their claim? And furthermore, the Nootka Convention was signed with Spain. Once Spain had lost control of the islands, its stipulations no longer applied.

The British invasions of the Spanish possessions in South America, which you make so much of, were part of the Napoleonic Wars, as the article clearly states. Spain was fighting on the side of the French, who were very much the aggressors in that war. British military engagement with Spanish colonies was therefore perfectly justified as an act of strategic self-defence. TharkunColl 15:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Again:

After losing a war against Napoleon Bonapart, in 1790, UK lost the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) by signing a traty named "Nootka Sound Convention"; so, by the principle of uti possidetis, UK had no right to claim the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) again. Later, after the declaration of independence, the islands were transfered to Argentina. So if UK had no right to claim the islands and UK invaded the islands and forced the local population to leave, and unless someone has a good reason the article should not be changed from "UK siezed power" to "UK took power" because it is not true and if it was it is less descriptive.--Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that the British lost no war against Napoleon in 1790 - he was just an obscure officer in Corsica in that year. The Nootka Convention was mostly about the Pacific Northwest of what is now the USA and Canada, and was signed with Spain. You have totally failed to understand what Uti possidetis actually means if you think that it confers on Argentina the right to inherit Spanish colonies. It is nothing of the sort! It actually confers the right of the victors in a war to keep the territory they have taken - please look it up. So, when Argentina took control of the Falklands after becoming independent it could have claimed the right of uti possidetis and no doubt did, which is where the confusion lies. When the British took control they too could claim right of uti possidetis - and can do so to this day. TharkunColl 17:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the facts are that UK resigned sovereignty to the islands (and every Island adjacent to the American Continent), and left them to Spain. After that Argentina "inherited" the islands because it had won the independence war. I don't care if UK can claim uti possidetis now, I say that in 1833 there was an invasion which was violent and illegal, so the article should not be changed from "UK sized power" to "UK took power" because it is a lie. Argentino (talk/cont.) 18:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You have still failed to provide the original text of the Nootka Convention, but as I keep saying, that was signed with SPAIN. Argentina did not inherit the islands from Spain, it took them by force - which was, of course, illegal. Fortunately for the future prosperity of the islands, however, it only managed to control them - albeit not very well - for less than ten years. It is not a lie to state that Britain "took control" in 1833 - it is what Wikipedia calls a neutral point of view. TharkunColl 18:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the treaty was signed with Spain is irrelevant. And to say that an inhabited territory was sized by force, thus it was "taken". If a territory is invaded military it can not be said the territory was "taken" because that verb is used for peaceful changes of dependency; for example, "the USA took control of Alaska after buying it". I doesn't seem neutral to me the verb "take" in this context because it hides the invasion. I see you don't want to put "sized", and I understand you so I propose to write "until 1833 when UK took by force the control of the islands" Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Your comment about Argentina's occupation: it was longer than 10 years, in fact it was at least 27. And the "prosperity" was much bigger than you immagine. I don't beelive you'll ever visit it but the museum of the Falklan Islands, managed by the great-great sons of those who lived in them, shows a history that is quite different from what you said. I fear falklanders don't immagine (not even nearly) what that people feel. If you watched Argentina's matches in the World Cup you'd see a lot of argentine flags that in staid of a sun have the Falkland Islands. And the people who carry them are nothing compared to the mannegers of the museum. Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, not being a native speaker of English, you are unfamiliar with nuances of meaning. To say "took control" does not imply that the event must have been purely peaceful - which is why the term really is NPOV, whereas yours is definitely POV.

10, 27 - who cares? The fact is that Argentina lost the Falklands after a very brief occupation and this happened nearly 200 years ago! Why on earth do they still claim them? Why did hundreds of people have to die in 1982? It is all propaganda, fed to their citizens by successive Argentine governments in an effort to distract them from poverty, corruption, and tyranny. And no, I certainly do not intend to visit any museum run by Argentine propagandists, and quite frankly I couldn't give a toss what the Argentines did or did not do on the islands during the few years they were there. They left long, long ago - and good riddance to them! TharkunColl 20:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to explain everything because you would'nt understand us; but expect another 200 years of claims. The fact is that you are almost supporting me: if took control "does not imply that the event must have been purely peaceful" then it doesn't explicitly imply it was violent, so would you please be so kind to tell me why can't we put "until 1833 when UK took by force the control of the islands" (without italics, of course)? Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand you all too well, I'm afraid - and yes, from a state like Argentina I would indeed expect another 200 years of posturing and sabre rattling. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we must never let fascists and tyrants win. And as for the specific point, "took control" has no nuances other than being neutral. If you want to say by force, then you must also say that that's how the Argentines took control from the Spanish, and indeed every other transfer of power on the islands. To single out the British in 1833 is just POV. TharkunColl 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't, or at least you don't seem to, and forget the difference between state and nation. The facists and tyrans left us long ago and are in jail. "The right of one man en where begin he right of another man". Why can't the sons of those who inhabited them return to their homes?. For the rest I agree with you. So I'll put what happened in every change of sovereignty. Criticism welcome. Argentino (talk/cont.) 18:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What "independence war in 1817"?!

After claiming independence in 1816, the Argentine troops under General San Martin participated in hostile actions against Spanish and royalist armies until 1821.

The peace treaty with Spain recognizing the Argentine independence was concluded in 1860!

Only by the 1860 Treaty did Spain renounce its sovereignty and claims in the region.

Until 1860 Spain had a claim of the Falklands maintained for nearly one hundred years (and Britain had an even earlier claim).

In 1820 Argentina only claimed the Spanish claim (and tried to establish effective control by force in 1831 but failed), however Spain did not renounce its claim of the Falklands until 1860 by which time the British claim had already been made good. Apcbg 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Well, the main war was finished with the Crossing of the Andes and the liberation of Chile and Peru, in 1817. Of course there continued to be skirmishes but the Spainsh had already lost and after losing the war they didn't continue with the claim on the F.I. (M) alone, but still claimed the whole new world. I added the comment about the war because TharkunColl requested it, but the Argentine claim started with the declaration of independence, because if the F.I. (M) were a part of the Viceroyalty of River Plate, and that Viceroyalty declared independence, why wouldn't a part of it (even if claimed but not controlled) gain independence too? Unless you say the declaration of independence was not valid... And now we have the issue of the sovereignty, the Nootka convention again, blah, blah, blah, and the uti possidetis for which Spain was the "owner", lost them by the declaration and no more utis because there were no more declared wars. Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The liberation of Peru ended in 1821 not 1817, and as you agree Spain kept its claims in the region (including the Falklands). The declaration of independence is just that, a declaration of independence, an intention that may or may not succeed. It succeeded by way of war which ended by the 1860 Treaty. The declaration itself cannot terminate other countries' claims, neither the British nor the Spanish one. The difference between the Falklands and say Buenos Aires or Montevideo is that (1) the territories of Buenos Aires and Montevideo were undisputably Spanish, and (2) the people of those Spanish territories (more precisely, those of them that were not loyalists) pursued independence which was achieved by establishing effective control of those territories, and later recognition by other countries and eventually the most important recognition by Spain that was the undisputed owner of those territories; the Falkland Islands (1) were a disputed territory claimed by both Spain and Britain, where after the termination of the Spanish settlement there existed the international legal regime established by the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention, according to which Spain for the first time gave up its claim for monopoly over the South Seas navigation and trading, and Britain and Spain conceded to each other the equal unrestricted freedom of economic activity but no right to establish new settlements; this regime was established in all the territories in South America situated to the south of the southernmost Spanish settlements, which after 1811 meant the entire Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego and the Falkland Islands (Articles 4 and 6 of the Nootka Sound Convention; Goebel’s book confirms that the Convention guarantees British economic rights);(2) unlike Buenos Aires or Montevideo, the Falklands had no native population claiming independence; their population until 1826 consisted entirely of British and American sealers; from 1826 until 1833 it was a cohabitation of two communities, the Anglo-American one, numbering around 2000 (average 100 ships, some 20 crew each; only in the bay visited by Jewett in 1820 he found over 50 ships!); and the Argentine settlement established by Vernet that had some 90 settlers, most of whom were removed by the US Navy in December 1831 - January 1832); so the crucial difference between the Falklands and Buenos Aires or Montevideo is that the local people in Buenos Aires and Montevideo established effective unchallenged control over those territories, and then decided their future (and then in different ways, establishing more than one state); there were no such people in the Falklands to claim inheritance from Spain, those were Britons and Americans who pursued freely their industry by treaty (the British) or established traditional use (several decades in the case of the Americans) and when the Argentines came and tried to establish control by force, they failed. Apcbg 23:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Until 1860 Argentina was an illegal state, and had no right to do anything at all. None of its territorial claims are in any way valid.

"The facists and tyrans left us long ago and are in jail." Well obviously not all that long ago otherwise they'd be long dead. The fact is that Galtieri fell as a direct result of losing the Falklands War. In other words, hundreds of British people had to die in order to give you ingrates democracy. TharkunColl 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"..to give you ingrates democracy": This is just plainly offensive. Galtieri was going to fall anyway. And the Falklands sovereignty issue was there before the war. As the demonstrators against the Junta used to say "Las Malvinas son de los trabajadores no de los torturadores" (The Falklands belong to the workers (i.e. people), not to the torturers). The point being that the issue was beyond the military junta and the people opposing the regime were also supporting the war. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is extremely offensive. Those who support fascistic militarism are just as guilty of it. And the fact remains that Galtieri fell because hundreds of British people died. Incidentally, I've no idea what that Spanish phrase means so it might have been better to have supplied a translation if you wanted to make a serious point. TharkunColl 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was actually talking about your comments. I found them demeaning even if this was not your intention. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for editing your previous post to supply a translation. In fact, of course, neither the "workers" nor the "torturers" owned the islands, and it was a bit presumptious of them to say so - especially since they lost the war. Is it any wonder that the Falkland Islanders distrust the Argentines? TharkunColl 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, actually I'd be very surprised if you didn't. But the Falklanders ignore most of our situation, and I'm sure we ignore most of their situation too.

Argentina was not an illegal state: It's independence was recognized by the King of Hawaii Islands (after this man's bombing of the islands) and Portugal before 1818. Incidentally, I did't say the Spanish claim ended in 1816, just that the argentine started in that year. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 22:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! The King of Hawaii! I apologise for doubting your claim! But seriously, why on earth should the Falkland Isladers give a toss about how the Argentines think? They "ignore your situation" because it has got nothing to do with them. You are a foreign country and you should be allowed to sort out your own fascist dictators or not, as you see fit. Just don't go around invading other places, okay? TharkunColl 23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

So now Malvinas has vanished from the lead, but we have people adding the Argentine names to the infoboxes? Come on, people! I've protected it (do let me know if it's the wrong version) and if I catch anyone climing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man there willl be trouble. Just zis Guy you know? 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toleration of blatant and uncompromising bias

"Falkland Islands is currently protected. When it is unprotected you will not repeat your pushing of tendentious edits without first achieving consensus on its Talk page. If you do, you will be blocked. Also, if you do not remain civil on the Talk page you will be blocked. Wikipedia is not the place to have your battles."

So you ask me to remain civil while writing an entirely uncivil message to me yourself. Please don't. I am neither a child nor a criminal and you are not an administrator. Clearly Wikipedia is a place for your battles, otherwise you wouldn't be reverting my changes and getting the article protected. You are protecting blatant an uncompomising bias. The present article completely ignores the sensitivities of an entire nation and more. There isn't even a pretension towards NPOV. The Argentine terms are frequently used in books and on websites everywhere. Yet in this article "malvinas" is only used once, while the names "Puerto Argentino", "Isla Soledad" or "Gran Malvina" aren't mentioned at all. Could I refer to the Spanish version of this page, where they seem to be having a similiar debate, but have given both names in all cases.--Salvador Allende 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is right and proper that the Spanish version of Wikipedia gives the name of a place both in its own language, and in that of the place itself. The English Wikipedia does exactly the same. The language of the Falklands, however, happens to be English. There is no constituency of opinion within the Falklands that supports the Argentine territorial claim, and as far as the islanders are concerned Argentina is a foreign military aggressor. TharkunColl 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not 'blatant an uncompomising bias' to use the correct names for the territory and the places in it. The use of foreign names for a British territory in an English language article is wrong and an attempt to exercise power over something that is not yours to control. --Gibnews

Take a look at the Spanish language wiki article of this: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland

It is extremely biased in Argentina's favor.

I take the fact that both sides claim it is biased towards the other as a good sign. There is nothing uncivil about describing tendentious edits as such. Just zis Guy you know? 06:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak a word of Spanish but just skimming through that article it is clear that it is indeed grotesquely biased, simply by its presentation of the information and what it chooses to report. Still, what do you expect? For those who support the use of foreign names in this article, I would suggest that they take a look at the page about the Czech Republic. During the war, when it was under Nazi occupation, this country was known as the Reichsprotektorat Böhmen und Mähren (usually rendered in English as the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia"), and yet that term in conspicuously absent from the lead paragraph. To be sure, it is mentioned further down - in the history section where it belongs. Likewise, that the Falklands were briefly occupied by a foreign fascistic military power in 1982 is a fact of history, and that the occupiers imposed alien names on the place should also be mentioned - where it belongs, in the history section. TharkunColl 06:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You have now Godwinated this discussion. Time to archive and start over. Just zis Guy you know? 06:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to compare the military subjugation of a smaller defenceless state by a larger, beligerant fascist neighbour with what the Nazis did in World War Two. Do you? To quote from the amusing page you linked to:

"Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate impact"TharkunColl 07:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that, as stated above ad nauseam, the use of the Spanish is a recognition of an alternative name used by substantial proportion of the planet's population, as recognised in multiple reliable secondary sources, and not some kind of endorsement of colonialism, British or otherwise. WP:NPOV requires that we appropriately recognise all significant minority views. This does include having Malvinas in the lead and does not include using the Argentine asserted name for Stanley in the infobox. So, unless you have something new to bring to the debate I suggest you leave it at that. Just zis Guy you know? 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

England is called Inglaterra by the Spanish. Why is such a term inappropriate in the header of the England article? In other words - and let me state this as simply as possible - why single out the Falklands for special treatment? Why are they different to any other place on earth? I might further add, as an even more telling example, the United States of America. Huge areas of that were once Spanish colonies, and there is even a movement for a Spanish-speaking nation in those areas - El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán. Spanish is spoken by massive numbers of people in the USA. So why don't they put the Spanish name for that country - Estados Unidos de América in the header? And please note that unlike the USA, there is no section of the Falklands population that speaks Spanish and supports a Spanish-speaking agenda. TharkunColl 09:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly something to do with it not being adjacent to a Spanoish-speaking landmass. As previously stated, rather than repeating arguments which have already been debated, why not try a new argument? Or (here's a novel idea) accept the consensus view and let it drop. Just zis Guy you know? 10:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard of Mexico? In case you haven't, it's a large Spanish-speaking landmass adjacent to the United States. And what about my link to El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, does that not count as new evidence furthering my argument? It will be ignored of course, because those with a political agenda never listen to reason. TharkunColl 11:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked England was not off the coast of Mexico. I don't think my geography is that rusty. Like I said before, we've had this argument and it went against you. Now would be a good time to drop it. Just zis Guy you know? 13:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I can only assume that you didn't even bother to read what I wrote - which is presumably why you don't understand what I'm saying. I was, of course, referring to the United States, which has a massive number of Spanish speakers within it, and even a Spanish-speaking independence movement in the former Spanish colonies in the south-west. So why doesn't Wikipedia give the name of the United States in Spanish as well as English? TharkunColl 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask the editors on the USA article. This article has consensus for being as it is, as a compromise solution. If you feel like adding the Spanish name to USA, go right ahead. After, of course, achieving consensus on Talk. Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the point entirely. I do not think that the Spanish name ought to go on the USA article. As for a consensus here, have you noticed how this page tends to attract quite a few people who just may have a tincy wincy little bit of a pro-Argentine axe to grind? How can that possibly lead to a fair and inbiased article? Let us never forget who the aggressors were. TharkunColl 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I sure have noticed some pro-Argentine bias here. And guess what? There is some serious bias from the pro-British side as well. Amazing, isn't it? Just zis Guy you know? 16:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the Falkland Islanders actually are British, and want to remain that way, we evidently need a little more of what you call "Pro-British" bias, if only to get the facts straight. TharkunColl 18:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm I Norwegian-American from Minnesota with no axe to grind on this subject at all. I'm not here to settle things. I just want to remind everyone there are strong points of view here and those who hold them are well-grounded in them. Let's not attack other editors, or other nations, or debate the politics and merits of the national claims. Those things will not get settled here nor will they improve the article. Let's archive this, as it is really long (and Godwinized already) and start a new conversation focused on improving specific things in the article, hopefully with proposals that have some chance of broad agreement. Jonathunder 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to add that we don't put "Rome/Roma" or "Naples/Napoli", both of which would have a much stronger claim than any Falklands settlement to dual naming. DJ Clayworth 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Italicised Malvinas is already a compromise. What we have here is a constant merry-go-round with each circuit seeing the same users demanding a new "compromise" between the old one and their position. This will probably continue until both sides get their way (i.e. never). Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not from me you don't; After the compromise that I suggested to include the word Malvinas in the heading for information but not to give it equal billing, that is enough for me and you agree that that is far enough. There is no need for the likes of 'Puerto Argentina' because these have no real validity.

One can discuss history without invoking Godwins Law and, the German naming of Gdansk as Danzig is well known and documented and mentioned in context in the MIDDLE of the wikipedia article.

It is also worth noting that its the people who win conflicts get to write history and name territory, not the losers. --Gibnews 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth, Tharkuncall etc.: So can we know expect San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles,El Salvador, Costa Rica etc. to be renamed for the English article. Oh and I'd advice you to find the article on Ivory Coast. As for JZG, the current "compromise" is a complete farce that only mentions an Argentine name once, doesn't mention the fact that the name is disputed, doesn't even mentions the reasons for Argentine sensitivities.

Tharkuncall says "Let us never forget who the aggressors were.". Well quite, the British.--Salvador Allende 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's presumably what they taught in the fascist sponsored Argentine state schools, but the facts are a little different I'm afraid. Still, when have facts ever got in the way of a good excuse to invade ones smaller and weaker neighbours? Solve your problems at home by starting a foreign war, that's what fascists have always done - such as Mussolini for example. Oh, and someone else I mustn't mention. TharkunColl 18:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts are that the Malvinas were forcibly occupied by a country thousands of miles away in the nineteenth century, that country, being in a different continent and everything, is the aggressor.--Salvador Allende 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The nature of the Argentine dictatorship in 1982 is a distracting side issue. People like Kirchner, for example, are strong opponents of that terrible regie, that harmed its own people the most, but still believe the Malvinas are Argentinian.

I don't think the people of the Falklands would have described the Argentine dictatorship of 1982 as a "distracting side issue". TharkunColl 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've just replaced all references to San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, El Salvador and Costa Rica with their English names. Their English names are San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, El Salvador and Costa Rica. DJ Clayworth 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the English names should be Saint Francis, Saint Diego, The Angels, The Saviour and Rich Coast. Go on.--Salvador Allende 19:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the English names are definirely not those, I can assure you. TharkunColl 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you need to improve your English my friend.--Salvador Allende 19:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am perfectly well aware of what those places are called in English. And didn't you mean Saint Didacus anyway? TharkunColl 19:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Clam down. What Mr. Salvador tries to say is that there exist spainsh names used commonly in english. The point is, the Article is ok as it is now, and unless you want to propose soething reasonable, stop arguing --Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Argentino, do you really think that a single mention of "Malvinas", no mention of the other Argentine names, no mention that the name is disputed, and not mention of Argentinas grievances over the name is an acceptable compromise?--Salvador Allende 19:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the point that Senor Allende was trying to make - it was just a bit misguided, that's all. TharkunColl 19:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How so, its a fairly clear contradiction. If all those names are acceptable in English, why isn't Malvinas.--Salvador Allende 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very, very simple - so simple that even a child could understand it - "Malvinas" is not the name of the islands because that is not what the people who live there call them. TharkunColl 19:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But it is is what a very large portion of the world call it.--Salvador Allende 19:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the archives, we've been round that loop before. Also read the article - contrary to your assertion that the name dispute is not mentioned, there is an entire section devoted to the name alone, plus a description of the territorial dispute. Just zis Guy you know? 19:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you give more your train or thought the last time, I'm intrigued to know how you reached this conclusion. I've already read the article, the section on the name is ridiculous. It mentions that the Spanish name is "Islas Malvinas" and that the falklanders resent this term. But it doesn't say in direct terms that the name is disputed, nor does mention Argentina's problems with the name "Falklands".--Salvador Allende 19:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But the name of the islands is not disputed by the people that matter, namely, the Falkland Islanders. It is completely irrelevant that Argentina has problems with the name, they are a foreign country and it is none of their business. The Argentines are attempting to impose themselves on a people who want nothing to do with them. Can you not see how fundamentally wrong that is? TharkunColl 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Giving the Falklands Spanish place names is about as relevent as giving London ancient celtic language place names. The official language is English and there is no need for anything else, there is nothing Argentinian about the islands. Marky-Son 22:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents, the CIA World fact book: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fk.html descrivbes the Falkland Islands as Falkland Island (Islas Malvinas) , I think it would not be unreasonable to admit that the islands are also known under the spanish name of Malvinas. Place names , however should be given in English as there is no sound reason for to name the towns of a territory which has been British for the past 170 years in spanish. And certainly not in the english wikipedia. --Isolani 09:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The CIA factbook has been mentioned a number of times in the archived history of this topic - the Americans are overly supportive of their friends in South America, democratic or not. I see there is a movement to reword the American National Anthem into Spanish, when its mandatory, no doubt the next step is to rename all British Territories with Spanish names. In the meantime the consensus introduction is quite enough for my digestion and strains that of many others. --Gibnews 09:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's like deja-vu all over again. Does anyone have anything new or productive to add here? Just zis Guy you know? 09:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No wonder the wrold has so many problems when people writing an encyclopaedia can't even stay civil!

Point 1) The people living on the Falkland Islands want to remain British, not Argentinian. End of story. This is not a criticism of Argentina. SpookyMulder 09:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

To Spooky: In that case if a couple of thousand of nationalistic argentines bought military equipment and forced the locals to leave, the new locals would declare argentine sovereignty and nobody would be able to complain, which is stupid. This is not a criticism to you. And criticism is good because it makes people better. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to add "and then remained there peacefully for two hundred years building a decent, civilised, and free society". The point is this - how far back should we take any claim seriously? Are you, as an Argentine, happy about handing over your country to the native Indians from whom it was stolen a few hundred years ago? TharkunColl 18:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

To Mr S.Allende: I love your proposal but this encyclopedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view. The only thing I think is correct is to add more about the argentine claim, but we'll have time to discuss that later. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

To everyone: Don't be surprised if you start finding out lots of argentine vandals: the Falkland Islands are appearing almost every day in the news (because of some fishing licences for 25 years) and I fear this change brings some people to "fight" here. Sorry, I forgot the article is protected —Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Argentines are not as educated as the British. Skinnyweed 18:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt, but with 40 milions there are always fanatics. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Skinnyweed, you have just helped prove the opposite with that rather childish sentence of yours. I took that as a personal attack and ask you to reconsider. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's remember that the original dispute (and claim of bias) was not because Salvador wanted to add "Malvinas" to the article - that's already there. Nobody objects to it. However Salvador (wanted to add the Spanish name after a slash to every settlement on the islands! Now even the much-vaunted CIA factbook doesn't do that. It simply says the capital is "Stanley". The islands' Spanish name is (properly) mentioned in the first paragraph. So is the Argentinian claim. Let's leave it. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. --Gibnews 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I Agree with DJ, there is absolutely NO need to add Spanish-language names to an English language encyclopedia. Doing so wouldn't be POV, it would be political propaganda. An English-language encyclopedia is supposed to be for English-language readers thus the names should be in English. The concession to add "Malvinas" in the context of the 1982 war and the claims around it is enough to satisfy NPOV, IMHO. And, before Mr Allende (or anybody else) blasts against me, I would ask him to read my talk page and find out where I was born.

Having said all this, I have to strongly disagree on the rather racist way Tharkun, Skinnyweed and others are referring to their "opponents" in this contributions. I plan to start issuing NPA blocks starting immediately to those not keeping it civil around here (regardless of national origin or standing in this argument). If you can't argue as adults, just don't do it. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I should think that accusing me of being a racist would count as a pretty major personal attack to be honest. TharkunColl 18:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you. I didn't intend to qualify you as a racist, just qualify your remarks like that. I am not sure how you behave in your everyday life and how you interact with people of other nationalities outside WP (or on different pages) but when you write "That's presumably what they taught in the fascist sponsored Argentine state schools" you are being prejudicial and, in my views, racist. Again, I am not calling YOU a racist, just qualify your remarks in this page like that. In any event, I hope you accept my apology and also understand my reasons for disliking that remark (and others of the same tone). Maybe I can convice you to change your attitude, I surely hope so. Thanks. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You are in denial if you claim that Argentina and for that matter Spain does not have people who were educated in state schools controlled by fascist dictators. What people are taught at an early age tends to colour their view of reality. The dictators have gone, but only recently, their legacy remains. --Gibnews 07:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as I was educated in Argentina (and countless other people too) I am much more qualified that you are to talk about its educational system. Seeing as how 90% (and more) of Argentines view the Proceso as the worst time of Argentine history, I would say that the "indoctrination" that you imply happened, simply didn't work. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In which case you are not in a position to state whether you are biased or not if you are a product of the system. --Gibnews

Funny, on those same lines, I could argue that the Falklanders POV is moot because they are a product of an imperialist education and they were indoctrinated to believe that English/British is good and Argie is bad. Therefore rendering their opinions on the islands irrelevant since they were taught that from the cradle.

Obviously, the idea I just expressed is ridiculous and nonsensical. That goes to show that we are all biased somehow by our education. It is our intelligence that allows us to extricate ourselves from a POV we learned, and to be able to recognize that our truth is not "the truth". And, for the record, I was educated in private schools all my life therefore not being exposed to the "fascist controlled" education that you refer to. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You make some interesting points, however this is not a debate but a page to discuss writing an encyclopedia. Language, culture, and education affect how people think and react. Being in a position to watch BBC and TVE and understand the differences is valuable in understanding some of the differences in perception between the two 'sides' view of the Falkland Islands dispute. --Gibnews

I would say that TVE is not as important as ATC or Telefe because, as I just said, Argentina and Spain are two very different countries. But, having said that, I also mention that I agree with most of your points regarding the FI, just not with the parallels between Spain and Argentina. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The TVE coverage at the time of the conflict consisted of relaying Argentine TV with strong support for their position. Although TVEi is widely available on satellite, Argentine stations are not, I have a new fully steerable dish for projects. As an affected party I do see parallels between the claimants actions, although the Gibraltarians and the Falkland Islanders react very differently, albeit both are resolute in rejecting oppression. --Gibnews

So, let me process what I think you're saying. You're saying that you saw Argentine TV in 1982 and you infer that 24 years later, Argentines are still indoctrinated and believe in the same things... Also, Argentines were taught in fascist-controlled schools but somehow Islanders "reject oppression" against Argentina but are not "rejecting opression" against the UK, that doesn't grant them independence? Sorry, Gib, I am one who advocates that the FI should remain under UK rule or be independent, but I can't get myself to agree with your portrayal of my countrymen (or former countrymen, seeing that I now live in the US) and your arguments overall. I just think that if you expressed your ideas without diminishing the opposition your arguments will be twice as strong. That's it, I said my piece, no longer interested in this argument... Not really very productive to the article. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The opinions of the Falkland Islanders are obviously moot, and that's exactly what we're doing - discussing them. The opinions of anyone else, however, are irrelevant. TharkunColl 16:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What? What the islanders think is irrelevant? Oh well, sorry for intruding, I'll let you guys do whatever you want here. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, what you said is that the islanders opinion is moot, i.e. worthy of discussion, and I agreed with you. It's everyone else's opinion that is irrelevant. TharkunColl 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, linguistic problem here. I took "moot" for the second meaning "Irrelevant, of no practical importance". You took the other meaning [6]. I was posing a purposefully fallacious example with the intention of illustrating a point. I do believe their opinion counts. Although I do believe the rest of the world has a voice too. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The inhabitants of Dartmoor Prison are a fine and upstanding group of people whose charitable nature is exceeded only by their gentle demeanour. This is what they say about themselves, what anyone else thinks is clearly irrelevant. Just zis Guy you know? 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is there so much controversy?

The situation is clear, an unbiased history of the islands can let the reader make up his own answer as to who should, ideally, have the island. I believe it should be Argentina, however, this is a claim to the island, not the people who populate it. Because those who populate the island identify better with Britain it is senseless to make the island Argentinian.

No matter which side is taken as to who, ideally, should have the island, those who have the greatest claim to the island are those who populate it. If they identified better with Argentina, but the UK would not let them claim independence from Britain to be an indepedent country or part of Argentina, there would be an issue - this is not the case, and therefore I see no possible issue.

As for the name, why do people even care if we call the islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) or something of sorts? It is the most neutral option since some wish to name it Malvinas and deserve their POV in the article. The name still suggests that the main name is "Falkland Islands", sometimes known as "Malvinas". It's not as if it were just a translation from the name, it's a different name. Aren't people able to compromise? --A Sunshade Lust 21:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is a compromise the name is the Falkland Islands. Britain cares enough about it that a considerable number of servicemen died and were injured in order to keep it that way. You could also ask Spain why they spent 2m euros to call an uninhabited rock Perejil rather than Leila, an endevour where thankfully only the native goats and national pride were injured. --Gibnews

The people who live in the Falkland Islands consider themselves English speakers and not Malvinaistas. I can make a claim that all of France should belong to me, and declare that it's propper name is Millerland, but if the French won't go along with it, my claim is pointless. Argentina's political claim is worth mentioning in a historical context and 1982 war context, but additional promotion of the name Malvinas is just an attempt to push an agenda. Jcmiller 18:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Its worth noteing and that is done, after all it is an encyclopedia, given that Spain are still trying to 'reclaim' [Gibraltar] after three hundred years and after having signed it away, expect at least the same from their South American cousins in relation to the insular territories of the South Atlantic. --Gibnews 19:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you should stop comparing Gibraltar to the Falklands and Spain to Argentina. I'll concede the point that similarities exist in both cases, but differences exist also. You should address Gibraltar issues in that page and use Falkland-related (or Argentina-relateD) arguments in this one. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dubious 'historical' sovereignty claims against a British territory by a Spanish speaking country totally opposed by the people living there and badly managed by the FCO - there are indeed 'few' similarities. Apart from air restrictions, problems with telephones etc. I've never been to the Falklands, although some of my friends went on a cruise for a short visit, so can't comment first hand about things, except can understand some of the issues better I think than many others. --Gibnews

"Spanish speaking country". That's where you go wrong. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that two countries sharing the same language also think alike. It may be true on some issues, but in others is completely inaccurate. I don't think any British would like hearing that the US, Australia, UK, Canada (and other countries) share ideals just because they share the language. As a matter of fact, I live in the US and I've been to Canada a few times and all I can say is that in political and social terms, these two countries more than often only share the language. Being from Gibraltar, I understand how you can empathize with the Falkland Islanders struggle, but most of the times drawing wide parallels can lead to fallacies. And, for the record, I don't oppose the Islanders' claims, I was just commenting about your text "expect at least the same from their South American cousins". I honestly believe that your conclusions may be right but this argument is not. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is this persistent rumour that the FO were in the business of negotiating with Galtieri when he jumped the gun, confident that because we were already talking about it we would not care that much. Whether this is true or not I could not say. Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard the same. It is widely believed in Argentina that had Galtieri not attacked the islands, they would've been "returned" (or at least a shared sovereignty agreement would've been reached) by means of diplomacy. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Although you don't like analogies with Gibraltar, the FCO tried the same tactic of selling us down the river to Spain recently - it failed. Whether the FI people would have been as effective in kicking up a fuss is debatable. Personally I think the traditional punishment for traitors, like guy fawkes the Spanish trained mercenary, is appropriate for the FCO and would be pleased to assist. --Gibnews

I suspect that Gibraltar costs somewhat less to maintain, and the islanders' voices are easier to hear since they are close to a common British holiday destination. But it matters not. Just zis Guy you know? 19:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

OK. Anybody who makes significant changes to the article without first achieving consensus on Talk will be blocked. If you see tendentious edits, please post immediately on my Talk or on the admin noticeboard. I think that the usual editors of this article can e relied on not to do anythign stupid, and to show restraint if a POV pusher happens along. Remember WP:3RR and also remember there is no deadline, if it takes a couple of hours to block the offender and revert the article it does not, in the end, matter too much. Please remember to leave a civil message on Talk for any tendentious editor, and please see WP:TIGERS. Just zis Guy you know? 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And do the same at my talk page, one of us will be likely be around. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Gone to inactive for undetermined time. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone archive this stuff and lets move on. --Gibnews

[edit] Bad news

Sorry guys, but today I have bad news for you all.

Since 2 July two users, TharkunColl and Astrotrain, have been untiringly and continuously deleting Argentina-related information on the Flag of the Falkland Islands article. The information was originally removed by Astrotrain on 11:42, 2 July 2006 [7], restored by Mais oui! next day [8], and deleted again by Astrotrain on 09:11, 3 July 2006. As for his edit summary, Mais oui!'s edits were "vandalism". [9]

I noticed the problem on 6 July [10]. Both users, hardly contributors, have since reverted all my edits, refusing to cooperate or even to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. It is important to note that the Argentine information, unlike the British one, is properly referenced and sourced.

Any help would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks in advance, --Nkcs 05:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the repeated vandalism of that page which was not on my watchlist, but is now. I note that the page on channel islands does not show the flag of their illegal occupation. --Gibnews

It is absurd, and looks suspiciously like a violation of WP:POINT, to keep on inserting a flag which has never been flown on the islands, and which is not, even from an Argentine perspective, the flag of the Falklands/Malvinas, but rather the flag of the province which they would like the islands to be part of. The information is irrelevant, inaccurate and (in spite of the claim to the contrary) not properly sourced. I have therefore also added the article to my watchlist. (I note that Nkcs, while taking TharkunColl and Astrotrain to task for failing to discuss the matter on the talk page, has not made any effort to do so either.) Vilĉjo 12:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much of a big proble, however i'm not going to be able to contribute much this month, and wont talk again uless there is a very good reason to do so. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the issue has been solved on Talk:Flag of the Falkland Islands. Please state any further comments here. Cheers. --Nkcs 16:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate Use of an External Link

An actual URL was shown in the article (under History) with a "see the following link" type of description. The Manual of Style frowns upon this practice (under External links, Link titles) and it was fixed without removing the link. If someone else would like to add this external link to the References, the material referenced in the article appears to be from page 126 of the link.--ndyguy 03:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, forced to repatriate the remainder of the Argentine settlement, and began to repopulate the islands with British citizens.

By whom were the British "forced to repatriate the remainder of the Argentine settlement"? TharkunColl 23:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody already fixed this. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 01:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The above is an awful use of language anyway. --Gibnews

It was mine.
I'm sorry. It was stupid. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "almost all", "universally" and other misc.

For the record, I like GibNews new wording of the paragraph. I changed it to "almost all" because User:TharkunColl changed it to "universally", and that's another word that implies that all agree equally, and also needs a reference. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The word "universally" does not imply that every single man, woman, and child on the islands actively agrees. Rather, it implies that there is no constituency of opinion that disagrees. TharkunColl 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tharkun, I won't get into this argument because I like the wording as it stands. But, for the record, "universally" means "everybody". I understand the meaning that you intended to give the paragraph, but IMHO it didn't come out just like that. But, as I said, I'm not sure this is even worthy of discussion, since the article is fine as it is now. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Without any statistics to support a position my rewording is adequate and neutral. If there are any Falkland Islanders with the burning desire to share the economic prosperity and effective Government of Argentina, no doubt we will hear from them.--Gibnews

[edit] Islas Falkland

Sebastian Kessel has removed the text “Some Spanish-language sources use the name form "Islas Falkland".” with the explanation “let's not go there again, please.” I am not aware if this information was present in the article before, however there could hardly be any NPOV reason to remove this true, easily verifiable and relevant fact. Apcbg 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a whole edit war on the Spanish names for the islands, as can be seen in the discussions above. Astrotrain 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Whole edit war" is so vague as to mean nothing to me (after all I am not removing a Spanish name from the article, I am adding one).

Where in the above discussions has this particular point been discussed and decided?

What was the argument for removing this perfectly true, verifiable and relevant fact -- that is, if it existed in the article before?

If not, what is the justification for removing it now, and why doing that without due discussion?

Apcbg 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Only the former Chilean dictatorship used the name Islas Falklands for political reasons. I doubt it does even deserve a footnote. Asterion^talk 22:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Asterion. Besides, if we name one name given by spanish media to the islands is imperative that we name them all (or at least the most common ones). That is the place where I don't want to go. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The term is also used by the EU. TharkunColl 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Only the former Chilean dictatorship used the name Islas Falklands"? Grossly untrue -- plentiful Google results for "islas falkland" from sources of various nationality and international organizations too.

Sebastian, I don't know what "all names" you might mean. My text is reporting the Spanish-language usage of one of the two most popular names of the Islands, namely "Falkland". It's not about your wishes to go someplace or not, it's about your removal of my text -- or should I take it that you have sort of monopoly over this article? If so please let me know not to waste my time. Apcbg 22:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Apcbg, "Islas Malvinas" is the most preponderant name used by Spanish Media. We DELIBERATELY choose to use it very subtly. As a spanish speaker and Argentine, I can attest that "Islas Falkland" is a very obscure and not entirely common name for the islands. In fact, the name given to the islands in spanish is "Malvinas". Alas, this point is entirely moot since this is ENGLISH Wikipedia and whether the islands are called "Islas Malvinas" or "Islas Falklands" by spanish-speaking people is irrelevant to the article. The only reason why the name "Malvinas" is even mentioned in the article is to consider the Argentine claim to the islands and contribute to NPOV. I do not have any kind of monopoly in this article, I just try to maintain the peace as much as I can. This article is frequently the subject of nationalistic and POV edits both by Argentine and British writers. I strive to avoid another flare-up and to keep NPOV. Even if I have to fight my fellow Argentines for it. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Sebastian, your "As a spanish speaker and Argentine, I can attest" is not enough to substantiate your original research that ""Islas Falkland" is very obscure". So 263,000 Google hits for "Islas Falkland" is obscure and that name has no place in a paragraph titled "Names"? And:

• Islas Falkland in Mexican Government site is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in International Labour Organization is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in UN Human Rights Website is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Spanish Tuareg Viatges is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Aerovías DAP is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in International Committee of the Red Cross is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Spanish portal El Rincon del Vago is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in British Embassy in Buenos Aires is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Spanish Mediatico.com is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Chilean Academia Nacional de Estudios Políticos y Estratégicos is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in MSN Encarta Enciclopedia is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in FAO is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in BioOne scientific publication is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Chilean media usage reported by Clarín is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Yahoo! Answers is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Chilean Bienvenido Turismo is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Voice of America is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Viajes Eroski Spain is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Revista chilena de historia natural is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Investigaciones marinas is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Programa de la flora del reino Unido is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Population-of.com is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in French Voyages-cncf.com is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Spanish Charter Services is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Declaration of the Argentine Government before a Ramsar Meeting is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Instituto Humboldt Colombia is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Argentine MacCare Portal is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Spanish Guiadelmundo.com is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Mercopress is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Sulivan Shipping is obscure?
• Islas Falkland in Falkland Islands Languages Organisation is obscure?

And 263,000 more hits is obscure? But 84,000 hits for "Malvinas Islands" is not obscure and that stays, eh? Some NPOV indeed! (No need fighting your fellow Argentines ... further factual inaccuracies and POV wouldn't matter much.)

You wrote: "... whether the islands are called "Islas Malvinas" or "Islas Falklands" by spanish-speaking people is irrelevant to the article. The only reason why the name "Malvinas" is even mentioned etc." But it follows by no means whatsoever that your particular reason for including one name could be the reason for removing another. Of course the names of the Islands are relevant to the Islands, and thus to the article. There is even a section in the article titled Names. "Islas Malvinas" may be "the most preponderant name used by Spanish Media" as you say, but not the single one. I have included in the text a perfectly legitimate, verifiable and relevant point that the other name "Islas Falkland" is also used by Spanish language sources. If you attach political connotations to the usage of names -- indeed you declared that "Malvinas" was put in the article in order "to consider the Argentine claim" -- then the usage of the alternative name should automatically have political connotations for you related to the Argentine claim too. Which means that your suppression of the information on the name "Islas Falkland" is an intentional POV par excellence. I trust that you might wish to reconsider your conduct of this issue. Best wishes, Apcbg 11:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

a) We don't use Google hits in WP as a measure for anything. And, FYI, "Islas Malvinas" hits 7,090,000 times.

b) I checked ALL of your references. Most are obscure, some are directly translated from English sources (Islands translates to Islas) and some have "islas" (note the lower caps). When you don't use upper caps in Spanish you are not referring to a proper name, but a noun. As in "islands Falklands or Malvinas).

c) You can do whatever you want here, my only edits on this page from now on are to revert vandalism or protect the page. I am no longer interested in being the POV police, just takes to much of my time.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 14:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(a) Google hits are real and provide verifiable sources, surely a better measure than someone's say so. I pointed out that "Falkland" is a name form used by some Spanish sources, and provided references. The comparison I made (here in the talk page not in the article) was naturally between (1) the name "Falkland" used in Spanish-language sources; and (2) the name "Malvinas" used in English-language sources. “FYI, "Islas Malvinas" hits 7,090,000 times” – this now is neither here nor there; “Falkland Islands” hits 40,000,000 more times, so what? The usage of the name “Malvinas” in Spanish-language texts and the name “Falklands” in English-language texts is obvious and reflected in the article too. The point discussed here is (1), because you removed my comment on (1). (And the only reason I brought in (2) was that unlike (1), (2) stays in the article.)

(b) “I checked ALL of your references. Most are obscure” – and all of them coming from the “former Chilean dictatorship” no doubt! :-) Regarding “islas” and “Islas”, in this respect Spanish differs from English, and the Spanish spelling in different countries varies too. For instance, Chilean gazetteers use “Islas Léonie”, “Isla Andresen”, “Isla Irizar” etc., while Argentine gazetteers use “islas Léonie”, “isla Andresen” and “isla Irizar” instead. However, it doesn't matter whether "islas" or "Islas" is used as both ensure that the text is in Spanish; similarly, "islands" ensure that the respective source is in English. That’s why the web search is made for "islas falkland" and "malvinas islands" respectively. So fact is that the name "Falkland" is used in some Spanish-language sources, and you removed this information, while keeping the comment about the use of "Malvinas" in some English-language sources (with no references by the way, obscure or otherwise).

(c) “You can do whatever you want here” – I did, a small factual comment which was met with obstruction resulting in the present waste of time. By the way, my recent contribution had one more item, which was added to the introductory paragraph. That was abused too, moved to the “Geography” section with the explanation that – in your opinion – “It is more relevant there.” So the mentioning of the Falklands neighbours South Georgia and Antarctica is removed leaving only one neighbour ... More relevant to the “Geography” section you say? Then how come that in other similar articles (see Argentina, United Kingdom, whatever) the neighbours are listed in the introduction where the location of the territory is described, while “Geography” gives more details about the territory itself? Alas, more double standards.

(d) Regarding your being “POV police”. While I have only been following this article since recently, my impression is that your effort is motivated by good will. Unfortunately, the overall balance is far from NPOV; it seems that you are looking for a compromise between two positions with both of them already biased in one and the same direction (intentionally or due to inadequate prior information). Now that you see what controversy has resulted from a minor factual comment of mine, you may imagine that I would be less than encouraged to make any substantial edits of this article. Best, Apcbg 19:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(tab reset). Thanks for WP:AGF. Please let me assure you that besides our differences I appreciate the tone you keep and the good nature of your arguments. I will reply to your comment in (what I hope are) two simple paragraphs.

First, I consider the "Islas Falkland" comment to be moot (as in irrelevant). The only reason why we mention a spanish name (Malvinas) is to keep it in the context of the Argentine claim and the 1982 war. "Islas Falkland" (caps or lower caps) is another name for it (I won't get into whether obscure or not) not used by any party in the conflict and doesn't help the context. As User:TharkunColl would surely say, it's just another foreign name that IMHO has no place in the english WP. (Sorry Tharkun, couldn't resist the jab, I hope you take with humor, as that was my intention).

Second, I moved your very accurate and extremely relevant comment out of the intro and into the geography paragraph. Why did I do that? To keep the intro short-and-sweet and but leave the information where it can be found. We obviously care (and a lot) about the geographical location of the islands with respect to other land masses, but I think that putting all of them in the intro is overkill. I mean, it is also important how far from the UK the islands are but it wouldn't be relevant to the intro either. If they were bordering countries, I would've probably acted differently. I hope you at least see my reasoning.

Finally (sorry, one more para), I just would like to mention that I didn't quite like your description of my actions relevant to the geography section. I don't believe I "abused" your text, merely a copyedit.

Thanks, Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 03:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islas Falkland (Continued)

Sebastian, I don’t care for your reason for mentioning “Malvinas” in the article. What matters here is my reason for my mentioning of “Falkland”, for it is my comment that has been removed (by you).

If some day I propose to remove “Malvinas”, only then would I have to deal with your reason for its inclusion (or the reasons of those who believe it should stay), and provide my justification for its proposed removal. Well this is simply not the issue now.

You wrote: ""Islas Falkland" ... is ... not used by any party in the conflict". Obviously untrue. In Spanish-language texts, Britain uses that name not "Malvinas". Since you have "checked ALL" of my references given earlier, surely you would have noted British Embassy in Buenos Aires?

You say that “Malvinas” is a Spanish name. And you also say that “Falkland” is “just another foreign name”. Sorry Sebastian, you can’t have it both ways. If “Malvinas” is a Spanish name, then surely “Falkland” is British not foreign!

That you consider the names “in the context of the Argentine claim” does not mean that so should I. This is not the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article, this is Falkland Islands article, and its section “Names” may consider the names of the Islands and their usage not necessarily in relation to the dispute. These two names for the Islands are internationally popular, being used in hundreds of languages. In certain languages and/or countries “Falkland” is more popular (Falklandinseln, Isole Falkland, Falklandi saared, Kepulauan Falkland, Falkland-szigetek, Фолкландски острови, Νήσοι Φώκλαντ etc.), while “Malvinas” is more popular in others (Îles Malouines, Illes Malvines, Ilhas Malvinas etc.) or with mixed popularity in some cases (Falklandy (Malwiny), Ilhas Falkland /Ilhas Malvinas etc.).

Therefore, the usage of the name “Falkland” in the Spanish language along with the predominant name “Malvinas” is a relevant and verifiable fact which I commented in the article.

That usage may or may not be considered in the context of the dispute, but:

• Out of that context, you have failed to provide any justification for removing it;

• In that context, you have no NPOV justification either. Indeed, if “Malvinas” was somehow associated with the Argentine claim, then the usage of “Falkland” in a Spanish-language context may in some cases signify a certain cool attitude towards the Argentine claim; then your removal of that information is POV.

Regarding the geographical information – your explanation is very clear and would have been plausible ... were it not for the fact that the practice in other similar articles is different, as I already pointed out. Why deviate in the Falkland Islands of all articles?

You wrote: “If they were bordering countries, I would've probably acted differently.” But they are. Under the Law of Sea Convention coastal states are entitled in principle to 350 nautical miles of continental shelf (in this particular area meaning prospective oil deposits), and the distance between the Falklands and South Georgia is less than 700 nautical miles which means that there will be a delimited border between the two shelves. So you are welcome to act differently.

Maybe “abuse” was not the right word, but your special approach in this article in deviation from the normal Wikipedia practice in other such articles is not appreciated. It's not a big deal, and I didn't mean to make an issue of it; but it demonstrates how forbidding is the response here even towards minor, plain, factual (innocent one might say) contributions. Best, Apcbg 10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Apcbg, I'll keep it short. It is not really in my best interest to further this discussion even more. I don't really see the point.

Let me start from the bottom. I didn't go against WP policy, I just relocated a paragraph. If you consider that a forbidding response then you should analyze how personal do you take your edits. None of your text was removed. It was simply relocated to the "Geography" section, a few lines below. If you wish to split hairs about continental shelves please go ahead, but I don't consider the US and Cuba "Neighboring" even when only 90 miles separate them, so thanks but I'll keep my stance there.

You misunderstand me "Falkland Islands" is not foreign, "Islas Falkland" is.

You choose to ignore that the "British Embassy in Buenos Aires" is by definition English speaking, and any press release in Spanish will indeed contain the name the British name for the islands, along with a translation of the rest of the text.

You are welcome to add names for the islands in every single language of the world, although I'm afraid it'll be a textbook case of WP:POINT. If utilizing "Islands Falkland" denotes a "certain cool attitude towards the Argentine claim", then put it in Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands or on Falklands War, as you well suggested.

It wasn't very short, unfortunately, but you get the gist of my view. Thanks for the argument, I did enjoy it. Alas, since I don't really see where we're going with it, I will respectfully decline to continue it.

Thanks, Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sebastian, you wrote: “If you wish to split hairs about continental shelves please go ahead, but I don't consider the US and Cuba "Neighboring" etc.” Thanks, I shall go ahead. Of course the US and Cuba are neighbours, and the WP Cuba article duly says in its introduction (not in “Geography” section): “Cuba is south of the eastern United States and the Bahamas, west of the Turks and Caicos Islands and Haiti and east of Mexico. The Cayman Islands and Jamaica are to the south.”

Sorry for your failure to provide any NPOV justification for your removal of my note on “islas Falkland”. Apparently, the ultimate justification is your being “the POV police” of this article. Best, Apcbg 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"The only reason why we mention a spanish name (Malvinas) is to keep it in the context of the Argentine claim and the 1982 war." (Sebastian Kessel). This is the very heart of the issue. Why on earth should an article about the Falklands give such prominence - in its very first line - to the claims of a foreign power that has no support whatever amongst the inhabitants? And why lend such tacit legitimacy to the hostile invasion of 1982? Does Wikipedia treat any other country this way? Please remember that it was the Falkland Islanders who were the victims of aggression. TharkunColl 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't dignify that comment with an elaborate answer. It is pointless. You apparently are intent on ignoring any POVs that stray away from yours. I believe I (and several other editors as well) said my piece on that issue several times and I have nothing more to add. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tharkun's Edits

Tharkun:

I should've blocked you for trolling with your edit summaries and for blatantly violating an established agreement (in which you were part of the discussion). Instead, I only reverted. If you change again I will be forced to protect the page. Please, everybody, let's be civil. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there is a need to explain what the Spanish name refers to - Last week I interviewed a man from the Falkland Islands and asked him what he knew about 'The Malvinas' the answer was 'wheres that?' in a manner that suggested that further discussion would not be appropriate. He confirms that there is no interest whatsoever in political union with Argentina. "The whole idea is so far off the agenda it is simply not discussed". --Gibnews

Precisely, and this was also the response of the representatives of the Falklands government and tourist authority that I contacted when we debated this before. It would seem, however, that this cuts no ice with those who would ride roughshod over the wishes of the inhabitants. Can they not understand that those who push the name "Malvinas" are fellow travellers with the military dictatorship that tried to seize the islands by force in 1982? Hundreds of British soldiers and sailors died freeing the Falkland Islanders from the fascists. The name "Malvinas" is not used in English to refer to the Falklands, and it is not used by the inhabitants either, so why is it in the English-language Wikipedia? It makes no sense. On those rare occasions that the word is used in English, it almost invariably refers to the Argentine invasion of 1982. In other words, in English, it is the very opposite of a neutral word. It conjures up guns, death, jackboots, and fascism.

And what on earth should we make of the Argentine assertion that their claim is valid because they once ran the place for a few years nearly two centuries ago? May I politely suggest that they hand over the entire land area of Argentina to the Indians from whose ancestors it was stolen hundreds of years ago. If they don't do this, then they are hypocrites, and their claim to the Falklands must be dismissed as the political posturing that it always was. TharkunColl 09:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Tharkun, the connotation that you (or Falklanders) give to the word doesn't take away the fact that the Spanish name for the islands is "Malvinas". It is understandable that the islanders take offense at any implication that the Argentine claim is valid but that doesn't change the truth. Even the UN calls the islands "Falklands Islands (Malvinas)". Israelis make take offense when Arabs call Jerusalem "Al-Kuds", but it's just a translation. For example, the spanish name for the Netherlands is "Holanda" and for England is "Inglaterra". It is far from a direct translation but these are the names in Spanish. I hope you understand that calling the islands "Malvinas" is not a political stance, is just the name they had in spanish since they were discovered. Unfortunately, the war gave it a bad rep. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: I repeatedly (and politely) requested you to stop attacking Argentines. I felt deeply offended by this paragraph:

"Can they not understand that those who push the name "Malvinas" are fellow travellers with the military dictatorship that tried to seize the islands by force in 1982?"

. I don't, and never will, condone what the Military did to my country (and to the Islands). I personally knew people who were "disappeared" by them. The fact that you even put me in the same level is insulting. I am not really willing to take it anymore. Thanks for not doing it again.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is denying that Malvinas is the Spanish name for the islands. It's probably worth reminding you, however, that this is the English language Wikipedia. TharkunColl 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to remind me of the language I'm using to write, thanks. As you probably know we allow brief mentions of a foreign name when is relevant to the article, helps with the context and improves its NPOV; as is the case in this article. Malvinas doesn't deserve more than a brief mention, and that's what it has. If the name were to be more preponderant I would be the first to remove it. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 03:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by an IP

“The Argentina Nation ratifies its legitim and imprescriptible sovereignty on the marine Falklands islands, Georgias of the South and Sandwich of the South and corresponding spaces and insulares, for being it divides member of the national territory. The recovery of these territories and the total exercise of the sovereignty, respecting the way of life of their inhabitants, and according to the principles of the international right constitute a permanent and cannot be waived objective of the Argentine town.”

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.252.67.164 (talk • contribs). The above was left by an IP at the top of the page (it also managed to scrub a chunk of conversation - possibly as a result of a google toolbar issue). I moved it down the article because it didn't seem right to leave it at the top. Megapixie 00:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a very bad translation of a part of the Argentine Constitution, a good translation is:
[Part III] Temporary Provisions

[Section 1] First [] (1) The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory.
(2) The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, are a permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people.[11] —Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus Version

I believe we achieved an agreement on the presentation of the first paragraph and note that its being picked up by Brazilian television TV Globo which refers to wildlife in the Falkland Islands, also known as Malvinas.[12]

Yet in English the Buenos Aires Herald illogially refers to the legislative council of the Malvinas islands [13] No such body exists. Ah Political corectness, or not.

--Gibnews

Well, Gib, you can't really expect the BA Herald to refer to the islands as Falklands. If Argentina complains about TV Globo's use of the word, can you imagine what would happen if a BA paper did it? This is more self-preservation that PC, I'm afraid. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

True, although better style would have been to refer to the 'legislative council of the islands' You might be interested in listening to the actual interview the story is based on. here. Had to get up quite early to do it, but it was worthwhile. A rare opportunity to talk to one of the actual people involved. --Gibnews

I got an error message when accesing the page?!?

PS: Sorry to go offtopic, but what do you think about this new agreement with the Spanish gov't? Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that he ran out of webspace and had to delete it, although it will return (I am promised) in the meantime download the full interview from here in .mp3 form rather than nifty streaming. the copyright is mine.

As regards the agreement it looks excellent but the 'good will' seems not to extend to UEFA. The Spanish Government seems to have traded in some unsustainable illegal restrictions for real benefits and an estimated 200m euros - anyone as clever as that needs to be watched carefully. --Gibnews

I hear you, I always found Gibraltar's history very interesting. But part I find more "amusing" (for a lack of a better word) is that Spain complains about Gibraltar but does the same thing to Morocco a few miles to the south. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah thats actually Spain, and Spain is different :) In practice it really is different - Gibraltar is financially viable and apart from the Canary Islands the other North African bits are not requiring a large army presence and heavy EU funding to survive. Similarly the Falkland Islands are in good financial shape as they have better governance than some other places in the region. --Gibnews

"They have better governance". You mean the monarchic governor? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Governance

The phrase refers to the manner in which a territory is in practice governed; in the case of the Falkland Islands, although there is an appointed Governor he is not an autocratric dictator. I don't live there its hard to say what actual power he exercises. Here, the Governor of Gibraltar fulfills a role similar to HM the Queen in the UK and has much less power than the Governor of Florida and can be told to leave.

'Good Governnance' imples that democratic institutions are in place and are effective against corruption. A useful resource measuring the latter can be found here.

It may be that due to its recent history that Argentina has acquired a bad reputation, but there does not seem to be any inclination in, for example neigbouring Uraguay for political union with Argentina. Even less in the Falklands where they do not speak Spanish and seem to be managing their affairs quite well. They live comfortably, as compared to Argentina where according to Wikipedia in 2005 13.6% suffer extreme poverty, meaning not having enough money to eat.

--Gibnews 10:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand it all now. I thought you ment it was better to have governors appointed than elected.

I don't deny there are poor people in Argentina. I don't know how many of them are actually argentinians, but even if 14% of the inhabitants are poor, I didn't know that 14% of the population was starving: which common in war zones. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 15:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor people cause and imply problems, especially hungry poor people. Perhaps you would like one of our second-hand governors?, we get a new one next week. The last one left in July but we have managed OK without one in the meantime.

--Gibnews

Both of you, please cut it out. This is not a soapbox. Gibnews, you're very close to being incivil and harrassing Argentines. You are warned that the next instance may cause a block. If you have feelings against Argentina/Argentines, please keep it out of WP or send a private email to the editor. I don't think anybody here disrespected you or Gibraltar, I don't see why anybody has to put up with aggression, sarcasm and an overall lack of respect. And, for the record, in 1806 and 1807 Argentines actually expelled British Invaders. Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As you mention 1806 and 1807, you surely would know that it used to be Spanish America not Argentina, and as a Spanish territory Buenos Aires was a legitimate war target for Britain in those years, more so that it was Spain that sided with Napoleon to declare unprovoked war on Britain (remember Trafalgar?). Just for the record. Best, Apcbg 18:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the legitimacy of the issue. I wasn't condemning the British for Invading. The only point I was trying to make is that when the people then living in Argentina (they can be called pre-Argentines, Continentals or whatever you wish. Argentina declared independence only 9 years after the second invasion, but they had expelled the Spaniards in 1810 so the name is anecdotal) had a choice to make, they chose to be a Spanish colony rather than a British one. Therefore, no need for a "second-hand" governor now. I'm not sure what your point was. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No point, just reminding the historical context for your 1806-07 remark. As for expelling the Spaniards in 1810, that's very boldly said indeed; the 1810 Revolución de Mayo pleaded loyalty to King Fernando VII of Spain, and you are right that the Buenos Aireans prefered to be a Spanish colony than British at the time. But let's close this thread as not directly focused on the article. Best, Apcbg 20:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The only aggression is yours, and there is no justification for your threatening me. There is no 'harassment' of User:Argentino. If anything the lack of respect I've demonstrated is for the office of Governor, which is in my view a pompous anachronism.

The word you wanted is uncivil and I haven't been the least bit so.

--Gibnews 17:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on how we view your actions. Having said this, I realize I might've overreacted a tad but your portrayal of Argentina and the irony of your statements didn't exactly feel good. I apologize if I misunderstood you just as I expect that in the future you'll be a little more considerate of how your statements may be misconstrued. I still don't understand what point were you trying to make offering a "second-hand governor". The way I read it is "you have so many problems that even somebody we don't need anymore can help you". I hope I really misunderstood. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You have missunderstood; hopefully User:Argentino did not and certainly there was no intention to offend anyone. However I wanted to explain the role of the Governor in a British Overseas Territory, which is very subtle and minimal.

We are stocking up on them for Christmas.

Now we have a deal with Spain over use of the airport there will soon be flights to Madrid - destinations in South America become more attractive; Note that this is not an invasion plan, but will visit next year. Feel free to email me if you want to develop the topic of good governance.

--Gibnews