Talk:Occupation of the Falkland Islands

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

Terms used[edit]

I think we already talked this before, if wee are using "Liberation" then Establishment would be "Recovery" --Jor70 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page is about the Argentina administration during the Falklands war. Before the invasion, Argentina claimed the islands were part of Tierra del Fuego and governed by that administration. The direct Argentine administration of the islands was only established after the invasion. So to say "Recovery" would be incorrect. If you look at the Spanish version of the page, it does not say "Recovery". --Philip Stevens (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is really about the Argentine Administration as the infobox shows, then the article name should be "Malvinas, South GeorgiaS and the South Sandwich Islands Military governorship", you need to respect the original name. The current title reflects other story. Then, if again, we are talking about the government, was not liberation at all, would be more clearly called "FALL". And as you mention the spanish wiki, does not say liberation either--Jor70 (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I named the article based on WP:NAME which says titles should conform to the "names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognised, for the topic of the article." Most English speakers refer to the Argentine rule of the islands in 1982 as the 'Occupation of the Falkland Islands'. If you disagree with this rationale, you are more than welcome to request a move to the title you suggested. I'd accept 'Fall' over 'Liberation' if it would keep the article's topic more consistent. --Philip Stevens (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Occupation is clearly biased and reflects one side point of view, we should use something neutral such as 1982 Argentine Falklands Government. --Jor70 (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So should we change the name of German occupation of France during World War II as well? Occupation is the right term for what happened, don't try to soften it just to push the Argentine POV.LRT24 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki[edit]

The military occupation lasted Argentina in the Falklands between April 2, 1982 and June 14, 1982. The military government is something else, was established on April 3, 1982 and abolished in 1985. Remove interwiki generated confusion and attempts to modify the tab for the wiki article in Spanish addressing the government and not the occupation. Greetings.--Cêsar (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could create a page on the Spanish Wikipedia documenting the Argentine occcupation. --Philip Stevens (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. It's clear to me that there is no consensus to move the article to the suggested title although there does appear to be an emerging consensus to move it to something different. However this discussion has now had no input for a week so it seems sensible to close it. I'd suggest that interested parties agree a new title between them and then start a new requested move to that title. Dpmuk (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Occupation of the Falkland Islands → Argentine occupation of the Falkland Islands — There have been more than one occupation, see "Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands". Relisted. Jafeluv (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Dentren | Talk 16:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear as to your rationale as that article does not document an occupation - unless you count the few days between Mestevier's arrival and his death in a mutiny (which I wouldn't - and in which case it would mean that your title is no less ambiguous than the current one). Pfainuk talk 16:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the phrase 'Occupation of the Falkland Islands' is used by the majority of English speakers to refer to the Argentine occupation of 1982. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is simply the usual POV push claiming events of 200 years ago are comparable with a 20th Century military conflict. Justin talk 20:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You could argue that "Argentine" has no place in article titles, as having a somewhat pro-British bias over the more common Argentinian. But maybe I'm wrong on that account. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry yes you are, Argentine is in more common use and confers no bias. Per WP:ENGVAR its use is appropriate here. Justin talk 21:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above comments. —innotata 18:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I mentioned in my message of last March there is a inconsistency between the title and the article itself. The title refers to occupation that someone could compare with Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany, where of course, there wasn't nor isn't a territorial dispute recognized by the UN. And then, the lead (obviously without MoS) and infobox is about the Argentine Military Government of the Falklands Islands which I still think it is the most appropriate title due is totally neutral. We could even add a also known as Ocuppation of the Falklands Islands then too . --Jor70 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are you saying the islands weren't occupied in 1982? That's an interesting view of history. According to the Hague Conventions, "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army" - I hardly think the islanders saw the Argentine military junta as a friendly force. This article documents Argentine rule of the islands in 1982. Most English speakers refer to this as the Occupation of the Falkland Islands, and thus the title conforms to WP:NAME. --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please put aside for a minute your British POV and read again my comment with an open mind ? This article do not respects Manual of Style for a WP article. The current title only applies to the section 74 days all the rest is for an Argentine Military Government of the Falklands Islands, doesnt matter if is was legitime for some pleope or not. If you continue with this , I will split it --Jor70 (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 'British POV'. This article documents Argentine rule on the islands during the Falklands War, most English speakers refer to that time as the Occupation of the Falkland Islands. As I said in March, if you disagree with this rationale, you are more than welcome to request a move to another title (once the current move request has been completed). You are also free to split the article if you want, but I think the scope of resulting pages would significantly overlap. --Philip Stevens (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And with most English speakers you are referring to this [1] ?? Its obviously biased and not neutral --Jor70 (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in a future move request, change "Occupation" to "Argentine government". However, despite being long-term disputed territory, the junta's human right's abuses pretty much makes their presence in any disputed territory as an occupation. Had their government been democratic, or at least shown anyone any level of respect, I'm not sure I would go for "Occupation" as the title, but the National Reorganization Process was so abusive as to be an occupation of all of Argentina. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont deny the Junta crimes but if you read this article it wasn't this case --Jor70 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are they "obviously biased"? There is page on the English Wikipedia called Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands, but the equivalent page on the Spanish Wikipedia is called Ocupación británica de las islas Malvinas (British occupation of the Falkland Islands). I don't think either is biased, they are just the most commonly used names in English and Spanish respectively. --Philip Stevens (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To correct you slightly, the events of 1833 are usually referred to as the British Return. We carefully avoided any terms that could be claimed as POV. Its frequently denounced as POV but pointedly no one has come up with a better suggestion. Justin talk 14:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think calling it an occupation is POV. I've found a few Argentine news sites which refer to it as the "ocupación". --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has yet answered me the incosistency about the article content (infobox included) and the title, so I think we should go to a split. I still do not understand, because nobody answered me either what wrong with "Argentine military government of Falklands islands" ??? --Jor70 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inconsistency, as Philip notes above it is even referred to as such in Argentine texts. I don't understand the problem here. There has been allegations of bias and POV but on examination they are found to have no substance. This is why I oppose this change and I think you'll agree I have a reputation for even handed treatment of this subject matter. Justin talk 09:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The incosistency is not just about POV ! is about the title and content!, see the infobox!. And the text Phillip show as argentine text referring it as ocupacion is actually describing the Aniversary of the landing (2 de abril!) and not the government! which, again, it is the incosistency here --Jor70 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I see the distinction you're drawing. The title is Occupation of the Falkland Islands, which describes a period lasting from 2 April to 14 June 1982. The article has a rather longer remit - covering Argentina's military government of the islands, which lasted all the way from 1976 to 1985 (even if at the end of that period it wasn't actually governing anything).
One might reasonably draw parallels between this government and the Argentine Islas del Atlántico Sur department. According to Argentina, this is the official government of the Falklands, SGSSI, South Orkney and South Shetland Islands - but in practice it doesn't do much (it may even only exist on paper) because none of those territories are under Argentine control.
These are two distinct concepts, but there is considerable overlap. It makes sense for them to go in the same article, but if we're to do that it equally makes sense that we use a term that is more encompassing: that covers the entire period covered by the article - 1976-85 - and not just two months part-way through. As such, I personally would not object to a move to Argentine military government of the Falkland Islands, or something similar. Pfainuk talk 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I trying to say since March! The current title only apply to the section 74 days. --Jor70 (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lightbulb! That title suggestion isn't the best one, since this includes South Georgia the South Sandwich Islands. That could make for a long title though. Would support a name change to something more suitable on that basis. Justin talk 09:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine Military Administration of the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Is my first suggestion, though a little long. Justin talk 10:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move II[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Occupation of the Falkland Islands → Military Administration of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands — this article is not limited to the two-month occupation of the Falklands in 1982: its actual content is wider, covering the nine years between the Argentine landing on Southern Thule in 1976 and the dissolution of the military administration by President Alfonsín in 1985.

I am open to shorter or otherwise more appropriate suggestions if they are available, but feel that a move to a name that better reflects the article's contents is desirable even if the name chosen is still not perfect. Note that the name I have suggested is an English translation of the official Spanish name for the body created by the Argentine junta to govern the Falklands in 1982 (and dissolved by the post-military government in 1985), Gobernación Militar de las Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur. Pfainuk talk 17:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Happy to consider alternatives as well but a move from this confusing name is overdue. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support "administration" probably shouldn't be capitalised. Is there a catch-all term for the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands? (Hohum @) 00:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regretably not since the FI were split into a separate BOT. Previously the term Falkland Island Dependencies would have been applicable. Either way I rather suspect the use of British nomenclature would be problematic here. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Modern Argentina uses the term Islas del Atlántico Sur (South Atlantic Islands) as the name of the department that comprises these islands (according to the Argentine POV), but I believe its use here would be anachronistic and may not be understood by Anglophone audiences. For the record, I do not object to the change in capitalisation. Pfainuk talk 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is support for this move in this discussion; however I note the comments in the previous discussion in which it is argued that Occupation of the Falkland Islands is how the topic is commonly known in English. Google web and Google Books searches do support Occupation of the Falkland Islands. There is little for Military administration of the Falkland Islands. As the topic is known by the name Occupation of the Falkland Islands, and the proposed title is not used in English, I am not clear on the reasons for requesting the change. The stated reason is that the article covers more than the period of the occupation, yet the article clearly states that it is about the 74 days of the occupation, and then goes on to describe those 74 days. It does give some contextual background detail, though that is quite normal, and it is clear that the background detail is not the topic itself. I think a little more explanation would be worthwhile, and it would be useful to hear from some more people, especially some more of those who took part in the previous discussion. SilkTork *YES! 22:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I believe you did its actual content is wider, covering the nine years between the Argentine landing on Southern Thule in 1976 and the dissolution of the military administration by President Alfonsín in 1985. It is not an article about the 74 day administration of the FI. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Am I reading the same article as the one discussed in the nomination? There is one sentence mentioning "the nine years between the Argentine landing on Southern Thule in 1976 and the dissolution of the military administration by President Alfonsín in 1985". The vast majority of the article is about the 74 days, perfectly described by the current title. Why throw out the common name for an OR behemoth? —  AjaxSmack  00:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't OR - it's a direct translation of the official Argentine name for their government on the islands. Pfainuk talk 18:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A translation by whom? Used where? —  AjaxSmack  22:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:NOR#Translations and transcriptions. Faithful translations are not OR. Pfainuk talk 20:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split topic: Keep the Occupation of the Malvinas where it is, move the other stuff to another page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current title describes a good topic, accurately describes the current content, and in every other way conforms to Wikipedia article naming policy. Minor concerns about the content are better dealt with by improving the article. Andrewa (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speculation on how the Argentine military might have behaved differently[edit]

"No wholesale confiscation of private property occurred during the occupation (all goods obtained from the Islanders were paid for), but had the Islanders refused to sell, the goods in question would have been taken anyway, as is normal in military situations." Since when is such speculation, especially when reported as a fact, encyclopedic material? --Argymeg (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because when some islanders refused to sell, the response was to point out that they would be taken anyway. Its not speculation reported as fact, happens to be a fact - it happened. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it specifically says it didn't happen... --Argymeg (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some words seem a bit...weighted.[edit]

Okay I am having some trouble gaugeing this article as reliable simply due to the way it is worded. I mean every now and than something is written which seems a bit weighted to one PoV or another.

Example:

"Despite their political differences, the humanity and moral courage of both men earned them the enduring respect and even friendship of many islanders"

Humanity and moral courage? That does not seem very neutral or at least encyclopedic. Another example.

"Argentine officers did expropriate civilian property at Goose Green" which is than followed by

"There was no widespread abuse of the population; indeed after the war it was found that even the Islanders' personal food supplies and stocks of alcohol were untouched"

The two lines contradict each other. Last of all "the goods in question would have been taken anyway, as is normal in military situations." The goods were not taken away however, so this line is completely pointless and just seems like point scoring. Mishka Shaw (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Occupation of the Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name in title - Falklands..Malvinas[edit]

About an edit today - Falklands/Malvinas. This has come up before elsewhere, but I'll mention it again here. These names are usually treated as translations of each other, which they are not. Some English language souces use "The Malvinas" as an English word, which it is. There is a Spanish word which is a translation of The Falklands into Spanish, which I think is also sometimes used by Spanish speakers. I do not think todays addition that I reversed relates directly to this but it is connected in some way. So, do we use the term Falklands, not because it is the English language term, but because it is the majority English language term, based on weighting? IMO a minor but important difference. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short description[edit]

The current short description is three times longer than the guidance of 40 characters. Long shortdescs tend to be truncated for mobile users, losing the addition detail. I trimmed it from:

"Argentine government of the Falklands, Georgias and Sandwich Islands during 1982 occupation, formally dissolved in 1985" to "Argentine government during 1982, formally dissolved 1985".

Since the short description works in conjunction with the article title, I thought this a useful compromise. Possibly less likely to be confusing would be "under Argentine governance during 1982, formally dissolved 1985" (Hohum @) 09:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: (Hohum @) 01:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Argentine administration during the Falklands War, formally dissolved 1985". I did note your attempt was in good faith but it proved to be rather misleading when I looked at it. WCMemail 02:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Description expanding request[edit]

Hello, I would like to expand the description in this article, for example: “The beginning of the war marked a historic moment in which British forces were able to reclaim the islands after a fierce battle against Argentinian forces. The war was a major turning point in modern British military history, as it demonstrated the country's ability to fight effectively against a foreign aggressor. The conflict also reinforced the United Kingdom's claim to the islands, which had been a source of contention for many years. In the end, the Falkland Islands remained under British control, and the war came to an end on 14 June 1982.” Please correct anything if not correct, Thanks! SingusTheTexan (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your suggestion adds anything of relevance. See wp:notability and wp:OR. You must supply references for your additions, otherwise it is just your opinion, which can, and usually should, be reversed. For example, who said there was a 'fierce battle'? I suggest you take your time looking around wikipedia to see how it operates. See the links on your talk page as well. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_of_the_Falkland_Islands&oldid=1206363786"