Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 10

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

semi protection

When an unregistered editor hops ips to edit war the only possible outcome is semi-protection. Please desist or it will end up being an awful lot longer then just 3 days. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Buenos Aires invaded in 1806

Could you please tell me where on earth did you get that crazy notion that the British never invaded Buenos Aires?? A Google search of the phrase "British invasions of Buenos Aires" yields 25,000 results!! The same search (in Spanish) using these words: "invasiones inglesas Buenos Aires 1806" yields 117,000 results!! You must be absolutely mad to delete something like that, since it shows the historical context in which the so-called Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands in 1833 took place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.224.219.53 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the British invasions of the Río de la Plata - which I remind you took place at a time when the UK and Spain were at war - does not imply any of the following variously POV, unsourced, and entirely false assertions or implications made by your edit:

That the islands were definitively placed in the Viceroyalty of the River Plate in 1811.
That the islands were in any way involved in the May Revolution.
That Spain lost control of the islands to the government of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate in 1810.
That Daniel Jewett was not relieved of his command prior to his return to South America.
That there was an Argentine settlement on the islands prior to 1828.
That Luis Vernet did not seek and receive British permission to found his colony.
That the Argentine government, as opposed to a private enterprise run by Luis Vernet, founded the colony in 1828.
That "When Argentina broke away from Spain, in 1810, it was clear that the new nation had inherited the Spanish claim."
That Argentina "broke away" from Spain in 1810.
That the events of January 1833 had anything to do with the recapture of Cape Town or the Invasions of the River Plate in 1806.
That the British settlement was and remains a "colony".
That three Falkland Islanders were not killed in 1982.
That "the islands' population has waxed and waned constantly".
That "[a]lthough islanders now call themselves a "nation", both islander and British authorities are reluctant to release figures on emmigration to metropolitan Britain and immigration from Britain proper. Nor do they release figures on what percentage of islanders constitue belongers"
That this last point, if accurate, has anything whatsoever to do with the demographics of the Falkland Islands.

I'm sure there are more, but those were the obvious ones. Pfainuk talk 21:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please read some books. The Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata ceased to exist in 1810, when Argentina broke away from Spain. The very same article states that Spain maintained a settlement since 1776, administered from Buenos Aires! It was in 1776 that the Spanish crown created the Viceroyalty and placed the islands under its jurisdiction.

Also, where are your sources stating that most of the populatiion are not belongers? Where are your figures on the make up of the local population? I'm curious :)

Uhm. The correct response to 'You don't have sources for X' is not to say 'Well you don't have sources saying it isn't X'. The correct response is to provide sources. If I put in that Ireland is a country off the western coast of Great Britain and source that, I cannot go on to say that Ireland is filled by giant friendly badgers who are highly intelligent and engaged in genetic manipulation of man to bring us to our current level of development. Just because I can source one thing, does not give you carte blance to synthesise, OR, make up, put your point of view across, suggest, create or whatever the rest of the article. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk is correct, both invasions are unrelated. As said, Britain and Spain were at war by the time (or, more exactly, Britain was at war with Napoleonic France, and Spain was allied with France). Napoleon had imposed the "Continental System", preventing Britain to trade with most of Europe, so Britain was forced to seek new markets. Legally, the Spanish colonies in the Americas were not a viable option either, as they could only trade with their own metropoli. However, if some cities were military invaded, such legal restrictions may be simply turned down. Buenos Aires and Montevideo were good strategic options: besides their own importance, they held the entry to the Parana and Uruguay rivers, and the means to reach Paraguay and south Brazil as well; and were weakly defended. So, there were 2 attempts to seize those cities, but fortunately (for us) Liniers defeated them in both times. The international scenario changed soon after that: France invaded its own ally, Spain, and designated a French king in Spain. The rest of Spain standed against Napoleon, and Britain changed sides consequently: as the enemy wasn't really Spain but France, and France turned against Spain, Britain joined Spain in their struggle against Napoleon. Meaning, no third invasion: the value of having Spain as an ally against Napoleon, instead of as another country to fight against, was infinitely more valuable than the profits that may be obtained by ruling Buenos Aires.

By 1833 (almost 3 decades later) almost none (if any) of the variables of this scenario were still standing. Argentina was now independent from Spain, there was no ongoing declared war between Argentina and Britain, the war against Napoleon and the Continental System were past history, Buenos Aires trading only with Spain was history as well, etc, etc. So, no, both events are completely unrelated and developed as they did for completely different sets of historical reasons. MBelgrano (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The edits are also inaccurate, the FIG has a regular census and publishes the results on its website. It does release figures on ethnicity and country of origin. For information about 50% of the current population was born there but this largely reflects the doubling of the population since 1982. Also the influx includes Argentines, Chilean, St Heleans and it is not just from the UK. In addition, a UK citizen is no more, no less likely to achieve "belonger" status than anyone else. Justin talk 09:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"and Britain changed sides consequently" Changed sides? Britain didn't change sides, Spain did. And did you know the 1806 raid on Buenos Aires was unauthorised? Sir Home Popham, the commander of the expedition was court-martialled for leaving his post in the Cape without authorisation: Home Popham court-martial Dab14763 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain did, and then Britain. Moving from considering Spain an enemy into condisering it an ally is indeed a change. If Britain didn't "change sides", it would had simply let its enemy be conquered. An all-winning scenario: Britain would get rid of Spain, and without any risk or potencial loss in its own military forces. And yes, I'm aware of that reaction, which took place after the defeat of the invasion. Thing is that Pitt and Miranda had already been planning such a move before. Popham may have been trialed for acting too soon, or without following the command line; but not because of invading a country that Britain had no intention to invade. After all, which was the reaction in Britan when they learned about this? Did they order the invaders to retire and return Buenos Aires to Spain? And when the first invasion failed... didn't they try another one right away, the immediate following year? To consider that Britain was unrelated with the invasion because Popham was court-martialed is a mere technicism, like when it is said that the US hasn't lost the Vietnam War because there wasn't any formal declaration of war MBelgrano (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So? The commander still acted without authorisation, the fact that they decided to exploit it is irrelevant, the fact they'd considered it is irrelevant - it had not been decided upon as a course of action. It is not a mere technicism. This is also not the place to discuss it. Justin talk 10:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

[Unindent] The real issue from Wikipedia's point of view is "Was the British action in Buenos Aires in 1806 related to the Falkland Islands?" If it was unrelated, then it has no place in this article; if it was related, then the relationship should be documented using, insofar as is possible, unbaised sources. My own view, based in my knowledge of European and South African history, is that the 1806 action was part of the Napoleonic Wars - whereas the Britsh actions in the mid-1830's were entirely unrelated to that campaign. I therefore do not see the connection. For the record, in 1833 the British policy in the Cape Colony was tied up with frontier wars against the Xhosa and handling dissident Dutch settlers who were about to leave the colony and trek into the interior. Justin is quite right in asserting that these events had no connection with the Falkland Islands. Martinvl (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis is well done and to the point; I agree with its conclusions. Apcbg (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Uk has been allways imperialist and has managed the international comerce since 3 centuries ago. Of course the two events has connections, it is always about money for the crown. Southern atlantic was and is an extrategical and excelent position to claim for antartic territory. This is the real topic here and is a fact per se. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.116.94 (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Falklands is a Non-Self-Governing Territory

I wonder why the article says the islands are "self-governing" when the territory is on the United Nations' List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The reference to back "self-government" is the website of the Falklands Government, not exactly a neutral source. JCRB (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate editors PfainUK and Apcbg would discuss this issue here, instead of reverting edits that could lead to WP:EW. JCRB (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Falklands are an internally self-governing territory, with huge amounts of control over internal affairs. The UN list just deals with areas leftover from the UN's decolonizing drive, it is not an accurate judge of the actual level of self-governance in the territory. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear JCRB, I responded to your message on this issue on my talk page few days ago; however, as you persist, I am reproducing my response here too: "Hi, as far as I can recall the Falklands self-government has already been discussed in some talk page (don't remember where exactly, but Justin might know I believe), and it was pointed out that the Falklands (same as the other UK overseas territories) enjoy a higher degree of self-government than e.g. Scotland for they have exclusive ownership of their natural resources, pursue their own immigration policies (subject to which are the UK residents too) etc. Being on that UN list is just that, being on some list, which does not interfere with their actual self-government. Otherwise, the present lede is the result of consensus among the editors involved, and its change would require a new consensus that would seem not to have resulted from your quoted post in the talk page. Best, Apcbg (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)" Apcbg (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be appropriate to rewrite the section as "Although the Falkland Islands are on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories,<ref> they are largely self-governing, with most affairs being under the control of a directly elected administration with the British Government retaining the control of the nomination of the Governor (who has no vote in council matters), foreign affairs, defence and the right of veto over any "perverse" legisation.<ref>

(I think that this is factually correct - I have not had an opportunity to check its details. Justin talk 12:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No its not correct and its unnecessary. The criteria for inclusion by the C24 is bizarre in that it bears no relationship to whether a territory is self-governing or not. The C24 criteria lists states that are:

A sovereign state
An integral part of a sovereign state
A state in free association with a sovereign state

The C24 list is used to promote a less than honest view of the level of self-government enjoyed by territories such as the Falklands. Its used and abused by POV pushers to deny the status of such territories to promote the fiction that they remain British colonies. Wikipedia should be about explaining crap like this to our readers but no instead so often its used as a platform to promote nationalist POV. But hey policies like WP:NPOV don't mean anything anyway. Justin talk 12:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it is most unnecessary, adding absolutely nothing to the lead and detracting from what is already there. It is already included in the politics section anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

My point too, the UN list has no place in the lede. Apcbg (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The representation of the UN list as argued for by JCRB is entirely misleading and inappropriate. It's POV pushing from a perennial POV pusher. Nothing much more to discuss, really. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, your tone and accusations of being a "POV pusher" are out of line. You had better stick to objective facts and drop the ad hominem comments. There is nothing "misleading" or "inappropriate" in putting factual information on this article. The Falklands, like the Cayman Islands, like Gibraltar, are on the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. It's a simple fact. You can't just say the Falklands are "self-governing" and ignore this fact. JCRB (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't ignored and is discussed. Your proposed edit is misleading and inappropriate and you've ignored the comments on the content you propose to impose it against consensus. Justin talk 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact is ignored in the introductory paragraph. What's misleading is to say that the territory is "self-governing", when the United Nations calls it "Non-self-governing". A slight contradiction, wouldn't you say? JCRB (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN's "non-self governing" just means it's not independent or part of a country. No contradiction, as this is true, and it is mentioned that it's a dependency (or overseas territory) of the UK. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I Googled "Self governing" and applied the filter "site:.fk" - every hit that described the Falkland Islands as being "self governing" had a qualifier of one sort or another. A similar thing happened when I applied the "site:.fco.gov.uk" filter. When Justin revoked the change where I introduced the word "internal", he stated that the word "internal" was implied by the statement "self-governing". I beg to differ. If both the British Governemnt and the Falkland Government always qualify the description "self government" with the word "internal" or some similar word, the Wikipedia should do likewise.Martinvl (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When we talk about Australia for example do we feel the need to point out that a democratic country is "self-governing"? The very phrase implies that it is domestic matters, otherwise there is no necessity to qualify the statement. Tell me, before our erstwhile POV warrior raised it, did you feel it was necessary? If the answer is no, you have the answer. Justin talk 22:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

unindent

BTW, you had to qualify your search, ie had to apply an element of original research. 'nuff said? Justin talk 22:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Australia is a sovereign independent state. Secondly, Everything in Wikipedia should be researched to ensure that facts are correct and the a neutral point of view is taken. It is however not permitted to engage in original research. I went to school in South Africa and a good part of teh historu syllabus was devoted to constitutional development. Martinvl (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is lede fixation. The point of the lede is not to put everything into the article in all its gory detail. If it was, then there wouldn't be any point in putting an article underneath it. The lede is there to summarise the topic only.

If readers want to know what a BOT is, then we link to a perfectly serviceable article British Overseas Territory dealing with precisely this point. If they want to know details of the self-government enjoyed by the Falklands, we again have a perfectly serviceable Politics section of this article. There is benefit in distinguishing those BOTs that are self-governing from those that are under direct rule, but no benefit in going on and on about exactly what powers are involved in each case in the lede. Pfainuk talk 10:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to things being researched but to be blunt the point I raised has not been addressed. I agree with Pfainuk, its explained and amplified in the article, there is no need to added superfluous material. Justin talk 15:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verfiability. "Non-self-governing" is exactly the opposite of "self-governing". I'm afraid there's not much room to argue on this point unless you provide new reliable information. As for the results of a Google search, that's not exactly "verfiable" info. Regarding Justin's accusations of POV, it would seem that calling the Falklands "self-governing" is exactly that: British POV or bias. The sentence tries justify the territory's status of dependency. I believe a similar discussion took place in the Gibraltar page, and after a long debate the editors decided to eliminate the phrase "self-governing" altogether. JCRB (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As much as I love being lectured, I don't see where it's coming from in this case, as in the comment you're referring to I agreed to the legitimacy of the non-self governing claim, and called that "true". This is however, used in a different sense. Politics and diplomacy have few, if any, black and whites. The UN list contains territories which are not "integrated into the country", "In free association", or "independent". There are plenty of sources out there which call the Falklands self-governing. The UK even wants the Falklands of the UN list [1]. The Falkland government website backs this up [2]. It's the bias of the Falklanders too, if it is bias. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Even then, the C24 list has become a bit of a political football, based as much if not more on the popularity of the administering powers among the committee members' governments as it is on objective assessment of those three criteria (let alone an objective assessment of the actual degree of self-governance). There are plenty of examples of this: Mozambique and Angola were on the list prior to independence despite being integrated into Portugal, for example, but Hong Kong is not on the list despite not being particularly integrated into China. We then have the bizarrely contradictory position by which Western Sahara is not integral to any state, not in free association with any state, not independent and has no "administering power" (again, a misleading term in the case of places like the Falklands and Bermuda that administer themselves). But at the same time is not terra nullius.

But you can repeat that until you're blue in the face. Take it from someone who's been there before: you won't get anywhere with JCRB, who will ignore any facts that don't fit with his POV. At this stage the best thing to do would be to point out that there is consensus against his change and close the discussion. Pfainuk talk 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The lede should be factually accurate as it stnds. I do not believe that "self governing" is factually accurate, but including the text "enjoys a large measure of internal self government" is accurate (or at any rate can be attributed to both the GIG and the FCO websites. We should therefore either remove the words "self-governing" from the lede or incorportate some kind of qualification such as the phase above. Martinvl (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No sorry, the lede has been there uncontroversially as an established consensus since 2005. It is factually accurate, it is cited and it is a neutral description. More importantly it is amplified below in the article. Given that it is so widely cited, your assertion it is inaccurate is simply not sustainable. Hence, I would oppose that proposal. Justin talk 22:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is of course quite possible that the question of self-governemnt has been misrepresented in Wikipedia since 2005. In any case the constitution was overhauled in 2008. This alone is good enough reason to revist that statement. In it the Governor has the power to overrule the Executive Council in a number of areas - see para 67 of the Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008. Also, can you find an authoritative verifiable source that states that the Falkland Islands has "self government" without a qulification of the type made by the FIG or the FCO? Martinvl (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, it would never last 5 minutes on this article if it weren't sustainable. May I suggest you do a little research because yes you can easily find independent authoritative verifiable sources sustaining exactly the current edit without any qualification whatsoever eg [3][4]. The revised constitution of 2008 simply grants greater devolution of powers to the FIG and further limits the role of the Governor. Hence, you assertion that the constitution of 2008 somehow lessens self-governance seems rather inappropriate. And again we're discussing the lede, the content is amplified in the article. If we end up adding qualifiers in an attempt to satisfy POV pushers, all you'll do is encourage them to persist. So far you're proposing an edit to the lede, prompted by a perennial POV pusher that actually detracts from the article and is based upon a false premise. The lede needs to be brief and factual, the rest is amplified in the article. Pfainuk is right, this is lede fixation. Justin talk 23:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL. It is incredible that you call the United Nations List a "false premise". Your "authoritative" and "independent" sources happen to be the British Government and the BBC, not exactly "neutral" I would say. The alleged "self-governing" phrase is also backed by the website of the government of the Falklands, which of course is the exact opposite of "neutral". So except for British sources, there is nothing about "self-government" in any reliable independent material. Quite logical in fact, as this is a British overseas territory. The fact that local issues are dealt locally does not qualify for self-governing.

As for repeating well-sustained information "until you're blue in the face" as you call it, well, that seems to be the only option when editors like yourself resort to beating about the bush and rejecting reliable sources like the United Nations. Frankly, you loose credibility when you call the UN "a political football" pitch. As for your accusations of "POV pusher", again I would ask you to stop the ad hominem attacks. I would also suggest you looked in the mirror: your insistence on putting that senetence in the lede is exactly POV, as well as "lede fixation". The Falklands are a Crown Colony or an overseas territory of the UK, and the phrase "self-governing" appears to be a subtle attempt to soften its colonial status. A similar discussion took place in Gibraltar and that's why the sentence was finally eliminated. JCRB (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In the opening sentence of this section, User:JRCB wrote "The reference to back "self-government" is the website of the Falklands Government, not exactly a neutral source". He was incorrect in one respect - the opening sentence did not reflect what the source said. I have inserted an extract the FIG statement as it appears in the original text. The FIG text is compatible with the UN statements about self-government. Moreover, I have change the link from self-government to self-governing colony. The latter is more appropriate (and is worth a read). Martinvl (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The link to the article self-governing colony was utterly inappropriate, the Falklands and other BOT are most definitely not a colony in any way shape or form and to make that link is synthesise and original research. As has been explained on this very talk page, the UN text and the FIG text are comparing apples with oranges and using the UN text in the mannner proposed is misleading and misrepresenting the UN position to advance a fiction. Rejecting sources based on nationality is horrendously POV and is in fact racist, similarly abusing sources to portray a fiction based on dogma is a complete violation of our policy of NPOV. NPOV is based upon an objective portrayal of facts not dogma. Justin talk 20:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Mind, JCRB does very well in illustrating my point about his tactics. He ignores the valid points as to why taking the naming of the C24 list as gospel is a bad idea: instead he appears to argue the absurd point that the UN is incapable of bias. One wonders whether he would consider it neutral to support the South Korean side in the Korean War or the Kuwaiti side in the Gulf War. Of course, this point will be summarily ignored by JCRB.

I also had the same thought as Justin regarding his dismissal of sources based solely on country of origin. The BBC has an incredible reputation throughout the world for journalistic credibility and neutrality, a reputation reconfirmed by their coverage of the 1982 war over these islands. But no, JCRB says they're not neutral because they're based in the UK. Justin calls this argument racist. I agree with Justin.

On Martin's edit? The same problems that it had before have not been addressed. The edit proposed remains redundant. Redundant to the article British Overseas Territory and redundant to the Politics section of this article. It is still a case of lede fixation - insisting that this point has to be addressed to the tiniest detail in the lede when we already deal with it in the article. Or do you propose that we delete the rest of the article and just put the entire contents in the lede?

On self-governing colony. Given the pejorative way in which the word "colony" is used by nationalists from some countries (including Spain and Argentina), that is not a particularly wise choice of articles to link to: it is likely to be considered highly offensive by the islanders. And regardless of the name, it does not provide any significant information that is not already provided by the article British Overseas Territory. If something is likely to be offensive, we ought to be careful about only using it where necessary. In this case, it is redundant to British Overseas Territory, and thus not necessary. As such it should not be included. Pfainuk talk 21:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I observe that yet again Martinvl seeks to impose a solution, ignoring the consensus building process of WP:BRD. As I will not be indulging him in an edit war may I respectfully suggest someone else revert him with the polite request to discuss rather than arbitrarily and unilaterally disprupting the consensus building process. He has removed an important qualifier that separates those BOT that are populated and have devolved Government, from those BOT that only have a transient scientific or military population and do not. But I do give notice of my intention to restore the existing consensus presently. Justin talk 22:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I will take your comments one by one:

Nobody is saying the United Nations is "dogma" or "gospel", or that it is "incapable of bias". Every institution and person in the world has some sort of bias, even if small. This does not prevent me from stating that the UN is a verifiable source beyond any reasonable doubt. Read here about verfiability: WP:VERIFY.
The BBC and the British Government are not neutral sources for issues relating to the Falklands because Britain is one of the parties involved in the Falklands dispute. Would you take Argentinian sources to back sensitive political information on the territory? Would you quote the Turkish Government on the situation of Cyprus, or the Moroccan government on the disputed situation of Western Sahara? See here for other examples of disputed territories.
Regardless of the above, the aggresive, condescending and disrespectful attitude of certain editors in this discussion is just not tolerable. Name-calling such as "POV pusher" and a general belligerant attitude goes against the principles of etiquette and assuming good faith. Regardless of our points of view, the discussion should be constructive and more polite. JCRB (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, well, well, let us take these points 1 by 1.

No one said any such thing about the UN, we merely point out the UN criteria are not actually related to Governance and abusing UN sources to mean they do is mendacious and misleading.
This is actually nonsense. Disqualifying a source for reporting verifiable objective facts solely on the basis of their nationality is not acceptable and nothing in NPOV sustains that argument - it is verging on the very worst form of racism. Secondly it is elevating dogmatic rejection of reality to the same level as the objective verifiable information required for NPOV. As the rest of the hysterical hyperbole, I refer to my previous comments about dogma ignoring verifiable facts. I can and do use Argentine sources frequently but not when dogma causes them to ignore verifiable facts. It happens to be a judgement call, which is achieved through reasonable discussion and the consensus building process.
If you feel hurt by the label "POV pusher", then simply stop your usual practise of endlessly repeating the same worn tired argument, listen to and respond to the arguments of others. Constantly pushing POV statements, such as abusing the UN statements to deny verifiable facts when you're comparing apples and oranges, then you will be labelled as a POV pusher and ultimately ignored. Justin talk 12:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN criteria "are not actually related to Governance"? According to who? So you mean the Falklanders run their own military, their own police, their own treasury, their own foreign affaris with embassies all over the world? That's a good one. The UN's List of NON-self-governing territories means they are dependent, ie the contrary of independent. The Falklands government locally runs some internal affairs like a municipality or a province runs local issues, but that doesn't mean they are self-governing. They are still dependent on a central state: the United Kingdom. That's why they are NON-self-governing. Get it? As for "abusing" UN sources, who is abusing them? Personally, I'm just quoting them. If you don't like editors quoting verifiable sources then find another encyclopedia where only personal opinions are accepted.
As for your accusations of racism, well, they're just another example of your belligerent attitude. I won't make any comments except that they're ludicrous. The media of a certain country involved in a territorial dispute cannot be used as a "neutral" source for issues which are the subject of the dispute, namely political issues. At best, such sources must be used with caution. You talk of "dogma", but it is you who uses dogma (and British sources) to push that the Falklands are self-governing. As for your use of Argentinian sources except "when dogma causes them to ignore verifiable facts" you are proving my point. Sources from the countries involved in the dispute can be, and usually are, biased.
It's not a question of me "being hurt", it's a question of you "being respectful". If I said you have a huge British bias that you don't try to hide, would that hurt? As for "endlessly repeating the same worn tired argument" I don't think it's worn out at all. It's a strong and well-referenced argument. But somehow, editors like you don't like it and keep rejecting the source. Finally, as for "responding to arguments" I just have. I wish you did too, without beating about the bush. JCRB (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely you prove my point, the UN criteria is related to statehood not governance. And the Falklands runs all of its own affairs. The exceptions are defence and foreign relations. The latter do not discount the description as Andorra for example is classified as an independent state but France and Spain are responsible for defence and foreign relations. The mere fact that sovereignty resides with the UK and the territory is classed in legal terms as a dependent territory does not mean it is not self-governing.
Deriding sources solely on the basis of their nationality does smack of racism. You also confuse 3rd party with neutral party, in fact in many cases a 3rd party could hardly be classed as neutral eg Chavez from Venezuela on the Falklands. Sources need to be judged on their merits but equating nationality with bias is fraught. I never said sources from a participant couldn't be biased, sure they can be, and that is why we have to separate fact from opinion. But rejecting sources on the basis of their nationality is not grounds for wikipedia.
No your argument is not robust, it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. On the basis of a single source, the UN, you deny others on the basis of semantics, the nouns used. But if we actually examine what that source means, we find there is no contradiction as you assert. Yet when this is pointed out, you simply repeat the argument again, or as you've done here resort to personal abuse - "editors like you don't like it". Yet when people tire of this cyclic argument and label you a "POV Warrior" you're the first to complain. Justin talk 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My question was "according to who is the UN criteria not related to governance"? If the criteria are related to "statehood" as you claim, please provide the sources which say so. If the Falklands run "all of its affairs EXCEPT for" whatever (defence and foreign affairs or others) then it does not qualify as a Self-governing territory. If anything it is partly self-governing. That's why the UN calls it a NON-self governing territory. Please don't make me repeat this argument.
Frankly I don't get you accusations of "racism". We're talking about reliable (unbiased) sources based on nationality, not race. We could end up discussing who or what are "appropriate" sources (BBC, UK government, Argentinian government or media etc) but there's absolutely no need. The United Nations is a sufficiently reliable and respectable source which nobody would question (except you).
My argument is not "robust"? That's funny, I can't imagine a stronger argument than quoting a source like the UN to prove a point. It's not only "semantics" but the meaning underneath: the Falklands are a colony of Great Britain, that's why they are not self-governing. As for a "single" source, the UN should be enough (in anybody's eyes). JCRB (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN has a stated agenda. They are not unbiased. This is elementary understanding I would expect from A-level students or first year degree students. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the UN doesn't make the claim that JCRB ascribes to it - not, you may recall, the first time he's done this. The UN says that the Falklands aren't independent, an associated state, or integral to another state - none of which have much to do with self-governance. JCRB finds this fact inconvenient, and chooses to ignore it in pursuit of his POV push. Not the first time he's done that either.

Similarly, he's trying to argue that the mere fact of being British means that a source is inherently unreliable and biased, regardless of any other factor. Even if it's the BBC, whose reputation for impartiality is unparalleled internationally. When we point out that this argument is racist, he tries to cover up by saying that he's arbitrarily dismissing every source with a given nationality, rather than a given ethnicity - and then repeats the claim that the UN says something that it does not say.

Frankly, there's no point in continuing this. There is very clearly consensus against the proposed edit. The discussion has come to its natural conclusion, with no benefit likely to result from prolonging it. As such, I consider it closed and suggest that others do likewise. Pfainuk talk 17:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"British version of events"

Where are the sources disputing the fact that the islanders reject Argentinian claims of sovereignty? We do not need "according to the British Government" in that first sentence which makes it sound like it is a questionable claim. It is in fact a blatant fact and it does not need watering down with " according to one side in the war".... BritishWatcher (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

From the source given:

The British Government has no doubt about Britain's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. With the exception of the 2 months of illegal occupation in 1982, the Falklands have been continuously, peacefully and effectively inhabited and administered by Britain since 1833. Argentina's claim to the Falklands is based on the grounds that, at the time of British repossession of the Islands in 1833, Argentina had sovereignty over them through her inheritance, upon independence, of Spain's possessory title (uti possedetis), through her attempts to settle the Islands between 1826 and 1833, and through the concept of territorial contiguity. However, uti possedetis is not accepted as a general principle of international law. Moreover Spain's title to the Islands was disputed and in 1811 the Spanish settlement was evacuated, leaving the Islands without inhabitants or any form of government. Argentina's subsequent attempts at settlement were sporadic and ineffectual. As for territorial contiguity, this has never been a determinant for title to islands (otherwise the Canary Islands, for example, might be Moroccan) and should not be used to overrule the right of self-determination. The Argentine Government has argued that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right of self-determination, on the (false) basis that they replaced an indigenous Argentine population expelled by force. However there was no indigenous or settled population on the Islands until British settlement. The people who live in the Falklands now are not a transitory population. Many can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early 19th century. Britain is committed to defend their right to choose their own future. The Islanders are fully entitled to enjoy the right of self-determination.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like it was written by someone from the British gov't, not from a scholar in the field or from actual islanders. The phrasing should reflect such. Soxwon (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But i presume the wording is based on this part of the text..

"In exercise of their right of self-determination, the Falkland Islanders have repeatedly made known their wish to remain British. An Argentine-inspired poll, conducted in 1994, revealed that 87% of them would be against any form of discussion with Argentina over sovereignty, under any circumstances." BritishWatcher (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to question the fact the islanders reject Argentinian sovereignty, please provide sources to back up this WP:FRINGE view. The Argentinians do not even recognise the islanders right to self determination, the people are hardly crying out for liberation. It should be stated as fact the Islanders reject their claim, not "according to one side" they reject it. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Some examples that this is not just British government POV about the views of the islanders..

"Politically, the Legislature and Her Majesty's Government (HMG) remain committed to developing their partnership founded on self-determination, internal self-government and British sovereignty.

FIG hopes for peaceful co-existence between Argentina and the Falkland Islands, without diluting or adapting the position on sovereignty. For as long as there is a perceived threat from Argentina, a military presence on the Islands will be maintained on a scale sufficient to deter aggression and provide a holding capability pending reinforcement.

With the continued support of the UK, the Falkland Islands can look forward to an even brighter future." Falkland Islands Government website

and..

"Councillors to Attend UN C24

Councillors Janet Robertson and Richard Stevens will attend the United Nations C24 Committee on Decolonisation in New York on 12 June. The meeting will allow the Councillors to rebut the Argentine Sovereignty claim and query why Islanders are not deemed, like other self-governing countries, to have the right to self-determination." [5]

and..

"Speaking on behalf of the Falkland Islands Government, Councillor Mike Summers OBE said that the Islanders' right to determine their own future was now embedded in the main body of the Constitution:

"Our inalienable right to self-determination is in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore it was endorsed by the United Nations Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonisation) on 20 October this year.

"This is a post-colonial Constitution which the Falkland Islands Government initiated and on which the Falkland Island people were consulted. It recognises the reality of the modern world in which the rights of free peoples are paramount and the assertion of territorial rights, irrespective of the wishes of those who live there, has no place.

"Falkland Islanders have freely exercised their right of self-determination on numerous occasions by clearly indicating their wish to remain British. This new Constitution re-states our right to decide our own future and enhances our powers of self-government. Surely no one who supports democracy and civil rights can oppose this?" [6]

Argentinian claims to the Falklands are clearly rejected by the islanders. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And from a couple of weeks ago...

"MLA Sawle said ” I am delighted to be attending the conference on behalf of the Falkland Islands, and have been invited to be a discussion leader in section three of the 30th Small Branches conference. The topic for debate that I will be speaking on is entitled “The challenge of sovereignty in small states.”

"I will be hoping to correct a few misunderstandings in the international community regarding the Argentine claim to sovereignty, but will be concentrating on the difficulties that small countries such as ours face when trying to deal with the challenge.”" [7]

The document linked on that page by MLA Sawle says:

"And in the case of the falkland islands, where the overwhelming will of the people is to remain under British sovereignty, the sovereignty claim by Argentina can never be seen as anything more than a cynical attempt for outright ownership and control, something which is totally unacceptable in a developed modern and democratic world"

The democratically elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (that got the most votes in the 2009 general election), representing the democratic government of the Falklands, then goes into some detail crushing the Argentinian sovereignty claims. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Plaque why not say nothing about the plaque: "Be it Know to all nations that falkland's Island with this fort..." . The plaque speak about Saunders Island, later named Falkland Island. in singular, and is more, the british parliament, in 5 march 1771, only speak about Saunders/Falkland Island, and never about the sovereignty in the entire islands groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.122.217.13 (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the British Government

It is obvious that this document came from the British Government - the citation says so. The additional text in the article "according to the British Government" implies that the statement is subject to dispute. For example, it would be in order to write "According to the British Government, most islanders accept British rule [reference follows], but according to the Argentine Government, most islanders would prefer Argentine rule [reference follows]" (assuming of course that a reputable source argues the Argentine case in this way). Until and unless an authoritative source puts forward an argument that contradicts the argument put forward by the British Governemnt, this additional phrase is redundant. Martinvl (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is not explicitly disputed by the Argentine government. The Argentine government position is that the views of the islanders don't matter: they bring up the expulsion myth (that the British expelled the islanders in January 1833 only for them to swim back to meet Darwin in March).

It's pretty trivial to find sources that verify the point without turning to the British government. [8] [9] [10] It's not a point made by Argentine sources, probably because it damages the Argentine case for sovereignty. Pfainuk talk 06:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Falklands War deaths

The problem in the penultimate paragraph of this section was not only grammar but also, and more importantly, the figures. I have substituted phrasing and figures from the article "Falklands War", which - as a more specialist article - seemed more likely to be accurate. If however these figures are wrong, they now need to be corrected in both articles. --Wikiain (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The figure of 258 killed on the British side includes 3 Falklanders. I've corrected your edit. Justin talk 00:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As an aside its worth keeping on your watchlist, people are always tinkering with the figures. Early publications often had incorrect figures and they're frequently substituted. Thanks. Justin talk 00:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Justin. I am not seeking disagreement in any dimension, but the contrary: this seems to be a "citation needed" situation. There might also be legitimate differences according to each side's records. Separately from that: a difference between "British" generally and British military/civilian does seem to me to be important and I would think should not be an issue between the two sides. --Wikiain (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No that isn't the case; there aren't differences between each side's records. For some time after the war a number of early reports persisted which had incorrect figures. Early references get quoted and "correct" the figures. As some of these are still in print, its an ongoing problem. The current text is sourced from Freedman, the official British histories, which both sides accept as authorative. The sources do include civilian deaths on both sides, there were 2 civilians killed on the Belgrano for example. I didn't for one second think your edit was a problem btw just to make that plain. I'm glad someone else takes an interest in keeping the article accurate, as I said the figures are always being tinkered with. Justin talk 13:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries - my concern with "disagreement" was with the POV disputes on this page. Thank you for the good work! --Wikiain (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, stick around. The Falklands have a fascinating history and untangling the various claims and counterclaims is interesting work. There is actually quite a good atmosphere here and the Brits/Argentines generally do work well together in mutual respect. I know some people find this quite surprising but its an example of how well wikipedia can work. Justin talk 22:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great, Justin. I was a Brit at the time of the War, although I now live elsewhere. I acknowledge the mutual respect that has emerged from both sides, so very different from some of the British press at the time. But let's leave this nice thread now. --Wikiain (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Visit of Charles Darwin in March 1833

I think that the notes made by Darwin concerning his visit to the island of West Falkland for several days in March 1833 is of interest to readers and should be retained. It is of interest because Darwin is a highly celebrated and respected source on ecology of which he makes interesting observations about the ecological state of the islands at the beginning of British rule in 1833. Also, because Darwin visited two months after British rule had been formally established his accounts of the political situation are enlightening and of genuine interest to the readers. He states in Voyage of the Beagle that;

From discovery until the independence of Argentina in 1816 the islands were uninhabited by man.
In 1816 formal ownership of the islands was transferred from Spain to the newly independent United Provinces of South America (Argentina).
Shortly after the islands had been transferred to Argentina the islands were "sold" to a "private individual" who used the islands as a penal colony to which Argentina sent exiled convicts.
The islands were used as such from 1816 until British rule began in January 1833.
In March 1833 "rather more than half" of the population of the islands were the former-criminal residents of the ex-penal colony who had been exiled to the islands by the Argentinian government. Their status under British rule was unclear but presumably they were Argentinian nationals with leave to remain in a British overseas territory.
The "Englishman left in charge of the flag" (e.g. the Governor) after British occupation began in January 1833 was "consequently murdered". This is confusing because this person should logically be William Dickson - who was born in Dublin, Ireland. Perhaps he was Anglo-Irish. Whatever the case he had been murdered after January 1833 and before March 1833 when Darwin arrived.
At the time of his visit the native species of Fox was common in West Falkland but almost extinct in East Falkland. In his view it was doomed.
He was guided around West Falkland by men he calls gauchos who were native born in the islands.
In West Falkland there were large herds of feral cattle and horses which the gaucho population used for food.

These details are of real interest to the reader who will note that since 1833 much has changed. In my view the edits should not be excluded from the article. It should be clearly stated that these were the observations of Charles Darwin in 1833 but he is a good, reliable and enlightening source on what is otherwise a very murky period in the islands history. Please do not delete the edits I have made, let us discuss their merits here.James Frankcom (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dickson wasn't the Governor, he was the senior representative at the time Onslow left in January 1833 and was asked to fly the flag when ships visited the harbour. The leader was Vernet's deputy Matthew Brisbane who arrived back in March 1833 to take leadership of Vernet's settlement. His arrival is documented by Fitzroy. Naming Dickson as Governor is WP:OR, the first Governor was Moody in 1842. There are many incorrect facts in what you state above, the Gauchos who took Darwin around were not native born, they were taken there by Vernet in 1828. Darwin wasn't shown around West Falkland it was East Falkland, there was no presence on West Falkland until much later. The herds of feral cattle were on East Falkland, particularly what is now known as Lafonia. In fact so many of your basic facts are just plain wrong so I'm about to revert those edits. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have the book here in front of me so I dispute what you are saying. Let us not get into a highly tedious wiki edit war. Wait a minute. Lets confirm the details then amend....James Frankcom (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have "undone" your rather rash delete of what I had added and I ask you politely and amicably to allow a little time to discuss the facts. I think details of Darwin's visits are interesting to the reader because the islands have changed markedly since his visit.

You are probably correct about Dickson. As Darwin says he was merely "left in charge of the flag" and not governor. What do you mean by "leader" (Vernet)?
Where is your evidence that the gauchos were taken there by Vernet in 1828?
You are correct, he did visit East Falkland island and as such the cattle and horse he observed were on East Falkland, not West. A simple mistake for which I apologise.

I shall amend the edit I made to reflect this. I welcome your comments, please try and by nice because Wikipedia becomes so tedious when everyone is rude.James Frankcom (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The settlement on East Falkland was established by Vernet in 1828, all prior attempts to do so failed. Thats why I know they weren't native born. That aside, the onus is actually on you to provide a cite to support the edit you wish to make. May I draw your attention to WP:BRD and in particular the response to a revert, which is to discuss the edit you propose not to revert again. If you wish to amicably discuss the matter, the place to do so is here on the talk page, and it is not helped by labelling a revert that removes a cascade of erronous information as "rash". Wee Curry Monster talk 16:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To which I'd also had, the details you propose to add are too much detail for an overview and I think you'll find they're already in History of the Falkland Islands - an article I expanded about 3 years ago. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is that. There's also the fact that almost all of them are inaccurate. No, a colony didn't spring from nowhere in 1816. No, Spain didn't hand over territory to a country that (in their view) didn't even legally exist. And one rather assumes that Darwin would have mentioned being guided around the islands by toddlers, and indeed the séances that would have been required to speak to Brisbane had he already been killed by the time Darwin arrived.

That fact that Darwin mentioned something does not make it so relevant that it has to be reported, regardless of relevance, context or accuracy. Pfainuk talk 18:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For info,Darwin visited twice, March 1833 and again in 1834. Brisbane returned in March 1833, co-incident with Darwin's first visit. Brisbane was murdered in August 1833, prior to the second visit. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

IP Edit War Threat

Please stop the edit warring. Falkland's topic have a good working relationshp between Argentine and British editors. We will discuss reasonably and amicably any NPOV concerns but will seek admin intervention for disruptive behaviour. Please see WP:BRD. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be appropriate to head this sections "Jewett's and Vernet's settlements". All the sources agree that these two men headed settlements on the islands. What is debateable is the extent to which the powers of the day supported these settlements or claimed sovereignty over the area. I believe that the heading that I propose is in line with WP:NPOV. Martinvl (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It would however be inaccurate. Jewett never settled there. I actually previously titled those sections Luis Vernet's Enterprise, it being neutral and avoiding the fact that Vernet played both sides against the middle. However, I was accused of attempting to play down the Argentine element. I don't disagree with your will-intentioned attempt to find a neutral ground but would suggest you'll find it somewhat of a minefield - if you'll pardon the pun. Plus the IP editor is I believe a sock of an editor well known here for tendentious argument from about 3 years ago. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can it be changed to read "Argentine colonial aspirations and settlements" or something? That would be a compromise. The IP is trying to force his own POV onto what he or she sees as a non-NPOV section heading, which is ridicules. About the subject, one most certainly did settle there, but his settlement was destroyed by irate American forces... --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Accounts of those events differ. The American Captain Silas Duncan reports spiking the guns, destroying the powder store, providing transport for anyone wishing to leave, arresting 6 senior members of Vernet's settlement as pirates but otherwise leaving the settlement intact (though near abandoned).

The reasoning behind my original title was Vernet sought permission from both sides, claiming to work for both, reporting to both and asking for military assistance from both. To state it was an Argentine settlement ignores that. In reality it was Vernet's personal private enterprise, much as Jewett's mission was funded by private enterprise. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Due to the disruptive edits the title was resulting in, I've simply removed it, merging that section with the previous sections. There is now no reason for disruptive editing and the section is neutral. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the User:Wee Curry Monster's action. Martinvl (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

TBH Martin I'm less than happy about it as it deprecates the involvement of the settlers from Argentina in the early settlement. They had a significant and lasting influence. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

While settlers from the Argentine might have had an influence, to what extent did they have the support of the Argentine Government? I know from my South African history, a group of British settlers declared the area around the mordern city of Durban to be British territory in the 1820's, but the British Government distanced themselves from the declaration.Martinvl (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The original 1820 declaration was not conducted with the support or even knowledge of the Argentine government: the claim was on Jewett's initiative. Notably, he did not include the claim in his report: Argentina found out about it via newspapers in the United States, the UK and Spain.

The 1828 colony was fundamentally a private enterprise. It was based on an Argentine land grant, but the settlement was founded with the consent of both sides: Britain commissioned a report from Vernet on the islands. Vernet was made governor by Argentina in 1829, and Argentina occasionally sent ships to the islands: notably Mestevier's attempted penal colony in 1832 and Pinedo's mission to quell the resulting mutiny. Pfainuk talk 18:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Many issues have been raises about a pro-British POV many months on the this talk page and any attempt to fix these problems have been been reverted back.--MFIreland • ^Talk 13:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction an attempt was made to impose a non-neutral POV, justified by alleging pro-British POV. The article as written conforms to policy. Without explicitly identifying a POV problem or attemptiong to discuss it first, adding a NPOV tag is simply disruptive. If you actually have a problem, come right out and identify it, otherwise please stop your disruptive edits. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are not willing to raise a dispute with the neutrality of this page on talk, the tag is inappropriate. Simply putting a link covering nine months' talk page activity is insufficient.

As there is no current neutrality dispute on this page, I have removed the template. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the tag once, so I don't want to do it again, but there's no dispute raised I can see. MFIreland is now at WP:3RR (and already breaking WP:BRD) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Having asked him to explain himself repeatedly, no comment being forthcoming in talk, I've removed the tag again. For the last time as well. He has also been warned concerning 3RR by two of the editors here. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. It's just one editor socking and trolling around and using no reasonable argument to justify his or hers actions. Putting a POV tag gives some legitimacy to edits which are frankly vandalism. It's just petty nationalism. Wether or not you agree or disagree or whether or not the editor has a legitimate point is completely nullified until he uses the correct methods known as consensus and discussion and such. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I've requested administraotrs to fully protect this article, until differances are settled here. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've issued warnings and am now watching this page. I will block and protect as necessary. Resolve the issues on the talk page. Thanks. Ged UK 19:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On using foreign languages

Oh that!!! Who would have thought I would be criticised for leaving a comment in Spanish here??? Justin A Kuntz left a comment in English in the Islas Malvinas TalkPage and nobody there complained. Go on and delete it, I will immediately procede to delete English comments in the Spanish version of Wikipedia. Regards--AndeanThunder (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish wikipedia has a different and more tolerant policy on languages. The English wikipedia doesn't share the same rules. I would suggest moderating the threats as well and restoring a disruptive editor, well you've already exceeded 3RR by some margin. Please stop. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. That said, I don't believe we would dismiss a comment solely for being in Spanish, if it was otherwise constructive. This one wasn't, particularly - it was of a similar tone to the IP rant and was moved to AndeanThunder's talk page per WP:NOTFORUM by the editor who responded to it. For the record, AT is now blocked for edit warring here.

Nonetheless, he's now edit warring on es.wiki to remove a comment that is apparently fine by their rules. Which is amusing. Pfainuk talk 17:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Climate : which mean annual rainfall? 573.6 or 681 mm?

In the section Climate, the text gives a mean annual rainfall of 573.6 mm. In the table, this value is 681 mm. Which of this value should be kept in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.15.45 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

They are both sourced and, one would imagine, accurate. The 573.6 mm figure is for the islands as a whole, whereas 681 mm is for Stanley in particular. East Falkland is generally wetter than West Falkland, and Stanley is on the far eastern end of East Falkland, so it's unsurprising that the difference should be this large. Pfainuk talk 22:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

...

Has anyone noticed how the Spanish article is at complete opposites & odds to the English article on the Falkland islands? It brings into question, whose right? (Well it's pretty bad the way the Spanish article has cherry picked over the facts that the Islanders themselves reject Argentine claims of sovereignty) --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes - this has long been the case on many Falklands topics. es.wiki have chosen to ignore their equivalent of WP:NPOV, in favour of a strongly pro-Argentine editorial line here. Pfainuk talk 07:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My translation tool cherry-picked the article (Ha-ha) so I could only read certain points, but from those small amounts it certainly seems that way. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

es.wiki has a problem with NPOV on a number of issues involving territorial or sovereignty conflicts. Sadly its re-inforced by the admins there. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not as bad as one would suppose, mostly the subheaders (of course, I read using google translate). I love the practically identical Islas Malvinas and Islas Malvinas (Territorio Britanico de Ultramar) which seem to exist separately just to allow the infoboxes to be different. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I see plenty elsewhere as well. For example, their dispute section goes into great detail about the Argentine claim and the arguments supporting it, but barely mentions the British side and entirely ignores the British arguments. For example, their history section contains several claims that are demonstrably false, some that are strongly misleading, and some that are merely speculative - the pattern being to support Argentina's POV and play down Britain's. And the worrying thing is that it's far from the worst article they have for POV. Pfainuk talk 20:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A "banana Wiki article" for a "banana republic"... okay, a bit harsh, but the Argentine POV is just a joke and without sensible contributers on the Spanish Wikipedia there's not much chance of its article being fair or accurate. David (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) No wonder, as many sources uncritically reproduce Argentine claims as facts (Argentina has been – and is – much more active than the UK in promoting her case). Such Argentine POV could be found in the English Wiki too. For instance, the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article's ‘Timeline of de facto control’ box says that Argentina had de facto control of the Islands from August 1829 to December 1831, which is not a fact but merely another Argentine claim. Indeed, for a country A to have de facto control of the territory B means that the law and administrative regulations of A are enforced and complied with both by A’s citizens and by foreign citizens in the territory B. As well known that was not the case; Argentina had presence on the Falklands but no control, indeed Argentine law and regulations were not complied with by the more numerous US and UK citizens there. Precisely because of that Argentina attempted to establish by force such de facto control in 1831, which backfired to eventually result in the termination of Argentina’s presence on the Islands. To be correct, the ‘Timeline’ should give the 19^th century period of Argentine de facto control of the Islands as lasting from July 1831 to December 1831. Apcbg (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

David, please remove your insult. Keep your critics to the articles themselves, not on editors and much less on their nationalities. MBelgrano (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't take Argentine nationalists (especially those with Belgrano as their Wikipedia username!!) seriously. Funny thing is, how did my comment (not this one though ;) ) touch upon specific editors or specific nationalities? Case proven really when someone like yourself can read into a fairly general comment Argentines putting their POV into the Spanish articles... David (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Calling another country a "banana republic" is insulting for all users from that country, period. And no, my name has nothing to do with a defeated ship, if I wanted to piss British users I may have chosen a username like Liniers or Rosas. MBelgrano (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. Carry on. David (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(You do realise that the vast majority of British people/users don't care?)

Neither do I, as you can notice I described an hipotetical scenario. Now, remove the insults against Argentina. The "A bit harsh, but..." thing does not allow to be uncivil. Otherwise, I would have to remind you, in equally "harsh" terms, that the way the British or Argentine claims are described in secondary sources is one thing, and your opinion (or mine, or someone else's around wikipedia) on the topic is another, that has no importance at all for the project MBelgrano (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. No more. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Vespucci

The claim that Vespucci sighted the Falklands is well known but unfortunately not true. It is based on a series of letters that many modern scholars consider to be forgeries. Unfortunately it still appears in a lot of references and gets quoted. So whilst I understand the good faith in the edit, it is I would suggest something that consensus would agree to leave out.

See [11] for some examples. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 13:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case would it be appropriate to highlight this forgery, possibly only in the history article. Martinvl (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the relevant link in the Amerigo Vespucci article is a dead link. Hopefully someone can find relevant live links. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be appropriate for an encyclopedia to highlight the forgery. It is relevant to the Vespucci page but I disagree it would be relevant here. See the links in the google search I posted above for live links. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That is why I suggested highlighting it only on the History page - if nothing else, it will prevent this story coming up every few months. Martinvl (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen it come up regularly and the way to deal with that is hidden text. The issue with the forgery is well known among historians. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly who and when said those letters were a forgery? "many modern scholars" is too generic, say names and books MBelgrano (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Morison, in his Southern Voyages (1974), stated that Gonçalo Coelho (Vespucci was merely a passenger) only reached as far as 25 degrees south in 1502 (p. 282). OldBabyBlue (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you not note the google search I posted, which leads to many sources? Try listening please. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, and the first results were sites like Wikipedia or Answers.com, that's why I requested more clarification. As for the dispute, the opening post says that "it still appears in a lot of references". Are we talking about outdated references (before 1974, if that's when these letters were considered forgeries) still being checked by people, or about modern ones? And I forgot a basic question, which are exactly the reasons to determine that the letters are forged? MBelgrano (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What is your point? The so-called Vespucci letters are known forgeries. If you're suggesting there is still some debate on that, then bring your evidence to the discussion. 20:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Spanish" name

Referring to Islas Malvinas as the "Spanish" name for the island is just trying to sneak a POV political statement under the radar; it should read "known in Argentinia as Islas Malvinas". Even if it is the primary Spanish name (far from clear despite the weak reference to a dictionary) it's not relevant. Wales doesn't have the Spanish name in the intro, why should this article? --Khendon (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No Spanish-speaking country claims sovereignty over Wales, unlike the Falklands - and we do have to respect the Argentine claim per WP:NPOV.

Your argument that it isn't the primary Spanish name does not appear to be based on very much. For example, at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute you argued that the Spanish Google Maps used "Falkland Islands" first. Entirely accurate, but it also uses "Deutschland" and "United Kingdom" - and indeed fails to mention "Reino Unido" or "Alemania", names that are universal in Spanish, at all. For obvious reasons, I don't accept your argument that this is necessarily authoritative. Pfainuk talk 19:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I was mistaken about google maps; I'm not qualified to say whether it is the main Spanish name or not, but if it is the reference given is still very weak evidence and should be improved. That's very much a side point, though. The Argentine claim, and their use of an alternative name for the islands, is certainly a relevant fact and should be mentioned; that it's also the Spanish name is not relevant. --Khendon (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Pfainuk, Wikipedia promotes a neutral point of view, we don't expunge material we dislike. Wee Curry Monster talk

Who's suggesting expunging anything? I'm suggesting a change of wording. In any case, it's not NPOV to suggest that all claims are equal. --Khendon (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

*COUGH* Pf And Wee, where has your pro-British POV gone chaps? OH wait, was never there in the first place ;) And I agree with you both on this subject matter --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh didn't you know we were simultaneously pro-Argentine stooges and British advocates? Can't remember where it was but we had two simultanous threads with both accusations. Ciao. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite being associated with a POV towards Argentine' claim, Malvinas is the only valid name for the islands in spanish. Not only in Argentina but in all hispanic countries that name is used just as in english Japan is referred as Japan and not Nihon. Spanish language is regulated and RAE discourages the use of the english name [12] (quote: "No debe usarse en español el nombre inglés Falkland (Islands)", "The english name Falkland (Islands) shouldn't be used in spanish.") pmt7ar ^(talk) 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no issue here and they have it in English on the Spanish Wiki, so let's move on chaps. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And Pmt7ar Spanish related things are strictly for the Spanish Article, which is frankly a terrible POV mess if there ever was one. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And until 1930, the standard Argentine text books referred to Las Islas Falkland (Carlos Escude) and many Spanish speaking nations (eg Chile) do use Las Islas Falkland interchangeably. Just for information. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out that the Malivna House Hotel is one of the largest hotels in Stanley. This suggests to me that the use of the name Malvinas is not offensive except when one is using it to emphasise a POV. Martinvl (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There's really no Issue here about that at all, so it's OK. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Malvina House Hotel is named after the daughter of the original owner, Malvina, as it happens the name is merely co-incidental. Malvinas is a corruption of Malouines and its modern use in Spanish isn't universal. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

One does of course have to be careful when writing about the various geological basins that may or may not be oil bearing - the Malvinas basin is in Argentine waters and the three Falklands Island basins (North, East and South) are in Falklnad Island waters. Martinvl (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Which happen to be British Territorial waters, let's not forget. And the main sovereignty issue is about the democratic rights of the people of the Islands, which Argentina has little respect for based on events 200 odd years ago.. And a bit off topic? There is -no- issue here.--Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, please. Everyone is welcome to their opinions, of course, but it's best if we keep discussion of the topic off this page. Pfainuk talk 19:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this article too big?

According to WP:SIZERULE, this article has reached a size where we should be thinking of splitting it. In many cases, it appears to me that this camn be done by stripping out less important material that already appears in daughter articles and in merging various sections. AS a start, I intend to start with the article on the economy of the islands. Martinvl (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen that page before. Anyway, the history section can be cut by about half. The landmine section, is it needed? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually think although according to guidelines we might think about splitting it, it doesn't really merit doing so at this time. Moreover it should be done in systematic manner rather than picking a section and hiving it off. That never works. A better idea given the stability of the article would be to consider going for FA status. IMHO, what do others think? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User talk:Wee Curry Monster. In addition to stripping out less important material, we should also look at merging small sections into larger sections. Martinvl (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Climate can be merged into geography. Economy could actually use an expansion, although taking out all those pointless subheaders. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"I've never seen that page before." - That pretty much sums up Wikipedia. People you've never heard of before, setting up pages you've never heard of before, holding elections you've never heard of before, and then trying to enforce them on everyone else, especially folk who actually edit articles. -MacRusgail (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

OK as there seems to be agreement on improving the article to FA status and there are a few of us to spread the workload, I've asked for a peer review to start the ball rolling. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with going for featured article status, but if that means discarding large amounts of material I would worry that the baby might be tossed out with the bathwater. For example, just mentioning the major religious denominations is hardly riveting reading, but adding a few details about the smaller bodies, e.g, the Baha'is, helps to add a bit of interest.Even if material is too detailed for the main article, it should find a home elsewhere, perhaps in more specialised articles. Michael Glass (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I retieved the information that I cut out and have transferred it to the article [Falkland Islanders]]. Martinvl (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

We have had the results from a peer review. Looks like we have some work ahead, I'll post my thoughts later and if we have agreement on priorities we can get to work. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an important article and I am glad to hear a group plans to improve it (and thank you for your work. However, I), but think it needs a lot more work before it would pass at WP:GAN, let alone WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

The biggest problem I see with the article is that it is missing references in many place. There are some paragraphs with no refs and other places where there is a ref in a paragraph then one or more sentences after that without refs. These need refs (there is one citation needed tag too).
My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
The refs need to be consistently formatted and provide all needed information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
There is a tool box in the upper right corner of this PR which has a tool for checking external links. This finds at least three dead links, and several possible problem links. All of these will need to be fixed before it could pass GAN or FAC.
The same toolbox has a dab link checker which finds several disambiguation links that will also need to fixed.
The lead is not really a great summary of the whole article. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
I wonder if the Relations with Argentina and Landmines and ordnance sections could be combined as subsections of an aftermath of the war or Legacy of the war section. I imagine the Military section could also be included here.
This is a WP:WEIGHT concern, but I was surprised that the War section was so brief. The Landmines section appears to be longer than the section on the war, which also seems odd since the article says the landmines do not much affect the everyday lives of the inhabitants.
The article has quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections, which impedes the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
There are at least two places where images sandwich the text, which is not allowed under WP:MOSIMAGE
I thought there should be more on Ecology and animals
I assume the whale bone arch relates to a history of whaling associated with the island - if this is so, it should be in the article.
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Lots of agreement with the PR. Do we want to tackle this section by section, discussions about each section on the talkpage? I'm not sure if there's any high-class articles of similar territories around, but we could loosely base it off some of the FA country articles (Australia, Indonesia, etc.). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with much of the PR. Before we start a detailed program of changes, may I suggest the following changes are made in the article layout:

“History” becomes “Pre-1982 History”
“History#Falklands War” and “Landmines and Ordinance” be merged into a single section “Falklands War and its aftermath”.
“Broadcasting and Telecommunications” be merged with “Transport” under a single heading “Communications”
“Sport” be moved into the article Falkland Islanders.
“Military” be merged into “Population and Government”, but the section on Prince William be moved into the article Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (it never happened).

The rationale for these changes has been the merging of small sections so that each sec tion is about the same size. Once these changes are agreed, we can then work through the article. I am of the view that there should not be any references in the lede – WP:MOS allows that on grounds that everything in the lede is repeated in the article anyway. Martinvl (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of those I'd agree with. May I suggest we dump the section on Prince William. It never happened and per WP:DUE it is no more than an isolated incident. Anyone object if I have a stab at re-writing the lede - drafting here first?

Would a no edit (see WP:NOEDIT) notice be appropriate during the process? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've transferred the peer review comments to here. May I suggest we tackle the problem of referencing first. I propose we place references into 3 categories. These being footnotes (inline citations), Bibliography (books used in prepared the article) and External links. Is that OK?

This is a handy tool for google book references [13], I also find this tool useful [14]. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The section "Geography and Ecology" needs quite a bit of work. I suggest that the article "Geography of the Falkland Islands" be resurrected (it currently does a redirect to this article), that this section be copied there as it stands and then the section in this article be reworked. Comments? Martinvl (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. The History section is also quite unsourced, but as it's very long I think it could probably be chopped to half it's current size. May be worth then making Falkland War a subsection of history. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

History is my main area of interest, I could take that on if you like. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that since the Falklands War was such a major and that is links history and Argentine relations, it deserves its own section (along with a description of its aftermath). Moreover, since the war is in living memory of many readers, it provides a good break-point as to where the history ends and the present begins. Martinvl (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that argument, not much of an issue either way. I do however agree with the PR that either way landmines having their own very long section is UNDUE. Wee Curry Monster, go ahead and work on History if you want. Maybe with no subsections there'll be no more edit wars over the titles, like the previous Argentinian settlement one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A good article that we could use as a reference is Svalbard - it has an area and a population not too dissimilar to the Falklands. Martinvl (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good find. Martinvl, can you explain the new Government setup? I'm not sure that the small bolded subsections are a good idea. I also don't think Education and Health belong there, as those sections should be general information about education and health rather than summaries of the government responsibility. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved Education and Health to the section on Government as they are Government departments. If the Falklands are amnything like the United Kingdom, then both health and education are paid for thorugh taxation. Martinvl (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that although they are funded through the government, information about the health and education in the Falkland islands does not belong under a government subsection. Both sections could be well improved by general information, life expectancy in health and literacy rates in demographics for example, which may be out of place in the Government subsection. Note United Kingdom currently has them under demographics. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That is why I initially grouped Population and Government under one heading. They are major areas of Government, especially since many other aspects of government are handled by the UK. Martinvl (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if no other editor has an opinion, we can just see how the article develops. Can you explain the reason for the tiny bolded subsections? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That isn't quite correct Martin. UK Government is responsible for defence and foreign relations, the rest is handled by the FIG. I would tend to agree with Chipmunkdavis in that these would be better grouped elsewhere. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The text in the Merco Press is "But the new Constitution will also enshrine a power for the Governor not to act upon Executive Council's advice "in the interests of good governance", or in relation to external affairs, defence, internal security, the administration of justice, audit, and management of the public service." This maps onto Para 67 of the Constitution (I checked). I will look into reworking the section on Government to reflect this. Martinvl (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Except those are reserve powers that can only be invoked in the event of corruption or malpractise in the FIG and the Governor would only act on the direction of the British Government. In day to day terms, they are actually irrelevant, could we see what you have in mind before you add it to discuss relevance. I would hate to see undue weight given to reserve powers that have no impact in normal circumstances - in which the British Government acts only for defence and foreign relations. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see you'd already done that, I've reverted it with a request that you discuss the changes in advance. Your edit implied these reserve powers were in use, this is misleading and gives a false impression. I did make this point before your edit, so it is slightly disappointing you went ahead and did it anyway. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi User:Wee Curry Monster. May I make a few suggestins regarding the section on government. Firstly, I suggest that we incorporate the existance of the reserve powers into the article by writing "... defence, foreign affairs and ensuring good governance". The term "ensuring good governance" also includes the issue of currency. As I understand it, whenver the FIG issues new coins they have to deposit an equivalent amount (+10%) into a bank account to back up the issue. They get interest on the amount that they have deposited. I have enlarged on that in the article Economy of the Falkland Islands.

The second point that I would like to make is to have separate paragraqphs for the executive council and the legislative council. The degree of overlap between the executive and the legislature gives constitutional scholars scope for endless debates. In the UK, members of the executive (the cabinet) must be a member of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords; in the US members of the Executive may not be a member of either the Senate or Congress and in the EU, members of the executive (EU Commission) may not be a member of either the Council of Ministers or the EU Parliament. The Falklands appear to have a half-way house. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I copy edited your comments to correct wikilinks. That seems a reasonable approach, could I also suggest you work this up in a sandpit akin to what I'm doing with the history? I have a vague recollection of the discussion over the constitution, I believe the term is unicameral. The FIG situation reflects the small population, with good governance guaranteed by the the UK Government. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am more than happy for you to have corrected the WIkilinks. For the record, the FIG is unicameral because it has a single legislative chanmber, unlike the UK, the US or the EU, each of which a bicamermal - House of Commons & House of Lords; Congress & Senate and Council of Ministers & EU Parliament respectively. The other issue that should come out is the power of the Governor - does it resemble the Queen's power or the Prime Minister's power.

Meanwhile I have created a sandpit for future changes User:Martinvl/Falklands.Martinvl (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The Governor is the Queen's representative as head of state and as such the power resembles that of the Queen as head of state ie not very much at all. For the Governor to intervene would require direction from the British Government, which can only invoke any powers in the event of corruption or malpractise by the FIG. Your comment on ensuring good governance would probably cover it, this being an overview after all. A query, why did you create a sandpit in your userspace rather than here? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the page - see section on sandpits - meanwhile real life is getting in the way. Martinvl (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a slight problem creating a sandpit page - my proposed changes have ended up at Talk:Falkland Islands?Government rework. Would those who are interested please have a look before I update the article. Once I have moved things, I will ask for a speedy delete of that page. Martinvl (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Units

Metric first or imperial? There's currently instances of both orders, we should pick one and standardise. Does the Falklands have a preference/official system? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a convention delineated on the project page. My preference is to use largely Imperial first per the usage on the islands but there has been a consistent push to metricate the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

At the moment there is an uneasy compromise reagarding units of measure. For the record, I would prefer metric units to predominate, but in order not to rock the boat, I suggest that the units of measure be those as they appear in the article at the moment. Martinvl (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Both should appear, the issue is that we now have a mix of both. Eg. "total land area is 4,700 square miles (12,173 km2)" and "the highest point being Mount Usborne, 705 metres (2,313 ft)". Both of those are from geography. I don't really mind which one comes first, and this being a UK article both are acceptable. Anyone want to make the judgement call? Count all current uses and go with majority? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:FALKLANDSUNITS its a reasonably comprehensive guideline produced for the Falklands Working Group. We should probably highlight what we're up to at WP:Falklands. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Made the change to imperial first, as that seemed to be the general gist of the examples there, even though it said metric first at the start... Anyway, yes, noting it would be useful. In addition, Wee Curry Monster should edit participants list! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd forgotten, appreciate the heads up. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis - If you must change units of measure, please follow WP:FALKLANDSUNITS to the letter, otherwise a civil war will erupt. As I said, a very uneasy compromise has been reached. Distances are in imperial units, but rainfalls and heights are in metric. That is why I asked you to please retain the units as they are. Martinvl (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: while I can see the point of switching the mountain height at least, this is one of those arguments that is very much best left in the past. I have reverted for this reason. Pfainuk talk 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, I did try my best to follow. Anyway, as long as it's sorted, i have no issue being reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the present uneasy compromise on units is holding. Let sleeping dogs lie. Michael Glass (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandpits

/history rework /lede rewrite Wee Curry Monster talk 20:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done a preliminary copy edit on the history section. Could I get some feedback on what I've done so far. I haven't touched the Falklands War section yet. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously sourcing still an issue, but I suppose that will come. In terms of content, I think that something should be included from earlier, perhaps changing the first sentence to say "The islands were uninhabited when first discovered by European explorers, although evidence exists that Patagonian Indians may have reached the islands during earlier periods." I also think that the 1820 and 1828 incident details can be shortened somewhat, and perhaps combined into one paragraph. It may also be worth avoiding wording such as "positive result". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing won't be an issue I will tackle that before I put it into the article. I'll take those comments on board. Cheers Wee Curry Monster talk 11:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks for those comment, I've done a further copy edit. If there are further comments I will address those before formatting and adding sources tomorrow. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding a "Reflist" at the end of the of the sandpit - it will enable references to be checked. I suggest that the heading "Landmines and ordinance" be replaced with a heading "Aftermath" and that the paragraph that currently precedes the heading (establishment of Mount Pleasant) be moved into the subsection "Aftermath". Martinvl (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pls note whilst I have inline cites ready to hand, I haven't added them yet as I was being fairly ruthless in editing the text. Thats tonights job. I'll incorporate those suggestions later. Ta for the input. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The visit by Patagonian Indians. I did some work last night looking for a better source. I'm not happy with the sourcing. As anyone got access to a more reliable source, I may remove it if I can't find one. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK added the updated history section as dicussed, still not sure about the opening paragraph and the sourcing of it. Comments?

Secondly if anyone is happy I'll make a start on rewriting the lede. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me - I think that on the reworked history is in place, the article balance will be a lot better - maybe we still have to do some work on the section "Relations with the Argentine" and I want to go over the section on broadcasting and maybe add a sentence about shipping. Then we need a second pass ensuring that everything is properly referenced, polish up the language and maybe trim a little bit. My pet hate regardign the languge are sentences that start "There are .... ". Martinvl (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have created a sandpit at Talk:Falkland Islands/Government rework - still working on the text. (The slash came out as a query! when I was creating the article) Martinvl (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am ready to replace the existing section "Politics and government" with the text found here. Any comments before I do so? Martinvl (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done a minor CE, good work but it needs to be sourced better per the reviewer's comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional sources found - OK if I add it as it is now? If sources are still lacking, they can be done on the main section. Martinvl (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

looks good to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "Arms of Government" needed as a subheader? It seems to me that it would be implicitly part of the Politics section, and if it's removed then there isn't a random two lines at the top of the section.

I'd also like to ask if the length of the Flora and Fauna section is good. I tried to make it around the same length of the equivalent Svalbard section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The flora and fauna section looks the right length - if anything at the upper limit. Can I ask the same question about the the first part.

Some years ago I worked as a technical author on a DEC computer manual (DEC are now part of HP). Their style guide emphasised that there should always be some introductory text between a principal header and a subheader - hence the "two lines" that Chipmunkdavis refers to. Furthermore, no section should have a single subsection, subsections should be comparable in length and the introductory text should lead into, not dominate the subsections. I plan to see how the section on Geography and Geology can be modified in this way or whether the section that is there serves as an introduction. Martinvl (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The two lines there don't serve for much though, and the introduction being shorter than the subsections is weird. That's why just deleting the subheader and making the arms of government part of the introduction would be my preferred style. I actually think that relations with the UK would be a useful and expandable subsection there.

As for geography, I think a paragraph on topography wouldn't go astray, although I'd hesitate to give it it's own subheader. Is it worth making Climate of the Falkland Islands (Currently a redirect) to provide a link and a basis for the Climate section? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Navigational templates

{{English dialects by continent}} is appropriate for the Falkland Islands English article, not this one. {{Geography of South America}} and {{South America topic}} are similarly better placed elsewhere. None of these have a direct link to this article, and someone looking at this article is unlikely to want to go to other areas provided in this template, and if they did would go to the relevant subpage first anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with {{English dialects by continent}}, but not with the others as both climate and geography are dealt with in this article. Martinvl (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

By that argument we should include templates for everything that is covered in this article, which would end up with a massive glut of templates. There's no purpose for them here. If someone was browsing through articles on the geography of various south american countries, they would look at Geography of the Falkland Islands and access it from there. It's unlikely that they'd use this article as the stepping stone to geography articles of other countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing "Broadcasting" to "Media"

As a result of overhauling the subsection "Broadcasting", it became apparent to me that the press also deserved a mention, so I included them in the subsection and renamed it "Media". I also dug up some rankings to put the freedom of the press in teh Falklands into context in South America. Pleae check to ensure that I have not been involved in any WP:OR in this respect. Martinvl (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)