![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I'm sure this has been discussed 13,274 times before, but is there any reason why Islas Malvinas warrants mentioning in the first sentence when Spanish is neither spoken nor an official language in the Falklands? There's a whole "etymology" section. — JonC ॐ 14:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Cambalachero's point is good. If Argentina claims the Falkland Islanders are Argentine citizens, then their nationality is related directly to the Falkland Islands dispute (and, therefore, requires the Spanish translation). From what I have learned during these discussions, the Falkland Islanders do not like the Spanish names and (perhaps) a footnote should be made pointing this out to the reader (in the Falkland Islander article). Also, shouldn't this be discussed in that article instead of this one?. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 20:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2011, broadband was successfully implemented in Stanley and Mount Pleasant Complex, and was rolled out across the islands in 2008/09.[134] The International Telecommunication Union figures for 2010 identified the Falkland Islands as having the highest proportion of internet users in the world - 95.84% as against 95.0% in Iceland (2nd), 84.1% in the United Kingdom, 78.6% in the United States and 67.0% in Argentina
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Pa%C3%ADses_por_n%C3%BAmero_de_usuarios_de_Internet
Mr22Capo ( talk) 20:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Spelling - edit request
Discussion closed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As the spanish version, the english version should have three articles: the main about the island, and other two about the islands considered as a province of Argentina, and considered as a british dependence. This article seems more from a cheap magazine than from a serious encyclopedia. I know the islands are under british control, but not only Argentina considers this an illegal occupation of their territory, but many other countries like China, Brasil... agree with Argentina. As a conclusion I recommend the editors to modify the article and get inspired from the spanish version in order to be a little bit more objective. The current version has clearly been written/modified by a british person. That is a lack of respect to those wo work every day to improve Wikipedia content. Signature: Ignaz.
|
If anyone remembers, there was aeons ago a desire to get the article up to a good standard. Despite the delays, I think it's more or less there. What do others think? At the moment, we either need citations for all the historical censuses, or potentially we could remove that information and leave it to the subpage. Aside from that, perhaps split programmes from actual stats for education and medical care or something (more in line with what other political unit [countries for example] articles have done), and add anything about Culture if there's something very unique. CMD ( talk) 09:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
(I have added bullet points to assist with particular topics) Martinvl ( talk) 06:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Please, when you write an article, try to be careful with the words you use. You can not write "Britain re-established its rule in 1833, yet the islands continue to be claimed by Argentina. In 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands...", as if Argentinians were the "bad invaders" and British the "good real owners" of the islands. It is like writing: "Britain invaded the islands in 1833, yet the islands belonged to Argentina. In 1982, Argentinians tried to recover their islands..."
So please, re-write it properly, in a neutral way. Grupo7-ARI2012 ( talk) 04:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grupo7-ARI2012 ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Invasion of Normandy, the allies were also a liberating army, invasion does not preclude liberation. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Was a British invasion, it's obvious, they were defeated before, then invade the Islands. Unable to take over Argentina, they did so with their islands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.189.45 ( talk) 19:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Current text reads, "despite lsoing th war, Argentina still disputes...". Whether the war happened or notis not of relevance to a dispute claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.227.252.171 ( talk) 17:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello all!, this is my first time on a Wikipedia discussion page (I've been a Wiki reader for many years now). I'll go to my point: there is a phrase in the first paragraph that I think it's biased. It says: "Despite its defeat, Argentina still pursues its claim". I think that is biased to a viewpoint in which the winner is the true owner of something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldemaro ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is there no culture section?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 14:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This term "liberation" is troubling, particularly as it conflicts points of view on the subject. Contrary to the Huffington Post article, which claims I support the term, I actually wrote it in quotes because I do not see it as correct. Here is an example of Argentines claiming they "liberated" the Falkland Islands: "Argentina invaded the remote FALKLAND ISLANDS, proudly proclaiming that Las Islas Malvinas (as Argentines call the islands) had been "liberated" and restored to the Argentine motherland" ( Page 641). I do not know what term could be used to replace "liberation," but it would be wise to arrive at a consensus on it. Any proposals?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 22:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Why? We're guided by what the sources say, we don't make stuff up. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Persons, not property, have liberty. Islands are occupied. People are liberated. The only question would be how did the local population react to the presence of the troops? Hcobb ( talk) 17:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
If the term "liberation" is so problematic, then we should seek alternatives. It may be correct under a given reasoning, but it is not mandatory, and if we can find a term that both sides would use, then that would be better. What about Status quo ante bellum Cambalachero ( talk) 22:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to place ourselves on the correct positions here, because I can understand the foundation for Wee's argument. For my part, I think that "Liberation Day" is already an improvement from the previous (ambiguous) "Liberation" term. So, if no further changes are made, I would honestly be satisfied by the current status of the infobox. However, the term "status quo ante bellum" (suggested by Cambalachero) seems to completely do away with any remaining ambiguity left by the term "Liberation Day". Eliminating ambiguity is the purpose of the argument, not who gets offended by the terms "Liberation" or "Liberation Day".
What is wrong about using "status quo ante bellum"?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 14:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality doesn't come into it. WCM and Martinvl are right. — Jon C. ॐ 13:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, this provides an answer for the #Progress? thread. If there is no intention to find a compromise, if every sentence and comma will be turned into a false dilemma between extreme options, then it's no surprise that this article will not go anywhere and will stay under a perpetual state of discussion. Just step back and see, what is all this discussion about? Just an entry in the infobox, and there is no way to find an option that leaves everybody satisfied? Cambalachero ( talk) 13:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands/Archive 18 | |
---|---|
Establishment | |
5 January 1833 | |
1841 | |
1981 | |
2002 | |
1 January 2009 |
Under the title ‘Establishment’ the present infobox version features events and dates that are not pertaining. In my opinion, that section of the infobox ought to be as shown on the right. Best, Apcbg ( talk) 07:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I was going to suggest a few more dates. Add the different constitution dates, as well as the implementation of the Island Council. One of the things your proposal doesn't chart is the development of devolved/self-government in the islands at present. I will suggest a few extra dates. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands/Archive 18 | |
---|---|
Establishment | |
5 January 1833 | |
1841 | |
1981 | |
1982 | |
2002 | |
1 January 2009 |
The comments above show some confusion as to what is "relevant point" in that section of the infobox which is not a timeline of historical events. Putting the Falklands War there would be mixing apples and oranges as the War marked no change in the constitutional status of the Islands — neither according to Britain nor according to Argentina. Apcbg ( talk) 07:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands/Archive 18 | |
---|---|
Establishment | |
5 January 1833 | |
1841 | |
1981 | |
•
Argentine invasion and
occupation | 2 April 1982 |
14 June 1982 | |
2002 | |
1 January 2009 |
I did, my remarks were more orientated toward suggesting it was put back as it was removed in a later proposal. I do wish to point out that at the moment the way the table is constructed the Argentine occupation appears to be run from 1982 to 2002. Whilst I support this proposal this area needs clarification. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands/Archive 18 | |
---|---|
Establishment | |
5 January 1833 | |
1841 | |
1981 | |
2 April 1982 | |
14 June 1982 | |
2002 | |
1 January 2009 |
I have updated the proposed infobox to show the status of the government of the day - for the purpose of brevity, all references to military action have been removed. I believe that this text is as close to NPOV as is possible. Martinvl ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands/Archive 18 | |
---|---|
Establishment | |
1833 | |
1841 | |
1981 | |
2002 | |
2009 |
I support Martinvl's proposal. It mentions all the relevant events and gets rid of the issues associated with 'Liberation' etc. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 23:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Except that the Falklands are not a country as we all know, they are one of various remaining British colonies and a highly disputed one at that. Disregarding the one entry that mentions this very important piece of information from the infobox does not seem like a good idea to me. The actual infobox is on the verge of not mentioning this at all (the note is hardly noticeable) and for this I maintain my support to the version proposed by Martinvl in this talk page over the current one. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 15:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Erasing the Talk PageHi, can someone please tell me why the talk page is being erased periodically? I realize that it's also being archived, but I'm not talking about the archive. Last May, I made suggestions regarding ways to improve the article. The suggestions were determined to be beyond the scope of this article. Fine. Those suggestions should be in Archive 17, under I don't feel that deleting suggestions is conducive to building encyclopediality. Who is deleting others' suggestions from the talk page? What are the standards to determine whether or not to delete someone's suggestions? -- Lacarids ( talk) 21:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
under the media section. "The Penguin News, published by Mercopress" published by Mercopress - should be deleted There is no proof/verification that Penguin News is published by Mercopress.
81.149.125.206 ( talk) 20:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I have looked up the comments made regarding the Good Artcile project ([[ initiated 18 months ago) and I think that we have attended to most of them. May I suggest that all editors involved in this article review it against the issues raised last March - once we have sorted these out, we should be in a position to submit for a Good Article. Martinvl ( talk) 21:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised at User:Wee Curry Monster changing all the units of measure of geographical-related sections. Under WP:MOSNUM, science-related topics should use SI-only and since Geography is a science (see definition in Wikipedia article)the should, in theory, be using SI only. I am not goung to push that, all that I ask is that we use the units of measure as per the sources. Martinvl ( talk) 07:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | n non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally a metric unit (44 kilogram (97 lb)), but imperial units can be put first in some contexts, including:[5]
miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon; feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight; imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk. |
” |
In response to Wee Curry Monster, he is the one who is jeopardising GA status. Using metric units throughout does not jeopardise GA status. Arguing about it does. Using a mixture of units also jeopardises GA status as it presents an unprofessional look. Before continuing the argument here, I invite everybody involved in this discussion to look at and comment on recent developments in WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. If no internal consensus can be reached, then I will be raising an RFC to discuss the matter more widely. Martinvl ( talk) 07:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I have reinstated metric units where "permitted" by WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. I have also added "Source uses metric units" where appropriate as per WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Martinvl ( talk) 19:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I have noted that Gaba P is reprising a discussion that utterly hijacked Self-determination and ended up in ridiculous levels at WP:DRN and WP:ANI. Other editos may find this information useful.
My suggestion per WP:NPOV is to focus on neutral academic sources.
Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
“ | Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis. | ” |
I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.
“ | Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina | ” |
Empahsis added
Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
“ | On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison... | ” |
Emphasis added
Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
“ | Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis. | ” |
“ | you are not to disturb them in their agricultural or other inoffensive employments | ” |
Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow. Captain Onslow was commander of the Brig-sloop HMS Clio that carried out the order to remove the Buenos Aires Garrison. His orders clearly precluded any action against the settlers.
“ | I had great trouble to pursuade 12 of the Gauchos to remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments to the shipping must have ceased. | ” |
“ | I regretted to observe a bad spirit existed amongst the Gauchos, they appeared dissatisfied with their wages… The whole of the inhabitants requested me to move the government in their favour for grants of land. | ” |
Onslow's report.
Onslow's report and orders are in the archive at Kew Gardens, ref PRO Adm 1/2276, and PRO FO 6 500. Onslow made two reports one for the admiralty and one for the Charge d'Affaires in Rio.
“ | ...those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before... | ” |
The above is an extract from the report made by Pinedo at his court martial. Both eye witness reports corroborate one another – ie there is no difference in the contemporary record. Source: Argentine National Archive, Buenos Aires, Ref: AGN Sala VII, Legajo 60, p. 22
Another primary source, Thomas Helsby on wikisource:
[1] This gives a list of the residents at Port Louis in August 1833 (some 3 months after the supposed expulsion). The settlement was a diverse mix of numerous nationalities including British, Irish, French, German, Charrúa, the majority of the Gauchos came from what we now know as Uruguay. All were brought to the islands in the service of Luis Vernet. Antonio Roxas is still recorded in the Falklands census of 1851 as a resident and major land owner. Source would be Falkland Islands Government archive, Stanley, Falkland Islands.
Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
I use Destéfani with caution due to the circumstances in which the book was published. In 1982 during the Falklands War over 100,000 copies were printed and distributed free to various academic institutions to make the Argentine case for sovereignty.
“ | Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos | ” |
David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
I use Tatham with caution as it contains a series of papers written by a number of authors. It is however referenced by many neutral academic sources.
[2] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
[3] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
“ | This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina. | ” |
Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do.
If this is to be a repeat of the previous discussion it was the hijacking of an article improvement task to push the Argentine POV into articles contrary to NPOV. I really can't be arsed with this nationalist crap again but if you need help with sources drop me an email. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | Once order had been restored in Puerto Soledad, a British Royal Navy corvette, with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement. After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base | ” |
If you refer to the sources above, the Argentine claim is that the settlers were expelled, so what CMD wrote was in fact incorrect. I simply corrected it. I don't see him objecting and I ask why you seek to impose an edit that does not accurately reflect what Argentina in fact claims? And again per WP:NPOVN guidance, if such claims are refuted by neutral 3rd party academic sources then we report what those sources say - this is what I've done. As regards the selective quoting from an extensive discussion at WP:RSN see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 132#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN?. As I asked at the board and the source used by Lopez, Goebel, did not support the claim attributed to him by Lopez and I still don't see how pointing this out is WP:OR or WP:SYN. For further reference:
Goebel is not a British source but American, an academic at Yale University.
ReferenceAngel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3. Retrieved 19 September 2012.
Quote
“ | Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833 | ” |
But in fact Goebel makes no such statement:
Reference Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
Quote
“ | On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison... | ” |
Emphasis added
If you refer to the discussion, whilst some editors made comments about WP:OR and WP:SYN others pointed out Of course you can form an opinion about the quality of a text based on your own fact-checking. which goes right to the heart of selective quoting.
Fundamentally the discussion concluded the source was not reliable noting that it was rubbished in neutral academic reviews:
“ | Lopez approaches the topic from an overtly pro-Argentine perspective… his approach… is unashamedly functional, but his method is novel…relies exclusively on British sources, or rather on British commentators' historico-legal interpretations of crucial episodes affecting sovereignty…" "The reviewer,…was less impressed by the unhistorical manner in which arguments are presented. Basically, the reviewer's publications, like those of other British commentators, have been treated in a functional and selective manner by Lopez, who cites only extracts supportive of the Argentine point of view. No account is taken of the broader position taken by those quoted. From this perspective, the book offers a classic example illustrating the use of quotes taken out of context in order to distort the writer's intended meaning. [A concrete example follows of this error]" "Even worse, 'British' sources are treated in an uncritical, undifferentiated matter, even to the extent of describing Americans, like Jeffrey Myhre, as 'British' (p 9, p 14). No account is take of any commentator's level and sphere of expertise or familiarity with the archival materials which figure so prominently in Lopez's book" "This publication, like its pro-British counterparts…[remind us of] the manner in which history and law have been exploited for contemporary policy purposes. Unfortunately, functional histories promote misunderstanding rather than an informed grasp of the issues at stake… | ” |
To summarise:
1. Article as written didn't accurately reflect the Argentine claim - I corrected it. 2. Neutral 3rd party academic sources dispute that claim - I supplied an example.
What makes you think that an edit supported by extensive sourcing in neutral 3rd party academic sources, isn't acceptable and justifies personal attacks rather than a neutral discussion of content. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | Once order had been restored in Puerto Soledad, a British Royal Navy corvette, with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement. After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base | ” |
Slatersteven this has been to RS/N already and we were told two things
1- Wee needed to stop the WP:OR and WP:SYN
2- The Risman source was to be used
I'm not even trying to use that source here because the original source says what CMD wrote:
“ | ...After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base... | ” |
Is somebody reading this? Furthermore that section is in no way the place for such editing as Wee did. Should I add how Argentina does not believe the current inhabitants have the right to self-determination to the UK's claim? And then that section can evolve into an argumentative monster. There's already a whole article about the dispute. This section merely mentions each sides most prominent claims and there is no need to rebut them here.
This is what Wee said 2 months ago about this issue:
" Look no one disputes the garrison and Argentine authorities were expelled." Wee Curry Monster talk 08:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
2 months ago he said "no one disputes the Argentine authorities were expelled". He is now in fact reverting the edit made by CMD where it states exactly that and attempting to fill the section with his own OR. Really, I can't be the only one noticing this.
Slatersteven I trust your criteria very much since I believe you to be the most NPOV editor here. Do you think the current version is fine? Regards Gaba p ( talk) 12:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | ...After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base... | ” |
No that is not stating the official position of the Argentine Government:
[6] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
“ | This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina. | ” |
The above website is the Argentine Government's official statement. I would suggest you stop accusing editors who add content sourced from reliable, neutral, 3rd part academic sources as vandalism. I would also suggest you stop repeating yourself noting I will no longer point out you are incorrect. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | ...After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base... | ” |
So from reading all of the above, am I correct is taking that the dispute is whether Argentina claims the British expelled its settlers or not? The cancilleria source [9] says that both the settlers and authorities were expelled. A quick look at Wee's sources suggest that Argentina has, at least in the past, stated that settlers were expelled. Are there any other Argentinian sources on the matter? CMD ( talk) 16:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
CMD: there is not a dispute, Argentina claims the UK expelled both "the people that had settled there" and its authorities. What Wee attempts to do is to handpick sources that say that only a garrison was expelled, not the population, thus making the Argentinian claim (supposedly) invalid. Leaving aside the fact that Argentina never makes a distinction between the garrison and the rest of the population (a distinction Wee pushes because it validates his position about Argentina being wrong) there are sources that clearly state that "the settlers" were expelled. Among those sources the one advised to us for its use at RS/N is Risman. Wee incurs in WP:OR and WP:SYN by analyzing this source and coming to the conclusion that it is invalid. He has been told time and again that he should not take this position because we are editors in an encyclopedia, not historians writing a book.
Furthermore that section is not the place for adding sources for and against since it merely describes the claims by both parties. There's already a whole article about the dispute, which is why I keep asking Wee to please self rv to your version which was synthetic and 100% correct. He knows this of course but will not do it because apparently it goes against his crusade for "truth" and "neutrality" (both unilaterally decided) in every article regarding the Falklands (the same applies to his behavior at Gibraltar)
The Argentinian claim is that "the people that had settled there and its authorities" were expelled and this is the only thing that should be mentioned in that section. As anyone will notice we don't cite sources "rebutting" the UK's claim and so we should not do that with the Argentinian claims. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 17:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
NEW SECTION ADDED BELOW TO DISCUSS SPECIFICALLY THIS MATTER
![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
I'm sure this has been discussed 13,274 times before, but is there any reason why Islas Malvinas warrants mentioning in the first sentence when Spanish is neither spoken nor an official language in the Falklands? There's a whole "etymology" section. — JonC ॐ 14:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Cambalachero's point is good. If Argentina claims the Falkland Islanders are Argentine citizens, then their nationality is related directly to the Falkland Islands dispute (and, therefore, requires the Spanish translation). From what I have learned during these discussions, the Falkland Islanders do not like the Spanish names and (perhaps) a footnote should be made pointing this out to the reader (in the Falkland Islander article). Also, shouldn't this be discussed in that article instead of this one?. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 20:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2011, broadband was successfully implemented in Stanley and Mount Pleasant Complex, and was rolled out across the islands in 2008/09.[134] The International Telecommunication Union figures for 2010 identified the Falkland Islands as having the highest proportion of internet users in the world - 95.84% as against 95.0% in Iceland (2nd), 84.1% in the United Kingdom, 78.6% in the United States and 67.0% in Argentina
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Pa%C3%ADses_por_n%C3%BAmero_de_usuarios_de_Internet
Mr22Capo ( talk) 20:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Spelling - edit request
Discussion closed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As the spanish version, the english version should have three articles: the main about the island, and other two about the islands considered as a province of Argentina, and considered as a british dependence. This article seems more from a cheap magazine than from a serious encyclopedia. I know the islands are under british control, but not only Argentina considers this an illegal occupation of their territory, but many other countries like China, Brasil... agree with Argentina. As a conclusion I recommend the editors to modify the article and get inspired from the spanish version in order to be a little bit more objective. The current version has clearly been written/modified by a british person. That is a lack of respect to those wo work every day to improve Wikipedia content. Signature: Ignaz.
|
If anyone remembers, there was aeons ago a desire to get the article up to a good standard. Despite the delays, I think it's more or less there. What do others think? At the moment, we either need citations for all the historical censuses, or potentially we could remove that information and leave it to the subpage. Aside from that, perhaps split programmes from actual stats for education and medical care or something (more in line with what other political unit [countries for example] articles have done), and add anything about Culture if there's something very unique. CMD ( talk) 09:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
(I have added bullet points to assist with particular topics) Martinvl ( talk) 06:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Please, when you write an article, try to be careful with the words you use. You can not write "Britain re-established its rule in 1833, yet the islands continue to be claimed by Argentina. In 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands...", as if Argentinians were the "bad invaders" and British the "good real owners" of the islands. It is like writing: "Britain invaded the islands in 1833, yet the islands belonged to Argentina. In 1982, Argentinians tried to recover their islands..."
So please, re-write it properly, in a neutral way. Grupo7-ARI2012 ( talk) 04:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grupo7-ARI2012 ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Invasion of Normandy, the allies were also a liberating army, invasion does not preclude liberation. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Was a British invasion, it's obvious, they were defeated before, then invade the Islands. Unable to take over Argentina, they did so with their islands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.189.45 ( talk) 19:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Current text reads, "despite lsoing th war, Argentina still disputes...". Whether the war happened or notis not of relevance to a dispute claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.227.252.171 ( talk) 17:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello all!, this is my first time on a Wikipedia discussion page (I've been a Wiki reader for many years now). I'll go to my point: there is a phrase in the first paragraph that I think it's biased. It says: "Despite its defeat, Argentina still pursues its claim". I think that is biased to a viewpoint in which the winner is the true owner of something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldemaro ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is there no culture section?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 14:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This term "liberation" is troubling, particularly as it conflicts points of view on the subject. Contrary to the Huffington Post article, which claims I support the term, I actually wrote it in quotes because I do not see it as correct. Here is an example of Argentines claiming they "liberated" the Falkland Islands: "Argentina invaded the remote FALKLAND ISLANDS, proudly proclaiming that Las Islas Malvinas (as Argentines call the islands) had been "liberated" and restored to the Argentine motherland" ( Page 641). I do not know what term could be used to replace "liberation," but it would be wise to arrive at a consensus on it. Any proposals?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 22:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Why? We're guided by what the sources say, we don't make stuff up. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Persons, not property, have liberty. Islands are occupied. People are liberated. The only question would be how did the local population react to the presence of the troops? Hcobb ( talk) 17:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
If the term "liberation" is so problematic, then we should seek alternatives. It may be correct under a given reasoning, but it is not mandatory, and if we can find a term that both sides would use, then that would be better. What about Status quo ante bellum Cambalachero ( talk) 22:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to place ourselves on the correct positions here, because I can understand the foundation for Wee's argument. For my part, I think that "Liberation Day" is already an improvement from the previous (ambiguous) "Liberation" term. So, if no further changes are made, I would honestly be satisfied by the current status of the infobox. However, the term "status quo ante bellum" (suggested by Cambalachero) seems to completely do away with any remaining ambiguity left by the term "Liberation Day". Eliminating ambiguity is the purpose of the argument, not who gets offended by the terms "Liberation" or "Liberation Day".
What is wrong about using "status quo ante bellum"?-- MarshalN20 | Talk 14:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality doesn't come into it. WCM and Martinvl are right. — Jon C. ॐ 13:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, this provides an answer for the #Progress? thread. If there is no intention to find a compromise, if every sentence and comma will be turned into a false dilemma between extreme options, then it's no surprise that this article will not go anywhere and will stay under a perpetual state of discussion. Just step back and see, what is all this discussion about? Just an entry in the infobox, and there is no way to find an option that leaves everybody satisfied? Cambalachero ( talk) 13:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands/Archive 18 | |
---|---|
Establishment | |
5 January 1833 | |
1841 | |
1981 | |
2002 | |
1 January 2009 |
Under the title ‘Establishment’ the present infobox version features events and dates that are not pertaining. In my opinion, that section of the infobox ought to be as shown on the right. Best, Apcbg ( talk) 07:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I was going to suggest a few more dates. Add the different constitution dates, as well as the implementation of the Island Council. One of the things your proposal doesn't chart is the development of devolved/self-government in the islands at present. I will suggest a few extra dates. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands/Archive 18 | |
---|---|
Establishment | |
5 January 1833 | |
1841 | |
1981 | |
1982 | |
2002 | |
1 January 2009 |
The comments above show some confusion as to what is "relevant point" in that section of the infobox which is not a timeline of historical events. Putting the Falklands War there would be mixing apples and oranges as the War marked no change in the constitutional status of the Islands — neither according to Britain nor according to Argentina. Apcbg ( talk) 07:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands/Archive 18 | |
---|---|
Establishment | |
5 January 1833 | |
1841 | |
1981 | |
•
Argentine invasion and
occupation | 2 April 1982 |
14 June 1982 | |
2002 | |
1 January 2009 |
I did, my remarks were more orientated toward suggesting it was put back as it was removed in a later proposal. I do wish to point out that at the moment the way the table is constructed the Argentine occupation appears to be run from 1982 to 2002. Whilst I support this proposal this area needs clarification. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands/Archive 18 | |
---|---|
Establishment | |
5 January 1833 | |
1841 | |
1981 | |
2 April 1982 | |
14 June 1982 | |
2002 | |
1 January 2009 |
I have updated the proposed infobox to show the status of the government of the day - for the purpose of brevity, all references to military action have been removed. I believe that this text is as close to NPOV as is possible. Martinvl ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands/Archive 18 | |
---|---|
Establishment | |
1833 | |
1841 | |
1981 | |
2002 | |
2009 |
I support Martinvl's proposal. It mentions all the relevant events and gets rid of the issues associated with 'Liberation' etc. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 23:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Except that the Falklands are not a country as we all know, they are one of various remaining British colonies and a highly disputed one at that. Disregarding the one entry that mentions this very important piece of information from the infobox does not seem like a good idea to me. The actual infobox is on the verge of not mentioning this at all (the note is hardly noticeable) and for this I maintain my support to the version proposed by Martinvl in this talk page over the current one. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 15:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Erasing the Talk PageHi, can someone please tell me why the talk page is being erased periodically? I realize that it's also being archived, but I'm not talking about the archive. Last May, I made suggestions regarding ways to improve the article. The suggestions were determined to be beyond the scope of this article. Fine. Those suggestions should be in Archive 17, under I don't feel that deleting suggestions is conducive to building encyclopediality. Who is deleting others' suggestions from the talk page? What are the standards to determine whether or not to delete someone's suggestions? -- Lacarids ( talk) 21:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
under the media section. "The Penguin News, published by Mercopress" published by Mercopress - should be deleted There is no proof/verification that Penguin News is published by Mercopress.
81.149.125.206 ( talk) 20:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I have looked up the comments made regarding the Good Artcile project ([[ initiated 18 months ago) and I think that we have attended to most of them. May I suggest that all editors involved in this article review it against the issues raised last March - once we have sorted these out, we should be in a position to submit for a Good Article. Martinvl ( talk) 21:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised at User:Wee Curry Monster changing all the units of measure of geographical-related sections. Under WP:MOSNUM, science-related topics should use SI-only and since Geography is a science (see definition in Wikipedia article)the should, in theory, be using SI only. I am not goung to push that, all that I ask is that we use the units of measure as per the sources. Martinvl ( talk) 07:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | n non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally a metric unit (44 kilogram (97 lb)), but imperial units can be put first in some contexts, including:[5]
miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon; feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight; imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk. |
” |
In response to Wee Curry Monster, he is the one who is jeopardising GA status. Using metric units throughout does not jeopardise GA status. Arguing about it does. Using a mixture of units also jeopardises GA status as it presents an unprofessional look. Before continuing the argument here, I invite everybody involved in this discussion to look at and comment on recent developments in WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. If no internal consensus can be reached, then I will be raising an RFC to discuss the matter more widely. Martinvl ( talk) 07:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I have reinstated metric units where "permitted" by WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. I have also added "Source uses metric units" where appropriate as per WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Martinvl ( talk) 19:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I have noted that Gaba P is reprising a discussion that utterly hijacked Self-determination and ended up in ridiculous levels at WP:DRN and WP:ANI. Other editos may find this information useful.
My suggestion per WP:NPOV is to focus on neutral academic sources.
Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
“ | Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis. | ” |
I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.
“ | Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina | ” |
Empahsis added
Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
“ | On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison... | ” |
Emphasis added
Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
“ | Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis. | ” |
“ | you are not to disturb them in their agricultural or other inoffensive employments | ” |
Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow. Captain Onslow was commander of the Brig-sloop HMS Clio that carried out the order to remove the Buenos Aires Garrison. His orders clearly precluded any action against the settlers.
“ | I had great trouble to pursuade 12 of the Gauchos to remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments to the shipping must have ceased. | ” |
“ | I regretted to observe a bad spirit existed amongst the Gauchos, they appeared dissatisfied with their wages… The whole of the inhabitants requested me to move the government in their favour for grants of land. | ” |
Onslow's report.
Onslow's report and orders are in the archive at Kew Gardens, ref PRO Adm 1/2276, and PRO FO 6 500. Onslow made two reports one for the admiralty and one for the Charge d'Affaires in Rio.
“ | ...those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before... | ” |
The above is an extract from the report made by Pinedo at his court martial. Both eye witness reports corroborate one another – ie there is no difference in the contemporary record. Source: Argentine National Archive, Buenos Aires, Ref: AGN Sala VII, Legajo 60, p. 22
Another primary source, Thomas Helsby on wikisource:
[1] This gives a list of the residents at Port Louis in August 1833 (some 3 months after the supposed expulsion). The settlement was a diverse mix of numerous nationalities including British, Irish, French, German, Charrúa, the majority of the Gauchos came from what we now know as Uruguay. All were brought to the islands in the service of Luis Vernet. Antonio Roxas is still recorded in the Falklands census of 1851 as a resident and major land owner. Source would be Falkland Islands Government archive, Stanley, Falkland Islands.
Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
I use Destéfani with caution due to the circumstances in which the book was published. In 1982 during the Falklands War over 100,000 copies were printed and distributed free to various academic institutions to make the Argentine case for sovereignty.
“ | Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos | ” |
David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
I use Tatham with caution as it contains a series of papers written by a number of authors. It is however referenced by many neutral academic sources.
[2] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
[3] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
“ | This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina. | ” |
Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do.
If this is to be a repeat of the previous discussion it was the hijacking of an article improvement task to push the Argentine POV into articles contrary to NPOV. I really can't be arsed with this nationalist crap again but if you need help with sources drop me an email. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | Once order had been restored in Puerto Soledad, a British Royal Navy corvette, with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement. After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base | ” |
If you refer to the sources above, the Argentine claim is that the settlers were expelled, so what CMD wrote was in fact incorrect. I simply corrected it. I don't see him objecting and I ask why you seek to impose an edit that does not accurately reflect what Argentina in fact claims? And again per WP:NPOVN guidance, if such claims are refuted by neutral 3rd party academic sources then we report what those sources say - this is what I've done. As regards the selective quoting from an extensive discussion at WP:RSN see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 132#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN?. As I asked at the board and the source used by Lopez, Goebel, did not support the claim attributed to him by Lopez and I still don't see how pointing this out is WP:OR or WP:SYN. For further reference:
Goebel is not a British source but American, an academic at Yale University.
ReferenceAngel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3. Retrieved 19 September 2012.
Quote
“ | Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833 | ” |
But in fact Goebel makes no such statement:
Reference Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
Quote
“ | On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison... | ” |
Emphasis added
If you refer to the discussion, whilst some editors made comments about WP:OR and WP:SYN others pointed out Of course you can form an opinion about the quality of a text based on your own fact-checking. which goes right to the heart of selective quoting.
Fundamentally the discussion concluded the source was not reliable noting that it was rubbished in neutral academic reviews:
“ | Lopez approaches the topic from an overtly pro-Argentine perspective… his approach… is unashamedly functional, but his method is novel…relies exclusively on British sources, or rather on British commentators' historico-legal interpretations of crucial episodes affecting sovereignty…" "The reviewer,…was less impressed by the unhistorical manner in which arguments are presented. Basically, the reviewer's publications, like those of other British commentators, have been treated in a functional and selective manner by Lopez, who cites only extracts supportive of the Argentine point of view. No account is taken of the broader position taken by those quoted. From this perspective, the book offers a classic example illustrating the use of quotes taken out of context in order to distort the writer's intended meaning. [A concrete example follows of this error]" "Even worse, 'British' sources are treated in an uncritical, undifferentiated matter, even to the extent of describing Americans, like Jeffrey Myhre, as 'British' (p 9, p 14). No account is take of any commentator's level and sphere of expertise or familiarity with the archival materials which figure so prominently in Lopez's book" "This publication, like its pro-British counterparts…[remind us of] the manner in which history and law have been exploited for contemporary policy purposes. Unfortunately, functional histories promote misunderstanding rather than an informed grasp of the issues at stake… | ” |
To summarise:
1. Article as written didn't accurately reflect the Argentine claim - I corrected it. 2. Neutral 3rd party academic sources dispute that claim - I supplied an example.
What makes you think that an edit supported by extensive sourcing in neutral 3rd party academic sources, isn't acceptable and justifies personal attacks rather than a neutral discussion of content. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | Once order had been restored in Puerto Soledad, a British Royal Navy corvette, with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement. After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base | ” |
Slatersteven this has been to RS/N already and we were told two things
1- Wee needed to stop the WP:OR and WP:SYN
2- The Risman source was to be used
I'm not even trying to use that source here because the original source says what CMD wrote:
“ | ...After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base... | ” |
Is somebody reading this? Furthermore that section is in no way the place for such editing as Wee did. Should I add how Argentina does not believe the current inhabitants have the right to self-determination to the UK's claim? And then that section can evolve into an argumentative monster. There's already a whole article about the dispute. This section merely mentions each sides most prominent claims and there is no need to rebut them here.
This is what Wee said 2 months ago about this issue:
" Look no one disputes the garrison and Argentine authorities were expelled." Wee Curry Monster talk 08:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
2 months ago he said "no one disputes the Argentine authorities were expelled". He is now in fact reverting the edit made by CMD where it states exactly that and attempting to fill the section with his own OR. Really, I can't be the only one noticing this.
Slatersteven I trust your criteria very much since I believe you to be the most NPOV editor here. Do you think the current version is fine? Regards Gaba p ( talk) 12:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | ...After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base... | ” |
No that is not stating the official position of the Argentine Government:
[6] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands
“ | This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina. | ” |
The above website is the Argentine Government's official statement. I would suggest you stop accusing editors who add content sourced from reliable, neutral, 3rd part academic sources as vandalism. I would also suggest you stop repeating yourself noting I will no longer point out you are incorrect. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | ...After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base... | ” |
So from reading all of the above, am I correct is taking that the dispute is whether Argentina claims the British expelled its settlers or not? The cancilleria source [9] says that both the settlers and authorities were expelled. A quick look at Wee's sources suggest that Argentina has, at least in the past, stated that settlers were expelled. Are there any other Argentinian sources on the matter? CMD ( talk) 16:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
CMD: there is not a dispute, Argentina claims the UK expelled both "the people that had settled there" and its authorities. What Wee attempts to do is to handpick sources that say that only a garrison was expelled, not the population, thus making the Argentinian claim (supposedly) invalid. Leaving aside the fact that Argentina never makes a distinction between the garrison and the rest of the population (a distinction Wee pushes because it validates his position about Argentina being wrong) there are sources that clearly state that "the settlers" were expelled. Among those sources the one advised to us for its use at RS/N is Risman. Wee incurs in WP:OR and WP:SYN by analyzing this source and coming to the conclusion that it is invalid. He has been told time and again that he should not take this position because we are editors in an encyclopedia, not historians writing a book.
Furthermore that section is not the place for adding sources for and against since it merely describes the claims by both parties. There's already a whole article about the dispute, which is why I keep asking Wee to please self rv to your version which was synthetic and 100% correct. He knows this of course but will not do it because apparently it goes against his crusade for "truth" and "neutrality" (both unilaterally decided) in every article regarding the Falklands (the same applies to his behavior at Gibraltar)
The Argentinian claim is that "the people that had settled there and its authorities" were expelled and this is the only thing that should be mentioned in that section. As anyone will notice we don't cite sources "rebutting" the UK's claim and so we should not do that with the Argentinian claims. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 17:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
NEW SECTION ADDED BELOW TO DISCUSS SPECIFICALLY THIS MATTER