![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
[1] For the record, it was the content I described as crap not the editor, get over yourself.
I have removed a small amount of text sourced to the opinion of one author. My reasons for doing so is that if you subject to scrutiny the opinion expressed by this author, it is clear what is alleged is utter nonsense. The word "Malvinas" is not rejected in English language sources, as even a cursory google search will demonstrate [2], most English language sources make an extra effort to indicate what the Spanish name is.
As such this is very much a case of a WP:FRINGE theory, given WP:UNDUE prominence. And I make no apology for describing crap as crap.
He cites a discussion on my talk page with Marshal, where we both agree that it would detrimental to the FA review. I invite User:Langus-TxT to self-revert, if that isn't forthcoming I would urge another editor to remove it as it is detrimental to any potential FA review. W C M email 14:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Langus, perhaps you could address the points I made. ( Hohum @) 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Marshal,
The use of Malvinas Islands in the English language falls into two camps:
The latter is a WP:FRINGE use and we have a long standing agreement there is no real need to include reference to it. The former rather differs from the premise you suggested and stems from a reluctance in the Spanish language to use the English term. It is more linked to the attempt to extinguish Islas Falkland from the Spanish lexicon. We can revisit if you wish but the last time it was discussed, it resulted in a very unhealthy exchange that didn't really address the subject. W C M email 13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
After the removal of the blue sign, I searched for another image that could go on the section. I found these two neat maps, but I'm not sure which is most accurate:
I think either of them would be a good addition, but I feel they may be a tad outdated (South Sudan's not even in the map); I'm sure Rob or another one of our map experts could do great improvements.
We may use File:CFK en las NU.jpg, a photo of Critina Kirchner in the UN when she made a speech about the dispute. I know that several Argentine politicians in history have refenced the dispute, but the image is A) modern, and B) taken specifically in a related circumstance. Or we can also make a new composite image, with both this one and some British politician opposing the Argentine claim, so it gets more balanced. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You can also have in mind those goods news I gave some days ago, for more ideas on images that may be useful. Cambalachero ( talk) 22:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, I meant that the picture on the right I created for this article in Spanish Wikipedia. The references are there. If anyone wants to add South Sudan and change the color of any country (with references) is invited. I would like the map is in the English Wikipedia. Regards. -- Gastón Cuello ( talk) 21:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
There is some disagreement over whether the term "undeclared war" should be used. One editor notes that it is misleading and that a tertiary source isn't good enough, while another says that it is, and points to the definition in undeclared war.
I think we need to use the best reliable sources available, i.e. a military historians work on this specific conflict. A tertiary source like an encyclopaedia is way down the list. undeclared war is a completely unreferenced stub, so it is of no help at all. While we wait for an acceptable source, the "undeclared" part should be removed. ( Hohum @) 17:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Well to get to FA standard requires us to pay attention to details like this, though fundamentally I have no problem with it, we need to edit to a high standard. I have seen FA derailed by ignoring details like this. W C M email 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no mention to the local accent and dialect ( Falkland Islands English) of English spoken on the isles. Surely this can fit under the culture section somewhere? IJA ( talk) 16:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not certain the current text sets the balance correctly.
Under Menem's government, Guido de Tella followed a policy of attempting to (in his words) seduce the Falkland Islands. They established the sovereignty umbrella where the issue of sovereignty was put to one side to concentrate on mutually beneficial agreements. To some extent it worked as there was at one time a schism between the generations in the Falklands, whereby the younger generation did not view Argentina in the same way as the older generation who lived through the war and its aftermath. Since Nestor Kirchner's government, the policy switched back to the old hard line, the agreements on oil and fishery torn up and a policy of confrontation pursued.
Currently the article states:
“ | However, relations again deteriorated because of air-travel disagreements and the UK's refusal to resume sovereignty negotiations "in the absence of evidence that the islanders themselves sought a change".[64][K] Disputes between the governments have led "some analysts [to] predict a growing conflict of interest between Argentina and Great Britain ... because of the recent expansion of the fishing industry in the waters surrounding the Falklands".[65] | ” |
The air travel disagreement stems from the hard line political policy but isn't a cause for the deterioration in relations as the text implies. Similarly the UK hasn't refused to resume sovereignty negotiations, it would be more accurate to note that the UK has not and will not enter into negotiations under terms dictated by Argentina. Pointedly the only nation to have refused talks is Argentina, A) Timmerman refused to meet the UK Foreign Secretary for talks when he found out that the Falkland Islanders would be represented and B) the Falkland Islands Government have offered talks to the Argentine Government and been rebuffed. W C M email 10:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
My suggestions:
A)
“ | Argentina and the UK re-established diplomatic relations in 1990. Under the presidency of Carlos Menem, Argentina pursued a "seduction" policy trying to improve relations with the islanders. Relations improved but have deteriorated since more recent Argentine Governments repudiated agreements on oil exploration and fisheries cooperation and now refuse to talk directly with the Falkland Islands Government. The current position of the UK Government is that sovereignty negotiations will only take place if the islanders request it but Argentina insists on talks only between the British and Argentine Governments. | ” |
or
B)
“ | Argentina and the UK re-established diplomatic relations in 1990. | ” |
Sometimes less is more. W C M email 10:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
What's fair and accurate to write is that both sides cannot agree on the terms of future sovereignty discussions.-- MarshalN20 Talk 21:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original info: The United Kingdom and Argentina claim the Falkland Islands. The UK's position is that the Falklanders have not indicated a desire for change, and that there are no pending issues to resolve concerning the islands.[84][85] The UK bases its position on its continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except for 1982) and the islanders' "right to self-determination as set out in the UN Charter".[86] Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands.[87][88] Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833.[87] In 2009, British prime minister Gordon Brown met with Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and said that there would be no further talks over the sovereignty of the Falklands.[89] In March 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, and 99.8 percent of voters favoured remaining under British rule.[90][91] Argentina does not recognize the Falkland Islands as a partner in negotiations;[92] consequently, it dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum.[93]
Edition: I not propose to replace the information, just fill out and add information, as is incomplete and has only one position, on the issue. Here I propose to add the following item:
The Falkland Islands belong to the South American continental shelf, within the oversea Argentine territory, belonging to the Argentine Sea. Relying on the fact that most of the countries of Latin America, and the majority of countries worldwide, reaffirm the argentine sovereignty over the islands, opposing the ambiguous concepts of colonialism. Frederik1991 ( talk) 23:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Sam
Sing! 08:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)footnote 123 & 130, all link to "Royle 2006", but, there's two "Royle 2006" books at "Bibliography" section below:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |encyclopedia=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Two books by a same author, published at same year, and both had "ref = harv", so basically there's no way to tell the differences, but there will be first and second one, so both footnotes link to the first book.
I'm worried, is this book correct?-- Jarodalien ( talk) 03:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm co-writing the daily TFA column for the Main Page, and User:Brianboulton has just picked 6 January as this article's TFA day. The problem is, we're limited to 1200 characters for the paragraph, so I had to do some trimming ... and I can't read minds, so it's possible I trimmed something that you guys really don't want to trim. Please see my work at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 6, 2015, and feel free to suggest any changes here, I'll be watching. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations for all those who have contributed, over a number of years, to this particularly challenging article to the effect of eventually bringing it to its deserved FA status. Well done, and setting a good example of fruitful collaboration between editors of different, sometimes conflicting views too. Wish you all a happy and successful new year! Apcbg ( talk) 07:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand that Argentina claim the Islands as their own, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to use the Spanish name in the English Language Wikipedia article, for a British Overseas Territory, where the primary (and only widely spoken) language is English.
Use of another name tends to be relevant where it is locally referred to in a non-English language, or where the article uses a common English Language name despite the official name being in a different language. I know Wikipedia attempts to be neutral, but there seems to be no reason to include the Spanish name which precludes also including French, German, Mandarin, Estonian and Swedish versions of the name.... Are we being "excessively neutral"? Audigex ( talk) 12:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Could someone else please have a look at this edit [24], "Introduced Species" generally refers to wildlife not domesticated animals as the new edit now infers. Why is that people can never ever follow WP:BRD? W C M email 17:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I recommend the deletion of the first half of the first sentence under history, and its accompanying footnote (15); the source is merely old speculation about humans possibly having brought the Falklands fox, aka the Falkland Islands Wolf, from South America; according to the wikipedia article on the latter [25] recent genetic research shows that this animal diverged from its South American cousins millions of years ago and cannot have been brought by humans recently. 104.159.151.38 ( talk) 00:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This term would seem a little less than neutral to me, so I have removed "native". By analogy the term Native Americans is reserved for people that have inhabited the Americas for millennia whereas the term "American" is used for all types of people that inhabit the continent, including those that have emigrated in the past few hundred years. There does not appear to be a need to use any such adjective to distinguish between different types of Falkland Islanders, since the Falkland Islands were uninhabited until a few hundred years ago. I understand that Falkland Islanders may consider themselves "natives" and respect that viewpoint, but Wikipedia must maintain a neutral perspective on the issue. Levelledout ( talk) 12:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the edit as there is no consensus for it in this discussion yet. WCM has yet to respond to the compromise. Thus the editor who opposed it hasn't yet being able to give their response/acceptance/refusal, meaning there is no consensus and Id suggest editors carry out this discussion process properly and await consensus rather than jumping in and making the edit regardless of what WCM may say about it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY and this discussion must be given time for due process and proper resolution.
Obviously it is a matter of perspective, but just when exactly does a population grouping become "native". The term as far as I understand it as a British English speaker, which the Falkland Islanders also speak, means someone who is native to a place, i.e. from there. I am a native of the island of Ireland, and a native of Northern Ireland in the UK, many of my ancestors migrated here from other lands. The descendants of my ancestors who moved here as soon as they where born on this island became natives by virtue of birth.
The Falkland Islanders are the natives of the Falkland Islands. The Americans (north and south) who descend from Europeans who settled centuries ago are also natives of the Americas by virtue of being born there. Someone born in Glasgow, whose parents come from London, can be classified as a native of Glasgow, a native of Scotland, or whatever. Thus I see no problem with simply stating "native" seeing as by being born there, they are native regardless of time-span.
Mabuska (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Levelledout: "WP:NOTADEMOCRACY but consensus is achieved through compromise." - moving on ahead without the prime objectors consent, or even giving them time to respond to the proposal, isn't consensus. Claiming consensus when there isn't one also doesn't equal consensus.
@ MarshalN20: "Adding "-born" to the word "native" does not make any substantial change, and in fact helps distinguish human Faklanders (who are born in the Falklands) from the archipelago's flora and fauna." - Fauna native to the islands are also "native-born" by being native and by being born there so it doesn't really distinguish between them at all.
"Native-born" changes nothing in effect as what difference is there to it from "native"? If your born somewhere you are a native of it. If your a "native-born" of somewhere you are a native of it. If your native of somewhere you are a from there. What is the difference? The word "native" is still there so the same problem must still exist with "native-born" due to meaning the same thing but with an odd and ridiculous hyphenation. Claims of being "less neutral" are also unfounded and unsubstantiated. On that basis I don't agree with "native-born" as there is no difference to it in meaning or neutrality from "native".
In regards to Levelledout's argument: "There does not appear to be a need to use any such adjective to distinguish between different types of Falkland Islanders, since the Falkland Islands were uninhabited until a few hundred years ago." - I understand and agree with this statement. Stating "primarily consists of Falkland Islanders" removes the problem altogether yet still by virtue of wording implies that they are natives by not using an adjective to say otherwise.
I can accept stating "native" or nothing at all, but reject "native-born" due to the sillyness of it. Mabuska (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Using Google to back-up usage of "native-born" means nothing considering the many flaws of using Google as a stat counter to provide backup for a specific argument. In my opinion, and it is just that, an opinion that I am entitled to, "native-born" is silly. Some of you may not think so and that is your opinion to which you are also entitled too, but to me it is silly and absolutely unrequired. I just don't see the need for alternatives. Native or nothing at all works for me. Mabuska (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
"Native-born" is quite reasonable and not at all silly if it resolves the concerns expressed above. Jonathunder ( talk) 21:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
An editor added an edit summary, "The FI's is a British overseas territory, in other words it's part of the UK. This Article is about the UK's claim." [28] In fact, no sources claim it is part of the UK. TFD ( talk) 21:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
User Viet-hoian1 is trying to insert politics and personal opinion into the article by adding "Islas Malvinas" to all mentions of the islands. Can't the article be protected from this sort of Vandalism? 23:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeJacketGuy ( talk • contribs)
I suggest changing "The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas [malˈβinas]) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean on the Patagonian Shelf." by "The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas [malˈβinas]) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean on the Patagonian Shelf annexed by the United Kingdom."
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.9.16 ( talk) 22:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Every single disputed territory article as Ireland let the main article deals with the island itself, instead of the political entity. What's the difference here? Guidaw ( talk) 15:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Falklands are one of the world's most important penguin breeding sites, and yet penguins are barely mentioned at all in this article. There is no penguin population data. Suggest adding peer-reviewed scientific publications quoting reliable popluation data and population changes: Rockhopper penguins: 1984 - 2,500,000 breeding pairs (Croxall, J.P., McInnes, S.J. and Prince P.A. - (1984) The status and conservation of seabirds at the Falkland Islands. In Status and conservation of the world's seabirds, ICBP Technical Publication No.2, (ed. J.P. Croxall, P.G.H. Evans and R.W. Schreiber), 271-291, ICBP, Cambridge.) 1995 - 300,000 breeding pairs (Bingham, M. (2002) The decline of Falkland Islands penguins in the presence of a commercial fishing industry. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 75: 805-818.) 2015 - 189,503 breeding pairs (Mercopress online, July 15th 2015 - http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/21/falklands-penguin-population-rising-gentoo-doubled-and-rockhopper-remains-stable) This rapid and on-going decline in penguins is due to the reduction of food availability caused by the removal of large quantities of fish and squid by the Falklands commercial fishing industry, causing lack of food and longer foraging trips during chick rearing, leading to low reproductive success. These same species in nearby Chile and Argentina are protected from commercial fishing by no-fishing zones and are increasing in population. Peer-reviewed scientific publications stating this are: 1. (Bingham, M. (2002) The decline of Falkland Islands penguins in the presence of a commercial fishing industry. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 75: 805-818.) 2. (Bingham, M and Herrmann, T (2008) Magellanic Penguin Monitoring Results for Magdalena Island 2000-08. Anales Instituto Patagonia (Chile) 36(2): 19-32.) 3. (Luna G, Hennicke J, Wallace R, Simeone A, Wolfaardt A, Whittington P, Ellis S and McGovern M (2002) Spheniscus Penguin Conservation Workshop Final Report, IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, USA. 83pp. 4. Patterson KR (1987) Fishy events in the Falkland Islands. New Scientist 1562: 44-48. 5. Putz K, Ingham RJ, Smith JG & Croxhall JP (2001) Population trends, breeding success and diet composition of gentoo, magellanic and rockhopper penguins in the Falkland Islands. Polar Biology 24: 793-807. Please can you add this population data. Pinguin Man ( talk) 08:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Pinguin Man ( talk) 08:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
they are called islas malvinas and they were stolded by british goberment on 1982 now they are occupying the islands so please change on the introduction this part thanks "Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, although Argentina maintains its claim to the islands. In April 1982, Argentine forces temporarily occupied the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War." dont lied anymore
181.169.140.118 ( talk) 19:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear exactly what changes you want to be made, but I think it is clear that there is unlikely to be consensus for an edit as described. Please propose specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and attain consensus for them before using the {{
edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks,
Kahastok
talk 19:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
While it's only a small point, I really do think that "approximately at" is rather clumsy wording. It would be better expressed as "at about" or "at approximately" if you go for the longer word. What do others think? Michael Glass ( talk) 16:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Rreally? Since when were three syllables deemed clumsier than six? You've got to be joking! Let's hear from other editors. Michael Glass ( talk) 16:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Would "nearly" do? Jonathunder ( talk) 21:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attack. It's offensive and unnecessary.
Michael Glass (
talk) 16:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
WCM: I don't take kindly to offensive language.Nor do I take kindly to obvious misrepresentations. Michael Glass ( talk) 06:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:MarshalN20, User:Wee Curry Monster and many other editors for their effort to write this amazing article. -- Jarodalien ( talk) 15:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Malvinas/Falkland Islands are under the status of "Non Autonomous Disputed Territory" according UN resolution 2065. Links: http://www.un.org/es/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml - http://www.dipublico.org/5886/resolucion-2065-xx-de-la-asamblea-general-de-las-naciones-unidas-cuestion-de-las-islas-malvinas-falkland-islands/ Please, make this clear. 61.186.153.105 ( talk) 07:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
[1] For the record, it was the content I described as crap not the editor, get over yourself.
I have removed a small amount of text sourced to the opinion of one author. My reasons for doing so is that if you subject to scrutiny the opinion expressed by this author, it is clear what is alleged is utter nonsense. The word "Malvinas" is not rejected in English language sources, as even a cursory google search will demonstrate [2], most English language sources make an extra effort to indicate what the Spanish name is.
As such this is very much a case of a WP:FRINGE theory, given WP:UNDUE prominence. And I make no apology for describing crap as crap.
He cites a discussion on my talk page with Marshal, where we both agree that it would detrimental to the FA review. I invite User:Langus-TxT to self-revert, if that isn't forthcoming I would urge another editor to remove it as it is detrimental to any potential FA review. W C M email 14:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Langus, perhaps you could address the points I made. ( Hohum @) 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Marshal,
The use of Malvinas Islands in the English language falls into two camps:
The latter is a WP:FRINGE use and we have a long standing agreement there is no real need to include reference to it. The former rather differs from the premise you suggested and stems from a reluctance in the Spanish language to use the English term. It is more linked to the attempt to extinguish Islas Falkland from the Spanish lexicon. We can revisit if you wish but the last time it was discussed, it resulted in a very unhealthy exchange that didn't really address the subject. W C M email 13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
After the removal of the blue sign, I searched for another image that could go on the section. I found these two neat maps, but I'm not sure which is most accurate:
I think either of them would be a good addition, but I feel they may be a tad outdated (South Sudan's not even in the map); I'm sure Rob or another one of our map experts could do great improvements.
We may use File:CFK en las NU.jpg, a photo of Critina Kirchner in the UN when she made a speech about the dispute. I know that several Argentine politicians in history have refenced the dispute, but the image is A) modern, and B) taken specifically in a related circumstance. Or we can also make a new composite image, with both this one and some British politician opposing the Argentine claim, so it gets more balanced. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You can also have in mind those goods news I gave some days ago, for more ideas on images that may be useful. Cambalachero ( talk) 22:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, I meant that the picture on the right I created for this article in Spanish Wikipedia. The references are there. If anyone wants to add South Sudan and change the color of any country (with references) is invited. I would like the map is in the English Wikipedia. Regards. -- Gastón Cuello ( talk) 21:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
There is some disagreement over whether the term "undeclared war" should be used. One editor notes that it is misleading and that a tertiary source isn't good enough, while another says that it is, and points to the definition in undeclared war.
I think we need to use the best reliable sources available, i.e. a military historians work on this specific conflict. A tertiary source like an encyclopaedia is way down the list. undeclared war is a completely unreferenced stub, so it is of no help at all. While we wait for an acceptable source, the "undeclared" part should be removed. ( Hohum @) 17:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Well to get to FA standard requires us to pay attention to details like this, though fundamentally I have no problem with it, we need to edit to a high standard. I have seen FA derailed by ignoring details like this. W C M email 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no mention to the local accent and dialect ( Falkland Islands English) of English spoken on the isles. Surely this can fit under the culture section somewhere? IJA ( talk) 16:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not certain the current text sets the balance correctly.
Under Menem's government, Guido de Tella followed a policy of attempting to (in his words) seduce the Falkland Islands. They established the sovereignty umbrella where the issue of sovereignty was put to one side to concentrate on mutually beneficial agreements. To some extent it worked as there was at one time a schism between the generations in the Falklands, whereby the younger generation did not view Argentina in the same way as the older generation who lived through the war and its aftermath. Since Nestor Kirchner's government, the policy switched back to the old hard line, the agreements on oil and fishery torn up and a policy of confrontation pursued.
Currently the article states:
“ | However, relations again deteriorated because of air-travel disagreements and the UK's refusal to resume sovereignty negotiations "in the absence of evidence that the islanders themselves sought a change".[64][K] Disputes between the governments have led "some analysts [to] predict a growing conflict of interest between Argentina and Great Britain ... because of the recent expansion of the fishing industry in the waters surrounding the Falklands".[65] | ” |
The air travel disagreement stems from the hard line political policy but isn't a cause for the deterioration in relations as the text implies. Similarly the UK hasn't refused to resume sovereignty negotiations, it would be more accurate to note that the UK has not and will not enter into negotiations under terms dictated by Argentina. Pointedly the only nation to have refused talks is Argentina, A) Timmerman refused to meet the UK Foreign Secretary for talks when he found out that the Falkland Islanders would be represented and B) the Falkland Islands Government have offered talks to the Argentine Government and been rebuffed. W C M email 10:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
My suggestions:
A)
“ | Argentina and the UK re-established diplomatic relations in 1990. Under the presidency of Carlos Menem, Argentina pursued a "seduction" policy trying to improve relations with the islanders. Relations improved but have deteriorated since more recent Argentine Governments repudiated agreements on oil exploration and fisheries cooperation and now refuse to talk directly with the Falkland Islands Government. The current position of the UK Government is that sovereignty negotiations will only take place if the islanders request it but Argentina insists on talks only between the British and Argentine Governments. | ” |
or
B)
“ | Argentina and the UK re-established diplomatic relations in 1990. | ” |
Sometimes less is more. W C M email 10:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
What's fair and accurate to write is that both sides cannot agree on the terms of future sovereignty discussions.-- MarshalN20 Talk 21:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original info: The United Kingdom and Argentina claim the Falkland Islands. The UK's position is that the Falklanders have not indicated a desire for change, and that there are no pending issues to resolve concerning the islands.[84][85] The UK bases its position on its continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except for 1982) and the islanders' "right to self-determination as set out in the UN Charter".[86] Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands.[87][88] Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833.[87] In 2009, British prime minister Gordon Brown met with Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and said that there would be no further talks over the sovereignty of the Falklands.[89] In March 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, and 99.8 percent of voters favoured remaining under British rule.[90][91] Argentina does not recognize the Falkland Islands as a partner in negotiations;[92] consequently, it dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum.[93]
Edition: I not propose to replace the information, just fill out and add information, as is incomplete and has only one position, on the issue. Here I propose to add the following item:
The Falkland Islands belong to the South American continental shelf, within the oversea Argentine territory, belonging to the Argentine Sea. Relying on the fact that most of the countries of Latin America, and the majority of countries worldwide, reaffirm the argentine sovereignty over the islands, opposing the ambiguous concepts of colonialism. Frederik1991 ( talk) 23:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Sam
Sing! 08:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)footnote 123 & 130, all link to "Royle 2006", but, there's two "Royle 2006" books at "Bibliography" section below:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |encyclopedia=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Two books by a same author, published at same year, and both had "ref = harv", so basically there's no way to tell the differences, but there will be first and second one, so both footnotes link to the first book.
I'm worried, is this book correct?-- Jarodalien ( talk) 03:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm co-writing the daily TFA column for the Main Page, and User:Brianboulton has just picked 6 January as this article's TFA day. The problem is, we're limited to 1200 characters for the paragraph, so I had to do some trimming ... and I can't read minds, so it's possible I trimmed something that you guys really don't want to trim. Please see my work at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 6, 2015, and feel free to suggest any changes here, I'll be watching. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations for all those who have contributed, over a number of years, to this particularly challenging article to the effect of eventually bringing it to its deserved FA status. Well done, and setting a good example of fruitful collaboration between editors of different, sometimes conflicting views too. Wish you all a happy and successful new year! Apcbg ( talk) 07:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand that Argentina claim the Islands as their own, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to use the Spanish name in the English Language Wikipedia article, for a British Overseas Territory, where the primary (and only widely spoken) language is English.
Use of another name tends to be relevant where it is locally referred to in a non-English language, or where the article uses a common English Language name despite the official name being in a different language. I know Wikipedia attempts to be neutral, but there seems to be no reason to include the Spanish name which precludes also including French, German, Mandarin, Estonian and Swedish versions of the name.... Are we being "excessively neutral"? Audigex ( talk) 12:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Could someone else please have a look at this edit [24], "Introduced Species" generally refers to wildlife not domesticated animals as the new edit now infers. Why is that people can never ever follow WP:BRD? W C M email 17:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I recommend the deletion of the first half of the first sentence under history, and its accompanying footnote (15); the source is merely old speculation about humans possibly having brought the Falklands fox, aka the Falkland Islands Wolf, from South America; according to the wikipedia article on the latter [25] recent genetic research shows that this animal diverged from its South American cousins millions of years ago and cannot have been brought by humans recently. 104.159.151.38 ( talk) 00:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This term would seem a little less than neutral to me, so I have removed "native". By analogy the term Native Americans is reserved for people that have inhabited the Americas for millennia whereas the term "American" is used for all types of people that inhabit the continent, including those that have emigrated in the past few hundred years. There does not appear to be a need to use any such adjective to distinguish between different types of Falkland Islanders, since the Falkland Islands were uninhabited until a few hundred years ago. I understand that Falkland Islanders may consider themselves "natives" and respect that viewpoint, but Wikipedia must maintain a neutral perspective on the issue. Levelledout ( talk) 12:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the edit as there is no consensus for it in this discussion yet. WCM has yet to respond to the compromise. Thus the editor who opposed it hasn't yet being able to give their response/acceptance/refusal, meaning there is no consensus and Id suggest editors carry out this discussion process properly and await consensus rather than jumping in and making the edit regardless of what WCM may say about it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY and this discussion must be given time for due process and proper resolution.
Obviously it is a matter of perspective, but just when exactly does a population grouping become "native". The term as far as I understand it as a British English speaker, which the Falkland Islanders also speak, means someone who is native to a place, i.e. from there. I am a native of the island of Ireland, and a native of Northern Ireland in the UK, many of my ancestors migrated here from other lands. The descendants of my ancestors who moved here as soon as they where born on this island became natives by virtue of birth.
The Falkland Islanders are the natives of the Falkland Islands. The Americans (north and south) who descend from Europeans who settled centuries ago are also natives of the Americas by virtue of being born there. Someone born in Glasgow, whose parents come from London, can be classified as a native of Glasgow, a native of Scotland, or whatever. Thus I see no problem with simply stating "native" seeing as by being born there, they are native regardless of time-span.
Mabuska (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Levelledout: "WP:NOTADEMOCRACY but consensus is achieved through compromise." - moving on ahead without the prime objectors consent, or even giving them time to respond to the proposal, isn't consensus. Claiming consensus when there isn't one also doesn't equal consensus.
@ MarshalN20: "Adding "-born" to the word "native" does not make any substantial change, and in fact helps distinguish human Faklanders (who are born in the Falklands) from the archipelago's flora and fauna." - Fauna native to the islands are also "native-born" by being native and by being born there so it doesn't really distinguish between them at all.
"Native-born" changes nothing in effect as what difference is there to it from "native"? If your born somewhere you are a native of it. If your a "native-born" of somewhere you are a native of it. If your native of somewhere you are a from there. What is the difference? The word "native" is still there so the same problem must still exist with "native-born" due to meaning the same thing but with an odd and ridiculous hyphenation. Claims of being "less neutral" are also unfounded and unsubstantiated. On that basis I don't agree with "native-born" as there is no difference to it in meaning or neutrality from "native".
In regards to Levelledout's argument: "There does not appear to be a need to use any such adjective to distinguish between different types of Falkland Islanders, since the Falkland Islands were uninhabited until a few hundred years ago." - I understand and agree with this statement. Stating "primarily consists of Falkland Islanders" removes the problem altogether yet still by virtue of wording implies that they are natives by not using an adjective to say otherwise.
I can accept stating "native" or nothing at all, but reject "native-born" due to the sillyness of it. Mabuska (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Using Google to back-up usage of "native-born" means nothing considering the many flaws of using Google as a stat counter to provide backup for a specific argument. In my opinion, and it is just that, an opinion that I am entitled to, "native-born" is silly. Some of you may not think so and that is your opinion to which you are also entitled too, but to me it is silly and absolutely unrequired. I just don't see the need for alternatives. Native or nothing at all works for me. Mabuska (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
"Native-born" is quite reasonable and not at all silly if it resolves the concerns expressed above. Jonathunder ( talk) 21:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
An editor added an edit summary, "The FI's is a British overseas territory, in other words it's part of the UK. This Article is about the UK's claim." [28] In fact, no sources claim it is part of the UK. TFD ( talk) 21:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
User Viet-hoian1 is trying to insert politics and personal opinion into the article by adding "Islas Malvinas" to all mentions of the islands. Can't the article be protected from this sort of Vandalism? 23:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeJacketGuy ( talk • contribs)
I suggest changing "The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas [malˈβinas]) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean on the Patagonian Shelf." by "The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas [malˈβinas]) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean on the Patagonian Shelf annexed by the United Kingdom."
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.9.16 ( talk) 22:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Every single disputed territory article as Ireland let the main article deals with the island itself, instead of the political entity. What's the difference here? Guidaw ( talk) 15:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Falklands are one of the world's most important penguin breeding sites, and yet penguins are barely mentioned at all in this article. There is no penguin population data. Suggest adding peer-reviewed scientific publications quoting reliable popluation data and population changes: Rockhopper penguins: 1984 - 2,500,000 breeding pairs (Croxall, J.P., McInnes, S.J. and Prince P.A. - (1984) The status and conservation of seabirds at the Falkland Islands. In Status and conservation of the world's seabirds, ICBP Technical Publication No.2, (ed. J.P. Croxall, P.G.H. Evans and R.W. Schreiber), 271-291, ICBP, Cambridge.) 1995 - 300,000 breeding pairs (Bingham, M. (2002) The decline of Falkland Islands penguins in the presence of a commercial fishing industry. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 75: 805-818.) 2015 - 189,503 breeding pairs (Mercopress online, July 15th 2015 - http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/21/falklands-penguin-population-rising-gentoo-doubled-and-rockhopper-remains-stable) This rapid and on-going decline in penguins is due to the reduction of food availability caused by the removal of large quantities of fish and squid by the Falklands commercial fishing industry, causing lack of food and longer foraging trips during chick rearing, leading to low reproductive success. These same species in nearby Chile and Argentina are protected from commercial fishing by no-fishing zones and are increasing in population. Peer-reviewed scientific publications stating this are: 1. (Bingham, M. (2002) The decline of Falkland Islands penguins in the presence of a commercial fishing industry. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 75: 805-818.) 2. (Bingham, M and Herrmann, T (2008) Magellanic Penguin Monitoring Results for Magdalena Island 2000-08. Anales Instituto Patagonia (Chile) 36(2): 19-32.) 3. (Luna G, Hennicke J, Wallace R, Simeone A, Wolfaardt A, Whittington P, Ellis S and McGovern M (2002) Spheniscus Penguin Conservation Workshop Final Report, IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, USA. 83pp. 4. Patterson KR (1987) Fishy events in the Falkland Islands. New Scientist 1562: 44-48. 5. Putz K, Ingham RJ, Smith JG & Croxhall JP (2001) Population trends, breeding success and diet composition of gentoo, magellanic and rockhopper penguins in the Falkland Islands. Polar Biology 24: 793-807. Please can you add this population data. Pinguin Man ( talk) 08:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Pinguin Man ( talk) 08:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
they are called islas malvinas and they were stolded by british goberment on 1982 now they are occupying the islands so please change on the introduction this part thanks "Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, although Argentina maintains its claim to the islands. In April 1982, Argentine forces temporarily occupied the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War." dont lied anymore
181.169.140.118 ( talk) 19:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear exactly what changes you want to be made, but I think it is clear that there is unlikely to be consensus for an edit as described. Please propose specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and attain consensus for them before using the {{
edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks,
Kahastok
talk 19:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
While it's only a small point, I really do think that "approximately at" is rather clumsy wording. It would be better expressed as "at about" or "at approximately" if you go for the longer word. What do others think? Michael Glass ( talk) 16:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Rreally? Since when were three syllables deemed clumsier than six? You've got to be joking! Let's hear from other editors. Michael Glass ( talk) 16:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Would "nearly" do? Jonathunder ( talk) 21:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attack. It's offensive and unnecessary.
Michael Glass (
talk) 16:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
WCM: I don't take kindly to offensive language.Nor do I take kindly to obvious misrepresentations. Michael Glass ( talk) 06:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:MarshalN20, User:Wee Curry Monster and many other editors for their effort to write this amazing article. -- Jarodalien ( talk) 15:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Malvinas/Falkland Islands are under the status of "Non Autonomous Disputed Territory" according UN resolution 2065. Links: http://www.un.org/es/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml - http://www.dipublico.org/5886/resolucion-2065-xx-de-la-asamblea-general-de-las-naciones-unidas-cuestion-de-las-islas-malvinas-falkland-islands/ Please, make this clear. 61.186.153.105 ( talk) 07:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)