![]() | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
"Most Falklanders favour the archipelago remaining a UK overseas territory, but its sovereignty status is part of an ongoing dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom."
There is no dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands, the above section is misleading in that it may encourage the reader to believe there is validity in the Argentinian claims. There isn't, full stop. I propose the following instead:
"All Falklanders, with a tiny minority excepted, favour the archipelago remaining a UK overseas territory. Argentina currently disputes the sovereignty status of the islands, a claim entirely without merit." 14.0.224.252 ( talk) 06:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The proposed text wants to present one of the opinions of an ongoing dispute in wikipedia's voice, which goes against the neutral point of view policy. We have to describe the existence of a dispute and who says what, but without trying to settle ourselves who is right and who is wrong.
This is a featured article about a controversial topic. Let's try to keep its quality. Cambalachero ( talk) 12:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Declaring something to be "the POLAR OPPOSITE of strong POV" - in CAPS no less - is a pretty strong point of view to hold isn't it? Chaheel Riens ( talk) 10:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Can this section and background be added into the profile on the Falklands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.134.126 ( talk) 10:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It is with some dismay that I find myself distracted from editing and creating content on Wikipedia, to deal with a tiresome and petty editing dispute, of the sort that led me to leave Wikipedia some years back for quite some time. I recently made some edits and additions to this page, such as adding references, making some minor wording changes here and there, as well some adding more information where I felt it was necessary and appropriate, as well as splitting some of the sections into sub-sections so that the page is in line with every other country/territory page on Wikipedia. I also linked the numerous specific topic pages (Geology, Climate, Islands etc.) to the main page, plus added the navigation box, so that people might actually be able to find these articles. All edits were overturned twice with no discussion, then referred to some 'Incident' board for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Having being on Wikipedia since 2004, and reverted the removal of my edits on this just page just once, I'm not quite sure this qualifies, but hey ho.
If I had been making major changes to the text, or editing information about the sovereignty dispute in a partisan fashion, I could perhaps understand. I was merely making small but definite improvements, exactly as I have done to many, many other pages without comment. It seems that the FI main page is to be frozen in aspic, with only some self-appointed editors allowed to change it. I have no doubt that if similar edits had been made to a group of islands that didn't happen to be subject to a controversial territorial dispute, they would have passed without comment.
To be perfectly honest I can think of so many better ways to spend my time then engaging in an edit war over a remote group of islands I only have a passing interest in, so please feel free to carry on browbeating anyone who dares to edit this page and I'll move on and carry on making improvements to other pages. Sdrawkcab ( talk) 23:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Generally I think this article is considerably better than many other FI articles and editors who have made it that way deserve credit. About today's edits - have the islands ever been treated separately, politically, as east and west? I cannot recall seeing this done. It is often stated that the French and Spanish settled Port Louis on EF and the British on the WI (or Saunders which is associated with WF), but that does not mean there was any intent, or thinking at the time, that the settlements were divided into the two halves. Did the 1770 agreement with Spain, specify an EI-WI split, or just that the British presence at Port Egmont was left as is with sovereignty left to one side? I wonder if the later writings about the matter, including here, are assuming there was an EI-WI divide, because it is often mentioned that the settlements were on the separate halves, and that a form of synthesis has occurred that is not backed by the facts. Or is the error just here with WP. Perhaps relevant texts just mention the two main islands to specify location of the settlements and it is just WP that is taking it a step further into a political separation? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 21:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
That is what I have always assumed, never a separation. I mentioned it because Tomas8024 is the latest editor to state that a separation existed. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The idea of such a separation is a vast inference from a small amount of fact.
We need to always remember the wider context when we discuss these points. In this era, the Falklands were basically at the end of the world. Argentina wouldn't take control of Patagonia until the Conquest of the Desert in the 1870s. The nearest significant European settlements - I think Viedma in the 1830s, Chiloé in the 1760s - were several days' voyage away across some of the most dangerous seas in the world.
And we can probably safely assume that the FI as a whole never had a resident permanent population over a hundred until well after 1833. We're not talking about cities here. None of these early settlements that today's politicians make vast claims about, will have consisted of more than a collection of huts.
In this context, it's quite easy to see how the British might end up with a settlement on Saunders Island, and the French a settlement at Port Louis, both claiming the entire archipelago without conflict. Not because there was some kind of formal separation between East Falkland and West Falkland, but simply because the settlements were 85 miles (137 km) apart and the populations were small enough that there was no reason why they would bump into each other. Kahastok talk 18:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Both this and the one about de armed conflict articles say that there is a name for the islands (Falklands) and its spanish translation. This is wrong, because Malvinas is the name of the islands. Is there an endless discussion about wich one is the true name? Yes, but meanwhile, BOTH NAMES MUST BE INDICATED. It should say "Falklands/Malvinas" in replacement of "Falklands". This is the way in which the article has been written in wikipedia in Spanish, determined after a discussion that here seems not to have existed.
The way in which this article was written is absolutely impartial. And the fact that someone have blocked the possibilities of editing it, disgraceful and repudiable. -- Kambus ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
What is exactly under discussion here? There is a name for the island in English language, and there is another in Spanish. Translation, two standalone names... which is the difference, other than a semantic one? What does it propose to change in the way the article is actually written? Cambalachero ( talk) 14:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to add, both names are of British origin. "Malvinas" comes from Saint Malo, a town in France named after a Welsh saint, and "Falkland" comes from the Scottish nobleman Viscount Falkland. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0C:5BC0:40:109E:6C4F:7968:F789:DDCD ( talk) 10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion over the latest changes - that I've also contributed to. My reasoning is outlined in my edit summary: "If it's agreed that the terms mean effectively the same thing, and the article linked is the "invasion" article, then the pipe description should match" It is indeed Weasel wording to link to the invasion article, but attempt to soften the description by simply calling it an "occupation". Chaheel Riens ( talk) 08:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually he described it as weasel wording to link the invasion article, then call it an occupation. Personally I would agree. So to be blunt, your comments are not accurate and I would say that could well be perceived as a personal attack. Now look what's happened, we're now discussing editors instead of content.
I for one prefer to call a spade a spade not an earth moving implement. Argentina invaded, using military force, the correct description is invasion. W C M email 15:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You mean to tell us that the sentence <<"In April 1982, Argentine military forces occupied the islands">> lacks clarification and "does not necessarily have military connotations"? It seems clear to me that all of this stems from your belief that "occupation" is a "softening" of the term invasion. However, as indicated by International Law, both terms do not have the same meaning. As others have indicated here, an occupation is always preceded by an invasion, whereas it is not certain that an occupation may follow an invasion. In other words, your logic is premised entirely on a fallacy—that's the biggest joke in this discussion.-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 16:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
"The United Kingdom and Argentina both claim the Falkland Islands" is the first sentence in the subsection. Similar wording is used in other articles. To me, this is misleading if not inaccurate. To claim something implies one does not properly have it. This is not the case with the Falklands where full sovereignty is exercised by the UK. Therefore, the UK does not claim the islands, it has them. Argentina on the other hand does claim them because it does not exercise any control over them. The quoted sentence would work with an area such as Kashmir where both India and Pakistan each exercise control over half its area but each claims the whole area. The sentence would also apply to an area under occupation, where full practical control might be with the occupying force, but that control was not accepted by a large proportion of the local population. Some might say that using the quoted sentence amounts to bias, because it gives undue weight to the Argentine position by minimising the UK position. Does anyone have any objection to saying: "The Falkland Islands form a UK overseas territory. They are claimed by Argentina." Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 19:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
My proposed sentence was not ideal and could be altered, but I can also see how any change may not improve the article too much. As an aside, I am increasingly finding examples, such as this one, of subtle inaccuracies in many sources and articles about the Falklands that create a false impression of the situation. It is as though a type of fake news has been taking place with assertions made that have only an element of truth to them. Throwing in a misleading statement is so easy to do whereas countering every example takes up so much time. The 1833 'expulsion' is an example of this misinformation. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 18:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I edited the article based on the suggestions. Please indicate what "subtle inaccuracies" are creating "a false impression".-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 18:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
It is a common mistake to attribute the discovery of the islands to british explorers as the first european visitors. Just naming a relevant source: "Mapamundi" (1529,Diego Ribero) reflects the existence of the San Antón islands in the same geographic location discovered by Fernando de Magallanes and Esteban Gómez in a ship called "San Antón". Jhon Davis went to Malvines or Farkland Islands in 1592.
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the Malvinas name. They're not called that. They've never been called that. 2A02:C7F:70A6:7D00:554F:7E85:1DC5:BFEF ( talk) 11:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
As we at the Spanish Wikipedia decided to split the article into the British Overseas Territory ( administrative division) and the archipielago ( landform). So, do you think would be a good idea to split this article too?
-- Amitie 10g ( talk) 01:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I must have missed something. Where was the discussion for the article move from what it is (Falkland Islands) to what appears to be a disruptive move? What's the reason for this? OrangeJacketGuy ( talk) 01:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello. As I said earlier, it is necessary for this project article, the impartial nomenclature used by the United Nations, since this territory is under dispute between two countries. Nomenclature used in all languages, including english. Furthermore, this title adopted by the UN, in addition to being widely used, seems to be the most impartial for the project. Ismael Silva Oliveira ( talk) 15:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The UN's considerations are neutral because give equal space to both sides of the dispute. If impartial considerations are not welcome, what would they be?
The ideas of a British islander? Or the ideas of an Argentine on the continent? When I read this entry for the first time, it immediately caught my attention the way it was presented, almost completely omitting the situation of the dispute and consolidating only one side. See,
Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform to defend a point of view in a dispute. The definitions of the United Nations in this dispute are neutral, and
are in agreement with the fundamental principles for the existence of this project.
Ismael Silva Oliveira (
talk)
17:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the demonym “Falklander” should be added to the quick facts because it is used within the article. It also has a Merriam-Webster entry. Comm.unity ( talk) 04:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I see no problem with your suggestion, I support it. -- James Richards ( talk) 13:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
JeridoMaster ( talk) 17:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
change "Falklands islands" to "Falkland Islands" even in English translation
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
Kahastok
talk
18:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
[3] This seems somewhat of a contrived edit to me. It appears on the face of it designed to work the cites that RJensen has been seeking to add to a number of articles, even though they weren't used in the article. I don't see it adds anything to the article and sits rather poorly in that section. Given this is a Featured Article, we should be striving to maintain article quality. However, sticking to my 1RR policy bringing it here for additional review. W C M email 14:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Wee Curry Monster: Without expressing an opinion on the merits, I'll just mention two points: when you raise a Talk page discussion about a specific editor as you did here with User:Rjensen, even if it's a side issue, let alone naming the editor in the section header, you are bound to notify them of the discussion, so they can respond. Secondly, User:Roger 8 Roger, with respect to "pushing an agenda", allow me to point out that Richard J. Jensen is a professional historian and creator of H-Net. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Mathlog, here Secondly, User:Roger 8 Roger, with respect to "pushing an agenda", allow me to point out that Richard J. Jensen is a professional historian and creator of H-Net. Thanks, you are taking my comments here But, I have not looked into this in depth or to what extent the editor is or is not pushing an agenda. out of context. I was giving mild support to Jensen's addition. My concern was that they were out of place, which others have also stated. Being wary of editors pushing an agenda on anything to do with the Falklands is a necessary requirement on WP, because agenda pushing comes readily from both sides, but more blatently from the Argentine side. Now that I know now who you are, Rjensen and I note with some interest your reference to Great Britain, when the UK or GB and Ireland would both be more correct; and I am slightly puzzled as to why the islands became world famous in 1982 due to Britain's actions. Why didn't they become famous when the Argentine's invaded? I accept they became more famous once the UK sent a fleet, but they were still already headline news. About the 5-10 scholars, their opinions need to be published and used here to carry ant weight. Although I can see a point in having Jensen's edits in the culture section, on further consideration I also agree that they would be better put elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia, not a text book and should be structured accordingly. However, I welcome any debate about this because it is better than most of the other, usually low key, topics that are discussed. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 07:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
When I read this, my immediate reaction is, who cares what Ezequiel Mercau thinks? The claim above is that this is a brief summary of the scholarship
. But it isn't. The proposed text in the article is quite explicit on this point. It's the POV of a single historian.
So, why should this particular historian's POV occupy such a large proportion of this section? I don't see it. Do reliable sources on the topic of the Falkland Islands routinely give this much WP:WEIGHT to the POV of Ezequiel Mercau? Surely not. So why is he special, that his POV gets expounded in detail and every other historian's gets ignored?
And TBH I'm not convinced the text even makes sense. Instead a predominant sentiment is a close "kith and kin" identification with the people of Great Britain and their "loyalty to the Crown."
What does that even mean? Is it claiming a close "kith and kin" identification
with the British people and with the British people's "loyalty to the Crown"
? Or it is claiming a close "kith and kin" identification
with the British people and with the Falkland Islanders' "loyalty to the Crown"
? How precisely do you have a close "kith and kin" identification
with an abstract noun phrase such as "loyalty to the Crown"
, when "
kith and kin" means "friends and family"?
For these reasons I don't think this is an appropriate text to add to a featured article. Kahastok talk 18:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Americo Vespuccio may have visited the islands in 1502 as they are depicted on his map [Kohen y Rodríguez, 2005. The Malvinas/Falklands between history and law refutation of the British pamphlet "getting it right: thereal history of the Falklands/Malvinas" p. 31]
- In 1520, Alonso de Camargo landed on the Island and lived there for almost a year from February 4th 1540 until the 3th of December 1540 [Goebel, Julius (1983).The Struggle for the Falkland Islands.New Haven and London: Yale University Press. P 32-36]
- The first british landing was said to be attributed to John Davis [Freedman, Lawrence (2005). The Official History of the Falklands Campaing. Whitehall Histories: Government Official History Series. Volume I: The Origins of the Falklands War. Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5206-7. page 3]
- Several maps already existed of the Islands by the time of John Davis landing or any following landing after him [Kohen, Rodríguez, p. 32; 2005, Goebel, p. 56; 1983] (Referred before in this talk post)
- The most unquestionable visit was made by the dutch Sebald de Weert in 1600 [Freedman, Lawrence (2005). The Official History of the Falklands Campaing. Whitehall Histories: Government Official History Series. Volume I: The Origins of the Falklands War. Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5206-7. page 59-60] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
1. I do not think is full of errors, as some of their sources are reliable, specially those recording historical documents. I guess is not accepted and disregarded as it contradicts points that do not suit the british claim over the island, but this is my personal opinion. I am going to have a closer look and investigation to their work asap.
2. I wrote that he MAY have, because of course is not sure weather he was there or not. The claim of forgery is not based on the Sorderini letter of the alleged voyage of 1497–1498, (in 1497-98 it is imposible to have maped nor see the southern tip of South america, but later). It is based on Vespuccio voyage of 1502 and even maybe to the trip of 1503 which indeed occur but is unknown if Vespuccio was there or not. So following his records made by him of the americas we can see depicted some islands believed to be the Malvines/Falklands. I think is worth mentioning this on the article because it is not sure if he was there or not. But it indicated that some explorers had at least came around the area.
Leaving it as "Claims of discovery date back to the 16th century, but no consensus exists on whether early explorers discovered the Falklands or other islands in the South Atlantic"(this would also include Strong by the way) as an overly vague referrence that seems to make those discoveries less important in order to make Strong landing stand out as "the first" landing when is disputed internationally to have been so. The voyage of John Strong is also quite unlikely to have been the first and is highly disputed as being the first recorded landing. It's in fact only accepted by British sources for obvious claim reasons, but non-british sources considered previous landings such as those recorded by the expedition led by the ship "Obispo de Plasencia", in which the tripulation went to land in the Big Island of the archipelago that the spanish sailors even named as "Puerto de las Zorras" where they lived for over 10 months. Other sources also indicate the first landing to be a that of a French. [ Lorenz, Federico (2014). «Capítulo 02. Pero ¿quiénes las descubrieron?». Todo lo que necesitás saber sobre Malvinas. Buenos Aires: Paidós. p. 27. ISBN 9789501204049.] and to that we have to add the Dutch Landing on the Islands in 1600
3. Camargo lived for over one year in the islands as it has been recorded in Goebel work as well as in the Kohen-Rodriguez work. I think even the later make reference to Goebel who is, i think as for now, the first to have writen about it. The landing is then writen in both sources. I am going to explore more sources other than this two if I can. This cannot be taken as not likely when there are records that indicate them living there for over a year in 1540. Felix Riesenberg is definitely not a reliable sources as the same point to disclaim Kohen-Rodriguez work is a conjecture presented as fact. There is no clear work that indicated they didnt lived in the Malvines rather than the Isla de los Estados. There are just ideas not uniformely accepted by historians. Specially since Felix Riesenberg wasnt a historian himself but a marine writer. So his work shouldn't be taken above those of historians.
We should also bear in mind that the Magellan expedition is said to have gone by the islands (and maybe set foot on them) and I will explore more sources about it.
According to some sources I checked, the name "Falklands" was given by Strong to the strait among the Islands and not really to them proper. However the name was later used to name the archipelago as a whole. The first map showing the Islands with that name was a Dutch map. [Caillet-Bois, Ricardo R. (1982). Una tierra argentina: Las Islas Malvinas. Buenos Aires: Academia Nacional de la Historia. p.22] and [ Lagos Carmona, Guillermo. Andrés Bello, ed. Los títulos históricos. p. 422.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
British and American historians do support the claim but Spanish and French, or South American historians do not support it. American support is mostly based on cultural affinity. So basically Strong claim is not undisputed but very much disputed, and is no near international accord among historians. So you must include Strong in the sentence "
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request for the total area; currently showing 12,200 km^2 to be edited to 12,173 km^2. Sources: 1. https://www.google.com/search?q=size+falkland+islands&oq=size+falkland+islands&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60l2.2845j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 2. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=size+falkland+islands 190.215.16.230 ( talk) 00:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
See Evidence of prehistoric human activity in the Falkland Islands, based on a midden mound on New Island, dating to 1275 to 1420 CE, likely created by the seafaring Yaghan people. Probably merits incorporation into the article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
150 C.E is not prehistioric. "Indigenous people likely visited the islands for multiple short-term stays, as opposed to long-term occupation, according to the UMaine researchers. " So not this does not say they did, it says they might. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The article says "Wendy Morton" but these things change quickly. It is now the Minister for European Neighbourhood and the Americas, who is Chris Heaton-Harris. -- 2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:C9E8:7D9:690A:AFB6 ( talk) 16:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Wee Curry Monster: gf reverted my gf edit of Monarch to monarch. Per MOS:JOBTITLES, capitalisation should only be used for an official title, not just a role/office. Monarch here is just a description: there's no such title in any act of the UK parliament ( [5]), and its occurrences in secondary/devolved legislation are just as an ordinary noun with a lower-case m (e.g. [6]). The equivalent generic title is Sovereign (e.g. [7], [8]) which does take a capital when used as a title. So I recommend either using monarch with a lower-case m or, if a title is preferred, Sovereign with a capital S. Charlie A. ( talk) 08:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
new governor has been appointed since 23rd of July 2022. The name is Alison Mary Blake. details can be found at /info/en/?search=Alison_Blake Papathimas ( talk) 12:05, 22 September 2022 (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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
"Most Falklanders favour the archipelago remaining a UK overseas territory, but its sovereignty status is part of an ongoing dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom."
There is no dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands, the above section is misleading in that it may encourage the reader to believe there is validity in the Argentinian claims. There isn't, full stop. I propose the following instead:
"All Falklanders, with a tiny minority excepted, favour the archipelago remaining a UK overseas territory. Argentina currently disputes the sovereignty status of the islands, a claim entirely without merit." 14.0.224.252 ( talk) 06:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The proposed text wants to present one of the opinions of an ongoing dispute in wikipedia's voice, which goes against the neutral point of view policy. We have to describe the existence of a dispute and who says what, but without trying to settle ourselves who is right and who is wrong.
This is a featured article about a controversial topic. Let's try to keep its quality. Cambalachero ( talk) 12:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Declaring something to be "the POLAR OPPOSITE of strong POV" - in CAPS no less - is a pretty strong point of view to hold isn't it? Chaheel Riens ( talk) 10:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Can this section and background be added into the profile on the Falklands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.134.126 ( talk) 10:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It is with some dismay that I find myself distracted from editing and creating content on Wikipedia, to deal with a tiresome and petty editing dispute, of the sort that led me to leave Wikipedia some years back for quite some time. I recently made some edits and additions to this page, such as adding references, making some minor wording changes here and there, as well some adding more information where I felt it was necessary and appropriate, as well as splitting some of the sections into sub-sections so that the page is in line with every other country/territory page on Wikipedia. I also linked the numerous specific topic pages (Geology, Climate, Islands etc.) to the main page, plus added the navigation box, so that people might actually be able to find these articles. All edits were overturned twice with no discussion, then referred to some 'Incident' board for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Having being on Wikipedia since 2004, and reverted the removal of my edits on this just page just once, I'm not quite sure this qualifies, but hey ho.
If I had been making major changes to the text, or editing information about the sovereignty dispute in a partisan fashion, I could perhaps understand. I was merely making small but definite improvements, exactly as I have done to many, many other pages without comment. It seems that the FI main page is to be frozen in aspic, with only some self-appointed editors allowed to change it. I have no doubt that if similar edits had been made to a group of islands that didn't happen to be subject to a controversial territorial dispute, they would have passed without comment.
To be perfectly honest I can think of so many better ways to spend my time then engaging in an edit war over a remote group of islands I only have a passing interest in, so please feel free to carry on browbeating anyone who dares to edit this page and I'll move on and carry on making improvements to other pages. Sdrawkcab ( talk) 23:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Generally I think this article is considerably better than many other FI articles and editors who have made it that way deserve credit. About today's edits - have the islands ever been treated separately, politically, as east and west? I cannot recall seeing this done. It is often stated that the French and Spanish settled Port Louis on EF and the British on the WI (or Saunders which is associated with WF), but that does not mean there was any intent, or thinking at the time, that the settlements were divided into the two halves. Did the 1770 agreement with Spain, specify an EI-WI split, or just that the British presence at Port Egmont was left as is with sovereignty left to one side? I wonder if the later writings about the matter, including here, are assuming there was an EI-WI divide, because it is often mentioned that the settlements were on the separate halves, and that a form of synthesis has occurred that is not backed by the facts. Or is the error just here with WP. Perhaps relevant texts just mention the two main islands to specify location of the settlements and it is just WP that is taking it a step further into a political separation? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 21:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
That is what I have always assumed, never a separation. I mentioned it because Tomas8024 is the latest editor to state that a separation existed. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The idea of such a separation is a vast inference from a small amount of fact.
We need to always remember the wider context when we discuss these points. In this era, the Falklands were basically at the end of the world. Argentina wouldn't take control of Patagonia until the Conquest of the Desert in the 1870s. The nearest significant European settlements - I think Viedma in the 1830s, Chiloé in the 1760s - were several days' voyage away across some of the most dangerous seas in the world.
And we can probably safely assume that the FI as a whole never had a resident permanent population over a hundred until well after 1833. We're not talking about cities here. None of these early settlements that today's politicians make vast claims about, will have consisted of more than a collection of huts.
In this context, it's quite easy to see how the British might end up with a settlement on Saunders Island, and the French a settlement at Port Louis, both claiming the entire archipelago without conflict. Not because there was some kind of formal separation between East Falkland and West Falkland, but simply because the settlements were 85 miles (137 km) apart and the populations were small enough that there was no reason why they would bump into each other. Kahastok talk 18:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Both this and the one about de armed conflict articles say that there is a name for the islands (Falklands) and its spanish translation. This is wrong, because Malvinas is the name of the islands. Is there an endless discussion about wich one is the true name? Yes, but meanwhile, BOTH NAMES MUST BE INDICATED. It should say "Falklands/Malvinas" in replacement of "Falklands". This is the way in which the article has been written in wikipedia in Spanish, determined after a discussion that here seems not to have existed.
The way in which this article was written is absolutely impartial. And the fact that someone have blocked the possibilities of editing it, disgraceful and repudiable. -- Kambus ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
What is exactly under discussion here? There is a name for the island in English language, and there is another in Spanish. Translation, two standalone names... which is the difference, other than a semantic one? What does it propose to change in the way the article is actually written? Cambalachero ( talk) 14:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to add, both names are of British origin. "Malvinas" comes from Saint Malo, a town in France named after a Welsh saint, and "Falkland" comes from the Scottish nobleman Viscount Falkland. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0C:5BC0:40:109E:6C4F:7968:F789:DDCD ( talk) 10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion over the latest changes - that I've also contributed to. My reasoning is outlined in my edit summary: "If it's agreed that the terms mean effectively the same thing, and the article linked is the "invasion" article, then the pipe description should match" It is indeed Weasel wording to link to the invasion article, but attempt to soften the description by simply calling it an "occupation". Chaheel Riens ( talk) 08:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually he described it as weasel wording to link the invasion article, then call it an occupation. Personally I would agree. So to be blunt, your comments are not accurate and I would say that could well be perceived as a personal attack. Now look what's happened, we're now discussing editors instead of content.
I for one prefer to call a spade a spade not an earth moving implement. Argentina invaded, using military force, the correct description is invasion. W C M email 15:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
You mean to tell us that the sentence <<"In April 1982, Argentine military forces occupied the islands">> lacks clarification and "does not necessarily have military connotations"? It seems clear to me that all of this stems from your belief that "occupation" is a "softening" of the term invasion. However, as indicated by International Law, both terms do not have the same meaning. As others have indicated here, an occupation is always preceded by an invasion, whereas it is not certain that an occupation may follow an invasion. In other words, your logic is premised entirely on a fallacy—that's the biggest joke in this discussion.-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 16:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
"The United Kingdom and Argentina both claim the Falkland Islands" is the first sentence in the subsection. Similar wording is used in other articles. To me, this is misleading if not inaccurate. To claim something implies one does not properly have it. This is not the case with the Falklands where full sovereignty is exercised by the UK. Therefore, the UK does not claim the islands, it has them. Argentina on the other hand does claim them because it does not exercise any control over them. The quoted sentence would work with an area such as Kashmir where both India and Pakistan each exercise control over half its area but each claims the whole area. The sentence would also apply to an area under occupation, where full practical control might be with the occupying force, but that control was not accepted by a large proportion of the local population. Some might say that using the quoted sentence amounts to bias, because it gives undue weight to the Argentine position by minimising the UK position. Does anyone have any objection to saying: "The Falkland Islands form a UK overseas territory. They are claimed by Argentina." Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 19:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
My proposed sentence was not ideal and could be altered, but I can also see how any change may not improve the article too much. As an aside, I am increasingly finding examples, such as this one, of subtle inaccuracies in many sources and articles about the Falklands that create a false impression of the situation. It is as though a type of fake news has been taking place with assertions made that have only an element of truth to them. Throwing in a misleading statement is so easy to do whereas countering every example takes up so much time. The 1833 'expulsion' is an example of this misinformation. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 18:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I edited the article based on the suggestions. Please indicate what "subtle inaccuracies" are creating "a false impression".-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 18:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
It is a common mistake to attribute the discovery of the islands to british explorers as the first european visitors. Just naming a relevant source: "Mapamundi" (1529,Diego Ribero) reflects the existence of the San Antón islands in the same geographic location discovered by Fernando de Magallanes and Esteban Gómez in a ship called "San Antón". Jhon Davis went to Malvines or Farkland Islands in 1592.
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the Malvinas name. They're not called that. They've never been called that. 2A02:C7F:70A6:7D00:554F:7E85:1DC5:BFEF ( talk) 11:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
As we at the Spanish Wikipedia decided to split the article into the British Overseas Territory ( administrative division) and the archipielago ( landform). So, do you think would be a good idea to split this article too?
-- Amitie 10g ( talk) 01:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I must have missed something. Where was the discussion for the article move from what it is (Falkland Islands) to what appears to be a disruptive move? What's the reason for this? OrangeJacketGuy ( talk) 01:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello. As I said earlier, it is necessary for this project article, the impartial nomenclature used by the United Nations, since this territory is under dispute between two countries. Nomenclature used in all languages, including english. Furthermore, this title adopted by the UN, in addition to being widely used, seems to be the most impartial for the project. Ismael Silva Oliveira ( talk) 15:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The UN's considerations are neutral because give equal space to both sides of the dispute. If impartial considerations are not welcome, what would they be?
The ideas of a British islander? Or the ideas of an Argentine on the continent? When I read this entry for the first time, it immediately caught my attention the way it was presented, almost completely omitting the situation of the dispute and consolidating only one side. See,
Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform to defend a point of view in a dispute. The definitions of the United Nations in this dispute are neutral, and
are in agreement with the fundamental principles for the existence of this project.
Ismael Silva Oliveira (
talk)
17:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the demonym “Falklander” should be added to the quick facts because it is used within the article. It also has a Merriam-Webster entry. Comm.unity ( talk) 04:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I see no problem with your suggestion, I support it. -- James Richards ( talk) 13:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
JeridoMaster ( talk) 17:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
change "Falklands islands" to "Falkland Islands" even in English translation
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
Kahastok
talk
18:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
[3] This seems somewhat of a contrived edit to me. It appears on the face of it designed to work the cites that RJensen has been seeking to add to a number of articles, even though they weren't used in the article. I don't see it adds anything to the article and sits rather poorly in that section. Given this is a Featured Article, we should be striving to maintain article quality. However, sticking to my 1RR policy bringing it here for additional review. W C M email 14:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Wee Curry Monster: Without expressing an opinion on the merits, I'll just mention two points: when you raise a Talk page discussion about a specific editor as you did here with User:Rjensen, even if it's a side issue, let alone naming the editor in the section header, you are bound to notify them of the discussion, so they can respond. Secondly, User:Roger 8 Roger, with respect to "pushing an agenda", allow me to point out that Richard J. Jensen is a professional historian and creator of H-Net. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Mathlog, here Secondly, User:Roger 8 Roger, with respect to "pushing an agenda", allow me to point out that Richard J. Jensen is a professional historian and creator of H-Net. Thanks, you are taking my comments here But, I have not looked into this in depth or to what extent the editor is or is not pushing an agenda. out of context. I was giving mild support to Jensen's addition. My concern was that they were out of place, which others have also stated. Being wary of editors pushing an agenda on anything to do with the Falklands is a necessary requirement on WP, because agenda pushing comes readily from both sides, but more blatently from the Argentine side. Now that I know now who you are, Rjensen and I note with some interest your reference to Great Britain, when the UK or GB and Ireland would both be more correct; and I am slightly puzzled as to why the islands became world famous in 1982 due to Britain's actions. Why didn't they become famous when the Argentine's invaded? I accept they became more famous once the UK sent a fleet, but they were still already headline news. About the 5-10 scholars, their opinions need to be published and used here to carry ant weight. Although I can see a point in having Jensen's edits in the culture section, on further consideration I also agree that they would be better put elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia, not a text book and should be structured accordingly. However, I welcome any debate about this because it is better than most of the other, usually low key, topics that are discussed. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 07:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
When I read this, my immediate reaction is, who cares what Ezequiel Mercau thinks? The claim above is that this is a brief summary of the scholarship
. But it isn't. The proposed text in the article is quite explicit on this point. It's the POV of a single historian.
So, why should this particular historian's POV occupy such a large proportion of this section? I don't see it. Do reliable sources on the topic of the Falkland Islands routinely give this much WP:WEIGHT to the POV of Ezequiel Mercau? Surely not. So why is he special, that his POV gets expounded in detail and every other historian's gets ignored?
And TBH I'm not convinced the text even makes sense. Instead a predominant sentiment is a close "kith and kin" identification with the people of Great Britain and their "loyalty to the Crown."
What does that even mean? Is it claiming a close "kith and kin" identification
with the British people and with the British people's "loyalty to the Crown"
? Or it is claiming a close "kith and kin" identification
with the British people and with the Falkland Islanders' "loyalty to the Crown"
? How precisely do you have a close "kith and kin" identification
with an abstract noun phrase such as "loyalty to the Crown"
, when "
kith and kin" means "friends and family"?
For these reasons I don't think this is an appropriate text to add to a featured article. Kahastok talk 18:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Americo Vespuccio may have visited the islands in 1502 as they are depicted on his map [Kohen y Rodríguez, 2005. The Malvinas/Falklands between history and law refutation of the British pamphlet "getting it right: thereal history of the Falklands/Malvinas" p. 31]
- In 1520, Alonso de Camargo landed on the Island and lived there for almost a year from February 4th 1540 until the 3th of December 1540 [Goebel, Julius (1983).The Struggle for the Falkland Islands.New Haven and London: Yale University Press. P 32-36]
- The first british landing was said to be attributed to John Davis [Freedman, Lawrence (2005). The Official History of the Falklands Campaing. Whitehall Histories: Government Official History Series. Volume I: The Origins of the Falklands War. Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5206-7. page 3]
- Several maps already existed of the Islands by the time of John Davis landing or any following landing after him [Kohen, Rodríguez, p. 32; 2005, Goebel, p. 56; 1983] (Referred before in this talk post)
- The most unquestionable visit was made by the dutch Sebald de Weert in 1600 [Freedman, Lawrence (2005). The Official History of the Falklands Campaing. Whitehall Histories: Government Official History Series. Volume I: The Origins of the Falklands War. Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5206-7. page 59-60] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
1. I do not think is full of errors, as some of their sources are reliable, specially those recording historical documents. I guess is not accepted and disregarded as it contradicts points that do not suit the british claim over the island, but this is my personal opinion. I am going to have a closer look and investigation to their work asap.
2. I wrote that he MAY have, because of course is not sure weather he was there or not. The claim of forgery is not based on the Sorderini letter of the alleged voyage of 1497–1498, (in 1497-98 it is imposible to have maped nor see the southern tip of South america, but later). It is based on Vespuccio voyage of 1502 and even maybe to the trip of 1503 which indeed occur but is unknown if Vespuccio was there or not. So following his records made by him of the americas we can see depicted some islands believed to be the Malvines/Falklands. I think is worth mentioning this on the article because it is not sure if he was there or not. But it indicated that some explorers had at least came around the area.
Leaving it as "Claims of discovery date back to the 16th century, but no consensus exists on whether early explorers discovered the Falklands or other islands in the South Atlantic"(this would also include Strong by the way) as an overly vague referrence that seems to make those discoveries less important in order to make Strong landing stand out as "the first" landing when is disputed internationally to have been so. The voyage of John Strong is also quite unlikely to have been the first and is highly disputed as being the first recorded landing. It's in fact only accepted by British sources for obvious claim reasons, but non-british sources considered previous landings such as those recorded by the expedition led by the ship "Obispo de Plasencia", in which the tripulation went to land in the Big Island of the archipelago that the spanish sailors even named as "Puerto de las Zorras" where they lived for over 10 months. Other sources also indicate the first landing to be a that of a French. [ Lorenz, Federico (2014). «Capítulo 02. Pero ¿quiénes las descubrieron?». Todo lo que necesitás saber sobre Malvinas. Buenos Aires: Paidós. p. 27. ISBN 9789501204049.] and to that we have to add the Dutch Landing on the Islands in 1600
3. Camargo lived for over one year in the islands as it has been recorded in Goebel work as well as in the Kohen-Rodriguez work. I think even the later make reference to Goebel who is, i think as for now, the first to have writen about it. The landing is then writen in both sources. I am going to explore more sources other than this two if I can. This cannot be taken as not likely when there are records that indicate them living there for over a year in 1540. Felix Riesenberg is definitely not a reliable sources as the same point to disclaim Kohen-Rodriguez work is a conjecture presented as fact. There is no clear work that indicated they didnt lived in the Malvines rather than the Isla de los Estados. There are just ideas not uniformely accepted by historians. Specially since Felix Riesenberg wasnt a historian himself but a marine writer. So his work shouldn't be taken above those of historians.
We should also bear in mind that the Magellan expedition is said to have gone by the islands (and maybe set foot on them) and I will explore more sources about it.
According to some sources I checked, the name "Falklands" was given by Strong to the strait among the Islands and not really to them proper. However the name was later used to name the archipelago as a whole. The first map showing the Islands with that name was a Dutch map. [Caillet-Bois, Ricardo R. (1982). Una tierra argentina: Las Islas Malvinas. Buenos Aires: Academia Nacional de la Historia. p.22] and [ Lagos Carmona, Guillermo. Andrés Bello, ed. Los títulos históricos. p. 422.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
British and American historians do support the claim but Spanish and French, or South American historians do not support it. American support is mostly based on cultural affinity. So basically Strong claim is not undisputed but very much disputed, and is no near international accord among historians. So you must include Strong in the sentence "
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request for the total area; currently showing 12,200 km^2 to be edited to 12,173 km^2. Sources: 1. https://www.google.com/search?q=size+falkland+islands&oq=size+falkland+islands&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60l2.2845j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 2. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=size+falkland+islands 190.215.16.230 ( talk) 00:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
See Evidence of prehistoric human activity in the Falkland Islands, based on a midden mound on New Island, dating to 1275 to 1420 CE, likely created by the seafaring Yaghan people. Probably merits incorporation into the article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
150 C.E is not prehistioric. "Indigenous people likely visited the islands for multiple short-term stays, as opposed to long-term occupation, according to the UMaine researchers. " So not this does not say they did, it says they might. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The article says "Wendy Morton" but these things change quickly. It is now the Minister for European Neighbourhood and the Americas, who is Chris Heaton-Harris. -- 2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:C9E8:7D9:690A:AFB6 ( talk) 16:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Wee Curry Monster: gf reverted my gf edit of Monarch to monarch. Per MOS:JOBTITLES, capitalisation should only be used for an official title, not just a role/office. Monarch here is just a description: there's no such title in any act of the UK parliament ( [5]), and its occurrences in secondary/devolved legislation are just as an ordinary noun with a lower-case m (e.g. [6]). The equivalent generic title is Sovereign (e.g. [7], [8]) which does take a capital when used as a title. So I recommend either using monarch with a lower-case m or, if a title is preferred, Sovereign with a capital S. Charlie A. ( talk) 08:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Falkland Islands has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
new governor has been appointed since 23rd of July 2022. The name is Alison Mary Blake. details can be found at /info/en/?search=Alison_Blake Papathimas ( talk) 12:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)