This page 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. |
The first paragraph of the article should also include the French name Ille Malouines as this is still the name used by the French and French speaking countries.
Try telling the French post office anything else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.248.193.146 ( talk • contribs)
I disagree. The French name is the original name for the islands (Iles Malouines, from the port town of St. Malo in France), and is the origin for the Spanish name "Malvinas". I think it's definitely more relevant to include it than it is to include the Chinese name or any other silliness. The name in other languages is bound to be a local variation on either Malouines or Falklands anyways. 24.201.253.66 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to stir up the hornets... but I've made a (very) minor change to the lead. I have changed "The Malvinas" to "the Malvinas", as it is not correct to capitalize "The" in this case. (Check out this Argentine government page.) There was a previous reversion of this change when another editor "de-capitalized" the "the", with a summary note about the consensus version. However, I cannot find a reference in the archives as to the use of "The", and I don't think it is correct to capitalize it here. (We've been having a similar discussion over at Moon for a while, as there was some debate as to whether the name is "Moon" or "The Moon".) Anyways, if there is a part of the discussion that covered capitalization, please point me to it, and I'll certainly apologize if I've made a mistake. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my comment seemed abrupt, it was simply meant to be concise, it took a lot of discussion and hot air to achieve a consensus that everyone could live with. Frankly, what the Argentine government says does not matter, the Falklands are British. However, in order to keep everyone happy the orignally agreed wording and style should remain intact. There used to be a warning in there to that effect. Having gone through the exercise one would hope it is not necesarry to the can of worms.
I got banned from the Spanish wikipedia for posting a picture of a roadsign to Stanley which some mistakenly believe has another name. The people of Whitby would be dissapointed. -- Gibnews 14:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why the line 'also called the Malvinas' should be included at all. The Falkland islands are British and have never been officially Argentinean. They're only called Malvinas in English by British-hating anglophobic idiots who'll think of anything to say in order to insult the British. It doesn't matter how Argentina refers to the Falklands, unless included in a subcategory designed to state that in Argentina, and the Anglophobic sphear of humanity, the islands are called the Malvinas. To say 'also known as the Malvinas' is far less relevant even than saying Germany is also known as Deutschland, whereas this is the name of the country in its native language. Enzedbrit 10:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on South America at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#South America whose scope would include the Falkland Islands. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following from the intro "are British citizens and support British sovereignty" since this is clearly making a case for British sovereignty of the Islands, when the intro should be neutral. If that statement is allowed, then it would only be fair to present the case of the other side as well, such as saying something along the lines of "Argentina however maintains this and that". --Bobobobo, 24 Dec 2006
I know it is a long long read, but speed-read this http://www.falklands.net/FalklandsCorruption.shtml -- and tell me if you don't think this should be somehow mentioned in the Politics section of the article. I don't mean exactly as that article describes things. The reason I post this in talk and not touch the main page is because I'm in no position to figure out the relative importance and/or accuracy of the above. I'm also in no position to properly put the above article into a proper context wrt the whole situation on the island with respect to democracy, accountability, and justice. The above is clearly a one sided POV. We need someone who has enough information for the non-POV.
But if the information in that article is not distorted, it's clear that the Island has enough independence from British justice such that a level of grossly un-democratic and underhanded corruption can exist without any checks or balances. I'm also unhappy about the statement that it's a port of call for cruise ships because of all the penguins, and yet the Islands government has merrily done absolutely nothing while 80+% of the population has starved to death over the past 10 years -- while places like Chile and Argentina are able to protect their penguin populations from a similar fate without badly affecting their fishery industries.
I'd love to hear a more independent "in the know" opinion on that article's claim in the 8th paragraph about the re-distribution and concentration of wealth due to "secret" meetings - "Much of the division of wealth which exists in the Falklands today stems from these dealings."
It's also quite disturbing to hear of a Brit being denied citizenship and fleeing to Argentina because he's afraid for his life.
CraigWyllie 18:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Its certainly suspicious that he has gone to Argentina and set up a website making allegations about corruption in the Falkland Islands. However they can legally deny residence to people, whatever their nationality. Whatever this might be a topic for 'panorama' but is not really for wikipedia. -- Gibnews
Its certainly true that Brits dont have any more automatic residence rights in Falklands than they do in Gibraltar, SqueakBox 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"The great majority of islanders are of Scottish and Ulster Scots descent."
In researching Falkland history, I believe this statement to be true, but could not find any online sources that can be cited. Gohiking 23:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that I in any way disbelieve that a broad majority of Falklanders reject Argentine claims, but isn't it a bit strange that the source of the claim in the intro is a UK government website? ( [9]) Wouldn't it be better with some media or academic reference? -- Soman 12:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are many who dont like the brits very much.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/L/2003/A/un030636.html (United nations Decolonization Comittee)
JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, petitioner, said he was a Falklands Islander who had lived on the Argentine mainland for several generations. Since the turn of the nineteenth century, Argentina had welcomed immigrants from around the world. Argentina had just elected a new president and Argentine democracy was slowly maturing. Record crops, herds and the increase in the wool industry made him optimistic about Argentina’s economy, despite its foreign debt. In southern Patagonia, where most Falkland Islanders had settled, there was a promising future in tourism. Many farms in Patagonia had had a good season, and the possibility of working and sharing experience with farms on the Islands would be interesting.
He said Argentina’s legitimate claim to sovereignty could not be denied. An agreement must be reached. The rights of Argentina’s claim to sovereignty would not be dropped. He requested the United Kingdom to respect resolutions on the matter to find a just and lasting solution to the controversy.
ALEJANDRO JACOBO BETTS, a petitioner from the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said the issue was one of sovereignty, and the only parties involved in the dispute were Argentina and the United Kingdom. The cause of the problem was the illegal occupation of a territory by an occupying Power and the resulting claim by the prejudiced State for the full recognition of its pre-existing legitimate sovereignty. The only acceptable basis on which to find a just and definitive solution to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas question was through the application of the principle of territorial integrity. The dispute began in 1833, when British military forces invaded and occupied the Islands by force, expelling the original Argentine authorities and inhabitants, he said. Since then, Argentina had never consented to that violation of her territorial integrity. The principle of self-determination could not be utilized to transform an illegitimate occupation into full sovereignty, under the protective shield of the United Nations. He wondered why, in an age when colonialism was being eliminated and mutual respect between nations was being consolidated, did the United Kingdom persist in maintaining its occupation of the Falklands/Malvinas in detriment to its relations with a friendly State.
-- Gibnews 09:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
To put it bluntly, nobody cares what Alejandro Betts and James Lewis think. --
RaiderAspect 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Your statement reflects ONLY your personal opinion.
The thought that nobody cares what Alejandro Betts and James Lewis think, sounds more like a childish temper tantrum on the part of those who dislike Argentina rather than the true reality that the islands will one day return to Argentinian control via diplomacy, or other means.
If the uk refuses to act on a resolution passed ordering a decolonization, then why should the rest of the world respect any other resolutions?
Seems a little one sided.
Argentina's claim of sovereignty over the islands, is based on more than just their rightful ownership.
Statements have been made regarding the occupation by the uk of the islands as a security risk for Argentina, and all of "nuclear free" Latin America
[10] by high ranking officials.
Argentina's claim also gives the people living there rights and privileges. Never has Argentina made threats against those living in the islands, and they guarantee the rights of those living there.
What you mean like the "right" to speak Spanish and the "right" to drive on the right, though I must say the statement that Argentina has never threatened the English speaking people there is clearly untrue unless you consider that the Falklanders didnt feel threatened by the military occupation of their land by heavily armed troops they were unable to communicate with. Sounds like so much Argie propaganda to me, SqueakBox 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As to the claim that one day the islands will return to the Argentinians, this is not a forum and how can such a silly statement possibly help us produce a better article, SqueakBox 18:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The book La verdad sobre las Malvinas, mi tierra natal (The truth about the Falklands, the land in which I was born) was published by AJ Betts in 1985. English source: http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/falklands/ar-war.htm , Argentine sources: a lot. — Argentino ( talk/ cont.) 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if the Falklanders want to speak Spanish and drive on the right they could always go to Argentina. I believe that you dont have to speak Spanish to achieve anything official in Gibraltar, ie you can pay your taxes etc in English, an option the falklanders were not given, SqueakBox 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This clearly dates from 1833 as between 26 and 33 they had sovereignty they didnt claim it and before that it was uninhabited, if they were claiming it as there's while it was uninhabited 16-26 please source your claim here first, SqueakBox 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you are making this up as you go along. How can more than one editor unilaterally change consensus (lol), the article log confirms absolutely nothing about a consensus version, besides which this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Also my alleged question shows nothing as I havent asked a question. We need good sources that Argentina disputed the sovereignty claim before 1833, Jewett didnt claim sovereignty he gained it, cant you see the difference? claim implies dispute and there is no evidence of a disputed claim to sovereingty before 1833, and if there is please source, as your consensus claim is meaningless and is not a substitute for a source, SqueakBox 18:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
And how exactly does this edit [11] exactly change that consensus, and what does it have to do with what you have been arguing about. I added in 1810 relating to Argentine independence, added in pursuit of this claim re the argentine invasion, added the word sovereignty andf then added with English and not Spanish being the language used on the islands. How does what I wrote affect either the consensus or what you are arguing about today. I hope this isnt merely trolling on your part buyty I dont have a clue what you are on about, my edit seems very uncontroversial. Or are you just claiming nobody can edit the opening, as if you are this is somwething I oppose very strongly, of course we can edit the opening, there is no way any policy remotely saying we cant do so, SqueakBox 20:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following hidden text as having no consensus
The first sentence has been established as a compromise consensus between many editors in a long and difficult discussion (see talk page). Trying to either change the sentence to include less (e.g. "The Falkland Islands are an archipelago") or to include more (e.g. "The Falkland Islands, ( Spanish: Islas Malvinas) are an archipelago") will be reverted on sight without discussion by many of the editors part of the discussion. If you have overriding NEW arguments, please bring them to the talk page first!
What was there implied wrongly that Malvinas is a common usage English word which I have replaced with a ref that it is a Spanish translation of Falklands, SqueakBox 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would rather wait for further consensus before doing that but I certainly dont disagree with you, SqueakBox 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Tharkun is tright. As Jonathunder refuses to join in the discussion here I am revertin g him. To say there is consensus on the talk page while refusing to comment here doesnt strike me as the rigth attitude-- Swuekilafe 17:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well we are discussing. It seems that people arent happy with the opening (3 editors at least) and nobody is defending the current version, people are jsut reverting without giving a reason. Why even administrators engage in mindless edit warring without even coming to the talk and then claiming consensus here against the wishes of 3 editors here today confuses me--
Swuekilafe 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What the Argies think is of no relevance. We might as well say London, also known as Londres, for the relevance it has to the topic at hand-- Swuekilafe 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As the person responsible for the actual wording of the introduction, I will defend it in the following terms; Personally I also do not give a damn what the Argentines think, because The Falkland Islands are British with the consent of the people who live there, and their opinions are paramount. However it is also true that in a large number of places the alternative name is used, and that is reflected in the ISO designation for the territory. The purpose of Wikipedia pages is to inform people and the wording used did that in a manner which made it clear what the official name was and that there was a common alternative. Those who wish to change it should use their time and energy in improving other things rather than fighting over a consensus which so far has held up well. We argued long and hard over this matter, lets move on.
-- Gibnews 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont agree. Malvinas is a Spanish translation of the English word Falklands which I referenced and added. I agree we should keep the word Malvinas but also that we should keep the sourced information that it is a Spanish translation which I added, SqueakBox 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the template as in spitye of Gibnews wanting to move on I dont believe we should. I have asked for a citation that Malvinas is an English word whjich is what the text says now. Regarding the hidden text, its the most bad faith and aggressive text I have seen, SqueakBox 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Jonathunder would care to explain why he has removed an NPOV tag when their is a dispute and also why he has removed a cite request that Malvinas is an English word, SqueakBox 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I see this cite request has been removed. The problem is that on other Falkland talk pages when people try to cite Malvinas as an English word they fail dismally, offering gems such as LaRouche (banned from wikipedia for extremism) and the Socialist Workers Party. I, on the otehr hadnd, have refernced that it is a Spanish translation of an English word. What happened to verifiability. People removing cite requests always makes me uneasy and I havent seen a scrap of justification for doing so, SqueakBox 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well not everyone can live with it. I know how wikipedia works and am one of its most daily editing committed editoers so this isnt going to go away. 2 editors have expressed a more extreme pov than me so how is consensus already achieved, SqueakBox 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Its about presenting facts with sources to back them up and your failure to do this kind of invalidates what you are saying. Not sure what you mean about watching boring things or about persistence, eventually unsourced information wioll always be removed as that is the wikipedia way. You still need to source that the Malvinas is an English name or accept that it is a Spanish word and accept the refenced statement I added yesterday, SqueakBox 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The term "Malvinas" does indeed exist in English, though it is pretty rare. It means something like, "the name the Argentines tried to impose on the Falklands when they invaded in 1982." Its connotations are decidedly negative. TharkunColl 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you please give us a source for this, Jonathun, eg an online map or something we can all see. Personally I would be happy to see the current version were it backed up with an impeccable source (not LaRouche), SqueakBox 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I suggest you reference these in the text and then remove the hidden text notice, as if it is solidly referenced it shouldnt be the subject of any disputes, and by offering refences we make the article into a better quality, more relaible piece, SqueakBox 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Gibnews 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
quote: because ISO incorrectly includes it in their designation. lol, excuse me ? what a long time mistake without correction!! . Also, I dont understand why I was revert, if my version was just like the current one but with the references. Jor70 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I imagine ISO have the same problem of disputes we have here in correcting this mistake. However, I have moved your reference to the section that describes the usage of the name, so its not wasted. The present introduction is a compromise and generally seems to hold, so best not to try and improve it and move on to other things. -- Gibnews 09:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well this debate has moved on from Decemmber. Why remove referenced material Gibnews? I have reverted your unexplained blanking of refenced material provided by Jor. Also to suggest we m,ove on when there is a POV tag on the article re this issue doesnt seem right, SqueakBox 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate it's a touchy subject, but I;ve just tried to tidy up the citations using templates - to make them easier to see and understand for those nto familiar with the topic. hope that doesn't cause offence
It wa Swuekilafe who placed the NPOV tag I believe, SqueakBox 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
On The New Treasure Hunt (a mid-1970s United States television game show produced by Chuck Barris), there was once a 'klunk' prize (one of several booby prizes on the show), a one-year residency in the Falkland Island.
72.82.177.130 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is the following text included in the Name section?
There's not even a paragraph break! What about doctors? Nurses? Veterinarians? In its current context, this information is a ""non sequitur."" This bit of trivia, if true (sources?) is interesting, but totally out of place. Perhaps if it were in a section about their remoteness and the challenges presented by it. . . ?
Upon reading the article, I was surprised that its neutrality is in question. It seems to me that it provides the right information in the proper tone, including the whole name issue.
I've tried to read most of the current discussion about whether to include "Malvinas" in the article or not and grant that there are many valid points pro and con. Since I have no vested interest on the claim issue, I can't say that I read it all, and I don't really know who is advocating what point.
As it reads now (Feb 23, 2007 at 12:45 a.m. Eastern) the name thing is handled well. I conclude this because I think the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform the uninformed. While accuracy and lack of bias are important, it is not imho an encyclopedia article's function to present what is the ""truth"" about something.
"Malvinas" is not just any foreign word, as the intensity of the whole discussion demonstrates, so whether it is an accepted part of the English language is not dispositive. The article's title does not include the M word, so it is not misleading as to the legal status.
That the Falklands are also called "the Malvinas," or "Las Malvinas," is an accurate statement that does not imply or conclude anything about sovereignty. If you wanted to be extremely picky you could add that it is sometimes called . . . -- or even: sometimes referred to as . . . .
If several authoritative sources list them as: the "Falklands (Malvinas)," then it is appropriate to include that designation. Consider our uninformed readers. Is it relevant and important or helpful to let readers know that the name Malvinas and Falklands, for better or worse, are associated with each other in fact? If readers of this article subsequently turn to the CIA Fact Book or run across some UN documents (or have come to this article from such a document), the readers will know that these Falkland Islands are the very same.
I ran across this article when my son wanted to know the date of the Falklands war. I was in college then, my son not even a gleam in a parental eye. If he was reading this wiki article, would I and his teachers want the information about the Falkland Islands to include the M word? Absolutely.
I would remove the bias alert, leave that portion of the article as is, and turn this energy and productivity to more pressing issues. Ileanadu 05:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC) ileanadu 23 February 2007
I would have rather hoped we could move on from arguing about the name of the territory. We have already discussed at length before arriving at this form of words (see the archive) that the CIA factbook is not a definitive source. I spent a lot of time correcting glaring errors in it in relation to Gibraltar, and in fairness to them they listened. The flag they showed was totally wrong at one stage and they mentioned a railway that vanished just after WW2.
Citing Wikipedia as a source is recursive, and surely against the rules ?
There is an argument that ISO used the word Malvinas (not Islas), however they are an international body and subject to lobbying by those who wish to promote the alternative name. I am told that South American telephone books omit an entry for the Falklands to avoid upsetting anyone.
However, long and hard we argued until an agreeable version was found and it has survived, so please can we leave it alone? Surely there are better things to do - like perhaps removing the references to Puerto Argentina and the description of the natives as malvanises in the Spanish Wikipedia. -- Gibnews 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In support of omitting the 'Islas' bit I draw your attention to:
http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/tstories/jsmith/images/road%20sign%20malvinas.jpg
As an example of the use of the M word
Looking at the CIA world factbook, the recent entry on Gibraltar:
Spain agreed to allow airlines other than British to serve Gibraltar, to speed up customs procedures, and to add more telephone lines into Gibraltar. Britain agreed to pay pensions to Spaniards who had been employed in Gibraltar before the border closed in 1969. Spain will be allowed to open a cultural institute from which the Spanish flag will fly.
Uh no, Spain allowed Spanish airlines to fly here, the telephone lines remain the same but the ITU code of 350 is used, the pensioners get an increase. As for the Spanish Flag, it may fly briefly IF it gets planning permission and is asbestos.
CIA 3/10 for accuracy. Wikipedia is by contrast correct.
Their factbook contains nonsense. -- Gibnews 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
'Settlement' implies a recent and transient urbanisation, however the general principle in English is that a town with a cathedral is termed a city.
Now see:
http://www.jim-mclaren.co.uk/new_page_3.htm
-- Gibnews 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.penguintravel-falklands.com/tours/gypsy.htm
referring to a 'Stanley City tour'
http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/samerica/fk.htm
Capital City Stanley (1,989)
-- Gibnews 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Lots of people reading this article right now and many will think wikipedia supports Argentina. Malvinas is unacceptably mentioned before Falklands and then Malvinas is ofered as a second common name for thre islands. When I try to reach a compromise it is always reverted, hence we need the POV tag, SqueakBox 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to pop this back in, but could we maybe reword the introductory sentence like we had before "Falkland.... (Spanish: Malvinas)"?? This seems to work well in the Jerusalem page and I don't see why it can't work here. After all, neither "Al-Quds" nor "Malvinas" are english common names for the places, are they? It doesn't (and it shouldn't) imply equal footing but instead offer an alternate name for the islands in the intro. Call it being Politically Correct if you wish. I won't debate here, I don't want to, just maybe put forward an example that works in another controversial page and maybe we should imitate. If somebody wants to do it, go ahead. If the consensus is negative, then let's not. Again, I probably won't get into a debate of "why yes - why not" since we've all been there and done that. I just think it's better the other way but I can accept that majority rules.
Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Malvinas is also a name used in English, not just Spanish. unsigned by User:Poi dog pondering
Not agree, Malvinas is not a translation, its the name for non-spanish speaking people too, we already discuss this. Jor70 10:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy that articles should be stated in a NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW and saying this is "Foreign" when many sources of it in native English exist does not follow the policy and is just erroneous.
(un-tabbing)
Wow, looks like the discussion going on here is civil but the page is going through an edit war.... That's why I stopped editing frequently.
I agree with you Gibnews on that "Malvinas" shouldn't be given equal footing, that's why the parenthesis and the italics (not bold) should do the trick. Again,
Jerusalem is a good example of a contentious issue being resolved semi-amicably.
I really can't believe that if editors resolved Jerusalem we can't agree on something here. After all, the FI conflict is well over and the Judeo-Palestinian still goes on.
Whatever we do, people, let's remember that WP is not a battleground, just an encyclopedia that should benefit the whole world. Nobody benefits if we suppress facts or we hide terms just because of political allegiances. Let's also remember that a) The FI are British 100% until the islanders decide otherwise, b) English WP is the "biggest of 'em all" therefore Non-Native English speakers form an interesting percentage of all WP readers (big enough so we should consider them) and c) nothing we do here will take or give merits to an idea over another... The world will keep on turning no matter what wording we choose. Take care.
Sebastian Kessel
Talk 23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have read (in a British encyclopaedia) that John Davis landed on the Islands in 1592, which would pre-date the alleged first landing of 1600; also that sovereignty was claimed (but without a plaque!). The confusion in sovereignty may thus originate from the French selling something they didn't own. The French also similarly tried to claim ownership of another uninhabited South American territory that had already been discovered and claimed by another European nation - Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Maybe those attempting to resolve this disputed page (good luck with that!) can investigate this apparent 1592 landing. 80.225.120.192 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Check out this dicussion in the Port Stanley Page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stanley%2C_Falkland_Islands#The_Name_of_Port_Stanley
Gantlord 09:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
At the top the population is listed as 3060,in the Demographics section however,it is listed as 29-something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.22.84.93 ( talk) 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
I noticed the GDP per capita listed in the article (and the article on the economy of the islands) is quite a bit lower than that reported by the Economist on 4 April 07 which puts it at ~$50000 per person ( the article). I'm hesitant to change the amount listed in the two articles owning to the huge difference in the two numbers ($25k v. $50k), however the Economist feels like a reputable source. Can anyone shed some light into the two numbers and perhaps provide a government statistical agency source? Imlepid 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
On October 8, 2006 a population census was held in the islands (sources La Nación (in Spanish), Mercopress). It would be great to update the figures, and to get an official source for the data. User:Ejrrjs says What? 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
Literally this means that of all the European explorers widely credited with sighting the islands, de Weert was the first. I doubt very much that this is the intended meaning. The intended meaning is probably either that de Weert is widely credited as being the first person (ever, in the whole world) to sight the islands (and he happened to be a European explorer), or that de Weert is widely credited as being the first European explorer to sight the islands (i.e. there is some possibility that Native Americans sighted it earlier - I don't know how likely that is). Perhaps someone who knows the intention could fix up this sentence? Matt 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
This article should be named Falkland Island/the Malvinas to counterbalance the current British POV throughout the article. In fact quite a bit of this article needs rewriting.-- Vintagekits 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well one or two that explicitly state it is a common usage term in English would be a starter, something you havent offered up till now, SqueakBox 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I remind you the purpose of this talk page is to discuss items for inclusion on the Falkland Islands page and not for issuing threats against other editors. You have posted messages accusing the British of being 'thieves' and expressing the view that Gibraltar should be Spanish. On that basis you seem to have an anti-british agenda. -- Gibnews 00:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I ask
Vintagekits to come to the talk page, and I find off-article arguments brought here, ending up with "... a personal campaign of racism ...".
SqueakBox, I think you have much less to admonish
Vintagekits for, than you would have
Gibnews, if you looked at the above objectively. An outside observer sees "Lets get down to business ... how many links do you want ..." countered with what looks like baiting from
Gibnews. I mentioned to
Vintagekits that people can get hung up on even one word, well 'racism' is one of those words. Do we hear a 'oops' from anyone?
I can understand some amount of frustration, given the number of times the issue has been raised before. However, the above is excessively demonstrative. 'Lol' is not a good opening to any line of inquiry. Ask for their best evidence, wait for it, look at it, and then say how and why you think it doesn't change the status quo. Getting more facts/refs is always a good thing. The above is clearly "not a good thing." Shenme 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does the article say "also called Malvinas"? The following are equivalent:
Why doesn't the article adopt the same nomenclature as the CIA World Factbook [15]? The Falkland Islands, also called Las Islas Malvinas etc etc The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I am extremely pleased with the current status of the page. Congrats to all editors involved!!!. Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I missed the last days but was already a consensus for this. It had been talked for months. Malvinas is also part of the United Nations name given to the islands (
http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/geoname.pdf) therefore it is not only spanish. Also, e.g., is it often used in chinese english media. That why we agreed to put also called Malvinas ( italics and w/o spanish neither islas ) . I think this issue came out again because some people want to push las islas or something new but it was already a debate about this
Jor70 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The people that Vintagekits talks to are probably not British. However, the official name of the territory remains the Falkland Islands and nothing else. That it has an alternative name is a fact, and the way to indicate that it does not have the same standing was the way we were showing it before. Labeling it as 'Spanish' is not really correct as its not a matter of language. The original version we had was more precise. -- Gibnews 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The point of the sentence is to state the name of the territory. The official name is the Falkland Islands, because that used by the residents and is used in the published Laws of the territory.
This is the English language Wiki and its not necessary to translate everything into other languages, however as the name promoted by Argentina is used its appropriate to indicate the English language version of it The Malvinas That is not Spanish.
The compromise has held between the Argentine and nationalist British elements, although it may not suit editors with an agenda of whacking anything British, or those who want to provoke dispute for the sake of it.
(this was added in the wrong place earlier as the thread is too long)
-- Gibnews 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The islands are an overseas territory of a member of the EU, and therefore have an official connection to the EU. The EU has many official languages, one of which is Spanish. And in EU law, the official Spanish name for the islands is Islas Falklands. TharkunColl 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
i understand you never got out of british empire, but you have to know that in all south america, not only in Argentina, the name of the island are Gran Malvina and Isla Soledad, and both Islas Malvinas.... with their capital in Puerto Argentino... if you want to put another name like stanleyland... do as you wish... but there is one thing i'm sure... Malvinas is not a french word... Mallouies is... not Malvinas... Malvinas is, was ando will be a Spanish term, just like Puerto Argentino. What you had just said is like saying that chocolate is spanish, not english... when it is almost both. YOURS.
This is not really the place to debate concepts like that, however the territory is one thing and people are another, people come from all over the place and because the Falkland Islanders happen to come from the UK they have no less a right to self determination, and the right to name their homeland whatever they like than residents of other countries in the continent created by immigrants. -- Gibnews 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway can we get back to the point, the page says (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) I think the correct Spanish is 'Las Malvinas' and not that so either the Spanish bit should go or the Islas should be replaced. Thats what the writing on the wall says
-- Gibnews 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
the name, doesn't matter, the important thing is what is it. i hope what i had wrote help you guys....
Pablo (in english paul, but is not my name, is it?)
Shouldn't the field British overseas territory at the infobox say 1833? I don't think it's worth changing it just because of some failed invasion followed by a two-month war -- Hetfield1987 ( Wesborland | James Hetfield) 08:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Given San Loranzo del Escorial Treaty and the Masserano Conventions, it should read "illegal invasion day: 3-1-1833" - Argentini an 22:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Why an independence date to begin with? The Falkland Islands have never been independent. They've been a colony of someone or other since the Europeans arrived. -- MacRusgail 01:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I recognize that, 25 years later, the Falklands is still a pretty touchy subject for Brits. For the rest of the world (except Argentina maybe) the Falklands are a distant, sparsley populated land that nobody wants to visit. A typical joke in America at the time was "The Falkin' Islands? Which falkin' islands are you talking about? There are lots of falkin' islands all over the world!" If the names are that touchy, it would still be interesting to compare the Falklands map on the English version (which has a glitch in it when you try to enlarge) to the Malvinas map on the Spanish version of this article. Maybe a Falklands/Malvinas article can be created. Mandsford 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there actually a point here? I for one can't find it. -- RaiderAspect 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Gibnews 08:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This guy is 100% right. We are Spanish/Italians.
This guy seems to be unable to think. If Argentina considered the Falkland Isladers and a "bunch of ex-pats" then why did the militar force in 1982 not expell them? Why did they treated them as People born in Argentine soil, therefore, Argentinians??? -- Argentini an 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not the place to debate these issues, and the reference to 'ex-pats' by the red herring is unhelpful. What is needed is to respect the views of others and the right of people to live wherever they want and to form part of states democraticlly. If one looks back far enough our ancestors are all from somewhere different to where we live now. We all have the right to live in peace and the other things expressed in the UDHR. -- Gibnews 08:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The article Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province reads as if Argentina controls the Falklands and South Georgia. Even if their claim is considered to be rightful, their control over the Falklands in the 20th century was a matter of days. So claim or no claim, that article is skewed.-- MacRusgail 01:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Although there is apparently no functioning railway on the Falklands, I came across a reference to "the Falklands Islands Camber Railway" at http://www.mclaren.gs/links_page.htm. It references a link to " Martin Coombs' narrow-gauge railway site". Unfortunately that site is no longer in use & access to the contents via the Internet Archive WayBackMachine has been blocked. 80.1.88.1 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
" The Falkland Islanders, as well as many others[attribution needed], tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive, as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982. Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] The use of English names is likewise offensive to many Latin Americans and supporters of the Argentine claim. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" "
Should the above be limited to what the Falkland people say and move the rest to the article about the dispute (and even place a link to the article.)? So, it might be better to write:
" The Falkland Islanders, tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive[attribution needed], as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982 ( see Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands). Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] "
Brusegadi 22:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Nop, this article is about the Islands not the people of the islands and we are explaining in the paragrapah both the offensives way to call them. Jor70 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"Some Falkland islanders tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be slightly offensive, as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982. Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] The use of English names are likewise considered offensive by some supporters of the Argentine claim. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" to avoid offending either party."
WikipedianProlific (Talk) 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I like that wording too. I just think that as it stands, it really reflects the animosity and lack of consensus found on the talk page. I do not find either term offensive, but I understand that some people might. Yet, we have to have the article be neutral. (Lets try to have overall neutrality and not neutrality that results from including two very opposing and extreme views that cancel each other out.) I suggest the above without the "slightly":
"Some Falkland islanders tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive, as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982. Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] The use of English names are likewise considered offensive by some supporters of the Argentine claim. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" to avoid offending either party." Brusegadi 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That sentence's citation currently links to an article from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom. Sorry, the British government is not a source with an neutral view. I'm taking down citation #4 and replacing it with citation needed. - Tocino 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just happened across the article, unaware of this discussion, and found the source to be incredibly biased, and have just removed it again. You cannot use the British government as a source claiming that the British government is the preferred of two claims to sovereignty. See the bit about disputed opinions on the NPOV page. Elcocinero 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Although its nice that people are eligible for citizenship, this requires consent.
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Article 15 Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
-- Gibnews 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
(Un-indent) You may wish to consider the situation of Northern Ireland as an analog. They are citizens, by birth, of the Republic of Ireland, and enjoy (?) the right to travel freely within all of the island of Ireland. I do not know whether British citizens of Northern Ireland may renounce their Irish citizenship, but it is certainly the case that they enjoy all the same rights and privileges as any other Irish citizen. Indeed, the current Irish President is from Northern Ireland. -- Semifreddo 18:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
--13:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting. However, our referendum was useful to demonstrate to others the strength of public opinion in an unambiguous manner; If nothing else it would settle disputes here where some claim its only the wicked British Government who say that the Islanders have not desire for integration with Argentina. When our frontier with Spain opened, they initially stamped passports and one was only allowed one movement each way in a day, so if you were unavoidably detained in a bar past midnight, the next day you could not come back until after midnight again. -- Gibnews 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Could anyone confirm which British/local accent it derives from, or even better upload a sound file so we can hear? Gazh 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Gibnews 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The Nootka convention is mentioned on the page as the British Government relinquishing sovereignty. At no point in the Nootka convention is the Islands discussed, the Falklands Islands are over 300 miles off the coast of South America. Also in 1771, a joint declaration was negotiated between the British and Spanish Governments to avert war, and the Spanish made restitution for goods confiscated in 1770 from the British who then re-occupied Port Egmont - Spanish recognition of British Sovereignty. The British Government has never relinquished sovereignty over the Islands, the withdrawal of forces in 1774 was as a result of the economic pressures from the American War of Independence. Reference to the Nootka convention is a frequent recourse by Argentinians arguing their case for sovereignty but has no basis in fact. I would suggest that that reference is removed.
OK as there has been no objection I've removed reference to the Nootka convention as its irrelevant. Added a link to indicate the reason for the British withdrawal in 1774. Justin A Kuntz 22:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I realise that the 1833 British return is an emotive subject. I would like to open a discussion about the common misconceptions. I would hope that people can contribute in a positive way rather than resorting to the usual accusations of "storming the beaches" I've seen elsewhere.
The common Argentine perspective is that the British arrived and kicked the Argentine settlement out. But that is not in fact the case. For instance the article here states "In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, repatriated the remainder of the Argentine settlement, and began to repopulate the islands with British citizens."
However, that is not quite what happened. The British return was a remarkably bloodless affair, Captain Onslow sailed into the harbour and handed the Argentine Commander a note asking him to remove the Argentine flag. Pinedo, the Argentine Commander, considered resisting but his forces consisted largely of British mercenaries who were loath to take on their countrymen. Deciding that resistance would be foolish Pinedo chose to withdraw, the British, in what at the time would have been considered a magnanimous decision, returned the colours to the Argentine forces on the Islands.
The settlers from Vernet's colony, some 20 in all actually remained on the Islands. William Dixon as Vernet's senior representative on the Island was chosen to be the British representative and issued with a British flag and flagpole. Brisbane, Vernet's deputy was allowed to return in March of 1833. By co-incidence the Beagle (Charle Darwin's Ship) happened to be in Port at the time and Brisbane presented his papers to Captain Fitzroy. Fitzroy was happy to accept his credentials as Vernet' representative and positively encouraged the continuation of the settlement.
The events that changed all this are usually referred to as the "Gaucho Murders". In August of 1833, a band of Gauchos led by Antonio Rivero ran amok murdering the senior members of the settlement. Their motivation is said to be resentment at the imminent re-imposition of law and order following months of lawlessness after the Lexington raid of 1831. The survivors fled to Turf Island from where they were rescued in October of 1833.
I would make two points. The usual Argentine assertion is that Britain expelled the settlers. That is incorrect, they were encouraged to continue by the British who respected their property.
The main reason that the remaining settlers departed is as the result of the Gaucho murders, ironically Rivero is now often regarded as an Argentine Freedom Fighter. For example http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/martinez.htm
A brief history is also available here:
http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html
I suggest that elements of the article as it currently written could be construed as favouring one side of a partisan POV and that some minor edits would enable a more neutral POV. Justin A Kuntz 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any information as to what happened to the survivors of the "Gaucho Murders"? I know they were rescued in the October but haven't found any information as to what then happened. Justin A Kuntz 18:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It might well be true that people in South America find the name "Falklands" offensive, but this is supremely irrelevent. This article is about the Falklands. TharkunColl 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line on this is that the article is about the Falkland Islands, if anything to do with it causes offence in Outer Mongolia, then it would be appropriate to mention that on the page about that place but not on the FI page. No doubt some people are offended that the British exist at all, tough. -- Gibnews 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
OK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive2
Quote:
It's not for us to get involved with the online debate, but for information, I am happy for you to reproduce the following:
"As you have correctly surmised, many people here would be insulted by the term Malvinas as it implies an element of Argentine authority. Conversely, the alleged Argentine insult of "Kelper" is considered quaint but irrelevant and raises no tensions.
"Without prejudice to any political debate, there is also a linguistic consideration and most people in the Spanish speaking world (not only Argentina) generically refer to the Islands as the Malvinas. ISO-3166 has us listed as Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
"Regarding other place names, there are Argentine names for Stanley whose historic basis is debatable as Stanley was founded around 10 years after British rule commenced in 1833. Also, we no longer use Port Stanley, just Stanley."
Regards,
Tim Cotter MSc BSc
Infrastructure Development
Falkland Islands Development Corporation
Stanley
Falkland Islands
Official position as quoted by an official of the Falkland Islands Government. Justin A Kuntz 00:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't difficult at all to find, in the interests of maintaining a NPOV surely it is important to take the time to do this without resorting to a reversion first. Justin A Kuntz 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
For now I've reverted to the previous consensus presenting both sides, I suggest that in line with the guidelines on disputed articles that a discussion takes place before edits. Justin A Kuntz 01:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else think "The island's residents reject the Argentine sovereignty claim[5] with the English language and names in common use rather than Spanish varients promoted by some foreign media." is pretty lousy wording? Apart from the obvious mis-spelling, the conflation of two completely different issues (language and sovereignty) is very disingenuous, not to say dishonest. Yet this is the wording people seem to want. Unless we can move this article on a little I will really need to take this further. We are trying to write an encyclopedia. -- John 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've put a summary backed up with references that the use of many Spanish names is considered offensive. I tried hard to do the same in reverse but the best I could come up with is this:
http://www.rampant-books.com/south_america_travel_tips/t_buenos_aires_argentina.htm
Any violent objections to the words. I've left a citation required tag in place, hopefully someone can come up with something better. Justin A Kuntz 12:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The rainfall is only given in inches, shouldn’t the mm also be given? I work it out to be 610mm. Normally I would just change the article but as this has reached featured status I wanted to check Rjd.1892 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Sources say that the Islands were a destination for some Acadian exiles of the 7 Years War (1750's) AKA "French and Indian Wars". The Acadians (French settlers) were removed by force by the English from Nova Scotia in the first such action in modern history (not disputed). According to these sources, the French established the name and the first successful colony in the Falklands with Acadian settlers looking for a place to go. After the Island was given to Spain, the French name was made to sound Spanish and the colony declined. Some of the modern population may even by decended from this group. This historical background needs to be confirmed and added. 67.71.188.199 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.188.199 ( talk) 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed reference to Nootka convention again. Discussion above about why it was originally removed. The interpretation put into the edit is pushing an Argentine POV. Justin A Kuntz 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Quick look at the history shows this user was responsible for previously inserting similar text pushing POV on August 4th. Justin A Kuntz 12:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Looked again, that was August 4th 2006, and this user has made very few edits. Is this a sockpuppet? Justin A Kuntz 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think thats a pretty good summary. Anyway we mention the link between the Argentine claim and the Nootka convention under Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Thats the place where the claim belongs IMHO. Justin A Kuntz 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Reverted the addition of the Nootka text again from the same user. Adding the Nootka text is the only contribution that user has made in recent days. Pointed to the talk page but this is apparently being ignored. Justin A Kuntz 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"The Nootka text itself is prima facie evidence of applicability. Do not revert 3rd time without citation."
If contributors are not happy with citing Wikipedia itself as a source of the text of the Nootka Sound Convention, it is also available here:
http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=267207
from page 664 Dab14763 18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Narson, if you say the reference "belongs on the sovereignty of the falkland island" article, you are making a conclusion that there exists relevance between Nootka and a claim of sovereignty in the islands. That itself is an assertion, whereby you believe "content X belongs in Y" while providing your citation to bolster that claim.
talk, the answers to your questions are not obvious to me - I simply think they're the wrong questions to ask, because no such questions were asked in a similar article (Louisiana Purchase) with similar vocabulary (treaty describing vast amount of applicable territory to the inclusion of its adjacent islands, without specifically naming the islands or defining the term "adjacent").
What is clearly happening here, to me, is that there is a pre-existing bias by a group of editors determined to keep any and all references to a historical event clearly related to the Falklands, out of the Falklands article. If NPOV was truly being employed here, the reaction wouldn't be "yeah....um, define 'adjacent'." This is purely semantics, reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "define 'sexual relations'" bit during the Monica days.
Both Nootka and LP's primary source text describe the applicable territory in great detail. The description fits the common-sense profile of Avery Island as an adjacent island - this case applies because it establishes how WP prevents these type of disputes, by demonstrating clearly than in a historical document describing a vast territory and adjacent islands, it means islands clearly adjacent to the coasts described - the information is included solely based on the primary source text, WITHOUT a requisite that the islands be listed by name in the primary source text, or that the term 'adjacent' be defined, or that the role of any third party be established.
Just the primary text, and its common sense definition. That is the standard for LP, it is clearly the WP standard, and I believe it applies here as well in a matter that settles this current dispute. Alex79818 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The History section of the article states the following:
"As a result of economic pressures resulting from the American War of Independence, the United Kingdom unilaterally chose to withdraw from many of her overseas settlements in 1774."
The American Revolution started in 1776. The cited source states only that Britain withdrew from most of its overseas installations as a result of economic pressures, and says nothing about the American war. I do not see how this could possibly be accurate, and in the meantime it looks like the American War of Independence claim is fabricated from whole cloth, since it isn't in agreement with the cited source. Rogue 9 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html
I've been working through the {{ Fact}} tags. I can confirm Scots and Welsh immigration but not Ulster Scots, so removed for the moment. If anyone has a reference feel free to add it back. Justin A Kuntz 10:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if i have missed something, but reference 24 - it is citing a book as a source, is this legitimate? Gazh 13:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers...
"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."
All references to the Nootka Sound Convention have been deleted by Justin A Kuntz, claiming these are Argentine POV edits. My contention is that this does not promote the Argentine POV, but rather constitutes a known historical fact regarding the island's history - which is even mentioned on the WP "Falkland Islands Sovereignty" page:
"The Conventions included provisions recognizing that the coasts and islands of South America colonized by Spain at the time were Spanish, and that areas south of the southernmost settlements were off limits to both countries, provided (in a secret article) that no third party settled there either."
First off, there is absolutely no reference to, or citation of, Article VI, Nootka (aka 'Tratado de San Lorenzo del Escorial') in any diplomatic, historical, or otherwise official Argentinean document stating a case for sovereignty of the islands - and I challenge anyone to come up with it. The fact is, the Argentine claim is solely based on uti possidetis juris.
Secondly, the applicability of Nootka (near Vancouver Island) to South America is clear from the text itself, as is the fact that Britain agreed not to re-settle the islands:
"It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain..."
Being that at the time of British withdrawal in 1776, the Spanish remained on the island through Nootka's 1790 signing, it follows that the UK would therefore be the only party that would not re-settle - how can the Spanish re-settle the island if they're already there? Are these now "islands adjacent already occupied by Spain"??
Third and last, both Spain and Britain revived Nootka in 1814, at the time there was no settlement by either party, so if both parties have then agreed not to re-settle the islands then how can this foster the Argentine POV, stating uncontested Argentine sovereignty? If anything, it would deal it a serious blow.
If you're going to revert someone else's edit, why not provide a citation? Why not discuss it on talk, instead of single-handedly deciding that "A" is a historical fact but "B" promotes a certain point of view?
Unless I'm mistaken, that's the reason WP exists. Alex79818 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Given the extensive response, I will attempt to respond to each individual point.
Point #1: “First of all the reference to the Nootka convention was not removed by myself alone, it was removed by consensus as shown above. I was one of the editors who put into the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, as it forms part of Argentine claims for the Islands. That is where it belongs. Do not accuse me of suppressing something that I clearly did not.”
Response #1: In reference to the 6 July 2007 removal and your claim to consensus, I point out that you wrote “I would suggest that that reference is removed.” BennyTec said he was going to sit back and wait. Apcbg linked the original text and TharkunColl then single-handedly concludes “this other power, of course, is Argentina” citing no sources which would indicate this as a prevalent point of view among historians or any other text. Then you and TharkunColl decide that it’s “irrelevant” and add a link to the British 1774 withdrawal (which itself is unclear as to how the 1774 withdrawal relates to the discussion of an event that happened in 1790).
So…two people agreeing on the same thing, one linking the text and a fourth that “sits back and wait”…this is what you call “consensus”?
I accused you of nothing. You clearly initiated the idea that it should be removed as “irrelevant” to the subject, no non-WP source was provided to bolster either yours of TharkunColl’s interpretation, and you removed it – the record clearly states that, as does my comment. As you well know, Nootka / San Lorenzo was in the ‘History’ section of the Article. It follows then that the assertion is that Nootka / San Lorenzo is a historical event of relevance to the larger subject which is the Falkland Islands. I’ve seen no citations nor any other evidence brought forward to bolster the POV and conclusion that Nootka has no historical relevance to the islands. Therefore I can only conclude your edit action, removal, must bolster its own unsupported POV.
Even BennyTec at the end says there should at least be a side-by-side section of text. The question in this matter is clear:
Does Nootka, as an established historical event, have any factual relevance to the islands? My position, by virtue of the text itself, is a resounding yes, the text itself being prima facie evidence of relevance.
Point #2: “Secondly the applicability of Nootka is your interpretation. Islands some 300+ miles off the coast of South America are not in the near vicinity of the Islands, the Falkland Islands are not mentioned and the convention only applies to new settlements, the British had settled on the Falklands prior to Nootka, had continued to claim sovereignty, and so Nootka is at best a moot point. So again your second point is pushing a POV.”
Response #2: Any text is open to some degree of interpretation, but the yardstick must be common sense. If a historical text from the 20th century refers to “North America”, would it be common sense that this reference includes the United States, or the State of New York, or the State of Georgia, even if not specifically mentioned? If a historical text from WW2 mentions the “Axis Powers”, would it not be common sense to infer from such text that Germany is one of the states being described, even if not specifically mentioned? Common sense.
What does it matter if the islands are not specifically mentioned in the convention? Neither is Vancouver, so by your reasoning, Nootka has no applicability there either because Vancouver is not mentioned by name. What does it matter if the islands are 300 miles off the coast – are we going to get into semantics now? How about the fact that the islands sit on the continental shelf of Argentina’s East Coast, or are located entirely within Argentine territorial waters. Or, instead of getting into semantics, how about looking at a map. This isn’t Shetland or Sandwich, or the Canaries we’re talking about, it’s the Falklands – and they look pretty darn adjacent to the eastern coast of South America. Again, common sense.
You state I am pushing a POV. If the British withdrew their settlement in 1774, and the Spanish remained, and later on both parties signed the convention in 1790, then it seems clear the only party to the convention who could possibly re-settle, or settle in the future (as intended at the time of entry upon agreement) are the British. This is not a POV - how can the Spanish, in 1790, re-settle if they’re already there? How would the clause apply to Spain at the time of entry into the agreement – am I to believe Spain agreed not to settle in the future a place where they already have a settlement?
Again, common sense. Clearly, in 1790, this applies only to the party that had no settlement at the time, the British. And in 1814, to both parties, being that neither had settlements – which I’ve stated before, and clearly demonstrates NPOV on my part.
What calls to question is your reference that “British had settled on the Falklands prior to Nootka, had continued to claim sovereignty, and so Nootka is at best a moot point.” I do not believe I should need to introduce the concept of linear time at this point, but I am compelled to respond to the above: The British indeed settled prior to Nootka. Then, later, they withdrew and continued to claim sovereignty prior to Nootka. Then, later, they agreed to Nootka. For a moment, let’s assume (for the sake of argument) that Nootka applies to the islands. Are you actually saying that…it’s a point of contention that Nootka happened after withdrawal?? Last I checked, 1790 was after 1774, meaning that in 1790 something happened that altered, or affected, the state of affairs as they were in 1774, and that something, under this assumption, would be Nootka.
That is the basic concept of a timeline, if I'm not mistaken. Japan didn’t win the war because the attacked Pearl Harbor. On December 7, 1941, Japan was definitely winning the war and scored a significant victory against the US – but then later signed a surrender treaty, which changed the state of affairs. Event A happens, then Event B happens, then Event C…again common sense, not my pushing a POV - just .
Point #3: “Thirdly as pointed out above Nootka was initially abandoned in 1795 and revived in 1814. Well Argentina was founded in 1811 so as far as Nootka is concerned, Argentina is a 3rd power under the Nootka convention, since Argentina had claimed the Islands, Nootka became invalid under the secret article. Its applicability to any British settlement is therefore null and void.”
Response #3: Who cares? The question here is not the role of Argentina, the question here is whether or not Nootka as a historical event has any factual relevance to the islands! Why? Because that is what you stated in your removal comment, without providing any citations:
“Removed reference to Nootka convention as irrelevant to Falklands Sovereignty claim. Refer to Talk discussion”
As you well pointed out, this is not the “Falklands Sovereignty” article. This is the History section of the “Falkland Islands” article. You made the edit, you provide no evidence or citations to support your challenge to the Nootka reference – and mind you, suppression is the least of the concerns I have at this point. Based on your arguments, I am unsure as to what your perception of a linear timeline entails. Not to mention the fact that you clearly believe Nootka is irrelevant “to Falklands Sovereignty claim” yet you freely mention that you were one of the editors who pushed for its inclusion in the “Falklands Sovereignty” page, where you now claim “it belongs”. How does this make sense, common or otherwise?
How can you say, in one discussion, that it is relevant to the context of Sovereignty to support your inclusion in the Falklands Sovereignty article, and in another discussion, that it is not relevant in order to delete it from the History section of the Falklands page?
Historically relevant or not? Which is it?
And for that matter, how do any of your arguments prove that Nootka’s applicability to any British settlement is therefore null and void? They don't. And what references and citations did you provide to support your challenge? None whatsoever. Clearly, it is not I who pushes for a POV.
Also, Argentina declared independence on July 9, 1816 – not in 1811, so I would suggest you check your historical sources.
What did happen in 1811, however, was the assumption of Francisco Javier de Elio as Spanish Viceroy of the River Plate, which if I am not mistaken, would have placed the islands adjacent to the eastern coast of South America in a territory south of parts of the same coast already occupied by Spain. My point is that this is Nootka’s definition, and Nootka is relevant to the islands – in 1790, in 1811 and in 1814. Argentina can’t become a 3rd power unless it first exists, and it didn’t exist until 1816, two years after the 1814 renewal of Nootka. How then is Argentina’s 1816 declaration of independence in any way related to this discussion, which aims to establish the historical relevance, or lack thereof, of Nootka to the Falkland Islands, at the time of the agreement’s signing and/or renewal?
Lastly, in questions to the invalidation of Article 6 by Argentina, the secret article clearly refers solely to the stipulation of Article 6 that the parties’ respective subjects “shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these (eastern and western) coasts (of South America) situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain”. Notice that in the secret article there is no mention of “and islands adjacent”, just the coasts. The secret article then continues by stating that Article 6 “shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power”…..where?.....”on the coasts in question”.
Any rational person would therefore deduce that, if in the article itself, the authors went to such specificity as to mention “the islands adjacent”, they would have therefore gone to the same level of specificity in the secret article – clearly, they did not. Again, the text speaks for itself, and is prima facie evidence of applicability. This is Spain and Britain we’re talking about here…do you honestly think the learned men who wrote up these contracts would commit a blunder that would leave such a gaping loophole? Perhaps, or perhaps not. Perhaps the islands weren’t so important…we can wonder all day and never know. What we do know, is that the invalidation clause of the secret article makes no mention of its applicability to “islands adjacent”, either in its jurisdictional language or its stated pre-requisites for invalidation – and in fact, goes so far as to specify that in the case of invalidation, Article 6 is not invalidated in its entirety, but rather, limits such effect only to Article 6’s stipulation of establishments on the coasts.
Point #4: “Fourthly, none of your sources actually support a link to the Falklands”
Response #4: Right. So, on a subject that is known to be controversial, you believe the best approach is to provide sources given by one of the party to the controversies.
So far, having been accused of pushing a POV, I’ve been able to poke holes at your argumentative conception of both linear time and context. Shall I now include the concept of impartiality? Please excuse if my response appears to be trolling, I am only responding in such manner to the effect that I have been accused of pushing a POV. Clearly, if the intent for the article’s text is NPOV, then citing official references to either party of the controversy is itself pushing a POV, in the inference that the cited party is “correct” and therefore constitutes an acceptable citation or source of non-factual interpretation. Again I ask, is this what WP was founded for? Is this what you call NPOV?
Point #5: “Fifthly virtually the only activity of the editor Alex79818 has been to put the Nootka convention into the Falkland Islands article. I would normally assume Good Faith but I would point out.
(1) in the first time you recently added the text, you claimed I removed the edit without consultation in talk. That wasn't the case, hence I assumed you did not bother to check.
(2) you put in back in today again without consultation in talk, again this does not indicate that you were behaving assuming my edits were in good faith. I therefore concluded that you were pushing a POV edit.”
Response #5: What does it matter my past activity? The only thing that matters in this case is whether or not my undo of your challenge was factually correct, i.e., whether or not Nootka is relevant to the Falklands' history. You must have been a first-time user at one point or another. My reference to your attempts to edit without consultation in talk was simply due to the fact that I was still getting used to WP at the time, and was clearly incorrect, as was my reinsertion. I attempted to talk with the limited knowledge I had at the time, which was to place a comment.
Still, I see no facts or citations on your part to support the conclusion that Nootka is not applicable. And, as you stated, this was in your view anyway. You conclude, and then just decide to revert the text?
Speaking of monarchies, who died and made you king? Pfainuk then states “It's up to editor wishing to add the text - that's Alex79818 - to provide acceptable and reliable sources”. Well I guess that you conveniently forgot to read the part that states “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation”. If there’s an article you find with text you want to challenge, then as the challenger to existing text, the burden of proof is on you to back up your challenge. The challenge, as stated, was:
“Removed reference to Nootka convention as irrelevant to Falklands Sovereignty claim.”
So where’s your proof? Two people agreeing on the same thing, one linking the text and a fourth that “sits back and wait”……that’s it?
Point #6: “Sixth, you claim that there is absolutely no reference to, or citation of, Article VI, Nootka (aka 'Tratado de San Lorenzo del Escorial') in any diplomatic, historical, or otherwise official Argentinean document stating a case for sovereignty of the islands - and I challenge anyone to come up with it. Well I take up your challenge and draw your attention to this link in the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands page http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/home.html, specifically En 1790, con la firma del tratado de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Gran Bretaña se comprometió a no formar ningún establecimiento en las costas tanto orientales como occidentales de América Meridional ni en las islas adyacentes ya ocupadas por España, cual era el caso de las Malvinas. (For the non-Spanish speakers thats an official Argentine Government document that claims the Nootka convention is relevant).
So once again, when I see an editor who has only published on Argentine related topics making such a claim I am not confident such edits are made in good faith.”
Response #6: Re-read my challenge: no reference of Nootka in any Argentina document stating a case for sovereignty. Read the title of the Article to which you refer: Antecedentes Historicos (historical precedents). Nootka is not mentioned in any of the successive articles, which specifically outline Argentina’s case for sovereignty of the islands, Argentina not having been a signatory party to Nootka.
Neither will you find such reference to Nootka as a case for sovereignty in Argentina’s initial protests of 1833 and 1834, nor in the 1841 redress to the Count of Aberdeen on the matter, nor in 1842, nor in the concession offer of 1848, nor in any of the diplomatic letters between December 1884 and January 1885, nor in the responses following British bestowment of colonial status in 1892, nor following the 1908 incorporation of South Shetlands/Georgias/Sandwich/etc which are also disputed by Argentina. You won’t find Nootka cited in favor of Argentine sovereignty in Argentina’s 1929 protest, nor in the 1945 statement to the UN for inclusion in the organization’s formative documents, nor in any diplomatic document to the UN since, or to the OAS for that matter. And you won’t find it in any of the direct negotiations that took place in the 1960’s, nor in the communications of the 1970’s, nor in the pre-war communications of the 1980’s, nor in any such Argentine document since the war.
You won’t find Nootka cited in the case for Argentine sovereignty in any official document. You won’t find it, because it's not there. Argentina isn’t a signatory. The question, both for the article you linked and the WP article we are now discussing, is one and the same:
Is Nootka historically relevant to the Falkland Islands?
Yes, clearly it is. Nootka, by virtue of Article 6’s “adjacent islands” clause, by virtue of both of the island’s sovereignty-disputing parties being signatories, clearly is relevant and applicable to the Falklands. Mention of Nootka is therefore proper in the History section of this article.
Point 7: “Seventh, apparently you seem to be of the opinion that I have to provide a citation that directly contradicts your POV. Sorry that isn't how Wiki works. YOU have to provide a citation to support your POV, something you have failed to do.”
Response #7: I heartily suggest you re-read WP:NOR. Again, here we come to the concept of the timeline. Event 1, I write reference to Nootka and cite source. Event 2, you find reference to Nootka. Event 3, you remove reference to Nootka. That means the citation burden is on you, because you're the challenger.
“All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation”.
You make the challenge. You provide the citation. Real simple, mate. No citation? No challenge--->text stays.
That’s how Wiki works.
Conclusion: “For all your attempts at Wikilawyering, its clear that what you're trying to do is turn wikipedia into a soapbox to push your POV over Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. That is not the purpose of WP. There is a reference to the Nootka convention, where it belongs in the Argentine claims of the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article. It merely states the facts, it isn't the synthesis of a published material to advance a position which is what you're trying to push here. Justin A Kuntz 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)”
Response to Conclusion: Wikilawyering…what happened to free and open discussion?
I’ll tell you what my point of view is, my point of view is that for one reason or another it seems that a group of people, for whatever reason, didn’t like a reference to a clearly relevant historical event, and so they decided to delete it without providing any citation or evidence that supports their challenge to the pre-existing text which they removed from the article, obviously without first achieving consensus (or else I wouldn’t be writing this).
Placing aside the logical fallacies that I’ve enumerated (timeline, context, impartiality, etc), and also placing aside my prior statement that, if anything, Nootka would deal any Argentina claim “a serious blow”, I seriously question the motives behind your demonstrated intent to exclude any and all references to Nootka from the Falklands article.
It is I who find it extraordinary, that all relevant text is simply deleted in clear violation of WP challenge protocol – without a single source pointing to Nootka’s inapplicability to Falklands insofar as they are physically located within territories described by Nootka’s text in great specificity. My edit provides both the primary source (Nootka text) as well as a secondary source (interpretation of Nootka) and is therefore clearly not OR. I did not ignore the hiatus from 1795-1814 and even went so far as to include the 1814 renewal. I ignored the secret article because it clearly did not mention “the islands adjacent”, and also specifically mentions the inapplicability would solely apply to Article 6’s “stipulation of establishments on the coasts.” Far from vague, the text is as specific as it could possibly be!
Honestly, do you really expect them to list every single archipelago in the western hemisphere by name?
You are right in that my edit unambiguously stated that Britain, and only Britain, gave up the right to resettle at the time Nootka was signed. Again, how can the Spanish re-settle a place where they’re already settled? Wouldn’t they have to leave first, and withdraw their existing settlement, in order to put up a new one? That’s not a POV, it’s simple logic. But it would play to the POV of someone who doesn’t particularly want Nootka to be mentioned in such an article, notwithstanding your admission that I did clearly state “it’s not relevant to either side”.
Again, who’s pushing a POV here, and who wants the facts to come out?
Finally, regarding uti possidetis, this is and always has been Argentina’s sole basis for claim of sovereignty over the islands. Is that viewpoint correct? Maybe, maybe not. But uti possidetis is indeed what they base their arguments on, so my statement is factually correct.
The discussion as to whether or not their uti possidetis argument holds water is probably better left to the Falklands Sovereignty article. But I will responds directly to your mention that “Argentina has to prove that it had title before 1833”. No, it doesn’t – you’re confusing uti possidetis with status quo ante bellum.
Uti possidetis is a principle that states that, after an armed conflict, a certain territory remains with it’s possessor at the time the conflict ends – in other words, to the victor go the spoils. In uti possidetis, the victor needs not demonstrate they had prior title, only possession at the end of the conflict – the conflict in this case being the Argentine war of Independence against Spain. What you’re talking about, status quo ante bellum, specifically requires the claimant to hold sovereignty prior to the conflict. Argentina, in claiming uti possidetis, therefore does not have to prove that Argentina had title before 1833, but rather that Spain had title before Argentine independence in 1816. In any case, Nootka covers settlements, and settlements are not the same as Sovereignty.
Nootka is clearly relevant. Seeing this from the Convention's text requires a measure of common sense, which I believe I placed in my reference, as well as a secondary source constituting prior research. If you have evidence to challenge the Nootka reference in the article you found, present it. Otherwise, since you claim to have an NPOV approach, I would urge you to re-insert Nootka’s reference in the Article. If you object to my wording, I’m sure we can come to an agreement Alex79818 07:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC).
Where exactly lies my synthesis, as you see it?
The Nootka text specifically states Article 6 is an agreement “with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent”. So is my synthesis that the Falklands constitute “islands adjacent”?
The text further describes “parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain”. So is my synthesis then that Spain had settled coastal territories to the north of the Falklands?
As I stated before, the text itself is prima facie evidence, giving a clear, specific and unmistakeable description of both parties, the territories involved, and terms. It was a convention between two parties, the text describes the territories involved as inclusive of the islands among many other territories, and it has absolutely nothing to do with a POV of a third party which wasn’t even in existence at the time of the convention.
And once again, I point to the timeline of edits. I did provide an original source in 2006 and this source was later added to by numerous edits, and my reference was not removed by anyone until you did so in July 2007. This means YOU are the challenger!
And if YOU challenge something that’s been in the article for months, with no prior challenge, and further additions by other editors, then it’s tantamount on YOU to back up YOUR CHALLENGE!
Whether or not Nootka forms part of Argentina’s claims is wholly irrelevant to the subject (and by the way I don’t agree). If you believe I’ve synthesized then you might as well go and edit every other WP article on treaties that refer to vast geographical areas but fail to name each territory individually, because by your arguments those are conjectures as well. The facts are simple – I made a contribution with citation, other users then added to my contribution as well as their own citations, the contributions lasted for months, and were then deleted due to an unsupported challenge as “irrelevant”, which then “magically” became POV, and in neither case provided a single shred of evidence or citation to prove the challenge.
You say it is historically irrelevant. Well if the text says it governs “the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent”, and you don’t agree the islands qualify, then what evidence do you have to bolster your claim of non-adjacency sufficient enough to remove an entry which was present in the article for months before you found it?
So far, I’ve seen nothing. So either present evidence for your challenge, or remove it. Someone, somewhere, must have said at one point or another that the Falklands are not adjacent to the east coast of South America – if not, then it is not I who synthesizes, it is you, and clearly constitutes OR.
The proof is in the pudding, and if you don’t have a POV of your own, then I’m sure you’ll come up with several such unbiased sources which will cause me to be quiet Alex79818 09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC).
Let me refer to WP:SYN
"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.”
Ok…so then it follows:
A – Reliable source (original text) - “with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent”…
…SO WHAT’S B? A map?
What am I adding to A to come up with C?
What source have I named that states the islands are adjacent to the eastern coast of South America?
None – because WP allows for common sense. That is "B". Just like it would not require specific reference to the Hudson River in an article that refers to North America – it’s understood that the Hudson River is located in North America.
[WP:SYN] states synthesis as A + B therefore C. I’ve stated no B and stated outright that your understanding of position C, an Argentine sovereignty claim bolstered by Nootka, makes no sense and is actually detrimental to the Argentine position considering that Argentina didn’t exist in 1814 and was not party to the Convention.
Further…using WP’s own given example:
“Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.
That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:
If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia.”
Therefore, applying the same principle to the Nootka inclusion
…let’s plug in the relevant parties “if Britain’s claim that the Spanish claim to sovereignty is false, this would be contrary to the Nootka Convention, in which Britain renounced any further colonial ambitions in the islands”. Such a paragraph clearly violates WP:OR, because it expresses the editor’s opinion that, given Nootka’s terms, Britain renounced future colonial ambitions in the islands. Therefore, to make the paragraph consistent with WP:OR, this precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic, specifically commenting on the British/Spanish dispute at the time of Nootka’s signing.
Had I made such an “A + B means C” statement, I could point out to my citation of USGNNET, a recognized nonprofit historical and educational resource website not promoting any viewpoint, nor belonging to either of the two disputing parties, quoting British Minister Stratford Canning as third-party reliable-source analysis in relation to the topic, commenting that
“The principles settled by the Nootka Convention of 28th of October, 1790, were…3d. That on the coasts of South America and adjacent islands, south of the parts already occupied by Spain, no settlement should thereafter be made either by British or Spanish subjects; but on both sides should be retained the liberty of landing and erecting temporary buildings for the purpose of fishing…The exclusive rights of Spain to any part of the American continents have ceased. That portion of the convention, therefore, which recognizes the colonial rights of Spain on the continents, though confirmed between great Britain and Spain by the first additional article of the treaty of 5th of July, 1814, has been extinguished by the fact of the independence of the South American nations and of Mexico. Those independent nations will possess the rights incident to that condition; and their territories will, of course, be subject to no exclusive right of navigation in their vicinity, or of access to them by any foreign nation."
[ [18]]
That's what I would say if I were supporting an Argentine POV....solely providing evidence that my work is not [WP:OR]. Except that I don’t need to say this, because my statement was not “A + B means C”.
My statement is simply “A says B”, making no mention of Argentine claims.
Again, my statement is far simpler:
“A (Nootka) says it applies to to B (the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent)”.
The Falkland Islands fit the common-sense description of B, and the article remained as such for months having so been bolstered by other editors’ contributions, which is not indicative of vandalism but rather consensus (go add that the islands belong to Italy and see how many other editors contribute sources).
Your challenge is still a challenge to pre-existing text. Your challenge clearly states my citation contains nothing relevant after myself and other contributors clearly saw relevancy. You believe this is due to synthesis but my statement is not an “A + B means C” statement, the defined requisite for WP:SYN, when my statement is “A says B”.
And further, you provide no evidence or citations to support your challenge of irrelevancy.
So again, you made a challenge, where’s your citations? Where’s your evidence?
"Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you."
I stated several times that I already have provided both evidence and citations, none of which conform to WP's definition of [WP:SYN] as stated by Justin A Kuntz. I've used specific WP examples to demonstrate that my citations both fully meet the requirement and in no way constitute synthesis.
I again refer you to [WP:NOR]:
"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you."
I am saying Nootka applies to the Falklands, which are islands adjacent to the east coast of South America. Nootka specifically says it applies to islands adjacent to the east coast of South America. Therefore I am not violating [WP:NOR] because the reliable published source, Nootka, makes exactly the same argument which I am reporting on.
Further, Justin A Kuntz made a direct statement that I am promoting a POV. [WP:NPOVFAQ] states regarding the issue of "lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete", that "Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V."
In turn, [WP:V], states that "When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references."
I have provided such citation. So how is my content (relevance) inconsistent with the reference (Nootka)?
It is with this approach that I believe your questions do not apply to the dilemma at hand, which is to examine whether or not Nootka as a historical event is relevant to the History of the Falkland Islands, by which I can say the following:
Nootka's text is self-explanatory. I think the better question to ask would be, "Do the Falkland Islands fit the text description of Nootka's territorial applicability?" If the point were to find a third-party interpretation for the descriptive text of any and all primary sources, then no articles could be published that way. I submit that Nootka's text describe a certain geographical area, and rather than attempting to conform the primary source to the situation (i.e. "define adjacency") which could promote a POV by virtue of elimination, would rather approach the subject by asking if the territory fits the description given by the primary source's text. In this case, the answer is yes, and the source is Nootka.
We are simply reporting that a treaty was signed in 1790 with one party on the island and one party off. Then it was renewed in 1814 with both parties off. No need for any interpretation - just the facts as provided by the primary source text.
Argentina is not a third nor any other party to Nootka. The Nootka text does not mention Argentina, nor was Argentina a state in existence in 1790 or 1814. We are simply reporting on events of 1790 and 1814.
Settlement implies continued presence. The Lexington took prisoners and left - who is going to comment on something that never took place?
Who's saying Argentina is bound by Nootka? Again, the question at hand is whether or not Nootka is historically relevant enough to the Falkland Islands, sufficiently enough that it warrants mention in the History section of the article, within the given timeline (1790 and 1814, respectively). Argentina doesn't exist in either and to ask whether or not Argentina is bound by Nootka creates a discussion unnecessary to answer the question of sufficient relevancy to report.
It's not about who sees what...a challenge of irrelevance was made, and the material was properly cited based on [WP:NOR] as primary source text that expressed the same idea as the article's Nootka reference. Also, a claim of bias was made, which is determined by [WP:NPOVFAQ], directing sources to be provided as per [WP:V] to establish consistency between the challenged content and the source.
But demanding specific additional sources that confirm the plainly obvious consistency between the source text and article text is not stated as a necessity for [WP:V], and it is simply unreasonable to assume this would be necessary in order to add non-OR and NPOV text to an article. Take the text of the Louisiana Purchase treaty - it doesn't mention every state in the Union as party to the treaty, just the United States. Do you really need a third-party source who opines that in the treaty's reference, all states forming part of the Union are parties to the treaty? No, because it's common sense based on the descriptive language of the primary source. A perfect example is Article 2:
"In the cession made by the preceeding article are included the adjacent Islands belonging to Louisiana all public lots and Squares"
but the treaty fails to specify a distance or definition of adjacent islands. And yet there is no manifest requisite of another source that qualifies Avery Island as an adjacent island. The common sense approach is therefore to examine whether or not the treaty's language describes the island in question, which is no different in that case than in this one. Alex79818 12:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Some points about the above:
1) Adjacency. This is what the International Court of Justice had to say 'adjacency' in its ruling on a maritime dispute between Germany, Denmark, and The Netherlands:
http://www.imli.org/legal_docs/docs/A68.DOC paragraph 41 .......To take what is perhaps the most frequently employed of these terms. namely "adjacent to", it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as "adjacent" to it, or to any coast at all, in the normal sense of adjacency, even if the point concerned is nearer to some one coast than to any other.
2) Succesion of states. For succesion of states to apply, the change of sovereignty has to be legal.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/1997/factum/craw_pt1.html
See section on state succession and paragraphs 8 and 9.
Argentina seceded from Spain unilaterally through a war of independence and therefore would not be entitled to state succession according to the above paragraphs.
3) Is Argentina bound by Nootka? This is the wrong question. Argentina is not a signatory to Nootka and is therefore not bound by it. The question is whether Britain under the terms of the secret article stopped being bound to article VI when Argentina (subjects of any other power) formed a settlement on the Falklands in 1829.
4) Spain's recognition of United Provinces/Argentina. Britain recognised the United Provinces in 1825 so as far as Britain is concerned the United Provinces was a separate entity from Spain from 1825 onwards Dab14763 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Narson, if you say the reference "belongs on the sovereignty of the falkland island" article, you are making a conclusion that there exists relevance between Nootka and a claim of sovereignty in the islands. That itself is an assertion, whereby you believe "content X belongs in Y" while providing no citation or evidence to bolster that conclusion.
Pfainuk, the answers to your questions are not obvious to me - I simply think they're the wrong questions to ask, because no such questions were asked in a similar article (Louisiana Purchase) with similar vocabulary (describing vast amount of territory to the inclusion of its adjacent islands, without specifically naming the islands or defining the term "adjacent").
What is clearly happening here, to me, is that there is a pre-existing bias by a group of editors determined to keep any and all references to a historical event clearly related to the Falklands, out of the Falklands article. If NPOV was truly being employed here, the reaction wouldn't be "yeah....um, define 'adjacent'!" This is purely semantics, reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "define 'sexual relations'" bit during the Monica days. Plus the reasons for exclusion have jumped from [WP:NOR], to [WP:SYN], then to [WP:NPOV], and now back to [WP:NOR]. I've already explained in great detail how no such violations have taken place, and gone so far as to explain how [WP:V] is met. I've received no response to that.
The indisputable fact is, both Nootka and Louisiana Purchace's primary source text describe the applicable territory in great detail, with inclusion of the phrase "the islands adjacent". The profile of Avery Island fits the common-sense description of the LP text as an adjacent island - the LP case applies to our Nootka discussion because it establishes how WP prevents these type of disputes, by demonstrating clearly that in a historical document describing a vast territory and adjacent islands, it means just what it says - islands clearly adjacent to the coasts described - and in such cases, the information is included solely based on the primary source text, WITHOUT a requisite that the islands be listed by name in the primary source text, or that the term 'adjacent' be defined, or that the role of any third party be established.
Just the primary text, and its common sense definition. That is the standard for LP, it is clearly the WP standard, and I believe it applies here as well in a matter that settles this current dispute insofar as it clearly demonstrates how this same type of description should be interpreted. Alex79818 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Pfainuk, I refer you to WP: PSTS:
“Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.”
The WP passage in contention here is in direct, verbatim agreement with Nootka’s own text. It is therefore not synthesis, it doesn’t promote any point of view as both parties to Nootka gave up rights in 1814, and it does not constitute a violation of WP:NOR as the primary source cited conforms to WP:V, WP:PSTS, and the passage’s inclusion is warranted in the article without additional citations by virtue of the fact that no such additional citations are required by WP in the determination of treaty language listing “the islands adjacent” without further specificity or definition.
Even still, let’s examine WP’s own definition of the word “adjacent”:
adjacent 1. Lying near, close, or contiguous; neighboring; bordering on; as, a field adjacent the highway. 2. Just before, after, or facing.
The Falklands are neighbouring islands to the east coast of South America. They are contiguous to South America in that they sit on the same continental shelf. Just because you can fit another width of the South American content between the coast and the islands does not change any of the above. Just how much more adjacent can you get? A determination of relevance is clearly in keeping with the common sense guidelines in WP:UCS.
Pfainuk, I heartily agree with your statement that there’s no current territorial dispute over the Louisiana Territory’s Avery Island. Likewise, it is indeed 3 miles from mainland. But you fail to understand the point of the matter is that if the Falklands article is truly NPOV, it must accept a universal, not subjective, standard for determination of relevance and applicability based on a primary source text of "the islands adjacent".
In your own words, “we have to be very picky on NPOV issues” – this statement is teeming with bias! Picky? Exactly my point – picking and choosing, favoring exclusion by default, of anything that in anyone’s opinion, founded or unfounded, might promote a POV (never mind the fact that the exclusion itself promotes a POV, even if the wording of the proposed text is change, because what is being pushed for here is clearly the absolute and unequivocal exclusion, at all costs, and without supporting sources).
You further demanded additional sources, and I responded by providing this forum with the exact way in which this exact same question is handled elsewhere in WP. The example I provided only illustrates WP’s handling of such a question, and as such it is therefore unrelated to the geopolitical particulars of each case, clearly demonstrating that, as far as WP is concerned, treaty language describing “the islands adjacent” needs not list such islands by name, or define such adjacency, in order to be included in that article.
Therefore, if my text constitutes a violation of WP:NOR, then the same applies to LP passages and elsewhere in WP, regardless of whether or not the same dispute circumstances apply, because the WP measure for determining NPOV is decided by the same standard irrelevant of the disputing party’s assertions. There's not one WP:V standard that applies to one article and not to another, the WP standards are universal to all WP articles. And according to you, that standard is mentioning the archipelago by name in the primary text, or established third party definition of adjacency, and anything else is OR.
I would agree completely if the same standard were used throughout WP to asses the applicability of such language to any archipelago. Unfortunately, it is not – therefore the exclusion, still unfounded, constitutes BIAS of its own as defined by WP:NPOV:
“In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be…marginalized or given undue standing…subject to other factors suggestive of bias.”
How, therefore, can such an absolute removal not be indicative of marginalization of a related historical fact, as defined by WP’s own interpretation of the same exact treaty language, when you believe that extra evidence is required in this specific case and WP clearly does not in other cases utilizing the same exact language?
You say four other editors agree. But if you check this page’s history, this issue has been edited before, see “13:25, 26 August 2005 Icairns ( more neutral statement on positions over Nootka)”, which did not remove the entry. Neither did Apcbg delete the passage after discussion on 23:48, 27 June 2006, stating “the Falkland Islands (1) were a disputed territory claimed by both Spain and Britain, where after the termination of the Spanish settlement there existed the international legal regime established by the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention.”
Even TharkunColl, an editor who throughout all Nootka discussions has proven to be a supporter of the Kelper POV vis a vis his exchanges with Argentino Argentino, writes an entry on 10:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC) stating “Unless someone can provide the text of this illusive document, I suggest we remove all mention of it from any article concerning the Falklands.”
Well guess what mate, now it’s provided – so now the game’s got to be shifted to try to find ways to invalidate the primary text by asking things like the meaning of the word “adjacent”? Please.
Well when it’s not one thing then it’s another. So, fine. You ask for external links, here they are, all external citations of Nootka in Falklands history:
1) The Open University, Falklands Conflict Chronology:
[ [19]]
2) Or how about the official information portal of the Falkland Islands? Surely THEY are not promoting the Argentine POV!
[ [20]]
3) Yet another 3rd party source, this particular one not reaching a conclusion as to the effect of the Convention, but clearly mentioning it in the Falklands History section, which clearly denotes relevance.
[ [21]]
Nootka is widely understood to apply to the Falklands as a related historical events, no matter how much the editors concerned may not like it or believe that this supports the Argentine POV.
If you truly claim a NPOV, then it's clear that WP does not require 3rd party text to corroborate a primary source’s definition of “the islands adjacent”, and I’ve provided the same to show NPOV in good faith.
I did indeed assume good faith, but a good faith assumption is lost when in a discussion you ask someone who questions your contribution to come up with evidence to support a challenge, and they refuse outright – and further, require additional evidence not provided in other WP pages regarding the same challenge. I don’t care if its four or four thousand who challenge this fact, it is a known fact, and I maintain that Nootka’s text is prima facie evidence of the fact that Nootka, as a historical event, is relevant to the history of the Falklands and should therefore be re-inserted in the article, per WP:NPOV, empirically and without regard to how any of the two conflicting sides might interpret this independent of the WP passage. Alex79818 04:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well...a distinction has to be made...if someone claims a certain passage violates WP policy then obviously WP will be a source, but only insofar as the WP violation reference is concerned. I make no WP reference to support that Nootka is relevant.
The fact that a similar reference exists in the Falklands Sovereignty page is inconsequential to this question, which is not one of Sovereignty, but rather of history. The challenge which led to deletion was "Removed reference to Nootka convention as irrelevant to Falklands Sovereignty claim", therefore the question is remains the same:
Is Nootka, as a historical event, relevant to the Falkland Islands sufficiently enough to warrant a reference to the same in the History section of the Falklands WP article?
I believe so, and I have provided both primary and secondary sources that go far beyond the WP requisite including an official Falklands site, and I've explained my approach in detail, clearly demonstrating a WP:NPOV in both my methodology and explanations. And unless there are any further challenges, I will reinsert the text - of course after a reasonable amount of time for verification of my sources. And I reiterate my willingness to work with anyone to reach consensus on the wording of such a passage to ensure it conforms to WP:NPOV as well as is historically accurate, per the listed source material. Alex79818 06:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Pfainuk, if you had read what I wrote, you’d know this isn’t repetition – I’ve answered every challenge, including your challenge to provide additional citations, to prove that relevance of Nootka to Falklands is widely accepted and does not push the Argentine POV.
One such citations even includes an official Falklands page. So I ask again, are they pushing the Argentine POV as well?
It is hard to assume good faith when the challenges posed are constantly changing from one to the next, have no evidence to support them in discussion, attempt to tweak the common-sense definition of words to suit their purpose, and demand extraordinary evidence not necessary elsewhere in WP for similar cases.
Further, having provided such evidence, it is hard to assume good faith when it is ignored – especially when it leads to the absurd conclusion that the Falklands information portal is supporting an Argentine POV.
Clearly this is not an issue that is open to discussion to this ‘posse’, no matter how much evidence is provided, because the predisposition is to exclude any reference to Nootka at all cost. You are right in that any further attempt is a waste of time. And you’re right that I am a new user. Perhaps I wouldn’t try to lecture you if you adhered to the standards by which you yourself judge others’ work.
[WP:NPOV] is unequivocal: “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.”
This wanton exclusion, despite numerous reliable sources per your request and verbatim primary text in keeping with WP’s interpretation of similar tests, is simply bias. This constitutes, in my opinion, a clear policy violation (biased marginalization of relevant fact). I’ve therefore listed a MedCab request for a third opinion. Alex79818 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I also wish to add to the above citations, stating that in 1790, the British signed the Nootka Sound Convention and formally renounced any colonial ambition in South America "And the islands adjacent", this being presented in relation to Falklands history in "The Battle for the Falklands", Hastings and Jenkins - WW Norton & Company, New York, 1982.
72.83.213.184 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
UNINDENT
It is not necessary to establish a suitable citation, there is one already that indicates the academic dispute [22] over the relevance of the Nootka convention.
First of all I think it is necessary to establish edit Alex proposes [23], [24], [25] and [26]. All of which imply that as a result of the Nootka convention, Britain in some way relinquished sovereignty over the islands to Spain. This argues a POV and thus fails NPOV
Secondly the complete text of the Nootka convention itself [27]. The relevant article is ARTICLE VI
It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.
Alex argues that through the term "the islands adjacent", the convention of its own right applies to the Falkland Islands. The application of the convention to the islands is in dispute as shown by Alex's own source [28]. What Alex neglected to mention is that this source discusses the sovereignty claim indicating that while Argentina claims that the convention applies to the islands, Britain denies that it is applicable. Hence, by presenting part of the story Alex presents a case favourable to the Argentine POV and thus fails NPOV. I quote:
Argentine Claim By the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790, Britain disavowed any colonial ambitions in South America "and the islands adjacent." Argentina claims this included the Islands.
and
British Response The British insist that mutual agreements made between Spain and England during the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790 did not affect existing claims to sovereignty.
Further he has largely argued that it is common sense, that the term "adjacent" means the convention applies to the islands. The islands are 300+ miles of the coast of South America, so common sense does not immediately indicate that conclusion, since it does not align with the dictionary definition of adjacent i.e. close proximity. The issue at stake is that the term "adjacent" is not defined. As it is not defined, common sense would first re-examine the text to see if there is any indication of the intentions of the persons framing the document. Article IV requires that the British do not navigate or fish "within the distance of 10 maritime leagues from any part of the coast". One might assume that this distance was in the minds of the persons framing the documents and as 10 leagues is about 35 miles that might fall in line with the dictionary definition of "adjacent". Applying common sense one might also seek a legal precedent to ratify that conclusion, [29] is an International Court of Justice decision that "by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as "adjacent" to it, or to any coast at all, in the normal sense of adjacency, even if the point concerned is nearer to some one coast than to any other."
Further Alex cites precedent of Avery Island and the Louisiana Purchase to establish his interpretation of adjacency. Avery Island is 3 miles inland, so I would concede common sense would indicate the term "adjacent" implies applicability. On the other hand common sense would not immediately lead one to conclude that islands 300+ miles offshore is an analogous situation.
Hence, regarding the argument that Alex presents that applicability can be determined by examining the text of the Nootka convention itself.
However, I do not consider such an argument to be relevant to the issue at hand, since what I have actually done is original research and synthesises a position from published sources. I have done so only to illustrate that there are many possible interpretations of what is in fact an ambiguous document.
Hence, Alex's argument developed from interpretation of the original text, backed up by a dubious argument of precedent, like my counter argument fails Wiki guidelines of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Both arguments are based on original research and rely on synthesising a position from published sources. Neither argument is sustainable under wikipedia policies.
Therefore Alex's argument that examining the text of Nootka establishes a Prima facie case is not sustainable.
Alex argues further that the sources he quotes supports his conclusion.
Well examining the text of [30] in its full context, clearly shows that he is only presenting one side of the argument. Incidentally I suggest this as a neutral summary of the two positions.
Regarding this source from the Spectator magazine [31]]. What Alex has failed to mention is that the Spectator advertises itself as presenting "Guaranteed Biased Coverage” [32]. I quote:
If you're looking for a balanced, objective view, you won't find it in The Spectator. The Magazine speaks from the heart to give voice to conviction and strong opinion. Our contributors - whether from the right or left - give you their views unfiltered and at cask strength. It's brilliant stuff, brilliantly written - but not to everyone's taste.
His source is a personal opinion piece, therefore is not a reliable source.
His next source [33] is an Argentine Government website that presents the Argentina sovereignty claim, hardly a NPOV. Therein lies the problem.
His final source [34] simply mentions Nootka in a timeline – does that be itself indicate support for his position? Again missing information is that the same website has a page [35] dedicated to International Agreements related to the Falkland Islands. Nootka is noticeably absent, does that imply a lack of support for his position?
There are many timelines on the web and in print that include the Nootka convention. It is typically included because of the context of the Argentine claim. As it has never been applied by either Britain or Spain to the islands, it is not necessarily included because of historical relevance.
As to Alex's suggestion that he can supply of ton of sources supporting his argument. I don't doubt that he can, a simple google search will bring up many references. However, what Alex does not mention is that some of these sources will support the Argentine position and some will support the British position. Playing citation tennis is not going to lead to a solution, also selecting sources that support an a priori position does not establish a NPOV.
Alex's argument that it is possible to separate the sovereignty claim from the relevance of the Nootka convention and include it of its own right is fallacious. Britain maintains that Nootka is not relevant to sovereignty, whilst Argentina's sovereignty claim is based upon its relevance. Adding the edit that Alex suggests is lending support to the Argentine sovereignty claim and thus fails NPOV.
Hence, what I and other editors have done is to present the Nootka Convention in the framework of the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and its historical context in the History of the Falkland Islands. Our articles present both sides in context and do not seek to argue a position in favour of either the British or Argentine sovereignty claim.
Alex further argues that we are seeking to marginalise the position of the Nootka Convention, in that the two articles are "sub-articles". Note these are linked from Falkland Islands as the main articles on those subjects. Further the history section of the article Falkland Islands is only intended to précis main events in the history.
Neither Spain nor Britain as the original signatories of the Nootka Convention have ever tried to apply it to the Falkland Islands. Hence, its relevance to be included as a major event in the islands history is not established.
Finally, I think it is relevant to mention Alex's recent post on Talk:Falkland Islands
Second, the passage "whether or not the islands were included is disputed"....by whom (other than you and other WP editors)? Have you come up with one single, reputable, verifiable source that states there is an ongoing dispute within certain circles of historians, or elsewhere in academia? By contrast, the vast majority of sources I've seen, whether they're from the UK, Argentina or the Falklands, all unequivocally list Nootka as an event historically related to the islands and relevant in its own right. At a minimum, they all coincide on that one point, that Nootka is relevant to Falklands history in its own right,
Well [36] indicates the applicability is disputed and as this is a citation of his, he is clearly aware that applicability is disputed. Alex claims that the caveat "Whether or not the islands were included is disputed." is not warranted, when clearly sources are available to indicate that it is – and he is aware of them. It is clear that the edit he proposes is seeking to promote a POV in favour of Argentina's sovereignty claim.
If I was to cite a single source to indicate a neutral interpretation of the sovereignty dispute I would cite [37]. It indicates that the applicability of Nootka is disputed and it puts it into context. I contend that the current articles Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and History of the Falkland Islands present Nootka in context of its historical relevance and are NPOV by presenting both sides of the sovereignty claims. Nootka convention of its own right is not notable enough to be included in the précis in the Falkland Islands article. Justin talk 21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In XXXX the Nootka Sound Convention was signed between Britain and Spain, in which Britain relinquished rights of settlement on islands adjacent to Spanish terratories. The application of Nootka to the Islands has been contested.
I see little point in continuing to point out why the edit you propose doesn't fit with Wiki policies and guidelines. From day one you have persistently assumed bad faith in the motives of the editors trying to educate you in the way that wiki works. The reams of argumentative and disruptive edits are more than ample evidence of that. You've also demonstrated an absolute refusal to compromise on any issue or to accept that there is more than one interpretation of a vague and ambiguous text. I've therefore reluctantly asked the mediator to consider referring the mediation case to arbcom. Justin talk 12:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, I shouldn't have brought it up here. I apologise for my conduct. Justin talk 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Same here. Alex79818 00:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Can one of you learned guys tell me what references you have that prove the Nootka Convention was specifically re-instated by the Treaty of Madrid 1814. I cannot find any specific reference to its re-instatement it only seems to refer to trade treaties. Malvinero 16:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It is agreed that, pending the negotiation of a new treaty of commerce, Great Britain shall be admitted to trade with Spain, upon the same conditions as those which existed previously to 1796; all the treaties of commerce, which at that period subsisted between the two nations, being hereby ratified and confirmed.
Well it was either reinstated or it wasn't. It seems to me that Nootka was not necessarily a treaty of commerce. In any event Argentina was not a signatory to either Nootka or the Treaty of Madrid so I think Nootka is totally irrelevant unless Argentina can get the UK as the other signatory to agree that Argentina should become a party to it. Argentina has many pretensions to what it 'Inherited' from Spain and whilst it undoubtedly has a Spanish 'Heritage' it was actually bequeathed nothing by Spain specifically nor was it even recognised as independent by Spain till 1859. Argentina won its war of Independence from Spain it was not granted independence with privileges so actually it inherited nothing. Therefore Treaties between Spain and the UK are just that and not also referenced to Argentina as a beneficiary. Therefore in reality irrelevant. Malvinero 10:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned the history section has grown again following the split into the History of the Falkland Islands. I've made a first attempt at a precis to reduce the text here [38], then self-reverted, is my suggested edit broadly acceptable. As always suggested improvements are welcome but I think we need to make an effort to cut down this section - particularly as the History of the Falkland Islands expands. Justin talk 11:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
UNINDENT OK I've had another go at it, getting better is this about the right length and depth [39]? Justin talk 20:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are any objections I'm proposing to reduce the history section along the lines suggested above. I propose to briefly summarise key events and progressively expand on the details in the History of the Falkland Islands article. I've already made a start there. Justin talk 12:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I change "ecomic fishing zone" to "economic exclusive zone" and i expand the information of The Guardian article. Maybe you can see this image http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/09/23/fotos/3.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaos85g ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Page is getting unwieldy. Any objections to an archive? Justin talk 22:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
This page 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. |
The first paragraph of the article should also include the French name Ille Malouines as this is still the name used by the French and French speaking countries.
Try telling the French post office anything else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.248.193.146 ( talk • contribs)
I disagree. The French name is the original name for the islands (Iles Malouines, from the port town of St. Malo in France), and is the origin for the Spanish name "Malvinas". I think it's definitely more relevant to include it than it is to include the Chinese name or any other silliness. The name in other languages is bound to be a local variation on either Malouines or Falklands anyways. 24.201.253.66 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to stir up the hornets... but I've made a (very) minor change to the lead. I have changed "The Malvinas" to "the Malvinas", as it is not correct to capitalize "The" in this case. (Check out this Argentine government page.) There was a previous reversion of this change when another editor "de-capitalized" the "the", with a summary note about the consensus version. However, I cannot find a reference in the archives as to the use of "The", and I don't think it is correct to capitalize it here. (We've been having a similar discussion over at Moon for a while, as there was some debate as to whether the name is "Moon" or "The Moon".) Anyways, if there is a part of the discussion that covered capitalization, please point me to it, and I'll certainly apologize if I've made a mistake. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my comment seemed abrupt, it was simply meant to be concise, it took a lot of discussion and hot air to achieve a consensus that everyone could live with. Frankly, what the Argentine government says does not matter, the Falklands are British. However, in order to keep everyone happy the orignally agreed wording and style should remain intact. There used to be a warning in there to that effect. Having gone through the exercise one would hope it is not necesarry to the can of worms.
I got banned from the Spanish wikipedia for posting a picture of a roadsign to Stanley which some mistakenly believe has another name. The people of Whitby would be dissapointed. -- Gibnews 14:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why the line 'also called the Malvinas' should be included at all. The Falkland islands are British and have never been officially Argentinean. They're only called Malvinas in English by British-hating anglophobic idiots who'll think of anything to say in order to insult the British. It doesn't matter how Argentina refers to the Falklands, unless included in a subcategory designed to state that in Argentina, and the Anglophobic sphear of humanity, the islands are called the Malvinas. To say 'also known as the Malvinas' is far less relevant even than saying Germany is also known as Deutschland, whereas this is the name of the country in its native language. Enzedbrit 10:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on South America at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#South America whose scope would include the Falkland Islands. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following from the intro "are British citizens and support British sovereignty" since this is clearly making a case for British sovereignty of the Islands, when the intro should be neutral. If that statement is allowed, then it would only be fair to present the case of the other side as well, such as saying something along the lines of "Argentina however maintains this and that". --Bobobobo, 24 Dec 2006
I know it is a long long read, but speed-read this http://www.falklands.net/FalklandsCorruption.shtml -- and tell me if you don't think this should be somehow mentioned in the Politics section of the article. I don't mean exactly as that article describes things. The reason I post this in talk and not touch the main page is because I'm in no position to figure out the relative importance and/or accuracy of the above. I'm also in no position to properly put the above article into a proper context wrt the whole situation on the island with respect to democracy, accountability, and justice. The above is clearly a one sided POV. We need someone who has enough information for the non-POV.
But if the information in that article is not distorted, it's clear that the Island has enough independence from British justice such that a level of grossly un-democratic and underhanded corruption can exist without any checks or balances. I'm also unhappy about the statement that it's a port of call for cruise ships because of all the penguins, and yet the Islands government has merrily done absolutely nothing while 80+% of the population has starved to death over the past 10 years -- while places like Chile and Argentina are able to protect their penguin populations from a similar fate without badly affecting their fishery industries.
I'd love to hear a more independent "in the know" opinion on that article's claim in the 8th paragraph about the re-distribution and concentration of wealth due to "secret" meetings - "Much of the division of wealth which exists in the Falklands today stems from these dealings."
It's also quite disturbing to hear of a Brit being denied citizenship and fleeing to Argentina because he's afraid for his life.
CraigWyllie 18:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Its certainly suspicious that he has gone to Argentina and set up a website making allegations about corruption in the Falkland Islands. However they can legally deny residence to people, whatever their nationality. Whatever this might be a topic for 'panorama' but is not really for wikipedia. -- Gibnews
Its certainly true that Brits dont have any more automatic residence rights in Falklands than they do in Gibraltar, SqueakBox 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"The great majority of islanders are of Scottish and Ulster Scots descent."
In researching Falkland history, I believe this statement to be true, but could not find any online sources that can be cited. Gohiking 23:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that I in any way disbelieve that a broad majority of Falklanders reject Argentine claims, but isn't it a bit strange that the source of the claim in the intro is a UK government website? ( [9]) Wouldn't it be better with some media or academic reference? -- Soman 12:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are many who dont like the brits very much.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/L/2003/A/un030636.html (United nations Decolonization Comittee)
JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, petitioner, said he was a Falklands Islander who had lived on the Argentine mainland for several generations. Since the turn of the nineteenth century, Argentina had welcomed immigrants from around the world. Argentina had just elected a new president and Argentine democracy was slowly maturing. Record crops, herds and the increase in the wool industry made him optimistic about Argentina’s economy, despite its foreign debt. In southern Patagonia, where most Falkland Islanders had settled, there was a promising future in tourism. Many farms in Patagonia had had a good season, and the possibility of working and sharing experience with farms on the Islands would be interesting.
He said Argentina’s legitimate claim to sovereignty could not be denied. An agreement must be reached. The rights of Argentina’s claim to sovereignty would not be dropped. He requested the United Kingdom to respect resolutions on the matter to find a just and lasting solution to the controversy.
ALEJANDRO JACOBO BETTS, a petitioner from the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said the issue was one of sovereignty, and the only parties involved in the dispute were Argentina and the United Kingdom. The cause of the problem was the illegal occupation of a territory by an occupying Power and the resulting claim by the prejudiced State for the full recognition of its pre-existing legitimate sovereignty. The only acceptable basis on which to find a just and definitive solution to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas question was through the application of the principle of territorial integrity. The dispute began in 1833, when British military forces invaded and occupied the Islands by force, expelling the original Argentine authorities and inhabitants, he said. Since then, Argentina had never consented to that violation of her territorial integrity. The principle of self-determination could not be utilized to transform an illegitimate occupation into full sovereignty, under the protective shield of the United Nations. He wondered why, in an age when colonialism was being eliminated and mutual respect between nations was being consolidated, did the United Kingdom persist in maintaining its occupation of the Falklands/Malvinas in detriment to its relations with a friendly State.
-- Gibnews 09:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
To put it bluntly, nobody cares what Alejandro Betts and James Lewis think. --
RaiderAspect 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Your statement reflects ONLY your personal opinion.
The thought that nobody cares what Alejandro Betts and James Lewis think, sounds more like a childish temper tantrum on the part of those who dislike Argentina rather than the true reality that the islands will one day return to Argentinian control via diplomacy, or other means.
If the uk refuses to act on a resolution passed ordering a decolonization, then why should the rest of the world respect any other resolutions?
Seems a little one sided.
Argentina's claim of sovereignty over the islands, is based on more than just their rightful ownership.
Statements have been made regarding the occupation by the uk of the islands as a security risk for Argentina, and all of "nuclear free" Latin America
[10] by high ranking officials.
Argentina's claim also gives the people living there rights and privileges. Never has Argentina made threats against those living in the islands, and they guarantee the rights of those living there.
What you mean like the "right" to speak Spanish and the "right" to drive on the right, though I must say the statement that Argentina has never threatened the English speaking people there is clearly untrue unless you consider that the Falklanders didnt feel threatened by the military occupation of their land by heavily armed troops they were unable to communicate with. Sounds like so much Argie propaganda to me, SqueakBox 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As to the claim that one day the islands will return to the Argentinians, this is not a forum and how can such a silly statement possibly help us produce a better article, SqueakBox 18:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The book La verdad sobre las Malvinas, mi tierra natal (The truth about the Falklands, the land in which I was born) was published by AJ Betts in 1985. English source: http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/falklands/ar-war.htm , Argentine sources: a lot. — Argentino ( talk/ cont.) 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if the Falklanders want to speak Spanish and drive on the right they could always go to Argentina. I believe that you dont have to speak Spanish to achieve anything official in Gibraltar, ie you can pay your taxes etc in English, an option the falklanders were not given, SqueakBox 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This clearly dates from 1833 as between 26 and 33 they had sovereignty they didnt claim it and before that it was uninhabited, if they were claiming it as there's while it was uninhabited 16-26 please source your claim here first, SqueakBox 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you are making this up as you go along. How can more than one editor unilaterally change consensus (lol), the article log confirms absolutely nothing about a consensus version, besides which this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Also my alleged question shows nothing as I havent asked a question. We need good sources that Argentina disputed the sovereignty claim before 1833, Jewett didnt claim sovereignty he gained it, cant you see the difference? claim implies dispute and there is no evidence of a disputed claim to sovereingty before 1833, and if there is please source, as your consensus claim is meaningless and is not a substitute for a source, SqueakBox 18:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
And how exactly does this edit [11] exactly change that consensus, and what does it have to do with what you have been arguing about. I added in 1810 relating to Argentine independence, added in pursuit of this claim re the argentine invasion, added the word sovereignty andf then added with English and not Spanish being the language used on the islands. How does what I wrote affect either the consensus or what you are arguing about today. I hope this isnt merely trolling on your part buyty I dont have a clue what you are on about, my edit seems very uncontroversial. Or are you just claiming nobody can edit the opening, as if you are this is somwething I oppose very strongly, of course we can edit the opening, there is no way any policy remotely saying we cant do so, SqueakBox 20:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following hidden text as having no consensus
The first sentence has been established as a compromise consensus between many editors in a long and difficult discussion (see talk page). Trying to either change the sentence to include less (e.g. "The Falkland Islands are an archipelago") or to include more (e.g. "The Falkland Islands, ( Spanish: Islas Malvinas) are an archipelago") will be reverted on sight without discussion by many of the editors part of the discussion. If you have overriding NEW arguments, please bring them to the talk page first!
What was there implied wrongly that Malvinas is a common usage English word which I have replaced with a ref that it is a Spanish translation of Falklands, SqueakBox 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would rather wait for further consensus before doing that but I certainly dont disagree with you, SqueakBox 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Tharkun is tright. As Jonathunder refuses to join in the discussion here I am revertin g him. To say there is consensus on the talk page while refusing to comment here doesnt strike me as the rigth attitude-- Swuekilafe 17:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well we are discussing. It seems that people arent happy with the opening (3 editors at least) and nobody is defending the current version, people are jsut reverting without giving a reason. Why even administrators engage in mindless edit warring without even coming to the talk and then claiming consensus here against the wishes of 3 editors here today confuses me--
Swuekilafe 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What the Argies think is of no relevance. We might as well say London, also known as Londres, for the relevance it has to the topic at hand-- Swuekilafe 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As the person responsible for the actual wording of the introduction, I will defend it in the following terms; Personally I also do not give a damn what the Argentines think, because The Falkland Islands are British with the consent of the people who live there, and their opinions are paramount. However it is also true that in a large number of places the alternative name is used, and that is reflected in the ISO designation for the territory. The purpose of Wikipedia pages is to inform people and the wording used did that in a manner which made it clear what the official name was and that there was a common alternative. Those who wish to change it should use their time and energy in improving other things rather than fighting over a consensus which so far has held up well. We argued long and hard over this matter, lets move on.
-- Gibnews 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont agree. Malvinas is a Spanish translation of the English word Falklands which I referenced and added. I agree we should keep the word Malvinas but also that we should keep the sourced information that it is a Spanish translation which I added, SqueakBox 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the template as in spitye of Gibnews wanting to move on I dont believe we should. I have asked for a citation that Malvinas is an English word whjich is what the text says now. Regarding the hidden text, its the most bad faith and aggressive text I have seen, SqueakBox 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Jonathunder would care to explain why he has removed an NPOV tag when their is a dispute and also why he has removed a cite request that Malvinas is an English word, SqueakBox 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I see this cite request has been removed. The problem is that on other Falkland talk pages when people try to cite Malvinas as an English word they fail dismally, offering gems such as LaRouche (banned from wikipedia for extremism) and the Socialist Workers Party. I, on the otehr hadnd, have refernced that it is a Spanish translation of an English word. What happened to verifiability. People removing cite requests always makes me uneasy and I havent seen a scrap of justification for doing so, SqueakBox 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well not everyone can live with it. I know how wikipedia works and am one of its most daily editing committed editoers so this isnt going to go away. 2 editors have expressed a more extreme pov than me so how is consensus already achieved, SqueakBox 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Its about presenting facts with sources to back them up and your failure to do this kind of invalidates what you are saying. Not sure what you mean about watching boring things or about persistence, eventually unsourced information wioll always be removed as that is the wikipedia way. You still need to source that the Malvinas is an English name or accept that it is a Spanish word and accept the refenced statement I added yesterday, SqueakBox 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The term "Malvinas" does indeed exist in English, though it is pretty rare. It means something like, "the name the Argentines tried to impose on the Falklands when they invaded in 1982." Its connotations are decidedly negative. TharkunColl 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you please give us a source for this, Jonathun, eg an online map or something we can all see. Personally I would be happy to see the current version were it backed up with an impeccable source (not LaRouche), SqueakBox 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I suggest you reference these in the text and then remove the hidden text notice, as if it is solidly referenced it shouldnt be the subject of any disputes, and by offering refences we make the article into a better quality, more relaible piece, SqueakBox 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Gibnews 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
quote: because ISO incorrectly includes it in their designation. lol, excuse me ? what a long time mistake without correction!! . Also, I dont understand why I was revert, if my version was just like the current one but with the references. Jor70 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I imagine ISO have the same problem of disputes we have here in correcting this mistake. However, I have moved your reference to the section that describes the usage of the name, so its not wasted. The present introduction is a compromise and generally seems to hold, so best not to try and improve it and move on to other things. -- Gibnews 09:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well this debate has moved on from Decemmber. Why remove referenced material Gibnews? I have reverted your unexplained blanking of refenced material provided by Jor. Also to suggest we m,ove on when there is a POV tag on the article re this issue doesnt seem right, SqueakBox 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate it's a touchy subject, but I;ve just tried to tidy up the citations using templates - to make them easier to see and understand for those nto familiar with the topic. hope that doesn't cause offence
It wa Swuekilafe who placed the NPOV tag I believe, SqueakBox 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
On The New Treasure Hunt (a mid-1970s United States television game show produced by Chuck Barris), there was once a 'klunk' prize (one of several booby prizes on the show), a one-year residency in the Falkland Island.
72.82.177.130 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is the following text included in the Name section?
There's not even a paragraph break! What about doctors? Nurses? Veterinarians? In its current context, this information is a ""non sequitur."" This bit of trivia, if true (sources?) is interesting, but totally out of place. Perhaps if it were in a section about their remoteness and the challenges presented by it. . . ?
Upon reading the article, I was surprised that its neutrality is in question. It seems to me that it provides the right information in the proper tone, including the whole name issue.
I've tried to read most of the current discussion about whether to include "Malvinas" in the article or not and grant that there are many valid points pro and con. Since I have no vested interest on the claim issue, I can't say that I read it all, and I don't really know who is advocating what point.
As it reads now (Feb 23, 2007 at 12:45 a.m. Eastern) the name thing is handled well. I conclude this because I think the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform the uninformed. While accuracy and lack of bias are important, it is not imho an encyclopedia article's function to present what is the ""truth"" about something.
"Malvinas" is not just any foreign word, as the intensity of the whole discussion demonstrates, so whether it is an accepted part of the English language is not dispositive. The article's title does not include the M word, so it is not misleading as to the legal status.
That the Falklands are also called "the Malvinas," or "Las Malvinas," is an accurate statement that does not imply or conclude anything about sovereignty. If you wanted to be extremely picky you could add that it is sometimes called . . . -- or even: sometimes referred to as . . . .
If several authoritative sources list them as: the "Falklands (Malvinas)," then it is appropriate to include that designation. Consider our uninformed readers. Is it relevant and important or helpful to let readers know that the name Malvinas and Falklands, for better or worse, are associated with each other in fact? If readers of this article subsequently turn to the CIA Fact Book or run across some UN documents (or have come to this article from such a document), the readers will know that these Falkland Islands are the very same.
I ran across this article when my son wanted to know the date of the Falklands war. I was in college then, my son not even a gleam in a parental eye. If he was reading this wiki article, would I and his teachers want the information about the Falkland Islands to include the M word? Absolutely.
I would remove the bias alert, leave that portion of the article as is, and turn this energy and productivity to more pressing issues. Ileanadu 05:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC) ileanadu 23 February 2007
I would have rather hoped we could move on from arguing about the name of the territory. We have already discussed at length before arriving at this form of words (see the archive) that the CIA factbook is not a definitive source. I spent a lot of time correcting glaring errors in it in relation to Gibraltar, and in fairness to them they listened. The flag they showed was totally wrong at one stage and they mentioned a railway that vanished just after WW2.
Citing Wikipedia as a source is recursive, and surely against the rules ?
There is an argument that ISO used the word Malvinas (not Islas), however they are an international body and subject to lobbying by those who wish to promote the alternative name. I am told that South American telephone books omit an entry for the Falklands to avoid upsetting anyone.
However, long and hard we argued until an agreeable version was found and it has survived, so please can we leave it alone? Surely there are better things to do - like perhaps removing the references to Puerto Argentina and the description of the natives as malvanises in the Spanish Wikipedia. -- Gibnews 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In support of omitting the 'Islas' bit I draw your attention to:
http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/tstories/jsmith/images/road%20sign%20malvinas.jpg
As an example of the use of the M word
Looking at the CIA world factbook, the recent entry on Gibraltar:
Spain agreed to allow airlines other than British to serve Gibraltar, to speed up customs procedures, and to add more telephone lines into Gibraltar. Britain agreed to pay pensions to Spaniards who had been employed in Gibraltar before the border closed in 1969. Spain will be allowed to open a cultural institute from which the Spanish flag will fly.
Uh no, Spain allowed Spanish airlines to fly here, the telephone lines remain the same but the ITU code of 350 is used, the pensioners get an increase. As for the Spanish Flag, it may fly briefly IF it gets planning permission and is asbestos.
CIA 3/10 for accuracy. Wikipedia is by contrast correct.
Their factbook contains nonsense. -- Gibnews 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
'Settlement' implies a recent and transient urbanisation, however the general principle in English is that a town with a cathedral is termed a city.
Now see:
http://www.jim-mclaren.co.uk/new_page_3.htm
-- Gibnews 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.penguintravel-falklands.com/tours/gypsy.htm
referring to a 'Stanley City tour'
http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/samerica/fk.htm
Capital City Stanley (1,989)
-- Gibnews 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Lots of people reading this article right now and many will think wikipedia supports Argentina. Malvinas is unacceptably mentioned before Falklands and then Malvinas is ofered as a second common name for thre islands. When I try to reach a compromise it is always reverted, hence we need the POV tag, SqueakBox 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to pop this back in, but could we maybe reword the introductory sentence like we had before "Falkland.... (Spanish: Malvinas)"?? This seems to work well in the Jerusalem page and I don't see why it can't work here. After all, neither "Al-Quds" nor "Malvinas" are english common names for the places, are they? It doesn't (and it shouldn't) imply equal footing but instead offer an alternate name for the islands in the intro. Call it being Politically Correct if you wish. I won't debate here, I don't want to, just maybe put forward an example that works in another controversial page and maybe we should imitate. If somebody wants to do it, go ahead. If the consensus is negative, then let's not. Again, I probably won't get into a debate of "why yes - why not" since we've all been there and done that. I just think it's better the other way but I can accept that majority rules.
Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Malvinas is also a name used in English, not just Spanish. unsigned by User:Poi dog pondering
Not agree, Malvinas is not a translation, its the name for non-spanish speaking people too, we already discuss this. Jor70 10:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy that articles should be stated in a NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW and saying this is "Foreign" when many sources of it in native English exist does not follow the policy and is just erroneous.
(un-tabbing)
Wow, looks like the discussion going on here is civil but the page is going through an edit war.... That's why I stopped editing frequently.
I agree with you Gibnews on that "Malvinas" shouldn't be given equal footing, that's why the parenthesis and the italics (not bold) should do the trick. Again,
Jerusalem is a good example of a contentious issue being resolved semi-amicably.
I really can't believe that if editors resolved Jerusalem we can't agree on something here. After all, the FI conflict is well over and the Judeo-Palestinian still goes on.
Whatever we do, people, let's remember that WP is not a battleground, just an encyclopedia that should benefit the whole world. Nobody benefits if we suppress facts or we hide terms just because of political allegiances. Let's also remember that a) The FI are British 100% until the islanders decide otherwise, b) English WP is the "biggest of 'em all" therefore Non-Native English speakers form an interesting percentage of all WP readers (big enough so we should consider them) and c) nothing we do here will take or give merits to an idea over another... The world will keep on turning no matter what wording we choose. Take care.
Sebastian Kessel
Talk 23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have read (in a British encyclopaedia) that John Davis landed on the Islands in 1592, which would pre-date the alleged first landing of 1600; also that sovereignty was claimed (but without a plaque!). The confusion in sovereignty may thus originate from the French selling something they didn't own. The French also similarly tried to claim ownership of another uninhabited South American territory that had already been discovered and claimed by another European nation - Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Maybe those attempting to resolve this disputed page (good luck with that!) can investigate this apparent 1592 landing. 80.225.120.192 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Check out this dicussion in the Port Stanley Page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stanley%2C_Falkland_Islands#The_Name_of_Port_Stanley
Gantlord 09:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
At the top the population is listed as 3060,in the Demographics section however,it is listed as 29-something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.22.84.93 ( talk) 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
I noticed the GDP per capita listed in the article (and the article on the economy of the islands) is quite a bit lower than that reported by the Economist on 4 April 07 which puts it at ~$50000 per person ( the article). I'm hesitant to change the amount listed in the two articles owning to the huge difference in the two numbers ($25k v. $50k), however the Economist feels like a reputable source. Can anyone shed some light into the two numbers and perhaps provide a government statistical agency source? Imlepid 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
On October 8, 2006 a population census was held in the islands (sources La Nación (in Spanish), Mercopress). It would be great to update the figures, and to get an official source for the data. User:Ejrrjs says What? 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
Literally this means that of all the European explorers widely credited with sighting the islands, de Weert was the first. I doubt very much that this is the intended meaning. The intended meaning is probably either that de Weert is widely credited as being the first person (ever, in the whole world) to sight the islands (and he happened to be a European explorer), or that de Weert is widely credited as being the first European explorer to sight the islands (i.e. there is some possibility that Native Americans sighted it earlier - I don't know how likely that is). Perhaps someone who knows the intention could fix up this sentence? Matt 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
This article should be named Falkland Island/the Malvinas to counterbalance the current British POV throughout the article. In fact quite a bit of this article needs rewriting.-- Vintagekits 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well one or two that explicitly state it is a common usage term in English would be a starter, something you havent offered up till now, SqueakBox 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I remind you the purpose of this talk page is to discuss items for inclusion on the Falkland Islands page and not for issuing threats against other editors. You have posted messages accusing the British of being 'thieves' and expressing the view that Gibraltar should be Spanish. On that basis you seem to have an anti-british agenda. -- Gibnews 00:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I ask
Vintagekits to come to the talk page, and I find off-article arguments brought here, ending up with "... a personal campaign of racism ...".
SqueakBox, I think you have much less to admonish
Vintagekits for, than you would have
Gibnews, if you looked at the above objectively. An outside observer sees "Lets get down to business ... how many links do you want ..." countered with what looks like baiting from
Gibnews. I mentioned to
Vintagekits that people can get hung up on even one word, well 'racism' is one of those words. Do we hear a 'oops' from anyone?
I can understand some amount of frustration, given the number of times the issue has been raised before. However, the above is excessively demonstrative. 'Lol' is not a good opening to any line of inquiry. Ask for their best evidence, wait for it, look at it, and then say how and why you think it doesn't change the status quo. Getting more facts/refs is always a good thing. The above is clearly "not a good thing." Shenme 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does the article say "also called Malvinas"? The following are equivalent:
Why doesn't the article adopt the same nomenclature as the CIA World Factbook [15]? The Falkland Islands, also called Las Islas Malvinas etc etc The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I am extremely pleased with the current status of the page. Congrats to all editors involved!!!. Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I missed the last days but was already a consensus for this. It had been talked for months. Malvinas is also part of the United Nations name given to the islands (
http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/geoname.pdf) therefore it is not only spanish. Also, e.g., is it often used in chinese english media. That why we agreed to put also called Malvinas ( italics and w/o spanish neither islas ) . I think this issue came out again because some people want to push las islas or something new but it was already a debate about this
Jor70 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The people that Vintagekits talks to are probably not British. However, the official name of the territory remains the Falkland Islands and nothing else. That it has an alternative name is a fact, and the way to indicate that it does not have the same standing was the way we were showing it before. Labeling it as 'Spanish' is not really correct as its not a matter of language. The original version we had was more precise. -- Gibnews 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The point of the sentence is to state the name of the territory. The official name is the Falkland Islands, because that used by the residents and is used in the published Laws of the territory.
This is the English language Wiki and its not necessary to translate everything into other languages, however as the name promoted by Argentina is used its appropriate to indicate the English language version of it The Malvinas That is not Spanish.
The compromise has held between the Argentine and nationalist British elements, although it may not suit editors with an agenda of whacking anything British, or those who want to provoke dispute for the sake of it.
(this was added in the wrong place earlier as the thread is too long)
-- Gibnews 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The islands are an overseas territory of a member of the EU, and therefore have an official connection to the EU. The EU has many official languages, one of which is Spanish. And in EU law, the official Spanish name for the islands is Islas Falklands. TharkunColl 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
i understand you never got out of british empire, but you have to know that in all south america, not only in Argentina, the name of the island are Gran Malvina and Isla Soledad, and both Islas Malvinas.... with their capital in Puerto Argentino... if you want to put another name like stanleyland... do as you wish... but there is one thing i'm sure... Malvinas is not a french word... Mallouies is... not Malvinas... Malvinas is, was ando will be a Spanish term, just like Puerto Argentino. What you had just said is like saying that chocolate is spanish, not english... when it is almost both. YOURS.
This is not really the place to debate concepts like that, however the territory is one thing and people are another, people come from all over the place and because the Falkland Islanders happen to come from the UK they have no less a right to self determination, and the right to name their homeland whatever they like than residents of other countries in the continent created by immigrants. -- Gibnews 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway can we get back to the point, the page says (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) I think the correct Spanish is 'Las Malvinas' and not that so either the Spanish bit should go or the Islas should be replaced. Thats what the writing on the wall says
-- Gibnews 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
the name, doesn't matter, the important thing is what is it. i hope what i had wrote help you guys....
Pablo (in english paul, but is not my name, is it?)
Shouldn't the field British overseas territory at the infobox say 1833? I don't think it's worth changing it just because of some failed invasion followed by a two-month war -- Hetfield1987 ( Wesborland | James Hetfield) 08:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Given San Loranzo del Escorial Treaty and the Masserano Conventions, it should read "illegal invasion day: 3-1-1833" - Argentini an 22:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Why an independence date to begin with? The Falkland Islands have never been independent. They've been a colony of someone or other since the Europeans arrived. -- MacRusgail 01:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I recognize that, 25 years later, the Falklands is still a pretty touchy subject for Brits. For the rest of the world (except Argentina maybe) the Falklands are a distant, sparsley populated land that nobody wants to visit. A typical joke in America at the time was "The Falkin' Islands? Which falkin' islands are you talking about? There are lots of falkin' islands all over the world!" If the names are that touchy, it would still be interesting to compare the Falklands map on the English version (which has a glitch in it when you try to enlarge) to the Malvinas map on the Spanish version of this article. Maybe a Falklands/Malvinas article can be created. Mandsford 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there actually a point here? I for one can't find it. -- RaiderAspect 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Gibnews 08:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This guy is 100% right. We are Spanish/Italians.
This guy seems to be unable to think. If Argentina considered the Falkland Isladers and a "bunch of ex-pats" then why did the militar force in 1982 not expell them? Why did they treated them as People born in Argentine soil, therefore, Argentinians??? -- Argentini an 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not the place to debate these issues, and the reference to 'ex-pats' by the red herring is unhelpful. What is needed is to respect the views of others and the right of people to live wherever they want and to form part of states democraticlly. If one looks back far enough our ancestors are all from somewhere different to where we live now. We all have the right to live in peace and the other things expressed in the UDHR. -- Gibnews 08:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The article Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province reads as if Argentina controls the Falklands and South Georgia. Even if their claim is considered to be rightful, their control over the Falklands in the 20th century was a matter of days. So claim or no claim, that article is skewed.-- MacRusgail 01:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Although there is apparently no functioning railway on the Falklands, I came across a reference to "the Falklands Islands Camber Railway" at http://www.mclaren.gs/links_page.htm. It references a link to " Martin Coombs' narrow-gauge railway site". Unfortunately that site is no longer in use & access to the contents via the Internet Archive WayBackMachine has been blocked. 80.1.88.1 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
" The Falkland Islanders, as well as many others[attribution needed], tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive, as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982. Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] The use of English names is likewise offensive to many Latin Americans and supporters of the Argentine claim. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" "
Should the above be limited to what the Falkland people say and move the rest to the article about the dispute (and even place a link to the article.)? So, it might be better to write:
" The Falkland Islanders, tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive[attribution needed], as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982 ( see Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands). Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] "
Brusegadi 22:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Nop, this article is about the Islands not the people of the islands and we are explaining in the paragrapah both the offensives way to call them. Jor70 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"Some Falkland islanders tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be slightly offensive, as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982. Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] The use of English names are likewise considered offensive by some supporters of the Argentine claim. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" to avoid offending either party."
WikipedianProlific (Talk) 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I like that wording too. I just think that as it stands, it really reflects the animosity and lack of consensus found on the talk page. I do not find either term offensive, but I understand that some people might. Yet, we have to have the article be neutral. (Lets try to have overall neutrality and not neutrality that results from including two very opposing and extreme views that cancel each other out.) I suggest the above without the "slightly":
"Some Falkland islanders tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive, as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982. Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] The use of English names are likewise considered offensive by some supporters of the Argentine claim. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" to avoid offending either party." Brusegadi 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That sentence's citation currently links to an article from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom. Sorry, the British government is not a source with an neutral view. I'm taking down citation #4 and replacing it with citation needed. - Tocino 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just happened across the article, unaware of this discussion, and found the source to be incredibly biased, and have just removed it again. You cannot use the British government as a source claiming that the British government is the preferred of two claims to sovereignty. See the bit about disputed opinions on the NPOV page. Elcocinero 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Although its nice that people are eligible for citizenship, this requires consent.
Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Article 15 Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
-- Gibnews 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
(Un-indent) You may wish to consider the situation of Northern Ireland as an analog. They are citizens, by birth, of the Republic of Ireland, and enjoy (?) the right to travel freely within all of the island of Ireland. I do not know whether British citizens of Northern Ireland may renounce their Irish citizenship, but it is certainly the case that they enjoy all the same rights and privileges as any other Irish citizen. Indeed, the current Irish President is from Northern Ireland. -- Semifreddo 18:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
--13:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting. However, our referendum was useful to demonstrate to others the strength of public opinion in an unambiguous manner; If nothing else it would settle disputes here where some claim its only the wicked British Government who say that the Islanders have not desire for integration with Argentina. When our frontier with Spain opened, they initially stamped passports and one was only allowed one movement each way in a day, so if you were unavoidably detained in a bar past midnight, the next day you could not come back until after midnight again. -- Gibnews 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Could anyone confirm which British/local accent it derives from, or even better upload a sound file so we can hear? Gazh 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Gibnews 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The Nootka convention is mentioned on the page as the British Government relinquishing sovereignty. At no point in the Nootka convention is the Islands discussed, the Falklands Islands are over 300 miles off the coast of South America. Also in 1771, a joint declaration was negotiated between the British and Spanish Governments to avert war, and the Spanish made restitution for goods confiscated in 1770 from the British who then re-occupied Port Egmont - Spanish recognition of British Sovereignty. The British Government has never relinquished sovereignty over the Islands, the withdrawal of forces in 1774 was as a result of the economic pressures from the American War of Independence. Reference to the Nootka convention is a frequent recourse by Argentinians arguing their case for sovereignty but has no basis in fact. I would suggest that that reference is removed.
OK as there has been no objection I've removed reference to the Nootka convention as its irrelevant. Added a link to indicate the reason for the British withdrawal in 1774. Justin A Kuntz 22:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I realise that the 1833 British return is an emotive subject. I would like to open a discussion about the common misconceptions. I would hope that people can contribute in a positive way rather than resorting to the usual accusations of "storming the beaches" I've seen elsewhere.
The common Argentine perspective is that the British arrived and kicked the Argentine settlement out. But that is not in fact the case. For instance the article here states "In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, repatriated the remainder of the Argentine settlement, and began to repopulate the islands with British citizens."
However, that is not quite what happened. The British return was a remarkably bloodless affair, Captain Onslow sailed into the harbour and handed the Argentine Commander a note asking him to remove the Argentine flag. Pinedo, the Argentine Commander, considered resisting but his forces consisted largely of British mercenaries who were loath to take on their countrymen. Deciding that resistance would be foolish Pinedo chose to withdraw, the British, in what at the time would have been considered a magnanimous decision, returned the colours to the Argentine forces on the Islands.
The settlers from Vernet's colony, some 20 in all actually remained on the Islands. William Dixon as Vernet's senior representative on the Island was chosen to be the British representative and issued with a British flag and flagpole. Brisbane, Vernet's deputy was allowed to return in March of 1833. By co-incidence the Beagle (Charle Darwin's Ship) happened to be in Port at the time and Brisbane presented his papers to Captain Fitzroy. Fitzroy was happy to accept his credentials as Vernet' representative and positively encouraged the continuation of the settlement.
The events that changed all this are usually referred to as the "Gaucho Murders". In August of 1833, a band of Gauchos led by Antonio Rivero ran amok murdering the senior members of the settlement. Their motivation is said to be resentment at the imminent re-imposition of law and order following months of lawlessness after the Lexington raid of 1831. The survivors fled to Turf Island from where they were rescued in October of 1833.
I would make two points. The usual Argentine assertion is that Britain expelled the settlers. That is incorrect, they were encouraged to continue by the British who respected their property.
The main reason that the remaining settlers departed is as the result of the Gaucho murders, ironically Rivero is now often regarded as an Argentine Freedom Fighter. For example http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/martinez.htm
A brief history is also available here:
http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html
I suggest that elements of the article as it currently written could be construed as favouring one side of a partisan POV and that some minor edits would enable a more neutral POV. Justin A Kuntz 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any information as to what happened to the survivors of the "Gaucho Murders"? I know they were rescued in the October but haven't found any information as to what then happened. Justin A Kuntz 18:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It might well be true that people in South America find the name "Falklands" offensive, but this is supremely irrelevent. This article is about the Falklands. TharkunColl 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line on this is that the article is about the Falkland Islands, if anything to do with it causes offence in Outer Mongolia, then it would be appropriate to mention that on the page about that place but not on the FI page. No doubt some people are offended that the British exist at all, tough. -- Gibnews 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
OK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive2
Quote:
It's not for us to get involved with the online debate, but for information, I am happy for you to reproduce the following:
"As you have correctly surmised, many people here would be insulted by the term Malvinas as it implies an element of Argentine authority. Conversely, the alleged Argentine insult of "Kelper" is considered quaint but irrelevant and raises no tensions.
"Without prejudice to any political debate, there is also a linguistic consideration and most people in the Spanish speaking world (not only Argentina) generically refer to the Islands as the Malvinas. ISO-3166 has us listed as Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
"Regarding other place names, there are Argentine names for Stanley whose historic basis is debatable as Stanley was founded around 10 years after British rule commenced in 1833. Also, we no longer use Port Stanley, just Stanley."
Regards,
Tim Cotter MSc BSc
Infrastructure Development
Falkland Islands Development Corporation
Stanley
Falkland Islands
Official position as quoted by an official of the Falkland Islands Government. Justin A Kuntz 00:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't difficult at all to find, in the interests of maintaining a NPOV surely it is important to take the time to do this without resorting to a reversion first. Justin A Kuntz 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
For now I've reverted to the previous consensus presenting both sides, I suggest that in line with the guidelines on disputed articles that a discussion takes place before edits. Justin A Kuntz 01:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else think "The island's residents reject the Argentine sovereignty claim[5] with the English language and names in common use rather than Spanish varients promoted by some foreign media." is pretty lousy wording? Apart from the obvious mis-spelling, the conflation of two completely different issues (language and sovereignty) is very disingenuous, not to say dishonest. Yet this is the wording people seem to want. Unless we can move this article on a little I will really need to take this further. We are trying to write an encyclopedia. -- John 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've put a summary backed up with references that the use of many Spanish names is considered offensive. I tried hard to do the same in reverse but the best I could come up with is this:
http://www.rampant-books.com/south_america_travel_tips/t_buenos_aires_argentina.htm
Any violent objections to the words. I've left a citation required tag in place, hopefully someone can come up with something better. Justin A Kuntz 12:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The rainfall is only given in inches, shouldn’t the mm also be given? I work it out to be 610mm. Normally I would just change the article but as this has reached featured status I wanted to check Rjd.1892 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Sources say that the Islands were a destination for some Acadian exiles of the 7 Years War (1750's) AKA "French and Indian Wars". The Acadians (French settlers) were removed by force by the English from Nova Scotia in the first such action in modern history (not disputed). According to these sources, the French established the name and the first successful colony in the Falklands with Acadian settlers looking for a place to go. After the Island was given to Spain, the French name was made to sound Spanish and the colony declined. Some of the modern population may even by decended from this group. This historical background needs to be confirmed and added. 67.71.188.199 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.188.199 ( talk) 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed reference to Nootka convention again. Discussion above about why it was originally removed. The interpretation put into the edit is pushing an Argentine POV. Justin A Kuntz 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Quick look at the history shows this user was responsible for previously inserting similar text pushing POV on August 4th. Justin A Kuntz 12:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Looked again, that was August 4th 2006, and this user has made very few edits. Is this a sockpuppet? Justin A Kuntz 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think thats a pretty good summary. Anyway we mention the link between the Argentine claim and the Nootka convention under Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Thats the place where the claim belongs IMHO. Justin A Kuntz 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Reverted the addition of the Nootka text again from the same user. Adding the Nootka text is the only contribution that user has made in recent days. Pointed to the talk page but this is apparently being ignored. Justin A Kuntz 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"The Nootka text itself is prima facie evidence of applicability. Do not revert 3rd time without citation."
If contributors are not happy with citing Wikipedia itself as a source of the text of the Nootka Sound Convention, it is also available here:
http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=267207
from page 664 Dab14763 18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Narson, if you say the reference "belongs on the sovereignty of the falkland island" article, you are making a conclusion that there exists relevance between Nootka and a claim of sovereignty in the islands. That itself is an assertion, whereby you believe "content X belongs in Y" while providing your citation to bolster that claim.
talk, the answers to your questions are not obvious to me - I simply think they're the wrong questions to ask, because no such questions were asked in a similar article (Louisiana Purchase) with similar vocabulary (treaty describing vast amount of applicable territory to the inclusion of its adjacent islands, without specifically naming the islands or defining the term "adjacent").
What is clearly happening here, to me, is that there is a pre-existing bias by a group of editors determined to keep any and all references to a historical event clearly related to the Falklands, out of the Falklands article. If NPOV was truly being employed here, the reaction wouldn't be "yeah....um, define 'adjacent'." This is purely semantics, reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "define 'sexual relations'" bit during the Monica days.
Both Nootka and LP's primary source text describe the applicable territory in great detail. The description fits the common-sense profile of Avery Island as an adjacent island - this case applies because it establishes how WP prevents these type of disputes, by demonstrating clearly than in a historical document describing a vast territory and adjacent islands, it means islands clearly adjacent to the coasts described - the information is included solely based on the primary source text, WITHOUT a requisite that the islands be listed by name in the primary source text, or that the term 'adjacent' be defined, or that the role of any third party be established.
Just the primary text, and its common sense definition. That is the standard for LP, it is clearly the WP standard, and I believe it applies here as well in a matter that settles this current dispute. Alex79818 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The History section of the article states the following:
"As a result of economic pressures resulting from the American War of Independence, the United Kingdom unilaterally chose to withdraw from many of her overseas settlements in 1774."
The American Revolution started in 1776. The cited source states only that Britain withdrew from most of its overseas installations as a result of economic pressures, and says nothing about the American war. I do not see how this could possibly be accurate, and in the meantime it looks like the American War of Independence claim is fabricated from whole cloth, since it isn't in agreement with the cited source. Rogue 9 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html
I've been working through the {{ Fact}} tags. I can confirm Scots and Welsh immigration but not Ulster Scots, so removed for the moment. If anyone has a reference feel free to add it back. Justin A Kuntz 10:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if i have missed something, but reference 24 - it is citing a book as a source, is this legitimate? Gazh 13:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers...
"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."
All references to the Nootka Sound Convention have been deleted by Justin A Kuntz, claiming these are Argentine POV edits. My contention is that this does not promote the Argentine POV, but rather constitutes a known historical fact regarding the island's history - which is even mentioned on the WP "Falkland Islands Sovereignty" page:
"The Conventions included provisions recognizing that the coasts and islands of South America colonized by Spain at the time were Spanish, and that areas south of the southernmost settlements were off limits to both countries, provided (in a secret article) that no third party settled there either."
First off, there is absolutely no reference to, or citation of, Article VI, Nootka (aka 'Tratado de San Lorenzo del Escorial') in any diplomatic, historical, or otherwise official Argentinean document stating a case for sovereignty of the islands - and I challenge anyone to come up with it. The fact is, the Argentine claim is solely based on uti possidetis juris.
Secondly, the applicability of Nootka (near Vancouver Island) to South America is clear from the text itself, as is the fact that Britain agreed not to re-settle the islands:
"It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain..."
Being that at the time of British withdrawal in 1776, the Spanish remained on the island through Nootka's 1790 signing, it follows that the UK would therefore be the only party that would not re-settle - how can the Spanish re-settle the island if they're already there? Are these now "islands adjacent already occupied by Spain"??
Third and last, both Spain and Britain revived Nootka in 1814, at the time there was no settlement by either party, so if both parties have then agreed not to re-settle the islands then how can this foster the Argentine POV, stating uncontested Argentine sovereignty? If anything, it would deal it a serious blow.
If you're going to revert someone else's edit, why not provide a citation? Why not discuss it on talk, instead of single-handedly deciding that "A" is a historical fact but "B" promotes a certain point of view?
Unless I'm mistaken, that's the reason WP exists. Alex79818 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Given the extensive response, I will attempt to respond to each individual point.
Point #1: “First of all the reference to the Nootka convention was not removed by myself alone, it was removed by consensus as shown above. I was one of the editors who put into the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, as it forms part of Argentine claims for the Islands. That is where it belongs. Do not accuse me of suppressing something that I clearly did not.”
Response #1: In reference to the 6 July 2007 removal and your claim to consensus, I point out that you wrote “I would suggest that that reference is removed.” BennyTec said he was going to sit back and wait. Apcbg linked the original text and TharkunColl then single-handedly concludes “this other power, of course, is Argentina” citing no sources which would indicate this as a prevalent point of view among historians or any other text. Then you and TharkunColl decide that it’s “irrelevant” and add a link to the British 1774 withdrawal (which itself is unclear as to how the 1774 withdrawal relates to the discussion of an event that happened in 1790).
So…two people agreeing on the same thing, one linking the text and a fourth that “sits back and wait”…this is what you call “consensus”?
I accused you of nothing. You clearly initiated the idea that it should be removed as “irrelevant” to the subject, no non-WP source was provided to bolster either yours of TharkunColl’s interpretation, and you removed it – the record clearly states that, as does my comment. As you well know, Nootka / San Lorenzo was in the ‘History’ section of the Article. It follows then that the assertion is that Nootka / San Lorenzo is a historical event of relevance to the larger subject which is the Falkland Islands. I’ve seen no citations nor any other evidence brought forward to bolster the POV and conclusion that Nootka has no historical relevance to the islands. Therefore I can only conclude your edit action, removal, must bolster its own unsupported POV.
Even BennyTec at the end says there should at least be a side-by-side section of text. The question in this matter is clear:
Does Nootka, as an established historical event, have any factual relevance to the islands? My position, by virtue of the text itself, is a resounding yes, the text itself being prima facie evidence of relevance.
Point #2: “Secondly the applicability of Nootka is your interpretation. Islands some 300+ miles off the coast of South America are not in the near vicinity of the Islands, the Falkland Islands are not mentioned and the convention only applies to new settlements, the British had settled on the Falklands prior to Nootka, had continued to claim sovereignty, and so Nootka is at best a moot point. So again your second point is pushing a POV.”
Response #2: Any text is open to some degree of interpretation, but the yardstick must be common sense. If a historical text from the 20th century refers to “North America”, would it be common sense that this reference includes the United States, or the State of New York, or the State of Georgia, even if not specifically mentioned? If a historical text from WW2 mentions the “Axis Powers”, would it not be common sense to infer from such text that Germany is one of the states being described, even if not specifically mentioned? Common sense.
What does it matter if the islands are not specifically mentioned in the convention? Neither is Vancouver, so by your reasoning, Nootka has no applicability there either because Vancouver is not mentioned by name. What does it matter if the islands are 300 miles off the coast – are we going to get into semantics now? How about the fact that the islands sit on the continental shelf of Argentina’s East Coast, or are located entirely within Argentine territorial waters. Or, instead of getting into semantics, how about looking at a map. This isn’t Shetland or Sandwich, or the Canaries we’re talking about, it’s the Falklands – and they look pretty darn adjacent to the eastern coast of South America. Again, common sense.
You state I am pushing a POV. If the British withdrew their settlement in 1774, and the Spanish remained, and later on both parties signed the convention in 1790, then it seems clear the only party to the convention who could possibly re-settle, or settle in the future (as intended at the time of entry upon agreement) are the British. This is not a POV - how can the Spanish, in 1790, re-settle if they’re already there? How would the clause apply to Spain at the time of entry into the agreement – am I to believe Spain agreed not to settle in the future a place where they already have a settlement?
Again, common sense. Clearly, in 1790, this applies only to the party that had no settlement at the time, the British. And in 1814, to both parties, being that neither had settlements – which I’ve stated before, and clearly demonstrates NPOV on my part.
What calls to question is your reference that “British had settled on the Falklands prior to Nootka, had continued to claim sovereignty, and so Nootka is at best a moot point.” I do not believe I should need to introduce the concept of linear time at this point, but I am compelled to respond to the above: The British indeed settled prior to Nootka. Then, later, they withdrew and continued to claim sovereignty prior to Nootka. Then, later, they agreed to Nootka. For a moment, let’s assume (for the sake of argument) that Nootka applies to the islands. Are you actually saying that…it’s a point of contention that Nootka happened after withdrawal?? Last I checked, 1790 was after 1774, meaning that in 1790 something happened that altered, or affected, the state of affairs as they were in 1774, and that something, under this assumption, would be Nootka.
That is the basic concept of a timeline, if I'm not mistaken. Japan didn’t win the war because the attacked Pearl Harbor. On December 7, 1941, Japan was definitely winning the war and scored a significant victory against the US – but then later signed a surrender treaty, which changed the state of affairs. Event A happens, then Event B happens, then Event C…again common sense, not my pushing a POV - just .
Point #3: “Thirdly as pointed out above Nootka was initially abandoned in 1795 and revived in 1814. Well Argentina was founded in 1811 so as far as Nootka is concerned, Argentina is a 3rd power under the Nootka convention, since Argentina had claimed the Islands, Nootka became invalid under the secret article. Its applicability to any British settlement is therefore null and void.”
Response #3: Who cares? The question here is not the role of Argentina, the question here is whether or not Nootka as a historical event has any factual relevance to the islands! Why? Because that is what you stated in your removal comment, without providing any citations:
“Removed reference to Nootka convention as irrelevant to Falklands Sovereignty claim. Refer to Talk discussion”
As you well pointed out, this is not the “Falklands Sovereignty” article. This is the History section of the “Falkland Islands” article. You made the edit, you provide no evidence or citations to support your challenge to the Nootka reference – and mind you, suppression is the least of the concerns I have at this point. Based on your arguments, I am unsure as to what your perception of a linear timeline entails. Not to mention the fact that you clearly believe Nootka is irrelevant “to Falklands Sovereignty claim” yet you freely mention that you were one of the editors who pushed for its inclusion in the “Falklands Sovereignty” page, where you now claim “it belongs”. How does this make sense, common or otherwise?
How can you say, in one discussion, that it is relevant to the context of Sovereignty to support your inclusion in the Falklands Sovereignty article, and in another discussion, that it is not relevant in order to delete it from the History section of the Falklands page?
Historically relevant or not? Which is it?
And for that matter, how do any of your arguments prove that Nootka’s applicability to any British settlement is therefore null and void? They don't. And what references and citations did you provide to support your challenge? None whatsoever. Clearly, it is not I who pushes for a POV.
Also, Argentina declared independence on July 9, 1816 – not in 1811, so I would suggest you check your historical sources.
What did happen in 1811, however, was the assumption of Francisco Javier de Elio as Spanish Viceroy of the River Plate, which if I am not mistaken, would have placed the islands adjacent to the eastern coast of South America in a territory south of parts of the same coast already occupied by Spain. My point is that this is Nootka’s definition, and Nootka is relevant to the islands – in 1790, in 1811 and in 1814. Argentina can’t become a 3rd power unless it first exists, and it didn’t exist until 1816, two years after the 1814 renewal of Nootka. How then is Argentina’s 1816 declaration of independence in any way related to this discussion, which aims to establish the historical relevance, or lack thereof, of Nootka to the Falkland Islands, at the time of the agreement’s signing and/or renewal?
Lastly, in questions to the invalidation of Article 6 by Argentina, the secret article clearly refers solely to the stipulation of Article 6 that the parties’ respective subjects “shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these (eastern and western) coasts (of South America) situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain”. Notice that in the secret article there is no mention of “and islands adjacent”, just the coasts. The secret article then continues by stating that Article 6 “shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power”…..where?.....”on the coasts in question”.
Any rational person would therefore deduce that, if in the article itself, the authors went to such specificity as to mention “the islands adjacent”, they would have therefore gone to the same level of specificity in the secret article – clearly, they did not. Again, the text speaks for itself, and is prima facie evidence of applicability. This is Spain and Britain we’re talking about here…do you honestly think the learned men who wrote up these contracts would commit a blunder that would leave such a gaping loophole? Perhaps, or perhaps not. Perhaps the islands weren’t so important…we can wonder all day and never know. What we do know, is that the invalidation clause of the secret article makes no mention of its applicability to “islands adjacent”, either in its jurisdictional language or its stated pre-requisites for invalidation – and in fact, goes so far as to specify that in the case of invalidation, Article 6 is not invalidated in its entirety, but rather, limits such effect only to Article 6’s stipulation of establishments on the coasts.
Point #4: “Fourthly, none of your sources actually support a link to the Falklands”
Response #4: Right. So, on a subject that is known to be controversial, you believe the best approach is to provide sources given by one of the party to the controversies.
So far, having been accused of pushing a POV, I’ve been able to poke holes at your argumentative conception of both linear time and context. Shall I now include the concept of impartiality? Please excuse if my response appears to be trolling, I am only responding in such manner to the effect that I have been accused of pushing a POV. Clearly, if the intent for the article’s text is NPOV, then citing official references to either party of the controversy is itself pushing a POV, in the inference that the cited party is “correct” and therefore constitutes an acceptable citation or source of non-factual interpretation. Again I ask, is this what WP was founded for? Is this what you call NPOV?
Point #5: “Fifthly virtually the only activity of the editor Alex79818 has been to put the Nootka convention into the Falkland Islands article. I would normally assume Good Faith but I would point out.
(1) in the first time you recently added the text, you claimed I removed the edit without consultation in talk. That wasn't the case, hence I assumed you did not bother to check.
(2) you put in back in today again without consultation in talk, again this does not indicate that you were behaving assuming my edits were in good faith. I therefore concluded that you were pushing a POV edit.”
Response #5: What does it matter my past activity? The only thing that matters in this case is whether or not my undo of your challenge was factually correct, i.e., whether or not Nootka is relevant to the Falklands' history. You must have been a first-time user at one point or another. My reference to your attempts to edit without consultation in talk was simply due to the fact that I was still getting used to WP at the time, and was clearly incorrect, as was my reinsertion. I attempted to talk with the limited knowledge I had at the time, which was to place a comment.
Still, I see no facts or citations on your part to support the conclusion that Nootka is not applicable. And, as you stated, this was in your view anyway. You conclude, and then just decide to revert the text?
Speaking of monarchies, who died and made you king? Pfainuk then states “It's up to editor wishing to add the text - that's Alex79818 - to provide acceptable and reliable sources”. Well I guess that you conveniently forgot to read the part that states “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation”. If there’s an article you find with text you want to challenge, then as the challenger to existing text, the burden of proof is on you to back up your challenge. The challenge, as stated, was:
“Removed reference to Nootka convention as irrelevant to Falklands Sovereignty claim.”
So where’s your proof? Two people agreeing on the same thing, one linking the text and a fourth that “sits back and wait”……that’s it?
Point #6: “Sixth, you claim that there is absolutely no reference to, or citation of, Article VI, Nootka (aka 'Tratado de San Lorenzo del Escorial') in any diplomatic, historical, or otherwise official Argentinean document stating a case for sovereignty of the islands - and I challenge anyone to come up with it. Well I take up your challenge and draw your attention to this link in the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands page http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/home.html, specifically En 1790, con la firma del tratado de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Gran Bretaña se comprometió a no formar ningún establecimiento en las costas tanto orientales como occidentales de América Meridional ni en las islas adyacentes ya ocupadas por España, cual era el caso de las Malvinas. (For the non-Spanish speakers thats an official Argentine Government document that claims the Nootka convention is relevant).
So once again, when I see an editor who has only published on Argentine related topics making such a claim I am not confident such edits are made in good faith.”
Response #6: Re-read my challenge: no reference of Nootka in any Argentina document stating a case for sovereignty. Read the title of the Article to which you refer: Antecedentes Historicos (historical precedents). Nootka is not mentioned in any of the successive articles, which specifically outline Argentina’s case for sovereignty of the islands, Argentina not having been a signatory party to Nootka.
Neither will you find such reference to Nootka as a case for sovereignty in Argentina’s initial protests of 1833 and 1834, nor in the 1841 redress to the Count of Aberdeen on the matter, nor in 1842, nor in the concession offer of 1848, nor in any of the diplomatic letters between December 1884 and January 1885, nor in the responses following British bestowment of colonial status in 1892, nor following the 1908 incorporation of South Shetlands/Georgias/Sandwich/etc which are also disputed by Argentina. You won’t find Nootka cited in favor of Argentine sovereignty in Argentina’s 1929 protest, nor in the 1945 statement to the UN for inclusion in the organization’s formative documents, nor in any diplomatic document to the UN since, or to the OAS for that matter. And you won’t find it in any of the direct negotiations that took place in the 1960’s, nor in the communications of the 1970’s, nor in the pre-war communications of the 1980’s, nor in any such Argentine document since the war.
You won’t find Nootka cited in the case for Argentine sovereignty in any official document. You won’t find it, because it's not there. Argentina isn’t a signatory. The question, both for the article you linked and the WP article we are now discussing, is one and the same:
Is Nootka historically relevant to the Falkland Islands?
Yes, clearly it is. Nootka, by virtue of Article 6’s “adjacent islands” clause, by virtue of both of the island’s sovereignty-disputing parties being signatories, clearly is relevant and applicable to the Falklands. Mention of Nootka is therefore proper in the History section of this article.
Point 7: “Seventh, apparently you seem to be of the opinion that I have to provide a citation that directly contradicts your POV. Sorry that isn't how Wiki works. YOU have to provide a citation to support your POV, something you have failed to do.”
Response #7: I heartily suggest you re-read WP:NOR. Again, here we come to the concept of the timeline. Event 1, I write reference to Nootka and cite source. Event 2, you find reference to Nootka. Event 3, you remove reference to Nootka. That means the citation burden is on you, because you're the challenger.
“All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation”.
You make the challenge. You provide the citation. Real simple, mate. No citation? No challenge--->text stays.
That’s how Wiki works.
Conclusion: “For all your attempts at Wikilawyering, its clear that what you're trying to do is turn wikipedia into a soapbox to push your POV over Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. That is not the purpose of WP. There is a reference to the Nootka convention, where it belongs in the Argentine claims of the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article. It merely states the facts, it isn't the synthesis of a published material to advance a position which is what you're trying to push here. Justin A Kuntz 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)”
Response to Conclusion: Wikilawyering…what happened to free and open discussion?
I’ll tell you what my point of view is, my point of view is that for one reason or another it seems that a group of people, for whatever reason, didn’t like a reference to a clearly relevant historical event, and so they decided to delete it without providing any citation or evidence that supports their challenge to the pre-existing text which they removed from the article, obviously without first achieving consensus (or else I wouldn’t be writing this).
Placing aside the logical fallacies that I’ve enumerated (timeline, context, impartiality, etc), and also placing aside my prior statement that, if anything, Nootka would deal any Argentina claim “a serious blow”, I seriously question the motives behind your demonstrated intent to exclude any and all references to Nootka from the Falklands article.
It is I who find it extraordinary, that all relevant text is simply deleted in clear violation of WP challenge protocol – without a single source pointing to Nootka’s inapplicability to Falklands insofar as they are physically located within territories described by Nootka’s text in great specificity. My edit provides both the primary source (Nootka text) as well as a secondary source (interpretation of Nootka) and is therefore clearly not OR. I did not ignore the hiatus from 1795-1814 and even went so far as to include the 1814 renewal. I ignored the secret article because it clearly did not mention “the islands adjacent”, and also specifically mentions the inapplicability would solely apply to Article 6’s “stipulation of establishments on the coasts.” Far from vague, the text is as specific as it could possibly be!
Honestly, do you really expect them to list every single archipelago in the western hemisphere by name?
You are right in that my edit unambiguously stated that Britain, and only Britain, gave up the right to resettle at the time Nootka was signed. Again, how can the Spanish re-settle a place where they’re already settled? Wouldn’t they have to leave first, and withdraw their existing settlement, in order to put up a new one? That’s not a POV, it’s simple logic. But it would play to the POV of someone who doesn’t particularly want Nootka to be mentioned in such an article, notwithstanding your admission that I did clearly state “it’s not relevant to either side”.
Again, who’s pushing a POV here, and who wants the facts to come out?
Finally, regarding uti possidetis, this is and always has been Argentina’s sole basis for claim of sovereignty over the islands. Is that viewpoint correct? Maybe, maybe not. But uti possidetis is indeed what they base their arguments on, so my statement is factually correct.
The discussion as to whether or not their uti possidetis argument holds water is probably better left to the Falklands Sovereignty article. But I will responds directly to your mention that “Argentina has to prove that it had title before 1833”. No, it doesn’t – you’re confusing uti possidetis with status quo ante bellum.
Uti possidetis is a principle that states that, after an armed conflict, a certain territory remains with it’s possessor at the time the conflict ends – in other words, to the victor go the spoils. In uti possidetis, the victor needs not demonstrate they had prior title, only possession at the end of the conflict – the conflict in this case being the Argentine war of Independence against Spain. What you’re talking about, status quo ante bellum, specifically requires the claimant to hold sovereignty prior to the conflict. Argentina, in claiming uti possidetis, therefore does not have to prove that Argentina had title before 1833, but rather that Spain had title before Argentine independence in 1816. In any case, Nootka covers settlements, and settlements are not the same as Sovereignty.
Nootka is clearly relevant. Seeing this from the Convention's text requires a measure of common sense, which I believe I placed in my reference, as well as a secondary source constituting prior research. If you have evidence to challenge the Nootka reference in the article you found, present it. Otherwise, since you claim to have an NPOV approach, I would urge you to re-insert Nootka’s reference in the Article. If you object to my wording, I’m sure we can come to an agreement Alex79818 07:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC).
Where exactly lies my synthesis, as you see it?
The Nootka text specifically states Article 6 is an agreement “with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent”. So is my synthesis that the Falklands constitute “islands adjacent”?
The text further describes “parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain”. So is my synthesis then that Spain had settled coastal territories to the north of the Falklands?
As I stated before, the text itself is prima facie evidence, giving a clear, specific and unmistakeable description of both parties, the territories involved, and terms. It was a convention between two parties, the text describes the territories involved as inclusive of the islands among many other territories, and it has absolutely nothing to do with a POV of a third party which wasn’t even in existence at the time of the convention.
And once again, I point to the timeline of edits. I did provide an original source in 2006 and this source was later added to by numerous edits, and my reference was not removed by anyone until you did so in July 2007. This means YOU are the challenger!
And if YOU challenge something that’s been in the article for months, with no prior challenge, and further additions by other editors, then it’s tantamount on YOU to back up YOUR CHALLENGE!
Whether or not Nootka forms part of Argentina’s claims is wholly irrelevant to the subject (and by the way I don’t agree). If you believe I’ve synthesized then you might as well go and edit every other WP article on treaties that refer to vast geographical areas but fail to name each territory individually, because by your arguments those are conjectures as well. The facts are simple – I made a contribution with citation, other users then added to my contribution as well as their own citations, the contributions lasted for months, and were then deleted due to an unsupported challenge as “irrelevant”, which then “magically” became POV, and in neither case provided a single shred of evidence or citation to prove the challenge.
You say it is historically irrelevant. Well if the text says it governs “the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent”, and you don’t agree the islands qualify, then what evidence do you have to bolster your claim of non-adjacency sufficient enough to remove an entry which was present in the article for months before you found it?
So far, I’ve seen nothing. So either present evidence for your challenge, or remove it. Someone, somewhere, must have said at one point or another that the Falklands are not adjacent to the east coast of South America – if not, then it is not I who synthesizes, it is you, and clearly constitutes OR.
The proof is in the pudding, and if you don’t have a POV of your own, then I’m sure you’ll come up with several such unbiased sources which will cause me to be quiet Alex79818 09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC).
Let me refer to WP:SYN
"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.”
Ok…so then it follows:
A – Reliable source (original text) - “with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent”…
…SO WHAT’S B? A map?
What am I adding to A to come up with C?
What source have I named that states the islands are adjacent to the eastern coast of South America?
None – because WP allows for common sense. That is "B". Just like it would not require specific reference to the Hudson River in an article that refers to North America – it’s understood that the Hudson River is located in North America.
[WP:SYN] states synthesis as A + B therefore C. I’ve stated no B and stated outright that your understanding of position C, an Argentine sovereignty claim bolstered by Nootka, makes no sense and is actually detrimental to the Argentine position considering that Argentina didn’t exist in 1814 and was not party to the Convention.
Further…using WP’s own given example:
“Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:
Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.
That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:
If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.
This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia.”
Therefore, applying the same principle to the Nootka inclusion
…let’s plug in the relevant parties “if Britain’s claim that the Spanish claim to sovereignty is false, this would be contrary to the Nootka Convention, in which Britain renounced any further colonial ambitions in the islands”. Such a paragraph clearly violates WP:OR, because it expresses the editor’s opinion that, given Nootka’s terms, Britain renounced future colonial ambitions in the islands. Therefore, to make the paragraph consistent with WP:OR, this precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic, specifically commenting on the British/Spanish dispute at the time of Nootka’s signing.
Had I made such an “A + B means C” statement, I could point out to my citation of USGNNET, a recognized nonprofit historical and educational resource website not promoting any viewpoint, nor belonging to either of the two disputing parties, quoting British Minister Stratford Canning as third-party reliable-source analysis in relation to the topic, commenting that
“The principles settled by the Nootka Convention of 28th of October, 1790, were…3d. That on the coasts of South America and adjacent islands, south of the parts already occupied by Spain, no settlement should thereafter be made either by British or Spanish subjects; but on both sides should be retained the liberty of landing and erecting temporary buildings for the purpose of fishing…The exclusive rights of Spain to any part of the American continents have ceased. That portion of the convention, therefore, which recognizes the colonial rights of Spain on the continents, though confirmed between great Britain and Spain by the first additional article of the treaty of 5th of July, 1814, has been extinguished by the fact of the independence of the South American nations and of Mexico. Those independent nations will possess the rights incident to that condition; and their territories will, of course, be subject to no exclusive right of navigation in their vicinity, or of access to them by any foreign nation."
[ [18]]
That's what I would say if I were supporting an Argentine POV....solely providing evidence that my work is not [WP:OR]. Except that I don’t need to say this, because my statement was not “A + B means C”.
My statement is simply “A says B”, making no mention of Argentine claims.
Again, my statement is far simpler:
“A (Nootka) says it applies to to B (the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent)”.
The Falkland Islands fit the common-sense description of B, and the article remained as such for months having so been bolstered by other editors’ contributions, which is not indicative of vandalism but rather consensus (go add that the islands belong to Italy and see how many other editors contribute sources).
Your challenge is still a challenge to pre-existing text. Your challenge clearly states my citation contains nothing relevant after myself and other contributors clearly saw relevancy. You believe this is due to synthesis but my statement is not an “A + B means C” statement, the defined requisite for WP:SYN, when my statement is “A says B”.
And further, you provide no evidence or citations to support your challenge of irrelevancy.
So again, you made a challenge, where’s your citations? Where’s your evidence?
"Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you."
I stated several times that I already have provided both evidence and citations, none of which conform to WP's definition of [WP:SYN] as stated by Justin A Kuntz. I've used specific WP examples to demonstrate that my citations both fully meet the requirement and in no way constitute synthesis.
I again refer you to [WP:NOR]:
"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you."
I am saying Nootka applies to the Falklands, which are islands adjacent to the east coast of South America. Nootka specifically says it applies to islands adjacent to the east coast of South America. Therefore I am not violating [WP:NOR] because the reliable published source, Nootka, makes exactly the same argument which I am reporting on.
Further, Justin A Kuntz made a direct statement that I am promoting a POV. [WP:NPOVFAQ] states regarding the issue of "lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete", that "Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V."
In turn, [WP:V], states that "When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references."
I have provided such citation. So how is my content (relevance) inconsistent with the reference (Nootka)?
It is with this approach that I believe your questions do not apply to the dilemma at hand, which is to examine whether or not Nootka as a historical event is relevant to the History of the Falkland Islands, by which I can say the following:
Nootka's text is self-explanatory. I think the better question to ask would be, "Do the Falkland Islands fit the text description of Nootka's territorial applicability?" If the point were to find a third-party interpretation for the descriptive text of any and all primary sources, then no articles could be published that way. I submit that Nootka's text describe a certain geographical area, and rather than attempting to conform the primary source to the situation (i.e. "define adjacency") which could promote a POV by virtue of elimination, would rather approach the subject by asking if the territory fits the description given by the primary source's text. In this case, the answer is yes, and the source is Nootka.
We are simply reporting that a treaty was signed in 1790 with one party on the island and one party off. Then it was renewed in 1814 with both parties off. No need for any interpretation - just the facts as provided by the primary source text.
Argentina is not a third nor any other party to Nootka. The Nootka text does not mention Argentina, nor was Argentina a state in existence in 1790 or 1814. We are simply reporting on events of 1790 and 1814.
Settlement implies continued presence. The Lexington took prisoners and left - who is going to comment on something that never took place?
Who's saying Argentina is bound by Nootka? Again, the question at hand is whether or not Nootka is historically relevant enough to the Falkland Islands, sufficiently enough that it warrants mention in the History section of the article, within the given timeline (1790 and 1814, respectively). Argentina doesn't exist in either and to ask whether or not Argentina is bound by Nootka creates a discussion unnecessary to answer the question of sufficient relevancy to report.
It's not about who sees what...a challenge of irrelevance was made, and the material was properly cited based on [WP:NOR] as primary source text that expressed the same idea as the article's Nootka reference. Also, a claim of bias was made, which is determined by [WP:NPOVFAQ], directing sources to be provided as per [WP:V] to establish consistency between the challenged content and the source.
But demanding specific additional sources that confirm the plainly obvious consistency between the source text and article text is not stated as a necessity for [WP:V], and it is simply unreasonable to assume this would be necessary in order to add non-OR and NPOV text to an article. Take the text of the Louisiana Purchase treaty - it doesn't mention every state in the Union as party to the treaty, just the United States. Do you really need a third-party source who opines that in the treaty's reference, all states forming part of the Union are parties to the treaty? No, because it's common sense based on the descriptive language of the primary source. A perfect example is Article 2:
"In the cession made by the preceeding article are included the adjacent Islands belonging to Louisiana all public lots and Squares"
but the treaty fails to specify a distance or definition of adjacent islands. And yet there is no manifest requisite of another source that qualifies Avery Island as an adjacent island. The common sense approach is therefore to examine whether or not the treaty's language describes the island in question, which is no different in that case than in this one. Alex79818 12:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Some points about the above:
1) Adjacency. This is what the International Court of Justice had to say 'adjacency' in its ruling on a maritime dispute between Germany, Denmark, and The Netherlands:
http://www.imli.org/legal_docs/docs/A68.DOC paragraph 41 .......To take what is perhaps the most frequently employed of these terms. namely "adjacent to", it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as "adjacent" to it, or to any coast at all, in the normal sense of adjacency, even if the point concerned is nearer to some one coast than to any other.
2) Succesion of states. For succesion of states to apply, the change of sovereignty has to be legal.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/1997/factum/craw_pt1.html
See section on state succession and paragraphs 8 and 9.
Argentina seceded from Spain unilaterally through a war of independence and therefore would not be entitled to state succession according to the above paragraphs.
3) Is Argentina bound by Nootka? This is the wrong question. Argentina is not a signatory to Nootka and is therefore not bound by it. The question is whether Britain under the terms of the secret article stopped being bound to article VI when Argentina (subjects of any other power) formed a settlement on the Falklands in 1829.
4) Spain's recognition of United Provinces/Argentina. Britain recognised the United Provinces in 1825 so as far as Britain is concerned the United Provinces was a separate entity from Spain from 1825 onwards Dab14763 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Narson, if you say the reference "belongs on the sovereignty of the falkland island" article, you are making a conclusion that there exists relevance between Nootka and a claim of sovereignty in the islands. That itself is an assertion, whereby you believe "content X belongs in Y" while providing no citation or evidence to bolster that conclusion.
Pfainuk, the answers to your questions are not obvious to me - I simply think they're the wrong questions to ask, because no such questions were asked in a similar article (Louisiana Purchase) with similar vocabulary (describing vast amount of territory to the inclusion of its adjacent islands, without specifically naming the islands or defining the term "adjacent").
What is clearly happening here, to me, is that there is a pre-existing bias by a group of editors determined to keep any and all references to a historical event clearly related to the Falklands, out of the Falklands article. If NPOV was truly being employed here, the reaction wouldn't be "yeah....um, define 'adjacent'!" This is purely semantics, reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "define 'sexual relations'" bit during the Monica days. Plus the reasons for exclusion have jumped from [WP:NOR], to [WP:SYN], then to [WP:NPOV], and now back to [WP:NOR]. I've already explained in great detail how no such violations have taken place, and gone so far as to explain how [WP:V] is met. I've received no response to that.
The indisputable fact is, both Nootka and Louisiana Purchace's primary source text describe the applicable territory in great detail, with inclusion of the phrase "the islands adjacent". The profile of Avery Island fits the common-sense description of the LP text as an adjacent island - the LP case applies to our Nootka discussion because it establishes how WP prevents these type of disputes, by demonstrating clearly that in a historical document describing a vast territory and adjacent islands, it means just what it says - islands clearly adjacent to the coasts described - and in such cases, the information is included solely based on the primary source text, WITHOUT a requisite that the islands be listed by name in the primary source text, or that the term 'adjacent' be defined, or that the role of any third party be established.
Just the primary text, and its common sense definition. That is the standard for LP, it is clearly the WP standard, and I believe it applies here as well in a matter that settles this current dispute insofar as it clearly demonstrates how this same type of description should be interpreted. Alex79818 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Pfainuk, I refer you to WP: PSTS:
“Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.”
The WP passage in contention here is in direct, verbatim agreement with Nootka’s own text. It is therefore not synthesis, it doesn’t promote any point of view as both parties to Nootka gave up rights in 1814, and it does not constitute a violation of WP:NOR as the primary source cited conforms to WP:V, WP:PSTS, and the passage’s inclusion is warranted in the article without additional citations by virtue of the fact that no such additional citations are required by WP in the determination of treaty language listing “the islands adjacent” without further specificity or definition.
Even still, let’s examine WP’s own definition of the word “adjacent”:
adjacent 1. Lying near, close, or contiguous; neighboring; bordering on; as, a field adjacent the highway. 2. Just before, after, or facing.
The Falklands are neighbouring islands to the east coast of South America. They are contiguous to South America in that they sit on the same continental shelf. Just because you can fit another width of the South American content between the coast and the islands does not change any of the above. Just how much more adjacent can you get? A determination of relevance is clearly in keeping with the common sense guidelines in WP:UCS.
Pfainuk, I heartily agree with your statement that there’s no current territorial dispute over the Louisiana Territory’s Avery Island. Likewise, it is indeed 3 miles from mainland. But you fail to understand the point of the matter is that if the Falklands article is truly NPOV, it must accept a universal, not subjective, standard for determination of relevance and applicability based on a primary source text of "the islands adjacent".
In your own words, “we have to be very picky on NPOV issues” – this statement is teeming with bias! Picky? Exactly my point – picking and choosing, favoring exclusion by default, of anything that in anyone’s opinion, founded or unfounded, might promote a POV (never mind the fact that the exclusion itself promotes a POV, even if the wording of the proposed text is change, because what is being pushed for here is clearly the absolute and unequivocal exclusion, at all costs, and without supporting sources).
You further demanded additional sources, and I responded by providing this forum with the exact way in which this exact same question is handled elsewhere in WP. The example I provided only illustrates WP’s handling of such a question, and as such it is therefore unrelated to the geopolitical particulars of each case, clearly demonstrating that, as far as WP is concerned, treaty language describing “the islands adjacent” needs not list such islands by name, or define such adjacency, in order to be included in that article.
Therefore, if my text constitutes a violation of WP:NOR, then the same applies to LP passages and elsewhere in WP, regardless of whether or not the same dispute circumstances apply, because the WP measure for determining NPOV is decided by the same standard irrelevant of the disputing party’s assertions. There's not one WP:V standard that applies to one article and not to another, the WP standards are universal to all WP articles. And according to you, that standard is mentioning the archipelago by name in the primary text, or established third party definition of adjacency, and anything else is OR.
I would agree completely if the same standard were used throughout WP to asses the applicability of such language to any archipelago. Unfortunately, it is not – therefore the exclusion, still unfounded, constitutes BIAS of its own as defined by WP:NPOV:
“In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be…marginalized or given undue standing…subject to other factors suggestive of bias.”
How, therefore, can such an absolute removal not be indicative of marginalization of a related historical fact, as defined by WP’s own interpretation of the same exact treaty language, when you believe that extra evidence is required in this specific case and WP clearly does not in other cases utilizing the same exact language?
You say four other editors agree. But if you check this page’s history, this issue has been edited before, see “13:25, 26 August 2005 Icairns ( more neutral statement on positions over Nootka)”, which did not remove the entry. Neither did Apcbg delete the passage after discussion on 23:48, 27 June 2006, stating “the Falkland Islands (1) were a disputed territory claimed by both Spain and Britain, where after the termination of the Spanish settlement there existed the international legal regime established by the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention.”
Even TharkunColl, an editor who throughout all Nootka discussions has proven to be a supporter of the Kelper POV vis a vis his exchanges with Argentino Argentino, writes an entry on 10:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC) stating “Unless someone can provide the text of this illusive document, I suggest we remove all mention of it from any article concerning the Falklands.”
Well guess what mate, now it’s provided – so now the game’s got to be shifted to try to find ways to invalidate the primary text by asking things like the meaning of the word “adjacent”? Please.
Well when it’s not one thing then it’s another. So, fine. You ask for external links, here they are, all external citations of Nootka in Falklands history:
1) The Open University, Falklands Conflict Chronology:
[ [19]]
2) Or how about the official information portal of the Falkland Islands? Surely THEY are not promoting the Argentine POV!
[ [20]]
3) Yet another 3rd party source, this particular one not reaching a conclusion as to the effect of the Convention, but clearly mentioning it in the Falklands History section, which clearly denotes relevance.
[ [21]]
Nootka is widely understood to apply to the Falklands as a related historical events, no matter how much the editors concerned may not like it or believe that this supports the Argentine POV.
If you truly claim a NPOV, then it's clear that WP does not require 3rd party text to corroborate a primary source’s definition of “the islands adjacent”, and I’ve provided the same to show NPOV in good faith.
I did indeed assume good faith, but a good faith assumption is lost when in a discussion you ask someone who questions your contribution to come up with evidence to support a challenge, and they refuse outright – and further, require additional evidence not provided in other WP pages regarding the same challenge. I don’t care if its four or four thousand who challenge this fact, it is a known fact, and I maintain that Nootka’s text is prima facie evidence of the fact that Nootka, as a historical event, is relevant to the history of the Falklands and should therefore be re-inserted in the article, per WP:NPOV, empirically and without regard to how any of the two conflicting sides might interpret this independent of the WP passage. Alex79818 04:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well...a distinction has to be made...if someone claims a certain passage violates WP policy then obviously WP will be a source, but only insofar as the WP violation reference is concerned. I make no WP reference to support that Nootka is relevant.
The fact that a similar reference exists in the Falklands Sovereignty page is inconsequential to this question, which is not one of Sovereignty, but rather of history. The challenge which led to deletion was "Removed reference to Nootka convention as irrelevant to Falklands Sovereignty claim", therefore the question is remains the same:
Is Nootka, as a historical event, relevant to the Falkland Islands sufficiently enough to warrant a reference to the same in the History section of the Falklands WP article?
I believe so, and I have provided both primary and secondary sources that go far beyond the WP requisite including an official Falklands site, and I've explained my approach in detail, clearly demonstrating a WP:NPOV in both my methodology and explanations. And unless there are any further challenges, I will reinsert the text - of course after a reasonable amount of time for verification of my sources. And I reiterate my willingness to work with anyone to reach consensus on the wording of such a passage to ensure it conforms to WP:NPOV as well as is historically accurate, per the listed source material. Alex79818 06:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Pfainuk, if you had read what I wrote, you’d know this isn’t repetition – I’ve answered every challenge, including your challenge to provide additional citations, to prove that relevance of Nootka to Falklands is widely accepted and does not push the Argentine POV.
One such citations even includes an official Falklands page. So I ask again, are they pushing the Argentine POV as well?
It is hard to assume good faith when the challenges posed are constantly changing from one to the next, have no evidence to support them in discussion, attempt to tweak the common-sense definition of words to suit their purpose, and demand extraordinary evidence not necessary elsewhere in WP for similar cases.
Further, having provided such evidence, it is hard to assume good faith when it is ignored – especially when it leads to the absurd conclusion that the Falklands information portal is supporting an Argentine POV.
Clearly this is not an issue that is open to discussion to this ‘posse’, no matter how much evidence is provided, because the predisposition is to exclude any reference to Nootka at all cost. You are right in that any further attempt is a waste of time. And you’re right that I am a new user. Perhaps I wouldn’t try to lecture you if you adhered to the standards by which you yourself judge others’ work.
[WP:NPOV] is unequivocal: “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.”
This wanton exclusion, despite numerous reliable sources per your request and verbatim primary text in keeping with WP’s interpretation of similar tests, is simply bias. This constitutes, in my opinion, a clear policy violation (biased marginalization of relevant fact). I’ve therefore listed a MedCab request for a third opinion. Alex79818 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I also wish to add to the above citations, stating that in 1790, the British signed the Nootka Sound Convention and formally renounced any colonial ambition in South America "And the islands adjacent", this being presented in relation to Falklands history in "The Battle for the Falklands", Hastings and Jenkins - WW Norton & Company, New York, 1982.
72.83.213.184 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
UNINDENT
It is not necessary to establish a suitable citation, there is one already that indicates the academic dispute [22] over the relevance of the Nootka convention.
First of all I think it is necessary to establish edit Alex proposes [23], [24], [25] and [26]. All of which imply that as a result of the Nootka convention, Britain in some way relinquished sovereignty over the islands to Spain. This argues a POV and thus fails NPOV
Secondly the complete text of the Nootka convention itself [27]. The relevant article is ARTICLE VI
It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.
Alex argues that through the term "the islands adjacent", the convention of its own right applies to the Falkland Islands. The application of the convention to the islands is in dispute as shown by Alex's own source [28]. What Alex neglected to mention is that this source discusses the sovereignty claim indicating that while Argentina claims that the convention applies to the islands, Britain denies that it is applicable. Hence, by presenting part of the story Alex presents a case favourable to the Argentine POV and thus fails NPOV. I quote:
Argentine Claim By the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790, Britain disavowed any colonial ambitions in South America "and the islands adjacent." Argentina claims this included the Islands.
and
British Response The British insist that mutual agreements made between Spain and England during the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790 did not affect existing claims to sovereignty.
Further he has largely argued that it is common sense, that the term "adjacent" means the convention applies to the islands. The islands are 300+ miles of the coast of South America, so common sense does not immediately indicate that conclusion, since it does not align with the dictionary definition of adjacent i.e. close proximity. The issue at stake is that the term "adjacent" is not defined. As it is not defined, common sense would first re-examine the text to see if there is any indication of the intentions of the persons framing the document. Article IV requires that the British do not navigate or fish "within the distance of 10 maritime leagues from any part of the coast". One might assume that this distance was in the minds of the persons framing the documents and as 10 leagues is about 35 miles that might fall in line with the dictionary definition of "adjacent". Applying common sense one might also seek a legal precedent to ratify that conclusion, [29] is an International Court of Justice decision that "by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as "adjacent" to it, or to any coast at all, in the normal sense of adjacency, even if the point concerned is nearer to some one coast than to any other."
Further Alex cites precedent of Avery Island and the Louisiana Purchase to establish his interpretation of adjacency. Avery Island is 3 miles inland, so I would concede common sense would indicate the term "adjacent" implies applicability. On the other hand common sense would not immediately lead one to conclude that islands 300+ miles offshore is an analogous situation.
Hence, regarding the argument that Alex presents that applicability can be determined by examining the text of the Nootka convention itself.
However, I do not consider such an argument to be relevant to the issue at hand, since what I have actually done is original research and synthesises a position from published sources. I have done so only to illustrate that there are many possible interpretations of what is in fact an ambiguous document.
Hence, Alex's argument developed from interpretation of the original text, backed up by a dubious argument of precedent, like my counter argument fails Wiki guidelines of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Both arguments are based on original research and rely on synthesising a position from published sources. Neither argument is sustainable under wikipedia policies.
Therefore Alex's argument that examining the text of Nootka establishes a Prima facie case is not sustainable.
Alex argues further that the sources he quotes supports his conclusion.
Well examining the text of [30] in its full context, clearly shows that he is only presenting one side of the argument. Incidentally I suggest this as a neutral summary of the two positions.
Regarding this source from the Spectator magazine [31]]. What Alex has failed to mention is that the Spectator advertises itself as presenting "Guaranteed Biased Coverage” [32]. I quote:
If you're looking for a balanced, objective view, you won't find it in The Spectator. The Magazine speaks from the heart to give voice to conviction and strong opinion. Our contributors - whether from the right or left - give you their views unfiltered and at cask strength. It's brilliant stuff, brilliantly written - but not to everyone's taste.
His source is a personal opinion piece, therefore is not a reliable source.
His next source [33] is an Argentine Government website that presents the Argentina sovereignty claim, hardly a NPOV. Therein lies the problem.
His final source [34] simply mentions Nootka in a timeline – does that be itself indicate support for his position? Again missing information is that the same website has a page [35] dedicated to International Agreements related to the Falkland Islands. Nootka is noticeably absent, does that imply a lack of support for his position?
There are many timelines on the web and in print that include the Nootka convention. It is typically included because of the context of the Argentine claim. As it has never been applied by either Britain or Spain to the islands, it is not necessarily included because of historical relevance.
As to Alex's suggestion that he can supply of ton of sources supporting his argument. I don't doubt that he can, a simple google search will bring up many references. However, what Alex does not mention is that some of these sources will support the Argentine position and some will support the British position. Playing citation tennis is not going to lead to a solution, also selecting sources that support an a priori position does not establish a NPOV.
Alex's argument that it is possible to separate the sovereignty claim from the relevance of the Nootka convention and include it of its own right is fallacious. Britain maintains that Nootka is not relevant to sovereignty, whilst Argentina's sovereignty claim is based upon its relevance. Adding the edit that Alex suggests is lending support to the Argentine sovereignty claim and thus fails NPOV.
Hence, what I and other editors have done is to present the Nootka Convention in the framework of the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and its historical context in the History of the Falkland Islands. Our articles present both sides in context and do not seek to argue a position in favour of either the British or Argentine sovereignty claim.
Alex further argues that we are seeking to marginalise the position of the Nootka Convention, in that the two articles are "sub-articles". Note these are linked from Falkland Islands as the main articles on those subjects. Further the history section of the article Falkland Islands is only intended to précis main events in the history.
Neither Spain nor Britain as the original signatories of the Nootka Convention have ever tried to apply it to the Falkland Islands. Hence, its relevance to be included as a major event in the islands history is not established.
Finally, I think it is relevant to mention Alex's recent post on Talk:Falkland Islands
Second, the passage "whether or not the islands were included is disputed"....by whom (other than you and other WP editors)? Have you come up with one single, reputable, verifiable source that states there is an ongoing dispute within certain circles of historians, or elsewhere in academia? By contrast, the vast majority of sources I've seen, whether they're from the UK, Argentina or the Falklands, all unequivocally list Nootka as an event historically related to the islands and relevant in its own right. At a minimum, they all coincide on that one point, that Nootka is relevant to Falklands history in its own right,
Well [36] indicates the applicability is disputed and as this is a citation of his, he is clearly aware that applicability is disputed. Alex claims that the caveat "Whether or not the islands were included is disputed." is not warranted, when clearly sources are available to indicate that it is – and he is aware of them. It is clear that the edit he proposes is seeking to promote a POV in favour of Argentina's sovereignty claim.
If I was to cite a single source to indicate a neutral interpretation of the sovereignty dispute I would cite [37]. It indicates that the applicability of Nootka is disputed and it puts it into context. I contend that the current articles Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and History of the Falkland Islands present Nootka in context of its historical relevance and are NPOV by presenting both sides of the sovereignty claims. Nootka convention of its own right is not notable enough to be included in the précis in the Falkland Islands article. Justin talk 21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In XXXX the Nootka Sound Convention was signed between Britain and Spain, in which Britain relinquished rights of settlement on islands adjacent to Spanish terratories. The application of Nootka to the Islands has been contested.
I see little point in continuing to point out why the edit you propose doesn't fit with Wiki policies and guidelines. From day one you have persistently assumed bad faith in the motives of the editors trying to educate you in the way that wiki works. The reams of argumentative and disruptive edits are more than ample evidence of that. You've also demonstrated an absolute refusal to compromise on any issue or to accept that there is more than one interpretation of a vague and ambiguous text. I've therefore reluctantly asked the mediator to consider referring the mediation case to arbcom. Justin talk 12:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, I shouldn't have brought it up here. I apologise for my conduct. Justin talk 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Same here. Alex79818 00:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Can one of you learned guys tell me what references you have that prove the Nootka Convention was specifically re-instated by the Treaty of Madrid 1814. I cannot find any specific reference to its re-instatement it only seems to refer to trade treaties. Malvinero 16:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It is agreed that, pending the negotiation of a new treaty of commerce, Great Britain shall be admitted to trade with Spain, upon the same conditions as those which existed previously to 1796; all the treaties of commerce, which at that period subsisted between the two nations, being hereby ratified and confirmed.
Well it was either reinstated or it wasn't. It seems to me that Nootka was not necessarily a treaty of commerce. In any event Argentina was not a signatory to either Nootka or the Treaty of Madrid so I think Nootka is totally irrelevant unless Argentina can get the UK as the other signatory to agree that Argentina should become a party to it. Argentina has many pretensions to what it 'Inherited' from Spain and whilst it undoubtedly has a Spanish 'Heritage' it was actually bequeathed nothing by Spain specifically nor was it even recognised as independent by Spain till 1859. Argentina won its war of Independence from Spain it was not granted independence with privileges so actually it inherited nothing. Therefore Treaties between Spain and the UK are just that and not also referenced to Argentina as a beneficiary. Therefore in reality irrelevant. Malvinero 10:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned the history section has grown again following the split into the History of the Falkland Islands. I've made a first attempt at a precis to reduce the text here [38], then self-reverted, is my suggested edit broadly acceptable. As always suggested improvements are welcome but I think we need to make an effort to cut down this section - particularly as the History of the Falkland Islands expands. Justin talk 11:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
UNINDENT OK I've had another go at it, getting better is this about the right length and depth [39]? Justin talk 20:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are any objections I'm proposing to reduce the history section along the lines suggested above. I propose to briefly summarise key events and progressively expand on the details in the History of the Falkland Islands article. I've already made a start there. Justin talk 12:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I change "ecomic fishing zone" to "economic exclusive zone" and i expand the information of The Guardian article. Maybe you can see this image http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/09/23/fotos/3.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaos85g ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Page is getting unwieldy. Any objections to an archive? Justin talk 22:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |