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. |
I've been bold and archived this talk page. An anon did make a response earlier today, and if someone wants me to I'll bring that discussion back (or someone else is welcome to do so) - but it was a response to a different anon who complained of vandalism eight months ago, and I don't think there's much to be gained from keeping it here. Pfainuk talk 22:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The current version of the article wrongly features two interwiki Spanish language articles, one of which ( es:Plantilla:Islas de las Islas Malvinas) actually corresponds not to this article but to another one, Template:Falkland Islands topics (which template has an entry 'Islands' listing the individual islands as the Spanish template does). Apcbg ( talk) 16:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
"Many trace their origins on the islands to early 19th-century Scottish immigration. The islands' residents reject the Argentine sovereignty claim.[7]"
I have very little knowledge on this subject, but shouldn't this be phrased differently? Also, another source should be found than the British FCO. Which, by the way, is not even flat out saying "the residents reject argentinian claims". —Preceding unsignd comment added by 80.236.203.74 ( talk) 22:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
yo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.228.173 ( talk) 22:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The BBC saw fit to carry an interview with Dr. Mike Bingham on its web front page a week ago or so.. I was moved by the interview to look at the topic for a moment, and edited the article as below. The edit may not be subtle, but the references are clear. Its a case of an environmental whistle-blower and an entrenched local government. There is abundant evidence of cover-up rather than dealing with the issue in an up-front manner. All the more reason that some mention be made of the controversy at this time in this forum.
The government sale of fishing licences to foreign countries has brought in more than £40 million a year in revenues, and local fishing boats are also in operation. More than 75% of the fish taken are squid, and most exports are to Spain. There is some evidence that these fishing practices have contributed to the global trend in over-fishing, however [1] A British researcher, Dr. Mike Bingham, found that starvation on a massive scale within the indigenous penguin colonies was very likely attributable to sustained over-fishing. He was subsequently harassed and ultimately deported from the island. [2] [3]
Chris holte ( talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Noting Argentine claims is important, even as a case for rejecting them is important. I was at the Argentine Embassy the other day, and they have a handout on the "Malvinas" I'd like to include passages from here, so that the points can be dealt with via facts rather than emotion. They mention Port Louis, the strong presence of the French, they don't mention the fact that Argentina used the island as a Penal Colony, nor its traditional use as a base for piracy and local depredations. It is also important to express their assertion that they still have a right to the Islands that their claim applies the "principle of territorial integrity taking into account the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands." This is still an abusive position, and one widely held by the Military in the Country, with potentially explosive future consequences for regional peace. At the same time, the present administrations don't seem interested in matching deeds with words and so they merely call on the British to resume negotiations. It might be worth discussing the feelings of the Islands inhabitants. Perhaps a new Wiki Page talking about the causes and fallout of the Falkland war might be a better place for that.
I will reset the use of the ":" sign so it doesn't take the tabulation too far, ok? I feel that I am hitting a wall here. The article makes reference to the alleged "British rule", clearly implying to the reader the the mentioned "rule" was comprehensive. And even if it doesn't imply, as you well point out, there was a settlement on the islands in the 1765-76 period. That isn't by any stretch a rule. Therefore, when I say "there was no British rule on the islands before the ocupation in 1833", it is correct. If you read what you wrote you'll see that you are making the point that I (apparently) failed to.
Regarding the word "occupation" you are right, wrong choice of wording from my side. Please read "there was no British rule on the islands before the events in 1833". Now, regarding if Onslow left somebody behind, I can't right now recall wheather he did or not, so I'll try to check.
About the last paragraph, I share your interpretation of the "truth". But in the same way that law takes justice as its asymptote, it is in the spirit of the policy that you refer to base the articles on verifiable fact. The verifiable fact here is (or better, said, one of the verifiable facts that I am trying to point out) that there wasn't a British rule over the islands. As you say, there was a settlement. This is a point that has to be treated with more impartiality, and so far I fail to make the point clear. Once again, consensus has little to do with verifiable facts, and ultimately with truth. From what you write, I dare to assume that it is more important to you as person (not as Wikipedia participant) the latter than the former. Martinmdp ( talk)
I'd like to thank you all for your time. The knowledge I've gathered is precious. Martinmdp ( talk) 12:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
While reading this article I noticed that there was an inconsistent use of measures. In the information box, metric measure were put first whereas in the article the reverse was the case, except for temperatures, which were given in Celsius alone. For consistency, I have put metric measures first throughout, except in the case of nautical miles where the conversion gives both kilometres and miles. Michael Glass ( talk) 11:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice that one editor thinks that making the layout of measures consistent is unnecessary and has reverted the article to the muddle that I described above. At the very least, measures should be both accurate and expressed in both metric and other measures. All editors should be aware that several English speaking countries converted to the metric system a generation ago, so a significant number of readers will not understand other measures. That is why consistency in the layout of measures has value: it reduces the chance for confusing the readers.
I also refer other editors to the following statement: "An overriding principle on Wikipedia is that style and formatting should be applied consistently within articles.... One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within articles promotes clarity and cohesion.' [1]]] Therefore my edit was in line with this Wikipedia policy.
Wiki policy gives guidance on use of measurements. See [2] The principles are:
It also gives this advice in case of a dispute between editors: "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses"
I attempted to remedy this situation in line with Wiki policy. However, another editor immediately reverted my changes. I think we need to discuss how the article can be brought into line with Wiki policy in this regard. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case, the usage should be consistent. However, it is neither expressed consistently in metric units or in non metric units. Miles are not fine unless the metric equivalent is given. Nor is it appropriate to use the measures inconsistently. Finally, if there is a dispute about which measure should be used first, then the metric system should be used first. Michael Glass ( talk) 14:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Justin, why revert to incorrect information because you object to the style of citing the source? Isn't that a bit high-handed? Pfainuk, for your information, UK based articles can be either metric first or Imperial first. Check the style guide. Michael Glass ( talk) 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Justin, I understood and accepted that you would fix the link later. That's why I took my concern here. I objected to your mindless revert of an edit which put Imperial measures first. I believe I have every justification for calling this action high-handed.
Now, about Wiki policy on UK articles:
UK based articles don't have to be Imperial, the choice is with the editors as long as it is consistent and there are rules for resolving disputes about which system to be preferred. Isn't your charge of pushing an agenda a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Michael Glass ( talk) 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
No, Ryan, it started as a dispute about whether Metric or Imperial measures should come first. Then when I corrected the distance between Stanley and the airport, putting the Imperial measure first, one editor still reverted my edit on the spot. If that happened to you, I am sure that you would also be irate. As several editors have made it clear that they want imperial first, then that's the way it will go. However, editors of this article should be aware that articles on the UK in Wikipedia are different. The article Great Britain informs us that it "It occupies an area of 209,331 km² (80,823 square miles)". Similarly, the article on the United Kingdom informs us. "The total area of the United Kingdom is approximately 245,000 square kilometres (94,600 sq mi)." Even when we turn to the counties, metric measures come first. Take Suffolk The article says, "The highest point of the county is Great Wood Hill, the highest point of the Newmarket Ridge, near the village of Rede which reaches 128 m (420 ft)." Go to the New Forest and it's the same, "The highest point in the New Forest is Piper's Wait, just west of Bramshaw. Its summit is at 125 m (410 ft) above mean sea level."
So in putting miles before kilometres, the Falkland Islands editors are more Imperial than the British! I also wonder if they are more Imperial than many of the locals. The Falkland Island Meat Company measures the farms in hectares [3]and the cuts of meat in kilograms [4]. Michael Glass ( talk) 05:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot to read here! I've added some text covering Argentina’s constitutional text which still claims the islands but does so 'respecting the lifestyle of the people and International Law'. I'm not sure if this was covered here or if it was discussed previously but it is critically important since today, due to this reform, an new invasion would actually be illegal and unconstitutional under Argentina Law (since it respects International Law etc) as would any type of forced changing of the islanders way of life such as removal of its government. This is an important point which shouldn't be overlooked when examining the interactions between the Falklands and Argentina. If one doubts its validity or strength one needs only to study the overturning of the Menem pardons to military officers accused of genocide, which was overturned based on the new provisions included in the constitution of 1994. I think it is a critical aspect of the new relationship and should be the basis of future legal action by the islanders within Argentine courts to stop all claims to sovereignty Chuckarg33 ( talk) 18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
UNINDENT
I reverted your changes because they are about Argentina's constitution, its irrelevant to the Falkland Islands - put it in the article on the Argentine Constitution. Instead of discussing that and advancing an argument as to why it should be included instead you have chosen to come here and spray accusations of bad faith about. Way to go to build consensus.
Secondly your claim that it helps the "kelpers", well for starters you are of course aware that name is no longer used much in the islands because it is used by Argentines as a racist pejorative. You might like to think about your language.
And finally, claims that it helps the Falklanders because they could apparently sue the Argentine Government is bunk and WP:OR. You're going to have to provide a cite for that extraordinary claim. Justin
talk 08:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this sentance: "In 2001, British Prime Minister Tony Blair became the first Prime Minister to visit Argentina since the war." But I read in the telegraph that his visit was a private holiday to the Brazil/Arg boarder. This sentance implies a formal visit and is therefore misleading? JohnnyDzzy ( talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There are many after a google search. One's http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-making-historic-visit-to-argentina-next-week-679085.html; It has that the visit was oficial to Iguazu Falls with then president Rua but the Falklands was off the record. After this their kids joined them for a holiday, so my memory was off on that but still that visit came after Menem's in 98 to Britain and its more related to international relations between Britain/Argentina not the Falklands as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyDzzy ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Lets try and do this from sratch. I have some concerns about the way this article is written and some of the information contained therein and the claims of other editors here in the discussion page, who are in the majority. Can you consider the following:
1- What proof is there that 'kelper' is a derogatory term used by Argentinians? I for one never heard them nor saw it used as a derogatory term in the two years I lived and worked there; it has, though, always been used by the British just like they will use: Aussies, Argies, Kiwis etc. Where is the reference to show that it is used in a 'racists' context by argentinias?
2- in the Intro you have "Under Argentine Law they are eligible for Argentine citizenship.[7]", why is this relevant?, since it is about Argentina Law specifically and when, clearly, the 'islanders' don't want this and ignore it; but then what also appears in Argentine law about the islanders who are to be treated "respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law' can not appears in the article?
3- What proof is there to claim, under the Demographics paragraph, that "The Falkland Islands have been a centre of English language learning for South Americans.", the sentence is totally unreferenced and, imo, should be deleted since both Australia and South Africa attrack more students from south america to learn english (and probably Canada,USA too). The islands may well become one some day, or it may be trying to establish a english language study industry, but current difficulties in transportation plus the ongoing conflicts with argentina make it difficult to claim that it has been a 'centre' of english learning.
4- In the Politics paragraph it starts by covering the politics of the Falklands, make up, constitution etc which I'd say is correctly done. Then it goes to "In 1992 Argentina and Britain resumed diplomatic relations and reopened their embassies in each other's countries." This again isn't relevant to the politics of the Falklands or the relationship between the islands and Argentina, or is it? Or are you implying that because Britain resumed diplomatic relations then by default so did the Falkland government? I'd think it incorrect to do so and that sentence should be deleted as not relevant to the Falkland Islands per se.
5- This sentence is more correctly related to the Falklands War and should either be there or in the paragraph on the war, or better not at all: "On the twenty-second anniversary of the war, Argentina's President Néstor Kirchner gave a speech insisting that the islands would once again be part of Argentina. Kirchner, campaigning for president in 2003, regarded the islands as a top priority" Again, what the argentine president says about his governments intention isn't related to the politics of the islands. If it somehow is then logically what the Arg constitution specifically says about the islands is also relevant, is it not? Or is what Duhualde said about the islands in 2002 also relevant? or what Menem said, or Cavallo as foriegn minister said??etc
6- the sentence "The Falkland Islanders themselves are almost entirely British and maintain their allegiance to the United Kingdom" does this relate to how they see themselves as a member of the commonwealth, who sends athletes to the ComGames etc, or do they see themselves as a part of Britain as Scotland and Wales are? I believe they see themselves as the first, otherwise they would have a seat in the British parliament or seek one rather than at the summit of the Americas.
Well its a lot to cover.
My thoughts are that either you ignore everything that happens in Argentina which is related to the Falklands or ,better , one should include what the largest neighbor does that is related to the islands [since they still claim sovereignty and a second war isn't necessarily an impossibility].
The best way to solve this is to have an article which is only about the Falklands (this one) but with one section or paragraph added where all the Argentina-Falklands related issues are included, from the citizenship laws to the constitution's article about the islands, to Duhualde's comments in 2002 and Kirchners comments in 2003 etc etc. Maybe a section on "Falklands Islands: Relations with Argentina" can be now added? or other title could do. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 07:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
-And surely the events described by http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8011539.stm should be covered somewhere in the Falklands article since the claim completely envelops the islands and is at the heart of this conflictive relationship between Arg/Falklands governments. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 07:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
A good example of the use of term 'Kelper' in a normal non-derogatory way in agentina can be viewed at:
http://www.nuestromar.org/noticias/politica_y_economia102006_islas_malvinas_un_estado_kelper ,a civilized discussion on the possibility of a 'Malvinas' state with a UN seat etc from the argentinian point of view. Here they are clearly using it in the same context as one would use 'Scott' or 'Kiwi' or 'Aussie' etc. But this doesn't mean that the islanders should adopt it.
The middle class newspaper El Clarin, also uses 'Kelper' in a non derogatory way in http://www.clarin.com/diario/2008/10/20/elpais/p-01785030.htm.
Plus there are many more after a google.com.ar search. So I still say that it is both unfair to claim that the argies use it as a racists term and that any reference to such in Wikipedia is incorrect. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll use Argentines. Fair enough. On the use of the 'K' term, the newspaper articles show that they -Argentines- don't know that it could cause offense and hence don't say it in any offensive or racists way. I doubt those papers would use any offensive words because they aren't tabloids; maybe places like El Malvinense would if they knew it causes offense. But I wont use it anymore since some people see it as akin to the N word. Fine Chuckarg33 ( talk) 16:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Finally just to clarify, Justin, if you say that the 'K' term causes offense to the islanders and shouldn't be used, then I support your viewpoint. If you say that the Argentines use it in a derogatory or racists way, then no, I disagree, and know from first hand experience that this isn't the case in many Patagonian settlements I've lived in, plus the people of Argentina may well be accused of many things but racists against foreigners generally isn't one of them (although there may be crazies here and there). Chuckarg33 ( talk) 16:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
For the new section or for the current "Former Argentine links", I think its interesting what http://www.clarin.com/diario/2009/03/29/elpais/p-01886831.htm says. Its in Spanish obviously, so basically: its that 2 teachers were sent in 1974 from Buenos Aires to teach Spanish to children on the islands, with the Falklands Governor providing housing and heating (probably oil) and the Argentina government paying their wages. Shows, as other things do, that the cooperation between the countries was actually increasing before the war, but obviously that cooperation has decreased significantly after the war, and as http://www.clarin.com/diario/2009/04/12/elpais/p-01896030.htm says, that Arg/Falklands relationship may just deteriorate further in the near future. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 17:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
One could've been: http://www.nuestromar.org/noticias/politica_y_economia102006_islas_malvinas_un_estado_kelper , where a Richard Davies is quoted as saying to Chile's La Tercera and then to Argentina's La Nacion (via email) that a possible long term goal could be full independence, but it can't happen while Argentina claims sovereignty since they still need British defense because of that claim. I think I read this in La Nacion (which is anything but tabloid) as an editorial but I can't find it now. I skipped through it since I thought that the islands were similar to the East Timor case but its not quite the same. Notice that they also use 'kelper' but the article seems academic so again I just don't think they know that its seen as derogatory. Notice also that it says that the issue of independence was debated in the Argentine senate (so a complicated search of senate records could prove this) as a problem for Argentina's claims since an independent nation is viewed differently precisely in the UN. The new section is good since its difficult to talk about the islands without the history of its relations to its nearest neighbour. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 15:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
"Communications Agreement that the FCO and the Argentine Government concocted to make the islands dependent upon Argentina." could be, I don't know; what is certain is that it all changed after 1982, so the war also probably ended any chance of the Argentinians having these islands for good -the last 'present' left to the people from the Junta. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 15:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
What appear to be POV pushing British nationals, given their edit history, seem to continue to insert their POV and uncited fiction as "fact" in this wiki. They claim that all of the Islanders have rejected being granted Argentine citizenship, but supply not one shred of evidence, not even a poll showing the majority of Islanders feel that way. This behavior is unaccetable and should be dealt with by an admin. It would not surprise me if this entire wiki is rife with such blatant British POV pushing. 66.190.29.150 ( talk) 17:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
UNINDENT
ho hum, I think this is going to be impossible to prove to the entire satisfaction of the IP, Islanders do reject Argentine citizenship as it is seen by many as giving credence to the Argentine claim to the Islands. Unfortunately in this case Sovereignty and Citizenship are intertwined, at least in many people's minds. BennyTec ( talk) 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting! 1) re: 'I only swung by here and saw some blatantly biased statement, corrected it, and now like a pack of wild dogs people swarm to push a British POV. It's really quite sickening Wikipedia can be reduced to such jingoistic nonsense' Yes, this seems to be the strategy a few editors have to keep others away, others who aren't in the project group, from editing here. They will actually go off and recruit others to join in against any outsider. Then, the second step, is to call you offensive or tell you to tone down your writing but they don't or never tone down their own words nor apologize or any attacks. They are majority here and so can claim 'consensus'. Shame that there seems to be no way to stop this happening in WP but those involved should reconsider their actions, reconsider if this helps or hurts WP.
2) Now on the articles' issue here, I always understood that the islanders want to be Islanders first and only lobbied for that British citizenship act because Argentina still wants the islands, so for me it is understandable that the islanders will latch onto british citizenship especially after the war. Before the BN Act '83, Argentina would always include in its arguments that the islanders were not treated as fully english to imply that GB didn't really want them while they did (and then built them a runway etc) but those arguments all become defunct once that Act passed. But some islanders have used argentine citizenship when its convenient for them to do so, eg?, we saw an islander (saw reported here in Sydney) try out for Boca and used his DNI from argentina while there, but then went to GB so he would've left that DNI in some draw I guess; another was interviewed who studied at an aeronautical school in santa fe then married and stayed in BsAs all under his 'Argentine citizenship'; others cross over to Comodoro if they need to for medical care (less so today) but while there would use their argentine DNI. Also an article covered a man who married an argentine women and they both stayed on the islands but kept their DNI until the war. Now I can give you the sources for all this but will that change anything? I mean the Davies interview above and his wishes for a UN seat and claims that part of the Legislative agrees is still in the talk page but not in the article but rather a 'maintain their allegiance to the United Kingdom' was kept. If I add a few sentences on Davie's interview will it be deleted straight away claiming 'no consensus'?? If that did stay then I'll give you the other sources to change the article to something like "while Islanders prefer to remain British some will utilize Argentine Citizenship when necessary" but then will that stay? since it does weaken the british POV a bit? Charlie ( talk) 04:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
UNINDENT
When I hear someone coming hear screaming bias and POV, then the chances are they are here to push a bias and a POV. For the record several of us have been accused of a pro-British bias by Argentines and a streak of pro-Argentine bias by Brits. So it would seem by offending both sensibilities we have steered the article toward a NPOV.
The text in the article is supported by valid sources, it satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. And to be frank all I ever hear from you Charlie is a series of assertions, I have never seen you provide a valid cite. You have your opinion and that is what you want to force into the article. As always, always its wading into the article accusing others, demonstrating a complete lack of good faith and you never put forward a constructive suggestion. I've said it before you need to contribute positively all you will simply dismissed as a POV pusher. Justin talk 12:12, 11 June 2009 (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. |
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
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. |
I've been bold and archived this talk page. An anon did make a response earlier today, and if someone wants me to I'll bring that discussion back (or someone else is welcome to do so) - but it was a response to a different anon who complained of vandalism eight months ago, and I don't think there's much to be gained from keeping it here. Pfainuk talk 22:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The current version of the article wrongly features two interwiki Spanish language articles, one of which ( es:Plantilla:Islas de las Islas Malvinas) actually corresponds not to this article but to another one, Template:Falkland Islands topics (which template has an entry 'Islands' listing the individual islands as the Spanish template does). Apcbg ( talk) 16:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
"Many trace their origins on the islands to early 19th-century Scottish immigration. The islands' residents reject the Argentine sovereignty claim.[7]"
I have very little knowledge on this subject, but shouldn't this be phrased differently? Also, another source should be found than the British FCO. Which, by the way, is not even flat out saying "the residents reject argentinian claims". —Preceding unsignd comment added by 80.236.203.74 ( talk) 22:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
yo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.228.173 ( talk) 22:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The BBC saw fit to carry an interview with Dr. Mike Bingham on its web front page a week ago or so.. I was moved by the interview to look at the topic for a moment, and edited the article as below. The edit may not be subtle, but the references are clear. Its a case of an environmental whistle-blower and an entrenched local government. There is abundant evidence of cover-up rather than dealing with the issue in an up-front manner. All the more reason that some mention be made of the controversy at this time in this forum.
The government sale of fishing licences to foreign countries has brought in more than £40 million a year in revenues, and local fishing boats are also in operation. More than 75% of the fish taken are squid, and most exports are to Spain. There is some evidence that these fishing practices have contributed to the global trend in over-fishing, however [1] A British researcher, Dr. Mike Bingham, found that starvation on a massive scale within the indigenous penguin colonies was very likely attributable to sustained over-fishing. He was subsequently harassed and ultimately deported from the island. [2] [3]
Chris holte ( talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Noting Argentine claims is important, even as a case for rejecting them is important. I was at the Argentine Embassy the other day, and they have a handout on the "Malvinas" I'd like to include passages from here, so that the points can be dealt with via facts rather than emotion. They mention Port Louis, the strong presence of the French, they don't mention the fact that Argentina used the island as a Penal Colony, nor its traditional use as a base for piracy and local depredations. It is also important to express their assertion that they still have a right to the Islands that their claim applies the "principle of territorial integrity taking into account the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands." This is still an abusive position, and one widely held by the Military in the Country, with potentially explosive future consequences for regional peace. At the same time, the present administrations don't seem interested in matching deeds with words and so they merely call on the British to resume negotiations. It might be worth discussing the feelings of the Islands inhabitants. Perhaps a new Wiki Page talking about the causes and fallout of the Falkland war might be a better place for that.
I will reset the use of the ":" sign so it doesn't take the tabulation too far, ok? I feel that I am hitting a wall here. The article makes reference to the alleged "British rule", clearly implying to the reader the the mentioned "rule" was comprehensive. And even if it doesn't imply, as you well point out, there was a settlement on the islands in the 1765-76 period. That isn't by any stretch a rule. Therefore, when I say "there was no British rule on the islands before the ocupation in 1833", it is correct. If you read what you wrote you'll see that you are making the point that I (apparently) failed to.
Regarding the word "occupation" you are right, wrong choice of wording from my side. Please read "there was no British rule on the islands before the events in 1833". Now, regarding if Onslow left somebody behind, I can't right now recall wheather he did or not, so I'll try to check.
About the last paragraph, I share your interpretation of the "truth". But in the same way that law takes justice as its asymptote, it is in the spirit of the policy that you refer to base the articles on verifiable fact. The verifiable fact here is (or better, said, one of the verifiable facts that I am trying to point out) that there wasn't a British rule over the islands. As you say, there was a settlement. This is a point that has to be treated with more impartiality, and so far I fail to make the point clear. Once again, consensus has little to do with verifiable facts, and ultimately with truth. From what you write, I dare to assume that it is more important to you as person (not as Wikipedia participant) the latter than the former. Martinmdp ( talk)
I'd like to thank you all for your time. The knowledge I've gathered is precious. Martinmdp ( talk) 12:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
While reading this article I noticed that there was an inconsistent use of measures. In the information box, metric measure were put first whereas in the article the reverse was the case, except for temperatures, which were given in Celsius alone. For consistency, I have put metric measures first throughout, except in the case of nautical miles where the conversion gives both kilometres and miles. Michael Glass ( talk) 11:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice that one editor thinks that making the layout of measures consistent is unnecessary and has reverted the article to the muddle that I described above. At the very least, measures should be both accurate and expressed in both metric and other measures. All editors should be aware that several English speaking countries converted to the metric system a generation ago, so a significant number of readers will not understand other measures. That is why consistency in the layout of measures has value: it reduces the chance for confusing the readers.
I also refer other editors to the following statement: "An overriding principle on Wikipedia is that style and formatting should be applied consistently within articles.... One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within articles promotes clarity and cohesion.' [1]]] Therefore my edit was in line with this Wikipedia policy.
Wiki policy gives guidance on use of measurements. See [2] The principles are:
It also gives this advice in case of a dispute between editors: "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses"
I attempted to remedy this situation in line with Wiki policy. However, another editor immediately reverted my changes. I think we need to discuss how the article can be brought into line with Wiki policy in this regard. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case, the usage should be consistent. However, it is neither expressed consistently in metric units or in non metric units. Miles are not fine unless the metric equivalent is given. Nor is it appropriate to use the measures inconsistently. Finally, if there is a dispute about which measure should be used first, then the metric system should be used first. Michael Glass ( talk) 14:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Justin, why revert to incorrect information because you object to the style of citing the source? Isn't that a bit high-handed? Pfainuk, for your information, UK based articles can be either metric first or Imperial first. Check the style guide. Michael Glass ( talk) 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Justin, I understood and accepted that you would fix the link later. That's why I took my concern here. I objected to your mindless revert of an edit which put Imperial measures first. I believe I have every justification for calling this action high-handed.
Now, about Wiki policy on UK articles:
UK based articles don't have to be Imperial, the choice is with the editors as long as it is consistent and there are rules for resolving disputes about which system to be preferred. Isn't your charge of pushing an agenda a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Michael Glass ( talk) 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
No, Ryan, it started as a dispute about whether Metric or Imperial measures should come first. Then when I corrected the distance between Stanley and the airport, putting the Imperial measure first, one editor still reverted my edit on the spot. If that happened to you, I am sure that you would also be irate. As several editors have made it clear that they want imperial first, then that's the way it will go. However, editors of this article should be aware that articles on the UK in Wikipedia are different. The article Great Britain informs us that it "It occupies an area of 209,331 km² (80,823 square miles)". Similarly, the article on the United Kingdom informs us. "The total area of the United Kingdom is approximately 245,000 square kilometres (94,600 sq mi)." Even when we turn to the counties, metric measures come first. Take Suffolk The article says, "The highest point of the county is Great Wood Hill, the highest point of the Newmarket Ridge, near the village of Rede which reaches 128 m (420 ft)." Go to the New Forest and it's the same, "The highest point in the New Forest is Piper's Wait, just west of Bramshaw. Its summit is at 125 m (410 ft) above mean sea level."
So in putting miles before kilometres, the Falkland Islands editors are more Imperial than the British! I also wonder if they are more Imperial than many of the locals. The Falkland Island Meat Company measures the farms in hectares [3]and the cuts of meat in kilograms [4]. Michael Glass ( talk) 05:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot to read here! I've added some text covering Argentina’s constitutional text which still claims the islands but does so 'respecting the lifestyle of the people and International Law'. I'm not sure if this was covered here or if it was discussed previously but it is critically important since today, due to this reform, an new invasion would actually be illegal and unconstitutional under Argentina Law (since it respects International Law etc) as would any type of forced changing of the islanders way of life such as removal of its government. This is an important point which shouldn't be overlooked when examining the interactions between the Falklands and Argentina. If one doubts its validity or strength one needs only to study the overturning of the Menem pardons to military officers accused of genocide, which was overturned based on the new provisions included in the constitution of 1994. I think it is a critical aspect of the new relationship and should be the basis of future legal action by the islanders within Argentine courts to stop all claims to sovereignty Chuckarg33 ( talk) 18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
UNINDENT
I reverted your changes because they are about Argentina's constitution, its irrelevant to the Falkland Islands - put it in the article on the Argentine Constitution. Instead of discussing that and advancing an argument as to why it should be included instead you have chosen to come here and spray accusations of bad faith about. Way to go to build consensus.
Secondly your claim that it helps the "kelpers", well for starters you are of course aware that name is no longer used much in the islands because it is used by Argentines as a racist pejorative. You might like to think about your language.
And finally, claims that it helps the Falklanders because they could apparently sue the Argentine Government is bunk and WP:OR. You're going to have to provide a cite for that extraordinary claim. Justin
talk 08:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this sentance: "In 2001, British Prime Minister Tony Blair became the first Prime Minister to visit Argentina since the war." But I read in the telegraph that his visit was a private holiday to the Brazil/Arg boarder. This sentance implies a formal visit and is therefore misleading? JohnnyDzzy ( talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There are many after a google search. One's http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-making-historic-visit-to-argentina-next-week-679085.html; It has that the visit was oficial to Iguazu Falls with then president Rua but the Falklands was off the record. After this their kids joined them for a holiday, so my memory was off on that but still that visit came after Menem's in 98 to Britain and its more related to international relations between Britain/Argentina not the Falklands as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyDzzy ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Lets try and do this from sratch. I have some concerns about the way this article is written and some of the information contained therein and the claims of other editors here in the discussion page, who are in the majority. Can you consider the following:
1- What proof is there that 'kelper' is a derogatory term used by Argentinians? I for one never heard them nor saw it used as a derogatory term in the two years I lived and worked there; it has, though, always been used by the British just like they will use: Aussies, Argies, Kiwis etc. Where is the reference to show that it is used in a 'racists' context by argentinias?
2- in the Intro you have "Under Argentine Law they are eligible for Argentine citizenship.[7]", why is this relevant?, since it is about Argentina Law specifically and when, clearly, the 'islanders' don't want this and ignore it; but then what also appears in Argentine law about the islanders who are to be treated "respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law' can not appears in the article?
3- What proof is there to claim, under the Demographics paragraph, that "The Falkland Islands have been a centre of English language learning for South Americans.", the sentence is totally unreferenced and, imo, should be deleted since both Australia and South Africa attrack more students from south america to learn english (and probably Canada,USA too). The islands may well become one some day, or it may be trying to establish a english language study industry, but current difficulties in transportation plus the ongoing conflicts with argentina make it difficult to claim that it has been a 'centre' of english learning.
4- In the Politics paragraph it starts by covering the politics of the Falklands, make up, constitution etc which I'd say is correctly done. Then it goes to "In 1992 Argentina and Britain resumed diplomatic relations and reopened their embassies in each other's countries." This again isn't relevant to the politics of the Falklands or the relationship between the islands and Argentina, or is it? Or are you implying that because Britain resumed diplomatic relations then by default so did the Falkland government? I'd think it incorrect to do so and that sentence should be deleted as not relevant to the Falkland Islands per se.
5- This sentence is more correctly related to the Falklands War and should either be there or in the paragraph on the war, or better not at all: "On the twenty-second anniversary of the war, Argentina's President Néstor Kirchner gave a speech insisting that the islands would once again be part of Argentina. Kirchner, campaigning for president in 2003, regarded the islands as a top priority" Again, what the argentine president says about his governments intention isn't related to the politics of the islands. If it somehow is then logically what the Arg constitution specifically says about the islands is also relevant, is it not? Or is what Duhualde said about the islands in 2002 also relevant? or what Menem said, or Cavallo as foriegn minister said??etc
6- the sentence "The Falkland Islanders themselves are almost entirely British and maintain their allegiance to the United Kingdom" does this relate to how they see themselves as a member of the commonwealth, who sends athletes to the ComGames etc, or do they see themselves as a part of Britain as Scotland and Wales are? I believe they see themselves as the first, otherwise they would have a seat in the British parliament or seek one rather than at the summit of the Americas.
Well its a lot to cover.
My thoughts are that either you ignore everything that happens in Argentina which is related to the Falklands or ,better , one should include what the largest neighbor does that is related to the islands [since they still claim sovereignty and a second war isn't necessarily an impossibility].
The best way to solve this is to have an article which is only about the Falklands (this one) but with one section or paragraph added where all the Argentina-Falklands related issues are included, from the citizenship laws to the constitution's article about the islands, to Duhualde's comments in 2002 and Kirchners comments in 2003 etc etc. Maybe a section on "Falklands Islands: Relations with Argentina" can be now added? or other title could do. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 07:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
-And surely the events described by http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8011539.stm should be covered somewhere in the Falklands article since the claim completely envelops the islands and is at the heart of this conflictive relationship between Arg/Falklands governments. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 07:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
A good example of the use of term 'Kelper' in a normal non-derogatory way in agentina can be viewed at:
http://www.nuestromar.org/noticias/politica_y_economia102006_islas_malvinas_un_estado_kelper ,a civilized discussion on the possibility of a 'Malvinas' state with a UN seat etc from the argentinian point of view. Here they are clearly using it in the same context as one would use 'Scott' or 'Kiwi' or 'Aussie' etc. But this doesn't mean that the islanders should adopt it.
The middle class newspaper El Clarin, also uses 'Kelper' in a non derogatory way in http://www.clarin.com/diario/2008/10/20/elpais/p-01785030.htm.
Plus there are many more after a google.com.ar search. So I still say that it is both unfair to claim that the argies use it as a racists term and that any reference to such in Wikipedia is incorrect. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll use Argentines. Fair enough. On the use of the 'K' term, the newspaper articles show that they -Argentines- don't know that it could cause offense and hence don't say it in any offensive or racists way. I doubt those papers would use any offensive words because they aren't tabloids; maybe places like El Malvinense would if they knew it causes offense. But I wont use it anymore since some people see it as akin to the N word. Fine Chuckarg33 ( talk) 16:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Finally just to clarify, Justin, if you say that the 'K' term causes offense to the islanders and shouldn't be used, then I support your viewpoint. If you say that the Argentines use it in a derogatory or racists way, then no, I disagree, and know from first hand experience that this isn't the case in many Patagonian settlements I've lived in, plus the people of Argentina may well be accused of many things but racists against foreigners generally isn't one of them (although there may be crazies here and there). Chuckarg33 ( talk) 16:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
For the new section or for the current "Former Argentine links", I think its interesting what http://www.clarin.com/diario/2009/03/29/elpais/p-01886831.htm says. Its in Spanish obviously, so basically: its that 2 teachers were sent in 1974 from Buenos Aires to teach Spanish to children on the islands, with the Falklands Governor providing housing and heating (probably oil) and the Argentina government paying their wages. Shows, as other things do, that the cooperation between the countries was actually increasing before the war, but obviously that cooperation has decreased significantly after the war, and as http://www.clarin.com/diario/2009/04/12/elpais/p-01896030.htm says, that Arg/Falklands relationship may just deteriorate further in the near future. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 17:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
One could've been: http://www.nuestromar.org/noticias/politica_y_economia102006_islas_malvinas_un_estado_kelper , where a Richard Davies is quoted as saying to Chile's La Tercera and then to Argentina's La Nacion (via email) that a possible long term goal could be full independence, but it can't happen while Argentina claims sovereignty since they still need British defense because of that claim. I think I read this in La Nacion (which is anything but tabloid) as an editorial but I can't find it now. I skipped through it since I thought that the islands were similar to the East Timor case but its not quite the same. Notice that they also use 'kelper' but the article seems academic so again I just don't think they know that its seen as derogatory. Notice also that it says that the issue of independence was debated in the Argentine senate (so a complicated search of senate records could prove this) as a problem for Argentina's claims since an independent nation is viewed differently precisely in the UN. The new section is good since its difficult to talk about the islands without the history of its relations to its nearest neighbour. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 15:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
"Communications Agreement that the FCO and the Argentine Government concocted to make the islands dependent upon Argentina." could be, I don't know; what is certain is that it all changed after 1982, so the war also probably ended any chance of the Argentinians having these islands for good -the last 'present' left to the people from the Junta. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 15:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
What appear to be POV pushing British nationals, given their edit history, seem to continue to insert their POV and uncited fiction as "fact" in this wiki. They claim that all of the Islanders have rejected being granted Argentine citizenship, but supply not one shred of evidence, not even a poll showing the majority of Islanders feel that way. This behavior is unaccetable and should be dealt with by an admin. It would not surprise me if this entire wiki is rife with such blatant British POV pushing. 66.190.29.150 ( talk) 17:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
UNINDENT
ho hum, I think this is going to be impossible to prove to the entire satisfaction of the IP, Islanders do reject Argentine citizenship as it is seen by many as giving credence to the Argentine claim to the Islands. Unfortunately in this case Sovereignty and Citizenship are intertwined, at least in many people's minds. BennyTec ( talk) 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting! 1) re: 'I only swung by here and saw some blatantly biased statement, corrected it, and now like a pack of wild dogs people swarm to push a British POV. It's really quite sickening Wikipedia can be reduced to such jingoistic nonsense' Yes, this seems to be the strategy a few editors have to keep others away, others who aren't in the project group, from editing here. They will actually go off and recruit others to join in against any outsider. Then, the second step, is to call you offensive or tell you to tone down your writing but they don't or never tone down their own words nor apologize or any attacks. They are majority here and so can claim 'consensus'. Shame that there seems to be no way to stop this happening in WP but those involved should reconsider their actions, reconsider if this helps or hurts WP.
2) Now on the articles' issue here, I always understood that the islanders want to be Islanders first and only lobbied for that British citizenship act because Argentina still wants the islands, so for me it is understandable that the islanders will latch onto british citizenship especially after the war. Before the BN Act '83, Argentina would always include in its arguments that the islanders were not treated as fully english to imply that GB didn't really want them while they did (and then built them a runway etc) but those arguments all become defunct once that Act passed. But some islanders have used argentine citizenship when its convenient for them to do so, eg?, we saw an islander (saw reported here in Sydney) try out for Boca and used his DNI from argentina while there, but then went to GB so he would've left that DNI in some draw I guess; another was interviewed who studied at an aeronautical school in santa fe then married and stayed in BsAs all under his 'Argentine citizenship'; others cross over to Comodoro if they need to for medical care (less so today) but while there would use their argentine DNI. Also an article covered a man who married an argentine women and they both stayed on the islands but kept their DNI until the war. Now I can give you the sources for all this but will that change anything? I mean the Davies interview above and his wishes for a UN seat and claims that part of the Legislative agrees is still in the talk page but not in the article but rather a 'maintain their allegiance to the United Kingdom' was kept. If I add a few sentences on Davie's interview will it be deleted straight away claiming 'no consensus'?? If that did stay then I'll give you the other sources to change the article to something like "while Islanders prefer to remain British some will utilize Argentine Citizenship when necessary" but then will that stay? since it does weaken the british POV a bit? Charlie ( talk) 04:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
UNINDENT
When I hear someone coming hear screaming bias and POV, then the chances are they are here to push a bias and a POV. For the record several of us have been accused of a pro-British bias by Argentines and a streak of pro-Argentine bias by Brits. So it would seem by offending both sensibilities we have steered the article toward a NPOV.
The text in the article is supported by valid sources, it satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. And to be frank all I ever hear from you Charlie is a series of assertions, I have never seen you provide a valid cite. You have your opinion and that is what you want to force into the article. As always, always its wading into the article accusing others, demonstrating a complete lack of good faith and you never put forward a constructive suggestion. I've said it before you need to contribute positively all you will simply dismissed as a POV pusher. Justin talk 12:12, 11 June 2009 (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. |
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)