![]() | 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 as yet again it was getting unmanageable. I assume the discussion was finished, if not it can always be resurrected. Justin talk 09:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Re:
2) Now on the articles' issue here, I always understood that the islanders want to be Islanders ...............Shame. Charlie ( talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Are there any railways on the Islands? Drutt ( talk) 22:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The article now informs us that the area of the Falkland Islands is 4,700 square miles or 12,000 km2. This piece of information is attributed - by means of a broken link - to the CIA Factbook, which actually says that the islands have an area of 12,173km2 [1]. The difference between what the source says and what the CIA Factbook actually says is, 173km2 or 66.796 square miles or 42,749 acres or two thirds of the area of Weddell Island.
Some rounding error!
Justin A Kuntz introduced this inaccuracy into the article. It is his responsibility to correct the inaccuracy and fix the broken link. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Very close but not exact.. See [3] Where is your evidence that the CIA factbook converted a square mile figure into square kilometres? Your primary source is the CIA factbook and it is your responsibility to ensure that the primary source is not misrepresented. It is also your responsibility to repair the broken link to the evidence. Michael Glass ( talk) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Justin, nearly 43,000 acres is an error of some magnitude. It's an error of more than 1% of the total area of the Falkland Islands. All I am insisting on is that the article quotes the source accurately. That means, letting the figure 14,173 stand. Not a big ask, is it? Have you got what it takes to let that figure stand? Michael Glass ( talk)
14,173 does not equal 14,000. All I am asking is that you change one number to agree with the figure given in the source quoted. If you regard this request as being disruptive then it is not a rational reaction. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's admit it, the subject of units of measurement in this article has been one of acrimonious debate this year. There are several possible positions that people could take:
1 Metric first as a general rule.
2 Imperial first as a general rule.
3 Imperial first as a general rule, except for temperatures in Celsius.
4 Follow the source of the information as a general rule.
I favour the metric system, of course, but the general rule of following the source of information would be fine by me.
What do others think, especially those who actually contribute to this article? Michael Glass ( talk) 12:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
As I count it, it appears that of actual editors of this article, two people have expressed a preference for imperial, one has expressed a preference for imperial plus Celsius temperatures, and one has expressed a preference for metric or following the source. One other has expressed a preference for metric. As no-one else has troubled to express an opinion the vote has been three to two in favour of Imperial. It's not exactly a consensus in my opinion, but I won't press the issue any further at this time. Michael Glass ( talk) 11:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that sometimes miles is abbreviated to "mi". This is fine in the US, but "mi" as an abbreviation does not exist and probably unknown to the average Briton. At most in the UK, the mile is badly abbreviated to "m" on road signs. I would suggest miles be written out in full. 212.203.105.186 ( talk) 13:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
So, err, the government references use metric units exclusively, most other references use almost exclusively metric units except for miles, and none of them use farenheit - why exactly does the article use non-metric units, call them what you will? I think the onus here needs to be on providing strong arguments for imperial|commonwealth|whatever units, otherwise they should be changed. (By the way, can we just call them imperial, since that's what they're known as, without being accused of colonialism??) CheesyBiscuit ( talk) 09:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The weather chart in the article is based on information gained from Weatherbase. Who is weatherbase? A better known source is the BBC and this web page is relevant: < http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT004760>. As the Falkland Islands is a British territory, wouldn't it be preferable to use this respected British source? Michael Glass ( talk) 10:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Great work! Just one thing: I think it should be noted that the original is in metric units. Michael Glass ( talk) 04:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Try a little common courtesy, Justin, and we'll get on better. However, if you resort to bullying and name-calling I'll stand up to you. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
My final comment at this point is to thank Pfainuk for his explanation about the coding of the table. I wondered why the table worked that way. I believe it would be better to have a note about the source units, but I won't press it further at this point. We don't always agree but I respect his contribution to the articles and the discussions about them. Michael Glass ( talk) 04:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I have been trying to revise the history section of the article from this:
to this:
Please note the differences:
Perhaps people can suggest a way of improving my suggested revision. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
[4] and The History of the Falkland Islands Mary Cawkell, though I no longer have my copy. Justin talk 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I have waited 24 hours and you have not responded. I will therefore try a different tack. You have objected to the sentences about John Strong but not the other changes. I therefore plan to replace this sentence:
with this:
These two sentences put the facts in chronological order and cite the sources of the information. I'll wait 72 hours before posting them. That will give you and others ample time to comment first. Michael Glass ( talk) 23:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Justin seems to forget that I fixed that error as soon as he pointed it out. I cannot understand why he still goes on about it. I draw people's attention to the fact that the present wording suggests that John Strong led an expedition to the Falkland Islands. As far as I can see, he encountered the islands by accident after being blown off course by contrary winds. If people have other or better information, I would be grateful if they would present their evidence. As for stylistic and other matters, I said I'd wait for 72 hours for other feedback, and that is what I'll do. Michael Glass ( talk) 12:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. The administrator accused us both of edit warring and both of us put our cases to him. This is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woody#3RR_Warning.
You say I introduced further errors. What errors are these? What about the error in the first version? It implies that the expedition was to the Falkland Islands when it only got there because it was blown off course. Don't we need to look at both versions and work out just exactly what happened and how best to express it? Michael Glass ( talk) 13:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Narson, I'm sorry that the debate strayed into other questions. Perhaps it will help if I try to summarise the points about the wording. Apologies in advance if I don't get it exactly right. I'm trying my best.
The paragraph in question reads thus:
The proposed revision (above) reads thus:
Arguments for the first version are:
Neutral comments
Arguments for the second version are:
My responses
Revised proposal
I hope that this reads better. It's certainly shorter, and that usually helps. Are there any further comments or suggestions? Michael Glass ( talk) 10:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" [15]. The English name, "The Falkland Islands" derives from the English mariner, John Strong. In 1690 he named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name was later extended to the island group. [12]. The Spanish name, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name for the islands, "Îles Malouines" [14]. Louis Antoine de Bougainville named the islands in 1764, after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France. [13].
Justin talk 12:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you want the ISO designation first (as above) or to keep the current ordering of sentences (as in your comment). I was of two minds about it, too, but decided on keeping the present order of sentences. Which do you prefer? Michael Glass ( talk) 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. Here is the text that I propose to put in the article. I hope that it is acceptable to everyone. If not, please let me know:
No its not acceptable, for the reason previously stated and which you're ignoring. You're insisting on a chronological order, ignoring the sensitivities attached to the name. English, Spanish and French as per the text I suggested. Justin talk 21:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Justin, I prefer to have the facts in chronological order because that makes more sense. Yes I did miss the fact that you had reversed the order of the French and Spanish names. What are the "reasons previously stated". As far as I am aware there are no errors of fact in either your version or mine and the sentences are largely identical, although the order is different. In the version immediately above. The first sentence is identical to the second sentence in your version. The second sentence above is almost identical to third sentence, though yours contains two extra words was later which I have no trouble accepting.
So the only substantial difference between our two versions is that mine is in chronological order and yours is not. Do you really mean that the Spanish name is so sensitive that it must be mentioned before the French name, even though the Spanish name was derived from the French one? If so, why? Here is another version that brings my version even closer to yours in wording, but preserves the chronological order:
If you would still prefer the ISO designation to come first, please let me know. If you still want the facts out of chronological order, please explain why in detail. If there are any other problems, please let me know. Michael Glass ( talk) 05:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Justin, please calm down. I don't appreciate abuse. Holding a different opinion from you is not evidence of arrogance. I was trying to minimise the difference between your wording and mine. Here is your wording and your word order, together with references (Please check that they are correct):
Here is my wording:
As there appears to be an intractable difference between our two opinions, perhaps others could express their opinions and help settle the matter. Michael Glass ( talk) 21:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The English name for the islands, the "Falkland Islands", derives from the English mariner John Strong, who in 1690 named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name was later extended to the island group. [32] The Spanish name, Islas Malvinas, is derived from the French name, [33] "Îles Malouines", named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France. [34]. The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" [35].
Thank you, Pfainuk. I accept your wording, which is an improvement on the present wording. If the naming of the islands is so sensitive that chronological order is a problem then your wording is best. Michael Glass ( talk) 21:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, one paragraph reads:
When I checked one source
[5], this is what I read:
The other quoted source [6] stated:
The documents link the hostility to Spanish names to the Falklands War period. Also, General Moore's hostility to the use of Islas Malvinas and the Islanders' hostility to names that were imposed on them during the Argentine occupation could be two different things. Perhaps it would be better if the wording went like this:
I think it is worth mentioning that the Argentines are prepared to look at this question as part of confidence building between the two parties. Also I think that it is important not to claim more than the source documents state.
What do others think? Michael Glass ( talk) 12:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm easy about not mentioning the Argentine agreement to "look into it". That's an agreement to do nothing in particular! However, renaming Stanley and the other name changes imposed during the invasion so incensed the Islanders that they insisted that it be mentioned in the 1994 agreement. The Argentines, for their part, tried to mollify the islanders without committing themselves to doing anything concrete.
As I understand it, the hostility of the Islanders - as stated in the document - was directed at "names that were imposed on them during the Argentine occupation", most notably, "Puerto Argentina" for Stanley. This was such an important issue for them that they had it included in the 1994 agreement. However, General Sir Jeremy Moore's hostility to the term "Islas Malvinas" is something different. Firstly, it's a well established term. It derives from the first settlement on the islands by the French, and so is different from later attempts to rename Stanley and other places. It is quite likely that many islanders would heartily agree with Sir Jeremy's opinion, especially after the invasion, but this is not established by the documentation. If there is documentary evidence that Islanders also object to "Islas Malvinas", then we could make this statement, but at the moment the documentation doesn't quite go that far.
I think that the wording could be adjusted, perhaps like this:
These two statements are abundantly established by the documentation. However, I think we need more documentation if we are to state or imply that Islanders also object to Argentines using the term "Islas Malvinas." Does anyone know of such a document? Michael Glass ( talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any direct documentary evidence for this opinion? Michael Glass ( talk) 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
In nine days, no-one has come up with any direct documentary evidence for the assertion that the name Islas Malvinas is considered highly offensive in the Falklands. It may be, but the evidence is not there, and the sources quoted do not support this assertion. I suggest that the following wording be considered:
Michael Glass ( talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a particular hostility to the use of Puerto Argentino and other names to refer to Stanley. This is clearly stated in the document that you refer to. However, the term "Malvinas" to refer to the Islands themselves is in a different category. As the document clearly states:
Perhaps it would be better expressed like this:
Does anybody else have any more evidence about the use of the term "Malvinas" or other matters? Remember, we need the evidence to establish the text. If we don't have the evidence we can't make the claim. Michael Glass ( talk) 00:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I propose changing this:
to this:
The idea is to underline and fully document the sensitivity of Falkland islanders to names imposed on them during the occupation and to record General Sir Jeremy Moore's objection to the term "Islas Malvinas" but to distinguish it from the Islanders' objections as we don't have direct documentary evidence that Falkland Islanders objected to this particular term. Michael Glass ( talk) 14:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
DominicConnor (
talk)
13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)I do not think the fact that a term is seen as offensive by some is sufficient grounds not to use it. IMO the test should be whether it is widely used.
Conversely, if there is notable argument over the real name, then that is a valid topic for coverage.
Perhaps a less contentious example ? The English word for the capital of Italy is Rome, but Italians call it Roma. Similarly London is called Londra, Londres etc in various languages. Beijing, Kolkata, etc each have had name revisions, indeed it seems to be the mark of a major city that it has a specific word in other languages. I live in Buckhurst Hill, which I believe is called exactly that on the rare occasions Russians, Greeks, and of course Argentinians talk of it.
But obviously arguments over names should not dominate this article.
Just a quick and friendly note to explain why I think that the French name of the Falkland Islands is worthy to be added to the head of the article.
Therefore I put the French name back. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Malouines is the current French name (see [ [10]]), so it's not just historical. I can't see how mentioning it in the first sentence could in any way make the text less neutral. The French made the first settlement on the island so this is notable. I think it's worth those few extra words, but others disagree. Does anyone else have an opinion one way or another? Michael Glass ( talk) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
As it is clear that my proposal does not have support I will let the matter drop. Thanks to all for your comments. Michael Glass ( talk) 07:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to accept Apcbg's wording. How do others feel? Michael Glass ( talk) 19:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello there! I don't mean to offend anyone here. I know this is a delicate matter, but I really feel some things have to be said. I'll try to summarize it first to make my point clear: one of wikipedia's cornerstones is the "neutral point of view" approach, which requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. To be honest, I was not able to find many (in fact, I think there are only 2) references to argentinian documents which express their point of view.
That being said, I think some paragraphs should be "completed", expressing the argentinian point of view, so that they are not so biased. For example, this one:
In 1945, upon signing the UN Charter, Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The United Kingdom responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN Resolution 1514 (XV) regarding the de-colonisation of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders first had to vote for the British withdrawal at a referendum to be held on the issue.
Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.
An important matter, completely forgotten here, is that:
On 14 December 1960, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” which proclaimed “the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations“, enshrining two fundamental principles that were to guide the decolonisation process: self-determination and territorial integrity.
The principle of self-determination does not apply to the Question of the Malvinas Islands Question.
The specificity of the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow its return, thus violating Argentine territorial integrity. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. It is important to note that Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples” stipulates in paragraph 6 “Any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.
The General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine in the “Question of the Malvinas Islands”—it applies the principle of territorial integrity taking into account the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands—in its resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 which was reaffirmed by other resolutions in 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) y 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute and reaffirm the invitation made in resolution 2065 (XX) to the Parties “to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)“.
[Ref: http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html]
To make it brief, not only is this the argentinian position (completely forgotten and ignored in this article), but also what UN resolutions dictate. That's why
As of 2004, by virtue of a process of revitalisation of the General Assembly, the Argentine government ensured that the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” appeared on the permanent agenda and in the Document of the General Assembly Bureau. The topic may be discussed subject to prior notification by a Member State.
So, as you can see, sadly it's not Argentina the one who is not willing to negotiate and discuss the sovereignity of the islands, as implied by this article:
Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.
Lastly, I know this might sound a bit harsh, but as the UN Resolution 2065 (1965) states: taking into account that the original population of the island was completely replaced since british occupation (I would rather call it invasion, because otherwise the only "invasion" here is the argentinian...this is clearly unfair...we need to call it both the same way) it's "the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands" what matters.
And yes, before you ask, I'm argentinian. However, I'm not writing this because of any "nationalist" claim or whatever, just because I found this article (and also the spanish one) to be far too biased. I hope this contribution helps making a better wikipedia. Is there any problem if I try to "complete" that part of the article? Then, of course, you could add the british POV regarding this particular matter.
Oh! I encourage any of you how speak spanish to try to complete the spanish version too. You know, I firmly believe that if we can't start knowing each other and knowing what both of us believe in and think of, we'll never end this quarrel. Many of you, as well as many of us, just believe things that are being said to us since school, without ever listening what the other "part" has to say. So please, if you have anything to say, make it a sharp comment, not a vulgar offense.-- Earendil i510 ( talk) 16:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
From my POV, this is completely false, specially because this is not the only and maybe not even the most important cause of jammed negotiations. -- Earendil i510 ( talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands is far more neutral than this article. I'm sorry, that's my POV. And happily, I'm free to write it down here. -- Earendil i510 ( talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The lead had included a statement on "increased speculation on the amount of oil in the area, with proven reserves of at least eight billion barrels", cited to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8520038.stm .
Perhaps I'm missing something, but as far as I can see the cite doesn't support that.
It actually says:
"The often-used figure based on geological surveys is that the Falkland Islands have the equivalent of about 60 billion barrels of oil in total. But Ben Brewerton, spokesman for the UK-listed Falkland Oil and Gas, told the BBC this figure is "slightly mythical" and no-one knows where it came from. ... Falkland Oil and Gas - which has the exploration rights for the south and east of the islands - said it estimates its four biggest prospects in the area have 8 billion barrels of oil."
As far as I can tell, this is not a statement that there are "proven reserves" of eight billion barrels.
Please clarify and/or add additional cites for this if necessary.
Thanks. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 04:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The Demographic section says: "People from the United Kingdom who have obtained Falkland Island status are known locally as 'belongers'."
Surely people from anywhere who have obtained Falkland Island status are known as 'belongers'. The Falkland Islands constitution says regarding Falkland Islands status:
22
Someone from the UK wouldn't need to apply for BOTC
In any case, see Belonger_status article which says people normally have the status by birth or ancestry. Is it different in the Falklands? Is the term 'belonger' only used for those who have obtained Falkland Island status and not for those who are born with it? Dab14763 ( talk) 15:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Why says "invasion". For Argentina was recovery, that's no neutral. Alakasam ( talk) 18:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This section appears in the History bit but it deals solely with transport connections between the Falkland Islands and Argentina. Would it not be more sensible to put in under Transport section? Discojim ( talk) 09:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we add a news section as the islands are a hotter news subject at the moment? Flamejob ( talk) 10:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news report. Unless a fact meet notability should not be included -- Jor70 ( talk) 11:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
IANVS, I think you should add the new support at Foreign relations of Argentina#Sovereignty claims -- Jor70 ( talk) 14:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting canadian post [11] -- Jor70 ( talk) 15:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Here a british account of the truly relevant Rio Group support of the Argentine stance on the issue: The Guardian. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to play the "Not news" cards, we may consider deleting all mentions to this topic on its entirely, at least until the machines finish their work and determine if there is or isn't oil in there. We can't mention something that is in the news but doing it in an incomplete and misleading manner because the complete summary involves news. MBelgrano ( talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
We not only support our sister republic's claims to the Malvinas islands but every year we present its case to the United Nations' Special Committee on Decolonization. [12] Even Chile!, you figure :-) -- Jor70 ( talk) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree on changing the article with each news that appears. There has been a lot of fuzz recently since the oil exploration and Argentina's decision to require permits. Wikipedia is not a news report. This article should reflect facts and only updated if these things actually have a confirmed consequence. It's still too hot to consider them in this article, plus this is not a debate forum. If these things (Argentina supporters or UK supporters declarations) worth mentioning it would be on another article more according ( Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute). - pmt7ar ( t| c) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No, to the news section. Stuff like that belongs on a forum. Ryan4314 ( talk) 13:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to call the attention to an editor who keeps reverting my contribution. I have made a map with the names given in Spanish to some areas of the Falkland islands. It is clear enough to me that the Falklands are British. I have made this map as a contribution to the article because it includes the names of some areas in Spanish matched with the correct geographic terms in English. For example, the term Isla de Aguilas has been replaced by the term Aguilas Island. I made this map because it fills the gap between maps that are completely in Spanish and the ones that are completely in English. The map is not intended to defy the British sovereignty over the islands, nor does it intend to overlook the British official names. I have added and made this map as an easy English version with the Spanish proper names so it is easier for an English speaking person to relate to the proper geographic terminology in English. I think the reversions to my addition are biased since the editor is an English citizen who lives in England as stated in his userpage so it violates WP:NPOV Thanks.-- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion - what about just having a map using the language of the place in question? Having a map showing Argentine names - "Anglicised" or not - is the equivalent of showing a map of the Channel Islands with the all the names expressed in German. ðarkun coll 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not think the map would add anything to the article as -- Camilo Sanchez admits, these are not the official names of the places they mark. It does look like you are trying to shoehorn the Argentinian names into the english language wiki even though these are not used by the inhabitants of the islands, the local governign authority or the UK government. Discojim ( talk) 06:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The reference to the extinct Warrah is slightly misleading. The text reads "The extinct Warrah was the only native animal found on the islands upon discovery by the Europeans." If it was extinct, how did they find it? The dodo was found on Mauritius by the first settlers, but becameextinct later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garstonboy ( talk) 16:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this not the correct flag of the Falkland Islands? http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/south-america/falkland-islands Flosssock1 ( talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
A British BBC program "Material world" broadcast on 25th Feb 2010 suggested that the Spanish version of the Falkland islands "Las islas Malvinas" derives from an early Welsh colony on that archipelago who used the name St Malo. I could not find any supporting material, so simply note it here, in case anyone actually knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpo ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"Hidden behing their fog mantel We mustn´t forget them
THE FALKLANDS ARGENTINE
the winds clamors,the roars of sea. from neither ofthose horizons ouer emblem mustn´t be uproot cause its white is in the mounts and its blue is paiting the sea.
Due to its abscence, conquered by and strange pavilion, there isn´t any land loved more, like and extension of our homeland Nobody here is speaking of forgetfulness, or even gives up, o pardon there asn´t any land loved more like an extension of our homeland.
Hidden behind their fog mantel like a sun our ideal THE FALKLANDS ARGENTINE in domain is to be inmortal and facing the sun of our emblem pure,well-defined and victorious shine ¡oho Homeland! in its diadem, our argentine pearl
Chorus Due to our national pride, shine ¡oho homeland! in its diadem,our argentine pearl."
I'm guessing that this "Falkland Islands Anthem" whose lyric currently appears at the end of the article is actually a rough translation of a nationalist Argentine song. Yes? It certainly doesn't read like anything that would have been written by a British Falklander. 65.213.77.129 ( talk) 20:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not the anthem. I don't know if Falklands has its own anthem, or it's the same as UK, but that's a translation of an
Argentine march song, certainly not the anthem. Looks like vandalism. I removed it.
pmt7ar (
t|
c)
20:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the history section should be corrected. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html In various parts of the History Section there are several instances of information that aren't supported by sources, or are supported by what has proven to be erroneous sources. I would correct it myself, but I don't have an account and it could be taken as being defacing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.186.152 ( talk) 23:51, 27 February 2010 (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. |
I've been bold and archived this talk page as yet again it was getting unmanageable. I assume the discussion was finished, if not it can always be resurrected. Justin talk 09:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Re:
2) Now on the articles' issue here, I always understood that the islanders want to be Islanders ...............Shame. Charlie ( talk) 07:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Are there any railways on the Islands? Drutt ( talk) 22:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The article now informs us that the area of the Falkland Islands is 4,700 square miles or 12,000 km2. This piece of information is attributed - by means of a broken link - to the CIA Factbook, which actually says that the islands have an area of 12,173km2 [1]. The difference between what the source says and what the CIA Factbook actually says is, 173km2 or 66.796 square miles or 42,749 acres or two thirds of the area of Weddell Island.
Some rounding error!
Justin A Kuntz introduced this inaccuracy into the article. It is his responsibility to correct the inaccuracy and fix the broken link. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Very close but not exact.. See [3] Where is your evidence that the CIA factbook converted a square mile figure into square kilometres? Your primary source is the CIA factbook and it is your responsibility to ensure that the primary source is not misrepresented. It is also your responsibility to repair the broken link to the evidence. Michael Glass ( talk) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Justin, nearly 43,000 acres is an error of some magnitude. It's an error of more than 1% of the total area of the Falkland Islands. All I am insisting on is that the article quotes the source accurately. That means, letting the figure 14,173 stand. Not a big ask, is it? Have you got what it takes to let that figure stand? Michael Glass ( talk)
14,173 does not equal 14,000. All I am asking is that you change one number to agree with the figure given in the source quoted. If you regard this request as being disruptive then it is not a rational reaction. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's admit it, the subject of units of measurement in this article has been one of acrimonious debate this year. There are several possible positions that people could take:
1 Metric first as a general rule.
2 Imperial first as a general rule.
3 Imperial first as a general rule, except for temperatures in Celsius.
4 Follow the source of the information as a general rule.
I favour the metric system, of course, but the general rule of following the source of information would be fine by me.
What do others think, especially those who actually contribute to this article? Michael Glass ( talk) 12:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
As I count it, it appears that of actual editors of this article, two people have expressed a preference for imperial, one has expressed a preference for imperial plus Celsius temperatures, and one has expressed a preference for metric or following the source. One other has expressed a preference for metric. As no-one else has troubled to express an opinion the vote has been three to two in favour of Imperial. It's not exactly a consensus in my opinion, but I won't press the issue any further at this time. Michael Glass ( talk) 11:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that sometimes miles is abbreviated to "mi". This is fine in the US, but "mi" as an abbreviation does not exist and probably unknown to the average Briton. At most in the UK, the mile is badly abbreviated to "m" on road signs. I would suggest miles be written out in full. 212.203.105.186 ( talk) 13:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
So, err, the government references use metric units exclusively, most other references use almost exclusively metric units except for miles, and none of them use farenheit - why exactly does the article use non-metric units, call them what you will? I think the onus here needs to be on providing strong arguments for imperial|commonwealth|whatever units, otherwise they should be changed. (By the way, can we just call them imperial, since that's what they're known as, without being accused of colonialism??) CheesyBiscuit ( talk) 09:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The weather chart in the article is based on information gained from Weatherbase. Who is weatherbase? A better known source is the BBC and this web page is relevant: < http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT004760>. As the Falkland Islands is a British territory, wouldn't it be preferable to use this respected British source? Michael Glass ( talk) 10:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Great work! Just one thing: I think it should be noted that the original is in metric units. Michael Glass ( talk) 04:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Try a little common courtesy, Justin, and we'll get on better. However, if you resort to bullying and name-calling I'll stand up to you. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
My final comment at this point is to thank Pfainuk for his explanation about the coding of the table. I wondered why the table worked that way. I believe it would be better to have a note about the source units, but I won't press it further at this point. We don't always agree but I respect his contribution to the articles and the discussions about them. Michael Glass ( talk) 04:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I have been trying to revise the history section of the article from this:
to this:
Please note the differences:
Perhaps people can suggest a way of improving my suggested revision. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
[4] and The History of the Falkland Islands Mary Cawkell, though I no longer have my copy. Justin talk 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Justin, I have waited 24 hours and you have not responded. I will therefore try a different tack. You have objected to the sentences about John Strong but not the other changes. I therefore plan to replace this sentence:
with this:
These two sentences put the facts in chronological order and cite the sources of the information. I'll wait 72 hours before posting them. That will give you and others ample time to comment first. Michael Glass ( talk) 23:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Justin seems to forget that I fixed that error as soon as he pointed it out. I cannot understand why he still goes on about it. I draw people's attention to the fact that the present wording suggests that John Strong led an expedition to the Falkland Islands. As far as I can see, he encountered the islands by accident after being blown off course by contrary winds. If people have other or better information, I would be grateful if they would present their evidence. As for stylistic and other matters, I said I'd wait for 72 hours for other feedback, and that is what I'll do. Michael Glass ( talk) 12:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. The administrator accused us both of edit warring and both of us put our cases to him. This is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woody#3RR_Warning.
You say I introduced further errors. What errors are these? What about the error in the first version? It implies that the expedition was to the Falkland Islands when it only got there because it was blown off course. Don't we need to look at both versions and work out just exactly what happened and how best to express it? Michael Glass ( talk) 13:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Narson, I'm sorry that the debate strayed into other questions. Perhaps it will help if I try to summarise the points about the wording. Apologies in advance if I don't get it exactly right. I'm trying my best.
The paragraph in question reads thus:
The proposed revision (above) reads thus:
Arguments for the first version are:
Neutral comments
Arguments for the second version are:
My responses
Revised proposal
I hope that this reads better. It's certainly shorter, and that usually helps. Are there any further comments or suggestions? Michael Glass ( talk) 10:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" [15]. The English name, "The Falkland Islands" derives from the English mariner, John Strong. In 1690 he named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name was later extended to the island group. [12]. The Spanish name, "Islas Malvinas", is derived from the French name for the islands, "Îles Malouines" [14]. Louis Antoine de Bougainville named the islands in 1764, after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France. [13].
Justin talk 12:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you want the ISO designation first (as above) or to keep the current ordering of sentences (as in your comment). I was of two minds about it, too, but decided on keeping the present order of sentences. Which do you prefer? Michael Glass ( talk) 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. Here is the text that I propose to put in the article. I hope that it is acceptable to everyone. If not, please let me know:
No its not acceptable, for the reason previously stated and which you're ignoring. You're insisting on a chronological order, ignoring the sensitivities attached to the name. English, Spanish and French as per the text I suggested. Justin talk 21:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Justin, I prefer to have the facts in chronological order because that makes more sense. Yes I did miss the fact that you had reversed the order of the French and Spanish names. What are the "reasons previously stated". As far as I am aware there are no errors of fact in either your version or mine and the sentences are largely identical, although the order is different. In the version immediately above. The first sentence is identical to the second sentence in your version. The second sentence above is almost identical to third sentence, though yours contains two extra words was later which I have no trouble accepting.
So the only substantial difference between our two versions is that mine is in chronological order and yours is not. Do you really mean that the Spanish name is so sensitive that it must be mentioned before the French name, even though the Spanish name was derived from the French one? If so, why? Here is another version that brings my version even closer to yours in wording, but preserves the chronological order:
If you would still prefer the ISO designation to come first, please let me know. If you still want the facts out of chronological order, please explain why in detail. If there are any other problems, please let me know. Michael Glass ( talk) 05:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Justin, please calm down. I don't appreciate abuse. Holding a different opinion from you is not evidence of arrogance. I was trying to minimise the difference between your wording and mine. Here is your wording and your word order, together with references (Please check that they are correct):
Here is my wording:
As there appears to be an intractable difference between our two opinions, perhaps others could express their opinions and help settle the matter. Michael Glass ( talk) 21:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The English name for the islands, the "Falkland Islands", derives from the English mariner John Strong, who in 1690 named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name was later extended to the island group. [32] The Spanish name, Islas Malvinas, is derived from the French name, [33] "Îles Malouines", named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France. [34]. The ISO designation is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" [35].
Thank you, Pfainuk. I accept your wording, which is an improvement on the present wording. If the naming of the islands is so sensitive that chronological order is a problem then your wording is best. Michael Glass ( talk) 21:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, one paragraph reads:
When I checked one source
[5], this is what I read:
The other quoted source [6] stated:
The documents link the hostility to Spanish names to the Falklands War period. Also, General Moore's hostility to the use of Islas Malvinas and the Islanders' hostility to names that were imposed on them during the Argentine occupation could be two different things. Perhaps it would be better if the wording went like this:
I think it is worth mentioning that the Argentines are prepared to look at this question as part of confidence building between the two parties. Also I think that it is important not to claim more than the source documents state.
What do others think? Michael Glass ( talk) 12:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm easy about not mentioning the Argentine agreement to "look into it". That's an agreement to do nothing in particular! However, renaming Stanley and the other name changes imposed during the invasion so incensed the Islanders that they insisted that it be mentioned in the 1994 agreement. The Argentines, for their part, tried to mollify the islanders without committing themselves to doing anything concrete.
As I understand it, the hostility of the Islanders - as stated in the document - was directed at "names that were imposed on them during the Argentine occupation", most notably, "Puerto Argentina" for Stanley. This was such an important issue for them that they had it included in the 1994 agreement. However, General Sir Jeremy Moore's hostility to the term "Islas Malvinas" is something different. Firstly, it's a well established term. It derives from the first settlement on the islands by the French, and so is different from later attempts to rename Stanley and other places. It is quite likely that many islanders would heartily agree with Sir Jeremy's opinion, especially after the invasion, but this is not established by the documentation. If there is documentary evidence that Islanders also object to "Islas Malvinas", then we could make this statement, but at the moment the documentation doesn't quite go that far.
I think that the wording could be adjusted, perhaps like this:
These two statements are abundantly established by the documentation. However, I think we need more documentation if we are to state or imply that Islanders also object to Argentines using the term "Islas Malvinas." Does anyone know of such a document? Michael Glass ( talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any direct documentary evidence for this opinion? Michael Glass ( talk) 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
In nine days, no-one has come up with any direct documentary evidence for the assertion that the name Islas Malvinas is considered highly offensive in the Falklands. It may be, but the evidence is not there, and the sources quoted do not support this assertion. I suggest that the following wording be considered:
Michael Glass ( talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a particular hostility to the use of Puerto Argentino and other names to refer to Stanley. This is clearly stated in the document that you refer to. However, the term "Malvinas" to refer to the Islands themselves is in a different category. As the document clearly states:
Perhaps it would be better expressed like this:
Does anybody else have any more evidence about the use of the term "Malvinas" or other matters? Remember, we need the evidence to establish the text. If we don't have the evidence we can't make the claim. Michael Glass ( talk) 00:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I propose changing this:
to this:
The idea is to underline and fully document the sensitivity of Falkland islanders to names imposed on them during the occupation and to record General Sir Jeremy Moore's objection to the term "Islas Malvinas" but to distinguish it from the Islanders' objections as we don't have direct documentary evidence that Falkland Islanders objected to this particular term. Michael Glass ( talk) 14:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
DominicConnor (
talk)
13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)I do not think the fact that a term is seen as offensive by some is sufficient grounds not to use it. IMO the test should be whether it is widely used.
Conversely, if there is notable argument over the real name, then that is a valid topic for coverage.
Perhaps a less contentious example ? The English word for the capital of Italy is Rome, but Italians call it Roma. Similarly London is called Londra, Londres etc in various languages. Beijing, Kolkata, etc each have had name revisions, indeed it seems to be the mark of a major city that it has a specific word in other languages. I live in Buckhurst Hill, which I believe is called exactly that on the rare occasions Russians, Greeks, and of course Argentinians talk of it.
But obviously arguments over names should not dominate this article.
Just a quick and friendly note to explain why I think that the French name of the Falkland Islands is worthy to be added to the head of the article.
Therefore I put the French name back. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Malouines is the current French name (see [ [10]]), so it's not just historical. I can't see how mentioning it in the first sentence could in any way make the text less neutral. The French made the first settlement on the island so this is notable. I think it's worth those few extra words, but others disagree. Does anyone else have an opinion one way or another? Michael Glass ( talk) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
As it is clear that my proposal does not have support I will let the matter drop. Thanks to all for your comments. Michael Glass ( talk) 07:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to accept Apcbg's wording. How do others feel? Michael Glass ( talk) 19:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello there! I don't mean to offend anyone here. I know this is a delicate matter, but I really feel some things have to be said. I'll try to summarize it first to make my point clear: one of wikipedia's cornerstones is the "neutral point of view" approach, which requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. To be honest, I was not able to find many (in fact, I think there are only 2) references to argentinian documents which express their point of view.
That being said, I think some paragraphs should be "completed", expressing the argentinian point of view, so that they are not so biased. For example, this one:
In 1945, upon signing the UN Charter, Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The United Kingdom responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN Resolution 1514 (XV) regarding the de-colonisation of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders first had to vote for the British withdrawal at a referendum to be held on the issue.
Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.
An important matter, completely forgotten here, is that:
On 14 December 1960, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” which proclaimed “the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations“, enshrining two fundamental principles that were to guide the decolonisation process: self-determination and territorial integrity.
The principle of self-determination does not apply to the Question of the Malvinas Islands Question.
The specificity of the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow its return, thus violating Argentine territorial integrity. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. It is important to note that Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples” stipulates in paragraph 6 “Any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.
The General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine in the “Question of the Malvinas Islands”—it applies the principle of territorial integrity taking into account the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands—in its resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 which was reaffirmed by other resolutions in 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) y 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute and reaffirm the invitation made in resolution 2065 (XX) to the Parties “to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)“.
[Ref: http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/homeing.html]
To make it brief, not only is this the argentinian position (completely forgotten and ignored in this article), but also what UN resolutions dictate. That's why
As of 2004, by virtue of a process of revitalisation of the General Assembly, the Argentine government ensured that the “Question of the Malvinas Islands” appeared on the permanent agenda and in the Document of the General Assembly Bureau. The topic may be discussed subject to prior notification by a Member State.
So, as you can see, sadly it's not Argentina the one who is not willing to negotiate and discuss the sovereignity of the islands, as implied by this article:
Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.
Lastly, I know this might sound a bit harsh, but as the UN Resolution 2065 (1965) states: taking into account that the original population of the island was completely replaced since british occupation (I would rather call it invasion, because otherwise the only "invasion" here is the argentinian...this is clearly unfair...we need to call it both the same way) it's "the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands" what matters.
And yes, before you ask, I'm argentinian. However, I'm not writing this because of any "nationalist" claim or whatever, just because I found this article (and also the spanish one) to be far too biased. I hope this contribution helps making a better wikipedia. Is there any problem if I try to "complete" that part of the article? Then, of course, you could add the british POV regarding this particular matter.
Oh! I encourage any of you how speak spanish to try to complete the spanish version too. You know, I firmly believe that if we can't start knowing each other and knowing what both of us believe in and think of, we'll never end this quarrel. Many of you, as well as many of us, just believe things that are being said to us since school, without ever listening what the other "part" has to say. So please, if you have anything to say, make it a sharp comment, not a vulgar offense.-- Earendil i510 ( talk) 16:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
From my POV, this is completely false, specially because this is not the only and maybe not even the most important cause of jammed negotiations. -- Earendil i510 ( talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_of_the_Falkland_Islands is far more neutral than this article. I'm sorry, that's my POV. And happily, I'm free to write it down here. -- Earendil i510 ( talk) 03:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The lead had included a statement on "increased speculation on the amount of oil in the area, with proven reserves of at least eight billion barrels", cited to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8520038.stm .
Perhaps I'm missing something, but as far as I can see the cite doesn't support that.
It actually says:
"The often-used figure based on geological surveys is that the Falkland Islands have the equivalent of about 60 billion barrels of oil in total. But Ben Brewerton, spokesman for the UK-listed Falkland Oil and Gas, told the BBC this figure is "slightly mythical" and no-one knows where it came from. ... Falkland Oil and Gas - which has the exploration rights for the south and east of the islands - said it estimates its four biggest prospects in the area have 8 billion barrels of oil."
As far as I can tell, this is not a statement that there are "proven reserves" of eight billion barrels.
Please clarify and/or add additional cites for this if necessary.
Thanks. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 04:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The Demographic section says: "People from the United Kingdom who have obtained Falkland Island status are known locally as 'belongers'."
Surely people from anywhere who have obtained Falkland Island status are known as 'belongers'. The Falkland Islands constitution says regarding Falkland Islands status:
22
Someone from the UK wouldn't need to apply for BOTC
In any case, see Belonger_status article which says people normally have the status by birth or ancestry. Is it different in the Falklands? Is the term 'belonger' only used for those who have obtained Falkland Island status and not for those who are born with it? Dab14763 ( talk) 15:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Why says "invasion". For Argentina was recovery, that's no neutral. Alakasam ( talk) 18:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This section appears in the History bit but it deals solely with transport connections between the Falkland Islands and Argentina. Would it not be more sensible to put in under Transport section? Discojim ( talk) 09:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we add a news section as the islands are a hotter news subject at the moment? Flamejob ( talk) 10:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news report. Unless a fact meet notability should not be included -- Jor70 ( talk) 11:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
IANVS, I think you should add the new support at Foreign relations of Argentina#Sovereignty claims -- Jor70 ( talk) 14:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting canadian post [11] -- Jor70 ( talk) 15:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Here a british account of the truly relevant Rio Group support of the Argentine stance on the issue: The Guardian. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to play the "Not news" cards, we may consider deleting all mentions to this topic on its entirely, at least until the machines finish their work and determine if there is or isn't oil in there. We can't mention something that is in the news but doing it in an incomplete and misleading manner because the complete summary involves news. MBelgrano ( talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
We not only support our sister republic's claims to the Malvinas islands but every year we present its case to the United Nations' Special Committee on Decolonization. [12] Even Chile!, you figure :-) -- Jor70 ( talk) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree on changing the article with each news that appears. There has been a lot of fuzz recently since the oil exploration and Argentina's decision to require permits. Wikipedia is not a news report. This article should reflect facts and only updated if these things actually have a confirmed consequence. It's still too hot to consider them in this article, plus this is not a debate forum. If these things (Argentina supporters or UK supporters declarations) worth mentioning it would be on another article more according ( Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute). - pmt7ar ( t| c) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No, to the news section. Stuff like that belongs on a forum. Ryan4314 ( talk) 13:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to call the attention to an editor who keeps reverting my contribution. I have made a map with the names given in Spanish to some areas of the Falkland islands. It is clear enough to me that the Falklands are British. I have made this map as a contribution to the article because it includes the names of some areas in Spanish matched with the correct geographic terms in English. For example, the term Isla de Aguilas has been replaced by the term Aguilas Island. I made this map because it fills the gap between maps that are completely in Spanish and the ones that are completely in English. The map is not intended to defy the British sovereignty over the islands, nor does it intend to overlook the British official names. I have added and made this map as an easy English version with the Spanish proper names so it is easier for an English speaking person to relate to the proper geographic terminology in English. I think the reversions to my addition are biased since the editor is an English citizen who lives in England as stated in his userpage so it violates WP:NPOV Thanks.-- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion - what about just having a map using the language of the place in question? Having a map showing Argentine names - "Anglicised" or not - is the equivalent of showing a map of the Channel Islands with the all the names expressed in German. ðarkun coll 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not think the map would add anything to the article as -- Camilo Sanchez admits, these are not the official names of the places they mark. It does look like you are trying to shoehorn the Argentinian names into the english language wiki even though these are not used by the inhabitants of the islands, the local governign authority or the UK government. Discojim ( talk) 06:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The reference to the extinct Warrah is slightly misleading. The text reads "The extinct Warrah was the only native animal found on the islands upon discovery by the Europeans." If it was extinct, how did they find it? The dodo was found on Mauritius by the first settlers, but becameextinct later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garstonboy ( talk) 16:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this not the correct flag of the Falkland Islands? http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/south-america/falkland-islands Flosssock1 ( talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
A British BBC program "Material world" broadcast on 25th Feb 2010 suggested that the Spanish version of the Falkland islands "Las islas Malvinas" derives from an early Welsh colony on that archipelago who used the name St Malo. I could not find any supporting material, so simply note it here, in case anyone actually knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpo ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"Hidden behing their fog mantel We mustn´t forget them
THE FALKLANDS ARGENTINE
the winds clamors,the roars of sea. from neither ofthose horizons ouer emblem mustn´t be uproot cause its white is in the mounts and its blue is paiting the sea.
Due to its abscence, conquered by and strange pavilion, there isn´t any land loved more, like and extension of our homeland Nobody here is speaking of forgetfulness, or even gives up, o pardon there asn´t any land loved more like an extension of our homeland.
Hidden behind their fog mantel like a sun our ideal THE FALKLANDS ARGENTINE in domain is to be inmortal and facing the sun of our emblem pure,well-defined and victorious shine ¡oho Homeland! in its diadem, our argentine pearl
Chorus Due to our national pride, shine ¡oho homeland! in its diadem,our argentine pearl."
I'm guessing that this "Falkland Islands Anthem" whose lyric currently appears at the end of the article is actually a rough translation of a nationalist Argentine song. Yes? It certainly doesn't read like anything that would have been written by a British Falklander. 65.213.77.129 ( talk) 20:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not the anthem. I don't know if Falklands has its own anthem, or it's the same as UK, but that's a translation of an
Argentine march song, certainly not the anthem. Looks like vandalism. I removed it.
pmt7ar (
t|
c)
20:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the history section should be corrected. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html In various parts of the History Section there are several instances of information that aren't supported by sources, or are supported by what has proven to be erroneous sources. I would correct it myself, but I don't have an account and it could be taken as being defacing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.186.152 ( talk) 23:51, 27 February 2010 (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. |