![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I have removed the paragraph:
Argentina has never recognised British sovereignty, and formally protested when the Falkland Islands dependencies were established. Argentina also began to claim all other British held islands in the South Atlantic, following the creation of the Falkland Islands Dependency.
Aside that the first part is disputed (notably by the leaflet mentioned at the FI talk page) and also a direct repetition of the preceding sentence, the second part is false.
I say this based on this document (p20):
Despite the establishment of the meteorological station in 1904 [on South Orkney], neither Argentina nor Chile objected to the promulgation of the British claims in 1908. The Argentine Foreign Office addressed a note to the British Minister in Buenos Aires, asking for information about the matter. The Minister forwarded him a copy of the Falkland Islands Gazette carrying the letters patent, and received a brief and routine note of acknowledgement, without further comment, which prompted him to report to London that Argentina presumably recognized the British claim.
This interpretation was strengthened by the fact that an Argentine company, the Compañía Argentina de Pesca, applied for and obtained a British lease to land on South Georgia Island. A similar request was received from a Chilean company, the South Georgia Exploration Company, and another Chilean company, the Sociedad Ballenera de Magallanes, took out a British whaling license. (The Chilean Government cites the operation of this company in the South Shetland Islands in support of its claim.)
The same source (on p20) states that the Argentines did not overtly claim any part of the area covered by the 1908 letters patent (by which Britain created the FI dependencies) until 1925, when they claimed Laurie Island in South Orkney. Pfainuk talk 16:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This article omits the moves within the Falklands towards greater autonomy. While I think few favour independence as an option, it has been discussed. Many though, as far as I can tell, favour more devolution. For geographical reasons, the islands have always had a degree of autonomy disallowed Scotland and Wales for many years. Suffice to say, before the Falklands War, the islands were hardly a household name in the UK, and as the war recedes into the past, they have become remote again in more ways than one. As I understand it, islanders are aware of this problem to some degree. One way round this isolation is the ever stronger link with Chile.
On the other hand, the last twenty years have seen the islands' infrastructure strengthened and their economy diversified, meaning that greater self-reliance is possible.
The islands' identity as an entity in their own right should be better reflected in this article. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Justin A Kuntz, Please read section 50 of the 1985 constitution see this link to the text of it. Subsection 50. (2) "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive authority of the Falkland Islands shall be exercised on behalf of Her Majesty by the Governor, either directly or through officers subordinate to him." Subsection 62. (1) goes on to say that that he does not need to take advice from the Executive Council "In any case in which the Governor consults the Executive Council, he may act against the advice given to him by the Council if he thinks it right to do so." ThinkingTwice ( talk) 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
As is usual in British Overseas Territories, the elected Councillors have a substantial measure of responsibility for the conduct of their Territory's affairs. The Governor is obliged to consult the Executive Council in the exercise of his functions (except in specified circumstances, for example on defence and security issues, where he must consult and follow the advice of the Commander of the British Forces in the Islands). Although he has the constitutional power to act against the advice of the Executive Council, he would be required, without delay, to report such a matter to the British Government with the reasons for his action. The governor retains responsibility for external affairs and the public service.
The Argentine attitudes section completely ignores the prevailing and strongly held view of most of the population that Las Malvinas Son Argentinas. People from Salta to Patagonia have bumper stickers and messages in the windows of their houses, while state or federally sponsored road signs declare that the Falklands are Argentine in a number of places (as noted in this article). The press links the Falklands to everything - the front page of national daily Clarin after the first day of the Russian invasion of Georgia was Russian Forces Enter Georgia - Situation has paralells with the Malvinas ! All schoolchildren are taught that the Falklands are Argentine, and all maps in the country do not even note that the islands are not adminstered by Argentina, they simply state "Islas Malvinas, Argentina" and proceed to name all places in Spanish.
People who express the views given in this section of the article exist but are by no means the majority. The article gives undue importance to this section of society and should give more details of the majority. I will start looking for sources now, although it would be best to get some of the myriad paper sources from Argentina itself.
Chrisfow ( talk) 10:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Attitudes within Argentina section do not represent at all the strong opinion here nor the public neither the political class. Also wouldnt this
[2] be a good addition to the Attitudes within the United Kingdom ? --
Jor70 (
talk)
22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't claim to be an expert on Falklands history but it did appear to me that Argentina or the preceding government after independence from the Spanish always did claim the Falklands, and even if they didn't, they claimed that they did!
I did make some edits in good faith that were reversed. Fair enough even though I had documented my edit with a link to an official document. If my source was unreliable as evidience of Argentine claims, please enlighten me. Michael Glass ( talk) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Have done, but the article as it now stands contains two contrasting statements:
If the United Kingdom officially recognised Argentine independence in 1825 [3], at least one of these three statements cannot be true.
Note that an official claim doesn't have to be true. If we are recording the claim then we record it as it is but point out other evidence. For example, the Ministry of Defence might have claimed that HMS Coventry sank 10 miles off Pebble Island. However, if the co-ordinates of the sinking reveal that the Coventry sank 11.5 nautical miles off the coast we might have to note both facts.
I should add that I have no personal involvement in either of the competing claims. All I want to do is to get at the truth. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In those time that the islands were under effective rule of the United Provinces or the Confederation, can we say that there was a "claim" over them? Isn't the term limited to circumstances were a party does not have such control but considers it should? MBelgrano ( talk) 01:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The USA flag is incorrect. The 1831 version should be used, not the 1960 version. Help! Unsure how to fix. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
This paragraph:
[Sir, I have the honor of informing you that I have arrived in this port with a commission from the Supreme Government of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata to take possession of these islands on behalf of the country to which they belong by Natural Law.]
Clearly establishes that between October-November of 1820, the islands had being occupied in name of Argentina. I added a reference to the Argentine constitution; which clearly declares “Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata” as name of Argentina.
So I added the 1820 period to the timeline, with references, and it was deleted by Apcbg. Since the Apcbg action has no fundamentation, I consider it just vandalism.
Pfainuk removed the references to the Argentine constitution, arguing “remove irrelevancy” but that text fundament my editing of the time-line, so is completely relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marraco ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The current version reads "UN Resolution 2065.... added that all the settlements... had to be peaceful and, in this case 'in the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands'". This is simply not true. That resolution (taken from UN site http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=A/RES/2065(XX)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION) invites the governments to find a solution bearing in mind the provisions of the UN Charter, of UN resolution 1514 and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). To arrange settlements 'bearing in mind the interests' is something completely different from 'arrange settlements in the interests' of the islands population. So, I propose that the wording of this sentence is changed in order to reflect the true content of Resolution 2065. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andarin2 ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the recent innovations around the dispute, and the various statements on the issue, or political actions about it, maybe we should add an specific section taking note of these novelties. Please, take part on the related: discussion topic. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk) 11:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This map should be updated according to recent changes of stance brought about by the last Rio Group and Caribbean Community Unity Summit that took place on 22 February 2010, as detailed here.
Namely: Guyana and Surinam as UNASUR members; Belize and Jamaica as Rio Group Members; Caribbean Community nations as per the aformentioned Summit declaration; all of them now endorse the Argentine claim.
Salut, -- IANVS ( talk) 03:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The official statement:
Declaration "on the issue of the Malvinas Islands, Pro-Tempore Rio Group Secretariat official statement. Whatever the changing positions of some
CARICOM states,
Guyana and
Surinam are for the Argentine as long as they are
UNASUR members, the same for
Belize and
Jamaica being
Rio Group members. Salut, --
IANVS (
talk)
18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Here the CSN (previous name of UNASUR) endorsement of Argentine position on Malvinas:
Andean Community webpage.
As for you complaining about the primary sources... I don't get it: no news reports, no editorialists, no official statements. Give me a break! Salut, --
IANVS (
talk)
19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, as if those documents were open to differing interpretations! Nah. -- IANVS ( talk) 19:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In the longer view, with none of the countries, not even Argentina or the UK, we can "be sure" that they will "always" support a certain side. Anyone may change sides at any time, for any reason, international or local. The opposite of using a "crystal ball" is using factual information, and the best way for doing so is making a map showing what do countries support today in such a factual way. In the unpredictable circumstance that a country changes side, we change the map, as long as nobody does so, we keep it as it is. MBelgrano ( talk) 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The Rio Group decleration is meaningless. It says they support Argentina's legitimate rights, but doesn't assert what those rights are. The only thing it acctually says is the bit about the Association of Overseas Territories. That is why the cited news reports were so fluffy. It was Balfourian in its wording. Or if you prefer, the Rio Groupe has said 'Je vous ai compris' -- Narson ~ Talk • 23:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the map, it would be trying to condense complex international politics into just four categories with criteria such as "neutral countries which generally support the..." What's the definition of neutral? Who decides they're neutral? What does generally support mean? How many times make up generally? This map puts the US into the same category as Latvia, did Latvia give the UK Sidewinder missiles or let them use there airfields??? Ryan4314 ( talk) 13:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That declaration says in tarticular that:
Given that the Treaty of Lisbon did confirm the Falklands status as an EU overseas territory, then it follows (according to the authors of the declaration) that there is actually no sovereignty dispute. Apcbg ( talk) 14:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Justin!, nice to see you back, the rio summit declarations can be found on the hosting country [4] [5] -- Jor70 ( talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That secondary sources are preferred is nothing more than a statement of policy - and it's like that for precisely the reasons others give and indeed have demonstrated. We can argue the toss all day about what primary sources mean, but that's not really our job. On the map, I believe it should be deleted. It's impossible to reasonably maintain such a map, based as it is on inference and original research. Too many countries don't clearly fall into any of the boxes - and that's always going to be the case. On the text, we need to make sure that we're being accurate: that we don't overstate the case for some of these states, where the support for Argentina that is claimed is actually debatable. We shouldn't be writing based on the last statement that was made, but should work based on longer-term trends. Pfainuk talk 20:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
What is a spat?? [6] -- Jor70 ( talk) 22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Did I miss something? I've reverted the removal of that section. Justin talk 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else feel there is a compelling need to substitute English for British? Justin talk 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
@Narson. don't be a WP:DICK
@Pfainuk
There are some flaws in what your saying. Firstly regardless of whether he was a Scotsman in the English navy or an Englishman in the Scottish navy (unlikely) that wouldn't make him "British". It would be an Anglo-Scottish expedition if it were a joint national operation or simply an English expedition commanded by a Scot. British is a nationality, which no one in 1690 would have. Secondly the narrative. In most article's English is used until 1707 with no problem. I'd say a vast majority of people know that the modern ethnic English are British national's also baring in mind most people tend to confuse them together at the best of times (something i'm trying to correct),so i can't see any problem there. I've not had any problems anywhere else on wikipedia other than here and the Gib articles (with the same user's) and i can't see why there's such a mountain out of a molehill. The reference's point to "British" is a simple mistake, probably stemming from confusion over the union of the crowns and the Acts of Union and the confusing of British and English as the same thing, which proves my point above. The Darien Scheme and other's about 17th century Scotland never have this problem. I know we may not have got of to the best start (which i regret and apologise for my part) and hopefully you'll see what i'm saying is perfectly reasonable with no hinderence to the artcle.Cheers.-- English Bobby ( talk) 13:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Argentina didn't build the strip at Port Stanley. The permanent strip was built by and paid for by the British. Argentine engineers constructed a temporary strip in 1972, it blew away in a storm in the early '70s. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 18:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There is an error in this sentence:
The source gives 100 km as the distance. This is almost exactly 54 nautical miles and about 62 land miles. Regardless of the order in which the units are presented, the actual figures should be accurate. Michael Glass ( talk) 00:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC).
The sentence now reads:
Please note that:
Please check the text as displayed. Michael Glass ( talk) 07:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The point that the British Government discussed the possibility of a sovereignty transfer was already in the article. Also, Thatcher's Government discussed leaseback, transfer to Argentina and then leasing the islands back; ie a fudge. The only Government to discuss an outright transfer was Wilson's in the '60s. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Spain has removed official support for the Argentine position. http://en.mercopress.com/2010/04/21/falklands-sovereignty-a-bilateral-issue-between-argentina-and-uk-says-spain Anyone who knows what they are doing may be able to add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.2.123 ( talk) 20:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
An edit war is brewing up as to whether it was teh British or the English who landed in the Falklands in the 1690's. I think that one of the editors is drawing attention to the fact that England and Scotland were separate countries until 1707. Would the editors concerned please clarify whether or not this is what they were referering to? Martinvl ( talk) 17:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
My opinions? Your the only guy with whom i've ever had a problem. Despite apparently "retiring" you've come strait back with your kettle and pot routine again.
As for the matter at hand I can't see any problem referring to the English at the start. Its done in every other article on wikipedia. Ethnicity doesn't equal citizenship, and considering Scotland's navy was made up of roughly three ships i can't see how they contributed.-- English Bobby ( talk) 16:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/569422/John-Strong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands No problem here.
www.falklands.gov.fk › Home
These all say he was an Englishman.-- English Bobby ( talk) 16:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This issue is clearly beyond the topic of the sovereignty dispute, and may apply to many articles of very diverse topics (even popular culture ones). It should be discussed at some wider place with more users involved (perhaps the Village Pump), and included at some guideline or style page. That is, if it hasn't been done so already. MBelgrano ( talk) 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to provide evidence that Capt John strong was English so i did. You please feel free to adopt you kettle and pot routine (not that you ever need reminding) and perhaps rename your self Justin the Kettle for next time.
www.thefalklands.info/
www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/luso/falkland.html
We are dealing with an English captin under an English and Scottish (and the rest) monarch, on an expedition sponsored by the Royal Navy which served that same English and Scottish monarch and also sponsored by a Scottish Peer who was a member of court (which was held in England). Seperating them is rather difficult in ths period and I don't believe we should. If we were discussing Strong himself, that is one thing, but the nature of the mission? A complex discerning we don't need to make. Let the EDL and the English Democrats kvetch. -- Narson ~ Talk • 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually its above if you cared to read the comments instead of trying to bait me.
Here are some more...
www.worldstatesmen.org/Falklands.html
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0813208564...
www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?id=1418 -
Not that any of this matters any more since this doesn't seem to have much to do with me finding references but rather a conflict of interest between two opposing sides-- English Bobby ( talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
But many still say he was an Englishman which is the issue here.-- English Bobby ( talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes but as i've said before, even if it was English AND Scottish before 1707 that wouldn't mean their British. It would be Anglo-Scottish. You, Narson and Justin seem to trying to push British when it has no relevance then. The fact that the king was Dutch is another factor. Shall we assume Dutch participation. None of you seem to be bothered with the Dutch despite the fact their navy and general resources were considerably greater than Scotland's. If there was any foreign assistance it would have been more likely Dutch than Scottish.-- English Bobby ( talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Also i still can't see any problem with the nationality changing mid paragraph. Your making a mountain out of a mole hill. There's never any problem elsewhere.-- English Bobby ( talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is the Spanish translation of this so different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.1.31 ( talk) 00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I have removed the paragraph:
Argentina has never recognised British sovereignty, and formally protested when the Falkland Islands dependencies were established. Argentina also began to claim all other British held islands in the South Atlantic, following the creation of the Falkland Islands Dependency.
Aside that the first part is disputed (notably by the leaflet mentioned at the FI talk page) and also a direct repetition of the preceding sentence, the second part is false.
I say this based on this document (p20):
Despite the establishment of the meteorological station in 1904 [on South Orkney], neither Argentina nor Chile objected to the promulgation of the British claims in 1908. The Argentine Foreign Office addressed a note to the British Minister in Buenos Aires, asking for information about the matter. The Minister forwarded him a copy of the Falkland Islands Gazette carrying the letters patent, and received a brief and routine note of acknowledgement, without further comment, which prompted him to report to London that Argentina presumably recognized the British claim.
This interpretation was strengthened by the fact that an Argentine company, the Compañía Argentina de Pesca, applied for and obtained a British lease to land on South Georgia Island. A similar request was received from a Chilean company, the South Georgia Exploration Company, and another Chilean company, the Sociedad Ballenera de Magallanes, took out a British whaling license. (The Chilean Government cites the operation of this company in the South Shetland Islands in support of its claim.)
The same source (on p20) states that the Argentines did not overtly claim any part of the area covered by the 1908 letters patent (by which Britain created the FI dependencies) until 1925, when they claimed Laurie Island in South Orkney. Pfainuk talk 16:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This article omits the moves within the Falklands towards greater autonomy. While I think few favour independence as an option, it has been discussed. Many though, as far as I can tell, favour more devolution. For geographical reasons, the islands have always had a degree of autonomy disallowed Scotland and Wales for many years. Suffice to say, before the Falklands War, the islands were hardly a household name in the UK, and as the war recedes into the past, they have become remote again in more ways than one. As I understand it, islanders are aware of this problem to some degree. One way round this isolation is the ever stronger link with Chile.
On the other hand, the last twenty years have seen the islands' infrastructure strengthened and their economy diversified, meaning that greater self-reliance is possible.
The islands' identity as an entity in their own right should be better reflected in this article. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Justin A Kuntz, Please read section 50 of the 1985 constitution see this link to the text of it. Subsection 50. (2) "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive authority of the Falkland Islands shall be exercised on behalf of Her Majesty by the Governor, either directly or through officers subordinate to him." Subsection 62. (1) goes on to say that that he does not need to take advice from the Executive Council "In any case in which the Governor consults the Executive Council, he may act against the advice given to him by the Council if he thinks it right to do so." ThinkingTwice ( talk) 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
As is usual in British Overseas Territories, the elected Councillors have a substantial measure of responsibility for the conduct of their Territory's affairs. The Governor is obliged to consult the Executive Council in the exercise of his functions (except in specified circumstances, for example on defence and security issues, where he must consult and follow the advice of the Commander of the British Forces in the Islands). Although he has the constitutional power to act against the advice of the Executive Council, he would be required, without delay, to report such a matter to the British Government with the reasons for his action. The governor retains responsibility for external affairs and the public service.
The Argentine attitudes section completely ignores the prevailing and strongly held view of most of the population that Las Malvinas Son Argentinas. People from Salta to Patagonia have bumper stickers and messages in the windows of their houses, while state or federally sponsored road signs declare that the Falklands are Argentine in a number of places (as noted in this article). The press links the Falklands to everything - the front page of national daily Clarin after the first day of the Russian invasion of Georgia was Russian Forces Enter Georgia - Situation has paralells with the Malvinas ! All schoolchildren are taught that the Falklands are Argentine, and all maps in the country do not even note that the islands are not adminstered by Argentina, they simply state "Islas Malvinas, Argentina" and proceed to name all places in Spanish.
People who express the views given in this section of the article exist but are by no means the majority. The article gives undue importance to this section of society and should give more details of the majority. I will start looking for sources now, although it would be best to get some of the myriad paper sources from Argentina itself.
Chrisfow ( talk) 10:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Attitudes within Argentina section do not represent at all the strong opinion here nor the public neither the political class. Also wouldnt this
[2] be a good addition to the Attitudes within the United Kingdom ? --
Jor70 (
talk)
22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't claim to be an expert on Falklands history but it did appear to me that Argentina or the preceding government after independence from the Spanish always did claim the Falklands, and even if they didn't, they claimed that they did!
I did make some edits in good faith that were reversed. Fair enough even though I had documented my edit with a link to an official document. If my source was unreliable as evidience of Argentine claims, please enlighten me. Michael Glass ( talk) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Have done, but the article as it now stands contains two contrasting statements:
If the United Kingdom officially recognised Argentine independence in 1825 [3], at least one of these three statements cannot be true.
Note that an official claim doesn't have to be true. If we are recording the claim then we record it as it is but point out other evidence. For example, the Ministry of Defence might have claimed that HMS Coventry sank 10 miles off Pebble Island. However, if the co-ordinates of the sinking reveal that the Coventry sank 11.5 nautical miles off the coast we might have to note both facts.
I should add that I have no personal involvement in either of the competing claims. All I want to do is to get at the truth. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In those time that the islands were under effective rule of the United Provinces or the Confederation, can we say that there was a "claim" over them? Isn't the term limited to circumstances were a party does not have such control but considers it should? MBelgrano ( talk) 01:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The USA flag is incorrect. The 1831 version should be used, not the 1960 version. Help! Unsure how to fix. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
This paragraph:
[Sir, I have the honor of informing you that I have arrived in this port with a commission from the Supreme Government of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata to take possession of these islands on behalf of the country to which they belong by Natural Law.]
Clearly establishes that between October-November of 1820, the islands had being occupied in name of Argentina. I added a reference to the Argentine constitution; which clearly declares “Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata” as name of Argentina.
So I added the 1820 period to the timeline, with references, and it was deleted by Apcbg. Since the Apcbg action has no fundamentation, I consider it just vandalism.
Pfainuk removed the references to the Argentine constitution, arguing “remove irrelevancy” but that text fundament my editing of the time-line, so is completely relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marraco ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The current version reads "UN Resolution 2065.... added that all the settlements... had to be peaceful and, in this case 'in the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands'". This is simply not true. That resolution (taken from UN site http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=A/RES/2065(XX)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION) invites the governments to find a solution bearing in mind the provisions of the UN Charter, of UN resolution 1514 and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). To arrange settlements 'bearing in mind the interests' is something completely different from 'arrange settlements in the interests' of the islands population. So, I propose that the wording of this sentence is changed in order to reflect the true content of Resolution 2065. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andarin2 ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the recent innovations around the dispute, and the various statements on the issue, or political actions about it, maybe we should add an specific section taking note of these novelties. Please, take part on the related: discussion topic. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk) 11:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This map should be updated according to recent changes of stance brought about by the last Rio Group and Caribbean Community Unity Summit that took place on 22 February 2010, as detailed here.
Namely: Guyana and Surinam as UNASUR members; Belize and Jamaica as Rio Group Members; Caribbean Community nations as per the aformentioned Summit declaration; all of them now endorse the Argentine claim.
Salut, -- IANVS ( talk) 03:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The official statement:
Declaration "on the issue of the Malvinas Islands, Pro-Tempore Rio Group Secretariat official statement. Whatever the changing positions of some
CARICOM states,
Guyana and
Surinam are for the Argentine as long as they are
UNASUR members, the same for
Belize and
Jamaica being
Rio Group members. Salut, --
IANVS (
talk)
18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Here the CSN (previous name of UNASUR) endorsement of Argentine position on Malvinas:
Andean Community webpage.
As for you complaining about the primary sources... I don't get it: no news reports, no editorialists, no official statements. Give me a break! Salut, --
IANVS (
talk)
19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, as if those documents were open to differing interpretations! Nah. -- IANVS ( talk) 19:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In the longer view, with none of the countries, not even Argentina or the UK, we can "be sure" that they will "always" support a certain side. Anyone may change sides at any time, for any reason, international or local. The opposite of using a "crystal ball" is using factual information, and the best way for doing so is making a map showing what do countries support today in such a factual way. In the unpredictable circumstance that a country changes side, we change the map, as long as nobody does so, we keep it as it is. MBelgrano ( talk) 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The Rio Group decleration is meaningless. It says they support Argentina's legitimate rights, but doesn't assert what those rights are. The only thing it acctually says is the bit about the Association of Overseas Territories. That is why the cited news reports were so fluffy. It was Balfourian in its wording. Or if you prefer, the Rio Groupe has said 'Je vous ai compris' -- Narson ~ Talk • 23:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the map, it would be trying to condense complex international politics into just four categories with criteria such as "neutral countries which generally support the..." What's the definition of neutral? Who decides they're neutral? What does generally support mean? How many times make up generally? This map puts the US into the same category as Latvia, did Latvia give the UK Sidewinder missiles or let them use there airfields??? Ryan4314 ( talk) 13:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That declaration says in tarticular that:
Given that the Treaty of Lisbon did confirm the Falklands status as an EU overseas territory, then it follows (according to the authors of the declaration) that there is actually no sovereignty dispute. Apcbg ( talk) 14:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Justin!, nice to see you back, the rio summit declarations can be found on the hosting country [4] [5] -- Jor70 ( talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That secondary sources are preferred is nothing more than a statement of policy - and it's like that for precisely the reasons others give and indeed have demonstrated. We can argue the toss all day about what primary sources mean, but that's not really our job. On the map, I believe it should be deleted. It's impossible to reasonably maintain such a map, based as it is on inference and original research. Too many countries don't clearly fall into any of the boxes - and that's always going to be the case. On the text, we need to make sure that we're being accurate: that we don't overstate the case for some of these states, where the support for Argentina that is claimed is actually debatable. We shouldn't be writing based on the last statement that was made, but should work based on longer-term trends. Pfainuk talk 20:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
What is a spat?? [6] -- Jor70 ( talk) 22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Did I miss something? I've reverted the removal of that section. Justin talk 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else feel there is a compelling need to substitute English for British? Justin talk 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
@Narson. don't be a WP:DICK
@Pfainuk
There are some flaws in what your saying. Firstly regardless of whether he was a Scotsman in the English navy or an Englishman in the Scottish navy (unlikely) that wouldn't make him "British". It would be an Anglo-Scottish expedition if it were a joint national operation or simply an English expedition commanded by a Scot. British is a nationality, which no one in 1690 would have. Secondly the narrative. In most article's English is used until 1707 with no problem. I'd say a vast majority of people know that the modern ethnic English are British national's also baring in mind most people tend to confuse them together at the best of times (something i'm trying to correct),so i can't see any problem there. I've not had any problems anywhere else on wikipedia other than here and the Gib articles (with the same user's) and i can't see why there's such a mountain out of a molehill. The reference's point to "British" is a simple mistake, probably stemming from confusion over the union of the crowns and the Acts of Union and the confusing of British and English as the same thing, which proves my point above. The Darien Scheme and other's about 17th century Scotland never have this problem. I know we may not have got of to the best start (which i regret and apologise for my part) and hopefully you'll see what i'm saying is perfectly reasonable with no hinderence to the artcle.Cheers.-- English Bobby ( talk) 13:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Argentina didn't build the strip at Port Stanley. The permanent strip was built by and paid for by the British. Argentine engineers constructed a temporary strip in 1972, it blew away in a storm in the early '70s. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 18:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There is an error in this sentence:
The source gives 100 km as the distance. This is almost exactly 54 nautical miles and about 62 land miles. Regardless of the order in which the units are presented, the actual figures should be accurate. Michael Glass ( talk) 00:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC).
The sentence now reads:
Please note that:
Please check the text as displayed. Michael Glass ( talk) 07:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The point that the British Government discussed the possibility of a sovereignty transfer was already in the article. Also, Thatcher's Government discussed leaseback, transfer to Argentina and then leasing the islands back; ie a fudge. The only Government to discuss an outright transfer was Wilson's in the '60s. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Spain has removed official support for the Argentine position. http://en.mercopress.com/2010/04/21/falklands-sovereignty-a-bilateral-issue-between-argentina-and-uk-says-spain Anyone who knows what they are doing may be able to add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.2.123 ( talk) 20:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
An edit war is brewing up as to whether it was teh British or the English who landed in the Falklands in the 1690's. I think that one of the editors is drawing attention to the fact that England and Scotland were separate countries until 1707. Would the editors concerned please clarify whether or not this is what they were referering to? Martinvl ( talk) 17:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
My opinions? Your the only guy with whom i've ever had a problem. Despite apparently "retiring" you've come strait back with your kettle and pot routine again.
As for the matter at hand I can't see any problem referring to the English at the start. Its done in every other article on wikipedia. Ethnicity doesn't equal citizenship, and considering Scotland's navy was made up of roughly three ships i can't see how they contributed.-- English Bobby ( talk) 16:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/569422/John-Strong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands No problem here.
www.falklands.gov.fk › Home
These all say he was an Englishman.-- English Bobby ( talk) 16:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This issue is clearly beyond the topic of the sovereignty dispute, and may apply to many articles of very diverse topics (even popular culture ones). It should be discussed at some wider place with more users involved (perhaps the Village Pump), and included at some guideline or style page. That is, if it hasn't been done so already. MBelgrano ( talk) 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to provide evidence that Capt John strong was English so i did. You please feel free to adopt you kettle and pot routine (not that you ever need reminding) and perhaps rename your self Justin the Kettle for next time.
www.thefalklands.info/
www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/luso/falkland.html
We are dealing with an English captin under an English and Scottish (and the rest) monarch, on an expedition sponsored by the Royal Navy which served that same English and Scottish monarch and also sponsored by a Scottish Peer who was a member of court (which was held in England). Seperating them is rather difficult in ths period and I don't believe we should. If we were discussing Strong himself, that is one thing, but the nature of the mission? A complex discerning we don't need to make. Let the EDL and the English Democrats kvetch. -- Narson ~ Talk • 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually its above if you cared to read the comments instead of trying to bait me.
Here are some more...
www.worldstatesmen.org/Falklands.html
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0813208564...
www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?id=1418 -
Not that any of this matters any more since this doesn't seem to have much to do with me finding references but rather a conflict of interest between two opposing sides-- English Bobby ( talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
But many still say he was an Englishman which is the issue here.-- English Bobby ( talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes but as i've said before, even if it was English AND Scottish before 1707 that wouldn't mean their British. It would be Anglo-Scottish. You, Narson and Justin seem to trying to push British when it has no relevance then. The fact that the king was Dutch is another factor. Shall we assume Dutch participation. None of you seem to be bothered with the Dutch despite the fact their navy and general resources were considerably greater than Scotland's. If there was any foreign assistance it would have been more likely Dutch than Scottish.-- English Bobby ( talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Also i still can't see any problem with the nationality changing mid paragraph. Your making a mountain out of a mole hill. There's never any problem elsewhere.-- English Bobby ( talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Why is the Spanish translation of this so different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.1.31 ( talk) 00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)