Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 4

message: Not trying to stir up the hornets... but I've made a (very) minor change to the lead. I have changed "The Malvinas" to "the Malvinas", as it is not correct to capitalize "The" in this case. (Check out this Argentine government page.) There was a previous reversion of this change when another editor  "de-capitalized" the "the", with a summary note about the consensus version. However, I cannot find a reference in the archives as to the use of "The", and I don't think it is correct to capitalize it here. (We've been having a similar discussion over at Moon for a while, as there was some debate as to whether the name is "Moon" or "The Moon".) Anyways, if there is a part of the discussion that covered capitalization, please point me to it, and I'll certainly apologize if I've made a mistake. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A note to "Gibnews" - it would be nice if you could please provide something more than just "look a bit harder" when you revert - there's been a lot of discussion on this page and its archives, and I made an honest attempt. You could at least have left a more helpful comment. (Sorry if this sounds like I'm irked, but come on...) --Ckatzchatspy 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Long ago, after fierce battle, the consensus was reached that the ISO designation, which uses the initial capital, would be used.  I suspect that Gibnews was merely defending that hard-won compromise.  -- Gnetwerker 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I went back a fair ways in the talk archives, but obviously not far enough. I appreciate the information, and can understand the frustrations that surface with regards to this particular article. It might be worth establishing a short note at the top of the talk page that outlines the agreed-upon compromise, with notes on particularly hard-fought points such as including "Malvinas" and capitalizing "the", to avoid future problems. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 20:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  However, in reviewing the record, I feel compelled to correct myself.  I said above that the capital 'T' in "The Malvinas" was part of the ISO designation.  It is not.  I spelled out the "facts", such as they are, here, and the core (perhaps "germ") of the consensus can be found here.  My opinion is that this doesn't change anything, but mea culpa, I did not mean to mislead. -- Gnetwerker 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Addendum: Now I really have to eat my words.  Here is the version of the page at the time of the consensus.  The lower-case initial 't' was used then. (Sigh) My advice -- work this out with Gibnews offline.  I will mediate if anyone thinks it will do any good and that I am unbiased.  -- Gnetwerker 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree its all anglophobic nonsense trying to impose non-British names on the islands. The islands are offically called the Falkland Islands by its inhabitants and the country that it is associated with, the UK. I don't think anyone else from another country with an anti-British agenda has the right to tell the Falklanders what to call their own country. Mabuska 11:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We have been round that a number of times.  The bottom line is until you can stick a rocket up the arse of the British Standards people who represent the Falklands on ISO and change the designation from Falklands (Malvinas) there is some justification for the title.  I asked a man from the Falklands where the Malvinas was and he claimed not to know.  You might also care to update the pages on es.wikipedia.org which were full of 'Puerto Argentina' nonsense, but write to BSI first.  When thats sorted we can change the consensus lead. --Gibnews 10:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Malvinas" -> "the Malvinas" 

message: In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on South America at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#South America whose scope would include the Falkland Islands. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject 

message: I deleted the following from the intro "are British citizens and support British sovereignty" since this is clearly making a case for British sovereignty of the Islands, when the intro should be neutral. If that statement is allowed, then it would only be fair to present the case of the other side as well, such as saying something along the lines of "Argentina however maintains this and that". --Bobobobo, 24 Dec 2006
* They are British citizens, and the Islander's views are well documented. Astrotrain 13:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case for Sovereignty 

message: "The great majority of islanders are of Scottish and Ulster Scots descent."  
In researching Falkland history, I believe this statement to be true, but could not find any online sources that can be cited.
Gohiking 23:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it might be true or would have already deleted it but unfortunately we need to base wikipedia on cited sources, SqueakBox 00:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not completely untrue. Although the Falklanders' commonest surnames, like "Betts" and "Felton" are English, and their accent sounds English these days, and a lot of the newer arrivals have come from there... the earlier arrivals had a lot of Scots amongst them (don't know about Ulster Irish though), and 1911 Britannica says that Goose Green at one point was mostly populated by Scots. I would suspect the Scots are probably the biggest "input" after folk from England. --MacRusgail 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heritage of Inlanders

message: Not that I in any way disbelieve that a broad majority of Falklanders reject Argentine claims, but isn't it a bit strange that the source of the claim in the intro is a UK government website? () Wouldn't it be better with some media or academic reference? --Soman 12:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello ! JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, petitioner, said he was a Falklands Islander who had lived on the Argentine mainland for several generations So unless he is claiming multiple ressurections, he is an Argentine citizen.  Argentina has a claim, they may view it as legitimate - others disagree - however the most important consideration is the view of the people of the territory, who have the right to self-determination and at present do not wish to form part of Argentina.  What anyone else thinks is immaterial.  If the UK wanted to reclaim its former territories in North America they could find someone living in Cornwall who several generations ago left because of those troublesome yankees asserting their rights and breaking away from the UK. But this is not really a place to debate irredentist claims, or the words of puppets paraded in front of the UN C24, itself comprised of members from countries some of which enjoy less freedom than the territories they waffle on about.
--Gibnews 09:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will of the people? 

message: On The New Treasure Hunt (a mid-1970s United States television game show produced by Chuck Barris), there was once a 'klunk' prize (one of several booby prizes on the show), a one-year residency in the Falkland Island.
72.82.177.130 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting joke, however they not in a position to authorise residence in the Falklands. The losers had to live in the US, how ghastly for them. --Gibnews 10:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The New Treasure Hunt

message: Why is the following text included in the Name section?
:There are no ophthalmologists or opticians on the islands, although an optician from the UK visits about every 6 months and an ophthalmologist comes to do cataract surgery and eye exams on irregular intervals (once every few years). There are 2 dentists on the islands.
There's not even a paragraph break!  What about doctors? Nurses? Veterinarians?  In its current context, this information is a ""non sequitur.""  This bit of trivia, if true (sources?) is interesting, but totally out of place.  Perhaps if it were in a section about their remoteness and the challenges presented by it. . . ?  
Upon reading the article, I was surprised that its neutrality is in question.  It seems to me that it provides the right information in the proper tone, including the whole name issue.
I've tried to read most of the current discussion about whether to include "Malvinas" in the article or not and grant that there are many valid points pro and con.  Since I have no vested interest on the claim issue, I can't say that I read it all, and I don't really know who is advocating what point. 
As it reads now (Feb 23, 2007 at 12:45 a.m. Eastern) the name thing is handled well.  I conclude this because I think the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform the uninformed.  While accuracy and lack of bias are important, it is not imho an encyclopedia article's function to present what is the ""truth"" about something.
"Malvinas" is not just any foreign word, as the intensity of the whole discussion demonstrates, so whether it is an accepted part of the English language is not dispositive.  The article's title does not include the M word, so it is not misleading as to the legal status.  
That the Falklands are also called "the Malvinas," or "Las Malvinas," is an accurate statement that does not imply or conclude anything about sovereignty.  If you wanted to be extremely picky you could add that it is sometimes called . . . -- or even: sometimes referred to as . . . .  
If several authoritative sources list them as: the "Falklands (Malvinas)," then it is appropriate to include that designation.  Consider our uninformed readers.  Is it relevant and important or helpful to let readers know that the name Malvinas and Falklands, for better or worse, are associated with each other in fact?  If readers of this article subsequently turn to the CIA Fact Book or run across some UN documents (or have come to this article from such a document), the readers will know that these Falkland Islands are the very same. 
I ran across this article when my son wanted to know the date of the Falklands war.  I was in college then, my son not even a gleam in a parental eye.  If he was reading this wiki article, would I and his teachers want the information about the Falkland Islands to include the M word?  Absolutely.
I would remove the bias alert, leave that portion of the article as is, and turn this energy and productivity to more pressing issues.  Ileanadu 05:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a syntax error with the <ref> tag that was hidden several paragraphs. I need to remove it so who put it, should rewrite it.  thks for the tip!.  About the name, nationalism plays an important role for many in this issue  but I think things have finally settled down. Jor70 10:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opthamologists, and opticians, and dentists, and bears. Oh my! 

message: I would have rather hoped we could move on from arguing about the name of the territory.  We have already discussed at length before arriving at this form of words (see the archive) that the CIA factbook is not a definitive source.  I spent a lot of time correcting glaring errors in it in relation to Gibraltar, and in fairness to them they listened.  The flag they showed was totally wrong at one stage and they mentioned a railway that vanished just after WW2.
Citing Wikipedia as a source is recursive, and surely against the rules ?
There is an argument that ISO used the word Malvinas (not Islas), however they are an international body and subject to lobbying by those who wish to promote the alternative name.  I am told that South American telephone books omit an entry for the Falklands to avoid upsetting anyone.
However, long and hard we argued until an agreeable version was found and it has survived, so please can we leave it alone?  Surely there are better things to do - like perhaps removing the references to Puerto Argentina and the description of the natives as malvanises in the Spanish Wikipedia. --Gibnews 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Gibs, although, is Puerto Argentino and Malvinenses :-)  --Jor70 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Gibnews is mostly correct. Linking to a Wikipedia article on ISO standards is sketchy — mostly, because it's probably inaccurate; the actual ISO en1 list solely uses Malvinas, here. However, the The CIA World Factbook is certainly a reliable source that uses Islas Malvinas, and I'm not sure we should just wipe any trace of it in the references. That doesn't mean we need to change the lede, though. Gibnews' reversion to the language in the lede is long-standing consensus, and I still haven't seen any convincing arguments for change. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Islas Malvinas is a compromise between Malvinas and having nothing,. i would rather thave nothing but particularly oppose Malvinas as it is used by sonme POv pushing people who believe that the Falklands "should" belong to Argentina, SqueakBox 20:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd rather call the place what the natives call it, like Mumbai However the M word does deserve a mention.  One amusing thing I discovered was This - (Malvina is an old Scottish name, once popular in the Falklands, and is unconnected with the Argentine name for the Islands).  --Gibnews 23:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Malvina is a well known spanish female name, e.g. Malvina Pastorino   --Jor70 00:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I never disagreed with your reversion, but you ought to admit that there are plenty of other reliable sources that use "Islas Malvinas." I suppose you get a kick out of being combative, though, so OK, you win. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Squeakbox, if you add the word islas, you should add also Ilhas, Isole, etc too because that is the way that they are used. Jor70 13:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont agree but your question begs "in that case why are we putting the Malvinas in at all?" SqueakBox 13:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, I dont agree with you neither. Malvinas, as we had already established, is part of the United Nations name of the territory. If some english-speaking people use it for shown argentine sympathy as the same way some spanish-speaking people (such the chilo mils in 1982) used fakland has nothing to do with this Jor70 13:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has yet come up with a reason why we should accept the United Nations designation as authoritative. Surely, in line with every single other country or territory described in Wikipedia, we should use the official name as defined by the place itself. We also, since this is the English Wikipedia, put the common English name first. In the case of the Falklands, of course, there is no difference. English is the language of the Falklands, not Spanish. TharkunColl 14:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  the reason is, if we do not mention the UN, will be simply british pov --Jor70 16:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The introductory wording is sufficient for the moment, and given the time that some other squabbles have gone on the Argentine Irredentist claim will probably not go away - let us hope that its persued and rejected by diplomatic means. --Gibnews 14:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the POV tag re the naming issue (not for anything else), SqueakBox 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the POV tag. As outlined in my edit comment, it isn't needed as the issue: 1) is under active discussion; 2) pertains only to the word "Malvinas" in the lead, and not the whole article; and 3) the use of the template suggests that the entire article is suspect, which is not the issue under discussion. Squeakbox has reverted this, I have once again removed it. It really is not needed. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, it's not a reasonable solution for Squeakbox, as he/she is reverting instantly. However, i think that it really should be a group decision, rather than just Squeakbox. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 21:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This matter was already discussed and an agreeable version was found . Ones call them Falklands, others Malvinas and United Nations  Falklands(Malvinas) so is reasonable to mention both, not mentioning would be POV   Jor70 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad we agree, should Argentina reclaim the territory it can be called whatever you like - until then lets stick with what we have and feel free to revert 66.191.141.46 who is persistently changing it.  --Gibnews 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Name again

message: Lots of people reading this article right now and many will think wikipedia supports Argentina. Malvinas is unacceptably mentioned before Falklands and then Malvinas is ofered as a second common name for thre islands. When I try to reach a compromise it is always reverted, hence we need the POV tag, SqueakBox 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that a mention of 'Malvinas' in the introduction is a problem providing its not given equal weighting. (which someone sneaked in and has been reverted)  Nor is its presence demonstrate a lack of neutrality, indeed it might be without it. The article should not 'support' anyone, just tell it like it is.  --Gibnews 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: Sorry to pop this back in, but could we maybe reword the introductory sentence like we had before "Falkland.... (Spanish: Malvinas)"?? This seems to work well in the Jerusalem page and I don't see why it can't work here. After all, neither "Al-Quds" nor "Malvinas" are english common names for the places, are they? It doesn't (and it shouldn't) imply equal footing but instead offer an alternate name for the islands in the intro. Call it being Politically Correct if you wish. I won't debate here, I don't want to, just maybe put forward an example that works in another controversial page and maybe we should imitate. If somebody wants to do it, go ahead. If the consensus is negative, then let's not. Again, I probably won't get into a debate of "why yes - why not" since we've all been there and done that. I just think it's better the other way but I can accept that majority rules.
Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, and from my point of view this would indeed resolve this issue that doesnt seem to want to go away, SqueakBox 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The U.N., the CIA, and other sources use it in native English. It should not be italicised as if it were not used in English: that is incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poi dog pondering (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not in common use in English, so WP:MOS#Foreign_terms suggests that italics are appropriate.  DrFrench 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a source lists it as a disambiguation does not mean it is in common usage in the English language.  Calling a non-English word a 'foreign' word is not a breach of WP:NPOV.  DrFrench 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Its obscure use English not common use. It should be pointed out it is Spanish, SqueakBox 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to try the compromise as suggested by Sebastian Kessel above.  i'd appreciate it if we could leave it there for a while to allow other editors to consider and comment on it. Unlike talk, I don't believe that Malvinas is in common usage in English.  I think you'll need to provide more evidence than just a disambiguation  comment in the CIA book.  cheers DrFrench 20:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually on re-reading the warning in the editing text, I'll not bother making that change unless there is more consensus.  I personally think the current version is factually correct, is WP:NPOV and in accordance with WP:MOS#Foreign_terms - although the compromise suggested by Sebastian Kessel is worthy of consideration.  DrFrench 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we use this locked time to gaina consensus. I too am happy with the Sebatian version and that the hidden text support this. Would a poll be acceptable? SqueakBox 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Foreign simply means not native.  The CIA factbook is not an English source its an American one.  Giving a foreign name equal prominence is un-usual and not the way other articles are constructed. --Gibnews 10:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry

message: I have read (in a British encyclopaedia) that John Davis landed on the Islands in 1592, which would pre-date the alleged first landing of 1600; also that sovereignty was claimed (but without a plaque!).  The confusion in sovereignty may thus originate from the French selling something they didn't own.  The French also similarly tried to claim ownership of another uninhabited South American territory that had already been discovered and claimed by another European nation - Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.  Maybe those attempting to resolve this disputed page (good luck with that!) can investigate this apparent 1592 landing.80.225.120.192 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to History of the Falkland Islands... "An archipelago in the region of the Falkland Islands appeared on maps from the early 16th century, suggesting they may have been sighted by Ferdinand Magellan's or another expedition of the 1500s. Amerigo Vespucci is believed to have sighted the islands in 1502, but did not name them. Both explorers were in Spanish service." —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First European landing 

message: Check out this dicussion in the Port Stanley Page 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stanley%2C_Falkland_Islands#The_Name_of_Port_Stanley
Gantlord 09:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got wiped out in the Spanish version for posting a picture which shows the name as 'Stanley' with the comment that 'wikipedia is not a repostory for pictures' clearly some do not want those that tell it like it is. --Gibnews 17:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. What did you expect? For them NPOV means the Malvinas are Argentine and even Chileans who dare disagree get jumped on very swiftly, SqueakBox 17:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I got hammered for daring to suggest (on the comment page) that the Argentinians didn't exactly have any say on what Stanley is called as they don't control it. My comments were deleted with the comments "wikipedia is not a forum". They seem to to argue that Puerto Argentino equates to the Spanish translation of Stanley, "that's just what it's called in Spanish". I was in Spain recently and took care to look at every globe, atlas and wall map I could find. On every single one Stanley was called Stanley, and never Puerto Argentino. Surely in principle there should be no significant difference between the articles in different languages. Is there a wikipolicy on this? Gantlord 10:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I got banned for adding a picture that said 'Stanley' and the pic was removed with the comment 'Wikipedia is not a repository for pictures' --Gibnews 10:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Port Stanley called? 

message: At the top the population is listed as 3060,in the Demographics section however,it is listed as 
29-something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.22.84.93 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Inconsistency 

message: I noticed the GDP per capita listed in the article (and the article on the economy of the islands) is quite a bit lower than that reported by the Economist on 4 April 07 which puts it at ~$50000 per person (the article). I'm hesitant to change the amount listed in the two articles owning to the huge difference in the two numbers ($25k v. $50k), however the Economist feels like a reputable source. Can anyone shed some light into the two numbers and perhaps provide a government statistical agency source? Imlepid 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This puts the GDP at £70m, which would be close to $50k per person. Thats 2 reliable sources that disagree with the CIA factbook. I'm guessing the CIA is just out of date. --LiamE 03:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Official figures here put it beyond doubt. --LiamE 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, then I'll update the two articles. Imlepid 18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Humm, upon closer inspection the official number is from 2001, versus the CIA number from 2002. So, the 2001 numbrer would have given ~$34,800 in 2001 (at GBPUSD exchance of 1.45) where as now it would be at $50k. So, there are some games that can be played with the numbers. Does any one have suggestions on how to resolve this? Is there a more recient number (say from 2005 or 06)? I'm hesitant to change it in light of the fact that the Foreign Office number is older than the CIA one. Imlepid 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quoting the GDP in GBP would maybe help. Sorry I forgot there has been such a huge change in the exchange rate between then and now. --LiamE 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP Per Capita 

message: On October 8, 2006 a population census was held in the islands (sources La Nación (in Spanish), Mercopress). It would be great to update the figures, and to get an official source for the data. User:Ejrrjs  says What? 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Census 

message: From the article:
:"The first European explorer widely credited with sighting the islands is Sebald de Weert, a Dutch sailor, in 1600." 
Literally this means that of all the European explorers widely credited with sighting the islands, de Weert was the first. I doubt very much that this is the intended meaning. The intended meaning is probably either that de Weert is widely credited as being the first person (ever, in the whole world) to sight the islands (and he happened to be a European explorer), or that de Weert is widely credited as being the first European explorer to sight the islands (i.e. there is some possibility that Native Americans sighted it earlier - I don't know how likely that is). Perhaps someone who knows the intention could fix up this sentence? Matt 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion of possible discovery by Patagonians is mentioned early in the article.--MacRusgail 15:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry, you're right, it's clear enough. I was obviously not paying attention. For the sake of logical correctness I tweaked the sentence anyway. Matt 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous statement 

message: The point of the sentence is to state the name of the territory. The official name is the Falkland Islands, because that used by the residents and is used in the published Laws of the territory.
This is the English language Wiki and its not necessary to translate everything into other languages, however as the name promoted by Argentina is used its appropriate to indicate the English language version of it The Malvinas
That is not Spanish.
The compromise has held between the Argentine and nationalist British elements, although it may not suit editors with an agenda of whacking anything British, or those who want to provoke dispute for the sake of it.
(this was added in the wrong place earlier as the thread is too long)
--Gibnews 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The name (continued)

message: Shouldn't the field British overseas territory at the infobox say 1833? I don't think it's worth changing it just because of some failed invasion followed by a two-month war --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 08:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its obviously something worth celebrating, and surely a matter for the Falkland Islanders to decide which particular day of the year they celebrate their independence.  --Gibnews 08:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence date 

message: The article Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province reads as if Argentina controls the Falklands and South Georgia. Even if their claim is considered to be rightful, their control over the Falklands in the 20th century was a matter of days. So claim or no claim, that article is skewed.--MacRusgail 01:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province 

message: Although there is apparently no functioning railway on the Falklands, I came across a reference to "the Falklands Islands Camber Railway" at http://www.mclaren.gs/links_page.htm. It references a link to " Martin Coombs' narrow-gauge railway site". Unfortunately that site is no longer in use & access to the contents via the Internet Archive WayBackMachine has been blocked. 80.1.88.1 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have references to this railway, and I am considering writing an article on it (I'm not that interested in trains, but anyway...)--MacRusgail 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railway 

message: "
The Falkland Islanders, as well as many others[attribution needed], tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive, as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982. Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] The use of English names is likewise offensive to many Latin Americans and supporters of the Argentine claim. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)"   "
Should the above be limited to what the Falkland people say and move the rest to the article about the dispute (and even place a link to the article.)?  So, it might be better to write:
"
The Falkland Islanders, tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive[attribution needed], as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982 (see Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands). Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5]    "
Brusegadi 22:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its use is politicised, but it is a perfectly valid (Spanish language) name for the islands, which actually predates Argentine claims and is derived from a Breton placename. Take note also that one of the main hotels in Stanley is called "Malvina House". --MacRusgail 16:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed there is a hotel named Malvina house, but the name is Malvina not Malvinas, there is a huge difference, Malvina is a womans name, I can't remember exactly who the Malvina that the hotel is named after was... it will come to me.  As for the politicisation of the name, you are absolutely right, in Spanish I refer the islands as Malvinas, as that is their name in  Spanish, in English they are the Falkland Islands.  Note; not Malvinas/Falklands, Faklands/Malvinas or Falkland Islands (Malvinas) etc, I find the use of Malvinas in english offensive and the use of the name Falkland Islands in Spanish pointless (quite apart from Falkland Islands being difficult to pronounce in Spanish!!).  We do not refer to Germany in English as Germany/Deutschland (sp?)/Alemania..etc and nor should we.  The same applies to the Falkland Islands, irrespective of their contested ownership. BennyTec 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Malvina in MacPherson's Ossian, but there is absolutely no particularly reason why it would turn up in the Falklands - Occam's Razor suggests a connection with the Malvinas. I agree with you about the name - "Alba" is Scotland in Gaelic, but it's only occasionally used in English in a political/historical context. --MacRusgail 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Malvina in question was the daughter of one of the early English settlers, John James Felton, he had three daughters; Evelyn, Malvina and Kathleen.  His farm was called Evelyn Station (still in use today) after the first daughter, his town house was called Malvina house, this was eventually sold and turned into an hotel but the name was retained.  History does not relate if the third daughter ever had anything namd after her.  The origin of the name is gaelic; Malamhin, meaning smooth browed apparently.  BennyTec 19:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with User:Jor70, it seems only fair that the statements be made for both sides. Although I'd support a more neutral and objective rewording, because its hard for us to say the islanders consider something offensive as not all of them might, and presently it suggests that the majority do. Likewise to suggest a majority of latin-americans find the term Falkland Islands offensive is making a big conclusive leap, as latin-americans is slightly ambigious (what about US citizens of latin origin?). I suggest the rewording below, it better explains the reasoning and why both sides might find the terms offensive: 
"Some Falkland islanders tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be slightly offensive, as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982. Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] The use of English names are likewise considered offensive by some supporters of the Argentine claim. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" to avoid offending either party."
WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it stays out of the opening all this looks very good, would go fo the offensive not slightly offensive and am happy to see the inclusion of the Argentinians finding the English names offensive, SqueakBox 02:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we name this article "Sebald Islands" and a plague on both houses! LOL. Up the Dutch.--MacRusgail 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Others...

message: That sentence's citation currently links to an article from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom. Sorry, the British government is not a source with an neutral view. I'm taking down citation #4 and replacing it with citation needed.  - Tocino 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit has been reverted - while it may not be neutral, it is a perfectly valid source for a statement about the opinions of British citizens. (It is not supporting the assertion that Argentina's claim *is* invalid, it is supporting the assertion that British citizens - the Falklanders - *reject* Argentina's claim. --Ckatzchatspy 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a valid source at all. The Argentina government will claim that the Falklanders are Argentine citizens... not British citizens... therefore making the UK's Foreign Office's survey invalid. Wikipedia cannot be biased in favor of certain governments. Show me an independent survey of Falkanders and then I'll believe it. - Tocino 05:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that Falkland Islanders reject the claim, that is not really in dispute the government in this case is simply stating a fact. Just have a read of the hundreds of stories about the islanders in the press over the last few months and you will see that they are most certainly not interested in being Argentine citizens.  One of the biggest issues with the Argentine claim is it completely ignores the wishes and rights of the residents of the Islands.  Many of whom can trace their roots in the Falklands right back to 1833, not many Argentines can say the same in Argentina! BennyTec 14:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its very sad the comparison, being the Argentines, due the UK superior global status, not allowed them to remain there since 1833.- Jor70 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary, Argentines have always been able to move to and live in the Falklands (apart from the period 14 June 1982 - 21 July 1999 when there was a ban on Argentine Passport holders visiting the islands except as next of kin), there are Falkland Islanders of Argentine decent living in the Islands now and there are Argentines living and working in the islands now.  The issue at stake is not where people are from it is what Government governs the islands, that is British(at the wish of the Falkland Islanders be they of British, Argentine, Chilean, Russian etc decent). BennyTec 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not about bias. The government source is a reputable source; if there is genuinely a controversy over this claim, I'd like to see evidence. I don't think there is. --John 05:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. So it's alright to link to a government written articles from now on? So are we going to see pro-British govt propaganda popping up on the Iraq War articles? I do not understand what's so difficult about finding a neutral source. - Tocino 06:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any evidence that the British FCO is lieing then please present it. Because they are saying something you disagree with is not grounds to exclude it.  --Gibnews 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Gibnews, you don't get the point; you have several times turned down Argentine sources considering them biased. --Mariano(t/c) 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a big difference between the two Governments statements, one exercises control of the territory and the other does not.  There was an interesting feature on BBC Parliament last weekend about the Falklands war where the BBC re-ran their news bulletins, including one where they say the British sources were generally truthful, but the Argentine ones not.  They got complaints from HMG for trying to be impartial in reporting things like that, but nevertheless they concluded that some sources were simply not reliable. --Gibnews 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: British sovereignty is unrelated to the British Government. --Gibnews 08:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "They reject the Argentine sovereignty claim[4]" 

message: The Nootka convention is mentioned on the page as the British Government relinquishing sovereignty.  At no point in the Nootka convention is the Islands discussed, the Falklands Islands are over 300 miles off the coast of South America.  Also in 1771, a joint declaration was negotiated between the British and Spanish Governments to avert war, and the Spanish made restitution for goods confiscated in 1770 from the British who then re-occupied Port Egmont - Spanish recognition of British Sovereignty.  The British Government has never relinquished sovereignty over the Islands, the withdrawal of forces in 1774 was as a result of the economic pressures from the American War of Independence.  Reference to the Nootka convention is a frequent recourse by Argentinians arguing their case for sovereignty but has no basis in fact.  I would suggest that that reference is removed.
:Very good point, this will be an interesting one......<sits back and waits> :) --BennyTec 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, haven't quite got the hang of this yet.  Didn't sign the original comment. Justin A Kuntz 12:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The full text of the Nootka Sound Convention is now available on Wikipedia here, probably for the first time in searchable HTML version on the web. Apcbg 15:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Secret Article clearly renders Article VI null and void should a power other than Spain or Britain establish itself on the coasts of South America. And this other power, of course, is Argentina itself, which makes it extremely ironic that the Argentines would try and use this convention to bolster their territorial ambitions. TharkunColl 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks Apcbg for posting that, its very helpful to the discussion at hand.  Its clear that the convention only refers to future establishments, it had no material effect on prior sovereignty claims.  Aside from that, the 1771 treaty between Britain and Spain regarding the Falkland Islands is a de facto Spanish recognition of the British sovereignty claim.  Claiming that the convention repudiates sovereignty is obviously presenting a partisan POV and I suggest that it is removed.  Justin A Kuntz 19:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Let's get rid of it - it is pure POV. TharkunColl 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: completely agree, will be interesting to see the response, but I think a truly NPOV has to have the convention ref removed.  I do wonder whether there should be a section (or two) stating the two different POVs and arguments by either side.. (certainly not volunteering to write it though!!) :)  --BennyTec 22:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nootka Convention 

message: The rainfall is only given in inches, shouldn’t the mm also be given? I work it out to be 610mm. Normally I would just change the article but as this has reached featured status I  wanted to check Rjd.1892 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rainfall measurement

message: Sources say that the Islands were a destination for some Acadian exiles of the 7 Years War (1750's) AKA "French and Indian Wars". The Acadians (French settlers) were removed by force by the English from Nova Scotia in the first such action in modern history (not disputed).  According to these sources, the French established the name and the first successful colony in the Falklands with Acadian settlers looking for a place to go.    After the Island was given to Spain, the French name was made to sound Spanish and the colony declined.  Some of the modern population may even by decended from this group. This historical background needs to be confirmed and added.67.71.188.199  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.188.199 (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of the Islands is the subject of a separate article.  More details here:  http://falklands.info/history/history2.html  Justin A Kuntz 20:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acadians

message: I've been working through the  tags.   I can confirm Scots and Welsh immigration but not Ulster Scots, so removed for the moment.  If anyone has a reference feel free to add it back.  Justin A Kuntz 10:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ulster Scots

message: I'm concerned the history section has grown again following the split into the History of the Falkland Islands.  I've made a first attempt at a precis to reduce the text here, then self-reverted, is my suggested edit broadly acceptable.  As always suggested improvements are welcome but I think we need to make an effort to cut down this section - particularly as the History of the Falkland Islands expands.  Justin talk 11:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for the move (Especially as alot of the details are not sourced, at least in this article). Lets use the sub articles to do their job. Narson 13:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought of this as the sub-article, the detail goes in the main articles on individual subjects.  Hence, the link to the main article.  But I may be being anal... :) Justin talk 13:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Facts in the opening paragraph are later repeated, do we need to say it twice?  Justin talk 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I've removed those and self-reverted.  Justin talk 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just ensure facts are added on History before they are deleted here :) Narson 14:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: Page is getting unwieldy. Any objections to an archive?  Justin talk 22:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive?