Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 1

message: I added a section outlining the claims by the two nations regarding sovereignty - as this is a 'disputed territory' I feel that this is of interest to anyone researching the islands. NB: I am just stating these arguments - that does not mean that I agree with them. Personally I think both countries have some merit in what they say, but leave out big chunks - important chunks at that. Please feel free to add anything to these points - maybe also we should put some of the objections to these claims as well.
Overall I think that this article is good - but it does seem to have a few POV issues. I don't think that they are necessarily deliberately or consciously so - but it seems to show only the British viewpoint of the situation. I do think that it is more balanced than the Spanish language version though. They could be articles about two different places.--Pysproblem 1 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)
- I don´t have the information for this, but I think that this page should give some indication as to the international recognition of the claims to soverignty - The UN considers them to be a territory "to be considered for decolonisation" - does anyone have a good explanation of what that means in practice? I know that in ´82 the EEC supported the UK (although Italy and the Republic of Ireland objected to this) - At the same time most South American countries supported Argentina (except Chile) Brazil has recently called for negotiations to recommence and condemned the inclusion of the islands as a British territory in the (now seemingly irrelevant) proposed EU constitution... but I think we need more details than that...--Pysproblem 5 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)
----
Being very far south, I was interested to see what the average temperature and climate was like, and could not find it anywhere...  -Greg Ubben, 2005 June 24
----
Where has the Talk:Falkland Islands page gone?
And why was this page moved? Was their a discussion and consensus?
If so I missed it. -Wikibob | Talk 11:44, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
:There might not have been a Talk:Falkland Islands-page. I suppose we could just move it back. -- User:Docu
I think you're right, google just shows a cache of the edit window, unless it did its dance very recently. I think I see what happened, Cantu used the name from the CIA country list, maybe automatically with a script. Problem is, the UK Foreign Office gives its full name as "Falkland Islands" , as does the Falkland Islands Government. The islands are not a member of the United Nations, who list them as the CIA does, but disclaims any claim to accuracy. There is no ambiguity with the original name, so I see no need for this name change, and it should be moved back. -Wikibob | Talk 22:01, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
:Ok, the article is back at Falkland Islands from Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) (and this Talk:Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) page was moved along). -- User:Docu
:Looks like User:Cantus moved it again. I think this is wrong because the vast majority of the English-speaking world says "Falkland Islands" as do the inhabitants, plus there are hundreds of links that are now all redirs - by moving it but not fixing redirs, Cantus is being lazy and sloppy here. Stan 17:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In Germany it is "Falkland-Inseln", in fact I did not even know that they are called "Malvinas" too. Does anyone know what they are called in the US? -- mkrohn 07:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes! That will settle the issue. Ejrrjs 19:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening section

message: I reckon what this article is really lacking is something that details which elements of international law apply to the islands (there are some mentions of UN decrees in various parts - they could probably be consolidated into this section). I´d do it myself, but I don´t really know much about it... I guess it´s difficult to judge the situation in a 2005 context - We need to look at the context in 1833 - Were there concepts of international law then - we´re talking about a time when a number of European countries were busy annexing various parts of the globe and a number of former colonies (ie. USA / Brazil / Argentina etc..) Were 'consolidating' their territory by exterminating/exiling/confiscating territory from the indigenous population and/or neigbouring countries. What was this regulated by? What concepts were in use? I guess it would be based on treaties and suchlike - what ´validity did they have? I´ll try and do some research if I get a chance... What does anyone else think?
--Pysproblem 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Law? 

message: Why when Argentina occupied the islands in 1982 it was an invasion, but when the UK usurpated them in 1833, it was an 'invasion'? (look at the article, section 'Argentine claim')
Please sign your comments. The answer is because 'invasion' refers to the act of moving troops onto foreign territory, regardless of who happens to claim it or the previous 'ownership' situation. 
In Argentina the "invasion" of 1982 is not considered an invasion because it is not seen as foreign territory--Pysproblem 13:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone explain... 

message: South America is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can support the article with your vote.--Fenice 12:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: Secret negotiations for join-administration of the Islands in 1982, months before the war.
Article of Clarín newspaper, July 20, 2005.
DOCUMENTO DE LAS NEGOCIACIONES SECRETAS ARGENTINO-BRITANICAS and Un borrador de lo que se acordaba
-Mariano 10:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret negotiations for join-administration of the Islands 

message: There is a page Malvinas, which should be merged to here. Anthony Appleyard 06:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it is a disambiguation page Ejrrjs | What? 00:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page [[Malvinas]] 

message: (from User talk:Duncharris#Falkland Islands, SqueakBox 19:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summary reference

message: I've removed the above tag from the article since no discussion was provided here by the Anon user who put it on the article. Ian Cairns 08:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a NPOV dispute tag, but the reason for this is not discussed on the talk page - which is unhelpfull. I have just read the article and can not realy see the problem (with the possible exception of a couple of descriptions of the '83 Argentine government as Junta) - both the UK and Argentina stake there clame to the islands but that is discussed sensibly, I think. Can we remove the notice? Andreww 08:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: could anyone tell me who cares about all the war and that stuff? The falklands are always rainy and cold. Who wants to live in such place? Argentino 12:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: some user removed the argentine claims to another article, but i can't find it, and there's no link to it. also all geografic names should be in both versions (british and argentine) so I'm putting the NPOV tag back
* This is an article about the Falkland Islands, not the Argetnine claim, therefore it is in the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands page which deals with the Argentine claim, and the British claim. I added a link to this page.  Astrotrain 14:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your edit looks very good, I just touched it slightly to avoid stating that the islands are a "British Posession". That would be endorsing a UK POV. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check

message: Hiya all,
I am reading the article, and it seems to be very NPOV. The only objection I have is the use of the word "invasion" (not only here, but throughout the whole Falkands series).
To say that Argentina "invaded" the islands is UK POV. Honestly, I can't think of a better word to use, but it sounds awfully biased. "Retook" is out of the question as blatant Argentine POV. Maybe "attacked" or "captured"? I'm open to ideas.
Having said all this, I want to avoid any accusation of bias so I'll state that I am probably one of the few Argies that couldn't care less about the islands and thinks that they should remain British, especially since their inhabitants prefer to do so. I personally think they're better off with the UK, but that's just me.
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with invasion. We talk of the Allied invasion of Normandy as being a good thing, after all. It was an invasion, why not say so? jguk 18:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but in this case is not portrayed in a "good" way. I don't know, just the impression I got from reading the articles. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV, again 

message: Having started the problem by including the Argentine names, I am suprised how aggressivly such a name issue is handled in the English Wikipedia. I only wanted to do the same as in the German Wikipedia: To give both sides (the British and the Argentine) the same amount of space because both have a valid claim on these islands. Besides of that I find it quite silly to dispute on a couple of rocks in the Southern Atlantic and go to war for that. Another point to be stressed again: The whole Spanish speaking world calls them Islas Malvinas. --ALE! 19:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the name has nothing to do with the Argentine claim. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It is really not my business to defend the Argentine point of view, but only so much: Look at a world map. To which country are these islands closer? And if you read Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands I think there are enough arguments as valid for the Argentine claim as there are for the British claim. Current rule does not make the point. With the same argument all of Africa would be still under European rule. --ALE! 20:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of the Claim 

message: Moved NPOV from article back to here for discussion. An opinion and an agreement do not (yet?) constitute evidence of lack of neutrality in the article. Ian Cairns 08:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should go out. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag because it was showing up in the NPOV disputes category. Apply it to the article if necessary. -- Kjkolb 07:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV 2

message: Well, it seems that the anon was right.
I just looked in  and they refer to the capital as just "Stanley". Also, look at how they write the address:
Falkland Islands Immigration Service
Customs & Immigration Department
3 H Jones Road
STANLEY
Falkland Islands FIQQ 1ZZ
Tel: +500 27340
Fax: +500 27342
e-mail: admin@customs.gov.fk
I will change the names to "Stanley" but we need to preserve the wikilinks, so until an Admin makes the move from "Port Stanley" to "Stanley" I'll keep that page that way.
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work!SoLando 23:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! :) --Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanley 

message: There has been an edit war over the addition of (Spanish: Islas Malvinas, French: Îles Malouines) after the name of the islands.  I do not see what is wrong with including this.  I am English.  Why shoulod we not include this, it is normal for locations known by notably different names in different languages. Just zis Guy you know? 11:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From section 2 - Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative namesNames). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.
I think this could be a good solution here, as 
# a link to the names would remain in the very first line, which makes them easily found 
# the names would be the very first thing discussed after the statement of what the islands actually are, which helps put the history of the names into context,
# the dedicated paragraph would give plenty room for a full explanation of each of the names and their uses, which is currently missing. 
Personally I also think it looks more elegant - I think this article  for example would have looked a lot better with this treatment, as the long first line looks ungainly, confusing and puts off any description of the island itself to the third line. But that's my personal preference.
Hope this helps Aquilina 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes sense to me.  Just zis Guy you know? 19:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. --KimvdLinde 23:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See arguments all over this talk page. Most people are in favour to have it at the top. --KimvdLinde 08:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: done. --KimvdLinde 08:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better than the bold version, and more consistent with other articles. Just zis Guy you know? 09:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Some guidance on this issue may be obtained from the article on the Channel Islands, which does not list the French name, iles anglo-normandes, even though the islands were once under French control. TharkunColl 11:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The removal of the non-English names is quite obviously politically charged. After checking twenty-odd other Wikipedia versions, I found the names in the first paragraph too. This seems to be causing "trouble" only in the English version. I think some people should grow up and stop staring edit wars for the sake of it. There is plenty of subjects and pages they could help editing in a constructive way. Of course, I guess that does not make you feel so good as a little bit of school yard bullying. Anyway, I will revert the article to include all the names as for International consensus. Asterion 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not about politics, it's about having the name in the native language.  Spanish is not a native language, and neither is French. — Dunc|☺ 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not about native english, but frequent used foreign names, and I would call 7.3 million hits at google of the name not a to be ommited name. And in my opinion, if the iles anglo-normandes is often used, it should be mentioned as well. --KimvdLinde 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Dunc, the focus of this version of WP is English, but facilitating the usage of the English version by providing common foreign names is good practise, as is done at many many articles. As such, the 7 million remnains and is a substantial number. --KimvdLinde 15:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just for the record, "Falkland Islands": 55.3 mill., Malvinas:19.7 mill "Islas Malvinas": 2.0 mill. Why would you substract pages that use both names? We don't say Malvinas should be used instead of Falkland, but that it is widely used in English texts. Mariano(t/c) 13:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Dunc, the name "Malvinas" became very prominent during the Falklands War, and it is still the name by which the islands are known in most of South America; having the name and its etymology seems entirely appropriate. The article makes the Islanders' opposition to Argentine rule abundantly clear, I see no problem at all with including the names especially since they undoubtedly are in common usage elsewhere, even if they do score "only" a couple of  million Google hits.  And actually Malvinas gets nearly forty million hits.  Oh, and even the CIA agree! Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about the English common name, but of common references in the English language. CIA, Britannica, and many others include it as commonly used, and at the very top of their articles. Mariano(t/c) 13:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggested (a long time ago already) to have the Spanish name in the opening paragraph (" (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) "), and then have the ethymology in the article with the French name (as it is now I believe). Mariano(t/c) 14:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really do not see a problem with having it in the opening para as it was.  Forty million hits on Google is a very significant number, and as noted both Britannica and the CIA see fit to put it in the lead para. Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, it is good naming convension, see link above to there. Second of all, I have no strong feeling about the French name, as it is less used, but on the other hand it is s historical name. --KimvdLinde 15:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement is ridiculous and fallacious, both Spanish and French names are important for the Falklands' history whereas Mandarin is not; as far as I know articles like Kuala Lumpur, Lower Styria, Pula, and Adriatic Sea include foreign denominations because they are historically relevant. --Darklegions 00:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that is 'ridiculous and fallacious' is the Argentine claim to the territory, and the desire to call something by another name other than its correct one.--Gibnews 08:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:NPOV.  We are not here to make judgments over the merits of the competing claims, only to report them in a neutral manner. The fact that the Spanish mane has wide currency is inescapable, regardless of the merits of whatever agenda causes that. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a political forum, and the edit summary of Bloody foreigners is very strong POV. --
KimvdLinde 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think the Mandarin name should be added, I prefer that over removing the spanish name. --KimvdLinde 18:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That would also be WP:POINT --KimvdLinde 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to voice my support for the Spanish and French translations being included right at the top.--Mais oui! 18:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The motivation nopt to do that is that you want to make sure that people who come to the page becasue they searched for the commonly used Islas Malvinas though either google, wikipedia search, or the redirects of that name, that they are at the correct page. People scan very wuickly, and could have the impression that they came to the wrong page. As such, clarification at the first sentence of commonlyused names is a very good practise. The main objections are not of encyclopedic matter, but political and contain a strong POV.--KimvdLinde 09:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Islas Malvinas, or Malvinas, already has its own disambiguation page. Anyone searching under that name would immediately discover that the English name for the islands is Falklands, and could then, if they wish, go directly to the article about them. TharkunColl 11:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not solve all searches (google, yahoo, wikipedia), direct and wiki links from the name Islas Malvinas etc. --KimvdLinde 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be WP:POINT --KimvdLinde 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The difference is that Spain has never been governed by England.--Mais oui! 10:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah so you confirm it is a political matter rather than anything else;  No, Spain has not been run by the British, otherwise they would have introduced better law and institutions - however it was governed by the Arabs and there is no mention of its name in that language in the introduction, although there is a mention lower down in the Andalucia article about Arabic names.  The original article on the Falkland Islands contained a similar mention to alternative names later on and apart from those wishing to make political points, this was quite adequate.--Gibnews 20:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a political forum, and whatever happened with whatever other country is irrelevant for which names are frequently used nowadays and historically for this group of islands. --KimvdLinde 20:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case its appropriate to mention it in the text but not the title.  Its only really important for those who wish to persue a sovereignty claim for political purposes rather than be informed of reality.--Gibnews 11:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the page have been moved from Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) to Falkland Islands which I think is correct. So, it is not in he title, and I do not think anyone is seriously suggesting to do that.--KimvdLinde 13:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It is still a common used name. If people come to the page from anything indicating "Islas Malvinas", is is just nice that when you read "Falkland Islands" with, without having to seach to somewhere atbthe page, the name that you though you were looking for. The proposed guidelines on names also indicate to provide the names there. --KimvdLinde 19:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that's nonsense because as per special:whatlinkshere/Islas Malvinas nothing does. — Dunc|☺ 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely one of the aims of an encyclopedia must be to educate the ignorant, if the name is 'commonly used' its time people learnt the correct name for the territory.  Foreign names are of historical interest only and a curiosity.--Gibnews 08:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: external linking? --KimvdLinde 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As the root of the highly relevant Spanish name, and because the English and Spanish clearly belong at th ehead of the article so separating one of the languages of the competing claims would make little sense. Just zis Guy you know? 23:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be an case of WP:POINT --KimvdLinde 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From what I can see you disagree with it and are throwing your weight around.  The territorial dispute is given due and appropriate prominence.  Your arguments are as pathetic as your defence of the then Argentine military junta as not being fascist above.  Of course it's offensive, of course it's not used and it's completely inappropriate.  The French name is even more pointless. — Dunc|☺ 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Your arguments are as pathetic as your defence of the then Argentine military junta as not being fascist above"... please no personal attacks, ok? --Nkcs 04:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The arguments you are giving make clear that your removal is politically oriented. Unfortunately for you, wikipedia is not censored. --KimvdLinde 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the fact that calling the islands "Islas Malvinas" offends people is not relevant  to the discussion but since this encyclopedia is aimed to the english speaking world, and almost none of it knows the islands as "Islas Malvinas" ("Malvinas Islands" would make more sense, even), then the name shouldn't be there. The spanish wiki, though, should be the other way around. We should try to leave the political correctness aside. I don't plan to continue in this discussion, just wanted to leave my 2 cents. Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: English is the lingua franca of our time. As such, you have to think wider than the limited group of people that speak this language as their first language. --KimvdLinde 23:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Many pages include a number of related names in other languages, such as Kuala Lumpur, Lower Styria, Pula, and Adriatic Sea; nearly all the Spanish-speaking world calls them Islas Malvinas, the same with French-speaking countries; both Spanish and French names are historically relevant... of course there are so many reasons for their inclusion. But, if this article must really be pro-British and show only their political perspective, then forget WP:NPOV, forget WP:NOT, forget WP:BRD, forget the Falklands' history, forget the people who come here through redirects and links, forget the French-speaking and Spanish-speaking world, forget the users who call them Islas Malvinas or Îles Malouines, and forget all about "community service" or "assume good faith". --Nkcs 07:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war