Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 2

message: Hi guys, and I thought name disputes were only in the Balkans! :-) Having vast experience from there, if I may just drop my two drachmae: I agree that the alternative Spanish(/Argentinian) name should not be mentioned every time we mention the Falklands. However, this particular article that deals with the sovereignty of the islands, is IMO one of the places where the names should be included. Had it been their radio stations, or their football teams, or their geography and climate etc I'd be opposed to the insertion of the alternative name. This whole article speaks about how the Falklands turned to Malvinas who turned to Falklands and turned to Malvinas and to Falklands again. It is the definition of the dispute (which extends to the name). NikoSilver 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Squeak, I should have linked above the recent mini edit-war () over the addition of the Spanish name. No, I don't think anything else is necessary. Thanks. NikoSilver 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Spanish name is irrelevant to the sovereignty issue. And since the main page does not follow that situation- then neither should this one. Astrotrain 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Spanish name is the way the islands are called by two of the countries that are involved in the sovereignty dispute (one, Argentina, quite actively). As such, I suspect it is an emotional issue that has to be addressed. I have various examples from Greek Aegean islands (with the Turkish names) and vice versa. Also, I propose we include the full translation of the title in Spanish (i.e. also "sovereignty of the..."), because the dispute itself is expressed in both languages. Maybe the French name would also be pertinent. NikoSilver 14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is written neutrally in English because this is the English language wiki. The sovereignty claim is not relevant to the issue. If Argentina renounced its claim tomorrow- the Spanish name would still be Islas Malvinas. It has to go. Astrotrain 15:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When an international issue is between two countries, then we list it in both countries' languages. Especially when that issue concerns sovereignty. Non alteration of the Spanish name if Argentina renounced the claims, is one more reason why it should stay. To give you examples, see how Imbros and Tenedos are referred to in Greco-Turkish relations#The First World War and after. I have tons of examples like this where I come from. Also, in the (highly unlikely) case that UK handed over the islands to Argentina, I'm sure the official name would change accordingly, so this being a neutral "sovereignty article" must mention what that (official and regardless of frequency in English) name would be. NikoSilver 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See also how Imia/Kardak are referred to in Aegean dispute. NikoSilver 15:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember the islands are also called the Malvinas in English.--Vintagekits 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: eh! yeah they are. See here for Argentinian press release in English, and here for left wing report on the war, here for a report on the islands and here for an American website. --Vintagekits 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm struggling to understand this.  Malvinas is not the Spanish word for Falklands as far as I'm aware, it isn't a translation.  The Argentinians call the islands the Malvinas, the British call them the Falklands.  The United Nations uses the term in English. One Night In Hackney 13:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont know what browser are you using but your links show me FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS)  and that because it is not a translation but how many countries named the islands Jor70 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's my point.  SqueakBox asserted that the prior links that used both terms (see links above) were from "a few Argentine and left wing POV warriors", the links I provided are from the United Nations which can hardly be described as being either of those two groups.  Edits such as this (referring to the second part of the edit) are incorrect, Malvinas is not Spanish for Falklands. One Night In Hackney 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: SqueakBox, please, try to be rational a second, the docs are not translating!. is the official international name of the islands (as per ONU and ISO).  I agree the islanders want them to be named falklands, and most english speakers called them falklands,  but this is a fact. Jor70 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jor70, you will find that there is a persistent campaign by a  number of British editors to whitewash the names Malvinas from all articles concerning the Falklands, be the sovereignty issue, the Falklands War or the Falklands Islands themselves - in fact from my experience SqueakBox is actually one of the more reasonable editors.--Vintagekits 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody said Malvinas was an English word, however it is used in English.  I can find you many, many sources that use it in English.  Falklands and Malvinas are not the same word in two different languages.  One Night In Hackney 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you'll find the burden of evidence is on you for that I'm afraid.  Can you find me a single reliable source that says Falklands is a direct translation of Malvinas or vice versa?  Although I'm not saying it's a reliable source, the Falkland Islands article tends to back up my claim.  The English name and the Spanish name both come from completely different and independent sources, so I really don't see how you can say the words are direct translations. One Night In Hackney 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Chile officially uses (and support argentine claim) about Malvinas  , particulary all their democratic post pinochet govs. Google gives some  sites with a text about penguins with an awful spanish (son un importante sitio instead of the most common son un sitio importante) what seems where just an automatic translation or something.  Jor70 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the alternate English language name ofr the Falklands, namely the Malvinas, being whitewashed out of the article by British editors - wiki is not censored and should not promote a solely British POV.--Vintagekits 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you have to admit, your edit summary does not exactly scream of WP:NPOV.  I don't think there is any evidence for Malvinas being considered as an alternative English word for the Falklands.  I've seen quotes from Argentinians speaking in English referring to Malvinas - but that's not exactly evidence to support the argument.  DrFrench 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent, It was ok to keep the CIA reference, I just wanted to remark that it wasnt a translation. Jor70 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Malvinas is not a common English term and given this article concerns soveriegnty it is entirely correct that we make clear in the opening that Islas Malvinas is what the Argentinians call the islands, which is what we have done. I see no need to change it and it strikles me there is soem anti-Brit feeling (on a political level) going on here, SqueakBox 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Islas Malvinas is the isleands name in Spanish - Falklands Islands is its most common name in the English language and in Britain, however, The Malvinas is also used as the English language name for the islands by many and this is backed up by references - this is not an attempt to be "anti-Brit" this is an attempt to be balance the rampant British bias in the article that is pushed by some British editors and an attempt to provide a WP:NPOV perspective.--Vintagekits 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute the word many, and I dont think you have backed up that many use it with a reference. Can you source this is a common usage term? eg if only 10% of English speakers used it it would be at least 40 million people whereas I doubt if 1 in 100 even know of the term. While I dont consider you personally anti-British your contribs do exhibit a stronglly political anti-Brit bias, IMO, SqueakBox 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the United Nations would be a good start, the non political Ocean Currents Project, this neutral ABC website, this British book by Martin Middlebrook, this Irish website, the landmines monitor there are thousands more incuding the references I have given in my other messeges above - stop trying to censor please!--Vintagekits 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of your references indicate notability. The British author was writing about the Argentines, the Irish blog talks about the Malvinas and the other 3 look like politically motivated pieces and dont establish notability either, SqueakBox 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, yeah the United Nations has a ramant pro-Argie and anti-British agenda! Remember this is not the English national wiki this is the World wiki in the English language and should reflect a world perspective.--Vintagekits 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN is a neutral political body. That doesnt represent common usage, it represents the language of diplomats, SqueakBox 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish (Malvinas) in intro 

message: Is the best example of Malvinas not being a translation but a part of the name of the islands. They stated: conventional short form: Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) . Something they not do not apply with every country, e.g., West Bank is not mention as Hagadah Hamaaravit but only when it is international accepted. Other example is Holy See (Vatican City) .    Jor70 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, It was ok to keep the CIA reference, I just wanted to remark that it wasnt a translation. Jor70 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Malvinas is not a common English term and given this article concerns soveriegnty it is entirely correct that we make clear in the opening that Islas Malvinas is what the Argentinians call the islands, which is what we have done. I see no need to change it and it strikles me there is soem anti-Brit feeling (on a political level) going on here, SqueakBox 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Islas Malvinas is the isleands name in Spanish - Falklands Islands is its most common name in the English language and in Britain, however, The Malvinas is also used as the English language name for the islands by many and this is backed up by references - this is not an attempt to be "anti-Brit" this is an attempt to be balance the rampant British bias in the article that is pushed by some British editors and an attempt to provide a WP:NPOV perspective.--Vintagekits 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute the word many, and I dont think you have backed up that many use it with a reference. Can you source this is a common usage term? eg if only 10% of English speakers used it it would be at least 40 million people whereas I doubt if 1 in 100 even know of the term. While I dont consider you personally anti-British your contribs do exhibit a stronglly political anti-Brit bias, IMO, SqueakBox 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the United Nations would be a good start, the non political Ocean Currents Project, this neutral ABC website, this British book by Martin Middlebrook, this Irish website, the landmines monitor there are thousands more incuding the references I have given in my other messeges above - stop trying to censor please!--Vintagekits 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of your references indicate notability. The British author was writing about the Argentines, the Irish blog talks about the Malvinas and the other 3 look like politically motivated pieces and dont establish notability either, SqueakBox 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, yeah the United Nations has a ramant pro-Argie and anti-British agenda! Remember this is not the English national wiki this is the World wiki in the English language and should reflect a world perspective.--Vintagekits 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN is a neutral political body. That doesnt represent common usage, it represents the language of diplomats, SqueakBox 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA Wordbook

message: The line The United Kingdom exercised peaceful sovereignty over the islands continuously from 1833 to 1982 (and since 1982) is empty in the sense did not mention the continuous negative of the UK (per se its global power status)  to mantain negotiations with Argentina about the 1833 invasion .-  Jor70 23:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the UK section, hence it is bound to carry the UK POV (like the Arg section will have the Arg POV). If you have a source pointing that global status as a "continuous negative of the UK", that plays some role in this issue, feel free to include it (in another section). And always attribute the quote. NikoSilver 23:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is not the UK section this is the English language wiki and should have a global perspective.--Vintagekits 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the particular article section within the complete article (of course) titled Claims by the United Kingdom. You can't seriously add an Argentinan POV in there, especially when you have a Claims by Argentina right above (both renamed to add the word "claims" by me). I am sorry for not clarifying a particular edit, in the particular section, by a particular user (Jor70) to others; but then again, you needn't jump the gun immediately. NikoSilver 23:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: was peaceful in the meaning of not direct war confrontation (until 1982) but not in diplomatic levels with Argentina claiming its case at every diplomatic opportunity and UK continual refusal. Jor70 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, within this context peaceful becomes a weasel word. You could say the same for the French or Spanish periods. --Mariano(t/c) 11:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV at Current claims paragraph 

message: The page has too many external jumps.  I will start changing them to references as soon as I get the chance (and if no-one strongly objects), but if anyone beats me to it that would be good too! Chrisfow 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External jumps 

message: Given that my edits were reverted by DrFrench, I'll try to clarify my reasons here. Nowadays links to particular years tend to be regarded as excessive linking, therefore removing them is ok. On the other hand, links to dates, such as 29 September 2006 may be allowed as registered users can set their preferences to display such dates in different formats, such as 29 September 2006, September 29, 2006, or 2006-09-29, according to various national preferences for displaying dates.
According to WP:CONTEXT, redundant and useless links are not useful and can be very distracting, this practice is known as overlinking and is strongly discouraged. Consider also link density, though linking can be permissible and may even be necessary to facilitate understanding in e.g. technical articles, excessive links make an article difficult to read.
If DrFrench or someone else states a clear reason to include the links (in accordance with Wikipedia's policies of course) I'll be more than willing to undo my edits. Until then, I suggest discussing the matter here. Thank you, —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 05:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, "no justification for your edits"? Excuse me? Links to particular years tend to be regarded as excessive linking, that's a fact. Redundant and useless links are not useful and can be very distracting, this practice is known as overlinking and is strongly discouraged (WP:MOS-L). "Linking of dates is standard"? Of course it is, but I'm afraid making an article difficult to read is not, especially when additional links are unnecessary. By the way, as you're talking about policies... WP:POINT is not a policy, it's just a guideline. —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 05:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, mind if you take a look at WP:VAND? Stating a position is not "simple vandalism", as you stated in your edit summary. —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 05:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm not sure what your point is.  As I said, the guidelines do not mandate that linking of individual years is prohibited, that much is clear form the lines you quoted.  I also said "But rather than remove links wholesale, why not just look for and remove redundant links (i.e. second appearances of the same link), or suggest here that we stick to century links only".  Yes I understand what you are trying to do - but I didn't think you were going the right way about it.  If you honestly think that removal of every single one of the links is justified, then go ahead and do it.  But please do not use the guidelines WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT as your justification for doing do.  DrFrench 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:MOSNUM + WP:CONTEXT 

message: There are a number of items in this article which are not actually historically accurate and other points which are politically slanted towards the Argentine point of view.
Whilst I historical and other factual matters should be relatively easy to agree upon it is not always so easy to agree interpretation of those facts. In some instances in this article interpretations have been preferred to actual facts.
There is far too much inaccuracy here to deal with all the points at once.
Lets have a look at a couple of these items:
Quote “….The contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British and have British citizenship, although Argentina does not recognize self-determination rights to the inhabitants since they are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population expelled by the British invasion of 1833. “
This statement is unsupported opinion and not actual fact. Argentina’s denial of Falkland Islander’s self determination rights because they are not ‘aboriginal’ and were brought in to replace the Argentine population expelled by the so called British invasion of 1833 does not stand up to even cursory examination of the facts and is simply part of their smokescreen style presentation to the world of their purported case for sovereignty. 
1. The denial of rights because the population of the islands is not aboriginal is not supported by the UN which makes no such stipulation in Resolution 1514 (XV) Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples. 
of 14 December 1960. This is completely a modern Argentine invention. 
2. There was also no mass expulsion of the Argentine population of the Falkland Islands in 1833. In the Argentine National Archives there is a document entitled “ Lista de la Tropa, sus familias y Peones de las Isla de Malvinas, que vienen de pasaje en la ’Sarandi’ roughly translated meaning ‘"List of the Troops, their families and Labourers of the Island of the Falklands, that took passage in the ' Sarandí’ ‘
This list consists of the names of the soldiers ordered to leave by the British, including the later executed mutineer Gomila under arrest by Pinedo (referred to elsewhere in this article).
Under …..Individuals de la Isla (no pertenecientes al la Comandancia military) translating as ‘.. Individuals of the Island (not pertaining to the military Command)’ are listed only two Argentine residents and their wives. There are also listed three people termed as ‘foreigners’.
So given that the soldiers only arrived in the Islands in October 1832 the ‘indigenous Argentine population’ that were ‘expelled’ by the British seems to have consisted of only two men and their wives.
Anyone wish to discuss these points before I come back with some more of the inaccuracies contained here. Naturally I will wish to edit to make the text more accurate and informative also but would like to read any comments first. Malvinero 15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that s the Argentine government position and why they do not recognize self-determination, you can believe it or not, but you cant deleted it because actually is what it is, the argentine position, what would you like to put ? "Argentine position is wrong" that would be simple british pov. Jor70 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an encyclopedia we have to describe the various claims and let our readers make up their own minds, SqueakBox 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree absolutely that it is quite appropriate that the Argentine claim about expulsion is their position and deserves to be dispalyed but it is entirely unsubstantiated in any given reference and does not quote an event that actually happened in 1833, because the records simply do not support that claim, but quotes as a fact a much later claim made by Argentina to support its position regarding sovereignty. Therefore whilst it may be entirely correct that this claim should remain in the introduction, if it does it is also appropriate that the alternative view with supporting references should also be included to complete the balance from the point of view of Falkland Islanders, whose views and historical references are actually not represented here at all. Malvinero 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies in this article