Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Falkland Islands. 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 10

←

Archive 13

→

Removal of body improvements

What seems to be the problem now? Can I also not edit the body of the article? Would User:Keysanger like to explain why he reverted my editson the body? Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, BRD I guess. --Nutthida (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but what exactly is there to discuss about my changes? They weren't even "bold" changes (so that breaks-off the BRD cycle).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

BRD works for all changes, no matter how bold. As to why they were reverted, some didn't really improve the grammar, which could be why. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't really see any benefit in any of the edits Keysanger reverted. In fact, my personal opinion is that the content you "improved" actually read better before. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Would any of you care to explain what exactly is wrong with my few edits? Removing repetition of etymology information (which has its own section), improving the sentence on the Dutch explorer (writing "1600, who..." is grammatically awkward), and writing "Europeans arrived" instead of the POV "discovered". Are these things wrong?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"While Patagonian Indians may have previously visited the islands, they were uninhabited when Europeans first arrived." Ambiguous "they", appears to refer to the Patagonians
"generally-accepted first reliable" doesn't read well

As for the Etymology, I would be happy to see that removed, but I can see how it could be considered important to the flow of the History section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Having "they" obviously refers to the subject of the sentence, "the islands," a point further made clear by the use of "uninhabited" (which in no way can refer to Patagonians). On that note, the term "Indians" should be replaced by "Amerindians". As for the etymology, removing redundant parts is an improvement (the last sentence on the first paragraph actually breaks the flow of the history section). We can take it to the language board if you desire, but is it really necessary?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence has two subjects, the Indians and the islands. I don't want the language board, but I do want to wait to see if Keysanger has something to say. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we can wait for Keysanger (Knowing him, he'll probably bandwaggon on whatever argument he sees from here without making his own. I know he will read this, which hopefully will prompt him to write his own argument.). However, as an example:

"While the islands may have previously been visited by Patagonian Indians, they were uninhabited when Europeans first arrived."

The subject remains the same, "the islands," regardless of where it is placed.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

M20 wrote:

While it is possible that Patagonian Indians may have visited before this, the islands were uninhabited when they were discovered by Europeans

what is that? is Wikipedia a legend and myth collection?.

is usually attributed

is or isn't? . --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw the changes and I was essentially ambivalent about them and I don't believe their introduction or reversion is worth being antagonistic about. Personally I wouldn't have reverted as I saw the text as an improvement, others disagree, is it worth this unnecessary ratcheting of tension? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but now, with Keysanger's response, I am extremely confused as to why he reverted my edits...Is this supposed to be a joke or is there something I am missing from this matter?

Thank you WCM for your statement, it summarizes what I had in mind. I really don't think that this should have even been an issue (especially after reading Keysanger's reasoning), but it's actually a pretty good example of my "Wiki-relationship" with Keysanger.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No it shouldn't have been an issue, in my opinion, this does not justify you belittling the opinion of a fellow wikipedian who has had the courtesy to reply. If your Wiki-relationship with Keysanger is difficult it may well have something to do with your condescending attitude. Now stop it please. 17:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC) -- WCM

Keysanger is accusing me of inventing statements which I did not create. My only role in this section has been that of copy-editing existing material. If his only arguments for his revert are those which he recently listed, then he had no valid reason to revert my edits. The only editor who has actually provided a valid argument against my edits has been Chipmunk, and even his point only touches a simple grammar matter. As such, I request that my improvements in the body be re-instated.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Marshall, do you have the Goebel book? You shifted information before the reference. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have and the reference being divorced from the original text most definitely doesn't support the text. Can we have a bit more care please. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two citations for Goebel in the second paragraph, which and what exactly are you refering to?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert is a useful guideline" -- from WP:RV --Langus (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your point is well-made Langus, I do hope we will see more of that.

I am also going to make a final request that the antagonistic nature of Marshall's posting stops. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not replying to my question...--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support WCM, but what would really rejoice my soul is to see it applied by the editors here. I know I have seen my contributions reverted because "its gibberish, the grammar spelling etc is appalling" -- in those exact words... I'm sure you'll remember.

As to the information shifted, I do have Goebel too, and the construction of the fort is in fact there, page 269 in my edition: "La expedición Británica arrivó a las Malvinas el 8 de enero de 1766, casi dos años después del desembarco de los franceses y catorce meses antes de la toma de posesión por los españoles. La colonia se estableció en Puerto Egmont y se adoptaron las medidas necesarias para completar el reconocimiento." --Langus (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I will look up the page in the version referenced in the text; if I forget feel free to remind me. As to the rest, lets put that into context shall we for those that weren't involved. I didn't revert your edit but instead cleaned it up for the problems with English grammar and spelling supported by the appropriate edit summary. Your response was to revert and edit war to keep your version. Lets not forget your version described Vernet as Governor of Argentina. Did you recall that? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you're all refering to the second Goebel citation, I moved it to the end of the sentence for a couple of reasons: (1) It doesn't make sense to have a citation hanging within the sentence (traditionally, it should be at the end; if any information is not supported by the reference, it should be deleted or moved to where its correct citation is located...unless it is necessary to mix sources) and (2) Given the sentence, I assumed in good faith that the citation was badly placed. Thank you Langus for trying to bring back good faith into the discussion; I also hope the other editors finally decide to improve the introduction instead of maintaining a stubborn position that it is fine as it currently stands.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No-one has said it doesn't need improvement, and changing it was one of the aims back when there was a drive to get this to GA (which was stalled and slowly died). In regards to references, they can happily hang around the middle of a sentence if they do not source the end of it. If the settlement information isn't on pg232, can the reference be fixed by someone who has the book? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

References can hang wherever they want, but that does not mean we shouldn't try to follow the traditional format and leave them at the end of a sentence (or paragraph). Only in extreme cases, where it is absolutely necessary (due to a controversial matter), should references be in the middle of sentences (where not even a comma precedes it). Moreover, leaving citations in the middle of sentences tends to indicate that the editor has not put much effort in structuring it correctly. I know this because I have actually published material (*Sighs*)...--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That's true for traditional publications, but as basically everything in wikipedia is meant to be information from elsewhere, references should be placed directly after the information they source for. This makes independent verification much easier. A paragraph of information followed by a large number of blue numbers doesn't help the reader figure out which information is from what reference. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Your point is correct, and I won't deny that Wikipedia has its own methods (all publishers have their own methods of displaying material as well, so in that sense Wikipedia does not stand alone). However, having a citation right after "Port Egmont" causes more questions than answer them. Another concept to take into account is that citations can also include comments on the sources to help the reader know from where the information is coming, and citations in WP can be consolidated into one "blue number" (I remember the GA reviewer of the Peru national football team article taught me how to do that). But I think these things are well-beyond the topic.

That being said, it seems that, aside from a few supportive comments here and there, no one is actually willing to make positive changes for the introduction. I am sure that not everything I included in my tentative introduction was "controversial" (particularly the parts on the economy and geography); as Langus mentions, it should have been best if you had edited my changes instead of outright reverting them (of course, not aimed at you Chipmunk, but those that did the reverts). In any case, best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Improving the introduction

Some of you keep mentioning a sandbox to improve the introduction. Are any of you actually serious about doing this?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes, I got so far as setting up a sandbox whilst we were in the middle of the GA drive. I would be happy to pick it up again. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you want to use anything that I provided (including the introduction), go ahead and use it. The source which talks about how little influence Spanish (language) has had over the island's dialect was actually a really good one (and quite relevant to the article). I'd add it, but I'm tired of getting my additions reverted. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Falkland Islands/lede rewrite I've started - comments and suggestions are welcome. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Before another revert war starts...

I'm going to start a discussion. I support MarshalN20's reversion of Keysanger's most recent change, where he removed information about Amerindian inhabitants. I believe the source he removed is reliable enough for inclusion. Please discuss. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As the original author of that piece, I have somewhere in my library a better reference. Basically there is archaelogical evidence that Patagonians may have made the voyage based on the discovery of a canoe and stone tools. However, its not definitive and I wrote the text accordingly. I was never happy with the online source I cited as I'm not 100% confident in its reliability and always intended to replace it with a better one. I don't object to its removal if there is concern about the text, I'm equally happy for its inclusion to be debated. Perhaps WP:RSN may be one avenue. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The information is important, and having the tag on the source as possibly unreliable should be enough at this time. Surely WCM or someone else can provide a better reference, but to simply delete the information is by far the worst option in this case.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's useful to know that the islands possibly weren't untouched by humanity prior to European arrival, but at the same time I doubt it's critical to understanding this history. If a better reference appears, use it, if not, it could be removed. (I also think it may serve better as the first sentence, not the second, but that's a different matter). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia rules are very clear regarding inclusion of controversial content:

WP:INDISCRIMINATE means the content included in the article m u s t be relevant to the theme of the article. First, there is no evidence of such presence and second The posibility of ... has no relevance because the consequences of this "fact", given the case such ever existed, ARE non-existent, unless we want to blow up the theory that the islands belonged to the Patagonian indians and therefore today the souvereignty has been or must be transferred to the descendent of the Patagonian. And all based on a non-existent evidence. Remember that begotten theories you never can get rid of.
WP:BURDEN says explicit that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The given reference is a toutistic bussiness and they would say that Martians were there in order to get more passangers on the ship to Stanley. It is not scientific, it is bussiness.

For example, the presence of men in Monte Verde could imply that the human race populate the american continent from south to north and would contradict the clovis these. So, the settlement of Monte Verde doesn't exist any more, but its existence is important to rebuild the history of America. But, if Patagonians were in the Falklands, what are the consequences?. Historians all around the world accepted that the islands where inhabitated as they were discovered by the Europeans. For some wannabe-historians that has no importance of course, but for others editors that should be considered if we want to write an article according to the WP rules.

So, I will delete again the controversial sentence and hope that the editor of the sentence provide any serious reference about the presence of Patagonian in the islands and/or its relevance for the article before reverting.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lets not re-insert it untill a better source is found.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This has got to be the first time I see Amerindians compared to Aliens...no, I've actually seen that before. I don't agree with the argument made against the inclusion of the information, which is neither controversial or unimportant to the article. WCM has stated that he does have a better source and, assuming WP:GF, I am sure that he does have it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with others that it's relevant to include potential Amerindian settlement. Actually, I think it's relevant because it sets off the suggestion of an earlier unknown history, and I feel that it is likely to be of significant interest to the reader. I would note that, in other articles, we try and chart the potential settlement histories of other remote islands that were not settled until relatively recently (I'm thinking of Iceland, Svalbard and Bermuda) as well as pre-historic settlement of other countries that have little consequence in modern life. Pfainuk talk 18:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Its mentioned in the Lonely Planet guide [1], found an online copy here [2]. Also [3] and in the Polar record [4]. There were finds of arrowheads and a canoe on Lafonia but its uncertain whether these were ancient or date from the Fuegian settlement on Keppel Island in the mid-1800s. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I found those sources as well (the ones from Google Books), but I was not sure if they were reliable or not. Unless anyone objects (in which case they could be taken to the RSN), I believe these sources justify the inclusion of the material. Thank you WCM.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Polar record source seems to be the best, although I dare say any would be useful for the main history article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's stay cool.

The first link, a touris shop, says "it is thought". No literature, no sources, no names of any archeological site. It is free from mouth.
the second and third links, both the same touris shop, say "there’s evidence" but no literature, no sources, no names of any archeological site. It is free from mouth.
the fourth link seems to be a serious one, G. Hattersley, but he states only that the missionar indians "may not have been" the first ones. That is all. It is only a may. Hattersley never investigated the findings. Never has any other scientist seen or even more investigated the findings.

If I say a touris shop, I mean that the persons behind the site are not interested in scientific prove but to make money, and the more passangers board the ships the more money they get in their bank account.

There is today absolutly and definitive no evidence of the settlement of the Falklands Islands by Fuegian Indians. It is thought. But also the Chinese, Arabs, Polinesier or Wikinger may also have been there.

Wikipedia is neither a list of conspiracy theories nor a place for every "thought" of someone with an access to a WEB-server. What we write in WP must be accepted by the scientific community. If you write it, I ask you to mention clearly that it is a thought, a theory of one man about a possibility and that there is absolutly no evidence for the theory.

Ok. Write it. But then, you can also write that Almirante Anaya was a MI5 agent. or that he could have been a MI5 agent. We have "links" for. Don't get frivolous.--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems an odd thing to argue. What you call a "touris shop" is Lonely Planet, which is a reasonably-well respected publisher of guide books. Not a great source, granted, but a lot better than you give them credit for. They do not make any direct money out of cruise ships visiting the Falklands (only indirectly through guide book sales) and visitors to the Falklands are generally not going there for the Amerindian remains (because there aren't any known sites). It is difficult to see what profit motive Lonely Planet would have in exaggerating these points. I actually generally find that tourist guidebooks are a reasonably good way of getting a rough idea as to what weight should be given on what points, since they are generally writing a similar amount on a similar topic with the intention of informing the reader.

Polar Record is the peer-reviewed academic journal of the Scott Polar Research Institute, part of the University of Cambridge. If any source is reliable by our standards, this one is. It is true that the author is positing this as a possibility and not proven fact - but that's what we would do as well. Your putting it on the level of conspiracy theories is frankly absurd. And if you can find evidence, discussed in reliable sources such as the Polar Record, of Chinese, Arab or Polynesian settlement of the Falklands prior to the arrival of Europeans, then of course we can add it. Pfainuk talk 20:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it is all I can help. But I do demand that you write in the article what the source says. IIt is a thought and no more. We let the MI5 story for the next time. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The article did mention that it was a possibility. The Alien story was really unnecessary, and I honestly failed to see the joke on it (and that's weird considering I laugh at anything; it must be the coffee). When the statement is re-inserted, it would also be good to use the word "Amerindian" instead of "Indian".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if only the pure and proved "facts" are valid to be included in this article, then almost 2/3 of the Wikipedia content must be discarded, because a lot of information, theories, papers, etc. used as sourced are not more than possibilities, conclusions obtained through research, using evidence when is available. So, if the scientific community can accept an "educated guess", a possibility, as such, why Wikipedia cannot? Even the most prominent authors and sources can establish a fact than later was proved as a mistake, an error. The science evolves, the sources changes, also Wikipedia, its contents are not written in stone. So, the possibility discussed in this issue must be included in the article. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 03:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, Cloudaoc. You may add all kinds of legends, myths, propaganda, conspiracy theories, etc, as you may like. But this only in the War of the Pacific article. Unless you want to bring the quality level of the Falklands article to a War of the Pacific-quality level. In this case, add also here any sort of comments and conjectures to the article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Falkland in Spanish is what? You give the name that Argentina give the islands and this is not necessary the name in Spanish. I don't think people in Madrid use this name?

31.52.46.234 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I note that the procedure is that you need to get consensus before using the edit request template. On the point raised, I would note that this is appropriately referenced. "Malvinas" is indeed standard in practically all of the Spanish-speaking world. Pfainuk talk 19:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is the Spanish name listed in the opening line?

Resolved

The name of the territory is The Falkland Islands; Spanish is not an official language of the islands - why is the Spanish name listed after the island's name? Surely this should be covered in under sections pertaining to the Argentina's illegitimate claims? The people of the islands are not Argentinian nor do they want to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.200.236 (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to say that Argentina's claims are illegitimate. Indeed, in order to preserve neutrality, we must respect Argentina's claim. Because of that claim, the Spanish name for the islands is significant encyclopædic information. Our use of it in this context reflects Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, and is based on usage by other neutral English-language sources. Pfainuk talk 16:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is supposed to explain what the islands are called not take sides. People who called the islands the Malvinas when they are speaking Spanish use the same name when they are speaking English. TFD (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia has Falkland, and we have Malvinas. Fair is fair. And yeah, whether it's legit, ours or there's claims, is not what we do. Decide yourself. --Nutthida (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does the first line have the words "Las Malvinas son Argentinas" in it ? Thats not the English or Spanish names, it is a propaganda claim by some groups in Argentina. It is NOT appropriate for the first line of the article. It could be included further down the article under Argentine claims, but NOT in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.125.10 (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article anywhere. And it wasn't as of the time you posted your message. There was the usual POV vandalism on the page for about a minute earlier in the day, but it was gone by the time you posted. Pfainuk talk 13:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly nonsense, as I don't see the spanish name of other islands on their pages. Propaganda is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.171.244 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 January 2012‎ (UTC)

WP:NPOV ~~I have just as little patience with English nationalism, as I do with the Argentine variety. We present the neutral facts and if you don't like it tough.~~ Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It is okay, that the Spanish name is on the first line. Most people looking up this Island wants to hear about the war and the crisis these days. 188.182.250.218 (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, I don't understand why the Spanish name of the Falklands is a problem, because since 1965 the United Nations used both names at the same time, calling the islands "Malvinas (Falklands)" in Spanish, and "Falkland (Malvinas)" in English until today, every UN resolution an paper use it, why not here? Wikipedia, like the UN, do not take sides. Regards. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 15:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this issue has been resolved now ^___^ --Nutthida (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I'm going to close the issue now. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 03:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is this resolved. Flakland in Spanish is not Malvinas. Malvinas is an Argentinian name not Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.46.234 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is Spanish. What language do you think is spoken in Argentina? Argentinian? 173.196.183.131 (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Las Malvinas is Argentinian Spanish. In Madrid it's still the Falkland Islands. Anyway, if Argentina was so independent why cling on to that old colonial language of Spanish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.154.212 (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, in Spain we call them Malvinas, and now they are called Malvinas Argentinas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.106.153 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda image

File:Malvinas-cartel.JPG

A user removed this picture as a propaganda image. I found this to be quite an interesting image, and it seemed perfectly fine with the explanatory caption to me, as well as providing a nice image to show the dispute. I think it should be kept, in lieu of no better images being provided. CMD (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. It IS propaganda - by definition. If someone were to add "LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS" to the article as text it would be reverted immediately - and yet there it is, as a giant image in the middle of the article. I don't think it belongs here. That said, I'm not bothered if consensus is to keep and won't be removing it again. Rettens2 (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a good way of illustrating the dispute IMO, so I think we should keep it. Unlike just putting the words in the article (which would be vandalism), this has a caption that allows us to put the image in context. Signs like this - and more particularly graffiti on a similar theme - are not uncommon in Argentina.

Whether or not it's technically propaganda is beside the point. I do not see that it would necessarily be unreasonable to put images of propaganda in articles where those images help illustrate the text. Pfainuk talk 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw it had been removed and did not revert to re-add it. Personally I would tend to remove it for pretty similar reasons to Rettens2. That said as used to illustrate propaganda I suppose a case can be made for it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is quite obviously an image of propaganda, but I disagree that the image itself was propaganda. It's quite a strong statement to have a sign about some islands in the distant south on your border with a country in the north, and I think shows how seriously the Argentinian government takes the issue. CMD (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The image belongs in Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute but not here. I have hence removed it. Polyamorph (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The large section on the "Sovereingty Dispute" should be somehow included into the history. As Poly mentions, it would be for the good future of this article if the editors separate it as much as reasonably possible from the disputes (Plenty of other articles exist for those issues). Removing this image is a good step forward, and I also suggest removing the Argentinean POW picture. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Polyamorph: it belongs to Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute but not here. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll note that I don't agree with the image belonging in the article but there is a consensus that it remains. I would suggest given this discussion is already here that removing it in the middle of a discussion is WP:POINT as is removing another image in what can easily be construed as retaliation. I don't think the Sovereignty Dispute section should be included in the history either, the Falklands have an interesting and diverse history and whilst the dispute has resulted in distorted accounts it isn't the be all and end all of the place. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that the Territorial Dispute with Argentina can be summarized in one paragraph in the history section. Why have a long section for it (after all, there is a whole article devoted to it already)? Then there is also this article, History of the Falkland Islands, which is the correct place where the history material should be expanded.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The image doesn't belong in this article. It is a powerful image and detracts from the main purpose of this article, which is to describe the islands, not the sovereignty dispute. I do not see consensus for keeping the image in this article at all. We have a perfectly good article where the image belongs, it is unnecessary to duplicate it here, pointless restoring the image since it will not remain here. Polyamorph (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Having an image in multiple articles is not in any way a problem. I feel it adds to that section, by showing an example of argentinian claims. I also don't think the claim should be included in history. Much of the notability of the Falklands is for better or worse from the fact Argentina keeps banging on about them. The claim isn't historical, and in my experience has a lot of coverage in various sources. CMD (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that having the image in multiple articles is a problem in itself - only that the image does not belong here, in an article about the islands themselves - not the dispute. Polyamorph (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We have a section on the dispute in this article, so if the image is relevant for the article it would be relevant for the section here, which is a summary of that article. CMD (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll bring in this image as well. It isn't a good representation of the conflict, and it's not even in the Falklands War article. Why should this article have such an image?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As you say it isn't a good representation of the conflict so I don't think it belongs here at all. Polyamorph (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any suggested replacements? CMD (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't remove the image unless we have a replacement, even if it's decided the image is unsuitable? Polyamorph (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We could, but I'm unconvinced it's unsuitable. If there was a replacement then the decision would be much easier. CMD (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhpas all images not realted to the Islands themselves should be removed for the sake of comprmise. Althought the imagage of Paras gaurding Argitine prisoners does illustrate a victorious war.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth I wouldn't remove the PoW image as it does illustrate rather well the end of the conflict and its of direct relevance to the section. I do wonder what merit the image of the sign has though. It seems utterly divorced from the text or am I missing something? 13:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My point here is if that the PoW image was so good, then why is it not even on the Falklands War article? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it used to be. I created a photo montage to put in the infobox that used it, so many people liked it and it was moved to Commons so that other wiki projects could use it. Then somebody decided to just delete it from commons as I made a mistake and didn't transfer the licensing details. This is why I refuse to upload to Commons anymore, there seems to be a tendency to delete rather than fix there. I would say the imaged does belong on the Falklands War article. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like commons either. This one here ([5]) is more representative of the conflict and its aftermath. This image here is also pretty strong ([6]). The image and caption can convey important messages to the reader.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion a picture from the time of the war makes for a more engaging illustration than a picture from 2003. Would File:HMS Antelope 1982.jpg be more representative? It was sunk defending the British beachhead. CMD (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The conflict ended in an argentine defeat, thus any picture designed to convey the story of the conflict has to represent that. Any picture of minefields does not convey anything about the conflict, and any picture of British loses only conveys one side, you would also have to have Argentine graveyards or ships being sunk. Also if we do have the picture of the sign do we not also need one representing the other sides attitude?Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The sinking of the Belgrano image ([7]) is the best one, but it has the deletion tag on it (well, possible deletion; the discussion on it seems to involve other images as well). CMD, I thought about the ships/airplane images as well, but they're all just images of the war material (no action). Slater, your paragraph makes me think (1) You're supporting the notion that the PoW image is unbalanced and (2) makes me wonder if you think this is a contest? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he is suggesting it is unbalanced nor does he suggest it is a contest. However, the sole image presented in the dispute section is an Argentine slogan, so by giving it prominence it is giving the Argentine claim undue weight. This is why I have suggested it is removed. Now, opposite the Malvina House Hotel used to be a sign [8] that states:

“

To The Argentine Nation and Its People. You will be welcome in our country when you drop your sovereignty claim and recognize our rights to self determination.

”

A picture along those lines may be more appropriate for this article. As regards the best image to use in the section on the Falklands War, I would avoid using an iconic image in this context as unfortunatley iconic images tend to have national significance. The controversy over the sinking makes the Belgrano image a poor choice in this context. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Precisly, I am saying that any image must be representative of the nature (and outcome) of the conflict. And no this is not a competition, but thre is a rquirment for balance. So any images must either A. present a neutral aspect (and agrgentina lost so any image of POW's is not non-neutral) or B. must have anoterh corresponding image that reflects the whole picture. Thus iamges of dead have to be both sides dead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the road sign image is unbalanced. As we all know and as the article asserts, the territory is firmly in the control of the UK, the people in it want to be British, and bar a minor period of time in 1982 it has been British for over a century. The dispute is a product of Argentina's claim. The British don't claim the Falklands any more than they claim York. All British/Falkland signs and statements are caused in reaction to the Argentine claim. Because of this I think an image demonstrating the Argentine claim shows the reader where the dispute comes from (and this sign would be far more fun, although not as simple a translation) is quite decent for the dispute section.

If a picture on the war must convey British victory, I can't find any which would seem much better. I dislike the Belgrano image mostly based on its quality, but WCM makes a good point. CMD (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Versions of Falkand Islands and Islas Malvinas differ to much. They should be merge and translated properly. The Flag of Both countries (and they recognize as valid for that (province or territory) in dispute should be visible in the same way in both versions. A link to the other version should be available. For Example change Falkland Islanders to British Americans Born in the Islands. (As UK gives them strait forward citizenship, and Argentina also in case any citizen of the Island request it as It is not possible for the Argentinean government to have office in the Islands.) Match the order of the titles in both versions. Its clear that the Spanish version is pro Argentina and the English Version is pro UK.

Thanks.

190.139.44.185 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done There is no specific edit to be made. Polyamorph (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Each language version is entirely different and not supposed to be linked in anyway, they have their own rules and such. "British Americans" well that doesn't really make sense - remember the word "American" here in the UK and the English speaking world almost always used to refer to people from the United States. Both versions are different and that's never going to change (Sadly?) --Nutthida (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

British "citizens"

There's no such thing as British "citizens". They are "British subjects". "Subjects of the Crown" if you want to be completely correct. Oivs1976 (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)OIVS

And your sources are? Your information is incorrect, the home office refers to British citizenship: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/ Polyamorph (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe being a citizen is inclusive of all those titles as well? If they are though, I hardly think they need to be mentioned. (Wait, am I "Subjects of the Crown"? I hope not! >_>) --Nutthida (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See British nationality law.

The inclusive term is "British national", and there are several categories, among them British subjects and British citizens. The two terms are mutually exclusive. The term "subjects of the crown" has no legal meaning.

British citizens are essentially anyone who holds British nationality because of a connection with the modern UK, including the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories (except for the Sovereign Base Areas of Cyprus). Those connected to the Overseas Territories (such as the Falklands) are also British Overseas Territories citizens. Pfainuk talk 19:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology Section

I have some concerns that meaning and context was being lost in the rapid changes to this section today, as well as some new material added. This is of course welcome but as we are starting a drive to GA status might I suggest such changes be worked up in a sandpit and agreed first. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandpit

Talk:Falkland Islands/etymology

I've just moved the subpage to the proper slash direction. Hope this is OK. Pfainuk talk 20:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a suggested text for the section to the above sandpit, with detailed comments in red. Pol098 (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Demographics

The article includes the following statement:

The population, estimated at 3,140, primarily consists of Falkland Islanders, the majority of British descent. Other ethnicities include French, Gibraltarian, Portuguese, and Scandinavian

However, the provided source does not support such a statement. According to page 6, currently, the most of the population comes from the Falkland Islands (1339 persons), UK (838), St. Helena (394), Chile (161), Australia (36), Argentina (29), Germany (28) and New Zealand (26). Excluding "British" descent, the main ethnicities right now would be Chile, St Helena and Germany.

When it comes to ancestry (pages 8-10), distribution is pretty much the same. Although it seems to get an accurate picture of the main "ethnic" groups, the sources does not seem to support the aforementioned sentence, especially since the source does not detail the origin of self-called "Europeans". Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As soon as I saw your name appearing, I just knew you were going to start following my contributions trying to find fault. Rest assured I have other sources at home and just as soon as I find a spare moment I will be adding them. In the mean time I suggest you find another area of the project to contribute in a positive manner, rather than continuing to bear grudges and pursue your childish little vendetta. Hugs and kisses. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact remains: a whole section on the current demographic origins of the islanders does not seem to be properly sourced (I haven't analyzed the article's history to see who the author is). Fortunatelly, it seems that you have better sources at home, so once provided the quality of the article will be better. Good!!! --Ecemaml (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC) PS: BTW, is Maria Strange really notable to be mentioned in the demographics section? PS2: BTW, Origins of Falkland Islanders doesn't seem to support the statement either (although it does not focus on the actual ethnicity of settlers, but on a history of the human settlement)

This reference mentions (page 2) people from Scandinavia, Uruguay, France, Finland or Gibraltar. It does not mention Portuguese people. --Ecemaml (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're providing good information Ecemaml, but it would be best to give Wee Curry time to provide the sources he holds. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Portuguese element stems right from the early settlement - FitzRoy, Robert. Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty's Ships Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the southern shores of South America, and the Beagle's circumnavigation of the globe. Proceedings of the second expedition, 1831-36, under the command of Captain Robert Fitz-Roy, R.N. London: Henry Colburn, 1839. Chapter XII, p. 267. I've also contacted the OP from the origins article, whose text I cribbed. I've also a fairly large reference work to trawl through. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That statement seems to be a synthesis. You're taking a 1839 source providing information about the population in the 1830's to make conclusions about the current population of the islands. Proper (and current) secondary sources would be needed instead. For example, in the origins article, it describes how, in the 19th century there was an important South American component (mainly Argentinean and Uruguayan). Does it allow us to include them as current "ethnicities"? I don't think so. On the other hand, the fact that there are Portuguese (or whatever) origins in the current Falklands population does not mean they are currently a "ethnicity". Are people with Portuguese ancestries (or Scandinavian, or Gibraltarian, or whatever) a "group of people whose members identify with each other" right now? --Ecemaml (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh quit with the pedantic nit picking will you, I am not the original OP and that was a source I had. This is a work in progress and if needs be it will be chanegd. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the following statement requires also proper sourcing:

About 70 per cent of the population is of British descent, primarily as a result of Scottish and Welsh immigration to the islands

There's a source, but I don't know whether it supports the whole sentence or just the mention to Scottish and Welsh immigration. The problem with the source is that it's a 1983 source and, as the section clearly describes, since the early 1980's to the current day, population has almost doubled. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Its still around 70% British descent, I have expunged all mention of Portuguese ancestry so now you have nothing to complain about. If the OP comes back with a source I'll put it back in. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

?? I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just trying to determine whether the article fulfills wikipedia's policies, and providing remedies if not. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Of more important note is that the number of Chilean-born people is exagerate the number of people of Chilean descent - if a Falkland Islander is havign a difficult pregnancy, she will often to to Santiago to have her baby as Santiago has better facilities than Stanley. I don't have the reference to hand. Martinvl (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a table in the census document dealing with such an issue (I'll double check it) --Ecemaml (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

C

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, I believe that there is a gross error in this page. Everybody know that the Falkland Islands were usurped illegally to Argentina (or how do you call to take the control of a foreign territory by the force in 1833?).

Please, correct this gross history error.

Thanks! 186.136.142.44 (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alex, or meat puppet of Alex, still touting that imperialist nonsense are we? Or haven't got to grips with modern Human rights (none of which are being infringed in Argentina over the Falklands, but you certainly want to infringe the rights of the people on the Island who bare no responsibility for something that happened in 1833) or can't understand that the Argentine gov is mearly using the Issue to deflect from Argentina's internal issues? Nice one. And stay off my talk page this time. Nutthida (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done No specific request Cambalachero (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty silly to argue that in this day and age the Brits have a right to claim the Falklands as British territory any more than Rhodesia or India. But of course, the political discussion / POV one way or the other is inappropriate for Wikipedia to take a position on... =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Requires a response, since the British don't claim anything - the Falkland islands are British territory by virtue of the wishes of the people who live in the Falkland islands. If anything, the Argentine claim is the imperialistic one. Polyamorph (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM please. This is not the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of the dispute. Pfainuk talk 18:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Air Transport

I believe that ship traffic to the Falklands is already banned from Argentinian territory / waters. I thin that Cristina Fernández de Kirchner recently added air transport to that list with respect to Argentine air space? Should that information be worked into the article? =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't happened yet, though it's been widely discussed. Better not to put anything in unless it actually happens and has a significant effect: after all, if Argentina was to ban Falklands-bound flights from its airspace, this would not necessarily mean that the LAN link to Punta Arenas would stop (though it would have to go a more roundabout route).

Remember also that this is the article on the islands, not the dispute, so the minutiae of the dispute are not relevant here. Just pointing this out as such things are frequently proposed. Pfainuk talk 18:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Status

We did try and work toward GA status last March but it was eventually aborted following a prolonged campaign of disruptive editing. As the primary disruptive editor is now blocked I was wondering if there was a willing group of volunteers to take up the struggle once more. The peer review is logged Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 10#Peer Review. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All for it. I doubt we actually need much more to make this quite a decent article. In my opinion, the only section that needs a large amount of work is Demographics, which perhaps could incorporate a bit about the Culture of the islanders. The Communications section I think would be better headed Infrastructure and perhaps slightly rewritten, but it's mostly fine. Is there anything else we can add to Politics? CMD (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I'd like to emphasize for improving this article is that of somehow mixing the Falklands War and history sections together. Not to the point where the war itself is no longer important, but where the history is more important than just the 1982 conflict. The best example I can use is that of Peru and the War of the Pacific. Despite the WoTP had so great an impact on Peru, life did go on afterwards, and plenty also before it (hence, there is no need for a "pre-WoTP Peru" and "post-WoTP Peru").

The current style of this article makes it seem like the Falkland Islands had an alarming transformation from one year to the other. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to MarshallN20, yes, by all accounts there was, to use his words, an alarming transformation - the war was a significant part of the history of the islands - it changed just about everything. My understanding is that prior to the war, the UK policy was to make it attractive for the islanders to accept Argentinian rule and possibly to shift the debate to the islanders themselves, a policy that is now totally unsustainable. Martinvl (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

UK policy would go on the "Sovereingty Dispute" section, not history. According to my American colleagues, the US Civil War "changed just about everything" in their country, but I don't see the United States of America article splitting its history into two separate sections (plenty of subsections, however).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is NOT a good article. It's completely unencyclopedic and POV-pushing. It is asserted that Vernet sought authorization from both British and Argentinian authorities, but it is not stated that his settlement was established on behalf of Argentina, not Britain. No mention whatsoever is made of the fact that Vernet was named Military and Civil commander of the Falklands by Argentina in 1829. The British complete abandonment of its sole settlement in 1774 is attributed to financial difficulties, as if to excuse it, but no explanation is given for why the British didn't set foot on the islands for the next 59 years. The British disengagement from the islands is minimized and the Argentinian involvement is also minimized. It is also disingenuously claimed that "Sovereignty over the islands became an issue in the second half of the 20th century," completely ignoring the fact that Argentina first protested a few weeks after the British occupation of 1833, and protested at least 28 times in various fora before the UN was created. There are several other issues. Please CORRECT this ~~or I'll fight "good articleness" with all legal means~~.Abenyosef (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, "Legal means"? IS that a threat of legal action? Because' that's an instant block offense. I strongly suggest you retract your comment or clarify it, if it was not your original meaning. Also, coming in here with -"POV pushing un-encyclopedic blah blah the whole article sucks" argument is NOT constructive on this topic. If you have issues with the things you have raised, start a discussion outlaying your points in a constructive manner with SOURCES to back up your statements. Also note, your personal opinions don't matter, and neither do MINE (I would obviously disagree with you on the stance of some Islands you and I have never been to, BUT WHO GIVES A CAKE! IGNORE IT! BAH! Don't get angry about it, have a slice of kawaii cake) Encase you didn't pick up, I'm being rather tongue-in-cheek and female-hormonal. BYE. --Nutthida (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant that I'll use all the mechanisms established by Wikipedia ("legal means" was tongue in cheek) to try and prevent this article from being declared a good article, which it is not. I don't believe I expressed my opinions, but facts: Vernet established a settlement on behalf of the Argentinian government (fact, not opinion); Argentina appointed Vernet as military and civil commander of the islands (fact, not opinion); Argentina protested Britain's takeover of the islands in June 1833, not in the second half of the 20th century (fact, not opinion). I believed these omissions to be the result of bad faith... but it is also possible that the previous editors simply weren't aware of these facts. Be it bad faith or ignorance, an encyclopedia should display neither.Abenyosef (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an important behavioural guideline here, and I believe that it would be beneficial if you were to follow it. I note that the changes you have been making are significantly biased and remove useful sourced information. In some cases, you have replaced this with unsourced speculation, which is also not allowed.

It is disappointing that you find the idea of improving this article so that it meets the GA requirements so objectionable, and it is difficult to see how someone apparently so opposed to the notion of improving of the encyclopædia can have a long future here. As such, I hope that you will reconsider this position. Pfainuk talk 13:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I said I'll try and prevent this article (i.e., the article in its current form) from being declared a GA. If the article improves, I'll support its nomination, by all means. But, with all due respect, I believe it's you who are opposed to improving the encyclopedia by keeping childish POV-language like "Despite its defeat." I don't agree that I have used unsourced speculation.

What you call "useful sourced information" is actually POV-pushing material from non-reliable sources. What General Moore says about etymology is completely irrelevant since he's not an etymologist, and it is laughable to claim that the Spanish name for the islands (which is also used with slight variations in French, Portuguese, Italian and Catalan) is a "propaganda name." The fact that he said so is anecdotal and utterly irrelevant. The fact that another non-reliable source finds the Spanish names offensive is also irrelevant. There's no reliable source claiming that Britain re-established its rule over the islands; indeed, prior to 1833 Britain had never ruled East Falkland. With regard to the plaque left by the British, it said "Falkland's Island," in the singular, not "Falkland Islands," and this is very relevant information.--Abenyosef (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I will correct a few of your facts. Vernet's establishment on the Falkland Islands was not an Argentine settlement, it was in fact his personal private enterprise. The fact that he played both the British and Buenos Aires authorities is well established. Further the British were not absent for 59 years as you claim but continued to use the island's resources throughout that time. The facts you assert are correct are not, the version of the history of these islands that is taught in Argentina is highly biased towards reflecting and reinforcing Argentina's sovereignty claim. It omits inconvenient facts, such as the fact Vernet co-operated with the British, or contains outright lies, sich as the claim that the settlement was expelled in 1833. The article is in fact neutrally written.

Oh and I suggest you pause and reflect upon your claim Britain only ever ruled over Port Egmont, Spain did nothing beyond the environs of Puerto Soledad. Follow your own argument, which is WP:OR btw, and Spain never ruled over the archipelago either and Argentina's claim vanishes in a puff of logic.

Further, its not so much the Spanish names that are offensive, its the fact that Argentina will not allow the use of the name used by its inhabitants, as well as the offensive toponymy imposed during Argentina's invasion and occupation of the islands.

The threat that you'll frustrate people from taking this article to GA status unless we capitulate to your demands doesn't impress in the least. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abenyosef, you are just taking the easy option when you make such changes: what it calls. The British gov. calls it self-determination. The Falklanders call it self-determination. And the Argentine gov. calls it self-determination. (The latter don't accept it, but they also call it self-determination) So, it is self-determination. Do you agree?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

@WCM: Vernet's enterprise was backed by proto-Argentine government, and that's why reliable secondary sources treat it as an Argentine settlement. Several times I've seen here that support disregarded, but that's fine because none of us are reliable sources (or at least not by our usernames). Further, the British government was actually absent for 59 years. British subjects were not, but neither were the American sealers, and others from many different countries.

Ok, enough forum for today. Cheers. --Langus (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Vernet's establishment received no support whatsoever from the Republic of Buenos Aires, it was done entirely on his own dollar and it bankrupted him. When Vernet attempted to gain support, namely the use of a warship, they declined, instead proclaiming him Governor - and telling him to use his own resources. Vernet also approached the British to set up a permanent garrison in the islands, gave them regular progress reports etc. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Vernet enterprise was approved and allowed by Argentine government (i.e. the Republic of Buenos Aires) and it was fostered with tax exceptions. Later, it was fostered with the appointment of Vernet as Governor. Sure, the few battleships available were assigned to other tasks (there was no material support), but that doesn't mean that there was no Argentine involvement in the settlement. Hell, the settlers even sailed from Buenos Aires! (most of them weren't born there, as many of Argentine inhabitants in those days, but they lived there at the time; same goes to Vernet --he's buried in La Chacarita Cemetery, in Buenos Aires).

But that's ok: you say that all these things are not enough to consider it an Argentine settlement. That's fine, it's your opinion, but it's not a majority view in literature. --Langus (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

So what, Vernet's establishment was also approved and allowed by the British Government, it continued after the British Return in 1833. So whats the argument here - approval and agreement from an illegal Argentine Government makes it an Argentine settlement but approval and agreement from the legitimate British representative doesn't make it a British settlement? I note we simply describe it as Vernet's settlement and don't attempt to make political capital or veer off toward supporting particular POV. A majority view in Argentine literature doesn't make for presenting a NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Description of the economy in the Falklands is not up to date.

I just read an article on the BBC outlining the growing problems for islanders to get fresh products like eggs and vegetables delivered. Briefly, Argentina has convinced many south american countries to stop deliveries and has practically blocked the airline connections. More about this topic at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16980747 can someone update the Economy section? It does not reflect the real conditions anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.243.57 (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done per WP:NOTNEWS. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I do edit edit articles every now and then on Wikipedia, although I am a not a registered user. Still I believe that a report from the BBC, with a journalist being sent there, asking questions and reporting facts should be considered as a veritable source. A shortage of some goods is taking place in the Falklands since sometimes. These are facts and not "News", weather Wikipedia like it or not.

Its news, a transient story that will wrap tomorrow's chips. Sorry but that is why WP:NOTNEWS exists. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All that this shows is that in the past it was more economic for the Falkland Islanders to import fresh food - if the embargo continues, they will probably find a work-around - they have enough land and no predators to take their chickens. As Wee Curry Monster says "it is a transient story". Martinvl (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A regular container shipment is now addressing this problem, this is why WP:NOTNEWS exists. It was a transient problem, which can affect any isolated island. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Relations

Diplomatic relations between Argentina and the UK were resumed in 1990 according to this article, but in the wiki page about the war specifically it says 1989. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.82.145 (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone will get back to you once they all stop arguing over who should get the oil, and whether or not a bunch of Islanders today (Who must lead insanely boring lives lalala) should be kicked off or murdered or whatever based on something that happened in 1833. No seriously, It might be to do with two different sources being used that gives conflicting dates. But Idk. ^_^ --Nutthida (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: 19/02/2012

Regarding the photo of Gordon Brown and Cristina Fernández - Perhaps should read "former Prime Minister Gordon Brown" or "then Prime.." essentially making the distinction that he is no longer the British Prime minister.

Done Wee Curry Monster talk 17:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Britain re-established its rule in 1833"

Before 1833, Britain never ruled the Falklands. Its only settlement, at Egmontt, was contemporary with a much larger French, then Spanish settlement. The statement "Britain re-established its rule in 1833" is not supported by a source and appears to be original research. Therefore I'll remove it.--Abenyosef (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The material is sourced, it isn't original research, it is neutrally worded and it is and your allegation of POV editing is unsubstantiated. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to source a material you've got to cite a reliable source, which is done through a reference. There's no reference for the claim that Britain re-established its rule. Therefore, the claim is unsourced and needs to be eliminated.--Abenyosef (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The material is cited to a reliable source, you're simply playing semantics. Every couple of months we have a patriot coming here telling us this is biased as it doesn't reflect the Argentine POV. I suggest you add WP:OWB to your reading list especially No. 1. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WCM is right, in the sense that the material is reliably sourced. Patriots in general come every now and then to voice their position, regardless of nationality. None are as wacky as Gibson.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the source? You've got to put a reference -- the small elevated numbers to the right of a sentence. I see none here. Therefore, the claim is unsourced. Stop beating around the bush and give me the source.

And please note, I've corrected a MAJOR mistake (confusing the Falkland Islands with the Falkland Dependencies), so that already I have made a very valuable contribution to the "goodness" of this article.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually you attempted to remove sourced content that Argentina refused to accept a neutral and binding judgement over its territorial claims at the ICJ; material of direct relevance. Per WP:LEDE sources are not generally used in the lede, since the text is sourced in the text below, which it is. If you care to look at the sandpit where we rewrote the lede, these were were removed. Demanding a source in the lede? I'lll give you what you want, if you really, really want The History of the Falkland Islands, Mary Cawkell, p.57. Have a nice day now.

PS Mel Gibson did worse with Scottish history, utter shite but annoys the Sassenachs. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the expression "Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands" is original research. I've been involved in extensive discussions here, here, and here, and not a single reliable source has ever been provided. WP:TITLE indicates that "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles", but the fact is that "Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands" is a compromise title crafted in good faith by WP editors.

A requested move for that article is a pending matter to me. "British repossession of the Falkland Islands" for example is an equally POV title, but at least it is used by secondary reliable sources. --Langus (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be (by source or by consensus), it seems this article is really not the place to discuss the subject. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

http://thailandtimes.asia/thailand-news/falkland-islands-no-negotiations/, http://www.tehrantimes.com/world/95284-argentina-condemns-british-militarization-of-malvinas-?tmpl=component&page= (though they may be using the same press release). http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/02/01/argentina-and-uk-dispute-heats-up-as-prince-william-heads-to-falklands/, http://www.discoveryuk.com/the-loop/falklands-provocation/.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Any consensus to to improve the title on that article was frustrated by Langus' insistence on his own content suggestions, which were rejected by everyone else. Langus also started an RFC, which concluded his claims of POV were unsubstantiated. Its not original research, the article title was just a compromise agreed by consensus by editors who were willing to consider a better alternative. What is interesting is the assertion that the alternative title you name is POV. Why? The nationality of the author? That said, Marshall is correct, this isn't the place to discuss another article. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW thanks Slatersteven, I presume no one is going to claim the Teheran Times is pro-British... :-) Wee Curry Monster talk 17:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree also that this is not the place, but let me reply the last comments as a closure. We can continue in that article's talk page if needed.

Thailand Times: you must have missed the sentence "The following is an edited version of the information on Wikipedia."
Tehran Times: if you Google that paragraph ("Controversy exists over the Malvinas' original discovery and subsequent colonization by Europeans. At various times there have been French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Britain re-established its rule in 1833"), you'll end up on this article (Falkland Islands). We are their press release (you really should check this before posting sources: last time was exactly the same)

The other two use the expression "ever since the British re-established rule in 1833" and "Ever since Britain re-established its rule of the islands back in 1833, Argentina has claimed sovereignty". Both are very similar to the old version of the lede: "Ever since the re-establishment of British rule in 1833, Argentina has claimed sovereignty". Slatersteven, do you have any source that uses this expression prior to its inclusion by us in Wikipedia?? I'm telling you, we're doing exactly this, and its atrocious. --Langus (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you willsee I did say the first two sources seemd to be using the same statment. I did not notice that the thailandtimes used wiki as a ource, so thanks for poiting that out. As to Fox and Disscovery, I am not sure that your objection is valid, as we do not use only soources writen befire wikipeida.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can't really prove that the writers looked for information in Wikipedia, but because of the similarities in the expressions and the words used, I truly have that hunch. Cheers. --Langus (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fox is not a reliable source, since it claims: "The two nations have fought over sovereignty of the islands, which are known as the Malvinas in Spanish, ever since the British re-established rule in 1833. The 1982 invasion by Argentina left more than 600 Argentine dead, 200 British troops killed and weakened the Southern Cone nation’s military dictatorship, helping speed the transition to democracy in Argentina." The actual number of British troops killed was 255. If Fox errs in this, it may err in other statements, and therefore is not a reliable source.--Abenyosef (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fox has been deemed an RS on multiple occasions, How about this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wnVXSxs8tTkC&pg=PT2&dq=re-establishment+of+British+rule+on+the+Falklands+%2B+1833&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CoNKT7__CYbF0QXS6t2JDg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=re-establishment%20of%20British%20rule%20on%20the%20Falklands%20%2B%201833&f=false, sorry its not post wikipeida, so I suggest you point to the policy that says this isn’t RS. A non-neutral source http://www.hmforces.co.uk/training/articles/1624-the-falklands-conflict-op-corporate---part-1, http://www.rmg.co.uk/explore/sea-and-ships/on-this-day-in-history.Not sure if this is RS, as I have no knowledge of this paper http://www.argentinaindependent.com/tag/arturo-puricelli/Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't open that one. Care to quote what the text says?--Abenyosef (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Which one?Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean the book.--Abenyosef (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

From thee book: "Argentina has always argued that the islanders are not indigenous and were brought in to replace the Argentinian population that was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833, and therefore have no right to self-determination." The author does not seem to be a certified historian, but has several works on military history. I'd take the source as reliable, but perhaps it would be best if the RS/N took the final verdict.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the behaviours being exhibited here are helpful. You demanded a source, multiple sources have been provided, that should be the end of the matter. Quibbling about sources and trying to construct arguments to ignore or put aside sources is not in the least bit constructive. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The "book" turns out to be a 50-page booklet written by an unknown author in remarkably unscholarly fashion. No footnotes or references are provided. It is not a reliable source; notice for instance the sloppy wording: "Argentina has always argued that the islanders are not indigenous and were brought in to replace the Argentinian population that was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833." This is a tangential reference to the "re-establishment of British rule," not an outright assertion of it; also, it freely mixes Argentina's claims (expulsion of Argentinians) with Britain's claims (British rule).

I'm asking for a reliable source. Can you provide a scholarly source asserting that Britain re-established its rule? There are lots of heavily footnoted academic volumes on the Falklands? Surely you'll be able to find me one in support of this "re-establishment" thing?--Abenyosef (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't only use scolerly sources, so what is wrong with the Museam website, or the argentina independent news paper?Slatersteven (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly sources are the ones that hold most weight in a discussion, but that does not eliminate other reliable sources from being used. Perhaps it might help your case, Abenyosef, if you provided a source which states the opposite (that it was not a re-establishment of British rule). The fact that other sources (mainly news outlets) also make use of the term, regardless of whether they copied it from Wikipedia or elsewhere, adds a few feathers to the balance in favor of the term's usage. Of course, as feathers, the weak sources stand no match against more reliable works. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit iffy (its an abstaract) http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5409248.Slatersteven (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, the Argentina Independent is a sloppy source; notice that it claims that the UN resolution called on Argentina, Britain and Ireland to begin negotiations on the Falklands. Anyone with a minimal knowledge of the conflict is aware that Ireland is not involved.

MarshalN20, you're surely aware that the burden of proof falls on the one making an assertion, in this case that Britain re-established its rule. Since this is not supported by the copious scholarly literature, it is fair to say that sloppily-written journalistic pieces do not suffice, especially when serious mistakes can be detected in their other assertions.--Abenyosef (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, sourced per WP:RS satifying WP:V, seeking reasons to dismiss a source that contradicts you is pretty much the poster boy of disruptive POV editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. WP:RS states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Since the newspaper citations presented here are commentary and analysis pieces, they can't be taken as a reliable source for the statement of fact that "Britain re-established its rule over the islands." Please look for a scholarly source.--Abenyosef (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Barry Gough uses assertion/reassertion of sovereignty, and reoccupation when referring to these events in the paper "The British Reoccupation and Colonization of the Falkland Islands, or Malvinas, 1832-1843". (If anyone wants to read the paper, just drop me an email). --Langus (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourced, cited and has a clear consensus - drop the stick. A game of Pooh sticks is infinitely more productive. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not sourced. There's no reference yet in the article. What reference will you finally use? Clear consensuses are not created by your decree, but by a convergence of opinions and, eventually, a vote.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@WCM: if you're talking to me, I've drop the stick long ago. But you can force me to change my view that it's a bad title and that we should do something about it. To my view, as I said, those sources are contaminated by Wikipedia, and we should use the scholars. --Langus (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't claim its perfect and remain willing to consider alternatives. But again Langus, discussions came to a halt because of your intransigence and denial of the prior British settlement. Consensus is not a vote either - see WP:CONSENSUS and changing CONSENSUS is achieved through reasoned argument not a vote. The WP:BATTLE mentality being shown here is unlikely to shift the existing consensus and would more likely reinforce it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two issues with "Britain re-established its rule."

Issue #1: It's not backed by a scholarly source. All we have been given is newspaper articles or nonacademic booklets.

Issue #2: There exists a competing claim. Argentina states that "Britain occupied the islands." In fact, this is the wording used in the Spanish Wikipedia. And this wording does have a wealth of academic sources supporting it. See: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and many other sources.

So that, since scholarly material trumps newspapers, if any of either wordings is to be used, it is "Britain occupied the Falkland Islands in 1833."

However, I'm proposing to use a more neutral tone, such as "In 1883, after a military operation, Britain established its rule on the Falkland Islands, which has continued to this day."--Abenyosef (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see you didn't like my proposal, so here's another: let's stick to the reliable sources.

The situation is as follows. There are two ways to describe the events of 1833. One is "Britain re-established its rule" (the current wording in the article). This description does not enjoy any support from academic sources. We've turned over the cyberspace and we haven't been able to find any scholarly book or paper in its support. Jimbo Wales has stated that if a view is majoritarian, it should be easy to find sources to back it; and if it is a mainstream minority view, it should enjoy the support of prominent people. Neither condition is satisfied by "Britain re-established its rule."

"Britain occupied the Falkland Islands," on the other hand, seems to be the standard scholarly phrasing to describe the events. Above I provided several links to books containing the phrase, and many others can be easily found. The phrase is used both by Argentinian, British and neutral sources.

In view of the overwhelming support that "Britain occupied the Falkland Islands" enjoys from the academia, I'll substitute it for "Britain re-established its rule." The first description is used in books and scholarly papers. The second one appears to be unsupported by any academic sources. Wikipedia mandates balance, true, but between majoritarian and minoritarian views, not between standard and fringe theories.

Please discuss. I'm giving a reasoned analysis for my future edit.--Abenyosef (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not giving a reasoned analysis here. You have pre-determined your desired edit and have selected sources to back it up. The accusation of occupation is very much an Argentine POV and we should strive to present the topic in a neutral manner. Nor is the solution as binary a decision as you imply. There has already been an extensive analysis of how this is covered in the literature and the following were proposed.

1 British repossession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)
2 British possession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834)
3 Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland

Thus far, #1 amd #3 had majority support though a clear consensus did not emerge. With a lack of a clear consensus to change, I am unwilling to see a neutral although imperfect title changed to one with clear issues with our policy of a WP:NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In the first place, we're editing this article, not other articles, so let's stick to this one. In the second place, I have asked for scholarly sources backing the POV that "Britain re-established its rule" in 1833, and you have provided none. In the third place, if Argentinian, British and neutral academic sources use the phrase "Britain occupied the Falkland Islands," as proved by my examples, maybe this is the only standard academic POV and we should stick to it. In the fourth place, even if you think that "Britain re-established its rule" is a valid POV, it's not the only one, so we can't use it in a lede without balance.

I'm giving scholarly sources, you're not giving scholarly sources. Please fix that to begin with.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you appreciate that it's difficult to provide the sources you're asking for when you simply brand any that don't support your viewpoint as "non-scholarly"? There are buckets of sources that have been provided in this section, and you're just attempting to filibuster a resolution. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The "buckets of sources" have been four or five online newspapers and a booklet without references. WP:RS establishes that newspaper analyses or editorials are not reliable as a source for statements of fact. It also establishes that books should be peer-reviewed, or published by renowned university presses, to be considered a scholarly source.

But let's not be disingenuous. You and I know what a scholarly source is. It can be the procedings of a congress, symposium or convention. It can be a peer-reviewed journal. It can be a book published by a university. In all cases, it must be the work of authorities endorsed by other authorities. None of your sources satisfies these requirements.

Also, you're not answering my point about lack of balance. The current lede makes a statement of fact that favors the British position. Not only that; it presents an extreme, maximalist version of that position. "Britain re-established its rule" is a fringe statement not endorsed by the academia. In comparison, the Argentinian position ("Britain occupied the islands") is NOT presented in the lede, even though it is widely endorsed by scholars. This is contrary to WP:Balance.--Abenyosef (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Which of those newpaper sources are editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces? Also please refrain for inmserting your own requirments as to what constututes RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How about this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oCWGX18UrhEC&pg=PA372&dq=Britain+%2B+re-established+%2B+falklands+%2B+1833%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qw1NT96KKtHPsgbFs7S9Dw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Britain%20%2B%20re-established%20%2B%20falklands%20%2B%201833%22&f=false, or this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OqUBUgW_Ax8C&pg=PA402&dq=Britain+%2B+re-established+%2B+falklands+%2B+1833%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qw1NT96KKtHPsgbFs7S9Dw&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Britain%20%2B%20re-established%20%2B%20falklands%20%2B%201833%22&f=false, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VvwmkoFaCMAC&pg=PA612&dq=Britain+%2B+re-established+%2B+falklands+%2B+1833%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qQ5NT8qqIcjZsgaxy8WmDw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Britain%20%2B%20re-established%20%2B%20falklands%20%2B%201833%22&f=false says that the British re-established their garrison, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IkiNBQXP65EC&pg=RA1-PA142&dq=Britain+%2B+re-established+%2B+falklands+%2B+1833%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qQ5NT8qqIcjZsgaxy8WmDw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Britain%20%2B%20re-established%20%2B%20falklands%20%2B%201833%22&f=false says the British re-established their colony.

So in the name of WP:Balance, Abenyosef proposes to present only the Argentine position? A strange view of WP:NPOV indeed. WP:NEWSORG actually states Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors. So the claim new reporting is not considered reliable is demonstrably false. In addition, as I pointed out earlier, we have done a pretty exhaustive examination of sources and the claim it is "the only standard academic POV" is also demonstrably false. Point of fact, ignoring that analysis to demand we adopt a POV statement is filibustering. Regarding the claim there is a lack of balance, the usual British nomenclature is to refer to the events of 1833 as the British return to the Falklands, we don't present either viewpoint and came to a term that favours neither side. Imperfect as it is, resorting to a demonstrably POV term, on the basis of a fallacious and unsustainable argument is worse. No thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues here.

1. You selectively quote from WP:NEWSORG. The full quote: News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. All information about the 1833 events is editorial content, because the newspaper is not reporting on those events, but commenting on them. Therefore, that information is "rarely reliable for statements of fact."

2. Your unsourced statement that "the usual British nomenclature is to refer to the events of 1833 as the British return to the Falklands" is irrelevant, since return is not the same as re-establishment of rule.

3. Apart from the above, your statement about British nomenclature is plainly wrong. The Economist, a British magazine, uses the expression "Britain occupied the islands in 1833."[19] So does the British Yearbook of International Law.[20] British professor John Greenaway also describes the events as an occupation[21] (notice the British spelling used in the book). These PROMINENT examples disprove your claim.

4. None of your sources states that Britain re-established its rule. Sovereignty, colony, garrison are not the same as rule. Also, they're two few compared to the scores of sources that say "Britain occupied the Falkland Islands." If any claim based on those sources is to be included at all, we must state that it's a minority view. Otherwise we would be clearly violating WP:UNDUE.--Abenyosef (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking each point in turn:

1. We are sourcing a statement of fact from a variety of sources, many of which could never be described a favourable to a UK POV (eg Teheran Times). These are not editorials as you claim. Another argument that is not sustainable.

2. An irrelevant tendentious argument bearing no relation to the point made.

3. One news source does not disprove a point about the literature; somewhat ironic given your attempt to claim that news sources are "not reliable".

4. Multiple sources establish its a relevant term to use, it is not a minority view. This is simply a red herring.

Echoing the point below, this is the best compromise edit we've managed to achieve and I don't see how changing it to a term that favours any particular national narrative helps. Particularly as it happens when no reasoned argument is being put forward for a change. All I see here is a tendentious editing. Its come to the point where I really don't see the value in continuing discussions with a disruptive editor who simply seeks to impose a solution favouring his own POV. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupied does not exclude re-establishment.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

sov·er·eign·ty [sov-rin-tee, suhv-] noun, plural -ties. 1. the quality or state of being sovereign. 2. the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royalty. 3. supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community. 4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative. 5. a sovereign state, community, or political unit So yes it does mean 'to rule'.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Occupation" as a term is simply inaccurate in this case. And the fact that people may use it does not make it accurate. We should be accurately describing what went on, even where others make mistakes or oversimplify the position.

Just about the only things that changed in January 1833 were the flag and the Gauchos' pay expectations. The civilian government provided through Vernet's private enterprise, that had first settled the islands in 1829, remained in place until its leaders were killed by a band of Gauchos in August 1833. No British government or military representation and no permanent British population (other than those who had been arrested during the Lexington Raid) was left on the islands at any point in 1833. Pfainuk talk 18:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we coukld change it to "Britain re-established its Sovereignty in 1833", as the sources that use this have not been called into doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OqUBUgW_Ax8C&pg=PA402&dq=Britain+%2B+re-established+%2B+falklands+%2B+1833+%2B+sovereignty&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_SFNT9rgG4ahOv-b1KQC&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Britain%20%2B%20re-established%20%2B%20falklands%20%2B%201833%20%2B%20sovereignty&f=false, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9EWOp_AgxfQC&pg=PA190&dq=Britain+%2B+re-established+%2B+falklands+%2B+1833+%2B+sovereignty&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uiJNT9rNDMKfOunJ_asC&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=Britain%20%2B%20re-established%20%2B%20falklands%20%2B%201833%20%2B%20sovereignty&f=false all say re-establish sovereignty.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, it's not really neutral as it implies that Britain actually had and has legal sovereignty (which Argentina disputes). We've been through a lot of these sorts of discussions before, and every suggestion that has been brought up has problems - most of them involving crossing red lines of neutrality and accuracy. The status quo is the best compromise we've managed to reach.

So far as I'm concerned we don't really need to source "re-establishment of British rule" beyond its factual accuracy (already amply demonstrated here and on the relevant other articles): our articles are not required to be made up purely of direct quotes of sources. But for those who want sources confirming that it is used, sources have been provided. Pfainuk talk 19:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with the status quo we have at present I am just providing alternatives that are RS based.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Pfainuk's point, and having been involved in previous discussions I can understand it, its likely to be disputed as favouring the British POV as Argentina asserts the British have never had sovereignty. I see his comment as not a criticism of your proposal, it is borne from previous tedious and tiresome discussions from editors seeking to favour a particular national narrative. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Britain re-established its rule" implies that Britain formerly ruled the islands. This is disputed. Therefore, the current phrasing of the lede represents a POV, not a fact. Wikipedia mandates that disputed claims be sourced, and that the opposing POV be also presented. Not only that: it requires, as per WP:NPOV, that "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." So that if this viewpoint is in the majority, you should be able to provide reference texts (not Iranian newspapers) in its support, which you haven't. That for one thing.

For another thing, "Britain occupied the Falkland Islands" seems to be the STANDARD way of describing the events of 1833. It enjoys widespread current use: for instance, even in these conflictive times, the British newspaper The Telegraph stated a few days ago: "Argentina has received the backing of Latin American countries for its claim of sovereignty over the remote, wind-lashed islands, which were occupied by Britain in 1833."[22]

Therefore, the events of 1833 are described as an occupation by multiple sources, both Argentinian, British and neutral, both academic and journalistic, both historical and current. Your claim that I want to favor my national narrative is baseless -- if it were a national narrative, British and neutral journalists and scholars wouldn't use the term occupation! Why do you say it's my POV when it's also the POV supported by multiple, prominent Britons, as well as neutral sources? Me no understand.--Abenyosef (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but it seems toi me that there is not a standard (and please don't shout) was of describing the events of 1833. Its also disputes that britian did not rule the islands as well. Yiou asked for sources, they were provided, you then ask for scholerly sources, you diusmissed thos for pedantic reasons, everytime you hacve aksed for something and its been provided you change the goal posts. Yes there are RS that use the term under discusion. Is it neutral, maybe not but then neither is occupation.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OK another go "Britain re-established its settlement in 1833"Slatersteven (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, it's not really accurate because the settlement already existed when the British showed up.

So, while I appreciate the thought, I don't think this proposal is a goer either. As Curry Monster says, we've gone through a lot of suggestions (not these specific ones, but others) before. It seems clear that Abenyosef is just going to go for his term, regardless of accuracy and other concerns. Sources have been provided for the current term (though we don't really need to source it), but he's just ignoring them. You're right: there's no standard terminology for this particular event and most people just use ad-hoc descriptions - and not always accurate ones. We have such an ad-hoc description, it's just that ours is accurate.

FWIW I find the status quo significantly more neutral than "occupation" (because "occupation" can imply illegitimacy). It is also much more accurate. The status quo is far from perfect, but it is the best name for this event that I have seen. Pfainuk talk 22:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would concur with that assessment. Whilst I appreciate the suggestions Slatersteven has put forward in good faith. As Slatersteven notes above, the goalposts keep moving. It seems clear that no matter what the discussion suggests Abenyosef is going to ignore it to insist on his preferred wording. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

@Pfainuk: We have examined two accounts of the 1833 events. One is "Britain re-established its rule." The other is "Britain occupied the islands." Both are POVs, both are disputed, but one has more scholarly support than the other.

Granted, you have presented you sources -- the Teheran Times, the Thailand Daily and the Bollocksville Express (for those of you about to report me, that last one is a joke, for God's sake). I have also presented my sources, which are far more numerous and scholarly.

So that here we have two competing accounts of one and the same event. You may think one is more accurate than the other, and I disagree with your POV, but what really counts is verifiability, not truth. And I have presented a wealth of sources for the concept "Britain occupied the islands."

Wikipedia mandates balance. Either we present both views, or none. The need for change stems from WP:Balance, not from any whim of mine. So if you have a proposal, I'm all ears.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And all the other sources you have chosen to ignore. Moreover (and again I will say it) Occupy does not invalidate re-establish rule, the two are not mutualy exlusive.You soources there fore do not trump the idea that Britian re-established its rule. Now if you accept that "Britain occupied the islands. is not nuetral do you have an alterantive?Slatersteven (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

New material. The British government itself once described the events as "the British occupation of 1833."[23]

I think this closes the case. A wording is neutral when it is acceptable to both sides of a conflict. I have proved that "Britain occupied the Falklands in 1833" is acceptable to the British media, academia and government. It is also acceptable to the Argentinian side. Therefore, it is as neutral as phrasings can get. It's the wording we shall use. If you guys can figure out how to also include the view that it was a re-establishment of British rule (while clarifying that it is a fringe view), we can include that view too.--Abenyosef (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that Foreign office memorandum are not official statements by the government, they are often correspondence between civil servants expressing their own personal views on a subject. You source quotes this without a context, so who was it written by, and under what circumstances? And no its not decided. I also note that I aksed you (as yuo accept that both terms are not neutral) to propopse an alterantive,m and instead you look for more stuff to back up your preferd term. It is therfore clrear that you have no interest in compromise and that you will not accept any solution except yours.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it "doesn't close the case", the comments of a civil servant do not represent an official statement by the British Government. For instance do we claim as an official statement by the Argentine Government that the British claim for sovereignty is "exceedingly strong". I can source a statement by one of your foreign ministers to that effect. You are clearly aware this is not neutral and you're repeatedly demanding the same when editors have made it plain its not acceptable. I take it you don't have an alternative? Does anyone else feel further discussions will be productive? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I feel (as I say above) that there is no posibility of compromise being reached (as none have been susgested), and it will just be tit for tat source roundabouts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WCM, we are not discussing the British claim for sovereignty. We are discussing what to call the 1833 events. There are two POVs. The current wording supports your POV, which states that it was a re-establishment of British rule. As per WP:Balance, we also need to present the alternative POV, amply documented by me, that it was an occupation. If you can make a proposal, I'm all ears. But we can't keep the current wording which violates WP:NPOV.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That was clearly not my point. The current wording does not violate WP:NPOV, what you propose does however and there is nothing to say we cannot keep the current status quo. I don't see any attempt to discuss you're simply repeating the same dubious claims, they've been rebutted but you keep making them. You're not going to be able to bore us into submission. I don't see the need to continue replying to you as its obvious you're not listening - please note having the last word doesn't mean you get your own way and I do not agree to implement what you propose. Bye. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The article states: "Britain re-established its rule in 1833." Do you think this is a statement accepted by both sides in this conflict? If it's not, it's a POV, and we've got to provide the alternative POV. My claim is that many reliable sources support the view that "Britain occupied the islands in 1833." My claim is about the existence of those sources, not about their truthfulness. How is that claim dubious? And how was it rebutted?--Abenyosef (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What I think is being said is that you rfuse to entertain any idea other then that Britian occupied the Falklands, and that your sources do not trump any otehr source. Both "Britain re-established its rule in 1833." and "Britain occupied the islands in 1833." (you accpet) are laoded terms, as such neitehr should really be used. Do yoou have any alterantive propossals or are you just demanding that one POV take president over another?Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Abenyosef, if you feel that this is a POV problem, please take the matter to the WP:NPOVN. The discussion in this talk page regarding this topic is already done. Consensus has so far been in favor of maintaining the status quo. Considering that the current term "Re-establishment of British Rule" is not only a consensus term but also the title of an article, it may be difficult for your position to succeed (though, arguably nothing is impossible). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

MarshalN20, consensus can change when new materials are presented, as I have done here. Moreover, consensus is achieved through reasoned argumentation. My argumentation is that "Britain re-established its rule" does not enjoy support from the academia, the media or even the British government. On the other hand, "Britain occupied the Falklands" is the description overwhelmingly used by scholars, news outlets and even the British government in its internal documents. We want a high-quality encyclopedia. Are you satisfied with a consensus that runs contrary to all scholarship on the article's topic? I want to discuss this on this page. I don't want to begin a war.

My concern is that "Britain re-established its rule" is practically a Wikipedia creation. We've turned over the cyberspace and haven't been able to find a single reference text describing in that way the 1833 events. The reason is simple: Britain didn't rule the Falklands before 1833; it only possessed a short-lived settlement on an island west of West Falkland, while the Spaniards had a much larger and stabler settlement in Puerto Soledad on East Falkland. While it may be true that Britain claimed sovereignty over the whole Falklands (and even that is disputed), it is plainly false that it ruled them.

When the consensus is not true and, more to the point, not backed by an overwhelmingly majority of the sources, it needs to be revised. It's the quality of the article that is at stake.--Abenyosef (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So you reject my proposals?Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You sound surprised, he has pretended mine above didn't exist.

Running with scissors is too dangerous for Wikipedia! Wee Curry Monster talk 15:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK how about "British expedition of 1833"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Or "Falklands becomes a British Crown Colony 1833" a pure statment of fact with out pushing anyones POV.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe something needs to be said about the military aspect of the events. How about "In 1833, after a military operation, Britain displaced an Argentinian garrison and established a crown colony."--Abenyosef (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Which military operation would that be? There was nothing more than an exchange of notes. How about "In 1833, the British sent a polite note asking the Argentine garrison that had been present less than 3 months to leave, after thinking about it for a bit, they did." Wee Curry Monster talk 15:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be too much detail for a lede. On another note, the garrison chose not to fight, but it was a military operation nonetheless.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal did not mention millitray operation, why do you want it mentioned now? Also its not the lead its the info box, what you prpose is realy fat too long.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK then in "In 1833, a crack British military stationery unit sent a polite but really stern note asking that the Argentine garrison that had been present less than 3 months should leave, after thinking about it for a bit and impressed by the obviously superior pensmanship of the British, they did". Wee Curry Monster talk 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

British writing instruments can be quite deadly, or so I've learned.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets not take the piss. I oppose the mention of a millitary operation as far to much detail, for an info box throw away line.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK I won't make reference to the crack special forces unit from Interflora, trained in silent killing and flower arranging - instant death with floral tribute. A military operation is completely inaccurate, there was no military operation. The mere presence of a warship does not make it a military operation, thats like claiming the visit of HMS Beagle was an amphibious assault. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's another: "In 1833, British forces displaced/evacuated an Argentinian garrison and a crown colony was established." And in the info box: "Ruled by Great Britain since: 1833."--Abenyosef (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Except the colony was established in 1841, until that time the only persons present was the naval contingent and the survivors of Vernet's settlement. You've made repeated allegations this is POV, it isn't.

a) It is not POV to say the islands have been ruled by the UK since 1833, whether or not you agree that it is legitimate - it remains a fact.

b) It is not POV to say that Britain had previously exercised sovereignty, whether or not you agree that it was legitimate - it remains a fact.

If you claim that Britain never previously ruled the Falklands, because it only had a settlement on West Falkland, then consider this. Vernet's settlement was on East Falkland and the presence of the Argentine Garrison for the few days before Mestivier's murder was also on East Falkland only. Both were confined to a small area around Port Louis. If we apply this strict narrow interpretation of what constitutes "rule", then by this new strict standard, Argentina has NEVER ruled the Falklands. Is this really the line you wish to take, because I'm fascinated to know the answer. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not accurate. No new settlement, and no crown colony, was established on the islands by any party in 1833. The islands didn't weren't given crown colony status until 1845. The garrison, when asked to leave, did so aboard an Argentine ship - "evacuated" in this context implies otherwise. And "displaced" does rather imply that force was used, when it was not. Pfainuk talk 18:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, of course we can change that to "In 1833, British warships forced an Argentinian garrison to evacuate the islands, and a crown colony was established in 1845." A source using this wording: [24].

WCM, between your points (a) and (b) you change your terminology from "rule" to "sovereignty." They're not the same! As for your last paragraph, we're discussing British rule, not Argentinian rule. I never said anything about Argentinian rule. Also, the British settlement was not even on West Falkland. It was on Saunders Island.

Finally, the word "re-establishment" is tricky, as it has a clear connotation of justice done. Even if you could prove that Britain had previously ruled over the island it occupied in 1833 (which you can't), linking that previous rule to the rule after 1833 would constitute WP:SYNTHESIS.--Abenyosef (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the rules has changed over the course of the last three days that means that we are now required to make up our article solely out of quotes from sources.

Your wording, claiming that the British forced the Argentine garrison to remove the islanders from the islands, is biased and inaccurate. The large majority of the civilian islanders from before 1833 in fact remained on the islands. No force was used.

I do not accept this claim that "re-establishment" has "a clear connotation of justice done". The word does not have any such connotation. At all.

Your suggestion that Britain only claimed Saunders Island as opposed to the islands as a whole remains as much original research as it was three days ago. It is fact, not opinion, that Britain had control prior to 1833 - control to a similar extent to all three other countries (France, Spain and Argentina) during this period. So, would you accept it if we took your argument to its only logical conclusion and altered the article on the assumption that Argentina never controlled the islands prior to 1982? Pfainuk talk 22:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In the first place, notice that I'm not using the wording I would like (i.e. "Britain occupied the islands"), so I'm trying to strike a compromise. I'm describing the expulsion of the garrison using a reliable source. Do you have a competing source that describes it otherwise? Please notice that I carefully use the word garrison. I'm aware that Britain didn't expel the settlers themselves, and I haven't claimed otherwise.

Next, this is an article about the Falkland Islands, not about the settlement of Egmont. If you say that Britain re-established its rule, you have to prove that it ruled over the whole archipelago prior to 1833. It did not. The Spaniards had a relatively large settlement in Puerto Soledad, with appointed governors and all, at the same time that the British possessed theirs on Saunders Island. When the British landed on East Falkland in 1833, they can hardly be said to have re-established their rule, since they had never effectively ruled over that island.

By comparison (not that I want to discuss Argentina's rights at this moment), when the Argentinians established the settlement of Puerto Luis there was no competing settlement from a foreign power on either island.--Abenyosef (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Abenyosef and Slatersteven, I share your feelings and I support some of your proposals, but this is a discussion that should be about the name of the article Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands, not only this particular case here. I had the same argument once here and requested an external 3O, and he recommended to name the wikilink with the same name that the article. This is only an opinion, of course, but it does make sense to build consensus in one central point instead of having this argument all over the place.

I'd suggest we move this section to Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. I don't think it will make any difference on the outcome, but I believe that'd be the appropriate place.

Cheers! --Langus (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Langus, Wikipedia policy mandates that articles should be self-contained. If an assertion is used in an article, both the assertion and its use must be justified in that article. The assertion that "Britain re-established its rule" has never been made in scholarly texts and is a WP:FRINGE theory. Jimbo Wales has stated:

*If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in
Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

We have not been provided with citations to either reference texts or prominent authors supporting the viewpoint that Britain re-established its rule in 1833. Therefore the claim does not belong in Wikipedia.

In your discussions with WCM, he just muddled the waters by taking the debate to whether it is true or not that Britain ruled the islands before 1833. We need not delve into that. The only thing that matters here is if the reliable sources available support that view. And the reliable sources, by an OVERWHELMING majority (sorry for the caps, but I NEED to stress that), support the view that the 1833 events were an occupation.--Abenyosef (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Britain re-established its rule" isn't a 'Theory', as you so put it, but a description. An occupation could easily fit this description. CMD (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a description that contains a POV, namely that Britain had ruled over the whole Falklands before 1833. That POV isn't backed by either reference texts or prominent adherents. It is held by an extremely small minority, namely a few Wikipedia editors. It doesn't belong in the encyclopedia.--Abenyosef (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is your own interpretation, not backed up by comments above. Your suggestion that the current wording is not backed up by sources is false (as has been repeatedly pointed out to you) and there is in any case nothing in policy that requires text to be made up solely of quotes from sources. This discussion is going around in circles at this stage. It is clear that no consensus has been or is likely to be reached for change, and as such WP:STICK is now the most appropriate response here. Pfainuk talk 18:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pfainuk, unfortunately you introduce small changes to my words, but unfortunately for you I realize so. I didn't say that your POV, which doesn't enjoy academic support, is unsourced. You've provided sources, true. But policy requires that majority POVs be supported by commonly accepted reference texts, and minority POVs be adhered to by prominent authors. You haven't been able to provide either. Therefore, although sources you do have, they're an extremely small minority of all sources, and not of the kind required. The vast majority supports the POV that 1833 was an occupation.

So that it's not that this discussion is going around in circles. It's that I'm asking for what Jimbo Wales would ask for to support a POV, and you're not providing it. Commonly accepted reference texts and prominent authors that support the POV that Britain re-established its rule in 1833. Per policy you must name them.--Abenyosef (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)