Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Revert the revert - 22 September 2011

I have reverted the revert.

The Wikipedia article says "While it is possible that Patagonian Indians may have visited before this, the islands were uninhabited when they were discovered by Europeans."

The reference in the Wikipedia article quotes the source (which is available on the Internet) with the following text: "It is thought that Patagonian Indians may have reached the islands by canoe, but when the Europeans encountered the islands in the seventeenth century, they were uninhabited." The only things that the quote adds to the article are that the Europeans first arrived at the Falklands in the seventeenth century - the article already states that and that the Indians arrived by canoe - how else did they arrive? fly?

Martinvl (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. If it's already mentioned in the article, no need to have it a second time. But I'm a little confused, is there also misrepresentation of source here? /: --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No there isn't. Whether the islands were visited by Patagonians or simply a canoe drifted across the South Atlantic we simply don't know. There are no signs of human remains to give a definitive answer. Whilst I don't disagree with Martin's edit of my rewrite of this section, I would suggest that for future reference he follow WP:BRD to prevent edit wars where other editors do. We have enough discord on this article already. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

UN nomenclature and C24 resolution on Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

I have added some valid info on the nomenclature used by the UN when naming these islands, which is in Spanish "Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) or in English "Falkand Islands (Malvinas) and, also, the clarifying statement which reads "According to the UN Comitee of Decolonization it is a Non-Self-Governing territory administered by the United Kingdom, whose sovereignity is disputed by Argentina and the United Kingdom. The latter helps understanding that the sovereignity of the islands is in dispute between the two countries, which is indeed relevant information. Besides, it parallels with the Spanish article of Islas Malvinas in the information given, remember this is an article about the islands, not about the Falklands as a British Overseas Territory. I believe the measures taken here on my contribution be reviewed.

Every item of information you allege you "added" is already in the article but treated in manner that is entirely in line with the policy of a WP:NPOV. Your edit does not. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Pfainuk talk 22:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, we will not see the article here reduced to the POV dribble that the Spanish article is, with its cable of non-neutral editors staking it out 24/7. But hey, as that's there Wikipedia, let them have it that way. I'm sorry that was a little naughty of me, but WCM is right, it's already there, these edits where in clear violation of NPOV. (BRB, Cat is looting my trash can) Add- also, sign your posts pretty please, and don't edit war. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Spanish Wikipedia does not follow what here in the English WP is considered "NPOV", mainly because we have certain "ammendments" to several of the rules which they do not. Hence you have that website be a really biased version of Wikipedia (a great example of what the English WP should not become). Of course, that does not take out the fact that many of you tend to quickly politicize the suggestions made in this talk page. WP:GF is clearly not in the mind of the people "dominant" in this talk page, and claims of "NPOV" are used carelessly and to support claims of superiority ("I am an NPOV editor, bow before me" attitude). In other words, some of the editor's attitudes really need some work.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, if I feel that an edit or proposal fails WP:NPOV, I am not going to pretend that it does not. And if a proposal breaks WP:NPOV, that's a good reason to oppose it. I am disappointed that you fail to WP:AAGF here.

I note that much of the discussion since you arrived has been on naming of the islands. This is a topic that has been politicised by the parties to the RL dispute, not by us. All we can do is follow actual usage in English, which means "Falkland Islands", while respecting the Argentine POV on the subject (hence referring to Islas Malvinas in the lede). I would remind you that it was exactly this topic that nearly pushed the article to Arbcom a few years ago. This is why the request in the comment at the top of the article - that it be reopened only if there are overriding new arguments - is there. There are no such arguments here.

In this case, the point is pretty basic. The proposal massively overemphasises the UN, which has no role (either de jure or de facto) in governing the islands. No other entity on the C24 list mentions this in its infobox and it's POV to mention it here. It inappropriately overemphasises the name used by the UN at Argentina's insistence (which is neutrally mentioned in the article) over the conventional neutral name in the English-language. Pfainuk talk 10:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow MarshalN20, what a random and aggressive, AGF breaching post that was. Talking like you just have makes me wonder if a block is in order or a topic ban, because I'm frankly sick of your attitude. Your bottom accusations are pretty funny, thanks for cheering me up as I have a bad cold at the moment by the way. (Oh, really your first comment about how the Spanish version is non-Bias made me wee-wee myself laughing) --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

@Pfainuk, I have not proposed any changes to the article. My position has been that of supporting what I see as improvement proposals. The only responses I have received from the side against make little to no sense. I asked for a single source to prove that "Malvinas Islands" is a fringe term with an anti-British agenda, but that has not even been provided. But writing to you won't make a difference.

@Τασουλα, I feel you are throwing a hook for me to bite on, but I promised a good acquaintance that I would not. I honestly did not even notice your existence in this discussion, but considering your usage of the term "wee-wee", I find it as no surprise that I would have ignored you. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is very clear that the burden of evidence lies with the editor proposing that we add or restore material. That would be you. You're the one advocating that we imply that Malvinas Islands is commonly used in English. You are the one claiming that to be fact and you're the one who wants to put it in the article. That means that the onus is on you to prove it, and all we've seen from you is a Google Books search that doesn't back you up. Pfainuk talk 14:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That you found a few errors on the search does not justify your claim that GB does not back me up. As you mentioned in the other discussion, the "Islas Falklands" search also has its mistakes. However, for one you discredit my position, but for the other you give more leniency. What exactly is going on here?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw similar things to Pfaink, particularly the fact your search picked up Falklands (Malvinas) Islands. On the other hand, WCM has provided articles which discuss a huge reaction to Islas Falklands being used, as well as the note that Argentina had to obtain a ruling in various bodies to make sure only Islas Malvinas was used as the name. That's fairly strong evidence Islas Falklands isn't that rare in Spanish. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not claiming that "Islas Falklands" is a rare term (It meets the 10% rule per the 1:10 ratio), however my stance is that the term "Malvinas Islands" meets the same standards per the similar statistics ("Malvinas Islands" isn't that rare in English). WCM has provided an article which speaks of a controversy between Chile and Argentina...that's as surprising as Cain arguing with Abel, or Palestine fighting with Israel. It doesn't prove anything. Argentina trying to officialize the name "Islas Malvinas" is a matter that deserves mention, but it does not prove anything in favor to WCM's position either. No study exists as to which name is the "most used" in Spanish, or which country uses what term the most. If Argentina used the term in the past, that only proves its historical significance, but nothing more; just as my search found books from the 1800s hence also proving the historical usage of the term "Malvinas Islands". The actual invasion took place in the 20th century, so it's not fair to assume that the 19th century sources would be having a "political bias" of any sort.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I concur with MarshallN20 here. It's curious how a Google Books hit-count search is enough to demonstrate 'Islas Falkland' use in Spanish but not to investigate 'Malvinas Islands' in English. The observations of how are the results composed of are mostly a matter of personal interpretation. For example, "Islas Falklands" is used in a political way by that Chilean Major, yet it seems that most editors here don't get the feeling that it may be a fringe term used with political intentions. Moreover, the amount of media coverage it received, the official responses on the Argentine side, and the fact that an argument of 'fairly common usage' is never used to chill out the moods, is to me an indication that the term is rare in Spanish. Chipmunkdavis, the fact that Argentina banned the usage of 'Islas Falklands' says nothing about its use: it was a nationalistic political move, probably in the context of other laws about Falklands and Antarctica sovereignty. I mean, if C.Kirchner bans the flights to Falkland Islands it doesn't necessarily means that there's a fuel shortage, or that there are technical difficulties with that route.

Anyways, my personal view up to this point is that neither 'Islas Falklands' or 'Malvinas Islands' hold enough relevance to be included in the article. Both are scratching the 10% mark, and in a highly controversial article like this, that's just not good enough. Common sense.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually pointed this out above. The search for Islas Falkland does a bit better than Malvinas Islands in terms of apparently neutral usages, but that isn't saying much. While Marshal claims a minority of neutral English-speakers who use "Malvinas Islands" as a standard term for the islands without political intent, I did not find a single entry in his Google Books search that met this standard. I did find some for Islas Falkland, falling between three general categories: Chilean, old and translated. You say "[b]oth are scratching the 10% mark". I reject this. In terms of actual hits demonstrating minority usage, neither comes even close to 10%. Add the WP:COMMON argument to this and the history of this issue on Wikipedia, and I agree that it is better just not to go there. Pfainuk talk 20:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the consensus decision being reached that of neither "Islas Falkland" or "Malvinas Islands" should be mentioned in the article? Based on Langus' statement, I am willing to accept this compromise.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we can agree that neither should be in the lead. I don't however see why we can't mention Islas Falkland in the name section due to its wide historical usage. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. I can agree to that as well as long as a small mention is also made of the term "Malvinas Islands" in the etymology section.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on what? You've produced no evidence so far that it gets used by anyone bar the Argentine government and the odd partisan. We have OTOH seen evidence of usage of Islas Falkland as a neutral term (historically, regionally and in translation). Not much, but some.

There is no argument for treating these two terms equally unless they actually get used equally in the real world - unless (as is my preference) we decide due weight requires including neither. The evidence we've seen so far suggests that Islas Falkland should be given greater weight as it receives more usage. Pfainuk talk 15:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep trying to hide the existence of the term "Malvinas Islands"? The Google Books search has demonstrated its existence, even with all your "ifs and buts" on the matter. You only pick those books which "support" your position and ignore the existence of those that actually support the existence of the term "Malvinas Islands". You go as far as to claim that the "/" does not stand for "or", when it is a basic concept of any language in the world that the "/" is equal to "or". No concrete evidence has been provided which suggests "Islas Falkland" should be given greater weight to "Malvinas Islands", or viceversa.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We acknowledge its existence. We however find nothing to show it is anything but a deliberate POV term used by the Argentinian government and supporters, rather than a term used in normal english. The terms should not be looked at together, but separately. Looking separately, one had widespread historical usage. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion keeps going around in circles. You acknowledge the existence of the English term, but disregard it under the assumption that it is solely an Argentinean government term (going back to the point where you only cherry pick those sources which are convenient to you and ignore the others). I, on the other hand, do not deny that "political groups" use the term, but that does not mean that only they use it. In fact, no source claims that "Malvinas Islands" is solely used by pro-Argentinean political groups. Why you want to assume this is beyond my understanding (it's not, but I'll just asume it is for the sake of GF).

Claiming that "Islas Falklands" has widespread historical usage is yet another strange assumption. Sometimes it seems universities should begin to hand out "Etymology" certificates so that people can actually do personal research on the historical usage of names. Otherwise we end up in situations such as this, where WP:OR becomes common law.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states unequivocally that the use of Malvinas Islands is in fact an English term? As opposed to being used politically as a translation of Islas Malvinas in Argentine documents and comes up as a false positive because of Falkland (Malvinas) Island? We can source the UN designation and we can source that Argentina uses the term.

We can source that Islas Falkland was in use in Argentina till 1941, at which point it was banned. We can source that it is used in places like Chile and the Chilean Government has since adopted Islas Malvinas. We can source that Argentina has sought to have its use banned in Mercosur and Unasur. We can source that Argentina has sought to have it banned as a Spanish term.

At the end of the day its what you can source that counts. There has been several accusations of OR but not one single source has been put forward to verify the presumption that Malvinas Islands is an English language term. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If "Malvinas Islands" was not an English term, then it would not exist as such. The existence has been demonstrated and accepted. The term which is not English is "Islas Malvinas". Is this difficult to understand?

You base your assumption that "in places like Chile" the term is used because one mayor in a southern province of the longest country in the world said it?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Yes/No. I can source my comments, that is not the only one I have. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No source is necessary to demonstrate that "Malvinas Islands" is an English term while "Islas Malvinas" is the Spanish term. Common knowledge does not require citation.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So you can't provide a source to sustain your claim. In which case it does not belong in the article. It is not an English language term. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to spend your life thinking that valid translations are not "English language terms" (it's a wonder what language you think it is), go ahead. If you want to counter the term by arguing that it's of minor usage, that's reasonable and subject to debate, but to have made an issue over a valid translation is astoundingly...Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wee, could you please source this?:

1. "that Islas Falkland was in use in Argentina till 1941"
2. "that it is used in places like Chile"

Also bear in mind that we need to know how much it was/is used. The bannings doesn't necessarily have a direct relation with usage, so there's no need to source those (although that material would be interesting).

Thank you. --Langus (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I reference a paper above by Carlos Escude and it was used in 22% of Argentine text books at that time. Why are you asking again for a source already provided? I'll provide more sources regarding Chile when I'm ready. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You must first present the sources before making the claims. I have read the Escude source and at no point does he mention anything about "22%". A mayor in Chile stating something does not support your claim that all of Chile uses the term. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@WCM: I'm asking because I've obviously missed it in the first time.

Carlos Escudé seems to have strong feelings towards Argentina.. he doesn't struck me as a neutral writer. Check out these titles:

• "Argentina: A 'Parasite State' on the Verge of Disintegration", Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 15, October 2002;
• "La Argentina, ¿Paria Internacional?" ("Argentina: international pariah?"), Ed. de Belgrano, 1984;
• "The Falklands will never be Argentine", in The Future of the Falkland Islands and Its People, Manfred Wörner Foundation, 2003;
• "From Captive to Failed State: Argentina under Systemic Populism, 1975-2006", in The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol. 30, 2006

The list goes on and on... I've only been able to read a few passages of his texts online, and I have to say he seems more interested in proving a point to the reader than to research history.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The comments above by Marshall illustrate why I'm not going to go on supplying source after source. Escudes paper lists the number of publications that use the term Islas Falkland out of a total number. I simply converted it to a % to illustrate minority usage. Now he is quibbling that Escude doesn;t mention a %. This is simply filibustering.

Carlos Escude of the University of Buenos Aires, supporter of Christina and Nestor Kirchner, the same guy who wrote Argentina's online history for the Argentine Government. Winner of multiple awards for historical research. If you're claiming he is unreliable then we have to remove pretty much all Argentine claims from wikipedia, as they are mostly based on his work. Really take this to WP:RSN, because claiming Escude is anti-Argentine is frankly ridiculous.

In addition, it is fairly well known in Argentina, that the term Islas Falkland is used in Chile. Largely it has to be said due to the long term antagonism between the two nations. If you're interested in working collaboratively, perhaps you could do some research for a supporting cite in the Spanish language. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN of evidence falls upon you for your claim. The concept of collaboration is each bringing in their own material, not me bringing it for you. Trying to use my previous comment as an excuse not to provide sources is laughable at best. Considering the source you are providing is not a book (no division by page numbers), you should provide the actual part of the text (some copy-pasted quote) so that others may check your conclusion. So far, I have yet to find the information which supports what you are claiming. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a strange idea of collaboration, here you acknowledge my point that it is used in Chile but you're not prepared to use your language skills to help. I have found citations for people many times, I do so to be helpful even when I find the facts uncomfortable. No matter I have other cites, I choose not to list them until my proposed edit is ready. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith from your presentation, not "acknowledging" your position as a fact. If you cannot provide sourced evidence for your claim after being asked to do so, then I can no longer assume GF for your original claim. Please stop changing the subject and making a drama out of this discussion. Focus on the material at hand.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You say Malvino, I say Falkino

I don't follow this page, but happened by and read some of this lengthy debate. The name issue is, of course, fraught with politics and controversy. The use of "Islas Malvinas" in English is, I think, usually related to the politics of controversies of the late 20th century. The use of "Malvinas Islands" in English is probably even more likely to be politically motivated. However, there are exceptions. Although dwarfed by the number of references to the Falklands War and controversy surrounding it, in the field of history there is English usage of "Malvinas", even "Malvinas Islands". Personally, I have never been all that interested in the Falklands War or the modern controversies and disputes. But I am very interested in the history of the Americas, the Spanish Empire, and the general history of European exploration, colonization, and imperialism. I'm particularly interested in the Spanish Empire's often overlooked role in the history of the Pacific Northwest. Since voyages from Europe to the Pacific Northwest almost always went by way of Cape Horn, the Falklands often come up in histories. There is a growing interest among English-speaking historians in lesser known or long overlooked Spanish expeditions such as the Malaspina Expedition, which stopped at the Falklands, and careers of people like Dionisio Alcalá Galiano, who spent time in the Falklands before later joining Malaspina's expedition. In short, there are a growing number of English history books that focus on Spanish Empire era expeditions, explorers, naval officers, etc. In these types of books it is not uncommon for the Falklands to be called the Malvinas. Why historians often use the word "Malvinas" is usually impossible to say, but it seems to me usually because for those people at that time the islands were called the Malvinas. The usage in history books of this type is not, I think, some kind of modern day political statement. It is more akin to using "La Florida" for Spanish Florida. Or like using "Núñez Gaona" to refer to Neah Bay and the short-lived Spanish outpost there, as you sometimes find in books about Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra. It is impossible to use Internet search tools to measure usage of terms in politically neutral ways in English language scholarly history books, but in my experience, for whatever that is worth, when such books use the word "Malvinas" it is most commonly in the form "Islas Malvinas" or simply "the Malvinas" ([1]). Sometimes you see "Las Malvinas" ([2]). And, yes, even "Malvinas Islands" ([3]). I think these three examples are basically neutral with regard to modern political conflicts. There are other examples, but they are hard to find without sifting through the majority of uses that do refer to the modern conflict. Also, many books on obscure bits of history are not previewable on Google Books.

None of this is to argue for any particular change to make or not make on this page. Having read all the debate here I just thought it worth pointing out a field in which these terms can and do occur outside the modern day political arena. I don't even see a place on this page, as it currently stands, where mention of this kind of detail would be warranted. Certainly not in the lead. Pfly (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There has never been any intention to mention it in the lede. If the examples you give, the Spanish and English language versions are used, the example of Malvinas Islands is in a work by a Spanish language researcher Dr CARLOS MARICHAL of the University of Harvard and the University of Mexico. Its a direct translation of the Spanish term Islas Malvinas. We've already noted its use as a translation, there is nothing to support the claim it is used as genuine English term. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you are right, that book is not the best example, although the book is not translated from Spanish. It seems to have been written in English. Still, the author may have translated from Spanish in his head. I won't belabor the point, and I could be wrong about the term sometimes, very rarely, being used in English, but how about [4]? Or, less useful and less clear, [5]? In any case, even if the term is used it is extremely rare. And I don't much like it myself, as if feels like calling the Sierra Nevada "Nevada Mountains", or the Rio Grande "Grand River". Perhaps I'm making your point for you! Pfly (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The second article refers to and article that was eventually published as a book Dios y los Halcones, which is the Argentine Air Force (FAA) experience in the Falklands War. The first is referring to the Spanish name again. But yes you're making the point for me. Un abrazo. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of something I thought when reading Escudé's paper: he talks there about the usage of "Falklands" vs "Malvinas", but it isn't clear to me if they were actually written as "Islas Falkland" or "Falkland Islands", or even "Las Falkland". Regards. --Langus (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

@WCM, language translations are indeed valid English terms. It's illogical to claim otherwise considering all of the terms the English language has adapted as translations from foreign languages. "Malvinas Islands" is obviously not a Spanish term, much less is it gibberish, and there is no such thing as a word with no language (otherwise it's not a word).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Your claim is it is an English name, it is not, it is merely a translation of Islas Malvinas. You cannot produce a cite to support your claim. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's a valid English translation, thereby another acceptable form to call the islands in the English language, then it is indeed an English term. No citation is required for common knowledge (common sense!).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That does not make it an equivalent English language name or term and you are required to provide a cite for the claim you make. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If "Malvinas Islands" is not an English term, then what exactly is it?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A direct translation. Languages often don't directly translate, especially in terms of names. We don't call China "Middle Country" in English, but that's what a direct translation yields. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, going on about whether it's technically an "English term" or not is not really relevant here. Nobody's arguing that the term Malvinas Islands has never been used in an English-language context - such a position is readily disprovable - and beyond that we're really getting into the semantics of "English term". Such discussion is off topic, as it is not related to this article.

The relevant question is whether the prevalence of Malvinas Islands (as opposed to constructions that mention both Falklands and Malvinas) is significant enough to warrant a mention in the article. Marshal now appears to be arguing that this is "common knowledge" that does not require a source. Naturally, I dispute this. I have not seen any evidence that its usage is in any sense widespread enough to merit a mention here.

There is a similar case being made for Islas Falkland, primarily by Curry Monster. Marshal argues - again, without reference to sources - that the usage of the two is inherently symmetrical and thus that inclusion of Islas Falkland must inherently mean inclusion of Malvinas Islands. In fact, based on the sources that I have seen, the prevalence of Islas Falkland in Spanish appears to be rather greater than the prevalence of Malvinas Islands in English - though both are rather small minority usages. According to WP:WEIGHT, Islas Falkland would thus be given more weight than Malvinas Islands (unless it is judged that neither belongs, which is my preference). Pfainuk talk 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I was inclined to go along with the view that Islas Falkland was only worth mentioning in passing as a minor language term. This is where the discussion started. However, it is clear that the Argentine Government has expanded considerable energy getting the term banned in Mercosur and Unasur and refuses to use the English language equivalent. That is of itself an interesting fact. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion moved to noticeboard

An example of drama which can be enjoyable, unlike the variety seen on Wikipedia.

[6] Sadly I have to report that Marshall has taken this dicussion to a noticeboard, without bringing this to the attention of the participants in the discussion here. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Asking a question at the Language Reference Desk does not have to be "reported" here since (a) It's nothing more than a language question, (b) It won't affect the article in any significant way, and (c) LRD does not enforce any great policy on the organization. It is amusing how you're trying to make a WP:DRAMA out of this, but please do go on if it warms your heart. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree very much on that Wee Curry Monster is overly dramatizing things, and generally negative, and discouraging. I say this not to "attack Wee Curry" but so that he (and others) think on the attitude they have and how to create an constructive atmosphere of colaboration and good faith assumption. Chiton magnificus (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that making comments such as:

“ It is amusing how you're trying to make a WP:DRAMA out of this, but please do go on if it warms your heart. ”

Overly dramatise things, and are generally likely to inflame discussion. They do little to benefit this discussion and are likely to make future collaboration more difficult. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all editors to remain civil and to assume good faith in other contributors. Pfainuk talk 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To be or not to be...that's not the question. Please stop with this silly topic.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Section: Before the Falkland Wars

Hi.

• In this section we have this sentence: "In April 1982, four months after Leopoldo Galtieri became President of Argentina, Argentine military forces invaded the islands leading to the Falklands War".

• I think it will be appropriate to specify that Leopoldo Galtieri became a de facto president, that is, he wasn't elected democratically, and that Argentina had benn under military-rule for several years when their forces invaded the Islands. It is a brief an accurate description of the relevant sociopolitical context in Argentina before and during the war, thus, I believe it is appropriate to include it.

• The modified sentence could be: "In April 1982, a few months before the end of a seven-year period of military-rule in Argentina, and four months after Leopoldo Galtieri became the de facto President of that country, Argentine military forces invaded the islands leading to the Falklands War".

• Sources supporting this information can be found in several articles, including: Leopoldo Galtieri, Dirty War, National Reorganisation Process, among others.

• Perhaps the term "military-rule" could be changed for a more popular one, like "military junta", or even "dictatorship" (vastly documented and the most popular of the three, I think), though this last term might not be POV compliant. Nevertheless, I'm looking to refer in the article to the political situation by that time, not to use any specific vocabulary, provided it's accurate, of course.

• Regards. 190.195.39.223 (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points. This is an article about the Falkland Islands and isn't an opus on the socio-political context in Argentina. We're providing an overview of the Falkland Islands and extraneous facts will be pruned ruthlessly. The facts you're seeking to add fall into that category. They also have the effect of softening the responsibility upon Argentina, by claiming it was solely the actions on an unpopular military regime, when in fact the invasion was hugely popular - ie not representative of the socio-political context in Argentina. So for those reasons I would oppose such a change. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for coming. I'm glad we can finally discuss this really small, but I think important, topic. I'll answer your two arguments, they are: 1.This article isn't an opus 2. We shouldn't mention Argentina's dictatorial regime before and during the war, not to make Argentinian population look less responsible for it.

• 1. No, this article isn't an opus, and it won't be an opus if we add 15 words or so, which is what I proposed, though here you have an alternative that will only have 6 more words than the present sentence: "In April 1982, during Leopoldo Galtieri's de facto presidency, shortly before the end of seven years of military-rule, Argentine military forces invaded the islands leading to the Falklands War". Your exaggerated comparison to an opus is unfair and, I think, refuted.
• 2. Your second argument is close to be a biased one, let's see, if you say that showing this information will soften the responsability upon "Argentina" (I don't know what exactly are you refering to by "Argentina", but I deduce you are refering to the very complex, vague and delicate concept of Argentinian population), then you must agree that hiding this information will make them look more responsible. Should we try to make the Argentinian people look more or less responsible for this war? I believe you're asking yourself a wrong question and by answering it you are falling into a biased opinion in this discussion. From a perspective as neutral as posible, I say, the question to ask is: Is the military-ruled political context in Argentina relevant to the war? Simple as that, briefly mentioning (in 6 words, remember) the existance of a dictatorship (military junta, or whatever term you choose) during the war is relevant to the event, and that should be our concern, whether it makes or not the people of the country look less guilty (again, "Argentinians", "Argentinian people" or "Argentina", as well as any other nation's people, are concepts of very difficult definition, and I wouldn't advise you to treat them the same way you can refer to governments, institutions or individuals). Regards 190.195.39.223 (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And just look at your counter argument. You allege my respone is "exaggerated", you don't address the argument you attack the person. Its just XXX more words has to be one of the arguments most often encountered on wikipdedia and the most bankrupt; its always XXX more words dedicated to a tangential topic to the argument and always XXX more words to soften and subtly shift the POV away from a genuine NPOV. No my comments were definitely not refuted, if anything your reference to guilt shows they were spot on. You wish to add more words on a tangential subject and I do not agree.

Is the military ruled context relevant to the war? Quite simply no. Adulant crowds in the Plaza de Mayo conclusively demonstrate it was a widely popular move with huge support. Trying to twist the argument claiming this is bias on my part, when you're trying to subtly shift the POV that there was no support from the Argentine people for the move is where bias is creeping in.

If you were writing from a NPOV, then you own views would not be apparent. I didn't mention the word guilt once; my exact comment was your edit didn't represent the socio-political context in Argentina. You might like to think about your reference to "guilt". Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You ask: [i]s the military-ruled political context in Argentina relevant to the war? This is the wrong question: the article on the war is at Falklands War, and it quite correctly gives detail of Argentina's political situation. The correct question is whether the domestic political circumstances in Argentina directly prior to the war are directly relevant to the history of the islands - and I don't see that they are. This applies both to the formal legality of Galtieri and the régime and its fall following the war.

I also think that the words de facto strongly imply that the régime was illegal, but is too short to explain this adequately. I'm not convinced that this is neutral. While it was certainly a thoroughly unpleasant régime, and many things that it did were certainly illegal (as per judgements of Argentine and foreign courts), Wikipedia policy is to describe events, to allow the reader to gain an informed judgement. I'm not convinced that putting a de facto in there does this, or that this is a relevant enough subject for us to get bogged down in here - it's too far into Argentine domestic politics, while this is an article on the Falklands. The important points here so far as the Falklands are concerned are that it was the Argentine government, that it was a military régime, that it invaded, and the reasons for the invasion. All are already mentioned.

On length, the issue is that if we added only six words to every point the article makes, we'd end up with a very long article. Better to pare the article down to the essentials and leave the detail for more detailed articles. Pfainuk talk 22:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wee:Let's calm down. I didn't attack you, I addressed your arguments when I said comparing the modified sentence I want to include to an opus was an exaggeration. Or will you deny you exaggerated? And, again, you have exaggerated by saying I attacked you.
• This guilt thing was your argument in the first place, not mine, you just called it responsability, which is even a graver thing to say, and harder to mantain with arguments. My reply is that you should precisely understand that trying to make the Argentinian people look more guilty, or responsible if you want, is not a neutral point of view, and even less it resembles an argument, it is your point of view, in my opinion biased. But you insist with this idea of making the citizens look guilty and this time you do bring an argument, that is that "Adulant crowds in the Plaza de Mayo conclusively demonstrate it was a widely popular move".
• The thing is, your point of view isn't neutral, even if your argument behind it is, instead of discussing whether we should be making Argentinian population look more guilty, or responsible, or in support of the war, if you like, the question I proposed to answer was: "Is the military-ruled context relevant to the war? You answered "Quite simply no." But you didn't brought any argument to hold this.

• Hello Pfainuk. Wellcome to the discussion and thanks for your message. You said that "The important points [...] are that it was the Argentine government, that it was a military régime...". Fair enough! But that isn't included presently, I think, and is exactly what I'm trying to discuss with Wee. The present sentence doesn't mention it was a military régime.
• Regarding the use of de facto, you say that strongly implies it was an illegal government. Look, before refering to that, let me say the term de facto is used to describe the three Argentinian presidents and the military régime of that era in many articles vastly documented, including: Leopoldo Galtieri (below his picture); Trial of the Juntas; President of Argentina; History of Argentina; Plaza de Mayo; Coups d'état in Argentina. I think it fits the situation of a de facto president, even if that implies an illegal government. Well, we're are talking about a coup and a military junta after all, I guess it is neutral to call it de facto if it is what it is, the goverment product of a military coup. Thanks, regards 190.195.39.223 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what wikilinks are? If people wish to know more they click on the links. This is handy as it means we don't add extraneous information to the article. Information on what was happening in Argentina is tangential to the main article - so we prune tangential information. You didn't address the argument and you haven't again. Its only XXX words is an argument we hear all the time, its not a valid argument as if everyone adds just a "few" extra words to every point the article becomes unmanageable. And I didn't mention guilt. My point was your edit wasn't representative of the socio-political context in Argentina, more to the point it misled by portraying it as an unpopular move by an unpopular Government. This is untrue, it was hugely popular and transformed an unpopular military Government into national heroes. I also addressed why I didn't think the imposed nature of the regime was important - the invasion had huge popular support. Your edit isn't neutral for what it omits, whilst the current article is. To make your edit neutral, we'd have to add a great deal more than just XXX words. You're trying to spin arguments to attack the integrity of other editors rather than addressing the argument - accusing someone of POV editing is a personal attack contrary to assume good faith and a good reason to raise a wikiquette alert against you. I remain opposed to this as you haven't provided a convincing argument and the direction you're taking is unconvincing and more inclined to harden attitudes against your edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Defacto means "by [the] fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." So was the regime Illegal?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi SlaterSteven! Welcome to the discussion. You've given a correct definition of the term de facto. I think the last military régime in Argentina, known as National Reorganisation Process fits that definition. Why? Well, let me briefly recap the facts here:

• In 1976, president of Argentina Isabel Perón, whose term should according to her country's constitution have lasted one more year, was deposed by military personnel. Here's the recap we find in the article Isabel Perón:
  • "[...]Mrs. Perón [...] Alerted to suspicious military exercises [...] boarded the presidential helicopter [...] It did not fly her to the [...] presidential residence as she intended; but, instead to [...] Jorge Newbery International Airport, where she was formally deposed and arrested." (Lewis, Paul. The Crisis of Argentine Capitalism. University of North Carolina Press, 1990).
• After these events, Jorge Rafael Videla became president. Here's a summary of the opening paragraphs from the homonymous article:
  • "Jorge Rafael Videla [...] was the de facto President of Argentina from 1976 to 1981. He came to power in a coup d'état that deposed Isabel Martínez de Perón". "On 22 December 2010, Videla was sentenced to life in a civilian prison for the deaths of 31 prisoners following his coup d'état". ("Former Argentine dictator Videla jailed for life". Reuters. Retrieved 23 December 2010)
• In 1981, Videla relinquished power to Roberto Viola, here's an excerpt from the homonymous article:
  • "Roberto Eduardo Viola [...] was an Argentine military officer who briefly served as president of Argentina from March 29 to December 11, 1981 during a period of military rule."
• In 1981, Viola was ousted by (yet another) military coup, led by Leopoldo Galtieri (president during the Falklands War). Here's another excerpt from the article Roberto Viola:
  • "Viola [...] was ousted by a military coup in December 1981, led by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri, who soon became President".

I hope this information helps. I think we can't argue this dictatorship was a de facto régime.

• Wee. Once more, let me ask you to remain cool while discussing. Your last message contains many inaccuracies, lets' see:
• You said: "accusing someone of POV editing is a personal attack contrary to assume good faith and a good reason to raise a wikiquette alert against you". Firstly, I didn't accuse you of anything. I adressed your point of view in this discussion, which are two very different things. Secondly, I never refered to your edits, as you say, but your opinions in this discussion, again, two very different things. Thirdly, when I said your point of view wasn't neutral, I was still assuming good faith from you (and I will remain assuming your good faith for the time being), it's just that I think your point of view is not neutral, that is addressing your argument, not you. You've also said: "You're trying to spin arguments to attack the integrity of other editors rather than addressing the argument". I've adressed the argument so far, and never attacked your integrity, or that of anyone else.
• Now, regarding your points of view. To begin with, you've swaped, apparently without distinction, the concepts of "responsability" and "support of the war". To make the population of a country responsible for a war is a grave thing to say. Not to mention, very inaccurate. I don't think you can hold Argentinian citizens responsible for the war. How many citizens did Argentina have during the war? According to 1980's census, 27.947.446. Were all of them responsible? No, we can already answer that. How many of them were responsible for the war? To what extent? Did they vote for the war? How exactly you hold them responsible for it? What sources will you use to mantain those assertions? Well, I don't think you can find sources to hold the common citizens of that country responsible for the war. Responsability for and support of the war are two very different things.
• Thus, what you had presented as two opposing ideas we should either include or exclude simultaneously -i.e. the military régime responsability vs. Argentinian citizens support of the war - are actually two very different things we should treat separately.
• The importance and responsability of the military régime in planning and executing the Falklands War (remeber that's the name of the section: "Before the Falklands War) is clear, supported by many sources that analyse how the military régime planned and carried out the war.
• The support the war had from Argentinian citizens after it began (because its planning wasn't publicly known) is not crucial to the context of the war, as it didn't have notable effects over its course, and is inexistant before the war (remember, that's the name of the section), because the military régime did not submit their agenda to public opinion. Regards 190.195.39.223 (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You say that the fact that it was a military régime isn't mentioned. Let me quote you the relevant paragraph in the article, emphasis mine:

“ On 2 April 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and other British territories in the South Atlantic. The military junta which had ruled Argentina since 1976 sought to maintain power by diverting public attention from the nation's poor economic performance and exploiting the long-standing feelings of the Argentines towards the islands. Several British writers hold that the United Kingdom's reduction in military capacity in the South Atlantic also encouraged the invasion. ”

The military nature of the régime is relevant to explain the reasons for the invasion, but it is already mentioned in the article.

To answer Slatersteven's question whether the régime was illegal. The régime was diplomatically recognised internationally at the time as the legitimate government of Argentina, and I would assume that it considered itself to be the legal government of Argentina. The government came to power through a military coup (so, unconstitutionally); however, according to the de facto government doctrine (in force at the time), such governments were still recognised as legitimate even after their fall, regardless of their origins. The de facto government doctrine was removed from law in 1994, and according to the article Jorge Rafael Videla, the régime was retrospectively declared illegal in 2003.

It seems to me that the question of legality of the régime is a complex one, requiring a certain amount of discussion, which we do not really have space for here. Pfainuk talk 18:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution Pfainuk! Indeed, I had missed that paragraph, the context is already described and we don't need to describe it twice.

Still, within the section Before the War, I think we should specify it was a military régime. An option could be: "In April 1982, after a military coup established Leopoldo Galtieri as President of Argentina...", it has 14 words, 2 (two) more than the present sentence, which has 12.

Another option would be summarizing even more, by excluding the name of the president, which I consider less relevant than the fact that it was a military régime. Let's see: "In April 1982, four months after a military coup in Argentina...", this has 11 words, three less than the present sentence.

In both cases we avoid refering to the legality of the régime. Regards 190.195.39.223 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And you're specifying it as a military regime, twice. Sorry no. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

vandalism

I am wondering if we may need to lock the page, I have instigated an ANI (its the second one liked to the same vandal it would seem, is as many days).Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Lock it. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked from creating accounts, so hopefully this will put an end to it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

New oil strikes

• Falklands oil strike to infuriate Argentina, 14 Dec 2011. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

They have retalliated

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076925/South-American-trading-bloc-bans-ships-Falkland-Islands-flag-docking-ports-row-Argentina-escalates.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16280613

Can someone add something about this?

Thanks Jenova20 12:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's first see what relevance there is. See WP:NOT#NEWS. It's not uncommon for South American leaders to make statements in support of Argentina (it happens several times a year and is appropriately documented at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute), and when such blockades have been announced in the past they have generally turned out to exist only on paper in most countries outside Argentina. Pfainuk talk 15:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a statement if you read it, it's a blockade of all British and Falkland islands flag carrying ships from entering docks of 4 different South American countries.

It is hugely relevant and akin to a trade embargo by sea.

Thanks Jenova20 15:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A trade embargo of around 25 ships isn't much more than a symbol, and they could just switch to UK flags. I agree with Pfainuk that this isn't big enough for this article yet, let's see if anything happens. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's even enforced. Bear in mind that a similar blockade was announced by Unasur only last year. Pfainuk talk 15:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Daily mail reference i provided also states that anything with the UK flag is also banned from ports in 3 of the 4 countries.

It is encyclopedic and got a response from the government Jenova20 16:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It was also branded as illegal under international law by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and so should get a mention, even just a bullet point in the history section.

Thanks Jenova20 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Where does the Daily Mail say that? I highly doubt any country except Argentina will blockade UK ships, especially after the Uruguayan president (uruguay being the country the summit was held in) explicitly said they wouldn't be for his country at least. Encyclopaedic it may be, but probably not WP:DUE. It should however be mentioned in Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly doubt Argentina will attempt to block civilian UK-registered shipping from stopping in Argentine ports. On the other hand the Argentine authorities may harass shipping of all nationalities heading to the Falkland Islands.

As to inclusion on Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, I remain opposed unless there is evidence that this has some effect on the dispute, again per WP:NOT#NEWS. We don't report every little incident that occurs because if we did these articles would contain nothing but a list of little incidents. Pfainuk talk 16:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You say that the Daily Mail reference makes claims about the UK flag (as opposed to the Falklands flag). I can't find such a claim in the source, and even if the reference did make it I'd want a much better source than the Daily Mail for what would be a fairly extraordinary claim.

I think it's worth reminding you at this stage that Paraguay is landlocked, so what ports it has are river ports. I would imagine that it is likely that years pass between successive UK-registered ships landing at Paraguayan ports, and that there is a good chance that no Falklands-registered ship has ever attempted to dock in Paraguay.

That the declaration was branded illegal by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee does not invalidate any of the points that I have made. The British will generally protest at Argentine attempts at blockade and other actions taken by the Argentine government in pursuit of their claim - this is hardly unusual. If something actually results from this that has a significant practical effect on the Falklands then of course we can revisit this, but while it remains nothing but words on a piece of paper we should not include it. We are not a newspaper, we are an encyclopædia. Pfainuk talk 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was the Mail that said that to be honest, i doubt it was the BBC.

It's not really something i care to get in a dispute over, and not something that interests me greatly.

So either way, i'll agree to drop it, it seems likely it will escalate in the coming week(s) anyway if they were half serious.

Thanks, have a nice day Jenova20 17:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I also have to agree with you about the reliability of the Daily Mail.

Especially on the day they accused 80% of new diseases in the UK as coming from immigrants, i have no possible intention of defending their reliability or unbiasedness.

Thanks Jenova20 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Uruguay has specifically stated that UK flagged vessels are not subject to this embargo. I would wait and see what happens as the number of Falkland Islands flagged vessels is miniscule and the flag is recognised by the IMO, so technically it would be illegal to refuse access under UNCLOS, not to mention a restriction on free trade. You see platitudes all the time, lets see if it translates into action - bearing in mind UNASUR announced a similar ban a year ago. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

1st Argentinian Establishment 1820-1833

On the item "Establishment" forgot the first "Argentinian" establishment. 1820-1833. After this, became the British illegal occupacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.115.231.251 (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

*Rolls eyes*. It's clearly stated what happened between 1820 - 1833. Just like it mentions Argentina's illegal occupation of 1982. --Nutthida (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Argentine invaded, and Englands Re-establishment?

No neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.225.125.21 (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How?Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Go read the Spanish article. It claims the 1982 war was a re-establishment of control. Here it claims Argentina didn't have any real settlements there like there are today - where as the Spanish Wiki claims the complete opposite. And I wont be taking sides. And stop naming England in this, it's incorrect. --Nutthida (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So could it be that the Spanish artciel is not neutral and ours is?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Their neutrality is theirs, and our neutrality is ours it would seem :P --Nutthida (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I do seem to recall reading that not all Wiki's have the same rules. Thus it may be the the requirments mat be different regarding (for example) RS and nuetraility. Also the English Wiki will tend to have far more English speakers, thus affecting the ability of one side or the otehr from enforcing thier POV.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia has rules about neutrality. They just ignore them when it comes to Falklands issues.

Many articles on Falklands topics on es.wiki are little better than propaganda. They make many claims that are not only inconsistent with reliable sources but inconsistent with themselves. The Argentine POV is not generally questioned, while the British POV is not generally present. Editors at en.wiki in general are neither willing nor able to go down the same route on the British side.

The reason why we describe the events of 1833 and the events of 1982 in different ways is because fundamentally different things happened. In 1833, there was a polite exchange of messages between British and Argentine Naval vessels, which resulted in the lowering of the Argentine flag and the raising of the British flag - no shots were fired. In 1982, Argentina launched a full-scale amphibious assault on the islands. Pfainuk talk 17:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"In 1833, there was a polite exchange of messages between British and Argentine Naval vessels". First prize for your euphemism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.225.125.21 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

To claim that POV rules doent apply on the Spanish wiki is just arrogant and makes nothing to welcome editors from "the other side" (read: Spanish wiki) to contribute here. For those who wonder how this terrible Argentine distortion of truth the Spanish wikipedia the position adopted there in regard to the Falklands is similar to the one adopted here on Taiwan: one article for the island and one for the political entity controlling it. People here actually recognise that the world is divided regarding the status of Taiwan but fail to recognise that the same is case of tha falkland and seems to believe that the Falklands are overly recognised as British when not even Britain closest ally U.S.A. recognise it a such.

I agree that the Spanish Falkland articles are tilted toward the Argentine side but the overpopulation of British and British-affinity users here makes it sure, that if neutrality balance here is rigged, fore sure it is favoring the claims of Britain. Chiton magnificus (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

He didn't claim the Neutrality rules don't apply to the Spanish Wiki, there just ignored. If this article is rigged, then it's certainly less rigged than the Spanish article. So when you have someone like the OP touting non-neutral arguments here, you have to wonder their true intentions. And we are all well aware that - "Unlike Argentine nationalists when it comes to the Falkland Islands, most British supporters of the British claim go by how the Islanders themselves do not want to be part of Argentina or recognized as such. The only true argument Argentina has against this claim is that they were not indigenous - well neither were the Argentine's/Spanish... who sort-of settled there. Also, while it's true a lot of British nationalist do support the claim - a lot of them are not nationalist, mostly just have common sense to understand events of hundreds of years ago should have no modern baring on today's events, and that the Islanders today are not in anyway responsible." it's just nationalist pride VS common sense and humanity. --Nutthida (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I would add that whilst its the En:wiki, that does not mean the English control it, in fact most users are American (who it should be pointed out were not exaclty willing allies during the conflict).Slatersteven (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not talking about the strange opposition between Falkland Islands and Falkland Islands on es.wiki particularly - though I don't believe that would be allowed here because it's a content fork.

What I'm talking about is articles like es:Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas. The article is almost entirely based around putting the Argentine position in great detail and in the best possible light. Anything that favours the Argentine position is included, whether accurate or not. The British position is treated as an afterthought and what coverage it gets is also inaccurate and biased against. Frankly, the article is little more than propaganda: NPOV has been well and truly ignored by the editors concerned.

If people don't like us pointing out that es.wiki's coverage is strongly biased, then they should improve those articles on es.wiki. You can't expect us to pretend that there isn't massive bias there when there patently is.

On the other hand, en.wiki's coverage is basically neutral and accurate. We wouldn't be able to get away with half the excesses of es.wiki, even if we wanted to. It's not perfect - that's fine, there's always things that could be improved - but it is basically neutral and accurate.

Of course, if you have suggestions that could improve any article, then you're welcome to put them and we can all consider them together. Pfainuk talk 23:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Pointing at es.wiki instead of addressing the NPOV concern is childish. I'm sorry, but it is. And it suggests that the Falklands articles on en.wiki may be, in fact, driven by feelings of vendetta.

Personally, I don't care too much about es.wiki. English is today the universal language, so it's obvious that en.wiki is the place where different viewpoints clash, and that's a wonderful thing IMO. If we really listen to each other (even if we don't change our mind), that enriches us and makes us better persons.

(pause...)

Now, on topic: 1833 incident was polite only in papers. It was in fact a forceful eviction: Argentine garrison did not agree to it, but it was forced to in the face of superior force and internal problems. After all, Argentine flag was lowered down by British officers. This being said, most English or Spanish sources seem to be balanced towards one or the other POV when referring to these events (1833 and 1982), so this is not an easy task. To everyone interested in this problem, I invite you to read through Talk:Re-establishment_of_British_rule_on_the_Falkland_Islands, as we had a very relevant interchange last month regarding this matter. --Langus (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I already did address the NPOV concern. The IP appears to want us to pretend that the events of 1833 were the same as the events of 1982, which patently isn't accurate. It is important for editors to understand how bad es.wiki in terms of neutrality because the argument is often made that we should go the same way, either on the British side or the Argentine side. On the contrary, we should take no inspiration from es.wiki at all on Falklands topics. Your personal attacks do not help matters in the slightest.

We did have a discussion on the subject of the whole "re-establishment" bit, but it got nowhere because you wouldn't accept anything with a "re-" in it and Curry Monster would accept anything without. I think we all agree that re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands is a crap title and a crap way of referring to these events, but it's also the current consensus because it's the best we've thought of. And while the situation is paralysed by your and Curry Monster's differences over whether the 1765-74 settlement should be acknowledged, it isn't going to change. Pfainuk talk 10:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP also appears to be an SPA.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

@Pfainuk: that's not true, I did put a clause giving my conditional support to one the alternatives if there was no further opposition. That's because I learned in the process that a title should be based on what the subject is called in reliable sources, and I found no evidence of 'Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands' being used in anywhere but WP.

About your opinion on es.wiki, I have to say I sadly agree .

And regarding the differences between 1833 and 1982, the important aspect is they both have in common the use of force. Only persuasively in the first case, and in a very polite way, no bloodshed involved. But don't fool yourself: military force was the reason why Argentina left the islands, not diplomacy or politeness. --Langus (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wnVXSxs8tTkC&pg=PT2&dq=%27Re-establishment+of+British+rule+on+the+Falkland+Islands%27&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6RX7TsytIISwhAex37C6AQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%27Re-establishment%20of%20British%20rule%20on%20the%20Falkland%20Islands%27&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PSsxmXWChqIC&pg=PA119&dq=%27Re-establishment+of+British+rule+on+the+Falkland+Islands%27&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6RX7TsytIISwhAex37C6AQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%27Re-establishment%20of%20British%20rule%20on%20the%20Falkland%20Islands%27&f=false

Perhaps you should look harder.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The second one is talking about the 1982 (properly called) re-establishment of British administration. The first one seems to be WP:SPS: [7] [8] [9]. Moreover, I have the feeling we may have influenced over him, as the book was published last September. That would be truly scary... --Langus (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Langus' point, there was no use of force - at all - by the British in 1833. Pinedo probably felt that there was a threat of force (there probably was) - but no force was actually used.

In terms of the garrison, they had already been rounded up and imprisoned (for mutiny) by Pinedo by the time the British arrived. They presumably left against their will (since many of them were executed), but it is difficult to imagine that they would not have been forced to go back to Buenos Aires had the British not arrived.

If you're happy with titling that article British repossession of the Falkland Islands (1832–1834), I have no objection if you either open an RM (as a controversial move) or take the discussion that we had as equivalent to RM. I've previously said that I feel that in prose we would be better off using verb phrases to describe these events (e.g. "Britain took control of the Falkland Islands") and I would still support such a change. Pfainuk talk 18:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If the British wouldn't arrive, the settlement would have continued, as Lt. Pinedo took charge of the colony after Gov. Mestivier was murdered. Remember that civilian population still lived on the island, the ones remaining after the Lexington incident, and many of them (probably most of them) returned with Pinedo and the Sarandi to Buenos Aires.

Regarding the requested move, I'll look into it. I've never been involved in one before, so I have to instruct myself first.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We actually have a full list of residents of Port Louis as of 5 January 1833 (following Pinedo's departure), as well as a list of those who left for Buenos Aires. There is also a full list of residents as of 26 August that year (the day of the Gaucho murders) at the top of this.

Those leaving, by my count, comprised 46 military personnel (including 19 civilian dependants), four civilian islanders, three civilian "foreigners" and one prisoner.

Those staying, again by my count, comprised 27 civilian islanders, plus two "temporary residents". One might reasonably speculate from the names that a large majority of these civilians were Latin American gauchos (I would say "Argentine", but for the note that five were sent by the Governor of Montevideo and belonged to the indigenous Charrúa people, who historically lived in Uruguay).

We might therefore reasonably deduce that of the 31 civilian islanders prior to January 1833, almost all remained on the islands.

By 26 August (the day of the Gaucho murders), this had altered slightly with the departure of five gauchos (names not listed) and the arrival of Matthew Brisbane and Thomas Helsby. The two temporary residents had departed and had been replaced with 12 others.

The historical civilian settlement continued after Onslow arrived, and I find your interpretation that this would still have happened if he had not done so to be reasonable. I find it very unlikely, however, that the mutinous garrison would have remained in place with their mutiny unpunished, bearing in mind that several of their number were executed shortly after they arrived in Buenos Aires. It makes sense that Pinedo might not have had a chance to take them back by the time that Onslow arrived, given that he had only just finished putting the mutiny down. Both points, of course, would require sufficient sourcing to demonstrate accuracy and relevance before going into this or any other article. Pfainuk talk 13:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Typo

It says:

There are no native reptiles or amphibians on the islands. Over 200 species of insects have been recorded, along with 43 spider species and 12 worm species. Only 13 terrestrial invertebrates are recognised as endemic, although information on many species in lacking and it is suspected up to two thirds of species found are actually endemic

Should the "in" be "is"? 2.217.150.216 (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

By the looks of it, yes. Thank you, I have made this change.

On Wikipedia, you are welcome to make changes to articles yourself if you see that they need doing. Our rules encourage you to be bold when correcting errors. If you see another such error, please feel free to make the correction. Thanks again, Pfainuk talk 14:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

New page Argentine foreign policy toward the Falklands Islands

There are controversial articles in Wikipedia that exercises some kind of irresistible attraction on people, like me for example, in order to "extend", "improve", "correct", "add some important data", etc. The consequence is that such pages are periodical protected.

In this case I think that a new page would bring some decompression because it would deal with the Argentine foreign and domestic policies. I think some issues of the Argentine (domestic) policy can be included there (and excluded here): Citizen Perk, apologize for nuclear weapons, Malvinas flag, Sinking of the Chian-der 3, Mercosur, Unasur.

Questions?, Ideas?, Criticism?, Objections?, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the bits that get added simply aren't appropriate because of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and those aren't going to be appropriate anywhere.

I also have a concern about POV forking. Wikipedia articles need to be individually neutral, and I don't see how this can be done for an article that is intended to put one side's policy: I find it difficult to see how such an article is not going to be a platform for Argentina's POV, excluding the British. And I note that we do already cover the territory here at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.

In this case, the protection is not about those well-intentioned but inappropriate additions, but the fact that the article has been repeatedly subject to IP vandalism and has a long history of needing protection due to it. Pfainuk talk 19:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

1)NOTNEWSPAPER: You are right as long as they are news, but in a while they become a policy. For example the charme offensive of Menem: he allowed the flights from Punta Arenas, sent the Argentine Navy to the Irak war, restablished the diplomatic relations, etc. It is the contrary of the aggresive Kirchner-Fernandez policy: apologze, flag banning, threats to cut the flights.

2)FORK: There are articles that are not controversial or are controversial but under other interlocutors. For example, both Football in England, Germany national football team deal with fooball but they aren't forks of 1966 FIFA World Cup Final.

I think that an article like United States embargo against Cuba has a right to exist. It is a US measure, it is a US policy. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't see what the content of such an article could be, other than "The Argentinian government holds the Falklands islands to be territory of Argentina. {{Stub}}". No need for it, particularly as there is already an article relating to the Falkand Islands dispute, and that article portrays both points of view. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a different situation. While the article on the US embargo on Cuba describes a US policy, it is a policy with a practical impact that we can discuss on all sides. We already have such an article in this case - at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. It appears to me that your proposed article would either detail Argentine political positions only, which wouldn't be neutral, or it would detail all sides' positions and thus cover exactly the same ground as Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, making it a banned content fork. Either way, it breaks policy, so I oppose. Pfainuk talk 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

All articles about bilateral relations are called "X-Y relations" (where X and Y are the countries), it may be named that way. Or, better yet, it may be used at Argentina–United Kingdom relations, which needs expansion Cambalachero (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I see it as a content fork, which essentially duplicates the article on the sovereignty dispute. Sorry not keen. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be neutral if both sides were represented in foreign policy towards the Islands. Simple fact is Argentina has a lot more to say about them XD oh dear --Nutthida (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We agree about the issues to be explained in the "Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute" article. But we also agree that in Argentina the Falklands question is much more important that in UK or in the islands. There are a lot of events occurring FOR the islands and only BECAUSE the islands. As Pfainuk said, these events are without any practical impact on the islands or the dispute about the islands and hence they don't appear in any article. They are lost although they belong to the Argentine policy toward the islands. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I disagree with that actually. I think the question of sovereignty is quite important in the UK, and I actually think a lot of Britons feel insulted by the Argentinian attitude to the dispute. I wouldn't support the existence of any article on wikipedia devoted to the expression of one POV regarding this issue; any such article would inherently lack neutrality. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(Probably feel insulted because Argentina generally direct there Nationalism against the general British populace instead of keeping it strictly political which the British tend to do) yes that's the trouble, it would be virtually impossible to keep it neutral. It's a "Set up to fail" - it's flawed because like Basalisk said, it's devoted to one POV. Argentine positions are far easier to come by and are much more vocal than the British ones. It would just be lopsided. --Nutthida (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead re-write by MarshalN20

I strongly object to this new revision of the lead, and so I have reverted it. I will now outline my concerns.

1. The new version of the lead omits some important important points from the previous version, such as the fact that the residents of the Falklands strongly identify as British and reject the Argentine claim (this is pivotal, and forms the main point of the British claim), and also needlessly removes the sentence stating Stanley is the capital.
2. It introduces the statement that a "significant number of the residents speak Spanish"; a pretty drastic claim which is both completely unsourced and not mentioned in the body of the article (the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body).

If anyone objects, I'd appreciate a discussion. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Basalisk. My new version mostly adds (in summary style) most of what is already in the article. It follows the FA introduction from the Peru article, which is nice and goes straight to the point. I'd like to note a couple of things:

• This article isn't about the British claim, it's simply about the Falkland Islands. I removed the bit on what the Islanders feel as that sounds well beyond the purpose of this introduction (Though I am sure that, properly cited, it can be included in the demographics section). For the introduction, it is enough to mention that the islands are not under Argentinean control.
• Obviously, Stanley is the capital. I do not see a need to write that in the introduction (it's one of the first things on the infobox).
• Given the island's proximity to Argentina, the immigrants from Chile, it is only logical that a significant number of the population speaks Spanish (surely, Japanese is not the other significant language). This source mentions that few islanders speak Spanish (Page 21), but it's from 1973 and things may have changed from then, and this other source mentions the little influence Spanish has had on local language development (Page 2135). I'm sure these could be included into the article.

Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've also reverted with the same concerns as Basalisk. The comments about the Spanish language are complete WP:OR "things may have changed from then", they might have but its still speculation and WP:OR on your part. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is true. MarshalN20 does have some points though. "Ever since the re-establishment of British rule in 1833, Argentina has claimed sovereignty" needs to be rewritten, it seems Argentina randomly decided to claim sovereignty because the British established themselves, although getting into details on plaques is a bit much. I also think most of the non-language part of the third paragraph is worth reinstating. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The lede could do with a rewrite, I set up a sandbox for that purpose but it was stalled by the disruption from User:Alex79818. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Marshall's changes are biased:

• this claim, which is rejected by the islanders, probably the most strong reason that can be argued, is deleted
• a significant number of residents also speak Spanish what did he mean with "significant"? or is it WP:OR as usual by MarshallN20?
• a situation complicated by the re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands in 1833, that is pure POV.

I think the article doesn't need such improvements. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion that the fact that the islanders reject the Argentinian claim is a pivotal fact, and belongs in the lead. Marshall, you're saying that the article is not about the British claim and the islander's feelings on the matter should not be in the lead, and yet in your re-write you devote an entire paragraph to Argentina's claim? Stinks of a POV to me... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, per your edit summary here, please see WP:BRD. I do not have to discuss before reverting a bold change, it is you who must seek consensus for a bold change in a contentious area. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My last edit on the article fixed the last point made by Basalisk, as you can see [10].

1. Regarding the WP:OR accusation, which is pretty harsh: I provided a couple of sources which support what I wrote in the introduction. This one here(Page 21), and this other one(Page 2135). You can find my mini-explanation of them in my above post here. I am surprised that Chipmunk and Basalisk didn't see them. In any case, please don't accuse me of WP:OR again unless you have a true claim to make against me, otherwise I shall take it as a personal attack.
2. On that note, me writing ("things may have changed from them") relates to the 1973 source, which is prior to the war and nearly 40 years ago. It's still a reliable source, but a recent one could do best.
3. I find it somewhat funny that a certain editor thinks that only his version of an improved introduction should be accepted. My version is perfectly fine aside from three points mentioned here, one which I already took care of prior to its second reversion.
4. Instead of writing that the islanders "reject the claim," which is itself in an aggressive tone and beyond the necessity of the introduction, the following three sentences present the same understanding in a much more professional manner: ("The Falkland population, estimated at 3,140, primarily consists of Falkland Islanders, the majority of British descent. The main spoken and official language is English, although a small number of residents also speak Spanish. Unlike the rest of the continent, and aside from a few landmarks and terms, the dialect of the Falkland Islanders is barely influenced by Spanish.")
5. Finally, as noted by Chipmunk, it is a completely POV claim that Argentina's claim over the islands started coincidentally at the same time that the British re-established their control over them. Based on the information, Argentina has made a claim over the islands even before they were called Argentina (the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata, not sure if it wiki-links), as the successor state to the Spanish Viceroyalty in that zone.
6. Regarding the "complicated" bit. Actually, the sentence is logically correct. Argentina's claim is complicated by the British re-establishment of control over the islands. POV would be to claim that the British invaded the islands. I included the part on the plaques as a way to avoid making it seem as if the British simply left and then came back without any justification (which would fall as POV). But, of course, I am remembering this article is the one where Good Faith is extinct.
7. I believe these answers all of the topics? If I missed any please do let me know. In any case, it's lovely to see you again as well Keysanger. Still angry as usual I see. Kisses and hugs.

As to the rest of you, best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That a rewrite is needed is not disputed but re-inserting text that there is clearly a consensus against is disruptive. Work on it in talk first please and gain a consensus for doing so. I won't template a regular but you must realise you're pushing 3RR and finally stop with the taunting of other editors please. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I still have yet to see what "load of unsourced points" exist on my introduction, as you wrote on your edit summary. Care to list them? More kisses and hugs.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think MarshalN20 has made some decent points. I don't really know about this OR stuff but removing parts about the Islanders rejecting the Argentine claims which is central to the British arguments is a little off. But a fair few statements in the current lede are a little ambiguous, possibly weaselly and odd. That will be all (Because it's actually my birthday and I'm sick too >_<) --Nutthida (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The main issue I see with the introduction is that it is way too much war-centered, and that is what creates the problem. This article is not about the British or Argentinean claims, it's also not an aftermath of the Falklands War. The tone that should be taken is one which describes the current status of the islands. Obviously, the history section (and thereby summary in the introduction) will mention the historical disputes over it, but that should be all there is to mention about the matter. Other articles exist, primarily the Falklands War article, in which the point "central to the British arguments" can be included.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Argentinian invasion and subsequent defeat in 1982 is the most significant event in the history of the islands, and thus I don't think it is unreasonable for the lead to afford particular emphasis to the war. Your previous comment refers to a "problem", but I honestly don't know what this apparent problem is. The lead is fine as it is; like any other content on wikipedia it can be improved, but I don't see why there's such a pressing need to completely re-write it. It appropriately summarises the body of the article as it is. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

When we put the article up for review with a plan to achieve FA status before 2 April 2002, a lede rewrite was one of the feedback suggestions. I agree it could be improved and suggest a sandpit is the best way to do this. No more edit wars please. And stopping the irritating remarks would help as well. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with others here that the text proposed is inaccurate and POV. In terms of discussing the modern islands, I find this worse than the status quo (as it goes into history far further back). The fact that the islanders reject the Argentine claim would seem far more relevant to the modern day, while the competing claims in the eighteenth century are less so. One claim here that others don't seem to have brought up here is "Since its independence from Spain in 1810, Argentina has claimed sovereignty over the islands". Even the Argentine government doesn't date the earliest explicitly Argentine claim before 1820.

I don't oppose change in general and would support a sandbox. But I do oppose this change. Pfainuk talk 18:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

How about changing "Ever since the Re-Establishment..." for "Even before the Re-Establishment.."? Or perhaps "Since before the Re-Establishment..."?

Pfainuk, do you know when does the Argentine Government date the earliest claim? That would be even better. --Langus (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"As it goes into history far further back". When do you think history starts? 1982? hahaha. Seriously, this article needs a forced separation (or "divorce" as some of you like to write) from the Falklands War. History doesn't start with the war, it doesn't end with the war, and it doesn't continue from the war.

Regarding Argentina, I have read that their claim is a continuation of the Spanish claim ever since their independence in 1810 (the May Revolution). If you didn't know that, I suggest you look into it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Argentine Declaration of Independence was in 1816. May Revolution of 1810 is the start of the Argentine War of Independence.

Pfainuk's comments were correct, Argentina made no move towards claiming the Falklands till 1820 (I won't go into details as to why even this is not strictly true). In its modern claim Argentina claims it succeeded Spain in 1810 - whcih is not the same thing as claiming since 1810. Now quit the asinine childish remarks, you're making yourself look foolish. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I based my information these two sources: (Page 118) and (Page 22). Whatever the case may be, the solution to that matter would still have been best to discuss a reword rather than revert the improved introduction (which could have served as the foundation for further improvement; the current introduction is useless by comparisson).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but no one else thinks it's useless. And yet again, you seem to be reorganising WP:BRD to BDR, BRRRRRRD, BRBRBRBRD or whatever else suits your purpose. You made a bold change, it got reverted, and in the discussion everyone rejected it. BRD cycle complete. Look, don't take it personally. You're to be commended for boldly trying to improve the article and I think you acted in good faith; it's just that I feel the old version was better (and everyone here seems to agree with me). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

BRD is not a policy, and the point in discussion here has gone beyond that matter and into the subject of actually improving the introduction. If you don't want to do that, you don't have to; but don't prevent others from providing their input on the subject.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

BRD is not policy, but is good practice. Revert warring, on the other hand, violates WP:EW. You are expected to discuss, and bear in mind that the old consensus stands until a new consensus is developed.

Your two sources do not back up your claim. At all. Both in fact state that the first Argentine attempt to claim sovereignty was in 1820 (though as Curry Monster notes, this is not the whole story). We could make a similar point about your claim about the Spanish language - again, your point simply wasn't backed up by the sources you claimed.

I do not agree that your version was an improvement. Consensus seems pretty solidly against it. It was riddled with inaccuracy, was biased, and gave a huge amount too much detail to eighteenth century history at the expense of more useful information on the modern day. The status quo is much better. Pfainuk talk 22:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, do you have those sources? Or are you just using Google snippets? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't own them, but I do have complete access to them. Is there a purpose to your question? Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

WCM if you care to make a click on the links, you'll see they're not snippets. --Langus (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I was addressing you Langus, why do you feel the need to jump in? Is this because of your habit of citing sources from Google Books, where you don't see the full text?

As long as you have access to a copy thats fine, too often I've seen editors trying to use either fragments of text from Google snippets, which can be unintentionally misleading as context is lost. Alternatively using a few pages from a source can also be misleading as you only get half the story. The reason I asked is I have both and I would draw your attention to Peterson quoting Goebel verbatim, who in turn bases his historical facts on the work of Paul Groussac. Equally Gustafson draws heavily on Goebel for historical facts. You're effectively quoting a single source Goebel, which includes a number of errors of historical fact. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I jumped in because I know what it feels to get bullied with arguments like 'your source is not valid because it's a Google snippet' when in fact it is not. As as I said, if you click the links you'll see for yourself that they're not Google snippets.

Incidentally, are you saying that using Google Books preview is wrong? Because that's the only thing I use for sources, I always avoid snippets. --Langus (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're quoting from Google snippets, then indeed you are wrong to do so as the limited view you get is not reliable enough for sourcing. Equally Google Preview can be wrong if it doesn't present all of the arguments presented by the author. Per WP:AGF I presume this is why you failed to note all of Gustafson's comments about the events of 1831, which neatly illustrates my point about the importance of full access to sources. Peterson is another example, you only see a fraction of the chapter. I close by pointing out that commenting on the reliability of your access to sources is not as you claim bullying but a normal part of discussion. Please quit the constant accusations of bullying and "defaming" as they are not conducive to amicable discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We're getting way off-topic, and I sense that it has more to do with that no one really wants to improve the introduction. Given that case, for my part I'll leave things the way they are. I expected tensions to have calmed down from the last time I visited this page, but things are obviously still "hot". All I will note again is that this article as a whole is way too much centered on the Falklands War. This article should be about the islands (the culture, economy, administration), not a fortress of the Falklands disputes (separate articles exist for all of these subjects). Hopefully this message will eventually ge through to someone, but I doubt it. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that this area is "hot" when you are around, may I suggest that you should consider that your own actions and comments might not help to cool things down. That particular comment above, for example, could reasonably be considered quite unhelpful in cooling tensions. There is a difference between not wanting to improve the introduction and not favouring a particular proposal for change, as I am sure that you are aware. Pfainuk talk 18:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Instead of suggesting things to me, perhaps you should look at your own actions and see in what ways you could improve. For my part, I have done nothing wrong and all of my attempts have been good faith efforts at improving the article. I have presented sources for the information which was challenged, and did my best to maintain a friendly atmosphere by maintaining a cheery attitude throughout the discussion (which, as I noticed, some of you seem to take as offenses; but that more relates to a lack of good faith). Finally, I think that the involvement of several editors in this discussion in other mini-arguments speaks for itself. I fear that those arguments, mainly relating to the Falklands War, are ending up stirring passions in here and ultimately hurt this article develop in a context outside of the war. For however important the conflict may have been in 1982, the Falklands have a history that is far older and a society whose present state deserves a representation that adequately identifies them as members of the modern world (and not some time-machine society that is still stuck in 1982). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Marshal, stop making ad hominems. Participation in debate is a good quality on wikipedia, not a bad one. If you can't handle consensus going against you, then it's time to reach for the power button on your computer and head off to spend some time in RL for a bit. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote to Pfainuk, read and take your own advice. Nonetheless, thank you for your concerns about me.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not concerned with you. You're a big boy and I'm sure you can take care of yourself without me worrying about you. Also, seeing as you're apparently unfamiliar with the term, take a look at ad hominem (but try not to gut the article on the basis that the fallacy is only one use of the term, and the article shouldn't concentrate too much on it).Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I really find your worrysome attitude towards my education quite lovely, but I don't think this is the place to discuss such matters (per WP:FORUM). Back on topic: Has the discussion run its course? It looks like it to me.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It certainly has if you've finally dropped the stick. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

From the last few comments, I'm obviously not the one still swinging the stick. Breathe a little. Great for me, but sad to see that the article retains the same worthless introduction.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)