Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Name should also include Ille Malouines

The first paragraph of the article should also include the French name Ille Malouines as this is still the name used by the French and French speaking countries.

Try telling the French post office anything else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.248.193.146 (talk • contribs)

And how about the name used in Chinese, or Swahili, or Arapaho? Please remember that this is the English language Wikipedia. TharkunColl 14:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The French name is the original name for the islands (Iles Malouines, from the port town of St. Malo in France), and is the origin for the Spanish name "Malvinas". I think it's definitely more relevant to include it than it is to include the Chinese name or any other silliness. The name in other languages is bound to be a local variation on either Malouines or Falklands anyways. 24.201.253.66 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Quickly, think of what you call the largest city in the state of New York, United States. Now, here are a few sentences from the History section of the New York, New York article:

... European settlement began with the founding of the Dutch fur trading settlement, later called New Amsterdam, on the southern tip of Manhattan in 1613. ... In 1664, the British conquered the city and renamed it "New York" after the English Duke of York and Albany. The Dutch briefly regained it in 1673, renaming the city "New Orange", before permanently ceding the colony of New Netherland to the British a year later.

I think that the history of New York City is relevant to this discussion, but make of this history what you will. Val42 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"The Malvinas" -> "the Malvinas"

Not trying to stir up the hornets... but I've made a (very) minor change to the lead. I have changed "The Malvinas" to "the Malvinas", as it is not correct to capitalize "The" in this case. (Check out this Argentine government page.) There was a previous reversion of this change when another editor "de-capitalized" the "the", with a summary note about the consensus version. However, I cannot find a reference in the archives as to the use of "The", and I don't think it is correct to capitalize it here. (We've been having a similar discussion over at Moon for a while, as there was some debate as to whether the name is "Moon" or "The Moon".) Anyways, if there is a part of the discussion that covered capitalization, please point me to it, and I'll certainly apologize if I've made a mistake. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A note to "Gibnews" - it would be nice if you could please provide something more than just "look a bit harder" when you revert - there's been a lot of discussion on this page and its archives, and I made an honest attempt. You could at least have left a more helpful comment. (Sorry if this sounds like I'm irked, but come on...) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Long ago, after fierce battle, the consensus was reached that the ISO designation, which uses the initial capital, would be used. I suspect that Gibnews was merely defending that hard-won compromise. -- Gnetwerker 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I went back a fair ways in the talk archives, but obviously not far enough. I appreciate the information, and can understand the frustrations that surface with regards to this particular article. It might be worth establishing a short note at the top of the talk page that outlines the agreed-upon compromise, with notes on particularly hard-fought points such as including "Malvinas" and capitalizing "the", to avoid future problems. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. However, in reviewing the record, I feel compelled to correct myself. I said above that the capital 'T' in "The Malvinas" was part of the ISO designation. It is not. I spelled out the "facts", such as they are, here, and the core (perhaps "germ") of the consensus can be found here. My opinion is that this doesn't change anything, but mea culpa, I did not mean to mislead. -- Gnetwerker 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry if my comment seemed abrupt, it was simply meant to be concise, it took a lot of discussion and hot air to achieve a consensus that everyone could live with. Frankly, what the Argentine government says does not matter, the Falklands are British. However, in order to keep everyone happy the orignally agreed wording and style should remain intact. There used to be a warning in there to that effect. Having gone through the exercise one would hope it is not necesarry to the can of worms.

I got banned from the Spanish wikipedia for posting a picture of a roadsign to Stanley which some mistakenly believe has another name. The people of Whitby would be dissapointed. --Gibnews 14:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the line 'also called the Malvinas' should be included at all. The Falkland islands are British and have never been officially Argentinean. They're only called Malvinas in English by British-hating anglophobic idiots who'll think of anything to say in order to insult the British. It doesn't matter how Argentina refers to the Falklands, unless included in a subcategory designed to state that in Argentina, and the Anglophobic sphear of humanity, the islands are called the Malvinas. To say 'also known as the Malvinas' is far less relevant even than saying Germany is also known as Deutschland, whereas this is the name of the country in its native language. Enzedbrit 10:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Proposed WikiProject

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

Case for Sovereignty

I deleted the following from the intro "are British citizens and support British sovereignty" since this is clearly making a case for British sovereignty of the Islands, when the intro should be neutral. If that statement is allowed, then it would only be fair to present the case of the other side as well, such as saying something along the lines of "Argentina however maintains this and that". --Bobobobo, 24 Dec 2006

• They are British citizens, and the Islander's views are well documented. Astrotrain 13:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article is about the Falkland Islands and its people, not the delusions of others. --Gibnews 17:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• We must remember the island is British and therefore only the Argentinians claim sovereignty. The British dont claim sovereignty, they have soveriegnty, an altogether different thing, so Bobo was right to remove an inaccurate statement but what we have now looks good as it focuses on the rejection of the Argentinian claim, SqueakBox 17:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Corruption, Lack of Democracy, Un-accountable Police ??

I know it is a long long read, but speed-read this http://www.falklands.net/FalklandsCorruption.shtml -- and tell me if you don't think this should be somehow mentioned in the Politics section of the article. I don't mean exactly as that article describes things. The reason I post this in talk and not touch the main page is because I'm in no position to figure out the relative importance and/or accuracy of the above. I'm also in no position to properly put the above article into a proper context wrt the whole situation on the island with respect to democracy, accountability, and justice. The above is clearly a one sided POV. We need someone who has enough information for the non-POV.

But if the information in that article is not distorted, it's clear that the Island has enough independence from British justice such that a level of grossly un-democratic and underhanded corruption can exist without any checks or balances. I'm also unhappy about the statement that it's a port of call for cruise ships because of all the penguins, and yet the Islands government has merrily done absolutely nothing while 80+% of the population has starved to death over the past 10 years -- while places like Chile and Argentina are able to protect their penguin populations from a similar fate without badly affecting their fishery industries.

I'd love to hear a more independent "in the know" opinion on that article's claim in the 8th paragraph about the re-distribution and concentration of wealth due to "secret" meetings - "Much of the division of wealth which exists in the Falklands today stems from these dealings."

It's also quite disturbing to hear of a Brit being denied citizenship and fleeing to Argentina because he's afraid for his life.

CraigWyllie 18:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Its certainly suspicious that he has gone to Argentina and set up a website making allegations about corruption in the Falkland Islands. However they can legally deny residence to people, whatever their nationality. Whatever this might be a topic for 'panorama' but is not really for wikipedia. --Gibnews

Its certainly true that Brits dont have any more automatic residence rights in Falklands than they do in Gibraltar, SqueakBox 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, its quite different; Gibraltar is part of the EU and all community nationals are free to come and live here. The Falklands are different. --Gibnews 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time. Alexander Jacob Betts was a falklander who researched the islands' history. He soon found out that the dutch and german documents told a whole different story, and after a lot of research he became the first falklander to recognize that their government lies. His house, his money, his car and his daughter were taken away and he had to flee to argentina.

(Unsigned) 2007-01-08T17:39:18 Argentino

Judging from his comments reproduced below, he deserved deportation. Generally if one looks hard enough its possible to find a malcontent who will support any position, see also Quisling. --Gibnews 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Heritage of Inlanders

"The great majority of islanders are of Scottish and Ulster Scots descent."

In researching Falkland history, I believe this statement to be true, but could not find any online sources that can be cited. Gohiking 23:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it might be true or would have already deleted it but unfortunately we need to base wikipedia on cited sources, SqueakBox 00:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not completely untrue. Although the Falklanders' commonest surnames, like "Betts" and "Felton" are English, and their accent sounds English these days, and a lot of the newer arrivals have come from there... the earlier arrivals had a lot of Scots amongst them (don't know about Ulster Irish though), and 1911 Britannica says that Goose Green at one point was mostly populated by Scots. I would suspect the Scots are probably the biggest "input" after folk from England. --MacRusgail 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Will of the people?

Not that I in any way disbelieve that a broad majority of Falklanders reject Argentine claims, but isn't it a bit strange that the source of the claim in the intro is a UK government website? ([9]) Wouldn't it be better with some media or academic reference? --Soman 12:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are many who dont like the brits very much.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/L/2003/A/un030636.html (United nations Decolonization Comittee)

JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, petitioner, said he was a Falklands Islander who had lived on the Argentine mainland for several generations. Since the turn of the nineteenth century, Argentina had welcomed immigrants from around the world. Argentina had just elected a new president and Argentine democracy was slowly maturing. Record crops, herds and the increase in the wool industry made him optimistic about Argentina’s economy, despite its foreign debt. In southern Patagonia, where most Falkland Islanders had settled, there was a promising future in tourism. Many farms in Patagonia had had a good season, and the possibility of working and sharing experience with farms on the Islands would be interesting.

He said Argentina’s legitimate claim to sovereignty could not be denied. An agreement must be reached. The rights of Argentina’s claim to sovereignty would not be dropped. He requested the United Kingdom to respect resolutions on the matter to find a just and lasting solution to the controversy.

ALEJANDRO JACOBO BETTS, a petitioner from the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said the issue was one of sovereignty, and the only parties involved in the dispute were Argentina and the United Kingdom. The cause of the problem was the illegal occupation of a territory by an occupying Power and the resulting claim by the prejudiced State for the full recognition of its pre-existing legitimate sovereignty. The only acceptable basis on which to find a just and definitive solution to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas question was through the application of the principle of territorial integrity. The dispute began in 1833, when British military forces invaded and occupied the Islands by force, expelling the original Argentine authorities and inhabitants, he said. Since then, Argentina had never consented to that violation of her territorial integrity. The principle of self-determination could not be utilized to transform an illegitimate occupation into full sovereignty, under the protective shield of the United Nations. He wondered why, in an age when colonialism was being eliminated and mutual respect between nations was being consolidated, did the United Kingdom persist in maintaining its occupation of the Falklands/Malvinas in detriment to its relations with a friendly State.

Hello ! JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, petitioner, said he was a Falklands Islander who had lived on the Argentine mainland for several generations So unless he is claiming multiple ressurections, he is an Argentine citizen. Argentina has a claim, they may view it as legitimate - others disagree - however the most important consideration is the view of the people of the territory, who have the right to self-determination and at present do not wish to form part of Argentina. What anyone else thinks is immaterial. If the UK wanted to reclaim its former territories in North America they could find someone living in Cornwall who several generations ago left because of those troublesome yankees asserting their rights and breaking away from the UK. But this is not really a place to debate irredentist claims, or the words of puppets paraded in front of the UN C24, itself comprised of members from countries some of which enjoy less freedom than the territories they waffle on about.

--Gibnews 09:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, nobody cares what Alejandro Betts and James Lewis think. --RaiderAspect 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your statement reflects ONLY your personal opinion.
The thought that nobody cares what Alejandro Betts and James Lewis think, sounds more like a childish temper tantrum on the part of those who dislike Argentina rather than the true reality that the islands will one day return to Argentinian control via diplomacy, or other means.
If the uk refuses to act on a resolution passed ordering a decolonization, then why should the rest of the world respect any other resolutions?
Seems a little one sided.
Argentina's claim of sovereignty over the islands, is based on more than just their rightful ownership.
Statements have been made regarding the occupation by the uk of the islands as a security risk for Argentina, and all of "nuclear free" Latin America [10] by high ranking officials. Argentina's claim also gives the people living there rights and privileges. Never has Argentina made threats against those living in the islands, and they guarantee the rights of those living there.

What you mean like the "right" to speak Spanish and the "right" to drive on the right, though I must say the statement that Argentina has never threatened the English speaking people there is clearly untrue unless you consider that the Falklanders didnt feel threatened by the military occupation of their land by heavily armed troops they were unable to communicate with. Sounds like so much Argie propaganda to me, SqueakBox 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the claim that one day the islands will return to the Argentinians, this is not a forum and how can such a silly statement possibly help us produce a better article, SqueakBox 18:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

About Alexander Betts

The book La verdad sobre las Malvinas, mi tierra natal (The truth about the Falklands, the land in which I was born) was published by AJ Betts in 1985. English source: http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/falklands/ar-war.htm , Argentine sources: a lot. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mostly broken links there The page cannot be found; Should the Falkland Islanders be consumed with a desire to speak Spanish, drive on the right and remain British they could visit Gibraltar. We also have someone who writes strange books and websites about the place Like This.

That site is wonderful! --Deaconse 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the above has anything to do with writing an encyclopedia, which should deal with things that are real.

Wonder who paid for Mr Betts airfare to New York. --Gibnews

Well if the Falklanders want to speak Spanish and drive on the right they could always go to Argentina. I believe that you dont have to speak Spanish to achieve anything official in Gibraltar, ie you can pay your taxes etc in English, an option the falklanders were not given, SqueakBox 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a flipside to this. Gibraltar's indigenous Llanito (a form of Spanish) has been ignored/ridiculed, and is now basically a form of Pidgin English dominated by code switching. By the way, it would have been nice if Diego Garcia had been given the same kind of choices by the Brits - but they have never been one for single standards have they? --MacRusgail 16:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sovereignty claim: Unilateral changes in consensus text

This clearly dates from 1833 as between 26 and 33 they had sovereignty they didnt claim it and before that it was uninhabited, if they were claiming it as there's while it was uninhabited 16-26 please source your claim here first, SqueakBox 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that this is the version agreed by consensus. An anon user rephrased it to be then removed by Apcbg. I just restored the version prior to the controversial anon edit. --Mariano(t/c) 17:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, your question shows that you have not even read the article (Colonel Jewett, 1820 etc.), but that's not the point: Whatever your opinion, you are making unilateral changes in a consensus text.

Mariano, the article log confirms that the consensus version was modified on 24 December 2006 by SqueakBox without discussion, and then on 17 January 2006 by 201.235.117.83 and by 82.26.191.43 before I restored the consensus version.

SqueakBox and Mariano: Please take into account that there is no new consensus for changing the approved phrasing. Unilateral changes in a consensus text amount to a POV push to which I object. I did restore the consensus text twice, and now rather than entering an edit war I would expect you to restore it. Apcbg 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are making this up as you go along. How can more than one editor unilaterally change consensus (lol), the article log confirms absolutely nothing about a consensus version, besides which this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Also my alleged question shows nothing as I havent asked a question. We need good sources that Argentina disputed the sovereignty claim before 1833, Jewett didnt claim sovereignty he gained it, cant you see the difference? claim implies dispute and there is no evidence of a disputed claim to sovereingty before 1833, and if there is please source, as your consensus claim is meaningless and is not a substitute for a source, SqueakBox 18:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Apcbg, I just wanted to express that I was restoring a version prior to an anon editor, because I thought that better fixed those edits than your edit. I now realize that this was introduced a few days ago by another anon. --Mariano(t/c) 19:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that what you say was exactly what happened. However, before those two anonymous edits we had a consensus version of the preamble established on 28 May 2006 following a debate (in which both of us took part among other participants), which phrasing of the preamble was respected until SqueakBox's unilateral edit of 24 December 2006. I trust that you would agree that the original consensus text should be restored, with whatever suggested changes discussed in the talk page first. Apcbg 20:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly does this edit [11] exactly change that consensus, and what does it have to do with what you have been arguing about. I added in 1810 relating to Argentine independence, added in pursuit of this claim re the argentine invasion, added the word sovereignty andf then added with English and not Spanish being the language used on the islands. How does what I wrote affect either the consensus or what you are arguing about today. I hope this isnt merely trolling on your part buyty I dont have a clue what you are on about, my edit seems very uncontroversial. Or are you just claiming nobody can edit the opening, as if you are this is somwething I oppose very strongly, of course we can edit the opening, there is no way any policy remotely saying we cant do so, SqueakBox 20:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

First, what '1810' are you talking about? In 1810 there was a Spanish Governor on the Falklands (the Spaniards left later, leaving a plaque reasserting the claim on behalf of the King of Spain — a claim that was only resigned by the Argentine-Spanish Treaty of 9 July 1859 recognizing Argentina's independence); in 1810 the future Argentines had not even declared their wish for independence (that happened in 1816).

Second, the present text in the preamble — text inserted by you this time! — says '1833' not '1810'. This present wording (endorsed by you) was originally introduced by an anonymous editor whose 'knowledge' of the Falklands history made him believe that Vernet was the Argentine Governor of the Islands in 1833! (Ever heard of Mestivier or Pinedo?)

How this mess of inconsistency and factual errors might "seem very uncontroversial" to someone is beyond me. Apcbg 20:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hidden text

I removed the following hidden text as having no consensus

The first sentence has been established as a compromise consensus between many editors in a long and difficult discussion (see talk page). Trying to either change the sentence to include less (e.g. "The Falkland Islands are an archipelago") or to include more (e.g. "The Falkland Islands, (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) are an archipelago") will be reverted on sight without discussion by many of the editors part of the discussion. If you have overriding NEW arguments, please bring them to the talk page first!

What was there implied wrongly that Malvinas is a common usage English word which I have replaced with a ref that it is a Spanish translation of Falklands, SqueakBox 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove the word altogether. It is not the native name for the place. TharkunColl 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would rather wait for further consensus before doing that but I certainly dont disagree with you, SqueakBox 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Tharkun is tright. As Jonathunder refuses to join in the discussion here I am revertin g him. To say there is consensus on the talk page while refusing to comment here doesnt strike me as the rigth attitude--Swuekilafe 17:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And your revert has been undone. I think - given how long the text has been there - that it is reasonable to discuss the matter first, and then make changes. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well we are discussing. It seems that people arent happy with the opening (3 editors at least) and nobody is defending the current version, people are jsut reverting without giving a reason. Why even administrators engage in mindless edit warring without even coming to the talk and then claiming consensus here against the wishes of 3 editors here today confuses me--Swuekilafe 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK - this is a controversial subject, with a long (long long) history of debates, disputes, and discussion about how to format the article. I really don't think that you can claim that "nobody is defending the current version" when it has only been up for an hour or so. Wiki custom would suggest that the better approach is to discuss the matter here first, give it some time for other editors to join in, and then implement a change. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Swuekilafe, you're claiming "consensus" on an undiscussed change made just over an hour ago, versus a version of the lead that has been in place since December. You yourself have only six edits, three of them being reverts here and the other three being on this talk page. If you feel so strongly about this matter, why not allow everyone to participate? Given the history of this article, it seems that your actions will only invite another edit war. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What the Argies think is of no relevance. We might as well say London, also known as Londres, for the relevance it has to the topic at hand--Swuekilafe 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As the person responsible for the actual wording of the introduction, I will defend it in the following terms; Personally I also do not give a damn what the Argentines think, because The Falkland Islands are British with the consent of the people who live there, and their opinions are paramount. However it is also true that in a large number of places the alternative name is used, and that is reflected in the ISO designation for the territory. The purpose of Wikipedia pages is to inform people and the wording used did that in a manner which made it clear what the official name was and that there was a common alternative. Those who wish to change it should use their time and energy in improving other things rather than fighting over a consensus which so far has held up well. We argued long and hard over this matter, lets move on.

--Gibnews 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree. Malvinas is a Spanish translation of the English word Falklands which I referenced and added. I agree we should keep the word Malvinas but also that we should keep the sourced information that it is a Spanish translation which I added, SqueakBox 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the template as in spitye of Gibnews wanting to move on I dont believe we should. I have asked for a citation that Malvinas is an English word whjich is what the text says now. Regarding the hidden text, its the most bad faith and aggressive text I have seen, SqueakBox 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Jonathunder would care to explain why he has removed an NPOV tag when their is a dispute and also why he has removed a cite request that Malvinas is an English word, SqueakBox 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets be clear I removed the NPOV tag, because this is nothing to do with 'POV' and if you look at the history of the discussion about the subject you can see what my personal point of view is. However, as stated above, the territory is described as the Malvinas and for better or worse until such time that BSI as the responsible party in ISO change it from Falkland Islands(Malvinas) its appropriate to mention it in consensus manner.

When I interviewed a politician from the Falklands I asked him where the Malvinas was he said he did not know, but he might not have a NPOV. If you want to dispute something, there is a disputed tag available. --Gibnews

Citation that Malvinas is English

I see this cite request has been removed. The problem is that on other Falkland talk pages when people try to cite Malvinas as an English word they fail dismally, offering gems such as LaRouche (banned from wikipedia for extremism) and the Socialist Workers Party. I, on the otehr hadnd, have refernced that it is a Spanish translation of an English word. What happened to verifiability. People removing cite requests always makes me uneasy and I havent seen a scrap of justification for doing so, SqueakBox 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument that 'its an English word' or not is pretty pointless, English contains words taken from all sorts of other languages. But really we have been there and done this 'ad nausiam' which is an English phrase taken from the Latin. --Gibnews 20:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if we had a decent cite we wouldnt have to go there any more, that's one of the reasons we have cites in wikipedia. And of course many words from Spanish become Anglicised but I dont believe Malvinas is one of them and hence I request a cite. What's the problem? Sdaying it has been discussed before isnt an argument, SqueakBox 20:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What, exactly, are you hoping to have cited? Is it to prove whether or not "Malvinas" is an English word? (And if so, why? It is the English Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that every single word used in it must be English.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I cited it was a Spanish word and that reference got removed. Its either a Spanish word or an English one so I would either like my reference restored or one that indicates it is an English word of reasonably common usage. I agree its fine to have a Spanish word but equally to note and refence that fact, and I am baffled as to people's objection to this (and havent seen a reason given yet eitherSqueakBox 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what I said again and you might see the reason, but its has been debated at length and we achieved a consensus. The fact that YOU don't want to agree is your POV problem, and although you might not like the template I added, its appropriate. The consensus was something that everyone could live with and which added value to the page. Mentioning an alternative name that is in use is simply being factual. Banging on about 'Puerto Argentina', as they do on the .es pages is not. --Gibnews 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well not everyone can live with it. I know how wikipedia works and am one of its most daily editing committed editoers so this isnt going to go away. 2 editors have expressed a more extreme pov than me so how is consensus already achieved, SqueakBox 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then come up with a valid argument. Just being persistent is not really good enough - some of us can be online 15+ hours a day watching boring things with time to kill. That the Falkland Islands are called Malvinas is a fact. It is not their official name, and I remember a number of guys who went there to ensure it was not, but wikipedia is about presenting facts. --Gibnews 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Its about presenting facts with sources to back them up and your failure to do this kind of invalidates what you are saying. Not sure what you mean about watching boring things or about persistence, eventually unsourced information wioll always be removed as that is the wikipedia way. You still need to source that the Malvinas is an English name or accept that it is a Spanish word and accept the refenced statement I added yesterday, SqueakBox 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point, Malvinas is a Spanish word, but English contains lots of foreign words, it aquires and incorporates them greedily. A word does not need to have been engraved on Boadicea's chariot to qualify for use in the English language or in an article in the English Wikipedia. Your attention is drawn to this document which is in English. As I see from your page that you understand Spanish perhaps instead of this you might put some effort into the es.wikipedia fk pages which were far too pro-argentina, and where they booted me out for posting a picture of Stanley, with a comment that 'Wikipedia is not a repository of pictures' :)

To explain the comment - I spend a lot of time removing malware from clients machines connected to the internet. Its time consuming but one can often do other things concurrently. --Gibnews 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "Malvinas" does indeed exist in English, though it is pretty rare. It means something like, "the name the Argentines tried to impose on the Falklands when they invaded in 1982." Its connotations are decidedly negative. TharkunColl 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly rare. Looking at a number of atlases and globes, I see "Malvinas" as often as "Falklands" written next to those islands, even on ones that predate the war. Jonathunder 19:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please give us a source for this, Jonathun, eg an online map or something we can all see. Personally I would be happy to see the current version were it backed up with an impeccable source (not LaRouche), SqueakBox 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook - Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)

CIA World Factbook - South America map

--Ckatz^chat_spy 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ISO naming standard ISO 3166-1 : FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS) Jor70 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And as I quoted above the UN cartographic section

• http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/geoname.pdf

--Gibnews 21:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, here it is, As you can see at the UN, it is not listed under 'Altenative names' but under 'Short form' , so its a official name (and BTW NPOV) Jor70 21:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I suggest you reference these in the text and then remove the hidden text notice, as if it is solidly referenced it shouldnt be the subject of any disputes, and by offering refences we make the article into a better quality, more relaible piece, SqueakBox 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The hidden text serves a purpose to discourage people changing the introduction, which includes the word Malvinas in a neutral manner. Argentina has managed to push it through ISO which is something we discussed previously at length before coming up with the consensus version and I suggest we stick withit. Otherwise TharkunColl hits the nail on the head about its use. --Gibnews 22:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Although the UN and the CIA both describe the territory as The Falkland Islands(Malvinas), they only do so because ISO incorrectly includes it in their designation. Please can we stick with the agreed version.

• Can we now remove the neutrality template, or is there something else it refers to ?

--Gibnews 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews - we seem to have been of like mind in terms of adjusting the page and asking for discussion. I didn't see your fix while I was restoring Flapdragon's earlier version, so please ignore the edit summary as it's not related to your changes. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

quote: because ISO incorrectly includes it in their designation. lol, excuse me ? what a long time mistake without correction!! . Also, I dont understand why I was revert, if my version was just like the current one but with the references. Jor70 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine ISO have the same problem of disputes we have here in correcting this mistake. However, I have moved your reference to the section that describes the usage of the name, so its not wasted. The present introduction is a compromise and generally seems to hold, so best not to try and improve it and move on to other things. --Gibnews 09:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well this debate has moved on from Decemmber. Why remove referenced material Gibnews? I have reverted your unexplained blanking of refenced material provided by Jor. Also to suggest we m,ove on when there is a POV tag on the article re this issue doesnt seem right, SqueakBox 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate it's a touchy subject, but I;ve just tried to tidy up the citations using templates - to make them easier to see and understand for those nto familiar with the topic. hope that doesn't cause offence

I have not made any 'unexplained blanking' I moved the reference to the ISO naming to the correct place and explained it on this talk page. The reason for including the word Malvinas in the title is in order to make it clear to those who may mistakenly believe the territory is called that, and who themselves use the name. IF we accepted the ISO designation we should refer to the place by that name. In long arguments which you can find in the archve you will find it was not accepted. Thus were were left with a consensus version which had enough balance that everyone could live with it and we asked for it to be left alone in the header. The references to the ISO naming belong with the section describing that and I've moved them there in their detailed glory, all credit to the editor that produced them.

SECONDLY: justification for the disputed tag, what is disputed? --Gibnews 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It wa Swuekilafe who placed the NPOV tag I believe, SqueakBox 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The New Treasure Hunt

On The New Treasure Hunt (a mid-1970s United States television game show produced by Chuck Barris), there was once a 'klunk' prize (one of several booby prizes on the show), a one-year residency in the Falkland Island.

72.82.177.130 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting joke, however they not in a position to authorise residence in the Falklands. The losers had to live in the US, how ghastly for them. --Gibnews 10:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Opthamologists, and opticians, and dentists, and bears. Oh my!

Why is the following text included in the Name section?

There are no ophthalmologists or opticians on the islands, although an optician from the UK visits about every 6 months and an ophthalmologist comes to do cataract surgery and eye exams on irregular intervals (once every few years). There are 2 dentists on the islands.

There's not even a paragraph break! What about doctors? Nurses? Veterinarians? In its current context, this information is a ""non sequitur."" This bit of trivia, if true (sources?) is interesting, but totally out of place. Perhaps if it were in a section about their remoteness and the challenges presented by it. . . ?

Upon reading the article, I was surprised that its neutrality is in question. It seems to me that it provides the right information in the proper tone, including the whole name issue.

I've tried to read most of the current discussion about whether to include "Malvinas" in the article or not and grant that there are many valid points pro and con. Since I have no vested interest on the claim issue, I can't say that I read it all, and I don't really know who is advocating what point.

As it reads now (Feb 23, 2007 at 12:45 a.m. Eastern) the name thing is handled well. I conclude this because I think the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform the uninformed. While accuracy and lack of bias are important, it is not imho an encyclopedia article's function to present what is the ""truth"" about something.

"Malvinas" is not just any foreign word, as the intensity of the whole discussion demonstrates, so whether it is an accepted part of the English language is not dispositive. The article's title does not include the M word, so it is not misleading as to the legal status.

That the Falklands are also called "the Malvinas," or "Las Malvinas," is an accurate statement that does not imply or conclude anything about sovereignty. If you wanted to be extremely picky you could add that it is sometimes called . . . -- or even: sometimes referred to as . . . .

If several authoritative sources list them as: the "Falklands (Malvinas)," then it is appropriate to include that designation. Consider our uninformed readers. Is it relevant and important or helpful to let readers know that the name Malvinas and Falklands, for better or worse, are associated with each other in fact? If readers of this article subsequently turn to the CIA Fact Book or run across some UN documents (or have come to this article from such a document), the readers will know that these Falkland Islands are the very same.

I ran across this article when my son wanted to know the date of the Falklands war. I was in college then, my son not even a gleam in a parental eye. If he was reading this wiki article, would I and his teachers want the information about the Falkland Islands to include the M word? Absolutely.

I would remove the bias alert, leave that portion of the article as is, and turn this energy and productivity to more pressing issues. Ileanadu 05:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)ileanadu 23 February 2007

It was a syntax error with the <ref> tag that was hidden several paragraphs. I need to remove it so who put it, should rewrite it. thks for the tip!. About the name, nationalism plays an important role for many in this issue but I think things have finally settled down. Jor70 10:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Name again

I would have rather hoped we could move on from arguing about the name of the territory. We have already discussed at length before arriving at this form of words (see the archive) that the CIA factbook is not a definitive source. I spent a lot of time correcting glaring errors in it in relation to Gibraltar, and in fairness to them they listened. The flag they showed was totally wrong at one stage and they mentioned a railway that vanished just after WW2.

Citing Wikipedia as a source is recursive, and surely against the rules ?

There is an argument that ISO used the word Malvinas (not Islas), however they are an international body and subject to lobbying by those who wish to promote the alternative name. I am told that South American telephone books omit an entry for the Falklands to avoid upsetting anyone.

However, long and hard we argued until an agreeable version was found and it has survived, so please can we leave it alone? Surely there are better things to do - like perhaps removing the references to Puerto Argentina and the description of the natives as malvanises in the Spanish Wikipedia. --Gibnews 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Gibs, although, is Puerto Argentino and Malvinenses :-) --Jor70 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

In support of omitting the 'Islas' bit I draw your attention to:

http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/tstories/jsmith/images/road%20sign%20malvinas.jpg

As an example of the use of the M word

Looking at the CIA world factbook, the recent entry on Gibraltar:

Spain agreed to allow airlines other than British to serve Gibraltar, to speed up customs procedures, and to add more telephone lines into Gibraltar. Britain agreed to pay pensions to Spaniards who had been employed in Gibraltar before the border closed in 1969. Spain will be allowed to open a cultural institute from which the Spanish flag will fly.

Uh no, Spain allowed Spanish airlines to fly here, the telephone lines remain the same but the ITU code of 350 is used, the pensioners get an increase. As for the Spanish Flag, it may fly briefly IF it gets planning permission and is asbestos.

CIA 3/10 for accuracy. Wikipedia is by contrast correct.

Their factbook contains nonsense. --Gibnews 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Islas Malvinas is a compromise between Malvinas and having nothing,. i would rather thave nothing but particularly oppose Malvinas as it is used by sonme POv pushing people who believe that the Falklands "should" belong to Argentina, SqueakBox 20:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather call the place what the natives call it, like Mumbai However the M word does deserve a mention. One amusing thing I discovered was This - (Malvina is an old Scottish name, once popular in the Falklands, and is unconnected with the Argentine name for the Islands). --Gibnews 23:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Malvina is a well known spanish female name, e.g. Malvina Pastorino [12] --Jor70 00:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I never disagreed with your reversion, but you ought to admit that there are plenty of other reliable sources that use "Islas Malvinas." I suppose you get a kick out of being combative, though, so OK, you win. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, if you add the word islas, you should add also Ilhas, Isole, etc too because that is the way that they are used. Jor70 13:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree but your question begs "in that case why are we putting the Malvinas in at all?" SqueakBox 13:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

well, I dont agree with you neither. Malvinas, as we had already established, is part of the United Nations name of the territory. If some english-speaking people use it for shown argentine sympathy as the same way some spanish-speaking people (such the chilo mils in 1982) used fakland has nothing to do with this Jor70 13:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has yet come up with a reason why we should accept the United Nations designation as authoritative. Surely, in line with every single other country or territory described in Wikipedia, we should use the official name as defined by the place itself. We also, since this is the English Wikipedia, put the common English name first. In the case of the Falklands, of course, there is no difference. English is the language of the Falklands, not Spanish. TharkunColl 14:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

the reason is, if we do not mention the UN, will be simply british pov --Jor70 16:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The introductory wording is sufficient for the moment, and given the time that some other squabbles have gone on the Argentine Irredentist claim will probably not go away - let us hope that its persued and rejected by diplomatic means. --Gibnews 14:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Added the POV tag re the naming issue (not for anything else), SqueakBox 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag. As outlined in my edit comment, it isn't needed as the issue: 1) is under active discussion; 2) pertains only to the word "Malvinas" in the lead, and not the whole article; and 3) the use of the template suggests that the entire article is suspect, which is not the issue under discussion. Squeakbox has reverted this, I have once again removed it. It really is not needed. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, it's not a reasonable solution for Squeakbox, as he/she is reverting instantly. However, i think that it really should be a group decision, rather than just Squeakbox. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This matter was already discussed and an agreeable version was found . Ones call them Falklands, others Malvinas and United Nations Falklands(Malvinas) so is reasonable to mention both, not mentioning would be POV Jor70 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree, should Argentina reclaim the territory it can be called whatever you like - until then lets stick with what we have and feel free to revert 66.191.141.46 who is persistently changing it. --Gibnews 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Settlement

'Settlement' implies a recent and transient urbanisation, however the general principle in English is that a town with a cathedral is termed a city.

Now see:

http://www.jim-mclaren.co.uk/new_page_3.htm

--Gibnews 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• That definition of a city hasn't been used for a very long time. Settlement is the best I could think of however I agree this could be taken to mean transitory but it can also be used as a general term for any grouping of human habitation. [13] Stanley is not a city. It has never been a city and is unlikely to become a city. See [[14]] for a full list of British cities. The word "city" really has no place in the article.--LiamE 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That may be a definition of what is a city in the United Kingdom However Gibraltar (equally not in the UK) is referred to as a city, but is not on that list on Wikipedia. I note this:

http://www.penguintravel-falklands.com/tours/gypsy.htm

referring to a 'Stanley City tour'

http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/samerica/fk.htm

Capital City Stanley (1,989)

Wikipedia says for city A city is an urban area that is differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status. so perhaps Stanley merits it on importance by being the capital.

--Gibnews 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Lots of people reading this article right now and many will think wikipedia supports Argentina. Malvinas is unacceptably mentioned before Falklands and then Malvinas is ofered as a second common name for thre islands. When I try to reach a compromise it is always reverted, hence we need the POV tag, SqueakBox 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that a mention of 'Malvinas' in the introduction is a problem providing its not given equal weighting. (which someone sneaked in and has been reverted) Nor is its presence demonstrate a lack of neutrality, indeed it might be without it. The article should not 'support' anyone, just tell it like it is. --Gibnews 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

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

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and from my point of view this would indeed resolve this issue that doesnt seem to want to go away, SqueakBox 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Malvinas is also a name used in English, not just Spanish. unsigned by User:Poi dog pondering

Not agree, Malvinas is not a translation, its the name for non-spanish speaking people too, we already discuss this. Jor70 10:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The U.N., the CIA, and other sources use it in native English. It should not be italicised as if it were not used in English: that is incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poi dog pondering (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

It's not in common use in English, so WP:MOS#Foreign_terms suggests that italics are appropriate. DrFrench 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy that articles should be stated in a NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW and saying this is "Foreign" when many sources of it in native English exist does not follow the policy and is just erroneous.

Just because a source lists it as a disambiguation does not mean it is in common usage in the English language. Calling a non-English word a 'foreign' word is not a breach of WP:NPOV. DrFrench 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Its obscure use English not common use. It should be pointed out it is Spanish, SqueakBox 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Actually on re-reading the warning in the editing text, I'll not bother making that change unless there is more consensus. I personally think the current version is factually correct, is WP:NPOV and in accordance with WP:MOS#Foreign_terms - although the compromise suggested by Sebastian Kessel is worthy of consideration. DrFrench 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we use this locked time to gaina consensus. I too am happy with the Sebatian version and that the hidden text support this. Would a poll be acceptable? SqueakBox 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Foreign simply means not native. The CIA factbook is not an English source its an American one. Giving a foreign name equal prominence is un-usual and not the way other articles are constructed. --Gibnews 10:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(un-tabbing) Wow, looks like the discussion going on here is civil but the page is going through an edit war.... That's why I stopped editing frequently.
I agree with you Gibnews on that "Malvinas" shouldn't be given equal footing, that's why the parenthesis and the italics (not bold) should do the trick. Again, Jerusalem is a good example of a contentious issue being resolved semi-amicably.
I really can't believe that if editors resolved Jerusalem we can't agree on something here. After all, the FI conflict is well over and the Judeo-Palestinian still goes on.
Whatever we do, people, let's remember that WP is not a battleground, just an encyclopedia that should benefit the whole world. Nobody benefits if we suppress facts or we hide terms just because of political allegiances. Let's also remember that a) The FI are British 100% until the islanders decide otherwise, b) English WP is the "biggest of 'em all" therefore Non-Native English speakers form an interesting percentage of all WP readers (big enough so we should consider them) and c) nothing we do here will take or give merits to an idea over another... The world will keep on turning no matter what wording we choose. Take care. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

First European landing

I have read (in a British encyclopaedia) that John Davis landed on the Islands in 1592, which would pre-date the alleged first landing of 1600; also that sovereignty was claimed (but without a plaque!). The confusion in sovereignty may thus originate from the French selling something they didn't own. The French also similarly tried to claim ownership of another uninhabited South American territory that had already been discovered and claimed by another European nation - Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Maybe those attempting to resolve this disputed page (good luck with that!) can investigate this apparent 1592 landing.80.225.120.192 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

According to History of the Falkland Islands... "An archipelago in the region of the Falkland Islands appeared on maps from the early 16th century, suggesting they may have been sighted by Ferdinand Magellan's or another expedition of the 1500s. Amerigo Vespucci is believed to have sighted the islands in 1502, but did not name them. Both explorers were in Spanish service." —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What is Port Stanley called?

Check out this dicussion in the Port Stanley Page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stanley%2C_Falkland_Islands#The_Name_of_Port_Stanley

Gantlord 09:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I got wiped out in the Spanish version for posting a picture which shows the name as 'Stanley' with the comment that 'wikipedia is not a repostory for pictures' clearly some do not want those that tell it like it is. --Gibnews 17:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol. What did you expect? For them NPOV means the Malvinas are Argentine and even Chileans who dare disagree get jumped on very swiftly, SqueakBox 17:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Population Inconsistency

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

GDP Per Capita

I noticed the GDP per capita listed in the article (and the article on the economy of the islands) is quite a bit lower than that reported by the Economist on 4 April 07 which puts it at ~$50000 per person (the article). I'm hesitant to change the amount listed in the two articles owning to the huge difference in the two numbers ($25k v. $50k), however the Economist feels like a reputable source. Can anyone shed some light into the two numbers and perhaps provide a government statistical agency source? Imlepid 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This puts the GDP at £70m, which would be close to $50k per person. Thats 2 reliable sources that disagree with the CIA factbook. I'm guessing the CIA is just out of date. --LiamE 03:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Official figures here put it beyond doubt. --LiamE 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I'll update the two articles. Imlepid 18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Humm, upon closer inspection the official number is from 2001, versus the CIA number from 2002. So, the 2001 numbrer would have given ~$34,800 in 2001 (at GBPUSD exchance of 1.45) where as now it would be at $50k. So, there are some games that can be played with the numbers. Does any one have suggestions on how to resolve this? Is there a more recient number (say from 2005 or 06)? I'm hesitant to change it in light of the fact that the Foreign Office number is older than the CIA one. Imlepid 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the GDP in GBP would maybe help. Sorry I forgot there has been such a huge change in the exchange rate between then and now. --LiamE 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

2006 Census

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

Ambiguous statement

From the article:

"The first European explorer widely credited with sighting the islands is Sebald de Weert, a Dutch sailor, in 1600."

Literally this means that of all the European explorers widely credited with sighting the islands, de Weert was the first. I doubt very much that this is the intended meaning. The intended meaning is probably either that de Weert is widely credited as being the first person (ever, in the whole world) to sight the islands (and he happened to be a European explorer), or that de Weert is widely credited as being the first European explorer to sight the islands (i.e. there is some possibility that Native Americans sighted it earlier - I don't know how likely that is). Perhaps someone who knows the intention could fix up this sentence? Matt 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

The discussion of possible discovery by Patagonians is mentioned early in the article.--MacRusgail 15:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, you're right, it's clear enough. I was obviously not paying attention. For the sake of logical correctness I tweaked the sentence anyway. Matt 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

THe Name of this article

This article should be named Falkland Island/the Malvinas to counterbalance the current British POV throughout the article. In fact quite a bit of this article needs rewriting.--Vintagekits 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, and no, SqueakBox 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is your only response then I will be changing the name of the article after 24 hours - no laughing this time I am serious as cancer.--Vintagekits 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) before you make a fool of yourself. --Guinnog 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You know my argument and our naming conventions will not back you, we should use the common term and Falkland Island/the Malvinas isnt that. This would only create an edit war, SqueakBox 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case more promience needs to be given to other perspectives rather than just that of the British.--Vintagekits 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What you mean is you are anti-British. But the Falkland Islanders are not and the place is called what they chose, with the foreign name there simply for information, and does not get the same prominence. Thats the consensus. Changing is is simple toublemaking. --Gibnews 23:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didnt realise that they were indiginous people! Like the fact that you think Gibraltar is a county of England! The Malvinas is an alternate English language name for the islands and this FACT should not be swept under the carpet by the usually British (ex-Pat) editors. I will be changing the article tommorrow unless there is a good reason given not to.--Vintagekits 23:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ex-pats? You mean there are more than one of us (assuming you are referring to me as one ex-pat and given gibNews is absolutely not a British nor any other kind of ex-pat). I am happy to hear why exactly this article is pro-Brit in terms of its POV balance. Its news to me that anyone was indigenous to the Falklands, though of course the indigenous people dont exactly count for much in Argentina either but I am confused by the indigenous reference you make Vintage. Malvinas is NOT an alternative English name for the island. It could be argued your claim belittles the Argentine sovereignty claim as actually Malvinas is a Spanish word and the Argentinians want to turn these islands into Spanish speaking Argentinian colonies, SqueakBox 23:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets get down to business - you state "Malvinas is NOT an alternative English name for the island" - how many links do you want to prove otherwise before you admit you are wrong!--Vintagekits 23:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well one or two that explicitly state it is a common usage term in English would be a starter, something you havent offered up till now, SqueakBox 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What about this or this or this (my personal favourite!)--Vintagekits 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nameing territories on Wikipedia on the basis of a personal campaign of racism is a bad idea. Please desist from making offensive comments about Gibraltar and other editors. --Gibnews 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you calling me a racist? If you are I will report you - either remove your disgusting comment and apologies or I will report you.--Vintagekits 00:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I remind you the purpose of this talk page is to discuss items for inclusion on the Falkland Islands page and not for issuing threats against other editors. You have posted messages accusing the British of being 'thieves' and expressing the view that Gibraltar should be Spanish. On that basis you seem to have an anti-british agenda. --Gibnews 00:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Vintage, none of your 3 links provide what I want, which is a link that says that Malvinas is a common usage term.

Your use of the term ex-pat in relation to Gib diminishes both he and I. So you really are not in a postion to be saying "I'll report you..." for allegations of any sort, SqueakBox 01:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Its very use proves its common usage, have you got a link to state that the Falkland Islands is a common usage term? - the fact is that you will refuse to accept any amount of references no matter what.--Vintagekits 09:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I ask Vintagekits to come to the talk page, and I find off-article arguments brought here, ending up with "... a personal campaign of racism ...". SqueakBox, I think you have much less to admonish Vintagekits for, than you would have Gibnews, if you looked at the above objectively. An outside observer sees "Lets get down to business ... how many links do you want ..." countered with what looks like baiting from Gibnews. I mentioned to Vintagekits that people can get hung up on even one word, well 'racism' is one of those words. Do we hear a 'oops' from anyone?

I can understand some amount of frustration, given the number of times the issue has been raised before. However, the above is excessively demonstrative. 'Lol' is not a good opening to any line of inquiry. Ask for their best evidence, wait for it, look at it, and then say how and why you think it doesn't change the status quo. Getting more facts/refs is always a good thing. The above is clearly "not a good thing." Shenme 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dquek, unless you have any further queries I am going to make the edit.--Vintagekits 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont need a reference that it is called the Falkland Islands because that is the official name. Not much point in making your edit to the opening because consensus and sourcing both fail to back up your claim, SqueakBox 19:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Britains official name for the island is the Falklands - however, Britain doesnt rule the world anymore or other people call the islands by a different name and this should be reported here - WIKI IS NOTCENSORED!--Vintagekits 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Britain has never ruled the world (come here and you will see what I mean); of course Britain does still rule the Falkland Islands, SqueakBox 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

However it doesnt rule wiki and alternate English names should be used not censored!--Vintagekits 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Malvinas is not an English name, its the name that the claimant would like to use, rather like they wish Stanley called Puerto Argentina. It seems perverse to push the use a Spanish name to describe something British, particularly whene the people living in the territory reject its use due to the irredentist implications. --Gibnews 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews, this is not a discussion about who "owns" the islands this is about alternate names in the English language that people use for the islands. SOme people in the English language dont call them the Falkland Islands and call them "the Malvinas". That is not disputable - I have provided the references.--Vintagekits 21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If they call them that then they either have an agenda, or they are badly informed, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to to provide an accurate reference. The people in the Falkland Islands do not use the term, and in the end the name of the territory is their decision. Go and ask their opinion. --Gibnews 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus christ!! its not that the point why they use it - the point is that they use it and its used. --Vintagekits 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

from an April foolsday article in the Guardian many years ago "Malvinas can be loosely translated as "Sour Grapes" completely irrelevant (and possibly irreverent) I know but makes me laughBennyTec 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Malvinas v (Las) Islas Malvinas

Why does the article say "also called Malvinas"? The following are equivalent:

• The Falkland Islands : Las Islas Malvinas
• Falkland Islands : Islas Malvinas
• The Falklands : Las Malvinas
• Falklands : Malvinas

Why doesn't the article adopt the same nomenclature as the CIA World Factbook [15]? The Falkland Islands, also called Las Islas Malvinas etc etc The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Or indeed, it could follow the same convention as English Channel. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad example, the Engliish channel is a stretch of water whose sovereignty is shared between Britain and France whereas the Falklands are exclusively British, SqueakBox 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You might read the archive in which all those questions are answered. After months of discussion we hit on a consensus version which was acceptable to everyone, and it seems to have held. Changing it for the sake of promoting further lengthy argument is not productive. --Gibnews 21:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, delivered in your usual unpleasant style. Consensus a year ago between a handful of editors does not equate to wording that can never be changed. Other editors may join the article with different views. A request for comment can be opened to get a wider view. My concern here is not to promote argument or to push a particular POV. I am just concerned that this wording is grammatically incorrect and misleading. The simple facts are that in the English language they are the Falkland Islands, in the Spanish language they are Las Islas Malvinas, and Falkland Islanders find the Spanish name offensive. I find it bizarre that the article says "also known as Malvinas" - in which language is it the norm to drop the definite article if using the term "Malvinas"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like yet another personal attack. --Gibnews 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the Islands are British and not Argentinian, SqueakBox 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish, I wish, I wish, that contributors could be more mature about things like this. Look at Britannica: [16] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Again if you read the archive you would find that we discussed Britanica at length. There are those who would like no mention of 'Malvinas' at all and the present wording is a compromise which was found to be acceptable. There are many more worthwhile things to do than to open this can of worms again. --Gibnews 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Having read a bit more on this page, what I see is some people suggesting things, and you pushing back on them, like you did to me here, because it currently stands the way you like it. I would like to reopen this debate to a wider audience, via a request for comment. The current compromise is awful and hangs on one document from the UN. I've heard your views Gibnews, I'd like to see if anyone else replies here, and then based on that, open up an RFC. My motive, incidentally, is that I think that the statement "also known as Malvinas" is incorrect both for Spanish and English. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I would like to see any reference to Malvinas (which is the Spanish word for Falklands) removed. For me the current version is a compromise and I would strongly oppose having to compromise any further, SqueakBox 16:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to saying (Spanish: Islas Malvinas)? The "Name" section adequately covers the distaste of the islanders of this name, but it is undeniable that this is the Spanish (Peninsular Sp., as well as LatAm Sp.) name of the islands and wrong for Wikipedia to censor the word Malvinas. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I dont object to that. I do object to the Malvinas and can live with the current version but would support a similar stance to at the sovereignty article, ie stating that Malvinas is Spanish, SqueakBox 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Hopefully some others will reply with their thoughts. I completely agree that "the" Malvinas is wrong. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Or my favourite which would be to not mention las Malvinas at all, SqueakBox 16:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you would love to censor the word malvinas from all artilce, other British editors would also love to censor it - thank @#$% wiki isnt censored. The islands are refered to as "the Malvinas" in the English language in tandem with or instead of the more common "Falklands Islands" - they may do that for many reasons but that is not the point they use it and it is referenced. You cannot censor information you do not like because of your own POV.--Vintagekits 16:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Vintage, I think we should mention the Spanish word for the Falklands in the soveriengty article as that is about Argentina's sovereingty claim amongst other things whereas this article is about the islands that are called the Falklands by almost everybody in English (the exception being some politicians who have to keep Argentinian sentiments sweet and a tiny minority of other people who hate the British), SqueakBox 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think censoring the word is the right thing to do at all. No neutral body does so (ISO/CIA/Britannica/UN). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What has the Argentinian claim got to do with neutrality? SqueakBox 16:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A neutral statement would be: the islands are British but they are claimed by Argentina, where Spanish is spoken, and the Spanish name for the islands is Las Islas Malvinas. None of that is deniable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone asked for someone different to reply :-). My take: in standard usage, "the Falklands" is the English term, "las Malvinas" the Spanish term. We should work on that principle. In both languages, a small minority use the other term: Argentine and anti-British sources when speaking English might say "the Malvinas", while British and anti-Argentine sources in Spanish might say "las Islas Falklands".

"Malvinas" in English is a strongly loaded term. It does not, in effect, say "those little islands in the South Atlantic" - as "Falklands" does in English, it says "those little islands in the South Atlantic that belong to Argentina". In Spanish, reverse "Falklands" and "Malvinas" and put in "the UK" for "Argentina". Because of this load, the compromise we have is on the Argentine side of a strict NPOV, IMO.

I think "The Falkland Islands, (Spanish: Islas Malvinas)" would be a reasonable compromise, possibly with the "name" section expanded to explain the situation a bit better. As a bonus, it also gives a reasonable balance with the Spanish Wikipedia's ("Las Islas Malvinas (en inglés Falkland Islands)"). Or we could use something like Red Hat's solution (say: "the islands are governed as a British Overseas Territory but they are claimed by Argentina, where Spanish is spoken. The Spanish name for the islands is Las Islas Malvinas.") at the end of the opening paragraph as an alternative - one or the other, I think. Pfainuk 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits, how do you feel about that? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that once upon a time the article had the (Spanish:) heading, and that it was changed because some people thought the Spanish version had no reason to be there at all. Others then argumented that Malvinas is often used in English articles (though not as the main name), and thus the current format. I have no problems with either version, I just don't want to go through all that painful process we had already suffered... --Mariano(t/c) 18:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Mariano. Either the current or "(Spanish: )" will do from my end. However either "Islas Malvinas" or "Malvinas" (without "Las") is the correct spanish grammar. "Las" is an article and should be implicit since we're talking about "Islas", a plural feminine noun. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone mentioned the Spanish WP: Las Islas Malvinas (en inglés Falkland Islands). I really do think the English one should take a leaf out of its book and do the converse. The Falkland Islands (Sp: Islas Malvinas). The important thing is to have the full Spanish translation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands is Las Islas Malvinas but we only say The in English for grammar. I am okay with the current version but would prefer The Falkland Islands (in Spanish Islas Malvinas) as I can certainly live with including the Spanish term even if I wouldnt put it in if it were my article, SqueakBox 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the fact that several people have replied, and noone is opposed, I changed the opener. *dons flame retardent suit and hides behind sofa* The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 20:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the beginning of the "Name" section to "The islands are referred to by most in the English language as "[The] Falkland Islands"." - adding the words "by most", in order to reflect that while "Falkland Islands" is used by the large majority, it is not 100% universal. I don't want to fan any flames - I'm not going to start an edit war over it or anything - but I think it better reflects the situation as it is. Pfainuk 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted yoru edit back to The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's above. I think as it's taken a fair bit of discussion to reach that consensus, it's only fair to let it stand for a while. (I also think that you'd need to provide good solid evidence that it's not the general name in ordinary everyday English speech in order to justify the qualification you added. In my observations to the discussions so far, I've not seen evidence of that, although this is a personal view.) DrFrench 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning was not to say that "Falkland Islands" is not the general name in ordinary English speech - it is. My reasoning is that some groups - most notably the Argentine government (bearing in mind the notes in my previous comment) - use "Malvinas" in English instead. But as I say, I don't feel strongly about it. Pfainuk 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pfainuk, you are 100% correct, many with a non "pro British nationalistic" perspective refer to the islands as "the Malvinas" in the English language. This should be reflected in the article. The article name solely refers to Falklands and not the Malvinas so this alternate English language name should at the least be reflected in the opening paragraph of the article.--Vintagekits 20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my point is that is that while "Falkland Islands" is the normal usage in English and is reasonably neutral, a very small minority, pro-Argentines, use "Malvinas" as an English word. To me, it doesn't seem unreasonable to use a solution as per Falklands War in its current revision - to state precisely that. "Malvinas" should not be given equal prominence to "Falklands", but recognition of "Malvinas" as the Argentine name for the islands is reasonable in the opening paragraph - which is what we have now. A fuller explanation of the situation in the "name" section is not unreasonable. Pfainuk 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor point of order: it's the name in Spanish, not the Argentine name per se. Peninsular Spanish uses "Malvinas" too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I was about to make a revision to say exactly that :-). I've done a little grammar fix but will leave this here. Pfainuk 21:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems that WP:NPOV#Undue weight would suggest that such a 'small minority' view need not be given a mention at all. I was trying to think of other parallel examples, the only one that springs to mind (and it's not a perfect parallel either) is the Derry-Londonderry name dispute where the choice of name used would often reflect the political bias of the speaker. To specifically use the Spanish name for the Islands when speaking in English, would suggest to me that the speaker is wishing to make a political point rather than using it as an English phrase. DrFrench 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am extremely pleased with the current status of the page. Congrats to all editors involved!!!. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I missed the last days but was already a consensus for this. It had been talked for months. Malvinas is also part of the United Nations name given to the islands (http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/geoname.pdf) therefore it is not only spanish. Also, e.g., is it often used in chinese english media. That why we agreed to put also called Malvinas ( italics and w/o spanish neither islas ) . I think this issue came out again because some people want to push las islas or something new but it was already a debate about this Jor70 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The evidence (a PDF from the UN saying "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)") does not support the conclusion (that "Malvinas" is an English as well as a Spanish name). You are implicitly assuming (ie, engaging in OR) that any term that appears in that document is an English language term. Not only is there no statement anywhere confirming that assumption, but it is demonstrably false. The document also lists the "alternative form" for Guatemala's capital city Guatemala, as "La Ciudad de Guatemela". This is clearly Spanish, not English. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? I just show you only the official UN territories names list. Do you prefer I link here 2 millions UN sites pages refering the islands as Falklands/Malvinas ? is not spanish, it is the official international name under the ISO standard . Please read the last 2 month debate Jor70 00:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it, Jor, why do you insist on using "Malvinas" differently. What's the point? The name in Spanish is "Malvinas", in English is "Falklands". The UN is being politically correct to avoid making a statement in favor of either country. I live in the US and I've never ever heard Malvinas used to designate the islands. Let's be civil and compromise, it's not that big of a deal, anyway. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I am from Ireland and I here more people refer to the Islands as "the Malvinas" than I hear people refer to the Islands as "Falkland Islands"--Vintagekits 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Its probably the people you hang out with (assuming you dont talk to strangers about the islands). I've never heard them referred to as the Malvinas in the UK or on US television (which I have). They are referred to as Las Malvinas where I live but that's because people speak Spanish here, SqueakBox 16:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The people that Vintagekits talks to are probably not British. However, the official name of the territory remains the Falkland Islands and nothing else. That it has an alternative name is a fact, and the way to indicate that it does not have the same standing was the way we were showing it before. Labeling it as 'Spanish' is not really correct as its not a matter of language. The original version we had was more precise. --Gibnews 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely was not more precise. It was misleading, and misrepresentative of the origin of the names: "Falklands" is English, "Malvinas" is Spanish (Hispanicized from the French). How you can deny the etymology is bizarre. Even the FCO country profile (which by your own words "a lot of care" is taken over and is "100% accurate") says so. "John Strong. He named the Islands after Viscount Falkland, First Lord of the Admiralty at the time. French seal hunters, who were frequent visitors to the area in the eighteenth century, called the Islands 'les Iles Malouines' after the port of St Malo, and it was from this that the Spanish designation, las Islas Malvinas, originated." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not "Briitsh wiki" - "the Malvinas" or simply "Malvinas" is a significant alternate English language name and this should be represented in the article.--Vintagekits 17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you could prove your case I would agree with you. But lamentably you have completely failed in proving that it is any more than a thoroughly obscure term in English, SqueakBox 17:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Seba came on!, I agree that Falklands is most common than Malvinas for english speaking people, but there are out there people who use Malvinas in english too (the minority yes that why was in italics) and I m not refereing the IRA but mainly the international comunnity in diplomatic levels (UN/ISO) plus some specific media (e.g. the chinese or latin american sources) so putting Spanish is incorrect .-Jor70 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jor70 the IRA doesnt not = Ireland and vice versa. The term Malvinas is widespread and a common usage in Ireland and from research it seems that the same is in other countries. Yes, Falkland Islands is the main english language term used but Malvinas or the Malvinas is also a common english language name and this needs to reflected in the article. To ignore this is showing a polarised pro-Brit POV and a breach of WP:NPOV.--Vintagekits 08:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then forgive me, and add Ireland in my examples list too. Anyway my point was that add Spanish is not correct, and the original consensus version was more appropiate :The Falkland Islands, also called Malvinas are ... Jor70 10:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The name (continued)

The point of the sentence is to state the name of the territory. The official name is the Falkland Islands, because that used by the residents and is used in the published Laws of the territory.

This is the English language Wiki and its not necessary to translate everything into other languages, however as the name promoted by Argentina is used its appropriate to indicate the English language version of it The Malvinas That is not Spanish.

The compromise has held between the Argentine and nationalist British elements, although it may not suit editors with an agenda of whacking anything British, or those who want to provoke dispute for the sake of it.

(this was added in the wrong place earlier as the thread is too long)

--Gibnews 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Official Spanish name

The islands are an overseas territory of a member of the EU, and therefore have an official connection to the EU. The EU has many official languages, one of which is Spanish. And in EU law, the official Spanish name for the islands is Islas Falklands. TharkunColl 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Some Chileans use this term as well, SqueakBox 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i understand you never got out of british empire, but you have to know that in all south america, not only in Argentina, the name of the island are Gran Malvina and Isla Soledad, and both Islas Malvinas.... with their capital in Puerto Argentino... if you want to put another name like stanleyland... do as you wish... but there is one thing i'm sure... Malvinas is not a french word... Mallouies is... not Malvinas... Malvinas is, was ando will be a Spanish term, just like Puerto Argentino. What you had just said is like saying that chocolate is spanish, not english... when it is almost both. YOURS.

Sure lots of us understand Spanish and the main Spanish word for these islands is Malvinas just as the main English word is Falklands and calling Falklands a Spanish term is very much like calling Malvinas an English term, fine for political niceties and the odd anti-Brit or anti-Argentine extremist but not much else, o sea que no sirven, SqueakBox 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the term for the islands in ALL South America is that because the Falklands are themselves in South America and the term used there is The Falkland Islands. --Gibnews 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that is true. There are also Chileans who use the term Falklands, there was a young man being slated for it on the es wikipedia recently and it appeared that he thought Falklands was a legitimate Spanish word until persuaded otherwise by the various Argentinian editors who watch the Spanish Malvinas articles like true hawks, SqueakBox 00:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

by the constitution of Argentina, all the people who born in Falkland Islands(Malvinas) is recognised like an argentine, so, if you are talking in general terms, you would notice than in a country of forty millon people, two thousand don't make the difference.... if you wanna talk about chile term for the islands, chile is an historical enemy to argentina, so they use the british term in the maps and the history books, but not in the informal way...

Anyway, reading the comments previously from user:Jor70 who has an Argentine viewpoint, albeit well balanced and others - we do not currently have a form of words which is accurate and represents a consensus. If I said that the sky was blue there are those with inflated opinions of themselves who would claim its always grey. As there already is a section which explains the name of the territory in Spainsh in the context of the history of the claim, unless the Malvinas word can be used in a non-spanish context, should it really be at the beginning ? I argued against TharkunColl removing it in order to balance the unofficial and official names, however begin to wonder if its appropriate to include it in the first sentence after all. --Gibnews 00:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There are more people who are happy with the current version than are unhappy. What is absolutely not the right thing to do is make a change without discussing it first, as you did today. Oh, and also please stop being rude. There is no need to insult others who hold a different view to you by claiming that they have an inflated opinion of themselves. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, but you are just one editor, not a consensus and your changes have not improved the introduction nor are they correct; the Spanish is 'Las Malvinas' not 'Islas Malvinas' and the reason for putting the name there is not because it is Spanish but because it is an unofficial name which used. --Gibnews 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There are explicit instructions not to change the wording without discussion first. Please don't do it again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. --Gibnews 16:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote: Trying to change the sentence will be reverted on sight without discussion by many of the editors part of the discussion. If you have overriding NEW arguments, please bring them to the talk page first The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you had any authority, it would not be respected. --Gibnews 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't my words, sonny boy. They are the words of the community of editors. And for the umpteenth time, please be CIVIL. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 20:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to provoke me with repeated insults ? --Gibnews 17:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Grow up, please. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please spend more time creating pages and less issuing orders and insults. --Gibnews 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to continue this inane conversation, please post on my talk page and don't bother everyone else with it. Thankyou. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to live with the current version as a compromise but do agree with Tharkun while respecting Jor70 (but I tend to have a British viewpoint in these matters though have always deplored the war), SqueakBox 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the term for the islands in ALL South America is that because the Falklands are themselves in South America and the term used there is The Falkland Islands. --Gibnews 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that is true. There are also Chileans who use the term Falklands, there was a young man being slated for it on the es wikipedia recently and it appeared that he thought Falklands was a legitimate Spanish word until persuaded otherwise by the various Argentinian editors who watch the Spanish Malvinas articles like true hawks, SqueakBox 00:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not really the place to debate concepts like that, however the territory is one thing and people are another, people come from all over the place and because the Falkland Islanders happen to come from the UK they have no less a right to self determination, and the right to name their homeland whatever they like than residents of other countries in the continent created by immigrants. --Gibnews 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

These people definitely live in the southern hemisphere just off the South American continent which sounds pretty South American to me, and remebering that Guyana is an English speaking South American country. Lots of Kelpers descendants come from Britain but lots of Argentinians descendants come from Spain and Italy but that doesnt make them European, indeed there is a huige anmount of whitye European blood throughout the entire American continent, SqueakBox 16:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It has always struck me as just a tad hypocritical for the Argentines to belittle the Falkland Islanders claims because they are the descendants of foreign, European conquerers, when that's exactly what the Argentines are as well. TharkunColl 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And speaking a thoroughly European language to boot, SqueakBox 17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway can we get back to the point, the page says (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) I think the correct Spanish is 'Las Malvinas' and not that so either the Spanish bit should go or the Islas should be replaced. Thats what the writing on the wall says

• http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/tstories/jsmith/images/road%20sign%20malvinas.jpg

--Gibnews 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a very strange idea of what constitutes a verifiable source. What on earth do you think that photo proves? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 20:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi!. i am pablo from argentina... i had read some comments before mine and i saw that one of the problems you got here is the spanish term... in my opinion Islas Malvinas is not a traduction of Falkland Islands, but is the way the spanish speakers call them... so thats the way this name have to be include in the page in my opinion, like the way some countries know them...

the source i have to be sure about the term of Islas Malvinas, is i live in Argentina, i born here, and we called them ISLAS MALVINAS.... the term "las mavinas" is an informal way to call them, but in ower maps and history books they are called by Islas Malvinas... taking in account that the british and another countries know them like Falkland Islands, it never was an objection.... what's your opinion about changing the word: in spanish... Islas Malvinas to known by Islas Malvinas.

the name, doesn't matter, the important thing is what is it. i hope what i had wrote help you guys....

Pablo (in english paul, but is not my name, is it?)

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/argentina_rel96.jpg

http://www.argentour.com/mapas/archivosmapas/mapaargentina.gif

http://www.andy21.com/argentina/img/mapapolitico.jpg

here i left three different sources, one is british with a translation, and the other are two maps used in argentina and in some countries of south america (chile is not included: there is an historical disputation with chile about the territory, that's why they never helped Argentina) pablo.!

in deed that it is true, taking in account what we did about the name and its translation to spanish because of the argentine wiki... we have to know that in the case of the capital city, in the spanish wiki are using both terms too, stanley and Puerto Argentino. about this term, we have to know that Stanley had been created by the name of Puerto Argentino, and we british change the name to Stanley... or almost it is what i believe... make your comments.

I know we're mixing subjects here, but I want to put something to rest. "Las Malvinas" is a colloquial abbreviation of "Las Islas Malvinas". The proper Spanish name is "Islas Malvinas". Most islands have the prefix "Islas" in Spanish (similar to the english "xxx Islands"). The colloquialisms that people use everyday are shorthand-language and should not be used in WP. Please let's use the formal name for the islands in Spanish. Drwaing a parallel non Spanish-speaking readers, it is like naming the article for the Falkland Islands as "The Falklands".

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

i think the same you do.... but the other suggestion about the capital is not necesary because the capital had been created by the name of port luis, re-named by british Stanley and known in south america like Puerto argentino since the argentine legitimate ocupation in 1982. so the name of the city is Stanley but you can make an historical reference to Port Luis and to Puerto Argentino in the 1982 war. [pablo.(argentine)]

Legitimate occupation? Oh dear. Perhaps all coutries with 200 year old claims to land should just go ahead and invade anytime eh? How about Germany restating claims around Europe? Or the UK trying for a land grab in the US? How about modern Italy claiming Roman Empire teritory? What world do you live in? Ever heard the term self-determination? --LiamE 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

that is a prove about the poor information you have of the islands. you should know that the islands were recognise to be argentine in the beggining, and were the british who invaded them creating a colony since 1833(200 years don't give any rights to an ocupation), so the comparations you do with germany and italy is more similar to british situation than argentine. The war wasn't legitimate, but the ocupation was; today's sovereignty is not in discussion, but ilegitimate invasion was in 1833, no in 1982... u have toknow that.

what about the name?? that's the important thing, what Liame just said doesn't have any sense... Liame you should read more books, about the self-determination the UN don't recognise it in Falkland case because of the british blood of the people living in those islands.(put by british there, obviously) the only thing their consider, are the interest of the kelpers, not they wishes. PABLO.

Should the Argentines hand over their country to the native Indians of the region? The Argentines, after all, are descended from foreign European invaders and settlers, just like the Falkland Islanders. TharkunColl 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I realise this is an emotional issue, but arguing about it here isn't going to change anyone's mind or solve the sovereignty issue, so let's stick to the task at hand, which is making the article better. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 16:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

my dear Tharkuncoll, there is a simple difference between Argentina and Falklands... Falklands is a colony of the british empire, but Argentine is not a colony of Spain since 1816. So the "indians"(as you said) are citizens of Argentina, who is an american country, with people born in america. The people who live in the falklands are consider by Argenina like argentines such as everyone who live in the continent, the only invasor is britain, not the people there. Argentina never want to fire this people of their land, such as britain do with argentines in 1833 ( it seems that british forgot about self-determination in this criminal action)... another suggestion to you is to read about the british invasions to Argentine in 1806 and 1807, british never want to free any country or to take some small islands, they want a piece of land in the south ocean just to claime any rights in the Antartic continent. so as they were defeated in Argentina, they searched for an oportunity at the Islas Malvinas. PABLO.

jajajaja you are insane paul.. but i think you are right, is not argentine's fault that english have only an island in the middle of the ocean, it's like they have not many space there... concon98

i think as The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick does, let's stop this stupid things and get back to the important one. about the name, had someone just see the sources i put after? about islas Malvinas? pablo

Independence date

Shouldn't the field British overseas territory at the infobox say 1833? I don't think it's worth changing it just because of some failed invasion followed by a two-month war --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 08:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Its obviously something worth celebrating, and surely a matter for the Falkland Islanders to decide which particular day of the year they celebrate their independence. --Gibnews 08:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Given San Loranzo del Escorial Treaty and the Masserano Conventions, it should read "illegal invasion day: 3-1-1833" -Argentini an 22:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why an independence date to begin with? The Falkland Islands have never been independent. They've been a colony of someone or other since the Europeans arrived. --MacRusgail 01:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Emotion vs. Logic

I recognize that, 25 years later, the Falklands is still a pretty touchy subject for Brits. For the rest of the world (except Argentina maybe) the Falklands are a distant, sparsley populated land that nobody wants to visit. A typical joke in America at the time was "The Falkin' Islands? Which falkin' islands are you talking about? There are lots of falkin' islands all over the world!" If the names are that touchy, it would still be interesting to compare the Falklands map on the English version (which has a glitch in it when you try to enlarge) to the Malvinas map on the Spanish version of this article. Maybe a Falklands/Malvinas article can be created. Mandsford 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody in the UK had heard of them till 82, or almost nobody, SqueakBox 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point. Its not a matter of what you, I, or Miguel in Argentina think - the important people are the Falkland Islanders. They do not wish to be associated with Argentina and have made that clear. Wikipedia should reflect that reality and not something wished for by outsiders. --Gibnews 11:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If Argentina shipped 100,000 Argentinans to the Malvinas tomorrow would would it still be the decision of those in the Malvinas? The current occupant are simply ex-Pat Brits!--Vintagekits 13:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be a very cruel thing to do to their citizens, however the Falkland Islanders are not ex-pats, its their home. Please learn to respect peoples human rights.

http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm

--Gibnews 22:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If Falkland Islanders are British ex-pats, then Argentinians are Spanish/Italian ex-pats. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends how you want to play it. 40% of the Falkland Islands' residents were not born there. That forty percent probably counts as "expat" - mostly from England, and the odd one from St Helena.--MacRusgail 01:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally the term 'ex-pat' is applied to someone living in a country for a short term with the intention of going home at the end. People outside that category are migrants. At present the UK has a large number of Polish ex-pats but also has a large migrant population. If the recent immigrants to the Falkland Islands intend to make it their home, then they have rights in respect of determining its future. More so than someone in Argentina who will never live there. However, the purpose of this discussion page is to make wikipedia better not to debate human rights. Thre people of a territory have the right to self-determination, what their names and ethnicity are is immaterial. --Gibnews 09:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. An expat is an emigrant, particularly one who hankers after their homeland. There are many "expats" in Spain for example, who have lived there for decades, and call themselves "expats". That's hardly short term. Quite a considerable number of Falkland residents have moved in, and if those whose parents were born outside the islands were included, I'm sure the percentage may rise to 50% or more. You have also highlighted a contradiction - the ethnicity is material. Argentines cannot buy land in the Falklands by law, and would not be made welcome there, even if they came in as tolerant, peaceful expats like the many people from England who live there now.

Many Chinese have moved into Tibet, and play their part in "self-determination". The Falkland example is not as extreme, but if large numbers move to a colony (which the Falkland Islands are still run as) from the Mother Country... of course they're going to be in favour of it. Immigrants from England also have educational and economic advantages the islanders don't. --MacRusgail 15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Brits (Germans etc) in Spain fall into categories but the ex-pats are the ones who live in the country and have not become part of it. Thats their choice, but those who have adopted nationality should have the same rights as the natives. I don't think its correct to refer to the Falklands as 'a colony' because UK Citizens do not have automatic right of residence. Whatever, the future of the Falklands, is a matter for the Islanders as much as the future of Scotland will be determined by its inhabitants, new and old. I spoke to a croatian in Aberdeen with a Glasgow accent recently, wierd ! --Gibnews 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's run politically as a colony. British colonies have "Legcos", and are headed up by unelected figures appointed by the monarchy (or its reps) and called something or other "governor". (I've no doubt they'll kindly lend Scotland a "governor" at some point in the future when we've moved on) There's been a shift towards democracy in the Falklands, but the place is still run by ex-military diplomats who are chosen in London for their "loyalty" (read unquestioning), and not by Falklanders. Then there's the whole question of land ownership. It's only since the 80s that the colonial monopoly was really broken up, and a handful of people still have control over most of the land. There are nature reserves, but no proper public parks. There's a lot of problems with Falkland life which go beyond the sovereignty question. --MacRusgail 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Is there actually a point here? I for one can't find it. --RaiderAspect 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the Argentine Government view is the Falkland Islanders are a bunch of ex-pats rather than 'a people' and have no right to the territory, a view supported by the IRA fan club who dislike all Brits on principle.

If you are interested in the politics of decolonisation read

http://www.gibnews.net/cgi-bin/gn_print.pl/?GSLA070523_1.xml

But in terms of creating an encyclopedia you are quite right.

--Gibnews 08:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but not everyone who supports Irish independence is a member of the IRA fan club. That's a disgusting assumption to make. It's like saying that all supporters of Gibraltar's Britishness are money launderers or employed by the British military. --MacRusgail 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment referred specifically to those who ARE members of the IRA fan club there is no 'assumption' made - nor is there a need to be insulting and recycle unfounded allegations of criminality. --Gibnews 00:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"If Falkland Islanders are British ex-pats, then Argentinians are Spanish/Italian ex-pats. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)"

This guy is 100% right. We are Spanish/Italians.

"The point is that the Argentine Government view is the Falkland Islanders are a bunch of ex-pats rather than 'a people' and have no right to the territory"

This guy seems to be unable to think. If Argentina considered the Falkland Isladers and a "bunch of ex-pats" then why did the militar force in 1982 not expell them? Why did they treated them as People born in Argentine soil, therefore, Argentinians??? --Argentini an 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither the Kelpers nor the Argentinians are ex-pats. I am a British ex-pat because I grew up in Britain and now live in latin America. My Dad is not an ex-pat Italinan though his father was because my Dad grew up in Britain, 23:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Argentine Government considered them citizens, they were deluded - the Falkland Islanders are British. The rights of Argentine citizens under Galtieri were questionable and according to comments in a documentary shown this week the islanders feared for their lives. However, the comment reflects the current Argentine diplomatic position expressed in the UN C24 which denies the right of self-determination. The Committee is meeting this week. --Gibnews 00:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record I belive that this http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/prensa/ver_articulo.php?id=2&sec= is what Gibnews is referring to. --RaiderAspect 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate these issues, and the reference to 'ex-pats' by the red herring is unhelpful. What is needed is to respect the views of others and the right of people to live wherever they want and to form part of states democraticlly. If one looks back far enough our ancestors are all from somewhere different to where we live now. We all have the right to live in peace and the other things expressed in the UDHR. --Gibnews 08:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's Red Hat, Glibnews. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province

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

Railway

Although there is apparently no functioning railway on the Falklands, I came across a reference to "the Falklands Islands Camber Railway" at http://www.mclaren.gs/links_page.htm. It references a link to " Martin Coombs' narrow-gauge railway site". Unfortunately that site is no longer in use & access to the contents via the Internet Archive WayBackMachine has been blocked. 80.1.88.1 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have references to this railway, and I am considering writing an article on it (I'm not that interested in trains, but anyway...)--MacRusgail 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Others...

" The Falkland Islanders, as well as many others[attribution needed], tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive, as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982. Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] The use of English names is likewise offensive to many Latin Americans and supporters of the Argentine claim. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" "

Should the above be limited to what the Falkland people say and move the rest to the article about the dispute (and even place a link to the article.)? So, it might be better to write:

" The Falkland Islanders, tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive[attribution needed], as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982 (see Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands). Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] "

Brusegadi 22:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I consider its use offensive. --Gibnews 22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Its use is politicised, but it is a perfectly valid (Spanish language) name for the islands, which actually predates Argentine claims and is derived from a Breton placename. Take note also that one of the main hotels in Stanley is called "Malvina House". --MacRusgail 16:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

indeed there is a hotel named Malvina house, but the name is Malvina not Malvinas, there is a huge difference, Malvina is a womans name, I can't remember exactly who the Malvina that the hotel is named after was... it will come to me. As for the politicisation of the name, you are absolutely right, in Spanish I refer the islands as Malvinas, as that is their name in Spanish, in English they are the Falkland Islands. Note; not Malvinas/Falklands, Faklands/Malvinas or Falkland Islands (Malvinas) etc, I find the use of Malvinas in english offensive and the use of the name Falkland Islands in Spanish pointless (quite apart from Falkland Islands being difficult to pronounce in Spanish!!). We do not refer to Germany in English as Germany/Deutschland (sp?)/Alemania..etc and nor should we. The same applies to the Falkland Islands, irrespective of their contested ownership. BennyTec 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a Malvina in MacPherson's Ossian, but there is absolutely no particularly reason why it would turn up in the Falklands - Occam's Razor suggests a connection with the Malvinas. I agree with you about the name - "Alba" is Scotland in Gaelic, but it's only occasionally used in English in a political/historical context. --MacRusgail 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Malvina in question was the daughter of one of the early English settlers, John James Felton, he had three daughters; Evelyn, Malvina and Kathleen. His farm was called Evelyn Station (still in use today) after the first daughter, his town house was called Malvina house, this was eventually sold and turned into an hotel but the name was retained. History does not relate if the third daughter ever had anything namd after her. The origin of the name is gaelic; Malamhin, meaning smooth browed apparently. BennyTec 19:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nop, this article is about the Islands not the people of the islands and we are explaining in the paragrapah both the offensives way to call them. Jor70 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jor70, it seems only fair that the statements be made for both sides. Although I'd support a more neutral and objective rewording, because its hard for us to say the islanders consider something offensive as not all of them might, and presently it suggests that the majority do. Likewise to suggest a majority of latin-americans find the term Falkland Islands offensive is making a big conclusive leap, as latin-americans is slightly ambigious (what about US citizens of latin origin?). I suggest the rewording below, it better explains the reasoning and why both sides might find the terms offensive:

"Some Falkland islanders tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be slightly offensive, as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982. Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] The use of English names are likewise considered offensive by some supporters of the Argentine claim. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" to avoid offending either party."

WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that wording too. I just think that as it stands, it really reflects the animosity and lack of consensus found on the talk page. I do not find either term offensive, but I understand that some people might. Yet, we have to have the article be neutral. (Lets try to have overall neutrality and not neutrality that results from including two very opposing and extreme views that cancel each other out.) I suggest the above without the "slightly":

"Some Falkland islanders tend to consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive, as for them it has an association with Argentina's military invasion of the islands in 1982. Its use was banned as a propaganda term by General Moore.[5] The use of English names are likewise considered offensive by some supporters of the Argentine claim. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" to avoid offending either party." Brusegadi 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as it stays out of the opening all this looks very good, would go fo the offensive not slightly offensive and am happy to see the inclusion of the Argentinians finding the English names offensive, SqueakBox 02:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we name this article "Sebald Islands" and a plague on both houses! LOL. Up the Dutch.--MacRusgail 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"They reject the Argentine sovereignty claim[4]"

That sentence's citation currently links to an article from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom. Sorry, the British government is not a source with an neutral view. I'm taking down citation #4 and replacing it with citation needed. - Tocino 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted - while it may not be neutral, it is a perfectly valid source for a statement about the opinions of British citizens. (It is not supporting the assertion that Argentina's claim *is* invalid, it is supporting the assertion that British citizens - the Falklanders - *reject* Argentina's claim. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a valid source at all. The Argentina government will claim that the Falklanders are Argentine citizens... not British citizens... therefore making the UK's Foreign Office's survey invalid. Wikipedia cannot be biased in favor of certain governments. Show me an independent survey of Falkanders and then I'll believe it. - Tocino 05:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Falkland Islanders reject the claim, that is not really in dispute the government in this case is simply stating a fact. Just have a read of the hundreds of stories about the islanders in the press over the last few months and you will see that they are most certainly not interested in being Argentine citizens. One of the biggest issues with the Argentine claim is it completely ignores the wishes and rights of the residents of the Islands. Many of whom can trace their roots in the Falklands right back to 1833, not many Argentines can say the same in Argentina! BennyTec 14:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Its very sad the comparison, being the Argentines, due the UK superior global status, not allowed them to remain there since 1833.- Jor70 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Argentines have always been able to move to and live in the Falklands (apart from the period 14 June 1982 - 21 July 1999 when there was a ban on Argentine Passport holders visiting the islands except as next of kin), there are Falkland Islanders of Argentine decent living in the Islands now and there are Argentines living and working in the islands now. The issue at stake is not where people are from it is what Government governs the islands, that is British(at the wish of the Falkland Islanders be they of British, Argentine, Chilean, Russian etc decent). BennyTec 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not about bias. The government source is a reputable source; if there is genuinely a controversy over this claim, I'd like to see evidence. I don't think there is. --John 05:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. So it's alright to link to a government written articles from now on? So are we going to see pro-British govt propaganda popping up on the Iraq War articles? I do not understand what's so difficult about finding a neutral source. - Tocino 06:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have any evidence that the British FCO is lieing then please present it. Because they are saying something you disagree with is not grounds to exclude it. --Gibnews 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews, you don't get the point; you have several times turned down Argentine sources considering them biased. --Mariano(t/c) 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the two Governments statements, one exercises control of the territory and the other does not. There was an interesting feature on BBC Parliament last weekend about the Falklands war where the BBC re-ran their news bulletins, including one where they say the British sources were generally truthful, but the Argentine ones not. They got complaints from HMG for trying to be impartial in reporting things like that, but nevertheless they concluded that some sources were simply not reliable. --Gibnews 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just happened across the article, unaware of this discussion, and found the source to be incredibly biased, and have just removed it again. You cannot use the British government as a source claiming that the British government is the preferred of two claims to sovereignty. See the bit about disputed opinions on the NPOV page. Elcocinero 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

British sovereignty is unrelated to the British Government. --Gibnews 08:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship

Although its nice that people are eligible for citizenship, this requires consent.

Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

Article 15 Everyone has the right to a nationality.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

--Gibnews 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

But the Argentina Laws isnt denying, on the contrary, grants citizenship automatically to everyone born in Argentine soil, and to the effects of the Argentine Law, the islands are. Jor70 23:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So, any Falkland Islander could travel to Argentina completely freely, without a passport? TharkunColl 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, in fact most if not all southamerican citizens can enter without a passport, moreover, they can request an argentine passport :) Jor70 23:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of passports and travel, being a citizen of a country implies certain obligations and it does not sound right to me that something like that can be unilaterally imposed on someone. For instance William Joyce was hung on the grounds that he was a disloyal British Citizen. The idea has been floated that Gibraltarians might be offered Spanish nationality, although unless one were resident there, the benefit is questionable as both the UK and Spain are members of the EU. Unlike Spain, Britain and I believe Argentina allow dual nationality, however the chances are the answer from the Falkland Islanders would be thanks, but no thanks.

Unless Argentina has abolished conscription, there is the issue of military service and I believe voting is compulsory. --Gibnews 23:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Conscription was abolished more than 15 years ago and although voting is compulsory nobody goes to jail for not voting. Also, we can agree that is right or not, Im only saying that for the Argentine Law they are Argentine Citizens as Im. Jor70 23:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok lets put it another way. Under the laws of Argentina people born in the Falkland Islands are considered Argentine Citizens. However before Joe Smith from Stanley could become a Citizen he would need to establish to the compentent authority that he qualified by birth, otherwise visitors and servicemen would be included. So until such time as he provided proof and applied for citizenship - which would be automatically granted - he is not actually an Argentine Citizen. So its correct to say there are eligible but not correct to say the are Argentine citizens. --Gibnews 11:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean with visitors and servicemen ? born in the islands ? And given the unique situation I can assure you a Kelper would not need to establish qualification to any compentent authority, they will receive their documents ASAP Jor70 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I think you a right about that, the Argentine Government would not readily pass up a PR coup like that!! ;) BennyTec 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the British sense of humour there is scope for someone to register the sheep then, Or the penguins ... But as your lawyer will tell you, a contract requires an offer, and acceptance and a consideration. The acceptance is missing. --Gibnews 16:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(Un-indent) You may wish to consider the situation of Northern Ireland as an analog. They are citizens, by birth, of the Republic of Ireland, and enjoy (?) the right to travel freely within all of the island of Ireland. I do not know whether British citizens of Northern Ireland may renounce their Irish citizenship, but it is certainly the case that they enjoy all the same rights and privileges as any other Irish citizen. Indeed, the current Irish President is from Northern Ireland. -- Semifreddo 18:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You cant force someone to be a citizen of another country they werent born in and dont wish to be a part of. They may have the right to be citizens of RoI but that does not de facto make them such, and it is the same with the Kelpers. Nobody can force them to be subject to another state, its military service laws etc, SqueakBox 18:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The point I am making is that it is a contractual situation that there needs to be an offer, and acceptance and something of consequence. In the case of Argentine citizenship, its offered and its of value, but unless its actually accepted by the Islanders you cannot say the ARE citizens, which is why I changed the wording to say they are eligible. That does not make any value judgement. --Gibnews 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to pick a fight, and I don't take a position on the controversy here, but most people acquire their citizenship at birth, where there is no "contractual situation". This would seem to be true both of the Northern Irish, despite the disputed status of the region, and perhaps the Falklands, at least for those born there after Argentina started considering them citizens. Citizenship does not, in general, require a quid pro quo or acceptance of a contract. Another example is Israel: persons of Jewish descent are generally considered citizens of Israel, and in fact can be conscripted into their military if they visit Israel while eligible (this was at least once true) -- this would seem to be a situation of "forcing" citizenship on someone. However, arguing this from first principles (including my own argument here) is probably not going to be successful -- it is blatant original research. It would be better to find a citation to international law one way or the other. - Semifreddo 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording I used that says they are eligible is the best compromise. It seems a bad principle that anyone can impose nationality although were that so, one presumes the recipients can renounce it. Again although Argentina may genuinely believe the Falklands are their territory they have not established it to be so. --Gibnews 08:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Gibs, may be a bad principle, we can agree on that, we are only mentioning the fact here Jor70 13:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Argentine legislation, but my guess is that the best option would be to state that people born Falkland Islanders are 'considered as Argentine citizens by Argentine law, and would theoretically be able to apply for Argentine passports'. There are various other, except the ones mentioned, analogus examples. Take the Antakya area in Turkey. Syria claims the area as its own territory. Anyone from that area will be considered as a Syrian citizen if they travel to Syria. --Soman 11:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide any sources confirming that residents of Antakya would be considered as Syrian citizens if they visit Syria? Apcbg 11:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, although its a nice gesture of Argentina claiming that the residents of the falklands are Argentine citizens, and no doubt welcome for those who might wish to leave home and live in Argentina - which one of my Gibraltar friends has done and reports it very nice - from the limited contact I've had with Falklanders the offer might be unwelcome. They do not look to Argentina for anything apart from trouble. As a principle to claim that residents of a territory you wish to annex are your citizens sounds a cheap way of making political capital. Perhaps it would be a good idea for someone to hold a referendum there so that there is a reference point for establishing the 'will of the people' which would establish exactly what they want, and don't want similar to the one we had in Gibraltar in 2002 when 187 people said they would consider joint sovereignty with Spain and the remainder did not.

--13:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In reality though, as was the case with the referendum in Gib in 2002, all a referendum would do is confirm what everyone already knows. The Falkland Islanders wish to remain British and while many Islanders do travel to Argentina now and enjoy it as a country to visit, they have asolutely no wish to be a citizen of that country. As a Falkland Islander who recently traveled to Argentina I can say that the Immigration authorities there treat Falkand Islanders in exactly the same way as any other British passport holder. The only problem is if you have come direct from the Falklands (as opposed to, for example, via Chile) in which case some Immigration officials refuse (illegally) to stamp your passport on the grounds that you are not entering the country having come from an Argentina territory. That, naturally, leads to huge problems when you come to leave, which I suspect is the whole point. The Argentine Government are masters at making cheap political capital! --BennyTec 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. However, our referendum was useful to demonstrate to others the strength of public opinion in an unambiguous manner; If nothing else it would settle disputes here where some claim its only the wicked British Government who say that the Islanders have not desire for integration with Argentina. When our frontier with Spain opened, they initially stamped passports and one was only allowed one movement each way in a day, so if you were unavoidably detained in a bar past midnight, the next day you could not come back until after midnight again. --Gibnews 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Politicians eh? SqueakBox 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, it certainly leaves no room for argument!!--BennyTec 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Falklands Accent

Could anyone confirm which British/local accent it derives from, or even better upload a sound file so we can hear? Gazh 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have an interview with Mike Summers online here.

• www.gibnews.net/audio/ms.mp3

Its not pd but you can listen to it and see if you can identify a regional accent.

--Gibnews 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The results are a little disappointing, i was quite interested in hearing the accent of Gibralter also, so this was twice as nice. Both accents fall safely into the 'Southern' catagory. Gazh 17:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To my ears the Falklands accent wasn't so much southern as a very soft west country accent. But the deffinition of southern of course depends on where you live. --LiamE 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting one this, because the Falklands population is so small the accent is really quite difficult to define, some sound distinctly antipodean (sp?) while others have hint of West Country or Scottish. Prior to 1982 and before the large farms where subdivided, you had families staying in certain areas of the islands and really not travelling much, this led bizarrely to regional accents in the islands. People from Lafonia, the North Camp (basically everywhere North of the "Boca Wall" at Goose Green)and the West Falkland all had distinguishable accents and used different farming terminology. Note to self; Really must start working on geo stubs!!! :) --BennyTec 23:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No it's quite right accents can be defined by something as little as one mile in my experience. As for the accent, i could possibly say Wales border or soft/clean WestMids accent, both would fall into the 'southern catagory' in my opinion. Gibraltar even sounds a bit London.

I have to say I'm a bit disappointed, i was hopeing for a full on Yorkshire accent, not sure why! Gazh 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted, I went to school in London, so am not necessarily typical of other Gibraltarians ... some speak much better English. You can hear other voices live on Radio Gibraltar which is streamed on the net with daily news bulletins on www.gbc.gi send a reception report to the webmaster. --Gibnews 17:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll check the radio out Gib, thanks. I will add though though that your English is not 'bad' or something, it has alot more charactor than a standard RP accent. Gazh 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nootka Convention

The Nootka convention is mentioned on the page as the British Government relinquishing sovereignty. At no point in the Nootka convention is the Islands discussed, the Falklands Islands are over 300 miles off the coast of South America. Also in 1771, a joint declaration was negotiated between the British and Spanish Governments to avert war, and the Spanish made restitution for goods confiscated in 1770 from the British who then re-occupied Port Egmont - Spanish recognition of British Sovereignty. The British Government has never relinquished sovereignty over the Islands, the withdrawal of forces in 1774 was as a result of the economic pressures from the American War of Independence. Reference to the Nootka convention is a frequent recourse by Argentinians arguing their case for sovereignty but has no basis in fact. I would suggest that that reference is removed.

Very good point, this will be an interesting one......<sits back and waits> :) --BennyTec 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't quite got the hang of this yet. Didn't sign the original comment. Justin A Kuntz 12:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The full text of the Nootka Sound Convention is now available on Wikipedia here, probably for the first time in searchable HTML version on the web. Apcbg 15:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Secret Article clearly renders Article VI null and void should a power other than Spain or Britain establish itself on the coasts of South America. And this other power, of course, is Argentina itself, which makes it extremely ironic that the Argentines would try and use this convention to bolster their territorial ambitions. TharkunColl 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I agree. Let's get rid of it - it is pure POV. TharkunColl 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK as there has been no objection I've removed reference to the Nootka convention as its irrelevant. Added a link to indicate the reason for the British withdrawal in 1774. Justin A Kuntz 22:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

1833 British Return

I realise that the 1833 British return is an emotive subject. I would like to open a discussion about the common misconceptions. I would hope that people can contribute in a positive way rather than resorting to the usual accusations of "storming the beaches" I've seen elsewhere.

The common Argentine perspective is that the British arrived and kicked the Argentine settlement out. But that is not in fact the case. For instance the article here states "In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, repatriated the remainder of the Argentine settlement, and began to repopulate the islands with British citizens."

However, that is not quite what happened. The British return was a remarkably bloodless affair, Captain Onslow sailed into the harbour and handed the Argentine Commander a note asking him to remove the Argentine flag. Pinedo, the Argentine Commander, considered resisting but his forces consisted largely of British mercenaries who were loath to take on their countrymen. Deciding that resistance would be foolish Pinedo chose to withdraw, the British, in what at the time would have been considered a magnanimous decision, returned the colours to the Argentine forces on the Islands.

The settlers from Vernet's colony, some 20 in all actually remained on the Islands. William Dixon as Vernet's senior representative on the Island was chosen to be the British representative and issued with a British flag and flagpole. Brisbane, Vernet's deputy was allowed to return in March of 1833. By co-incidence the Beagle (Charle Darwin's Ship) happened to be in Port at the time and Brisbane presented his papers to Captain Fitzroy. Fitzroy was happy to accept his credentials as Vernet' representative and positively encouraged the continuation of the settlement.

The events that changed all this are usually referred to as the "Gaucho Murders". In August of 1833, a band of Gauchos led by Antonio Rivero ran amok murdering the senior members of the settlement. Their motivation is said to be resentment at the imminent re-imposition of law and order following months of lawlessness after the Lexington raid of 1831. The survivors fled to Turf Island from where they were rescued in October of 1833.

I would make two points. The usual Argentine assertion is that Britain expelled the settlers. That is incorrect, they were encouraged to continue by the British who respected their property.

The main reason that the remaining settlers departed is as the result of the Gaucho murders, ironically Rivero is now often regarded as an Argentine Freedom Fighter. For example http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/martinez.htm

A brief history is also available here:

http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html

I suggest that elements of the article as it currently written could be construed as favouring one side of a partisan POV and that some minor edits would enable a more neutral POV. Justin A Kuntz 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your account is quite correct, I have just few comments to add at this point.

Apart of Brisbane, another employee of Vernet's who came to reside on the Islands after the British takeover in January 1833 was Thomas Helsby who served as a clerk for Vernet's enterprise. (He wrote an eyewitness narrative of the Port Louis murders in August 1833 available here.)

You wrote: "The main reason that the remaining settlers departed is as the result of the Gaucho murders etc."

How do you know that the remaining settlers departed at all? Documental evidence is refuting your statement. Vernet's settlers are recorded as resident in the Islands in sources dated 1834 and 1838. Charles Darwin's diary for 1834 (relevant excerpt available here) is such a source; Vernet's settler Manuel Coronel (a gaucho) was recorded as resident in 1838; Vernet's settler Antonina Roxa was recorded as resident in 1838, and according to Falklands sources old records of Stanley show that Antonina Roxa used to own the plot of land between the public jetty and the catherderal, confirming that she was indeed among the settlers who moved from Port Louis to the new settlement of Port Stanley in 1845.

Regarding the motivation to stay or leave, the Gaucho (or Port Louis) Murders was only part of the picture, although the murders alone reduced the Port Louis population of 24 Vernet's settlers and 12 English and American sealers (see the list in Helsby's account) by 13 persons: 5 Vernet's settlers were murdered, with the 8 murderers themselves removed from the Islands subsequently.

In describing the situation of Vernet's settlement after the British takeover in 1833, one should take into account the following.

Port Louis was a single-enterprise settlement, with every resident being part of Vernet's enterprise and making a living solely through it, working for Vernet and dependent on supplies brought by Vernet and exchanged for Vernet's paper vouchers the settlers got paid with.

In the couple of years (1828-1831) that the settlement functioned normally, its residents numbered up to 100 persons. Vernet's confrontation with the US sealers resulted in the sacking of Port Louis by the US Navy in December 1831 - January 1832, including the removal of most of the settlers from the Islands. According to the original US Navy report, "brought off" was "the whole of the population consisting of about forty persons, with the exception of some Gou chors or Horsemen who were encamped in the interior".

Notice that Britain was not part of Vernet's decision to interfere with the traditional American sealing industry, nor did Britain take part in that removal of settlers in January 1832, which effectively doomed Port Louis.

Under the circumstances, Vernet's crippled settlement was hardly viable anymore upon the British takeover in 1833, first because of the critically low number of settlers, and second because as already pointed out Port Louis was a single-company settlement functioning only as an enterprise of Vernet's and thus dependent on Vernet's standing as a businessman; the confidence in Vernet was important in particular for the settlers who got paid by Vernet's vouchers. Following Vernet's use of force against American sealing vessels, he was sought by the US Government on piracy charges, and could no longer visit the Falklands risking being arrested by patrolling US naval ships upon sailing from Buenos Aires. That lack of confidence resulted in particular in the inflation of Vernet's vouchers, the settlers were given less goods from Vernet's store for their vouchers, and that reportedly was part of the motivation behind the Port Louis murders that further diminished the viability of the settlement.

Nevertheless, fact is that in 1833 Vernet made an attempt to renew his operations in Port Louis, dispatching Brisbane and Helsby, and that attempt took place with Britain's consent and without any British interference as the single British presence left from the January 1833 was a Union Jack left to be raised on official occasions (such as ship visits). After the failure of Vernet's effort, the remaining settlers apparently had to look for means of making a living other than through the failed Vernet enterprise, and as ponted out above, some of them can be proved to have stayed on the Islands and became — together with more recent settlers coming from various countries (including in particular still more gauchos brought in by the Montevideo businessman Lafone) — ancestors of the present Falkland Islanders.

So much for the article's fallacious statement "In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, repatriated the remainder of the Argentine settlement, and began to repopulate the islands with British citizens." Apcbg 09:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats some fascinating information, I assume that you can support all of this with appropriate references? Like many I took the generally reported version on trust until I started to do some more research. The difficulty I've faced so far was that I couldn't find what happened to the settlers after the rescue from Turf Island. Justin A Kuntz

Most of that is well known, some original sources I gave above, and the info on Manuel Coronel, other gauchos and Antonina Roxa can be found in the following well sourced book: Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982.

In the years following 1833, according to various sources quoted by Destéfani's book the population of Port Louis varied around 41-45 settlers (with more children) including Antonina Roxa, Manuel Coronel and another gaucho, and several seamen. Lieut. Sullivan (master of the Arrow), upon bringing the new acting governor Lieutenant Locway to the Falklands in 1838, reportedly recorded 45 settlers including 25 men, 10 women, and 10 children.

According to another source quoted by Destéfani's book, during Locway's term there were "six English couples, two gauchos, one of whom was Manuel Coronel, and several seamen at Port Louis. This is a total of 21 men, six married women, one single and 13 children, which gives us a grand total of 41 people. Since some people were visitors, the figures tally."

It is well known that during his visit to the Falklands and his survey of East Falkland in March 1834, Charles Darwin was accompanied by two gauchos, one of them recorded in Darwin’s 1834 diary as ‘St Jago’ (Vernet's settler Santiago Lopez).

Another interesting authentic XIX century evidence of Argentine presence on the Falklands is an 1869 publication in the newspaper Rio de la Plata by the prominent Argentine naval commander Augusto Laserre (who later founded Ushuaia). His account of Port Louis mentions the local family of a Pampa Indian and an Englishwoman. (By that time the settlement had been moved to Port Stanley).

In his article in the newspaper Rio de la Plata of 19th and 20th November 1869, Laserre wrote (quoted from Destéfani's book):

"Very few Argentines have stayed here after the unfair occupation by the British. There are not more than twenty and all of them are working either as laborers or foremen in the ranches, because in this kind of work they are better than the majority of the foreigners."

Information on Lasserre's stay on the Falklands in 1869, and quotes from his observations can be found also in the Argentine source El Correo en la Provincia de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur: Islas Malvinas: Historia.

Therefore, given that there were some 20 Argentines resident in the Falklands according to Laserre, and given that there were only 11 Vernet's settlers remaining after the Port Louis murders (see Thomas Helsby's 1833 eyewitness account for details), the increased number of Argentines meant that more settlers had to have come from the continent rather than being expelled from the Islands.

Should you have in mind any particular facts needing sources, please let me know. Apcbg 18:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any information as to what happened to the survivors of the "Gaucho Murders"? I know they were rescued in the October but haven't found any information as to what then happened. Justin A Kuntz 18:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why, as you might have noticed my last comment above was precisely about their number in the subsequent years and about some particular survivors including Santiago Lopez, Manuel Coronel, and Antonina Roxa. Apcbg 19:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly we've been at cross purposes, I was referring to the inhabitants who fled to Turf Island. Did they return to Port Luis or did they abandon the Islands? Justin A Kuntz 20:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Darwin tip, that site is full of useful information. Describing the October visit of Hopeful as a rescue seems to be a little misleading. Hopeful relieved their immediate plight but they remained on the Island. It wasn't until HMS Challenger arrived a month after Hopeful left that their situation was relieved.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F10.2&viewtype=text&pageseq=399&keywords=hopeful

So it is clear that the British did not expel the Argentine Settlers. Justin A Kuntz 20:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I confirm once again that I was referring to the same people.

"Survivors of the 'Gaucho Murders'" = "inhabitants who fled to Turf Island".

Santiago Lopez, Manuel Coronel, and Antonina Roxa were among them, and they stayed in Port Louis after 1833.

Presently I have no particular information on the rest of the Turf Island survivors, but the quoted recorded number of Argentines on the Falklands as late as 1869 suggests that either the rest stayed in Port Louis too, or if some of them left they were more than replaced by new settlers from the continent. Apcbg 20:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was being thick! I get it now. So it is clear from verifiable sources that the article as currently written is presenting a partisan view. As I'm new here, before I make any edits, would I be committing any major faux pas if I just went ahead and wrote an edit as I see it based on the information here? Justin A Kuntz 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC) :)

Of course one may always make edits based on verifiable sources. Or, as this article is considered sensitive by some editors involved, perhaps you might wish to put your text (if it's a compact text rather than numerous scattered amendments) for possible discussion and comments here in the talk page before moving it in the article itself. I'd be happy to help if necessary. Apcbg 21:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Offensive name

It might well be true that people in South America find the name "Falklands" offensive, but this is supremely irrelevent. This article is about the Falklands. TharkunColl 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it all nations in South America that find the name offensive? Or is it just Argentina? If we're talking offensive names, many Islanders apparently dislike the name Kelper because its used in a derogatory sense by Argentines. Justin A Kuntz 07:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree that it should not be included in the article. The logic used to try and put it in the article is flawed. It could also be seen as going against wikipedia's policy on 'many people think...'. I applaude you for seeking consensus here on the talk page, though it may be in vain as the red hat is against you. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the name and its origins were interesting and fairly innocuous, compared with the Spanish Wikipedia which terms them 'Malvinense' or the unofficial forces Bennies (based on a character in the soap crossroads) which if you had watched, you REALLY need a sense of humour to shrug off. --Gibnews 08:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the reason for christening the Islanders "Bennies" stems from the Woollen hats that were common in the Islands at the time. They were similar to the hat habitually worn by the character Benny in Crossroads but as the character was somewhat dimwitted it came to be seen by some as an insult. Chatting with Bennytec it appears that opinion on it is divided.

However, a majority of people find Kelper offensive because its used in a derogatory sense by the Argentines. I do wonder about its inclusion in the article since it is tantamount to including the "N" word in an article about coloured people. I would suggest that references to it are either removed or text added to put it into context.

In a similar vein, is the term Falkland Islands "offensive" throughout South America or is it just Argentina?

After all the whole point of a NPOV should be to put both sides into context without allowing emotion to cloud the issue, its certainly one part of starting to build bridges between both sides. Would you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin A Kuntz (talk • contribs)

No. This article is about the islands and their inhabitants. If the inhabitants find certain words offensive - Malvinas, Kelpers, Bennies, and Stills (which members of the forces called the islanders after they were ordered to stop calling them Bennies, i.e. because they were "still Bennies"), then this should definitely be highlighted. But if some foreigners in a foreign country find the term Falklands offensive then that's their business, and has no place in this article. TharkunColl 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone confirm that this here discussion has a subject in the first place? In other words, are there any sources demonstrating that the name Falkland Islands is actually offensive in Argentina or other particular countries? Apcbg 11:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, seems to be a lot of WP:OR here.--Vintagekits 12:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, unless you can cite a source it simply seems to be a strongly held personal opinion. Justin A Kuntz 12:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have two comments on this debate. (1) There is clearly a lot of offence taken on both sides of this dispute, but one cannot demand proof for one side's offence and require none for the other. (2) If offence is caused in Argentina over use of the term "Falklands", then - given the fact that the Falklands are the geographical neighbours of Argentina and the subject of a longstanding territorial claim, not to mention an invasion - how on earth is that not relevant? Why, if it is verifiable, should this information be suppressed from the reader? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Because this article is about the Falklands, not Argentina. I might find the word "France" offensive, but since I'm not French and don't live there, such a view is completely irrelevent. TharkunColl 18:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a frankly ridiculous analogy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line on this is that the article is about the Falkland Islands, if anything to do with it causes offence in Outer Mongolia, then it would be appropriate to mention that on the page about that place but not on the FI page. No doubt some people are offended that the British exist at all, tough. --Gibnews 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the existing language was completely justified. They were weasel words, uncited and unverified. However, if someone added such language with a reliable and relevant source, it'd certainly be justified. The article discusses how "Malvinas" is offensive to the Falkland Islanders — how is mentioning the controversy in the other direction possibly not relevant to the situation, given history and politics? That kind of argument is surely pushing a pro-Falkland Islands point of view. Comparisons to Outer Mongolia are not the same at all — we're talking about Argentina here. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If the Outer Mongolians had a reason to find the name "Falklands" offensive, then that fact would merit inclusion (as long as it was verifiable). Use of reductio ad absurdum in this case is flawed because there is no reason for Outer Mongolians to find it offensive: they have no shared history. Better analogies are the Taiwan-China and the Macedonia dispute: should Chinese offence not be mentioned in an article on the Republic of China over that name because the Chinese are not Taiwanese or do not live on Taiwan? Should Greek displeasure at the use of the name Macedonia be stricken from the Macedonia article because the Greeks do not live there? Come on, that's ridiculous. These are material issues, and countries go to war over petty squabbles like this. Both sides' views need to be mentioned to ensure a NPOV. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source for it, or think it will have to go. --John 22:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: Prior established fact. If you go back in the Discussion archive, there is a prior discussion including reference to FI Government official confirming term is considered offensive by many. Forgive me but I understood if an article was considered controversial prior considerations should be considered before editing. If I can take the time to do so, perhaps others should as well. Justin A Kuntz 23:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can take the time to look through the discussion archive, you can provide the reference in the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive2

Quote:

It's not for us to get involved with the online debate, but for information, I am happy for you to reproduce the following:

"As you have correctly surmised, many people here would be insulted by the term Malvinas as it implies an element of Argentine authority. Conversely, the alleged Argentine insult of "Kelper" is considered quaint but irrelevant and raises no tensions.

"Without prejudice to any political debate, there is also a linguistic consideration and most people in the Spanish speaking world (not only Argentina) generically refer to the Islands as the Malvinas. ISO-3166 has us listed as Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

"Regarding other place names, there are Argentine names for Stanley whose historic basis is debatable as Stanley was founded around 10 years after British rule commenced in 1833. Also, we no longer use Port Stanley, just Stanley."

Regards,

Tim Cotter MSc BSc

Infrastructure Development

Falkland Islands Development Corporation

Stanley

Falkland Islands

Official position as quoted by an official of the Falkland Islands Government. Justin A Kuntz 00:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't difficult at all to find, in the interests of maintaining a NPOV surely it is important to take the time to do this without resorting to a reversion first. Justin A Kuntz 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

From my reading of WP:V, this doesn't constitute a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It's therefore not admissable as a "reference" to substantiate this claim. (Some further, personal thoughts: there are three issues with using personal correspondence as a source: (1) who's to say that the person pasting in the text didn't just make it up and attribute it to Mr. Cotter? (2) who is Mr Cotter? (3) even if we can establish the authenticity of the correspondence itself and Mr. Cotter's job title, who can verify the quality of research conducted by him from which he drew his conclusions?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This doesn't pass WP:V. --John 00:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but this was considered an established fact in previous articles and other web articles. For example here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falkland_Islands_placenames

http://www.easyarticles4u.com/travel/south_america/falklands.php

Note that previous reference was deleted from the article:

see http://www.answers.com/topic/falkland-islands?cat=travel for an old copy of Wikipedia article.

http://www.psywar.org/falklands.php

Did you actually read the previous discussions,

For now I've reverted to the previous consensus presenting both sides, I suggest that in line with the guidelines on disputed articles that a discussion takes place before edits. Justin A Kuntz 01:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Just to be clear though, strong feelings do not trump wikipedia's core policies. If this can be referenced properly, it can stay. If not, not. --John 15:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sub-optimal

Anyone else think "The island's residents reject the Argentine sovereignty claim[5] with the English language and names in common use rather than Spanish varients promoted by some foreign media." is pretty lousy wording? Apart from the obvious mis-spelling, the conflation of two completely different issues (language and sovereignty) is very disingenuous, not to say dishonest. Yet this is the wording people seem to want. Unless we can move this article on a little I will really need to take this further. We are trying to write an encyclopedia. --John 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't disagree, this article needs a cleanup in general. Both for grammar and historical inaccuracies. Justin A Kuntz 21:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And the insertion of poorly worded, unreferenced, unverified, and misleading claims for the sake of balancing out the view isn't helping, either. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you make smart ass remarks, suggest you check your talk page. I took the article back to where it was before all the edit fest started, it now presents both sides to give balance, indicates a reference where Malvinas is considered a propaganda terms and a couple of {{Fact}} tags. Noting this is a sensitive topic I thought it better to establish a consensus here first. I'm working on references to how the Islanders view the term Malvinas. If i can't find any I'll delete it myself.

If you look around the blogsphere you'll find plenty of examples of how either term can provoke strong emotions, so its a reasonable fact to assume that both sides find the other's names offensive. Justin A Kuntz 22:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Smart ass? Wikipedia mirrors are not reliable sources. We don't add unverified, uncited language as a stop-gap measure, either. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I didn't use the wiki mirror as a source just to point out a reference had been removed. And once again I took the article back to where it was. Justin A Kuntz 23:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Then just add the reference if you're going to put it back in. Did you do so? Nope. And did you reference the rest of the stuff you've been reverting wholesale? Nope; you didn't even bother to find a Wikipedia mirror's old reference. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put a summary backed up with references that the use of many Spanish names is considered offensive. I tried hard to do the same in reverse but the best I could come up with is this:

http://www.rampant-books.com/south_america_travel_tips/t_buenos_aires_argentina.htm

Any violent objections to the words. I've left a citation required tag in place, hopefully someone can come up with something better. Justin A Kuntz 12:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinions and advice please, would that reference to the travel book suffice for WP:RS? I don't like leaving that tag there for any length of time. Justin A Kuntz 16:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the tone of the article makes me doubt it could be used to back up any claims about Argentina's views. It is written as a barely disguised attack ad, IMO (Heck. Randomly mentioning Nazis and WW2 in a travel guide? I really doubt you are going to run into Heinrich Himmler's brother in a cafe.) and from looking at the staff listing for the 'company', it doesn't look the most professional of outfits. Its a mediocre source and while I am sure it could be used, I think a better source should be sought to replace it ASAP. Narson 17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but could someone quote precisely, where in that source is the evidence that the Argentines consider the name "Falklands" offensive in the first place? I must have missed that. Apcbg 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with either of you, it was the best I could come up with after trying hard. I don't think my Spanish is up to finding it. I'd be happy to take advice on something better. Justin A Kuntz 21:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The abovementioned article is immaterial in this respect as it refers to no Argentine feelings about the English Language toponyms in the Falklands.

In any case, someone has to provide sources substantiating the allegation that "in Argentina, supporters of the sovereignty claim dimiss the English Language names as offensive" — otherwise that unsourced text would have to go. Apcbg 09:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't disagree but the last time that was done, other editors decided to start an edit war but I was the one who ended up being blocked. You could say its a raw nerve. Justin A Kuntz 09:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Then for the time being — until they produce sources for their claim — a more correct wording would be "some Wikipedia editors dismiss the English Language names as offensive" :-) Apcbg 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I say go for the deletion and maybe that will get people who really want to fight for it to be in there to find the sources. I've had a look and come up with nada as far as sources are concerned. So....well....give it a month at citation needed and then yank it if its still uncited after that. I suspect if you asked Argentinians it might be true, but how often do they hear it? Spanish speaking media always uses Malvinas it seems, its only the British who constantly have to hear the spanish name, might be a reason for it? Narson 12:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I've politely asked one of the people involved last time to provide a suitable reference. I'll give them a chance to provide one first. Justin A Kuntz 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rainfall measurement

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

Acadians

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

The history of the Islands is the subject of a separate article. More details here: http://falklands.info/history/history2.html Justin A Kuntz 20:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nootka Convention (2)

Removed reference to Nootka convention again. Discussion above about why it was originally removed. The interpretation put into the edit is pushing an Argentine POV. Justin A Kuntz 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick look at the history shows this user was responsible for previously inserting similar text pushing POV on August 4th. Justin A Kuntz 12:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Looked again, that was August 4th 2006, and this user has made very few edits. Is this a sockpuppet? Justin A Kuntz 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear why this is objectionable - in my view anyway:

• "The Spanish settlement remained in place at the time of British withdrawal." is stating the obvious. Our readers are presumably intelligent to work out that if the British withdrew in 1776 and the Spanish remained until 1811, the Spanish remained when the British withdrew. There's no point in spelling everything out.
• While there's no reason not to assume that User:Apcbg/Nootka Sound Convention is accurate, Wiki pages are not in principle reliable sources.
• Argentina claims that Britain gave up its Falkland claim in 1790 under Nootka.
  • There is no evidence to suggest that the British have ever accepted this. Hence to state it without qualification is POV.
• Neither quoted source makes any reference to the Falklands at all. The claim made relies on the acceptance of Argentina's position. That is not NPOV, but it is synthesis of published material to advance a position.
• The original Nootka conventions were rescinded in 1795 and were readopted in 1814.
  • Given that Spain withdrew control from the islands in between these dates, there is some doubt how Nootka applied to the Falklands originally, if at all.
  • There is further doubt due to the Lexington Raid of 1831, given that the secret article rescinds the article we're concerned with in case of foreign (neither British nor Spanish) intervention.
  • There is some doubt whether the fact that Argentina was in the process of becoming independent when Nootka was readopted in 1814 makes Argentina "foreign" under the secret article.
• It is not in our remit per WP:NOR and WP:SYN to discuss the differing possible interpretations of Nootka with respect to the Falklands in the article, unless we can find sources that do that.

Does that just about cover it?Pfainuk talk 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think thats a pretty good summary. Anyway we mention the link between the Argentine claim and the Nootka convention under Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Thats the place where the claim belongs IMHO. Justin A Kuntz 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted the addition of the Nootka text again from the same user. Adding the Nootka text is the only contribution that user has made in recent days. Pointed to the talk page but this is apparently being ignored. Justin A Kuntz 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

His edit summary ended:

"The Nootka text itself is prima facie evidence of applicability. Do not revert 3rd time without citation."

It's up to editor wishing to add the text - that's Alex79818 - to provide acceptable and reliable sources per WP:V and WP:NOR. I've already gone into the reasons this edit is unacceptable to us - and why these sources don't back it up, and I won't repeat them. But I'll add that it rewrites history. The Conventions were not "renewed" in 1814, they were readopted from scratch. From 1795-1814 they were not applicable at all. For a good deal of that period, Britain and Spain were at war.

If you're reading this, Alex79818, I refer you to the objections stated above as to reasons why we do not accept the text of the Nootka Conventions as an acceptable source for your edit. If you wish to add it, please discuss your reasons here. Pfainuk talk 20:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If contributors are not happy with citing Wikipedia itself as a source of the text of the Nootka Sound Convention, it is also available here:

http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=267207

from page 664 Dab14763 18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Narson, if you say the reference "belongs on the sovereignty of the falkland island" article, you are making a conclusion that there exists relevance between Nootka and a claim of sovereignty in the islands. That itself is an assertion, whereby you believe "content X belongs in Y" while providing your citation to bolster that claim.

talk, the answers to your questions are not obvious to me - I simply think they're the wrong questions to ask, because no such questions were asked in a similar article (Louisiana Purchase) with similar vocabulary (treaty describing vast amount of applicable territory to the inclusion of its adjacent islands, without specifically naming the islands or defining the term "adjacent").

What is clearly happening here, to me, is that there is a pre-existing bias by a group of editors determined to keep any and all references to a historical event clearly related to the Falklands, out of the Falklands article. If NPOV was truly being employed here, the reaction wouldn't be "yeah....um, define 'adjacent'." This is purely semantics, reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "define 'sexual relations'" bit during the Monica days.

Both Nootka and LP's primary source text describe the applicable territory in great detail. The description fits the common-sense profile of Avery Island as an adjacent island - this case applies because it establishes how WP prevents these type of disputes, by demonstrating clearly than in a historical document describing a vast territory and adjacent islands, it means islands clearly adjacent to the coasts described - the information is included solely based on the primary source text, WITHOUT a requisite that the islands be listed by name in the primary source text, or that the term 'adjacent' be defined, or that the role of any third party be established.

Just the primary text, and its common sense definition. That is the standard for LP, it is clearly the WP standard, and I believe it applies here as well in a matter that settles this current dispute. Alex79818 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate information on the British withdrawal

The History section of the article states the following:

"As a result of economic pressures resulting from the American War of Independence, the United Kingdom unilaterally chose to withdraw from many of her overseas settlements in 1774."

The American Revolution started in 1776. The cited source states only that Britain withdrew from most of its overseas installations as a result of economic pressures, and says nothing about the American war. I do not see how this could possibly be accurate, and in the meantime it looks like the American War of Independence claim is fabricated from whole cloth, since it isn't in agreement with the cited source. Rogue 9 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I originally put that in, taken from this source:

http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html

I'll put the reference back in. Justin A Kuntz 22:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference added and the text has been clarified. I'd make two points as rebuttal to the argument you make, the American War of Indepedence starts in 1775 not 1776 according to Wikipedia. There was also trouble in the America colonies before this date e.g. the Boston Tea Party was 1773. However, thank you for allowing me to correct my error, it is appreciated. Justin A Kuntz 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Scots

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

Ref 24

Apologies if i have missed something, but reference 24 - it is citing a book as a source, is this legitimate? Gazh 13:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there's nothing in WP:V or elsewhere that I know of that disallows books as sources. Indeed, WP:V actually says:

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers...

"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."

Obviously, most of these cost money and aren't let out for free over the internet, but WP:V seems to encourage their use. And after all, there's nothing stopping those of us who don't own the books/journals/whatever in question from going down to a library and checking out the source. Pfainuk talk 14:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nootka Sound Conventions vs. "Argentine POV"

All references to the Nootka Sound Convention have been deleted by Justin A Kuntz, claiming these are Argentine POV edits. My contention is that this does not promote the Argentine POV, but rather constitutes a known historical fact regarding the island's history - which is even mentioned on the WP "Falkland Islands Sovereignty" page:

"The Conventions included provisions recognizing that the coasts and islands of South America colonized by Spain at the time were Spanish, and that areas south of the southernmost settlements were off limits to both countries, provided (in a secret article) that no third party settled there either."

First off, there is absolutely no reference to, or citation of, Article VI, Nootka (aka 'Tratado de San Lorenzo del Escorial') in any diplomatic, historical, or otherwise official Argentinean document stating a case for sovereignty of the islands - and I challenge anyone to come up with it. The fact is, the Argentine claim is solely based on uti possidetis juris.

Secondly, the applicability of Nootka (near Vancouver Island) to South America is clear from the text itself, as is the fact that Britain agreed not to re-settle the islands:

"It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain..."

Being that at the time of British withdrawal in 1776, the Spanish remained on the island through Nootka's 1790 signing, it follows that the UK would therefore be the only party that would not re-settle - how can the Spanish re-settle the island if they're already there? Are these now "islands adjacent already occupied by Spain"??

Third and last, both Spain and Britain revived Nootka in 1814, at the time there was no settlement by either party, so if both parties have then agreed not to re-settle the islands then how can this foster the Argentine POV, stating uncontested Argentine sovereignty? If anything, it would deal it a serious blow.

If you're going to revert someone else's edit, why not provide a citation? Why not discuss it on talk, instead of single-handedly deciding that "A" is a historical fact but "B" promotes a certain point of view?

Unless I'm mistaken, that's the reason WP exists.Alex79818 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all the reference to the Nootka convention was not removed by myself alone, it was removed by consensus as shown above. I was one of the editors who put into the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, as it forms part of Argentine claims for the Islands. That is where it belongs. Do not accuse me of suppressing something that I clearly did not.

Secondly the applicability of Nootka is your interpretation. Islands some 300+ miles off the coast of South America are not in the near vicinity of the Islands, the Falkland Islands are not mentioned and the convention only applies to new settlements, the British had settled on the Falklands prior to Nootka, had continued to claim sovereignty, and so Nootka is at best a moot point. So again your second point is pushing a POV.

Thirdly as pointed out above Nootka was initially abandoned in 1795 and revived in 1814. Well Argentina was founded in 1811 so as far as Nootka is concerned, Argentina is a 3rd power under the Nootka convention, since Argentina had claimed the Islands, Nootka became invalid under the secret article. Its applicability to any British settlement is therefore null and void.

Fourthly, none of your sources actually support a link to the Falklands

Fifthly virtually the only activity of the editor Alex79818 has been to put the Nootka convention into the Falkland Islands article. I would normally assume Good Faith but I would point out.

(1) in the first time you recently added the text, you claimed I removed the edit without consultation in talk. That wasn't the case, hence I assumed you did not bother to check.

(2) you put in back in today again without consultation in talk, again this does not indicate that you were behaving assuming my edits were in good faith.

I therefore concluded that you were pushing a POV edit.

Sixth, you claim that there is absolutely no reference to, or citation of, Article VI, Nootka (aka 'Tratado de San Lorenzo del Escorial') in any diplomatic, historical, or otherwise official Argentinean document stating a case for sovereignty of the islands - and I challenge anyone to come up with it. Well I take up your challenge and draw your attention to this link in the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands page http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/home.html , specifically En 1790, con la firma del tratado de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Gran Bretaña se comprometió a no formar ningún establecimiento en las costas tanto orientales como occidentales de América Meridional ni en las islas adyacentes ya ocupadas por España, cual era el caso de las Malvinas.

(For the non-Spanish speakers thats an official Argentine Government document that claims the Nootka convention is relevant)

So once again, when I see an editor who has only published on Argentine related topics making such a claim I am not confident such edits are made in good faith.

Seventh, apparently you seem to be of the opinion that I have to provide a citation that directly contradicts your POV. Sorry that isn't how Wiki works. YOU have to provide a citation to support your POV, something you have failed to do.

For all your attempts at Wikilawyering, its clear that what you're trying to do is turn wikipedia into a soapbox to push your POV over Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. That is not the purpose of WP.

There is a reference to the Nootka convention, where it belongs in the Argentine claims of the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article. It merely states the facts, it isn't the synthesis of a published material to advance a position which is what you're trying to push here. Justin A Kuntz 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) First, this has been discussed on talk. Both reverts included comments on this page both by Justin A Kuntz justifying the reverts, followed by an endorsement by me. When you first posted this you even put it in one of those sections.[17] I find it extraordinary that you now complain that he is refusing to discuss the issue.

It is the role of those who add material to justify it with appropriate citations according to WP:V. If they cannot, then the material does not belong in the article. That's the burden of evidence here, and there is no requirement that Justin A Kuntz or anyone else give a cite to remove stuff within reason. WP:NOR says all material that is challenged or likely to be challenged requires a source. You are clearly aware that this was likely to be challenged (per your first edit summary).

The material at Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is strictly factual. All that quote you gave is Article VI and the secret article, paraphrased. The text there doesn't even mention the Falklands. Your edit provides interpretation of Nootka (your sources don't mention the islands) and is thus OR. It also is interesting in what it fails to mention (you ignore the hiatus from 1795-1814, the fact that it applied to Spain as well, and the secret article). It is also clearly highly relevant there, that being a article on the Sovereignty Dispute itself. It is less clear that it is relevant here IMO.

But the biggest problem is relying on the exact text of the article - as both your sources do. Frankly, the text is quite vague. Spain ceded a measure of sovereignty in 1771 by allowing Port Egmont to be resettled - does that matter with respect to Nootka? The treaty as in force now was brought into force in 1814 - there's a good chance it's not relevant to either side as you say - or it could be relevant to one or the other. Where were the southernmost Spanish settlements in 1814? Does it matter? I don't know. But your edit was unambiguous in stating that Britain (and implying that only Britain) gave up its sovereignty by Nootka. That is misleading POV. And a renewal of Nootka is quite different from a readoption since it implies that the Nootka régime was in force from 1790-1814 and remained unchanged - when for most of that period it was not in force.

Finally, you say that Argentina's claim is based solely on uti possidetis - that Britain illegally occupied the islands in 1833. So how did Argentina get title in the first place? If uti possidetis is to be applied, Argentina has to prove that it had title before 1833. That is how it is related to Argentina's claim. Pfainuk talk 23:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the extensive response, I will attempt to respond to each individual point.

Point #1: “First of all the reference to the Nootka convention was not removed by myself alone, it was removed by consensus as shown above. I was one of the editors who put into the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, as it forms part of Argentine claims for the Islands. That is where it belongs. Do not accuse me of suppressing something that I clearly did not.”

Response #1: In reference to the 6 July 2007 removal and your claim to consensus, I point out that you wrote “I would suggest that that reference is removed.” BennyTec said he was going to sit back and wait. Apcbg linked the original text and TharkunColl then single-handedly concludes “this other power, of course, is Argentina” citing no sources which would indicate this as a prevalent point of view among historians or any other text. Then you and TharkunColl decide that it’s “irrelevant” and add a link to the British 1774 withdrawal (which itself is unclear as to how the 1774 withdrawal relates to the discussion of an event that happened in 1790).

So…two people agreeing on the same thing, one linking the text and a fourth that “sits back and wait”…this is what you call “consensus”?

I accused you of nothing. You clearly initiated the idea that it should be removed as “irrelevant” to the subject, no non-WP source was provided to bolster either yours of TharkunColl’s interpretation, and you removed it – the record clearly states that, as does my comment. As you well know, Nootka / San Lorenzo was in the ‘History’ section of the Article. It follows then that the assertion is that Nootka / San Lorenzo is a historical event of relevance to the larger subject which is the Falkland Islands. I’ve seen no citations nor any other evidence brought forward to bolster the POV and conclusion that Nootka has no historical relevance to the islands. Therefore I can only conclude your edit action, removal, must bolster its own unsupported POV.

Even BennyTec at the end says there should at least be a side-by-side section of text. The question in this matter is clear:

Does Nootka, as an established historical event, have any factual relevance to the islands? My position, by virtue of the text itself, is a resounding yes, the text itself being prima facie evidence of relevance.

Point #2: “Secondly the applicability of Nootka is your interpretation. Islands some 300+ miles off the coast of South America are not in the near vicinity of the Islands, the Falkland Islands are not mentioned and the convention only applies to new settlements, the British had settled on the Falklands prior to Nootka, had continued to claim sovereignty, and so Nootka is at best a moot point. So again your second point is pushing a POV.”

Response #2: Any text is open to some degree of interpretation, but the yardstick must be common sense. If a historical text from the 20th century refers to “North America”, would it be common sense that this reference includes the United States, or the State of New York, or the State of Georgia, even if not specifically mentioned? If a historical text from WW2 mentions the “Axis Powers”, would it not be common sense to infer from such text that Germany is one of the states being described, even if not specifically mentioned? Common sense.

What does it matter if the islands are not specifically mentioned in the convention? Neither is Vancouver, so by your reasoning, Nootka has no applicability there either because Vancouver is not mentioned by name. What does it matter if the islands are 300 miles off the coast – are we going to get into semantics now? How about the fact that the islands sit on the continental shelf of Argentina’s East Coast, or are located entirely within Argentine territorial waters. Or, instead of getting into semantics, how about looking at a map. This isn’t Shetland or Sandwich, or the Canaries we’re talking about, it’s the Falklands – and they look pretty darn adjacent to the eastern coast of South America. Again, common sense.

You state I am pushing a POV. If the British withdrew their settlement in 1774, and the Spanish remained, and later on both parties signed the convention in 1790, then it seems clear the only party to the convention who could possibly re-settle, or settle in the future (as intended at the time of entry upon agreement) are the British. This is not a POV - how can the Spanish, in 1790, re-settle if they’re already there? How would the clause apply to Spain at the time of entry into the agreement – am I to believe Spain agreed not to settle in the future a place where they already have a settlement?

Again, common sense. Clearly, in 1790, this applies only to the party that had no settlement at the time, the British. And in 1814, to both parties, being that neither had settlements – which I’ve stated before, and clearly demonstrates NPOV on my part.

What calls to question is your reference that “British had settled on the Falklands prior to Nootka, had continued to claim sovereignty, and so Nootka is at best a moot point.” I do not believe I should need to introduce the concept of linear time at this point, but I am compelled to respond to the above: The British indeed settled prior to Nootka. Then, later, they withdrew and continued to claim sovereignty prior to Nootka. Then, later, they agreed to Nootka. For a moment, let’s assume (for the sake of argument) that Nootka applies to the islands. Are you actually saying that…it’s a point of contention that Nootka happened after withdrawal?? Last I checked, 1790 was after 1774, meaning that in 1790 something happened that altered, or affected, the state of affairs as they were in 1774, and that something, under this assumption, would be Nootka.

That is the basic concept of a timeline, if I'm not mistaken. Japan didn’t win the war because the attacked Pearl Harbor. On December 7, 1941, Japan was definitely winning the war and scored a significant victory against the US – but then later signed a surrender treaty, which changed the state of affairs. Event A happens, then Event B happens, then Event C…again common sense, not my pushing a POV - just .

Point #3: “Thirdly as pointed out above Nootka was initially abandoned in 1795 and revived in 1814. Well Argentina was founded in 1811 so as far as Nootka is concerned, Argentina is a 3rd power under the Nootka convention, since Argentina had claimed the Islands, Nootka became invalid under the secret article. Its applicability to any British settlement is therefore null and void.”

Response #3: Who cares? The question here is not the role of Argentina, the question here is whether or not Nootka as a historical event has any factual relevance to the islands! Why? Because that is what you stated in your removal comment, without providing any citations:

“Removed reference to Nootka convention as irrelevant to Falklands Sovereignty claim. Refer to Talk discussion”

As you well pointed out, this is not the “Falklands Sovereignty” article. This is the History section of the “Falkland Islands” article. You made the edit, you provide no evidence or citations to support your challenge to the Nootka reference – and mind you, suppression is the least of the concerns I have at this point. Based on your arguments, I am unsure as to what your perception of a linear timeline entails. Not to mention the fact that you clearly believe Nootka is irrelevant “to Falklands Sovereignty claim” yet you freely mention that you were one of the editors who pushed for its inclusion in the “Falklands Sovereignty” page, where you now claim “it belongs”. How does this make sense, common or otherwise?

How can you say, in one discussion, that it is relevant to the context of Sovereignty to support your inclusion in the Falklands Sovereignty article, and in another discussion, that it is not relevant in order to delete it from the History section of the Falklands page?

Historically relevant or not? Which is it?

And for that matter, how do any of your arguments prove that Nootka’s applicability to any British settlement is therefore null and void? They don't. And what references and citations did you provide to support your challenge? None whatsoever. Clearly, it is not I who pushes for a POV.

Also, Argentina declared independence on July 9, 1816 – not in 1811, so I would suggest you check your historical sources.

What did happen in 1811, however, was the assumption of Francisco Javier de Elio as Spanish Viceroy of the River Plate, which if I am not mistaken, would have placed the islands adjacent to the eastern coast of South America in a territory south of parts of the same coast already occupied by Spain. My point is that this is Nootka’s definition, and Nootka is relevant to the islands – in 1790, in 1811 and in 1814. Argentina can’t become a 3rd power unless it first exists, and it didn’t exist until 1816, two years after the 1814 renewal of Nootka. How then is Argentina’s 1816 declaration of independence in any way related to this discussion, which aims to establish the historical relevance, or lack thereof, of Nootka to the Falkland Islands, at the time of the agreement’s signing and/or renewal?

Lastly, in questions to the invalidation of Article 6 by Argentina, the secret article clearly refers solely to the stipulation of Article 6 that the parties’ respective subjects “shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these (eastern and western) coasts (of South America) situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain”. Notice that in the secret article there is no mention of “and islands adjacent”, just the coasts. The secret article then continues by stating that Article 6 “shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power”…..where?.....”on the coasts in question”.

Any rational person would therefore deduce that, if in the article itself, the authors went to such specificity as to mention “the islands adjacent”, they would have therefore gone to the same level of specificity in the secret article – clearly, they did not. Again, the text speaks for itself, and is prima facie evidence of applicability. This is Spain and Britain we’re talking about here…do you honestly think the learned men who wrote up these contracts would commit a blunder that would leave such a gaping loophole? Perhaps, or perhaps not. Perhaps the islands weren’t so important…we can wonder all day and never know. What we do know, is that the invalidation clause of the secret article makes no mention of its applicability to “islands adjacent”, either in its jurisdictional language or its stated pre-requisites for invalidation – and in fact, goes so far as to specify that in the case of invalidation, Article 6 is not invalidated in its entirety, but rather, limits such effect only to Article 6’s stipulation of establishments on the coasts.

Point #4: “Fourthly, none of your sources actually support a link to the Falklands”

Response #4: Right. So, on a subject that is known to be controversial, you believe the best approach is to provide sources given by one of the party to the controversies.

So far, having been accused of pushing a POV, I’ve been able to poke holes at your argumentative conception of both linear time and context. Shall I now include the concept of impartiality? Please excuse if my response appears to be trolling, I am only responding in such manner to the effect that I have been accused of pushing a POV. Clearly, if the intent for the article’s text is NPOV, then citing official references to either party of the controversy is itself pushing a POV, in the inference that the cited party is “correct” and therefore constitutes an acceptable citation or source of non-factual interpretation. Again I ask, is this what WP was founded for? Is this what you call NPOV?

Point #5: “Fifthly virtually the only activity of the editor Alex79818 has been to put the Nootka convention into the Falkland Islands article. I would normally assume Good Faith but I would point out.

(1) in the first time you recently added the text, you claimed I removed the edit without consultation in talk. That wasn't the case, hence I assumed you did not bother to check.

(2) you put in back in today again without consultation in talk, again this does not indicate that you were behaving assuming my edits were in good faith. I therefore concluded that you were pushing a POV edit.”

Response #5: What does it matter my past activity? The only thing that matters in this case is whether or not my undo of your challenge was factually correct, i.e., whether or not Nootka is relevant to the Falklands' history. You must have been a first-time user at one point or another. My reference to your attempts to edit without consultation in talk was simply due to the fact that I was still getting used to WP at the time, and was clearly incorrect, as was my reinsertion. I attempted to talk with the limited knowledge I had at the time, which was to place a comment.

Still, I see no facts or citations on your part to support the conclusion that Nootka is not applicable. And, as you stated, this was in your view anyway. You conclude, and then just decide to revert the text?

Speaking of monarchies, who died and made you king? Pfainuk then states “It's up to editor wishing to add the text - that's Alex79818 - to provide acceptable and reliable sources”. Well I guess that you conveniently forgot to read the part that states “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation”. If there’s an article you find with text you want to challenge, then as the challenger to existing text, the burden of proof is on you to back up your challenge. The challenge, as stated, was:

“Removed reference to Nootka convention as irrelevant to Falklands Sovereignty claim.”

So where’s your proof? Two people agreeing on the same thing, one linking the text and a fourth that “sits back and wait”……that’s it?

Point #6: “Sixth, you claim that there is absolutely no reference to, or citation of, Article VI, Nootka (aka 'Tratado de San Lorenzo del Escorial') in any diplomatic, historical, or otherwise official Argentinean document stating a case for sovereignty of the islands - and I challenge anyone to come up with it. Well I take up your challenge and draw your attention to this link in the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands page http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/home.html, specifically En 1790, con la firma del tratado de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Gran Bretaña se comprometió a no formar ningún establecimiento en las costas tanto orientales como occidentales de América Meridional ni en las islas adyacentes ya ocupadas por España, cual era el caso de las Malvinas. (For the non-Spanish speakers thats an official Argentine Government document that claims the Nootka convention is relevant).

So once again, when I see an editor who has only published on Argentine related topics making such a claim I am not confident such edits are made in good faith.”

Response #6: Re-read my challenge: no reference of Nootka in any Argentina document stating a case for sovereignty. Read the title of the Article to which you refer: Antecedentes Historicos (historical precedents). Nootka is not mentioned in any of the successive articles, which specifically outline Argentina’s case for sovereignty of the islands, Argentina not having been a signatory party to Nootka.

Neither will you find such reference to Nootka as a case for sovereignty in Argentina’s initial protests of 1833 and 1834, nor in the 1841 redress to the Count of Aberdeen on the matter, nor in 1842, nor in the concession offer of 1848, nor in any of the diplomatic letters between December 1884 and January 1885, nor in the responses following British bestowment of colonial status in 1892, nor following the 1908 incorporation of South Shetlands/Georgias/Sandwich/etc which are also disputed by Argentina. You won’t find Nootka cited in favor of Argentine sovereignty in Argentina’s 1929 protest, nor in the 1945 statement to the UN for inclusion in the organization’s formative documents, nor in any diplomatic document to the UN since, or to the OAS for that matter. And you won’t find it in any of the direct negotiations that took place in the 1960’s, nor in the communications of the 1970’s, nor in the pre-war communications of the 1980’s, nor in any such Argentine document since the war.

You won’t find Nootka cited in the case for Argentine sovereignty in any official document. You won’t find it, because it's not there. Argentina isn’t a signatory. The question, both for the article you linked and the WP article we are now discussing, is one and the same:

Is Nootka historically relevant to the Falkland Islands?

Yes, clearly it is. Nootka, by virtue of Article 6’s “adjacent islands” clause, by virtue of both of the island’s sovereignty-disputing parties being signatories, clearly is relevant and applicable to the Falklands. Mention of Nootka is therefore proper in the History section of this article.

Point 7: “Seventh, apparently you seem to be of the opinion that I have to provide a citation that directly contradicts your POV. Sorry that isn't how Wiki works. YOU have to provide a citation to support your POV, something you have failed to do.”

Response #7: I heartily suggest you re-read WP:NOR. Again, here we come to the concept of the timeline. Event 1, I write reference to Nootka and cite source. Event 2, you find reference to Nootka. Event 3, you remove reference to Nootka. That means the citation burden is on you, because you're the challenger.

“All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation”.

You make the challenge. You provide the citation. Real simple, mate. No citation? No challenge--->text stays.

That’s how Wiki works.

Conclusion: “For all your attempts at Wikilawyering, its clear that what you're trying to do is turn wikipedia into a soapbox to push your POV over Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. That is not the purpose of WP. There is a reference to the Nootka convention, where it belongs in the Argentine claims of the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article. It merely states the facts, it isn't the synthesis of a published material to advance a position which is what you're trying to push here. Justin A Kuntz 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)”

Response to Conclusion: Wikilawyering…what happened to free and open discussion?

I’ll tell you what my point of view is, my point of view is that for one reason or another it seems that a group of people, for whatever reason, didn’t like a reference to a clearly relevant historical event, and so they decided to delete it without providing any citation or evidence that supports their challenge to the pre-existing text which they removed from the article, obviously without first achieving consensus (or else I wouldn’t be writing this).

Placing aside the logical fallacies that I’ve enumerated (timeline, context, impartiality, etc), and also placing aside my prior statement that, if anything, Nootka would deal any Argentina claim “a serious blow”, I seriously question the motives behind your demonstrated intent to exclude any and all references to Nootka from the Falklands article.

It is I who find it extraordinary, that all relevant text is simply deleted in clear violation of WP challenge protocol – without a single source pointing to Nootka’s inapplicability to Falklands insofar as they are physically located within territories described by Nootka’s text in great specificity. My edit provides both the primary source (Nootka text) as well as a secondary source (interpretation of Nootka) and is therefore clearly not OR. I did not ignore the hiatus from 1795-1814 and even went so far as to include the 1814 renewal. I ignored the secret article because it clearly did not mention “the islands adjacent”, and also specifically mentions the inapplicability would solely apply to Article 6’s “stipulation of establishments on the coasts.” Far from vague, the text is as specific as it could possibly be!

Honestly, do you really expect them to list every single archipelago in the western hemisphere by name?

You are right in that my edit unambiguously stated that Britain, and only Britain, gave up the right to resettle at the time Nootka was signed. Again, how can the Spanish re-settle a place where they’re already settled? Wouldn’t they have to leave first, and withdraw their existing settlement, in order to put up a new one? That’s not a POV, it’s simple logic. But it would play to the POV of someone who doesn’t particularly want Nootka to be mentioned in such an article, notwithstanding your admission that I did clearly state “it’s not relevant to either side”.

Again, who’s pushing a POV here, and who wants the facts to come out?

Finally, regarding uti possidetis, this is and always has been Argentina’s sole basis for claim of sovereignty over the islands. Is that viewpoint correct? Maybe, maybe not. But uti possidetis is indeed what they base their arguments on, so my statement is factually correct.

The discussion as to whether or not their uti possidetis argument holds water is probably better left to the Falklands Sovereignty article. But I will responds directly to your mention that “Argentina has to prove that it had title before 1833”. No, it doesn’t – you’re confusing uti possidetis with status quo ante bellum.

Uti possidetis is a principle that states that, after an armed conflict, a certain territory remains with it’s possessor at the time the conflict ends – in other words, to the victor go the spoils. In uti possidetis, the victor needs not demonstrate they had prior title, only possession at the end of the conflict – the conflict in this case being the Argentine war of Independence against Spain. What you’re talking about, status quo ante bellum, specifically requires the claimant to hold sovereignty prior to the conflict. Argentina, in claiming uti possidetis, therefore does not have to prove that Argentina had title before 1833, but rather that Spain had title before Argentine independence in 1816. In any case, Nootka covers settlements, and settlements are not the same as Sovereignty.

Nootka is clearly relevant. Seeing this from the Convention's text requires a measure of common sense, which I believe I placed in my reference, as well as a secondary source constituting prior research. If you have evidence to challenge the Nootka reference in the article you found, present it. Otherwise, since you claim to have an NPOV approach, I would urge you to re-insert Nootka’s reference in the Article. If you object to my wording, I’m sure we can come to an agreementAlex79818 07:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

No its historically irrelevant to the Falkland Islands. You've produced nothing to suggest that its should be in the history section. What you're doing is synthesising published material to advance a position, in this case to push a POV. The purpose of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia not to discuss the differing possible interpretations on Nootka with respect to the Falkland Islands. What you're doing violates WP:NOR and WP:SYN.

And you still seem to be missing the point if you want to demonstrate its relevant, you have to produce a source to back it up. You can't do that by arguing its relevance from the text that is WP:OR. The only person acting in violation of Wikipedia protocol is yourself.

Nootka forms part of Argentina's claim to the islands, claiming that it doesn't is at best disingenuous. Its therefore mentioned in the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article and I was one of the editors who put it there. So when I see statements like "I seriously question the motives behind your demonstrated intent to exclude any and all references to Nootka" I get rather upset. I would suggest you look at WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Justin A Kuntz 08:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly lies my synthesis, as you see it?

The Nootka text specifically states Article 6 is an agreement “with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent”. So is my synthesis that the Falklands constitute “islands adjacent”?

The text further describes “parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain”. So is my synthesis then that Spain had settled coastal territories to the north of the Falklands?

As I stated before, the text itself is prima facie evidence, giving a clear, specific and unmistakeable description of both parties, the territories involved, and terms. It was a convention between two parties, the text describes the territories involved as inclusive of the islands among many other territories, and it has absolutely nothing to do with a POV of a third party which wasn’t even in existence at the time of the convention.

And once again, I point to the timeline of edits. I did provide an original source in 2006 and this source was later added to by numerous edits, and my reference was not removed by anyone until you did so in July 2007. This means YOU are the challenger!

And if YOU challenge something that’s been in the article for months, with no prior challenge, and further additions by other editors, then it’s tantamount on YOU to back up YOUR CHALLENGE!

Whether or not Nootka forms part of Argentina’s claims is wholly irrelevant to the subject (and by the way I don’t agree). If you believe I’ve synthesized then you might as well go and edit every other WP article on treaties that refer to vast geographical areas but fail to name each territory individually, because by your arguments those are conjectures as well. The facts are simple – I made a contribution with citation, other users then added to my contribution as well as their own citations, the contributions lasted for months, and were then deleted due to an unsupported challenge as “irrelevant”, which then “magically” became POV, and in neither case provided a single shred of evidence or citation to prove the challenge.

You say it is historically irrelevant. Well if the text says it governs “the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent”, and you don’t agree the islands qualify, then what evidence do you have to bolster your claim of non-adjacency sufficient enough to remove an entry which was present in the article for months before you found it?

So far, I’ve seen nothing. So either present evidence for your challenge, or remove it. Someone, somewhere, must have said at one point or another that the Falklands are not adjacent to the east coast of South America – if not, then it is not I who synthesizes, it is you, and clearly constitutes OR.

The proof is in the pudding, and if you don’t have a POV of your own, then I’m sure you’ll come up with several such unbiased sources which will cause me to be quietAlex79818 09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

Your citation contained nothing that was relevant to the Falkland Islands, to make it relevant you had to synthesise a position. I don't have to produce anything to back up my challenge to your edit, its up to you to produce something to justify putting it in. You've failed to do that, therefore it doesn't go in. Interestingly I note that Nootka is not mentioned in the Argentina article or the History of Argentina article. Why not, surely its historically relevant to Argentina?

Arguing that your edit had gone unnoticed for so long is irrelevant, I noticed on Saturday that a vandalism edit had also gone unnoticed for nearly year until removed. According to you that should now be enshrined in stone. Justin A Kuntz 10:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me refer to WP:SYN

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.”

Ok…so then it follows:

A – Reliable source (original text) - “with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent”…

…SO WHAT’S B? A map?

What am I adding to A to come up with C?

What source have I named that states the islands are adjacent to the eastern coast of South America?

None – because WP allows for common sense. That is "B". Just like it would not require specific reference to the Hudson River in an article that refers to North America – it’s understood that the Hudson River is located in North America.

[WP:SYN] states synthesis as A + B therefore C. I’ve stated no B and stated outright that your understanding of position C, an Argentine sovereignty claim bolstered by Nootka, makes no sense and is actually detrimental to the Argentine position considering that Argentina didn’t exist in 1814 and was not party to the Convention.

Further…using WP’s own given example:

“Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:

If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia.”

Therefore, applying the same principle to the Nootka inclusion

…let’s plug in the relevant parties “if Britain’s claim that the Spanish claim to sovereignty is false, this would be contrary to the Nootka Convention, in which Britain renounced any further colonial ambitions in the islands”. Such a paragraph clearly violates WP:OR, because it expresses the editor’s opinion that, given Nootka’s terms, Britain renounced future colonial ambitions in the islands. Therefore, to make the paragraph consistent with WP:OR, this precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic, specifically commenting on the British/Spanish dispute at the time of Nootka’s signing.

Had I made such an “A + B means C” statement, I could point out to my citation of USGNNET, a recognized nonprofit historical and educational resource website not promoting any viewpoint, nor belonging to either of the two disputing parties, quoting British Minister Stratford Canning as third-party reliable-source analysis in relation to the topic, commenting that

“The principles settled by the Nootka Convention of 28th of October, 1790, were…3d. That on the coasts of South America and adjacent islands, south of the parts already occupied by Spain, no settlement should thereafter be made either by British or Spanish subjects; but on both sides should be retained the liberty of landing and erecting temporary buildings for the purpose of fishing…The exclusive rights of Spain to any part of the American continents have ceased. That portion of the convention, therefore, which recognizes the colonial rights of Spain on the continents, though confirmed between great Britain and Spain by the first additional article of the treaty of 5th of July, 1814, has been extinguished by the fact of the independence of the South American nations and of Mexico. Those independent nations will possess the rights incident to that condition; and their territories will, of course, be subject to no exclusive right of navigation in their vicinity, or of access to them by any foreign nation."

[[18]]

That's what I would say if I were supporting an Argentine POV....solely providing evidence that my work is not [WP:OR]. Except that I don’t need to say this, because my statement was not “A + B means C”.

My statement is simply “A says B”, making no mention of Argentine claims.

Again, my statement is far simpler:

“A (Nootka) says it applies to to B (the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent)”.

The Falkland Islands fit the common-sense description of B, and the article remained as such for months having so been bolstered by other editors’ contributions, which is not indicative of vandalism but rather consensus (go add that the islands belong to Italy and see how many other editors contribute sources).

Your challenge is still a challenge to pre-existing text. Your challenge clearly states my citation contains nothing relevant after myself and other contributors clearly saw relevancy. You believe this is due to synthesis but my statement is not an “A + B means C” statement, the defined requisite for WP:SYN, when my statement is “A says B”.

And further, you provide no evidence or citations to support your challenge of irrelevancy.

So again, you made a challenge, where’s your citations? Where’s your evidence?

You still don't seem to get it but I will try for the last time. The onus of responsibility is upon yourself to produce a citation that supports the edit you wish to do. That is all. Justin A Kuntz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin A Kuntz (talk • contribs) 11:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(About a million edit conflicts here. There was more...)

You have misunderstood WP:NOR. I'll assume good faith and assume that this is because you are not used to Wiki policies, rather than a genuine attempt at disruption. Using the quote you gave "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source." If you add material that is challenged, or likely to be challenged, it is up to you to accompany it with a reliable source. Not the other way around. It continues:

"Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you."

In other words, if your sources don't back up what you say, we can assume it's original research - the "original thought of the Wikipedian who added it" - and we can remove it as such. It is pretty clear where the burden of evidence lies, and it is with you.

The whole point of WP:NOR is that we don't get lots of random unsourced information in articles. That can't be sourced either way because someone just made it up. If I was to add that xxx celebrity was a paedophile or something with no source, then I could hardly demand it be retained by asking sources off people who deny it without adding suitable sources of my own. The same principle applies here. Your material has been challenged, and you must source it or expect it to be removed as OR. Pfainuk talk 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Before I quit, I'll add this part of what I was writing before:

1. Are the Falklands "adjacent" to South America for the purposes of Nootka?
2. Do we take settlement locations in 1790 or 1814 for the lasting interpretation of the conventions?
3. Is Argentina a third party wrt the Nootka Conventions, given that it was unrecognised by Spain until long after crucial events took place, and thus succession of states could not reasonably happen, or does it take Spain's position?
4. Is the (American) Lexington Raid a third party settlement under the secret article?
5. Given the disregard of Nootka by Argentina in regards to areas it was explicit about (Patagonia) - provided that Argentina is bound by Nootka - does it still apply or has it been rendered effectively void by the lack of enforcement?

These - at least - are the questions I feel we need sourced answers to before we can add a non-OR and NPOV text on the Nootka Conventions in the article. Your source from earlier may do for point 3 (that Nootka did apply wrt Argentina). And you may consider material on Nootka in the article to be "challenged" if it asserts responses to any of these questions without an acceptible source. I don't need a source to do this - per my celebrity paedophilia example earlier. Pfainuk talk 11:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just reread that, and on reflection I think maybe requiring no. 5 would also be POV. It's worth mentioning, possibly, in a discussion of Nootka, but I don't think it's required. Pfainuk talk 11:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I stated several times that I already have provided both evidence and citations, none of which conform to WP's definition of [WP:SYN] as stated by Justin A Kuntz. I've used specific WP examples to demonstrate that my citations both fully meet the requirement and in no way constitute synthesis.

I again refer you to [WP:NOR]:

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you."

I am saying Nootka applies to the Falklands, which are islands adjacent to the east coast of South America. Nootka specifically says it applies to islands adjacent to the east coast of South America. Therefore I am not violating [WP:NOR] because the reliable published source, Nootka, makes exactly the same argument which I am reporting on.

Further, Justin A Kuntz made a direct statement that I am promoting a POV. [WP:NPOVFAQ] states regarding the issue of "lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete", that "Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V."

In turn, [WP:V], states that "When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references."

I have provided such citation. So how is my content (relevance) inconsistent with the reference (Nootka)?

It is with this approach that I believe your questions do not apply to the dilemma at hand, which is to examine whether or not Nootka as a historical event is relevant to the History of the Falkland Islands, by which I can say the following:

1. Are the Falklands "adjacent" to South America for the purposes of Nootka?

Nootka's text is self-explanatory. I think the better question to ask would be, "Do the Falkland Islands fit the text description of Nootka's territorial applicability?" If the point were to find a third-party interpretation for the descriptive text of any and all primary sources, then no articles could be published that way. I submit that Nootka's text describe a certain geographical area, and rather than attempting to conform the primary source to the situation (i.e. "define adjacency") which could promote a POV by virtue of elimination, would rather approach the subject by asking if the territory fits the description given by the primary source's text. In this case, the answer is yes, and the source is Nootka.

1. Do we take settlement locations in 1790 or 1814 for the lasting interpretation of the conventions?

We are simply reporting that a treaty was signed in 1790 with one party on the island and one party off. Then it was renewed in 1814 with both parties off. No need for any interpretation - just the facts as provided by the primary source text.

1. Is Argentina a third party wrt the Nootka Conventions, given that it was unrecognised by Spain until long after crucial events took place, and thus succession of states could not reasonably happen, or does it take Spain's position?

Argentina is not a third nor any other party to Nootka. The Nootka text does not mention Argentina, nor was Argentina a state in existence in 1790 or 1814. We are simply reporting on events of 1790 and 1814.

1. Is the (American) Lexington Raid a third party settlement under the secret article?

Settlement implies continued presence. The Lexington took prisoners and left - who is going to comment on something that never took place?

1. Given the disregard of Nootka by Argentina in regards to areas it was explicit about (Patagonia) - provided that Argentina is bound by Nootka - does it still apply or has it been rendered effectively void by the lack of enforcement?

Who's saying Argentina is bound by Nootka? Again, the question at hand is whether or not Nootka is historically relevant enough to the Falkland Islands, sufficiently enough that it warrants mention in the History section of the article, within the given timeline (1790 and 1814, respectively). Argentina doesn't exist in either and to ask whether or not Argentina is bound by Nootka creates a discussion unnecessary to answer the question of sufficient relevancy to report.

These - at least - are the questions I feel we need sourced answers to before we can add a non-OR and NPOV text on the Nootka Conventions in the article. Your source from earlier may do for point 3 (that Nootka did apply wrt Argentina). And you may consider material on Nootka in the article to be "challenged" if it asserts responses to any of these questions without an acceptible source. I don't need a source to do this - per my celebrity paedophilia example earlier.

It's not about who sees what...a challenge of irrelevance was made, and the material was properly cited based on [WP:NOR] as primary source text that expressed the same idea as the article's Nootka reference. Also, a claim of bias was made, which is determined by [WP:NPOVFAQ], directing sources to be provided as per [WP:V] to establish consistency between the challenged content and the source.

But demanding specific additional sources that confirm the plainly obvious consistency between the source text and article text is not stated as a necessity for [WP:V], and it is simply unreasonable to assume this would be necessary in order to add non-OR and NPOV text to an article. Take the text of the Louisiana Purchase treaty - it doesn't mention every state in the Union as party to the treaty, just the United States. Do you really need a third-party source who opines that in the treaty's reference, all states forming part of the Union are parties to the treaty? No, because it's common sense based on the descriptive language of the primary source. A perfect example is Article 2:

"In the cession made by the preceeding article are included the adjacent Islands belonging to Louisiana all public lots and Squares"

but the treaty fails to specify a distance or definition of adjacent islands. And yet there is no manifest requisite of another source that qualifies Avery Island as an adjacent island. The common sense approach is therefore to examine whether or not the treaty's language describes the island in question, which is no different in that case than in this one.Alex79818 12:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Treaty law, how it is applied and what it acctually means, is very complicated (As for Argentina not being referenced at all in the conventions, no it wasn't, however the secret clause does make mention of 'third parties', of which Argentina is arguably one). Whether nootka even applies to the Falklands is a matter of some debate and belongs on the sovereignty of the falkland island article, where it is currently included, where it can be gone into in detail along with counter claims, etcetera.Narson 12:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Where the answers to my questions may seem obvious to Alex79818, they are not at all obvious to me. That's why I challenged those assertions. There is a current dispute involved here (unlike in the case of the Louisiana Purchase), and so our sources have to be explicit if we are to accept this text. The text of Nootka - the relevant part of both sources given - is not acceptible in this case to state categorically that the Falklands are even covered by Nootka - as you say, Narson, the point is debatable. As WP:NPOVFAQ says, "material that violates WP:NOR should be removed". Alex79818's does. Pfainuk talk 13:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Some points about the above:

1) Adjacency. This is what the International Court of Justice had to say 'adjacency' in its ruling on a maritime dispute between Germany, Denmark, and The Netherlands:

http://www.imli.org/legal_docs/docs/A68.DOC paragraph 41 .......To take what is perhaps the most frequently employed of these terms. namely "adjacent to", it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as "adjacent" to it, or to any coast at all, in the normal sense of adjacency, even if the point concerned is nearer to some one coast than to any other.

2) Succesion of states. For succesion of states to apply, the change of sovereignty has to be legal.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/1997/factum/craw_pt1.html

See section on state succession and paragraphs 8 and 9.

Argentina seceded from Spain unilaterally through a war of independence and therefore would not be entitled to state succession according to the above paragraphs.

3) Is Argentina bound by Nootka? This is the wrong question. Argentina is not a signatory to Nootka and is therefore not bound by it. The question is whether Britain under the terms of the secret article stopped being bound to article VI when Argentina (subjects of any other power) formed a settlement on the Falklands in 1829.

4) Spain's recognition of United Provinces/Argentina. Britain recognised the United Provinces in 1825 so as far as Britain is concerned the United Provinces was a separate entity from Spain from 1825 onwards Dab14763 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Narson, if you say the reference "belongs on the sovereignty of the falkland island" article, you are making a conclusion that there exists relevance between Nootka and a claim of sovereignty in the islands. That itself is an assertion, whereby you believe "content X belongs in Y" while providing no citation or evidence to bolster that conclusion.

Pfainuk, the answers to your questions are not obvious to me - I simply think they're the wrong questions to ask, because no such questions were asked in a similar article (Louisiana Purchase) with similar vocabulary (describing vast amount of territory to the inclusion of its adjacent islands, without specifically naming the islands or defining the term "adjacent").

What is clearly happening here, to me, is that there is a pre-existing bias by a group of editors determined to keep any and all references to a historical event clearly related to the Falklands, out of the Falklands article. If NPOV was truly being employed here, the reaction wouldn't be "yeah....um, define 'adjacent'!" This is purely semantics, reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "define 'sexual relations'" bit during the Monica days. Plus the reasons for exclusion have jumped from [WP:NOR], to [WP:SYN], then to [WP:NPOV], and now back to [WP:NOR]. I've already explained in great detail how no such violations have taken place, and gone so far as to explain how [WP:V] is met. I've received no response to that.

The indisputable fact is, both Nootka and Louisiana Purchace's primary source text describe the applicable territory in great detail, with inclusion of the phrase "the islands adjacent". The profile of Avery Island fits the common-sense description of the LP text as an adjacent island - the LP case applies to our Nootka discussion because it establishes how WP prevents these type of disputes, by demonstrating clearly that in a historical document describing a vast territory and adjacent islands, it means just what it says - islands clearly adjacent to the coasts described - and in such cases, the information is included solely based on the primary source text, WITHOUT a requisite that the islands be listed by name in the primary source text, or that the term 'adjacent' be defined, or that the role of any third party be established.

Alex79818 It is not an indisputable fact that the Falklands are included in Nootka. As far as I know the UK has never recognised that they are. The Falklands are not 'clearly' adjacent to coast (see ICJ ruling on the term 'adjacent)'. Avery Island is a bad comparison because it is only 3 miles from the coast not 300.

Just the primary text, and its common sense definition. That is the standard for LP, it is clearly the WP standard, and I believe it applies here as well in a matter that settles this current dispute insofar as it clearly demonstrates how this same type of description should be interpreted. Alex79818 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your common sense definition of the term 'adjacent'? My common sense definition for objects more than a few centimetres wide is that if you can put something of the same size as the largest of the two objects between the two objects then they are not adjacent. You can fit another South America at the same level of latitude between Argentina and the Falklands. Dab14763 21:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no current territorial dispute over the Louisiana territory or over Avery Island, so we don't have to be so careful about what we say there - or about our sources there - because NPOV is not such a problem there. In any case, Avery Island is 3 miles from land, where the Falkands are 300 miles away - the two are not comparable. Surely you (Alex79818) can see that in an article like Falkland Islands we have to be very picky on NPOV issues, particularly when the edit appears to be original research. The reasons that we have used may have appeared to jump - that's because there are problems with all of them.

Your entire argument is based on your own interpretation of a source, an interpretation which is open to challenge (that's now four editors who have agreed on this point, with you the only one opposed), and which you have not been able to back up with sources. That is original research. Your interpretation implicitly favours one side in the dispute. That is POV. This is what we've been saying all along - none of this has changed. And for all of your wikilawyering you have consistently failed to assume good faith - an important guideline which has been mentioned before in this discussion. Pfainuk talk 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pfainuk, I refer you to WP: PSTS:

“Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.”

The WP passage in contention here is in direct, verbatim agreement with Nootka’s own text. It is therefore not synthesis, it doesn’t promote any point of view as both parties to Nootka gave up rights in 1814, and it does not constitute a violation of WP:NOR as the primary source cited conforms to WP:V, WP:PSTS, and the passage’s inclusion is warranted in the article without additional citations by virtue of the fact that no such additional citations are required by WP in the determination of treaty language listing “the islands adjacent” without further specificity or definition.

Even still, let’s examine WP’s own definition of the word “adjacent”:

adjacent 1. Lying near, close, or contiguous; neighboring; bordering on; as, a field adjacent the highway. 2. Just before, after, or facing.

The Falklands are neighbouring islands to the east coast of South America. They are contiguous to South America in that they sit on the same continental shelf. Just because you can fit another width of the South American content between the coast and the islands does not change any of the above. Just how much more adjacent can you get? A determination of relevance is clearly in keeping with the common sense guidelines in WP:UCS.

Pfainuk, I heartily agree with your statement that there’s no current territorial dispute over the Louisiana Territory’s Avery Island. Likewise, it is indeed 3 miles from mainland. But you fail to understand the point of the matter is that if the Falklands article is truly NPOV, it must accept a universal, not subjective, standard for determination of relevance and applicability based on a primary source text of "the islands adjacent".

In your own words, “we have to be very picky on NPOV issues” – this statement is teeming with bias! Picky? Exactly my point – picking and choosing, favoring exclusion by default, of anything that in anyone’s opinion, founded or unfounded, might promote a POV (never mind the fact that the exclusion itself promotes a POV, even if the wording of the proposed text is change, because what is being pushed for here is clearly the absolute and unequivocal exclusion, at all costs, and without supporting sources).

You further demanded additional sources, and I responded by providing this forum with the exact way in which this exact same question is handled elsewhere in WP. The example I provided only illustrates WP’s handling of such a question, and as such it is therefore unrelated to the geopolitical particulars of each case, clearly demonstrating that, as far as WP is concerned, treaty language describing “the islands adjacent” needs not list such islands by name, or define such adjacency, in order to be included in that article.

Therefore, if my text constitutes a violation of WP:NOR, then the same applies to LP passages and elsewhere in WP, regardless of whether or not the same dispute circumstances apply, because the WP measure for determining NPOV is decided by the same standard irrelevant of the disputing party’s assertions. There's not one WP:V standard that applies to one article and not to another, the WP standards are universal to all WP articles. And according to you, that standard is mentioning the archipelago by name in the primary text, or established third party definition of adjacency, and anything else is OR.

I would agree completely if the same standard were used throughout WP to asses the applicability of such language to any archipelago. Unfortunately, it is not – therefore the exclusion, still unfounded, constitutes BIAS of its own as defined by WP:NPOV:

“In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be…marginalized or given undue standing…subject to other factors suggestive of bias.”

How, therefore, can such an absolute removal not be indicative of marginalization of a related historical fact, as defined by WP’s own interpretation of the same exact treaty language, when you believe that extra evidence is required in this specific case and WP clearly does not in other cases utilizing the same exact language?

You say four other editors agree. But if you check this page’s history, this issue has been edited before, see “13:25, 26 August 2005 Icairns ( more neutral statement on positions over Nootka)”, which did not remove the entry. Neither did Apcbg delete the passage after discussion on 23:48, 27 June 2006, stating “the Falkland Islands (1) were a disputed territory claimed by both Spain and Britain, where after the termination of the Spanish settlement there existed the international legal regime established by the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention.”

Even TharkunColl, an editor who throughout all Nootka discussions has proven to be a supporter of the Kelper POV vis a vis his exchanges with Argentino Argentino, writes an entry on 10:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC) stating “Unless someone can provide the text of this illusive document, I suggest we remove all mention of it from any article concerning the Falklands.”

Well guess what mate, now it’s provided – so now the game’s got to be shifted to try to find ways to invalidate the primary text by asking things like the meaning of the word “adjacent”? Please.

Well when it’s not one thing then it’s another. So, fine. You ask for external links, here they are, all external citations of Nootka in Falklands history:

1) The Open University, Falklands Conflict Chronology:

[[19]]

2) Or how about the official information portal of the Falkland Islands? Surely THEY are not promoting the Argentine POV!

[[20]]

3) Yet another 3rd party source, this particular one not reaching a conclusion as to the effect of the Convention, but clearly mentioning it in the Falklands History section, which clearly denotes relevance.

[[21]]

Nootka is widely understood to apply to the Falklands as a related historical events, no matter how much the editors concerned may not like it or believe that this supports the Argentine POV.

If you truly claim a NPOV, then it's clear that WP does not require 3rd party text to corroborate a primary source’s definition of “the islands adjacent”, and I’ve provided the same to show NPOV in good faith.

I did indeed assume good faith, but a good faith assumption is lost when in a discussion you ask someone who questions your contribution to come up with evidence to support a challenge, and they refuse outright – and further, require additional evidence not provided in other WP pages regarding the same challenge. I don’t care if its four or four thousand who challenge this fact, it is a known fact, and I maintain that Nootka’s text is prima facie evidence of the fact that Nootka, as a historical event, is relevant to the history of the Falklands and should therefore be re-inserted in the article, per WP:NPOV, empirically and without regard to how any of the two conflicting sides might interpret this independent of the WP passage. Alex79818 04:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is going to be an impasse, I think. Perhaps you should examine the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article, Alex. If you want to work on Nootka and the Falkland Islands links, do so where it is already established and there is the room/context for it? Having several users spamming a talk page with the same arguments over and over again is not productive (And its now got to the point people are referencing WP as a source for itself, which is never a great avenue to go down) Narson 05:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well...a distinction has to be made...if someone claims a certain passage violates WP policy then obviously WP will be a source, but only insofar as the WP violation reference is concerned. I make no WP reference to support that Nootka is relevant.

The fact that a similar reference exists in the Falklands Sovereignty page is inconsequential to this question, which is not one of Sovereignty, but rather of history. The challenge which led to deletion was "Removed reference to Nootka convention as irrelevant to Falklands Sovereignty claim", therefore the question is remains the same:

Is Nootka, as a historical event, relevant to the Falkland Islands sufficiently enough to warrant a reference to the same in the History section of the Falklands WP article?

I believe so, and I have provided both primary and secondary sources that go far beyond the WP requisite including an official Falklands site, and I've explained my approach in detail, clearly demonstrating a WP:NPOV in both my methodology and explanations. And unless there are any further challenges, I will reinsert the text - of course after a reasonable amount of time for verification of my sources. And I reiterate my willingness to work with anyone to reach consensus on the wording of such a passage to ensure it conforms to WP:NPOV as well as is historically accurate, per the listed source material. Alex79818 06:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly this is a waste of everybody's time. It serves no purpose to repeat the arguments against inclusion over again, full in the knowledge that you will not accept them. Your spiels of wikilawyering have demonstrated very little on the whole. You have consistently failed to assume good faith, and you have not convinced anyone that your biased original research belongs in the article. You claimed that four days ago you did not know what a talk page was. Yet, you are now lecturing users who are far more experienced than you in these matters on your beliefs on Wiki policy. We haven't moved on significantly.

If you cannot accept that on controversial articles the standard of "challenged, or likely to be challenged" is higher than elsewhere, then you are in no position be lecturing policy to us. WP:UCS is a guide - an essay, not policy. In any case, common sense dictates that on controversial articles, material is more likely to be challenged than on non-controversial ones. This is challenged material and you require a better cite than the ones you gave us. The material has implications for NPOV. These are the facts that are relevant here. A long circular argument on talk helps no-one. Pfainuk talk 09:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Pfainuk, if you had read what I wrote, you’d know this isn’t repetition – I’ve answered every challenge, including your challenge to provide additional citations, to prove that relevance of Nootka to Falklands is widely accepted and does not push the Argentine POV.

One such citations even includes an official Falklands page. So I ask again, are they pushing the Argentine POV as well?

It is hard to assume good faith when the challenges posed are constantly changing from one to the next, have no evidence to support them in discussion, attempt to tweak the common-sense definition of words to suit their purpose, and demand extraordinary evidence not necessary elsewhere in WP for similar cases.

Further, having provided such evidence, it is hard to assume good faith when it is ignored – especially when it leads to the absurd conclusion that the Falklands information portal is supporting an Argentine POV.

Clearly this is not an issue that is open to discussion to this ‘posse’, no matter how much evidence is provided, because the predisposition is to exclude any reference to Nootka at all cost. You are right in that any further attempt is a waste of time. And you’re right that I am a new user. Perhaps I wouldn’t try to lecture you if you adhered to the standards by which you yourself judge others’ work.

[WP:NPOV] is unequivocal: “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.”

This wanton exclusion, despite numerous reliable sources per your request and verbatim primary text in keeping with WP’s interpretation of similar tests, is simply bias. This constitutes, in my opinion, a clear policy violation (biased marginalization of relevant fact). I’ve therefore listed a MedCab request for a third opinion. Alex79818 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex79818

http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html is not an official page. If you go to 'home' and then 'about this site' you'll see so for yourself. With regard to Nootka, it is not just a question of how we here interpret the word 'adjacent' As far as I know the UK does not recognise that the Falklands are included in it. When one of the states party to a treaty does not recognise that a territory is included in that treaty then nobody here or on any other website, no author of any publication has the authority to decide that it does. Only a competent arbitrator or court such as the ICJ has the authority to decide. Different people may express an opinion one way or the other but that is not a decision. Dab14763 18:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, point conceded on the website, I should have looked at that. However, being that the vast majority of the island’s population opposes Argentina’s sovereignty claim, can we at least agree that it’s highly unlikely for a Kelper website to list information that bolsters such a claim?

On the second point regarding the word adjacent, I will point out that ICJ is a 20th century definition which you now claim should be applied to an 18th century contract. The challenge to my interpretation of the word adjacent was whether or not I could demonstrate that my edit’s interpretation of the word ‘adjacent’ in the primary source text was correct, by virtue of unbiased, trustworthy secondary sources not likely to push an Argentine POV (the contention made of my edit). That, I submit, has been proven by the three given sources – the context is therefore WP:V, constituting neither synthesis nor OR or Arg POV. Alex79818 00:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I also wish to add to the above citations, stating that in 1790, the British signed the Nootka Sound Convention and formally renounced any colonial ambition in South America "And the islands adjacent", this being presented in relation to Falklands history in "The Battle for the Falklands", Hastings and Jenkins - WW Norton & Company, New York, 1982.72.83.213.184 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed this is what is stated on Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The text is not in dispute, the applicability to the Islands is disputed. Attempting to place this edit here, without any one of many possible interpretations pushes a POV in favour of the Argentine claim and is counter to wiki polices and guidelines. Justin talk 13:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course the applicability of Nootka to the islands is disputed! That is what we're talking about here, isn't it? The point is, how many possible interpretations can there be of Nootka references in Falklands sources mentioning Nootka not under 'Sovereignty Claims' but under HISTORY sections. If Nootka is relevant EXCLUSIVELY within the context of the Argentine claim, wouldn't all the secondary sources mention Nootka within that context? And yet not a single one does.

I look forward to seeing what references you present to MedCab - so far you haven't provided so much as a hint of any reputable WP:V citation that supports your "Nootka is exclusive to Argentine Claim" viewpoint, and as I've stated before marginalizing information to secondary articles due to bias is counter to wiki policies in and of itself. Happy researching!Alex79818 03:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be ignoring that Nootka already is in this article, albiet in a sub-article (Namely History of the Falkland Islands). I do not feel Nootka is important enough (as it has never been applied to the Falkland Islands, regardless of whether it did apply) to warrant inclusion in the history section of the main article (which is already getting quite big, again). I fully agree that Nootka does not exist as purely as an element of the Argentine claim (And I do not believe Justin has claimed so, though I will be honest, these huge blocks of text just make me skim read) but I also do not think it is an overly important treaty outside of the Argentine claims, it is not significant part of the history (I am not accusing you of overstating its importance, merely clarifying why exactly I feel its inclusion in what should be a sumary of the history is minimal). At most there might be a sentence on this page about how 'the nootka sound treaty, believed by some to relinquish British sovereignty over the islands, was signed in 1790' or whenever. Narson 04:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me - I'd even go so far as to exclude the "believed by some" in the interest of accuracy. What I object to specifically is the default imposition of a biased and unsupported POV that Nootka can only be referenced within the context of an Argentine claim, and then using that as the basis to exclude all Nootka information from the primary article and "burying it" in some related link. That's tantamount to saying, without any citations, that 1) I perceive X to favor an Argentine/UK/Kepler/etc POV, and 2) because of belief I will push to marginalize the information. Again I wish to point out that the "N" in NPOV stands for "Neutral", not "No", meaning all relevant POV's must be equally represented in an unbiased fashion.Alex79818 01:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not said it is only relevent in the context of Argentine sovereignty. Merely that it is only an important event, in relation to the Falkland Islands, in the Argentine claims. No move by the British or the Spanish was ever made to apply the Nootka conventions to Falklands (Which obviously does not prove they do not apply, but as they were never applied, regardless of whether they did apply or not, does affect its importance). I guess there is an element of whether a part of the argentine claim does indeed give it sufficient import for wider mention within the main article, but I fear if we started down that route, we would end up in constant tit for tat additions. As for the inclusion of 'believed by some' in my brief suggestion, that is to build concensus on such an edit, as it would then require us to prove such a belief is universal. Which I do not believe it is (And unfortunatly, as Nootka has not been tested in court in relation to the Falkland Isles, we lack what would be the perfect source). Narson 02:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In History of the Falkland Islands I write:

• 1790: Nootka Convention. Britain conceded Spanish sovereignty over all Spain's traditional territories in the Americas. Whether or not the islands were included is disputed.

Which bit exactly do you object to? Justin talk 08:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, that mention is relegated to a secondary article. Second, the passage "whether or not the islands were included is disputed"....by whom (other than you and other WP editors)? Have you come up with one single, reputable, verifiable source that states there is an ongoing dispute within certain circles of historians, or elsewhere in academia? By contrast, the vast majority of sources I've seen, whether they're from the UK, Argentina or the Falklands, all unequivocally list Nootka as an event historically related to the islands and relevant in its own right. At a minimum, they all coincide on that one point, that Nootka is relevant to Falklands history in its own right, and these are reputable publications, not just websites - for example "The Battle for the Falklands", Hastings and Jenkins, and a number of papers and articles all detailed on my talk page.

So, bottom line, are your sources numerous enough, and reputable enough, to demonstrate that "whether or not the islands were included is disputed" is true even in spite of the sources I've provided?Alex79818 03:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a sub-article of the Falkland Islands in general, Alex. It is not itself a secondary or lesser import article. It is infact the primary article on the history of the Falklands. In the same way 'Falkland War' is not a secondary article to the Islands and 'Sovereignty Of The Falkland Islands' is itself an important article. I think part of this problem is the mindset of those articles being somehow unimportant or secondary. However, you are indeed correct that sources need to be provided when it comes to 'some'. I havn't gone digging around for them personally. If we cannot find sources for that section of the sentence, I would suggest we slap a citation needed flag on it and if none appear within a month or two, we remove it. I would also suggest we modify the wording. THe Nootka does not give up sovereignty full stop, it gives it up until such time as Spain leaves the area. Might be worth including in the summery. Narson 17:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As an additional note, while the 'disputed' part needs sources, your sources are also not perfect yet. Having magazines like the spectator mentioning Nootka in an article about the Falklands and the treaty itself are /not/ sources that prove Britain gave up sovereignty. As I have said before, the fact this treaty has never been tried in court is a true pain for sources. So. Lets try and work out what we can all agree on.
The Nootka Convention was signed.
It at least has some bearing on the falkland islands (whether by applying to them or by people claiming they do)

I think this brings us back to something close to my rather rushed proposed wording. Not perfect but a compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narson (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Narson, I never contended that the British gave up sovereignty in Nootka. I only said it was an event relevant to the history of the Falklands in its own right, and should be mentioned as such - as opposed to binding all mention of Nootka exclusively to the context of an Argentine claim. But as far as sovereignty is concerned, I've posted a number of times that Nootka doesn't deal with sovereignty, it deals with "future settlements" - while in 1790 the only party that could have a "future settlement" were the British, because Spain still had one, ergo in 1790 the British forefit future settlements. But when the treaty was re-signed in 1814, neither Britain nor Spain were on the island, meaning both parties forefit future settlements. This is why I can't understand why some people believe that Nootka somehow aids the Argentine sovereignty claim, being that Nootka's last signing was 1814 and Argentina came into being in 1816.Alex79818 21:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

UNINDENT

It is not necessary to establish a suitable citation, there is one already that indicates the academic dispute[22] over the relevance of the Nootka convention.

First of all I think it is necessary to establish edit Alex proposes [23], [24], [25] and [26]. All of which imply that as a result of the Nootka convention, Britain in some way relinquished sovereignty over the islands to Spain. This argues a POV and thus fails NPOV

Secondly the complete text of the Nootka convention itself[27]. The relevant article is ARTICLE VI

It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.

Alex argues that through the term "the islands adjacent", the convention of its own right applies to the Falkland Islands. The application of the convention to the islands is in dispute as shown by Alex's own source[28]. What Alex neglected to mention is that this source discusses the sovereignty claim indicating that while Argentina claims that the convention applies to the islands, Britain denies that it is applicable. Hence, by presenting part of the story Alex presents a case favourable to the Argentine POV and thus fails NPOV. I quote:

Argentine Claim By the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790, Britain disavowed any colonial ambitions in South America "and the islands adjacent." Argentina claims this included the Islands.

and

British Response The British insist that mutual agreements made between Spain and England during the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790 did not affect existing claims to sovereignty.

Further he has largely argued that it is common sense, that the term "adjacent" means the convention applies to the islands. The islands are 300+ miles of the coast of South America, so common sense does not immediately indicate that conclusion, since it does not align with the dictionary definition of adjacent i.e. close proximity. The issue at stake is that the term "adjacent" is not defined. As it is not defined, common sense would first re-examine the text to see if there is any indication of the intentions of the persons framing the document. Article IV requires that the British do not navigate or fish "within the distance of 10 maritime leagues from any part of the coast". One might assume that this distance was in the minds of the persons framing the documents and as 10 leagues is about 35 miles that might fall in line with the dictionary definition of "adjacent". Applying common sense one might also seek a legal precedent to ratify that conclusion, [29] is an International Court of Justice decision that "by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as "adjacent" to it, or to any coast at all, in the normal sense of adjacency, even if the point concerned is nearer to some one coast than to any other."

Further Alex cites precedent of Avery Island and the Louisiana Purchase to establish his interpretation of adjacency. Avery Island is 3 miles inland, so I would concede common sense would indicate the term "adjacent" implies applicability. On the other hand common sense would not immediately lead one to conclude that islands 300+ miles offshore is an analogous situation.

Hence, regarding the argument that Alex presents that applicability can be determined by examining the text of the Nootka convention itself.

• common sense does not necessarily indicate the applicability of the convention
• interpretation of the text does not indicate applicability
• cited legal precedent would preclude Alex's interpretation.
• Analogy of Avery Island and the Louisiana Purchase does not provide a precedent that is apposite.

However, I do not consider such an argument to be relevant to the issue at hand, since what I have actually done is original research and synthesises a position from published sources. I have done so only to illustrate that there are many possible interpretations of what is in fact an ambiguous document.

Hence, Alex's argument developed from interpretation of the original text, backed up by a dubious argument of precedent, like my counter argument fails Wiki guidelines of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Both arguments are based on original research and rely on synthesising a position from published sources. Neither argument is sustainable under wikipedia policies.

Therefore Alex's argument that examining the text of Nootka establishes a Prima facie case is not sustainable.

Alex argues further that the sources he quotes supports his conclusion.

Well examining the text of [30] in its full context, clearly shows that he is only presenting one side of the argument. Incidentally I suggest this as a neutral summary of the two positions.

Regarding this source from the Spectator magazine[31]]. What Alex has failed to mention is that the Spectator advertises itself as presenting "Guaranteed Biased Coverage”[32]. I quote:

If you're looking for a balanced, objective view, you won't find it in The Spectator. The Magazine speaks from the heart to give voice to conviction and strong opinion. Our contributors - whether from the right or left - give you their views unfiltered and at cask strength. It's brilliant stuff, brilliantly written - but not to everyone's taste.

His source is a personal opinion piece, therefore is not a reliable source.

His next source [33] is an Argentine Government website that presents the Argentina sovereignty claim, hardly a NPOV. Therein lies the problem.

His final source [34] simply mentions Nootka in a timeline – does that be itself indicate support for his position? Again missing information is that the same website has a page[35] dedicated to International Agreements related to the Falkland Islands. Nootka is noticeably absent, does that imply a lack of support for his position?

There are many timelines on the web and in print that include the Nootka convention. It is typically included because of the context of the Argentine claim. As it has never been applied by either Britain or Spain to the islands, it is not necessarily included because of historical relevance.

As to Alex's suggestion that he can supply of ton of sources supporting his argument. I don't doubt that he can, a simple google search will bring up many references. However, what Alex does not mention is that some of these sources will support the Argentine position and some will support the British position. Playing citation tennis is not going to lead to a solution, also selecting sources that support an a priori position does not establish a NPOV.

Alex's argument that it is possible to separate the sovereignty claim from the relevance of the Nootka convention and include it of its own right is fallacious. Britain maintains that Nootka is not relevant to sovereignty, whilst Argentina's sovereignty claim is based upon its relevance. Adding the edit that Alex suggests is lending support to the Argentine sovereignty claim and thus fails NPOV.

Hence, what I and other editors have done is to present the Nootka Convention in the framework of the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and its historical context in the History of the Falkland Islands. Our articles present both sides in context and do not seek to argue a position in favour of either the British or Argentine sovereignty claim.

Alex further argues that we are seeking to marginalise the position of the Nootka Convention, in that the two articles are "sub-articles". Note these are linked from Falkland Islands as the main articles on those subjects. Further the history section of the article Falkland Islands is only intended to précis main events in the history.

Neither Spain nor Britain as the original signatories of the Nootka Convention have ever tried to apply it to the Falkland Islands. Hence, its relevance to be included as a major event in the islands history is not established.

Finally, I think it is relevant to mention Alex's recent post on Talk:Falkland Islands

Second, the passage "whether or not the islands were included is disputed"....by whom (other than you and other WP editors)? Have you come up with one single, reputable, verifiable source that states there is an ongoing dispute within certain circles of historians, or elsewhere in academia? By contrast, the vast majority of sources I've seen, whether they're from the UK, Argentina or the Falklands, all unequivocally list Nootka as an event historically related to the islands and relevant in its own right. At a minimum, they all coincide on that one point, that Nootka is relevant to Falklands history in its own right,

Well [36] indicates the applicability is disputed and as this is a citation of his, he is clearly aware that applicability is disputed. Alex claims that the caveat "Whether or not the islands were included is disputed." is not warranted, when clearly sources are available to indicate that it is – and he is aware of them. It is clear that the edit he proposes is seeking to promote a POV in favour of Argentina's sovereignty claim.

If I was to cite a single source to indicate a neutral interpretation of the sovereignty dispute I would cite [37]. It indicates that the applicability of Nootka is disputed and it puts it into context. I contend that the current articles Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and History of the Falkland Islands present Nootka in context of its historical relevance and are NPOV by presenting both sides of the sovereignty claims. Nootka convention of its own right is not notable enough to be included in the précis in the Falkland Islands article. Justin talk 21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To respond to the above...

First, the “Avery Island” example was put forth to illustrate that there is no dispute, despite the vagueness of the text. It has been proposed by Justin that a primary source text “the islands adjacent” cannot be qualified by me to apply to Falklands without synthesis of the main text, due to the text's descriptive vagueness (no definition of the word ‘adjacent’, no actual listing of the archipelago by name), because “that’s not how wikipedia works”. If therefore this is the universal WP:NPOV standard for primary source interpretation of such text, and that same text appears in other historical documents, the same rule should apply elsewhere. Well, it doesn’t – and that to me indicates a predisposition to hold this specific text in this specific historical document to your personal interpretation of WP standards, which in my opinion are exceedingly demanding, and such demand is not corroborated elsewhere in WP. Avery Island is listed as part of Louisiana, US, because WP:PSTS allows a certain amount of common-sense leeway in the interpretation of a primary source - that's why there's no dispute about Avery Island in WP. And it's not as if I haven't provided numerous secondary sources to corroborate my contention, which still you claim is WP:SYN.

Secondly, in my source which, according to Justin academically proves there exists a British dispute about Nootka’s applicability, explaining the British response to Argentina’s Nootka point, there’s absolutely no British statement that Britain disputes “whether or not the Islands were included” in Nootka’s language. Look at the quote again:

• Argentine Claim: "By the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790, Britain disavowed any colonial ambitions in South America "and the islands adjacent. Argentina claims this included the Islands".

and

• British Response: "The British insist that mutual agreements made between Spain and England during the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790 did not affect existing claims to sovereignty".

BRITAIN SAYS NOTHING ABOUT NOOTKA NOT APPLYING TO THE FALKLANDS!! Britain simply says any treaty signed between Britain and Spain was signed between Britain and Spain, and that NOOTKA AFFECTED SETTLEMENTS, NOT SOVEREIGNTY, which is what I’ve been saying all along.

In that entire secondary source, in all of its reputable and verifiable interpretations of the Nootka primary text...no, in ANY SOURCE, show me any place where it says “Britain disputes that Nootka applies to the Falklands”. You won’t, you can't, because Britain doesn’t dispute that at all. Britain disputes that Nootka applies to a sovereignty claim, as opposed to the right to erect new settlements – but to the islands themselves, there’s NO BRITISH QUESTION that Nootka applies. All my secondary sources coincide in this, whether they’re from the UK, Argentina, USA or the Falklands, and whether they’re articles, timelines or op-ed pieces. So again, I challenge you to find one single source that indicates Britain has ever disputed Nootka’s applicability to the Falklands – and if you can’t, then show your civility and concede the points:

1) Nootka text is widely seen as incorporating Falklands, among many MANY other archipelagos in the western hemisphere, in its descriptive language, and no reputable source can be found to indicate a British dispute of Nootka’s applicability.

2) Nootka reference can therefore meet WP:NPOV if mentioned outside the context of an Argentine claim.

Lastly, my sources are indeed biased. I’ve made it a point to present sources from the UK, Falklands, Argentina, and other nations, to prove that all these sources, while reasonably expected to be biased towards their own positions, ALL COINCIDE in that Nootka is historically relevant to the Falkland Islands. Justin believes this isn’t the case, and yet again he’s not provided one single source of his own to back this up. The articles reflect his unsupported, personal viewpoint, the information has been removed from the main article by him and relocated to a secondary article by him, this is marginalization with bias and clearly violates WP:NPOVAlex79818 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. How about this....

In XXXX the Nootka Sound Convention was signed between Britain and Spain, in which Britain relinquished rights of settlement on islands adjacent to Spanish terratories. The application of Nootka to the Islands has been contested.

Does that butter everyone's bread? Its small, if people want to read more they can go to the history, if they want to read more about the contested application they can go to sovereignty, if they want to read about how cool ninja cats are they can go to the page about kung fu felines. Narson 22:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that is virtually what is already in the History of the Falkland Islands article. We're looking to remove unnecessary duplication where possible not create more. The history section is already too big. Justin talk 00:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The challenge is that information related to Nootka is being held as "exclusive to the Argentine Claim", with no evidence to support that POV, rather than a historical event in its own right, despite the citations I've provided. If Nootka is historically relevant to the Falklands in its own right, and several sources on all sides of the sovereignty debate see fit to cite it in their timelines, then it should be in the main WP EN article.

I propose the following passage, to be edited into existing text, and welcome feedback on sources' interpretation of the primary text in relation to my own - said to be WP:SYN.

(begin existing text)"...As a result of economic pressures resulting from the upcoming American War of Independence, the United Kingdom unilaterally chose to withdraw from many of her overseas settlements in 1774.[8][9] Upon her withdrawal in 1776 the UK left behind a plaque asserting her claims. From then on, Spain alone maintained a settlement ruled from Buenos Aires under the control of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata.(end existing text)

(begin draft) In 1790, England formally entered into the Nootka Sound Convention with Spain, disavowing any further colonial ambitions in South America and “the islands adjacent”. In 1811, Spain, too, withdrew her settlements from the island, also leaving behind a plaque asserting her claims. Britain and Spain then renewed the terms of the Nootka Convention in 1814, there being no settlements on the islands at the time. Under the last Convention's terms, Britain and Spain both relinquished the right to new settlements, while equal fishing rights were to be shared by Britain, Spain and the United States, and all three parties would retain the liberty to land and erect temporary buildings aiding in such fishing operations. (end draft)

(resume existing text) When Argentina declared its independence from Spain in 1816, it laid claim to the islands according to the uti possidetis juris principle, since they had been under the administrative jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. On 6 November 1820, Colonel David Jewett, an American sailor..."

I submit to this forum that continuing to hold that Nootka can only be presented as WP:NPOV exclusively within the context of Argentine Sovereignty Claims is UNSUPPORTED BY ANY CITATIONS WHATSOEVER. Continuing to use this as a basis for marginalizing Nootka to secondary linked articles shows bias to exclude information, which is specifically defined as a violation of WP:NPOV. Nootka is relevant in its own right, sources on all sides see fit to reference it as a relevant historical event, and there's absolutely no good reason why WP should not do the same.Alex79818 02:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see little point in continuing to point out why the edit you propose doesn't fit with Wiki policies and guidelines. From day one you have persistently assumed bad faith in the motives of the editors trying to educate you in the way that wiki works. The reams of argumentative and disruptive edits are more than ample evidence of that. You've also demonstrated an absolute refusal to compromise on any issue or to accept that there is more than one interpretation of a vague and ambiguous text. I've therefore reluctantly asked the mediator to consider referring the mediation case to arbcom. Justin talk 12:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I said it before and I’ll say it again: I will happily concede that there is more than one interpretation of a vague and ambiguous text WHEN YOU PROVIDE A CITATION TO BACK UP YOUR POV. You clearly require standards of other editors that you are not willing to adhere to yourself. I've committed myself to mediation and went through the process, but of course that requires providing citations, which you have none. So if you want to refer the matter to Arbcom then I won’t object. My citation indicates a difference of opinion as to whether Nootka applies to sovereignty vs. settlements. That’s what it says! I take nothing from the text, I add nothing to it. So, again, show me where it says otherwise.

You clearly are unwilling or unable to grasp the context of the citations in question. Further, you’ve complain that I’ve failed to WP:AGF from the start, yet it was you who from the beginning leveraged accusations of failing SYN/NPOV/V/etc. Every time I’ve responded to those accusations has met with irrelevant semantics such as ICJ. You asked for secondary sources, I gave them, and you try to find loopholes to dismiss them. You give no sources of your own. Zero. Do you think Arbcom is going to just take you at your word?? They will demand the same thing I demand, the same thing mediation demands: SOURCES. I’ve given them, you haven’t, and content still reflects your unsupported POV.

So please, forward the matter if you wish. Tell them about how you think “Nootka is interpreted by different parties as relevant and irrelevant” to the Falklands. I’ll have my sources, reputable and verifiable. Will you?Alex79818 23:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the record, again, I DO NOT BELIEVE BRITAIN RELINQUISHED SOVEREIGNTY IN NOOTKA. My edit doesn't say that. If anyone on this forum questions the accuracy of my posts, I urge you to look at the sources I've provided, as requested.

I think perhaps the time has come to leave this in the medcab and whatever comes of the request to arbcom. Spamming the talkpage with this circular argument is about as useful as trying to chop a tree down with a sex toy. Narson 00:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW Avery Island is 3 miles inland, how this translates as a suitable example to interpret Nootka regarding islands 300+ miles of the coast is beyond me. I've asked several times now for a source for this dispute, please provide it. Justin talk 07:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep asking for sources to a nonexistent dispute. I’ve consistently stated that there is no dispute with Avery Island. That’s exactly the point. Despite the fact that Avery is not identified by name, despite the fact that the word “adjacent” is not defined, despite the fact that it apparently doesn’t meet your standard for WP:OR and WP:SYN, miraculously, Avery is considered part of the USA and there is absolutely no dispute that the Louisiana Purchase Treaty applies to Avery Island. Distance from land is not the point I'm trying to make, frankly I wouldn't care if it's on the Mississippi river, because the example is about WP's interpretation of primary source texts based on WP:PSTS and WP:UCS in showing that your standards of applicability (identified by name in text, definition of "adjacent" in text) are clearly not WP's standards elsewhere. This demonstrates subjectivity in what you believe the standards are. Therefore Avery is a perfect example of WP's true and objective interpretation of "the islands adjacent" based on WP:PSTS; hence, there's absolutely no dispute with Avery.

In the same manner as there is absolutely no dispute, British or other, that Nootka applies to the Falklands. You’re the one claiming a dispute here, mate, not me. And you still haven’t provided an iota of evidence to back it up, other than misinterpreting my source’s text. You still have not given one single citation of your own. I suppose you believe Arbcom will take you at your word. That, I'd like to see.Alex79818 23:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Alex79818, "I submit that the Avery Island example establishes a WP standard for interpreting primary-source text language “the islands adjacent”, and that my interpretation of Nootka as per my passage conforms to that WP standard. Please provide a citation that shows this. Fifth time of asking. Justin talk 08:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fifth time? Hardly. The previous time it was requesting sources for what you perceived was a dispute, where I never stated there was one. Secondly, what exactly do you want me to cite? Do you want documentation that I wrote what I wrote? Do you want some sort of citation whereby someone else utilized the WP Louisiana Purchase text in a similar fashion? Or is it that you're seeking a citation regarding WP's primary source text interpretations policy?

Quit stalling for time on useless Tangeants. You made a very clear and conclusive statement, "Whether or not the islands were included is disputed". Can you at least come up with one single source of your own to back this up? I won't waste time going back to count how many times I've asked YOU for one. I've provided many sources, it's high time you came up with one of your own.Alex79818 12:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You've had a citation from me, the written record is before you. Please could you provide the Avery Islands citation. Sixth time of asking. Justin talk 12:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the written record shows you've only tried to re-interpret my sources and my edits. You've not provided one single non-WP citation of your own to back up your POV that "Whether or not the islands were included is disputed".Alex79818 00:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys? Will you both take this back to the MedCab page? The mediator already said you both have sources to back your arguments and wants you to work on a compromise. Compromise does not include playing 'handbags at dawn' on the damn article talk page. Narson 13:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, I shouldn't have brought it up here. I apologise for my conduct. Justin talk 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here.Alex79818 00:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can one of you learned guys tell me what references you have that prove the Nootka Convention was specifically re-instated by the Treaty of Madrid 1814. I cannot find any specific reference to its re-instatement it only seems to refer to trade treaties.Malvinero 16:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the Nootka Convention died in 1796 when Spain declared war on Britain. The Treaty of Madrid, implicity revives it with the following passage:

It is agreed that, pending the negotiation of a new treaty of commerce, Great Britain shall be admitted to trade with Spain, upon the same conditions as those which existed previously to 1796; all the treaties of commerce, which at that period subsisted between the two nations, being hereby ratified and confirmed.

There was not an explicit renewal according to my sources. Does that help? Justin talk 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it was either reinstated or it wasn't. It seems to me that Nootka was not necessarily a treaty of commerce. In any event Argentina was not a signatory to either Nootka or the Treaty of Madrid so I think Nootka is totally irrelevant unless Argentina can get the UK as the other signatory to agree that Argentina should become a party to it. Argentina has many pretensions to what it 'Inherited' from Spain and whilst it undoubtedly has a Spanish 'Heritage' it was actually bequeathed nothing by Spain specifically nor was it even recognised as independent by Spain till 1859. Argentina won its war of Independence from Spain it was not granted independence with privileges so actually it inherited nothing. Therefore Treaties between Spain and the UK are just that and not also referenced to Argentina as a beneficiary. Therefore in reality irrelevant. Malvinero 10:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

History Section

I'm concerned the history section has grown again following the split into the History of the Falkland Islands. I've made a first attempt at a precis to reduce the text here[38], then self-reverted, is my suggested edit broadly acceptable. As always suggested improvements are welcome but I think we need to make an effort to cut down this section - particularly as the History of the Falkland Islands expands. Justin talk 11:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for the move (Especially as alot of the details are not sourced, at least in this article). Lets use the sub articles to do their job. Narson 13:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought of this as the sub-article, the detail goes in the main articles on individual subjects. Hence, the link to the main article. But I may be being anal... :) Justin talk 13:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

UNINDENT OK I've had another go at it, getting better is this about the right length and depth[39]?Justin talk 20:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Facts in the opening paragraph are later repeated, do we need to say it twice? Justin talk 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK I've removed those and self-reverted[40]. Justin talk 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections I'm proposing to reduce the history section along the lines suggested above. I propose to briefly summarise key events and progressively expand on the details in the History of the Falkland Islands article. I've already made a start there. Justin talk 12:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Economic Exclusive Zone and The Guardian Article

I change "ecomic fishing zone" to "economic exclusive zone" and i expand the information of The Guardian article. Maybe you can see this image http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/09/23/fotos/3.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaos85g (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you don't mind but I reverted your change. I can clearly see why you drew the conclusion that you did based on that map. However, what is proposed "effectively joins up the area around South Georgia to the Falklands", i.e. it extends to the East not toward Argentina. This is a sensitive topic, so I believe we should endeavour to accurately report what is possibly proposed. I say possibly because nothing has actually been proposed yet, the British Government may not actually put this forward. Justin talk 08:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PS Struck me after I posted that there is a confusion over units in the Guardian article. EEZ is actually 200 nautical miles, about 230 statute miles or about 370 kilometres. Also the article states that they're not proposing to extend the zone to the maximum extent. Justin talk 10:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Clarin image has nothing to do with reality. The prezent Falklands EEZ has well defined and controlled boundaries that can be seen in [41], [42], [43], [44] etc. It has a specific irregular shape that came into being as follows: When the UK extended in 1990 the previously existing 1986 Falkland Islands Interim Conservation and management Zone (FICZ) by applying the 200-mile (nautical miles, one mile equals 1,852 or 1,853 meters) principle, they only expanded it eastwards; in the west, where Argentina had already introduced its 200-mile zone, the Falklands zone was not expanded. This was a major unilateral concession made by the Falklands, because normally when the distance between the respective coasts is less than 400 miles then a compromise line is delimited (midline, or another agreed configuration), sometimes by negotiations, sometimes by an international arbitration or court, in a number of cases (e.g. between Greece and Turkey) it's yet to be settled. So Britain (and the Falklands) did not pursue a midline claim but let Argentina have most of the overlapping area instead of half of it.

As for the 350-mile shelf zone, that is naturally extended outwards in international waters and by no means in other countries' EEZs. In the Falklands case that would be eastwards indeed. However, the respective 350-mile shelf zones of the Falklands and South Georgia are not contaguous as wrongly presumed by the Guardian; the distance between the Falklands (Stanley area) and South Georgia (Bird Island) baselines is some 730 nautical miles, more than double the 350-mile limits. (The intervening Shag Rocks provide no linking 'bridge' because these rocks are not entitled to an EEZ of their own but are included in South Georgia's one, and therefore generate no 350-mile shelf zone either.) Apcbg 10:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

More precise calculations supporting the same conclusion that the continental shelf zones of the Falklands and South Georgia would not be contaguous.

According to The South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands (Territorial Sea) Order 1989 the westernmost South Georgian baseline point is Ramp Rock North, situated at 53°59'13"S by 38°18'02"W. According to The Falkland Islands (Territorial Sea) Order 1989 the easternmost Falklands baseline point is Seal Rocks, situated at 51°40'34"S by 57°41'00"W. The distance between these two nearest points is 1327 km = 716.5 nautical miles, indeed more than double the 350-mile limits. Apcbg 05:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10