Revision as of 17:30, 9 October 2010 editKahastok (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,814 edits →Falklands is a Non-Self-Governing Territory: add← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:52, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,139 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 28) (bot |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|the Falkland Islands}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|page=Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WikiProject UK|importance=Top|class=B}} |
|
|
|
|action1=PR|action1date=28 March 2011|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Falkland Islands/archive1|action1result=reviewed|action1oldid= |maindate=6 January 2015 |
|
{{WPArgentina|topic=Polit|importance=Top|class=B}} |
|
|
|
|action2=GAN|action2date=02:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)|action2link=Talk:Falkland Islands/GA1|action2result=listed|action2oldid=580396518 |
|
{{WikiProject South America|class=B|importance=Top|Falkland Islands=yes|Falkland Islands-importance=top}} |
|
|
|
|action3=WPR|action3date=12 April 2014|action3link= |action3result=copyedited|action3oldid= |
|
|
|action4=FAC|action4date=07:29, 19 July 2014|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Falkland Islands/archive1|action4result=promoted|action4oldid=617411746 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FA|topic=Places |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WPCD|small=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Islands}} |
|
{{V0.5|class=B|category=Geography|small=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Top}} |
|
{{Archive box|search=yes| |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject British Overseas Territories|importance=top}} |
|
* ] <small>(July 2004–March 2006)</small> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Argentina|importance=Top |topic=Polit }} |
|
* ] <small>(March–April 2006) <br> (includes naming debate and poll)</small> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject South America|importance=high|Falkland Islands=yes|Falkland Islands-importance=top}} |
|
* ] <small>(March–Sept 2006)</small> |
|
|
* ] <small>(Oct 2006–Oct 2007)</small> |
|
|
* ] <small>(Oct 2007–Oct 2008)</small> |
|
|
* ] <small>(Oct 2008–June 2009)</small> |
|
|
* ] <small>(June–Dec 2009)</small> |
|
|
* ] <small>(Jan-Feb 2010)</small> |
|
|
* ] <small>(Feb-Jun 2010)</small> |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press|author=Fernández de Castro, Rafael|date=12 October 2012|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rafael-fernandez-de-castro/wikipedia-seeks-historic-_b_1955336.html|title=Misplaced Pages Seeks Historic Truth in Falkland Islands Controversy|org='']''}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config|archiveheader={{aan}}|maxarchivesize=100K|counter=28|minthreadsleft=4|minthreadstoarchive=1|algo=old(60d)|archive=Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive %(counter)d}} |
|
{{Clear}} |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=/Archive index|mask=/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
== semi protection == |
|
|
|
|
|
When an unregistered editor hops ips to edit war the only possible outcome is semi-protection. Please desist or it will end up being an awful lot longer then just 3 days. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Buenos Aires invaded in 1806 == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could you please tell me where on earth did you get that crazy notion that the British never invaded Buenos Aires?? A Google search of the phrase "British invasions of Buenos Aires" yields 25,000 results!! The same search (in Spanish) using these words: "invasiones inglesas Buenos Aires 1806" yields 117,000 results!! You must be absolutely mad to delete something like that, since it shows the historical context in which the so-called ] in 1833 took place! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:The fact of the ] - which I remind you took place at a time when the UK and Spain were at war - does not imply any of the following variously POV, unsourced, and entirely false assertions or implications made by your edit: |
|
|
:*That the islands were definitively placed in the Viceroyalty of the River Plate in 1811. |
|
|
:*That the islands were in any way involved in the ]. |
|
|
:*That Spain lost control of the islands to the government of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate in 1810. |
|
|
:*That Daniel Jewett was not relieved of his command prior to his return to South America. |
|
|
:*That there was an Argentine settlement on the islands prior to 1828. |
|
|
:*That Luis Vernet did not seek and receive British permission to found his colony. |
|
|
:*That the Argentine government, as opposed to a private enterprise run by Luis Vernet, founded the colony in 1828. |
|
|
:*That "When ] broke away from Spain, in 1810, it was clear that the new nation had inherited the Spanish claim." |
|
|
:*That Argentina "broke away" from Spain in 1810. |
|
|
:*That the events of January 1833 had anything to do with the recapture of Cape Town or the Invasions of the River Plate in 1806. |
|
|
:*That the British settlement was and remains a "colony". |
|
|
:*That three Falkland Islanders were not killed in 1982. |
|
|
:*That "the islands' population has waxed and waned constantly". |
|
|
:*That "lthough islanders now call themselves a "]", both islander and British authorities are reluctant to release figures on emmigration to metropolitan Britain and immigration from Britain proper. Nor do they release figures on what percentage of islanders constitue ''belongers''" |
|
|
:*That this last point, if accurate, has anything whatsoever to do with the demographics of the Falkland Islands. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm sure there are more, but those were the obvious ones. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Could you please read some books. The ] ceased to exist in 1810, when Argentina broke away from Spain. The very same article states that Spain maintained a settlement since 1776, administered from Buenos Aires! It was in 1776 that the Spanish crown created the Viceroyalty and placed the islands under its jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Also, where are your sources stating that most of the populatiion are not ''belongers''? Where are your figures on the make up of the local population? I'm curious :) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Uhm. The correct response to 'You don't have sources for X' is not to say 'Well you don't have sources saying it isn't X'. The correct response is to provide sources. If I put in that Ireland is a country off the western coast of Great Britain and source that, I cannot go on to say that Ireland is filled by giant friendly badgers who are highly intelligent and engaged in genetic manipulation of man to bring us to our current level of development. Just because I can source one thing, does not give you carte blance to synthesise, OR, make up, put your point of view across, suggest, create or whatever the rest of the article. <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> --] ~ ] • </span> 21:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Pfainuk is correct, both invasions are unrelated. As said, Britain and Spain were at war by the time (or, more exactly, Britain was at war with Napoleonic France, and Spain was allied with France). Napoleon had imposed the "Continental System", preventing Britain to trade with most of Europe, so Britain was forced to seek new markets. Legally, the Spanish colonies in the Americas were not a viable option either, as they could only trade with their own metropoli. However, if some cities were military invaded, such legal restrictions may be simply turned down. Buenos Aires and Montevideo were good strategic options: besides their own importance, they held the entry to the Parana and Uruguay rivers, and the means to reach Paraguay and south Brazil as well; and were weakly defended. So, there were 2 attempts to seize those cities, but fortunately (for us) Liniers defeated them in both times. The international scenario changed soon after that: France invaded its own ally, Spain, and designated a French king in Spain. The rest of Spain standed against Napoleon, and Britain changed sides consequently: as the enemy wasn't really Spain but France, and France turned against Spain, Britain joined Spain in their struggle against Napoleon. Meaning, no third invasion: the value of having Spain as an ally against Napoleon, instead of as another country to fight against, was infinitely more valuable than the profits that may be obtained by ruling Buenos Aires. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::By 1833 (almost 3 decades later) almost none (if any) of the variables of this scenario were still standing. Argentina was now independent from Spain, there was no ongoing declared war between Argentina and Britain, the war against Napoleon and the Continental System were past history, Buenos Aires trading only with Spain was history as well, etc, etc. So, no, both events are completely unrelated and developed as they did for completely different sets of historical reasons. ] (]) 22:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The edits are also inaccurate, the FIG has a regular census and publishes the results on its website. It does release figures on ethnicity and country of origin. For information about 50% of the current population was born there but this largely reflects the doubling of the population since 1982. Also the influx includes Argentines, Chilean, St Heleans and it is not just from the UK. In addition, a UK citizen is no more, no less likely to achieve "belonger" status than anyone else. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 09:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: "and Britain changed sides consequently" Changed sides? Britain didn't change sides, Spain did. And did you know the 1806 raid on Buenos Aires was unauthorised? Sir Home Popham, the commander of the expedition was court-martialled for leaving his post in the Cape without authorisation: ] (]) 20:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Spain did, and then Britain. Moving from considering Spain an enemy into condisering it an ally is indeed a change. If Britain didn't "change sides", it would had simply let its enemy be conquered. An all-winning scenario: Britain would get rid of Spain, and without any risk or potencial loss in its own military forces. And yes, I'm aware of that reaction, which took place ''after'' the defeat of the invasion. Thing is that Pitt and Miranda had already been planning such a move before. Popham may have been trialed for acting too soon, or without following the command line; but not because of invading a country that Britain had no intention to invade. After all, which was the reaction in Britan when they learned about this? Did they order the invaders to retire and return Buenos Aires to Spain? And when the first invasion failed... didn't they try another one right away, the immediate following year? To consider that Britain was unrelated with the invasion because Popham was court-martialed is a mere technicism, like when it is said that the US hasn't lost the Vietnam War because there wasn't any formal declaration of war ] (]) 21:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::So? The commander still acted without authorisation, the fact that they decided to exploit it is irrelevant, the fact they'd considered it is irrelevant - it had not been decided upon as a course of action. It is not a mere technicism. This is also not the place to discuss it. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''''' The ''real'' issue from Misplaced Pages's point of view is "''Was the British action in Buenos Aires in 1806 related to the Falkland Islands?''" If it was unrelated, then it has no place in this article; if it was related, then the relationship should be documented using, insofar as is possible, unbaised sources. My own view, based in my knowledge of European and South African history, is that the 1806 action was part of the Napoleonic Wars - whereas the Britsh actions in the mid-1830's were entirely unrelated to that campaign. I therefore do not see the connection. For the record, in 1833 the British policy in the Cape Colony was tied up with frontier wars against the ] and handling dissident Dutch settlers who were about to leave the colony and ] into the interior. Justin is quite right in asserting that these events had no connection with the Falkland Islands. ] (]) 19:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Your analysis is well done and to the point; I agree with its conclusions. ] (]) 07:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Falklands is a Non-Self-Governing Territory == |
|
|
I wonder why the article says the islands are "self-governing" when the territory is on the United Nations' ]. The reference to back "self-government" is the website of the Falklands Government, not exactly a neutral source. ] (]) 22:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I would appreciate editors PfainUK and Apcbg would discuss this issue here, instead of reverting edits that could lead to ]. ] (]) 09:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The Falklands are an internally self-governing territory, with huge amounts of control over internal affairs. The UN list just deals with areas leftover from the UN's decolonizing drive, it is not an accurate judge of the actual level of self-governance in the territory. ] (]) 09:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Dear JCRB, I responded to your message on this issue on my talk page few days ago; however, as you persist, I am reproducing my response here too: "Hi, as far as I can recall the Falklands self-government has already been discussed in some talk page (don't remember where exactly, but ] might know I believe), and it was pointed out that the Falklands (same as the other UK overseas territories) enjoy a higher degree of self-government than e.g. Scotland for they have exclusive ownership of their natural resources, pursue their own immigration policies (subject to which are the UK residents too) etc. Being on that UN list is just that, being on some list, which does not interfere with their actual self-government. Otherwise, the present lede is the result of consensus among the editors involved, and its change would require a new consensus that would seem not to have resulted from your quoted post in the talk page. Best, ] (]) 09:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)" ] (]) 10:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Would it not be appropriate to rewrite the section as "Although the Falkland Islands are on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories,<nowiki><ref> they are largely self-governing, with most affairs being under the control of a directly elected administration with the British Government retaining the control of the nomination of the Governor (who has no vote in council matters), foreign affairs, defence and the right of veto over any "perverse" legisation.<ref></nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
(I think that this is factually correct - I have not had an opportunity to check its details. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::No its not correct and its unnecessary. The criteria for inclusion by the C24 is bizarre in that it bears no relationship to whether a territory is self-governing or not. The C24 criteria lists states that are: |
|
|
:::::*A sovereign state |
|
|
:::::*An integral part of a sovereign state |
|
|
:::::*A state in free association with a sovereign state |
|
|
:::::The C24 list is used to promote a less than honest view of the level of self-government enjoyed by territories such as the Falklands. Its used and abused by POV pushers to deny the status of such territories to promote the fiction that they remain British colonies. Misplaced Pages should be about explaining crap like this to our readers but no instead so often its used as a platform to promote nationalist POV. But hey policies like ] don't mean anything anyway. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Agreed, it is most unnecessary, adding absolutely nothing to the lead and detracting from what is already there. It is already included in the politics section anyway. ] (]) 12:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::My point too, the UN list has no place in the lede. ] (]) 12:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::The representation of the UN list as argued for by JCRB is entirely misleading and inappropriate. It's POV pushing from a perennial POV pusher. Nothing much more to discuss, really. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Pfainuk, your tone and accusations of being a "POV pusher" are out of line. You had better stick to objective facts and drop the ''ad hominem'' comments. There is nothing "misleading" or "inappropriate" in putting ''factual'' information on this article. The Falklands, like the ], like ], are on the ]. It's a simple fact. You can't just say the Falklands are "self-governing" and ignore this fact. ] (]) 14:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:It isn't ignored and is discussed. Your proposed edit is misleading and inappropriate and you've ignored the comments on the content you propose to impose it against consensus. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::The fact is ignored in the introductory paragraph. What's misleading is to say that the territory is "self-governing", when the United Nations calls it "Non-self-governing". A slight contradiction, wouldn't you say? ] (]) 10:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The UN's "non-self governing" just means it's not independent or part of a country. No contradiction, as this is true, and it is mentioned that it's a dependency (or overseas territory) of the UK. ] (]) 11:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I Googled "Self governing" and applied the filter "site:.fk" - every hit that described the Falkland Islands as being "self governing" had a qualifier of one sort or another. A similar thing happened when I applied the "site:.fco.gov.uk" filter. When Justin revoked the change where I introduced the word "internal", he stated that the word "internal" was implied by the statement "self-governing". I beg to differ. If both the British Governemnt and the Falkland Government always qualify the description "self government" with the word "internal" or some similar word, the Misplaced Pages should do likewise.] (]) 22:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::When we talk about Australia for example do we feel the need to point out that a democratic country is "self-governing"? The very phrase implies that it is domestic matters, otherwise there is no necessity to qualify the statement. Tell me, before our erstwhile POV warrior raised it, did you feel it was necessary? If the answer is no, you have the answer. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
unindent |
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, you had to qualify your search, ie had to apply an element of original research. 'nuff said? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Firstly, Australia is a sovereign independent state. Secondly, '''Everything''' in Misplaced Pages should be researched to ensure that facts are correct and the a neutral point of view is taken. It is however not permitted to engage in '''original research'''. I went to school in South Africa and a good part of teh historu syllabus was devoted to constitutional development. ] (]) 09:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This is ]. The point of the lede is not to put everything into the article in all its gory detail. If it was, then there wouldn't be any point in putting an article underneath it. The lede is there to summarise the topic only. |
|
|
|
|
|
::If readers want to know what a BOT is, then we link to a perfectly serviceable article ] dealing with precisely this point. If they want to know details of the self-government enjoyed by the Falklands, we again have a perfectly serviceable Politics section of this article. There is benefit in distinguishing those BOTs that are self-governing from those that are under direct rule, but no benefit in going on and on about exactly what powers are involved in each case in the lede. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I have no objection to things being researched but to be blunt the point I raised has not been addressed. I agree with Pfainuk, its explained and amplified in the article, there is no need to added superfluous material. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Chipmunkdavis, Misplaced Pages is not about truth, it's about ]. "Non-self-governing" is exactly ''the opposite'' of "self-governing". I'm afraid there's not much room to argue on this point unless you provide new reliable information. As for the results of a Google search, that's not exactly "verfiable" info. Regarding Justin's accusations of POV, it would seem that calling the Falklands "self-governing" is exactly that: British POV or bias. The sentence tries justify the territory's status of dependency. I believe a similar discussion took place in the ] page, and after a long debate the editors decided to eliminate the phrase "self-governing" altogether. ] (]) 16:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:As much as I love being lectured, I don't see where it's coming from in this case, as in the comment you're referring to I agreed to the legitimacy of the non-self governing claim, and called that "true". This is however, used in a different sense. Politics and diplomacy have few, if any, black and whites. The UN list contains territories which are not "integrated into the country", "In free association", or "independent". There are plenty of sources out there which call the Falklands self-governing. The UK even wants the Falklands of the UN list . The Falkland government website backs this up . It's the bias of the Falklanders too, if it is bias. ] (]) 17:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Even then, the C24 list has become a bit of a political football, based as much if not more on the popularity of the administering powers among the committee members' governments as it is on objective assessment of those three criteria (let alone an objective assessment of the actual degree of self-governance). There are plenty of examples of this: Mozambique and Angola were on the list prior to independence despite being integrated into Portugal, for example, but Hong Kong is not on the list despite not being particularly integrated into China. We then have the bizarrely contradictory position by which Western Sahara is not integral to any state, not in free association with any state, not independent and has no "administering power" (again, a slightly misleading term in the case of places like the Falklands that basically administer themselves). But at the same time is not ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
::But you can repeat that until you're blue in the face. Take it from someone who's been there before: you won't get anywhere with JCRB, who will ignore any facts that don't fit with his POV. At this stage the best thing to do would be to point out that there is consensus against his change and close the discussion. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=="British version of events" == |
|
|
Where are the sources disputing the fact that the islanders reject Argentinian claims of sovereignty? We do not need "according to the British Government" in that first sentence which makes it sound like it is a questionable claim. It is in fact a blatant fact and it does not need watering down with " according to one side in the war".... ] (]) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:From the source given: |
|
|
|
|
|
:The British Government has no doubt about Britain's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. With the exception of the 2 months of illegal occupation in 1982, the Falklands have been continuously, peacefully and effectively inhabited and administered by Britain since 1833. Argentina's claim to the Falklands is based on the grounds that, at the time of British repossession of the Islands in 1833, Argentina had sovereignty over them through her inheritance, upon independence, of Spain's possessory title (uti possedetis), through her attempts to settle the Islands between 1826 and 1833, and through the concept of territorial contiguity. However, uti possedetis is not accepted as a general principle of international law. Moreover Spain's title to the Islands was disputed and in 1811 the Spanish settlement was evacuated, leaving the Islands without inhabitants or any form of government. Argentina's subsequent attempts at settlement were sporadic and ineffectual. As for territorial contiguity, this has never been a determinant for title to islands (otherwise the Canary Islands, for example, might be Moroccan) and should not be used to overrule the right of self-determination. The Argentine Government has argued that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right of self-determination, on the (false) basis that they replaced an indigenous Argentine population expelled by force. However there was no indigenous or settled population on the Islands until British settlement. The people who live in the Falklands now are not a transitory population. Many can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early 19th century. Britain is committed to defend their right to choose their own future. The Islanders are fully entitled to enjoy the right of self-determination. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm sorry, but that sounds like it was written by someone from the British gov't, not from a scholar in the field or from actual islanders. The phrasing should reflect such. ] (]) 23:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: But i presume the wording is based on this part of the text.. |
|
|
::"''In exercise of their right of self-determination, the Falkland Islanders have repeatedly made known their wish to remain British. An Argentine-inspired poll, conducted in 1994, revealed that 87% of them would be against any form of discussion with Argentina over sovereignty, under any circumstances.''" ] (]) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: If you wish to question the fact the islanders reject Argentinian sovereignty, please provide sources to back up this ] view. The Argentinians do not even recognise the islanders right to self determination, the people are hardly crying out for liberation. It should be stated as fact the Islanders reject their claim, not "according to one side" they reject it. ] (]) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Some examples that this is not just British government POV about the views of the islanders.. |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Politically, the Legislature and Her Majesty's Government (HMG) remain committed to developing their partnership founded on self-determination, internal self-government and British sovereignty. |
|
|
|
|
|
:FIG hopes for peaceful co-existence between Argentina and the Falkland Islands, '''without diluting or adapting the position on sovereignty'''. For as long as there is a perceived threat from Argentina, a military presence on the Islands will be maintained on a scale sufficient to deter aggression and provide a holding capability pending reinforcement. |
|
|
|
|
|
:With the continued support of the UK, the Falkland Islands can look forward to an even brighter future." |
|
|
|
|
|
and.. |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Councillors to Attend UN C24 |
|
|
:Councillors Janet Robertson and Richard Stevens will attend the United Nations C24 Committee on Decolonisation in New York on 12 June. The meeting will allow the Councillors to rebut the Argentine Sovereignty claim and query why Islanders are not deemed, like other self-governing countries, to have the right to self-determination." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Origin of the name Îles Malouines == |
|
and.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article currently claims the '<nowiki/>''Îles Malouines''' were first named by Bougainville in 1764. I doubt this can be true, as the islands are marked under the same name in Guillaume Delisle's 1722 map of the Americas. This was pointed out by somebody called Lewis Bettany in a letter published in the Times Literary Supplement on the 13th of February 1930; he credits the naming only to the 'men of St Malo' some time after 1698. ] (]) 19:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:"Speaking on behalf of the Falkland Islands Government, Councillor Mike Summers OBE said that the Islanders' right to determine their own future was now embedded in the main body of the Constitution: |
|
|
|
:We need an RS for this, a letter in the Times will not pass muster, ] (]) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::An unsourced letter (let alone one from 1930) is not good enough for a positive confirmation but copies of the 1722 map, including digital scans, show the name in use earlier than 1764. Could we have something like: 'the term "''Îles Malouines"'' is first recorded in 1722...?' ] (]) 02:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Looks a bit like ], if an RS says otherwise we need another RS contesting it. One issue may be maps are reissued as this was and often updated (this may have been) without acknowledgment, so we do not know if this is a 1722 1st edition or a much later (and modified) reprint. Which is why we need an RS's assessment. ] (]) 11:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Discovery of the island == |
|
:"Our inalienable right to self-determination is in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore it was endorsed by the United Nations Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonisation) on 20 October this year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am from Portugal and although I am not very sure because the article I saw was not in Portuguese, a mission by Amerigo Vespucci in 1502 for Portugal sighted the islands, let me know if I am wrong, thanks. ] (]) 19:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:"This is a post-colonial Constitution which the Falkland Islands Government initiated and on which the Falkland Island people were consulted. It recognises the reality of the modern world in which the rights of free peoples are paramount and the assertion of territorial rights, irrespective of the wishes of those who live there, has no place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Seems unlikely given that our article ] suggests he didn't get much south of modern ]. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:"Falkland Islanders have freely exercised their right of self-determination on numerous occasions by clearly indicating their wish to remain British. This new Constitution re-states our right to decide our own future and enhances our powers of self-government. Surely no one who supports democracy and civil rights can oppose this?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Malvinas boldface? == |
|
Argentinian claims to the Falklands are clearly rejected by the islanders. ] (]) 00:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent activity on the talk page doesn't seem to suggest consensus on the lack of boldface on Islas Malvinas in the lede - ] implies it should be, and there's nothing specific in ]. I'm inclined to boldly edit (so to speak) but given the topic thought I'd make sure I'm not stepping on a settled issue. ] (]) 03:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
And from a couple of weeks ago... |
|
|
|
:It does, how? ] (]) 11:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Because ] is a redirect, presumably. (] ]) 13:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ahh fair enough. ] (]) 13:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Irrespective of what ] says, it is not common or standard practice to boldface non-English renderings of place names in the leads of articles, even in cases where there is a redirect from the non-English rendering. ''Islas Malvinas'' is included because of its use in Spanish, not because of any ] usage in English. I would oppose bolding it in this case. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 17:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Not sure this is true - compare this with the convention shown in ], ], and ] - though these are transliterated for the benefit of English readers (this being English Misplaced Pages), all competing names one could be redirected from are rendered in boldface. ] (]) 10:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::We do not boldface ''Corse'' at ]. We do not boldface ''Caerdydd'' at ]. We do not boldface ''Helsingfors'' at ]. We do not boldface ''Açores'' on ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::::The cases you raise are very clearly different cases from this one, where what is being highlighted is English-language usage of these terms, outside the English-speaking world. Use of ''Islas Malvinas'' as an English term is ], and it would be strongly ] for us to imply that it isn't, as you propose. If anything we should be pushing toward the more common solution which is to put the foreign-language names in a footnote (as at ], ], ] and the like). ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 18:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:"MLA Sawle said ” I am delighted to be attending the conference on behalf of the Falkland Islands, and have been invited to be a discussion leader in section three of the 30th Small Branches conference. The topic for debate that I will be speaking on is entitled “The challenge of sovereignty in small states.” |
|
|
|
:::::::@] - You cite the fact that ''Islas Malvinas'' is not an English name as a reason against it being in boldface. How do you justify the bolding of both competing names in: |
|
|
:::::::*] |
|
|
:::::::*] |
|
|
:::::::*] |
|
|
:::::::*] |
|
|
:::::::*]? |
|
|
:::::::The fact that one name is English and the other is Spanish only appears relevant because this is Enlgish Misplaced Pages - in every other case of a territorial dispute with two nations using different names we boldface both. I'm also not convinced that Islas Malvinas is fringe to the degree you maintain - its very existence as a redirect suggests it relevant enough to address. ] (]) 19:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Being in dispute is not what guides us - we look at what is used by reliable secondary sources. ] (]) 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:It seems quite straightforward. A redirect from an alternative name is mentioned next to the name, and the manual of style instructs to bold the redirected name. I see no reason why this article should be treated differently from any other article. ] (]) 16:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:@] ] ''Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold: Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. (Mumbai)'' It is obvious, don't use it. First, pls see the majic word, 'significant', which Las Malvinas is not. Second, Las Malvinas is a foreign name that should only be inserted in the lead (without bolding) if it occurs in a significant number of English sources which the term, once again, does not. Also, please don't change the lead once a discussion is happening. Wait for consensus. This is a case of editors trying to squeeze as many additions into an article as their keyboard and wp rules allow. Please use common sense, the term is in a foreign language, so treat it as such ] (]) 18:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::All the cases proposed as examples are merely cases of uncontroversial name translations. That's not the case here. And I doubt that just bolding the word has any effect on neutrality anyway. "Malvinas" is included because of ], and ] says that those redirects should be bolded. Straightforward. This is a featured article and it should follow all relevant policies, guidelines and MOS. And I haven't changed anything in the article in either way, anyway. ] (]) 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to sources cited in this article, the U.N. refers to it in English as '''Falkland Islands (Malvinas)'''. That should be bolded. ] (]) 19:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:"I will be hoping to correct a few misunderstandings in the international community regarding the Argentine claim to sovereignty, but will be concentrating on the difficulties that small countries such as ours face when trying to deal with the challenge.”" |
|
|
|
:"" ] (]) 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:What the UN does, by itself, is not relevant - look at many secondary sources, not just one. Anyway, the UN reference is using English plus Spanish, not English plus English. The term 'The Malvinas' is English and has always used in some English sources, not necessarily to do with the sovereignty dispute. But this discussion is about the foreign term 'Las Malvinas'. By way of comparison, see ]. That foreign term for the River Plate has become well entrenched in English, to the point where it is now the commonly used term in English, but River Plate is still significantly used by sources, which allows River Plate to be bolded. ] (]) 19:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
The document linked on that page by MLA Sawle says: |
|
|
|
:::@] Replying to your points above as well so as to streamline this discussion: |
|
|
::1. "''Being in dispute is not what guides us - we look at what is used by reliable secondary sources''" - I've just scanned a few recent news articles on the Falklands, and the majority mention the term IM at least once, albeit in the context "termed Islas Malvinas by Argentina". I admit this is a brief look, but I'm certainly not convinced the term is uncommon to the degree necessary to call it a mere foreign toponym. |
|
|
::2. "''Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold: Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. (Mumbai)''" - From ]: "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not." - The signicance of the name is established - IM redirects to the article. Also, Bombay is just as foreign as Mumbai as a name and is still bolded - it's a Gallician-Portuguese phrase likely meaning "good bay" |
|
|
::3. "''That foreign term for the River Plate has become well entrenched in English, to the point where it is now the commonly used term in English, but River Plate is still significantly used by sources, which allows River Plate to be bolded''" - Given "Rio de La Plata", "River Plate", and "La Plata River" are all recognised and boldface in ], I'm not sure you can object to "Las Malvinas" rather than "The Malvinas" being boldface. ] (]) 19:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Among the things that redirect here are ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. By the argument {{tq|The signicance of the name is established - IM redirects to the article}}, all of these should be in bold in the first line of the article, because their significance is established by the existence of the redirect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::The fact that ''Islas Malvinas'' is included in the lead at all is to some degree an exercise of ]. It's difficult to see how it is supported by ], but we have traditionally included it anyway as a demonstration of neutrality. Note that ] also does not suggest that translated names should be bolded. |
|
:"And in the case of the falkland islands, where the overwhelming will of the people is to remain under British sovereignty, the sovereignty claim by Argentina can never be seen as anything more than a cynical attempt for outright ownership and control, something which is totally unacceptable in a developed modern and democratic world" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::The trend around foreign languages in article leads has moved since the current consensus was reached. It has moved against including them in the first sentence and in favour of discussing them in more detail in a name section. It may be a good idea to do that here. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 20:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
The democratically elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (that got the most votes in the 2009 general election), representing the democratic government of the Falklands, then goes into some detail crushing the Argentinian sovereignty claims. ] (]) 01:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::I think your first point isn't a particularly fair interpretation of my point - there's a very clear difference between typos and a distinct name, and Malouine Isles is simply the French term Islas Malvinas originates from. I do agree that Hawkins' maidenland and the Sebaldines could very well be integrated into the Etymology section, but I'm sure you'll agree neither is used remotely as much as Las Malvinas. |
|
|
::::The fact that one name is English and the other Spanish is fundamentally not that relevant - this is a region involved in a territorial dispute, in which each side describes it by a different name, both of which are well attested by reputable sources. '''The convention in this situation is to have both names boldface'''. ] (]) 20:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::By chance I am involved simultaneously with this article (Māori: Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi) ]. The foreign name was unbolded by me which I expect will be re-bolded soon. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that most of these attempts to use foreign language terms in WP articles has a lot to do with pushing a political opinion. WP is neutral and apolitical. IMO. the inclusion of a foreign language name in the lead to articles is grossly misunderstood and misused throughout WP. Incidently, the Spanish for 'The Falkland Islands, as far as I know, is Islas Falklands. with the/las Malvinas being an alternative name not a translation, which would add another factor to consider. ] (]) 20:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::(ec) On the contrary. You cannot just ignore the fact that ''Malvinas'' is Spanish when it is only included because it is Spanish. The tiny minority English-language use of ''Malvinas'' would no more warrant a mention than tiny minority use of ''Hawkins' Maidenland'' or ''Sebaldines'', or indeed the small minority Spanish-language use of ''Falklands''. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::And when your argument is that the redirect makes it important, then you cannot say that it is important in this case but not in all the other cases. |
|
== According to the British Government == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::And to be clear, the convention in this situation - where we have an English-speaking territory, where one name is preferred by the overwhelming majority of English-language sources from all parts of the English-speaking world - would be to use that one English name exclusively and not mention any other language at all, except possibly as an aside in a name section. As I noted before, the only thing that suggests that ''Malvinas'' should be included in the lead in any form is ]. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 20:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
It is obvious that this document came from the British Government - the citation says so. The additional text in the article "''according to the British Government''" implies that the statement is subject to dispute. For example, it would be in order to write "''According to the British Government, most islanders accept British rule'' '', but according to the Argentine Government, most islanders would prefer Argentine rule ''" (assuming of course that a reputable source argues the Argentine case in this way). Until and unless an authoritative source puts forward an argument that contradicts the argument put forward by the British Governemnt, this additional phrase is redundant. ] (]) 05:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Units of Measurement == |
|
:The point is not explicitly disputed by the Argentine government. The Argentine government position is that the views of the islanders don't matter: they bring up the expulsion myth (that the British expelled the islanders in January 1833 only for them to swim back to meet Darwin in March). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please can we have international standard metric units before parochial imperial units in the text. ] (]) 17:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:It's pretty trivial to find sources that verify the point without turning to the British government. It's not a point made by Argentine sources, probably because it damages the Argentine case for sovereignty. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 06:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Why? ] (]) 17:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
I am from Portugal and although I am not very sure because the article I saw was not in Portuguese, a mission by Amerigo Vespucci in 1502 for Portugal sighted the islands, let me know if I am wrong, thanks. HateSans (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Recent activity on the talk page doesn't seem to suggest consensus on the lack of boldface on Islas Malvinas in the lede - MOS:BOLDREDIRECT implies it should be, and there's nothing specific in WP:NCFALKLAND. I'm inclined to boldly edit (so to speak) but given the topic thought I'd make sure I'm not stepping on a settled issue. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)