| Revision as of 20:57, 29 May 2011 editWee Curry Monster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,546 edits Undid revision 431535620 by 209.36.57.10 (talk) rv disruptive banned editor← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:52, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 28) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{old peer review|archive=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 Islands|class=B}} |
|
|
|
|action1=PR|action1date=28 March 2011|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Falkland Islands/archive1|action1result=reviewed|action1oldid= |maindate=6 January 2015 |
|
{{WikiProject UK|importance=Top|class=B}} |
|
|
|
|action2=GAN|action2date=02:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)|action2link=Talk:Falkland Islands/GA1|action2result=listed|action2oldid=580396518 |
|
{{WPArgentina|topic=Polit|importance=Top|class=B}} |
|
|
|
|action3=WPR|action3date=12 April 2014|action3link= |action3result=copyedited|action3oldid= |
|
{{WikiProject South America |class=B |importance=Top |Falkland Islands=yes |Falkland Islands-importance=top}} |
|
|
|
|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 |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index |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> |
|
|
* ] <small>(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='']''}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config|archiveheader={{aan}}|maxarchivesize=100K|counter=28|minthreadsleft=4|minthreadstoarchive=1|algo=old(60d)|archive=Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive %(counter)d}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=/Archive index|mask=/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
{{Clear}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request from Fsmallmann, 11 January 2011 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tl|edit semi-protected}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
In order to make this article not so biased towards the British point of view on Falklands/Malvinas, I think that were it reads |
|
|
"The archipelago, consisting of East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 lesser islands, is a self-governing British Overseas Territory." |
|
|
it should read |
|
|
"The archipelago, consisting of East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 lesser islands, is claimed by Great Britain as a self-governing British Overseas Territory." |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, the claim |
|
|
"In pursuit of this claim, which is rejected by the islanders, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982." |
|
|
cites as a reference () a biased source: a British Government site. Thus, in order to make it less biased, it should read |
|
|
"In pursuit of this claim, which is (according to British Government) rejected by the islanders, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982." |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you! |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 17:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm afraid inserting weasel words won't help the article much. The first change you propose won't work at all, especially since if only defacto it is a self-governing BOT. The second change may be more valid, but I doubt you'd get a source conflicting this claim, even by Argentina. ] (]) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I rather suspect this request is a sockpuppet of either the banned user ], or alternatively ] who has been disrupting Falklands articles with a variety of IP socks. From the date of registration I'm guessing Alex. ] <small>]</small> 17:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Yep, this one fits the pattern of one of the usual Falklands socks- course of action: ignore; if disruptive file a request for checkuser - that will anyway yield another trove of socks... as usual... ] (]) 17:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Just FYI, I do not know the users you mentioned above and I have no association with Argentina in any way. I was born and live in Brazil. I just made some suggestions that I believed would help making the article look more unbiased. Feel free to ignore / not implement them. Too bad wikipedia is turning into the playfield of wannabe experts/"lords of the truth in the world". If someone makes a suggestion you don't agree with then s/he must be a socketpuppet of someone you have a dispute with? Disappointing. |
|
|
] (]) 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{ESp|c}} -] (]) 17:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:: It wouldn't do any harm in finding a second reliable source on the islanders rejecting the Argentine claims *Shrugs* --] (]) 12:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I cited a few in the section ] above. Thought I'd put one into the article, but apparently not - I've done it now. The point isn't disputed by the Argentine government, but it's not a difficult thing to cite in any case. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Thanks for the clarification and for improving the article! |
|
|
] (]) 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Spanish" name == |
|
|
|
|
|
Referring to Islas Malvinas as the "Spanish" name for the island is just trying to sneak a POV political statement under the radar; it should read "known in Argentinia as Islas Malvinas". Even if it ''is'' the primary Spanish name (far from clear despite the weak reference to a dictionary) it's not relevant. ] doesn't have the Spanish name in the intro, why should this article? --] (]) 19:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No Spanish-speaking country claims sovereignty over Wales, unlike the Falklands - and we do have to respect the Argentine claim per ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Your argument that it isn't the primary Spanish name does not appear to be based on very much. For example, at ] you argued that used "Falkland Islands" first. Entirely accurate, but it also uses "Deutschland" and "United Kingdom" - and indeed fails to mention "Reino Unido" or "Alemania", names that are universal in Spanish, at all. For obvious reasons, I don't accept your argument that this is necessarily authoritative. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, I was mistaken about google maps; I'm not qualified to say whether it is the main Spanish name or not, but if it is the reference given is still very weak evidence and should be improved. That's very much a side point, though. The Argentine claim, and their use of an alternative name for the islands, is certainly a relevant fact and should be mentioned; that it's also the Spanish name is not relevant. --] (]) 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Agree 100% with Pfainuk, Misplaced Pages promotes a neutral point of view, we don't expunge material we dislike. ] <small>]</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
Who's suggesting expunging anything? I'm suggesting a change of wording. In any case, it's not NPOV to suggest that all claims are equal. --] (]) 20:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::<nowiki>*</nowiki>COUGH* Pf And Wee, where has your pro-British POV gone chaps? OH wait, was never there in the first place ;) And I agree with you both on this subject matter --] (]) 20:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Oh didn't you know we were simultaneously pro-Argentine stooges and British advocates? Can't remember where it was but we had two simultanous threads with both accusations. Ciao. ] <small>]</small> 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Despite being associated with a POV towards Argentine' claim, Malvinas is the only valid name for the islands in spanish. Not only in Argentina but in all hispanic countries that name is used just as in english Japan is referred as Japan and not Nihon. Spanish language is regulated and RAE discourages the use of the english name (quote: "No debe usarse en español el nombre inglés Falkland (Islands)", "The english name Falkland (Islands) shouldn't be used in spanish.") <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;">] <sup>(])</sup></span> 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agreed, there is no issue here and they have it in English on the Spanish Wiki, so let's move on chaps. --] (]) 12:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:: And Pmt7ar Spanish related things are strictly for the Spanish Article, which is frankly a terrible POV mess if there ever was one. --] (]) 12:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And until 1930, the standard Argentine text books referred to Las Islas Falkland (Carlos Escude) and many Spanish speaking nations (eg Chile) do use Las Islas Falkland interchangeably. Just for information. ] <small>]</small> 12:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It might be worth pointing out that the ''Malivna House Hotel'' is one of the largest hotels in Stanley. This suggests to me that the use of the name ''Malvinas'' is not offensive except when one is using it to emphasise a POV. ] (]) 13:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::There's really no Issue here about that at all, so it's OK. --] (]) 14:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The Malvina House Hotel is named after the daughter of the original owner, ], as it happens the name is merely co-incidental. Malvinas is a corruption of Malouines and its modern use in Spanish isn't universal. ] <small>]</small> 14:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::One does of course have to be careful when writing about the various geological basins that may or may not be oil bearing - the Malvinas basin is in Argentine waters and the three Falklands Island basins (North, East and South) are in Falklnad Island waters. ] (]) 14:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Which happen to be British Territorial waters, let's not forget. And the main sovereignty issue is about the democratic rights of the people of the Islands, which Argentina has little respect for based on events 200 odd years ago.. And a bit off topic? There is -no- issue here.--] (]) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::], please. Everyone is welcome to their opinions, of course, but it's best if we keep discussion of the topic off this page. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Is this article too big? == |
|
|
|
|
|
According to ], this article has reached a size where we should be thinking of splitting it. In many cases, it appears to me that this camn be done by stripping out less important material that already appears in daughter articles and in merging various sections. AS a start, I intend to start with the article on the economy of the islands. ] (]) 12:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've never seen that page before. Anyway, the history section can be cut by about half. The landmine section, is it needed? ] (]) 12:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I actually think although according to guidelines we might think about splitting it, it doesn't really merit doing so at this time. Moreover it should be done in systematic manner rather than picking a section and hiving it off. That never works. A better idea given the stability of the article would be to consider going for FA status. IMHO, what do others think? ] <small>]</small> 12:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree with ]. In addition to stripping out less important material, we should also look at merging small sections into larger sections. ] (]) 12:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well Climate can be merged into geography. Economy could actually use an expansion, although taking out all those pointless subheaders. ] (]) 13:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::"I've never seen that page before." - That pretty much sums up Misplaced Pages. People you've never heard of before, setting up pages you've never heard of before, holding elections you've never heard of before, and then trying to enforce them on everyone else, especially folk who actually edit articles. -] (]) 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OK as there seems to be agreement on improving the article to FA status and there are a few of us to spread the workload, I've asked for a peer review to start the ball rolling. ] <small>]</small> 20:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree with going for featured article status, but if that means discarding large amounts of material I would worry that the baby might be tossed out with the bathwater. For example, just mentioning the major religious denominations is hardly riveting reading, but adding a few details about the smaller bodies, e.g, the Baha'is, helps to add a bit of interest.Even if material is too detailed for the main article, it should find a home elsewhere, perhaps in more specialised articles. ] (]) 22:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I retieved the information that I cut out and have transferred it to the article ]. ] (]) 08:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Peer Review == |
|
|
|
|
|
We have had the results from a peer review. Looks like we have some work ahead, I'll post my thoughts later and if we have agreement on priorities we can get to work. ] <small>]</small> 08:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Peer Review Comments === |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Ruhrfisch comments''': This is an important article and I am glad to hear a group plans to improve it (and thank you for your work. However, I), but think it needs a lot more work before it would pass at ], let alone ]. Here are some suggestions for improvement. |
|
|
*The biggest problem I see with the article is that it is missing references in many place. There are some paragraphs with no refs and other places where there is a ref in a paragraph then one or more sentences after that without refs. These need refs (there is one citation needed tag too). |
|
|
*My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See ] and ] |
|
|
*The refs need to be consistently formatted and provide all needed information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{tl|cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. |
|
|
*There is a tool box in the upper right corner of this PR which has a tool for checking external links. This finds at least three dead links, and several possible problem links. All of these will need to be fixed before it could pass GAN or FAC. |
|
|
*The same toolbox has a dab link checker which finds several disambiguation links that will also need to fixed. |
|
|
*The lead is not really a great summary of the whole article. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see ] |
|
|
*I wonder if the Relations with Argentina and Landmines and ordnance sections could be combined as subsections of an aftermath of the war or Legacy of the war section. I imagine the Military section could also be included here. |
|
|
*This is a ] concern, but I was surprised that the War section was so brief. The Landmines section appears to be longer than the section on the war, which also seems odd since the article says the landmines do not much affect the everyday lives of the inhabitants. |
|
|
*The article has quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections, which impedes the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded. |
|
|
*There are at least two places where images sandwich the text, which is not allowed under ] |
|
|
*I thought there should be more on Ecology and animals |
|
|
*I assume the whale bone arch relates to a history of whaling associated with the island - if this is so, it should be in the article. |
|
|
*Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see ]. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at ] (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, ] ''']''' 02:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Discussion === |
|
|
|
|
|
:Lots of agreement with the PR. Do we want to tackle this section by section, discussions about each section on the talkpage? I'm not sure if there's any high-class articles of similar territories around, but we could loosely base it off some of the FA country articles (], ], etc.). ] (]) 10:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I also agree with much of the PR. Before we start a detailed program of changes, may I suggest the following changes are made in the article layout: |
|
|
:::#“History” becomes “Pre-1982 History” |
|
|
:::#“History#Falklands War” and “Landmines and Ordinance” be merged into a single section “Falklands War and its aftermath”. |
|
|
:::#“Broadcasting and Telecommunications” be merged with “Transport” under a single heading “Communications” |
|
|
:::#“Sport” be moved into the article ]. |
|
|
:::#“Military” be merged into “Population and Government”, but the section on Prince William be moved into the article ] (it never happened). |
|
|
::The rationale for these changes has been the merging of small sections so that each sec tion is about the same size. Once these changes are agreed, we can then work through the article. I am of the view that there should not be any references in the lede – WP:MOS allows that on grounds that everything in the lede is repeated in the article anyway. ] (]) 11:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Most of those I'd agree with. May I suggest we dump the section on Prince William. It never happened and per ] it is no more than an isolated incident. Anyone object if I have a stab at re-writing the lede - drafting here first? |
|
|
:::Would a no edit (see ]) notice be appropriate during the process? ] <small>]</small> 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've transferred the peer review comments to here. May I suggest we tackle the problem of referencing first. I propose we place references into 3 categories. These being footnotes (inline citations), Bibliography (books used in prepared the article) and External links. Is that OK? |
|
|
::This is a handy tool for google book references , I also find this tool useful . ] <small>]</small> 13:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The section "Geography and Ecology" needs quite a bit of work. I suggest that the article "Geography of the Falkland Islands" be resurrected (it currently does a redirect to this article), that this section be copied there as it stands and then the section in this article be reworked. Comments? ] (]) 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sounds good. The History section is also quite unsourced, but as it's very long I think it could probably be chopped to half it's current size. May be worth then making Falkland War a subsection of history. ] (]) 14:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::History is my main area of interest, I could take that on if you like. ] <small>]</small> 14:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I think that since the Falklands War was such a major and that is links history and Argentine relations, it deserves its own section (along with a description of its aftermath). Moreover, since the war is in living memory of many readers, it provides a good break-point as to where the history ends and the present begins. ] (]) 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I'm fine with that argument, not much of an issue either way. I do however agree with the PR that either way landmines having their own very long section is UNDUE. Wee Curry Monster, go ahead and work on History if you want. Maybe with no subsections there'll be no more edit wars over the titles, like the previous Argentinian settlement one. ] (]) 15:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::A good article that we could use as a reference is ] - it has an area and a population not too dissimilar to the Falklands. ] (]) 12:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Good find. Martinvl, can you explain the new Government setup? I'm not sure that the small bolded subsections are a good idea. I also don't think Education and Health belong there, as those sections should be general information about education and health rather than summaries of the government responsibility. ] (]) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
I moved Education and Health to the section on Government as they are Government departments. If the Falklands are amnything like the United Kingdom, then both health and education are paid for thorugh taxation. ] (]) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think that although they are funded through the government, information about the health and education in the Falkland islands does not belong under a government subsection. Both sections could be well improved by general information, life expectancy in health and literacy rates in demographics for example, which may be out of place in the Government subsection. Note ] currently has them under demographics. ] (]) 15:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::That is why I initially grouped Population and Government under one heading. They are major areas of Government, especially since many other aspects of government are handled by the UK. ] (]) 16:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well, I suppose if no other editor has an opinion, we can just see how the article develops. Can you explain the reason for the tiny bolded subsections? ] (]) 16:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That isn't quite correct Martin. UK Government is responsible for defence and foreign relations, the rest is handled by the FIG. I would tend to agree with Chipmunkdavis in that these would be better grouped elsewhere. ] <small>]</small> 21:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The text in the Merco Press is "''But the new Constitution will also enshrine a power for the Governor not to act upon Executive Council's advice "in the interests of good governance", or in relation to external affairs, defence, internal security, the administration of justice, audit, and management of the public service.''" This maps onto Para 67 of the Constitution (I checked). I will look into reworking the section on Government to reflect this. ] (]) 06:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Except those are reserve powers that can only be invoked in the event of corruption or malpractise in the FIG and the Governor would only act on the direction of the British Government. In day to day terms, they are actually irrelevant, could we see what you have in mind before you add it to discuss relevance. I would hate to see undue weight given to reserve powers that have no impact in normal circumstances - in which the British Government acts only for defence and foreign relations. Thank you. ] <small>]</small> 09:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Ah I see you'd already done that, I've reverted it with a request that you discuss the changes in advance. Your edit implied these reserve powers were in use, this is misleading and gives a false impression. I did make this point before your edit, so it is slightly disappointing you went ahead and did it anyway. ] <small>]</small> 09:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Hi ]. May I make a few suggestins regarding the section on government. Firstly, I suggest that we incorporate the existance of the reserve powers into the article by writing "... defence, foreign affairs and ensuring good governance". The term "ensuring good governance" also includes the issue of currency. As I understand it, whenver the FIG issues new coins they have to deposit an equivalent amount (+10%) into a bank account to back up the issue. They get interest on the amount that they have deposited. I have enlarged on that in the article ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::The second point that I would like to make is to have separate paragraqphs for the executive council and the legislative council. The degree of overlap between the executive and the legislature gives constitutional scholars scope for endless debates. In the UK, members of the executive (the cabinet) '''must''' be a member of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords; in the US members of the Executive '''may not''' be a member of either the Senate or Congress and in the EU, members of the executive (EU Commission) '''may not''' be a member of either the Council of Ministers or the EU Parliament. The Falklands appear to have a half-way house. ] (]) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I hope you don't mind but I copy edited your comments to correct wikilinks. That seems a reasonable approach, could I also suggest you work this up in a sandpit akin to what I'm doing with the history? I have a vague recollection of the discussion over the constitution, I believe the term is ]. The FIG situation reflects the small population, with good governance guaranteed by the the UK Government. ] <small>]</small> 12:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Hi, I am more than happy for you to have corrected the WIkilinks. For the record, the FIG is ] because it has a single legislative chanmber, unlike the UK, the US or the EU, each of which a ] - House of Commons & House of Lords; Congress & Senate and Council of Ministers & EU Parliament respectively. The other issue that should come out is the power of the Governor - does it resemble the Queen's power or the Prime Minister's power. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Meanwhile I have created a sandpit for future changes ].] (]) 12:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::Thank you for that. The Governor is the Queen's representative as head of state and as such the power resembles that of the Queen as head of state ie not very much at all. For the Governor to intervene would require direction from the British Government, which can only invoke any powers in the event of corruption or malpractise by the FIG. Your comment on ensuring good governance would probably cover it, this being an overview after all. A query, why did you create a sandpit in your userspace rather than here? ] <small>]</small> 12:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I have moved the page - see section on sandpits - meanwhile real life is getting in the way. ] (]) 13:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I had a slight problem creating a sandpit page - my proposed changes have ended up at ]. Would those who are interested please have a look before I update the article. Once I have moved things, I will ask for a speedy delete of that page. ] (]) 12:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Units=== |
|
|
Metric first or imperial? There's currently instances of both orders, we should pick one and standardise. Does the Falklands have a preference/official system? ] (]) 15:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is a convention delineated on the project page. My preference is to use largely Imperial first per the usage on the islands but there has been a consistent push to metricate the article. ] <small>]</small> 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::At the moment there is an uneasy compromise reagarding units of measure. For the record, I would prefer metric units to predominate, but in order not to rock the boat, I suggest that the units of measure be those as they appear in the article at the moment. ] (]) 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Both should appear, the issue is that we now have a mix of both. Eg. "total land area is 4,700 square miles (12,173 km2)" and "the highest point being Mount Usborne, 705 metres (2,313 ft)". Both of those are from geography. I don't really mind which one comes first, and this being a UK article both are acceptable. Anyone want to make the judgement call? Count all current uses and go with majority? ] (]) 16:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::See ] its a reasonably comprehensive guideline produced for the Falklands Working Group. We should probably highlight what we're up to at ]. ] <small>]</small> 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Made the change to imperial first, as that seemed to be the general gist of the examples there, even though it said metric first at the start... Anyway, yes, noting it would be useful. <small>In addition, Wee Curry Monster should edit participants list!</small> ] (]) 17:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks, I'd forgotten, appreciate the heads up. ] <small>]</small> 17:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::] - If you must change units of measure, please follow ] to the letter, otherwise a civil war will erupt. As I said, a very uneasy compromise has been reached. Distances are in imperial units, but rainfalls and heights are in metric. That is why I asked you to please retain the units as they are. ] (]) 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Agreed: while I can see the point of switching the mountain height at least, this is one of those arguments that is very much best left in the past. I have reverted for this reason. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I apologise, I did try my best to follow. Anyway, as long as it's sorted, i have no issue being reverted. ] (]) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I'm glad to see that the present uneasy compromise on units is holding. Let sleeping dogs lie. ] (]) 02:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Sandpits === |
|
|
|
|
|
] ] ] <small>]</small> 20:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've done a preliminary copy edit on the history section. Could I get some feedback on what I've done so far. I haven't touched the Falklands War section yet. ] <small>]</small> 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Obviously sourcing still an issue, but I suppose that will come. In terms of content, I think that something should be included from earlier, perhaps changing the first sentence to say "The islands were uninhabited when first discovered by European explorers, although evidence exists that Patagonian Indians may have reached the islands during earlier periods." I also think that the 1820 and 1828 incident details can be shortened somewhat, and perhaps combined into one paragraph. It may also be worth avoiding wording such as "positive result". ] (]) 10:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sourcing won't be an issue I will tackle that before I put it into the article. I'll take those comments on board. Cheers ] <small>]</small> 11:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::OK thanks for those comment, I've done a further copy edit. If there are further comments I will address those before formatting and adding sources tomorrow. ] <small>]</small> 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I have taken the liberty of adding a "Reflist" at the end of the of the sandpit - it will enable references to be checked. I suggest that the heading "Landmines and ordinance" be replaced with a heading "Aftermath" and that the paragraph that currently precedes the heading (establishment of Mount Pleasant) be moved into the subsection "Aftermath". ] (]) 12:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Pls note whilst I have inline cites ready to hand, I haven't added them yet as I was being fairly ruthless in editing the text. Thats tonights job. I'll incorporate those suggestions later. Ta for the input. ] <small>]</small> 12:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The visit by Patagonian Indians. I did some work last night looking for a better source. I'm not happy with the sourcing. As anyone got access to a more reliable source, I may remove it if I can't find one. ] <small>]</small> 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::OK added the updated history section as dicussed, still not sure about the opening paragraph and the sourcing of it. Comments? |
|
|
:::::::Secondly if anyone is happy I'll make a start on rewriting the lede. ] <small>]</small> 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Sounds OK to me - I think that on the reworked history is in place, the article balance will be a lot better - maybe we still have to do some work on the section "Relations with the Argentine" and I want to go over the section on broadcasting and maybe add a sentence about shipping. Then we need a second pass ensuring that everything is properly referenced, polish up the language and maybe trim a little bit. My pet hate regardign the languge are sentences that start "There are .... ". ] (]) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have created a sandpit at ] - still working on the text. (The slash came out as a query! when I was creating the article) ] (]) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am ready to replace the existing section "Politics and government" with the text found ]. Any comments before I do so? ] (]) 10:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Done a minor CE, good work but it needs to be sourced better per the reviewer's comments. ] <small>]</small> 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Additional sources found - OK if I add it as it is now? If sources are still lacking, they can be done on the main section. ] (]) 13:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{od}} looks good to me. ] <small>]</small> 14:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Is "Arms of Government" needed as a subheader? It seems to me that it would be implicitly part of the Politics section, and if it's removed then there isn't a random two lines at the top of the section. |
|
|
:I'd also like to ask if the length of the Flora and Fauna section is good. I tried to make it around the same length of the equivalent Svalbard section. ] (]) 03:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::The flora and fauna section looks the right length - if anything at the upper limit. Can I ask the same question about the the first part. |
|
|
::Some years ago I worked as a technical author on a DEC computer manual (DEC are now part of HP). Their style guide emphasised that there should always be some introductory text between a principal header and a subheader - hence the "two lines" that Chipmunkdavis refers to. Furthermore, no section should have a single subsection, subsections should be comparable in length and the introductory text should lead into, not dominate the subsections. I plan to see how the section on Geography and Geology can be modified in this way or whether the section that is there serves as an introduction. ] (]) 06:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The two lines there don't serve for much though, and the introduction being shorter than the subsections is weird. That's why just deleting the subheader and making the arms of government part of the introduction would be my preferred style. I actually think that relations with the UK would be a useful and expandable subsection there. |
|
|
:::As for geography, I think a paragraph on topography wouldn't go astray, although I'd hesitate to give it it's own subheader. Is it worth making ] <small>(Currently a redirect)</small> to provide a link and a basis for the Climate section? ] (]) 07:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Navigational templates=== |
|
|
{{tl|English dialects by continent}} is appropriate for the ] article, not this one. {{tl|Geography of South America}} and {{tl|South America topic|Climate of}} are similarly better placed elsewhere. None of these have a direct link to this article, and someone looking at this article is unlikely to want to go to other areas provided in this template, and if they did would go to the relevant subpage first anyway. ] (]) 09:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I would agree with {{tl|English dialects by continent}}, but not with the others as both climate and geography are dealt with in this article. ] (]) 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::By that argument we should include templates for everything that is covered in this article, which would end up with a massive glut of templates. There's no purpose for them here. If someone was browsing through articles on the geography of various south american countries, they would look at ] and access it from there. It's unlikely that they'd use this article as the stepping stone to geography articles of other countries. ] (]) 12:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Changing "Broadcasting" to "Media"=== |
|
|
As a result of overhauling the subsection "Broadcasting", it became apparent to me that the press also deserved a mention, so I included them in the subsection and renamed it "Media". I also dug up some rankings to put the freedom of the press in teh Falklands into context in South America. Pleae check to ensure that I have not been involved in any ] in this respect. ] (]) 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Admiralty Charts == |
|
|
|
|
|
Concerning . The edit is does not comply with ], which says that there should be conversions and that geographical distances should use either ]s, ]s or ]s as primary units. |
|
|
|
|
|
But also, were the details taken from text or read from the chart? If the former, could we have a quote please? My concern is that reading from the chart would be ], which would mean that the article would fail on point 2c of the ]. It would be best, given the nature of the source, to avoid this by quoting the text in the reference. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 09:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Admiralty Charts use either nautical miles, cables or (kilo)metres for distances. They do not have yards or statute mile scale. Moreover, on pre-metric maps depths were shown in feet up to 30 feet, thereafter in fathoms. None of this is in WP:FALKLANDUNITS. Furthermore, in pre-metric days tidal ranges were not given in feet and inches, they were given in feet and decimals of a foot. Making these elementary mistakes the article look amateurish. |
|
|
:Which part of my comments do you believe is WP:OR?. ] (]) 17:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Misplaced Pages is not an Admiralty chart, so there's no reason why we have to follow their conventions. On the other hand, we do have our own conventions. These include the use of conversions between units and the consensus on Falklands articles to use ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
::But, as I say, this may be irrelevant. When you got the information to source the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
::<blockquote>The two islands are separated by the Falkand Sound which is approximately 3000 metres at its narrowest point (which is also its northerly entrance). It provides a natural shelter to shipping with a 20 metre clearance at its northern entrance. Much of the northern part of the sound which is clear water, is 30 metres in depth, but the southern part, choked with an archipeligo has a number of passages that are much deeper.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
::which is referenced to two Admiralty charts, was this based on text beside the chart, or based on your reading of the chart itself? If it was from a written description, that's fine - though I'd like to see a quote so that we can satisfy a Good Article reviewer that no original research is present. If it came from reading the chart, then I believe we've established before on this article that this is original research and cannot be included on Misplaced Pages articles, regardless of what units are being used. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I do not recall ever having agreed that Admiralty Charts were not suitable sources. ] (]) 07:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Maybe not. I don't think it's something that requires your agreement: either they are OR or they are not. But I note that reading distances from Google Earth or using a Great Circle Calculatior between the FI and various landmasses was ruled to be OR in previous discussion ]. I can't see that putting a ruler to a map, or similar, is likely to be different. But we can ask again, if you like. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I read the section that you highlighted. It was not a case of whether maps were a reliable source, but how they were used and in particular one should be measuring distances between principal airports or closest off-shore islands when measuring the distnace between the Falkland Islands and South America. In the current case the meaning of the distance that I was quoting is pretty unambiguous. ] (]) 17:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Is it? It seems to me that it might be not be very easy to put a ruler to a map and be sure that you are measuring the correct distance for the "narrowest point". Can you be sure that the narrowest point is the northernmost entrance? From looking at the map in Google (which I accept is not an Admiralty Chart), it looks to me like there's a potentially shorter distance from Swan Island. It also appears that there are two points on West Falkland that could be taken to be the northernmost entrance, and that the narrower one is actually the more southerly of the two (the southern headland of what Google calls White Rock Bay). |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Is the text that "t provides a natural shelter to shipping" your own deduction or actually stated by the map? If the former, I'd say it's definitely OR. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::My inclination would be to say that maps would at the very least come under the primary source point of ] - in other words, we can't "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material" found there. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I note with interest that you are changing ] to fit your interpretation here. I will mention this discussion, without further comment, on that talk page. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::The nearest distance between the two main islands is at the second northernmost narrows indeed, but it is 4.28 km (by Google Earth, accuracy must be more than adequate) and not 3,000 m at all. ] (]) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There doesn't seem to be consensus yet in the current discussion on the ]. I argue there that the appropriate criterion is ''Can a reader with no special skills look at the map and have it be obvious that the description is accurate? (Accurate as a description of what's shown on the map, that is, not as the truth about the islands themselves.) And that question should be settled by argument on the talk page.'' On the Noticeboard, I'm on the side in favor of allowing very straightforward map-reading. But here I have some reservations as to whether this really is that straightforward. It's not obvious from a map what does or doesn't provide useful shelter to shipping, for example. And with the narrowest point there's disagreement about the facts, so apparently the map isn't that clear. On the other hand, just reading a depth off the chart seems ok. --] (]) 02:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Timezone == |
|
|
|
|
|
The FIG has anounced that the Falklands will remain on summer time this year. Should we update? ] <small>]</small> 20:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes - I would suggest adding the text "2011 - UTC-3 for the whole year" (or something of that ilk). If it becomes a permanent fixture, then next year the timezone can be changed to UTC-3 with no mention of DST. ] (]) 21:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The USS Lexington incident == |
|
|
|
|
|
"A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a visit by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. Argentina claims the settlement was destroyed, although the Lexington reported destruction of arms and a powder store." |
|
|
|
|
|
Judging for what I read in http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html (which already is used as a trusted source for this article), I would say that this paragraph is biased towards US actions. I'd like to propose replacing "visit" for "raid" (as used in that source), and "Argentina claims..." for a more correct assertion, since all sources which talks about property destruction are written in English by British sources (see http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html for sources of that website). ] (]) 23:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If nobody replies, does it means that no one challenges this? If so, can an administrator please apply the changes? Or do I need to wait until article is unprotected to do them myself? Excuse me if I'm being pushy, but I see talking going on in other sections and not here, and I'm not sure what does it mean or what should I do. ] (]) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You should be able to edit the article yourself! I see no reason to oppose raid, as it is used in the source. As for Argentina claims, it would be good to balance the claims. Citing one statement as fact is in my opinion nota good idea. ] (]) 12:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The recorded history tends to indicate the impact of the raid, in terms of property damage, was exaggerated by Vernet. He had a vested interest in that he was promised a tax exempt status if he achieved a sustainable settlement within 3 years. As the sources indicate two sides of the coin that is what I tried to indicate in the text. ie follown NPOV by presenting all relevant opinions in the literature. ] <small>]</small> 13:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Israel allegedly supplied arms to Argentina during the Falklands conflict == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this is relevent to the article or not but I thought I would mention it incase it is. There have been a few reports recently about Israel supplying Argentina through Peru with arms during the Falklands conflict. see the follow sites for more information |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8463934/Israel-supplied-arms-to-Argentina-during-Falklands-War.html |
|
|
|
|
|
and |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4059254,00.html |
|
|
] (]) 18:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is much too detailed for an overview IMHO but thank you for the suggestion. ] <small>]</small> 11:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Falkland Sound == |
|
|
|
|
|
] removed some additions that I made concerning the Falkland Sound, charging me with "reading them form a map". The items removed were: |
|
|
*The depth of the sound which was in the reference that I gave |
|
|
*The fact that the southern end of the sound was an archipelgo - anybody with a modicum of knowledge of maps can see that - they only need look at the maps in the article |
|
|
*The fact that the channels through the archipeligo are deeper than the sound as a whole - identifying this from the isobaths on a map is GCSE level stuff - if this is OR, why does Misplaced Pages have a template for maps? |
|
|
|
|
|
If you visit ], you will see the statement ''Misplaced Pages's no-original-research policy allows routine calculations based on data from reliable sources''. In my view, the sources cited are reliable and the test "A > B" is a routine calculation that yeilds a boolean rather than a numberic answer. |
|
|
] (]) 20:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The reference you gave says: "and has depths approaching 40m". The text you're calling for contradicts this, by citing depths greater than 40 metres. It says nothing about it being "choked" with islands in the south, and nothing about it being clear water in the north - both of these are original interpretations from the map. A brief look with Google Maps would seem to suggest that the narrowest channels in north and south are comparable in width, and also that the southern end of Falkland Sound is rather clearer than much of the north. As a generalisation, this seems quite poor. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'd also say that the islands in the south do not appear to me to unambiguously form a single archipelago, as the edit claims - an argument could be made to split it into a Swan Island group, a Tyssen Islands group and a Speedwell/George/Barren island group, for example. That's all aside the issue that reading isobaths from a map would appear to be original research. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Why Misplaced Pages has a template for maps? If you need a cite for where a city is, or was at certain period in history, then a map would seem a good source. This does not require the original interpretations that you are introducing here. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:*I am happy to replace "choked by an archipelago" with "has numerous islands". |
|
|
:*The nautiacal charts show sandbanks as land - Google Maps show them as water. |
|
|
:*I reject that the statement concerning clear water in the north and islands in the south is OR - it is there on the map for a junior school kid to see. |
|
|
:*Is the reading of isobaths OR or not? Likewise, is the use of Spanish language sources without a full English translation OR - I don't read Spanish, but I read maps. |
|
|
:*The nautical charts showed that the "clear water" part of Falkland Sound exceeded 30 metres, but did not reach 40 metres, however there were deeper channels between the islands in the south. |
|
|
:] (]) 06:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Strictly speaking you don't read maps in the same way that you can translate text. One is a literal transliteration from one language to another, the other is interpreting a map to provide a textual description and this is ] territory. If you can provide a source that makes that statement that is one thing but generating it from your own interpretation is ]. Sorry but I would agree this is not a suitable edit, particularly as we're going for GA status. |
|
|
::If you want outside opinion, I would suggest asking for comment at ] but I fear you will be disappointed. ] <small>]</small> 21:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Are there really that many sandbanks in the southern third of Falkland Sound (south of Fox Bay), in seas that are frequently more than 10 miles from the nearest dry land marked by Google? And surely the fact that sandbanks are dealt with in one way on Google maps and another on an Admiralty Chart demonstrates how this is OR - that there are different ways in which the same information can be interpreted, and you are interpreting it in one way and others might not come to the same conclusion? |
|
|
|
|
|
::I would note that Admiralty charts are designed for a specific purpose: to guide shipping. A sandbank does not need to be permanent or even exposed to be a ], so they need to mark them all. On the other hand, we are not trying to point out specific hazards to shipping in this paragraph, but trying to give a general description of the islands' landforms. A submerged sandbank would seem to be rather minor in this regard, and is not necessarily a type of island. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I endorse Curry Monster's suggestion that you take it to WP:NORN. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I have posted a querry on WP:NORN. Since then I have gone back to basics and found the follwoing in the ]; "''To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented''". In this case I think that ]s are a reliable source and that they would directly support my assertion. If that is not the case, what are they used for? ] (]) 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Could you please post a link? As of 12:45 BST I don't see any query. ] <small>]</small> 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::OK I found it. That is not the right place, see ]. Regards, ] <small>]</small> 11:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Thanks ]. I have removed it (along with your comment - I trust that you do not mind) and will post in the correct place, but after my posting above, I will probably reword it. ] (]) 12:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== History Section == |
|
|
|
|
|
1. Mestivier was sent to form a penal settlement. |
|
|
2. Pinedo did not immediately restore order as the edit implied. There was anarchy for months after, Pinedo had only been there a few days before Onslow arrived and Pinedo was only able to restore order with the assistance from the British ship ''Rampart''. |
|
|
3. It is distinctly POV to assert the garrison was forced to leave, Pinedo was handed a formal written request to remove the garrison. There was no use of force whatsoever. |
|
|
Please note that when I rewrote the history section, I have access to written sources with far more information than the online sources. In some cases, the cite is the book not the online source. ] <small>]</small> 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:With all due respect, so I must take your word for it? I did all those additions because they were in the cited online sources. They were all there before I get here, I didn't pick them. So if we have Source A saying one thing and Source B saying EXACTLY the opposite (as in Pinedo story), and we're taking both as reputable sources, the least we must do is point out the two versions and the disagreement, don't you think? Or are we going to take down one source to satisfy you? ] (]) 03:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:To clear my name and respond to the accusation of POV, this is a quote from reference "history3": "Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands." http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Oh and would you please explain what's the problem with replacing the word "although" with a semicolon? I did that as a separate edit in the hope it could survive to your revertion storm... ] (]) 04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::] Saying that text is POV is not a personal comment but a comment on content. The two sources are not in conflict, Pinedo had been away in the ARA ''Sarandi'' for a couple of months and returned to find the settlement in uproar following the mutiny. You are creating a clash in sources that does not actually exist. I note the brief history document doesn't cover this aspect in detail, nor does it say that he took command immediately. |
|
|
::Neither are we obliged to use exactly the same words as a source and it is often better not to, instead using neutral langauge and avoiding ] that ]. Online sources are not superior to written sources and if you don't have access to written sources, then presumption of bad faith in the comment "so I must take your word for it?" is not ameliorated by prefacing it with "With all due respect,". As to the rest, I disagree with your point and please note that the text was established by ] above, consulting all involved editors at the time. ] <small>]</small> 07:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Ok, sorry if I was out of line but I couldn't believe that you can't see my point. I'll accommodate to ] now. Let me try again: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::falklands.info says: "The British commander, Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag. Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands." |
|
|
|
|
|
:::*Don Pinedo refused to comply to the British request. I'd say is safe to assume he was against the idea of British control over the island (he was an officer of an Argentinian ship) |
|
|
:::*The Argentine flag was removed by the British |
|
|
:::*Finally, "he and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands". The only interpretation I can get from this phrase is "''he left the island against his will''". '''Do you agree with me?''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Origin of the name Îles Malouines == |
|
:::It doesn't matter if he was physically attacked or not. I can say to you "Please sir, leave this room now" and at the same time show you the gun in my belt. I would be forcing you out, even if I don't put a finger on you. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/force_5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
:::What you say about he being away and needing the assistance of the ''Rampage'' to bring order, is of no importance to my point, which is: "'''Why and how did he leave the island under British control?'''" |
|
|
|
: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 == |
|
:::'''What does your source say about this?''' And also: '''what book/material would that be?''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
:::I'll leave aside the wording issue for the moment, as is not as important. Regarding consensus, I don't know why you mention it but at any case I want to note that "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions (extracted word by word from ] section 1.3 Consensus can change) ] (]) 03:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Seems unlikely given that our article ] suggests he didn't get much south of modern ]. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::I'm well aware of what policy says on consensus, so your lecture is not entirely appropriate. You may also care to note that changing consensus requires a compelling argument from your good self. Consensus changes as a result of the strength of argument, it is not an excuse for blocking content, equally "consensus can change" is not an excuse for trying to impose it. i mentioned consensus to simply point out I wrote the current summary in full consultation with all editors and did not put it into the article until I had agreement. |
|
|
::::Three sources. Two by Mary Cawkell (Falkland Islands (1960), Falklands Story: 1592 to 1982). Julius Goebbel (The Struggle for the Falkland Islands). Most sources say that Pinedo complied with the British request under protest. |
|
|
::::The problem with your simplistic analysis is that the British protested against the appointment of Mestivier, requesting that the Republic of Buenos Aires remove the garrison but did not receive a reply. The squadron was sent with orders from the British perspective to expel an illegal garrison. Although there were 2 ships in the squadron, only the ''Clio'' went to Port Louis, it is also worth noting that unlike the Argentine claim she was a Frigate (a major warship at the time), Clio was a Brig-Sloop, one of the smallest ships in the Royal Navy, on a straight comparsion with the ARA ''Sarandi'' the two ships were evenly matched there was no superior firepower as you imply. The garrison also significantly outnumbered the 8 Marines on the Clio. The reason Pinedo chose to withdraw was that his crew were British mercenaries. |
|
|
::::I've summarised the history appropriately for an overview, writing for NPOV to give equal weight to all viewpoints. |
|
|
::::The other problem is you're applying deductive reasoning, which is essentially ] and editing per your conclusions and deductions. And it was ''Rampart'' btw, the reason I mention this is that Pinedo had neither the resources, nor the wherewithal to put down the mutiny. The latter point is important as he was unable to assert control without outside assistance. However, there is a risk here of simply adding too much detail. ] <small>]</small> 08:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::BTW I responded to your point on the Lexington visit above. There is also more to that than the simplistic edit you proposed. ] <small>]</small> 08:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Malvinas boldface? == |
|
:::::"I mentioned consensus to simply point out I wrote the current summary in full consultation with all editors and did not put it into the article until I had agreement" If you read again ] you'll see that the process of reaching consensus usually starts with a edit in the main article (which I did and got us here). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
:::::Regarding your objection to deductive reasoning, I guess you're referring to what I thought aloud about the reasons of Pinedo. You can disregard them: they're not important and I don't intend by no means to include them in the article. What it is important is the phrase "he and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands", on which I do not deduct anything, I just try to use reading comprehension with you to see if we're both understanding the same. |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
:::::Getting back to the point, it struck me as contradictory that you call my additions "simplistic" and the same time refuse to include Pinedo in the story. I don't think that adding one sentence would be too much detail, at least regarding this event. It NEEDS that level of detail because the events in those months are important for the Argentine sovereignty claim over the islands. I say it again: ''the events in those months are important for the Argentine sovereignty claim over the islands''. That would be the "compelling argument from my good self". ] (]) 03:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::@] - 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) |
|
::::::That the events are "important" for the Argentine sovereignty claim is not a good argument. All that means it is all the more important to treat these in an objective manner per ] and ]. More importantly to address ] ] and not present ] as fact. Again you proceed based on the presumption that I refuse to include Pinedo for some nefarious reason. We are writing an overview here, of necessity this will be brief and certain details omitted for brevity. The salient points are addressed and there is a link to ] should anyone wish to read further. I think we have struck the right balance at this point. ] <small>]</small> 10:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:"" ] (]) 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) |
|
:::::::I concur with User:Wee Curry Monster. If you look further down the article you will see a short summary of the British and the Argentine points of view regarding the sovereignty dispute alongside each other. In writing that summary, I did my best to give a ]. ] (]) 12:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::@] 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. |
|
::::::::Martin, I find that section unobjectionable, but I believe the History section needs some work towards NPOV. I don't know who wrote what, so I ask to please don't take it personally and analyze what I say with humility and also presuming good will from myself. I do have feelings about this subject as some of you do too, but one of the virtues I'm most proud about myself is the ability to be objective (when not mad, of course). If you don't want to add more details to the section, at least some words and expressions need to be replaced or removed. I find these passages problematic: |
|
|
::::::::*"This became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later following the publication of the proclamation in the Salem Gazette" -> Why is this relevant? Is it more important than Pinedo and Onslow's interchange? |
|
|
::::::::*"The seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy" -> Were they judged? Were they guilty? Why the word "piracy" (Captain Duncan's version) is used here but at the beginning of the paragraph Vernet's actions against US ships are described as a "fishing and hunting rights dispute"? (neutral version). Wouldn't be more appropriate and shorter to just say they were arrested and taken to Montevideo? |
|
|
::::::::*"British forces requested the Argentine garrison leave. Vernet's settlement continued..." -> It mentions the British actions, but not the Argentine response. It may induce readers to think that the Argentine garrison agreed to leave. Even if Pinedo did it under protest as WCM's sources say, it wouldn't hurt anyone to add "which they did under protest" (this would be an short addition but I see no other way of solving this). ] (]) 00:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::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) |
|
{{od}} I disagree, the text has been written neutrally based on fact not opinion. You seem to equate the nationality of source, with POV, this is not acceptable. |
|
|
|
::::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. |
|
"This became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later following the publication of the proclamation in the Salem Gazette" Yes, this is an important point. There is a difference between what actually happened and what Argentina claims now. Note I report the facts and not anyone's opinion. |
|
|
|
::::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) |
|
"The seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy" This was the reason why they were arrested, this is a verifiable fact. I do not claim they were guilty. This is reporting a fact not anyone's version. |
|
|
|
:::::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) |
|
About the only point you make of relevance would be to note that they left under protest. ] <small>]</small> 18:45, 24 May 2011 (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. |
|
:A text can be very well be based on facts and yet be biased, by selecting the things you include, the things you don't, and how do you tell the story, the words you use. All the modifications I'm trying to introduce are based on facts too, the only opinions I'm sharing are about the things that should be said and how. |
|
|
:"Yes, this is an important point" Would you mind to elaborate? I may be very well missing something, but if you just answer with "yes" you must understand that's not enough to make a point. |
|
|
:"This was the reason why they were arrested, this is a verifiable fact" I'm not saying it isn't; read above. In the same line of thinking, Vernet arrested the American ships for illegal fishing, yet it is referred to as "a dispute". |
|
|
:About Pinedo, then if no one is against it we could include the protest note and close that matter. ] (]) 00:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::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) |
|
::I do hope you're not accusing me of selective editing, its rather irritating to constantly have to respond to allegations of bad faith rather than discuss content in a mature manner. I disagree fundamentally with your comment as so far you seek to cite the opinion of authors rather than the facts they present. Equally you can be biased by selecting only opinions ''you'' agree with. |
|
|
::Its an important point as Argentina in the modern context happens to claim Jewett was sent by them. He wasn't, they weren't even aware he was there. I make no comment on the modern claim, just the facts. |
|
|
::They were arrested for piracy by Duncan, I make no comment on the veracity of the allegation. That there was a dispute is also describing matters neutrally as the authorities in BA made a declaration that was immediately disputed by both Britain and the USA. |
|
|
::My only comment is that any note on Pinedo should be brief, we are writing an overview. ] <small>]</small> 23:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Units of Measurement == |
|
Taking a look at this: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please can we have international standard metric units before parochial imperial units in the text. ] (]) 17:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
*I'm inclined to think that the "Sovereignty dispute" section is too long and should be shortened. Better that we properly direct people to ]. |
|
|
|
:Why? ] (]) 17:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
*The important point re. ''"his became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later following the publication of the proclamation in the Salem Gazette"'' is that we avoid the implication that Argentina outright sent Jewett to take control of the islands (they did not). We should neither report nor refute any point that is significant to either side in the sovereignty dispute out of proportion with its significance to the history of the islands as demonstrated by reliable sources. I could be swayed, but I'm not convinced that this is not what we're doing here. |
|
|
*Do we know what happened to those arrested for piracy? I mean, if they were arrested, it seems to make sense to explain why, but it might be worth saying whether they were released, tried, convicted, executed, or what. (I believe that they were released, given that they included Vernet and Brisbane, who were still both sufficiently living and free to take part in later events). |
|
|
*The Argentine garrison did agree to leave. They weren't happy about it, but left without a fight. I don't have a problem with "left under protest" if that can be sourced. |
|
|
*I note that Curry Monster cited text sources. If that's what it's based on they should really be mentioned in the article. This may save some of the issues here (re: Langus' comment ''With all due respect, so I must take your word for it?'') '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree with Pfainuk that the "Sovereignty dispute" section is too long. I know that I added quite a bit of material, but my objective was ultimately to shorten it by reducing the post-war section to about the same length as the pre-war section. This is on my "to-do" list. ] (]) 19:20, 29 May 2011 (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)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
