Misplaced Pages

Talk:Falkland Islands: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:08, 23 January 2014 editBlueSalix (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,446 edits →a sentence in "sovereignty dispute"← Previous edit Revision as of 01:10, 23 January 2014 edit undoBlueSalix (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,446 edits →a sentence in "sovereignty dispute"Next edit →
Line 505: Line 505:


So, friends, is the problem with the text resolved?--] | ] 00:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC) So, friends, is the problem with the text resolved?--] | ] 00:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
:I guess. Apparently I was the problem and I gave up. Any attempt at improvement just wasn't worth it, as per the above car wreck. The text is still not supported by anything contained in the sources, but ''c'est la vie''. Not all of WP is going to be perfect. ] (]) 01:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC) :I guess. Apparently I was the problem and I gave up. Any attempt at improvement just wasn't worth getting the Union Flag shoved into my eye socket, as per the above car wreck. The text is still not supported by anything contained in the sources, but ''c'est la vie''. Not all of WP is going to be perfect. ] (]) 01:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:10, 23 January 2014

Good articlesFalkland Islands has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 6, 2013. (Reviewed version).
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Falkland Islands. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Falkland Islands at the Reference desk.
Falkland Islands received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falkland Islands article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIslands
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArgentina Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine politics. If you would like to participate, you can improve Falkland Islands, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSouth America: Falklands Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5


Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
debate and poll)

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Template:Notice-nc-geo


Removal of Spanish Use of Name

At the very top of the Misplaced Pages Article, the Falkland Islands are described (in brackets) as 'Las Islas Malvinas'. Despite the BOT only having one official language and that language being English. This is an outrage. We do not tell people how to say 'China' in Korean, we do not tell people how to say 'United Kingdom' in French and we DO NOT tell people how to say 'Falkland Islands' in another foreign language. How ridiculous. No road signs, official documents, legislation, tourism related content or anything similar is ever printed in Spanish in the Falkland Islands. Their official language is English with their entire population speaking the language. The official name of a country or territory is printed in its official language(s) and the language of the Misplaced Pages Website it is on. So es.wikipedia.org may include 'Falklands' and 'Malvinas' but EN.wikipedia.org need only include ONE language: ENGLISH. To say 'Malvinas' is to say the Falkland Islands belong to a Spanish speaking country. Do they? No. Currently, they are under British control and whether you dispute the matter or not, they only have one language. So I request that this abomination is removed from this article or AT LEAST some proper talk is done on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnxsmith (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

On a positive note, this further validates the etymology section. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 14:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Searching the talk page archives shows numerous discussions on this topic. The existing wording appears to be the most neutral approach per Misplaced Pages consensus. Bahooka (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps to be more neutral it should include the french name as well. MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The current naming style is in line with the guideline Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands. Cambalachero (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Not the most neutral guideline around but the name Malvinas is encyclopedic information, of particular importance with respect to the disputed Argentine territorial claim. sounds like something made up without any strong policy basis, I understand it is clearly important in the discussion about any claims but not really needed in the lead, either include all the names that have been used or none. So should we add the French name to the lead to be more neutral. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
"Malvinas" is used in some current English-language contexts, for example, UN publications. The French name is not. Jonathunder (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
(ec) OK I can accept that, but why Islas Malvinas and not Malvinas which one does the UN use? MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Does France have an active claim in the sovereignty dispute now? Cambalachero (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I can accept the use of alternate names in English sources as per Jonathunder or as a list of historic names (hence the interest in the French) but listing as an alternate at the start of the lead because somebody has an active claim is far from neutral. MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's understandable that the naming is a sensitive issue. However, we must look at it from a purely academic perspective. The name "Islas Malvinas" is the widely known other name of the archipelago in English. Not including it in the lead would be a serious omission, again from an academic context. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 15:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

OK but as has been pointed out to above the guideline and the UN use the term "Malvinas" and not "Islas Malvinas". Perhaps if the "Islas Malvinas" is of academic importance to include as an alternative in the lead you guideline needs to be changed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Based on my knowledge of Spanish, the name "Islas Malvinas" is the more appropriate term to use ("Malvinas" is, by comparison, less formal). The guideline does mention "Islas Malvinas" (as an example). Is there really a need to discuss changing the guideline to include "Islas"?--MarshalN20 | 15:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

First point, Malvinas is not significantly used in English by normal people not connected to the Argentine claim or organisations of which Argentina is a member. The point has been discussed many times since the article was created, and nobody has ever provided evidence of such usage - which is why we do not present wordings involving Malvinas as English.

The top of WP:NCGN calls for "relevant foreign language names" (emphasis theirs) to be included. It seems to me that the Spanish-language name is clearly relevant to the topic, in a way the French-language name is not. I do not accept the claim that including the Spanish is non-neutral - on the contrary, including it goes a long way to demonstrating our neutrality on the sovereignty dispute. I note that our usage on this topic - described by WP:NCGN#Falkland Islands - is consistent with that of many external English-language sources, which treat "Falkland Islands" as primary but note "Islas Malvinas" because of the Argentine claim, particularly in articles related to the sovereignty dispute.

I note finally that the Falklands were a step away from ArbCom over exactly this point in 2005-6. No current editor was involved, but it's worth bringing it to people's attention. The consensus to include both has been stable ever since. I see no reason to change it. Kahastok talk 19:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good Article

Dear Marshal, congratulations for your sustained and successful effort in bringing this article to GA status! Your Half-Million Award is most deserved indeed. It is so kind of you to share it with other editors too (although my own contribution to this has been fairly minor). Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Apcbg. It has been a project all of us have constantly sought to achieve, even if we could not exactly agree on how to get to it. As Khazar noted during the review, this article is perhaps the most informative and neutral available online; only a group project could have achieved it. The next objective should be to achieve FA status, but perhaps we should wait a couple of months for the article to gain stability as a GA. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 14:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
As an intermediate step, you might go ahead and open a peer review on it and let that run for a bit. This would be a good idea before FA anyway. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Well done Marshal and everyone else. Now let's see if we can make it even better. Kahastok talk 19:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations everyone! :) --Langus (t) 02:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Most Recent revert/insert

To whom this may concern,

Since I have not yet read an article/section on the concerned article explaining the reasons behind the pro-Britain/anti-Argentine results of past and recent Falkland Islands sovereignty referenda, I stumbled upon two online articles #REDIRECT] and #REDIRECT] written by Mr. John Wight and Ian Mount respectively, that seems to imply that the specific characteristics of Falkland Island's demographics might have something to do with the results of the aforementioned referenda. That is also the reason why I inserted the statement. Note that I worded the statement in such a way giving my insertion and its sources a benefit of doubt--thereby trying to comply as much as possible with Misplaced Pages's rules on neutrality

I hope this message gets read by the concerned editors and watchers, especially the editors, as I don't intend to start an edit war.

Sincerely yours,

Pcbyed (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that content is that it goes off topic, "Demographics" is only for demography, not for political disputes, which are already adressed elsewhere. Besides, even if referenced, the relation of demography and the result of the referendum is just speculation. It's also possible, and in fact likely, that the Falklanders have considered both the benefits and disadvantages of being a British territory, and the benefits and disadvantages of being part of Argentina, and decided that staying British was the best option for them. Cambalachero (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Cambalachero I think it is not off-topic. Demography (more specifically ethnicities) can influence politics, you can just look up for examples in google. That single proposed inserted statement I intend to be a starting point for anyone else interested to expand on the issue. I don't care if the Falklanders hate to be Argentinian, I just want to let other readers what might influence their referenda, and demographics can be Pcbyed (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I rather agree with Cambalachero on both points. Furthermore, Falklanders of non-British (including Argentine) origins would seem to have contributed to the referendum 'yes' votes, see this and this. Apcbg (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I would add this seems to be synthasis as neither source mentions the referendum.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's synthesis. Neither source mentions the referendum.
It seems to me that any relevant point here is trivial. Because the results of the referendum were so one-sided - because only three people voted "no" - it seems to me that very little demographic analysis that can be done. All demographic groups almost certainly voted overwhelmingly for the "yes". Kahastok talk 12:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Then Cambalachero , Apcbg, Slatersteven, where do you suggest I relocate my insertion? I just find it interesting that immigrants make up half the population of the falklands...and perhaps other people may want to inquire about the effects of immigrants making up half the Falkland population one of the possible factors behind the referenda results

I don't think we can make any such conclusions, with or without synthesis. — Kahastok 13:25, 16 November 2013 — continues after insertion below
That is why I worded it "might" -- to give benefit of doubt. My proposed insertion does not conclude but merely opens up a possibility whether or not there is -- unless you put a statement (with supporting sources) that it's not a factor. It is my intent in the first place -- to find whether or not demographics might have something to do with the refernda's results. Since there is no article, section, or statement yet here in wikipedia or in this article for that matter, I just hoped by inserting the statement, I open up debate and set the wheels going for an initiative to make an article/section addressing the question "Why does the Falkland referenda keep favoring Britain" here in Misplaced Pages. Pcbyed (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
But let me do some synthesis for a minute. If we assume a 50/50 split between those born on the islands and incomers, and then each group has 825 voters. Remove 825 incomer or island-born votes from the "yes", and 99.6% (688/691) of the remaining valid votes were still for the "yes". Which doesn't make any significant difference to the end result. "One of the factors" - no, because it would have been overwhelmingly for the "yes" in any case. — Kahastok 13:25, 16 November 2013 — continues after insertion below
That is why I worded it "might" -- to give benefit of doubt. You can explain that in the main article of Falkland demographics. Pcbyed (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
When it comes down to it, no amount of demographic analysis is ever going to say anything other than that the vote was overwhelmingly for the "yes" among all major demographic groups. Kahastok talk 13:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
But Kahastok that does not mean I don't have to put the insertion. Someone (perhaps it might be you who can) must explain that Falklands' underlying demographics might have or might not have an effect on the referenda. I can accept that there might not be, just put a statement (replacing mine) that can help dispell it and cite you sources--because it would be interesting under the demographics section...demography and politics are integrated here, you can't isolate the one from the other. Local People/populations affect politics because they construct their local politic through referenda such as these.

Pcbyed (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It makes life easier if we keep all the posts together rather than adding points at paragraph breaks. Do you mind avoiding putting each post whole in the future please?
Putting in get-outs such as "might" aren't enough to deal with the concern that the point is WP:OR. Yes, of course there is a connection between the local people and the results of a referendum - but the point is trivial as it applies by definition to any fair election or referendum. There is no reason to assume that this is a special case and every reason to assume that it is not (in that the results would suggest that there was no significant demographic split in the electorate at all). We do not put in points to spark debate. That's not our job.
I note that I don't see any need for me to provide any sources here because I support the option of putting nothing in the article. I see no need for any text on this. If I were proposing a change, I would need to source it, but I am not. Your point is not backed up by your sources, and that is sufficient for it not to be included. Kahastok talk 17:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

So, do you want me to add to my proposed insertion that demographics is still inconclusive with respect to the referenda's results? Otherwise, I'll just be placing my insertion on the main article of Falkland's demographics if you want...or I'll revert again if no one replies within the next 24 hours.Pcbyed (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Pcbyed, what you're proposing is WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. Please read those guidelines; you'll understand that we can't include it.
Don't get discouraged by this, tho. Feel free to suggest insertions/improvements, but always remember to resort to talk page if your proposal faces resistance, so as to avoid an edit war. I also recommend reading WP:BRD.
Regards, --Langus (t) 16:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Read the WP:SYN, and yep I think that's what may be wrong for my insertion. At least everything's been made clear to me. Thank you mr. Langus. Pcbyed (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you should add nothing at all unless you can source it in accordance with WP:V and WP:OR. At present, you're not meeting this standard. Kahastok talk 17:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Pcbyed, we are not allowed to speculate on Misplaced Pages, we can only say what RS say, not what we think they should day. Your proposed edit breaches a number of Wikipolicies, and as such will never be allowed to stand. I suggest you look for WP:RS that support your edit.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Overall Reply (17 November 2013, Philippine Standard Time: 2012H)

So do I just leave you all alone then with respect to this article?

Then, ok, the article's all yours...though I decided to first research about my proposed insertion and when I'm already sure, I may just put in in the demographics or politics section of Falkland Islands/their resepctive main articles in the future, or on a new article discussing the reasons behind the results (or how demography, economic standing, etc. affect the Falkland results). But since Falklands is not really my line of interest (and I admit, I'm kinda lazy), I'll leave that task (of making the new article) for someone else interested to do so.

I would also want to give Mr. Langus the credit for directly and concretely pointing out what may be wrong in my insertion. Thank you for enlightening me.

An edit war averted. Good luck to you guys in maintaining the peace, such as Slatersteven, Kahastok, Cambalachero, EdJohnston, (whomever and wherever you are).

Hope to work with you on other articles, especially Philippine-related articles here in Misplaced Pages. :-)

Pcbyed (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Pcbyed

You're welcome to stay around Paul, we don't own the article. Cheers, --Langus (t) 15:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Words, Phrases and data that are not neutral.

I am not native English speaker, nor a Misplaced Pages fan, so i hope you may oversee my sintaxes, etc errors and focus on the points I mention. The article is not even close to neutrality... I cant believe you didnt notice it, so i´ll point it out (just the first parragraphs):

1- "The principal islands are about 300 miles (500 kilometres) east of the Patagonian coast" ... they are just 346 km from the nearest Argentine Patagonia coast (Isla de los Estados) so you have just make it 44% farest... good for you.(I mean, by saying 500 km it seams they are in the middle of the ocean far away from Argentina)

2- "As a British overseas territory, the islands enjoy a large degree of internal self-governance, with the United Kingdom guaranteeing good governance and taking responsibility for their defence and foreign affairs." I dare someone to re write it more pro-britain... You could just say "As a British overseas territory they are under britain administration."

3- "Britain re-established its rule in 1833, though Argentina maintained its claim to the islands. In 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands..." or the two of them "re-established them rule" or the two of them "invaded". IMO both were invasions cite:("While Argentine Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the Argentine schooner Sarandí, wanted to resist, his numerical disadvantage was obvious..." http://en.wikipedia.org/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute)

4- "The population, estimated at 2,932 in 2012, primarily consists of native Falkland Islanders, the majority of British descent. Other ethnicities include French, Gibraltarian, and Scandinavian." Native Falklanders??? The last census (justs a few parragraphs down in the article), shows only one third of the population was borned in the islands... French and Gibraltarian are not ethnicities... even 5% of the population is from chile but thats not mentioned... i think all the parragraph is written to show the islands are not populated with latin-americans.


That is the first 3 parragraphs!!!!!! but it continues in most sections. (even http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Malvinas_cartel_-_Puerto_Iguaz%C3%BA.jpg is not neutral... it is the best picture to represent argentines claims??? it even has a broken thing under the sign!!!) google "falkland claims" i dare you to find a more anti-argentine picture (there are a few) cmon people... this qualifies for GA? Im kind of embarrased. whats left for a not so good article? Again sorry for my bad English, hope it doesnt ruin my points. Mauricio - boricmk@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.247.175 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This page, which I think is official, says that the islands are 483 km from South America, so to round it to 500 is not a big difference. The word "enjoy" in this context means "has the benefit of"; the word does not not always imply having pleasure as in other contexts. And the terms "invasion", "re-establishment" and other alternatives have been discussed for years, we have finally kept those ones. Cambalachero (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we should change it to Patagonian mainland.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
First time I've heard French isn't an ethnicity. Any more explanation on that? Is it the subgroups, like bretons, that are? I don't see how the distance makes an iota of difference to neutrality, but a change to mainland sounds sensible. Perhaps we should also remove the "as" before mentioning the BOT, as each BOT is different (BIOT springs to mind as a fairly unself-governed one). CMD (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The FIG website is doing a bit of a funny with its distance conversions. The measurement we currently give is 300 miles, which converts to the 483 km given by the source, and calling that 500 km is simply a matter of rounding for the precision of the original measurement. It tallies with an OR Google Maps distance test. The imperial measurement they give, 400 miles, actually converts to 643 km, and works only if you force it to.
For years we used point-to-point distances measured using Google Maps, until someone pointed out that this was WP:OR - and the distance given was about 300 miles. At that time we referred to the "South American mainland" (the closest point is Cape Virgenes, very close to the Argentine-Chilean border) and I think it makes sense to clarify that the mainland is what we are talking about. Kahastok talk 12:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes we've had that distances topic clarified before, and the results as I can confirm now (by checking Google Earth, hardly OR as anyone could easily verify that) are as follows:
(1) Minimum distance between any Falklands territory and the South American mainland is between Jason Islands and Punta Buque, 455 km = 283 mi = 246 nm (the distance between the Falklands and Cabo Virgenes is 499 km = 310 mi = 270 nm);
(2) Minimum distance between any Falklands and Argentine territories is between a small island off the south coast of West Falkland (Bird Island) and Isla Estados, 342 km = 212 mi = 185 nm.
Season's greetings to everybody! Apcbg (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


Lets answer each point: - its partial no to point the nearest continental point, and instead point a ramdom farest point. One could argue its even partial to mention "Patagonia" and not "Argentina"

- French its not an ethnicity. Sorry if this is the first time you hear it. Read the article about ethnics in wikipedia, it explains why France its a multi-ethnic state.

- is not neutral to refer to the islands as a "British Oversea Territory" (british POV since 1983, before that even them recognize it as a colony). Argentina POV states its Argentina usurpated land. Why dont we use U.N. POV ??? Its a colony (a wierd case of colony, as stated in multiple UN pages on internet http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gacol3238.doc.htm), and that should be explained. ommiting such a piece of information is being partial.

- not considering 1833 an invasion because there wasnt a fight is naive POV... it has been discussed plenty of times in this Talk page... but take your time to re read the discussions (as i have) and you will find it never reached a trully conclusion. Argentina POV could say 1982 was not an invasion either, because one can not invade its own land... lets take a neutral POV where both were invasions. 1833 events used belic force. If British would have reached the islands unarmed in a fishing boat, no one would have left...

- the other points i have mentioned have not been replied (the native falkland contradiction, and the anti-argentine image). i think you just dont care, as it doesnt conflicts with your POV.

- the name of the article is not neutral. It´s British name for the islands. as a disputed territory, shouldnt U.N. official name be used??? http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/CS/SER.A/42

The whole article uses British POV... why dont we use U.N. POV? which is clearlly the most neutral (almost by definition) Even better, after more than 100000 words being written in the talk page, and no clear consensus, the article should have the Neutrality Issues tag over it.


Again sorry for my bad english, and hope it doesnt spoil my effors for a better article in such a sensitive issue. Mauricio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.247.175 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"British Oversea Territory" is the administrative term for British territories under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom. It says nothing about the legitimacy of that claim (and by the way was introduced in 2002, not 1983 (this was an administrative change).
You can invade you own land, invasion means
invasion
ɪnˈveɪʒ(ə)n/
noun
noun: invasion; plural noun: invasions
   :1.
   :an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
There are many instances of invasions by a 'host nation' being called an invasion.
The lead does not list every fact, now we could remove native, and replace it with self-identified.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mauricio,
The distance approximation is provided by Dr. Andreas Klügel, from the University of Bremen. Geography is not an exact science (sadly). A good geologist could probably provide you with a better reason why this is the case, but it suffices to state that location is relative, distance always approximate, and the notion of distance completely psychological.
Ethnicity is defined as a group of individuals (society) with a common culture. This also varies by location. There is an article on the French Argentines, if you're interested in learning more about the French ethnicity as it relates to Argentina.
Images in Misplaced Pages are used based on availability (they have to be free of copyright). If you can take better pictures to represent the Argentine position, please go ahead and take them and upload them to Wikimedia Commons.
Lastly, the term used in this article have been discussed in the past and are part of consensus (in some cases silent, in other cases formal). Take matters for what they are, understand them, but you don't have to accept it. If you believe the term "invasion" is inappropriate (as well as the term "re-establishment of British rule"), no one is forcing you to believe otherwise.
Happy holidays.--MarshalN20 | 17:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


Really nice speach. But trully, in the name of the neutrality POV, you shouldnt use the distance to a ramdom point. Argentine-French ethnics, really is off topic, and only bores people interested in this article. I have already stated (and give the source) why you cant name french people an ethnia. If you dont even care to read my source, perhaps you shouldnt be aswering. I double checked the Talk files, and theres no consensus that 1833 was not an invasion. Theres no consensus in not to use the ONLY OFFICAL UN NAME for those islands. Theres no consensus to ommit the islands UN COLONIAL status. It seems crazy to me, to be asking for you to respect UN. Finally you appear to be more skilled that i am with this... perhaps you should search for a more neutral picture... (but you wont do it, because it doesnt confronts your POV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.247.175 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity and race are difficult concepts to understand, mainly because they are created by the equally complex human mind. Naturally, we're all Homo sapiens. The Misplaced Pages article on ethnic group is a great start, but I can recommend you some books if you're truly interested in the topic.
The consensus that governs this article has been developed throughout the several articles concerning the Falkland Islands. For example, last year there was a consensus to change "re-establishment" to "reassertion" (see ) in the article reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833).
My definition of "neutral" does not seem to align with yours, therefore I am unable to understand what you mean by "a more neutral picture".
Regards.--MarshalN20 | 20:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems your strategy to not confront my points, is to go off-topic (now you are recommending more books, that would give you the reason).
I dont think our deffinitions of "neutral" are so different. (or else, you are admition a picture of a road sign, with something broken belows it, is the best representation of Argentina position over a territory in dispute) I think you just dont care because actual redaction favors your POV.
Anyway, Im not asking you to use my POV nor my definition of neutrality, im asking you to use UNITED NATIONS POV, call the article by the UNITED NATIONS OFFICAL NAME FOR THAT INSLANDS, and add THEY ARE A COLONY (you can even put they ENJOY of colonial status). Or you if you believe UNITED NATIONS are wrong, you should add the neutrality issues tag, so everybody knows your article is not written according to UNITED NATIONS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.124.201.142 (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an organ of the United Nations, and the view(s) of said institution (while relevant) are not the only reliable material used to build an encyclopedic work.
The archipelago has various official names, and the formal consensus here is to use the official English name (just as the Spanish Misplaced Pages has a consensus on using the Spanish name).
The current state of the article reflects Misplaced Pages consensus and the mainstream literature. However, let me again emphasize that you are free to call the islands what you wish and define them as you want.
Regards.--MarshalN20 | 22:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


You are ussing official British name (so how would that be neutral???). Official English name, for United Nations includes (Malvinas). You are going off topic again bringing the Spanish article, if you are concerned you can strougle to write your complains in a foreign language in the Misplaced Pages spanish Article Talk page (as im doing now). In such sensitive issues, we should keep as close to United Nations as we can. (or you have a more reliable source??? cite please) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.23.180.79 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read the "geographic naming convention" at the top of this talk page (or follow this link).
It should provide more information on the present naming consensus.
Regards.--MarshalN20 | 23:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Have just read it. It doesnt state you should use British name as the title of the article. So whats your point?
Its obvious the most frequent used name in english is Falkland, but at least for the tittle of the article the most neutral approach should be to use United Nations Official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.23.180.79 (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. Now please read WP:UCN.
As you wrote, "ts obvious the most frequent used name in nglish is Falkland."
You would need to first address this matter with the naming convention in that article's talk page.
Happy new year.--MarshalN20 | 23:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


Have you even read the link you sent me??? It backs up United Nations POV. I transcrive it so you dont have to take the trouble to follow your own link; take your time to read it next time:

."Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section... ...when there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."


The rest of the guide encourages to use neutral tittles, even if they are not the most common. (though it encourages to use not so neutral names, when they would make people find the article more easy). But in this particular case using United Nations Official name: Falkland Islands (Malvinas), would just add relevant information.


I also add, that not using the word "Malvinas" in the tittle adds confusion, as a lot of people (mostly non native english speakers) dont even know they are also called Falklands.


So explain me please what consensus you are using to use British name, instead of United Nations Official name, which is more neutral, more complete, and clearly satisfy all the wikipedia guides for tittle naming (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:UCN http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.124.201.142 (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the consensus is to use the common name in English as this is English Misplaced Pages, just had a look at http://www.falklands.gov.fk/ and I cant see anything about changing the name as far as I can see it still is called Falkland Islands which appears to match the English common name and the name of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
On the point of not using Malvinas as it is confusing (mainly to non native English speakers), Malvinas is clearly mentioned in the lead and it redirects to this article so unlikely that a user cant find the right article, if they really did not know what the Islands are called it would only take a few minutes read of the article to enlighten them, if they are still confused then the wikipedia article in whichever language they understand also explains it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Non-English speakers are also likely to have difficulties understanding the titles of articles like whale and snow. We're an English-language encyclopædia and thus English-language usage is most important.
It's also worth reiterating that "Falkland Islands" is the overwhelmingly preferred usage in English-language sources - and particularly that that includes sources that take no side in the dispute and sources that are mildly hostile to the British position. "Falkland Islands" is not a POV term in English. It's not uncommon for neutral sources to acknowledge "Malvinas" when discussing the dispute - this is similar to our convention. Mixed forms are only really used in English by diplomats appeasing Argentina - hence the UN usage, though let's remember that the UN is not and never has been a politically neutral body. Kahastok talk 12:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Kahastok, take your time to read before answering so you dont add inaccurate info and make a fool of yourself: we were talking about non-native english speakers (not non-english speakers) which at this point are more than the native english speakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/English_language)
You are citing a not neutral page... It is not mandatory to use the common name as the tittle (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/United_States its not tittle "america" or "the states") thats clear in wikipedia guide for tittles, and i transcive it in my past answer and bold it. Please take the care of reading it.
Not adding the word "malvinas" to the tittle adds confusion. You are not really explaining why you have reached a consensus different of the United Nations POV.
The whole article its full of neutrality issues, but i think the two more obvious and annoying are: 1. not using United Nations Official name (though its a territory in dispute), 2. not stating in the lead that they are ENJOYING of colonial status (United Nations stance also).

There seems to be few people interested in the neutrality of the article, and the main concern is to protect your agendas. I am to the point of getting tired, and then congratulations, you will have reached a new consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.81.44.206 (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, all of this has been addressed already. In context "enjoy" does not mean what you think it means. We do not dumb our articles down to cater for a few non-native speakers of unknown language ability. Where such a thing exists we use the common English-language name for a concept, even if it is POV (and this one isn't). The point made about colloquial names is irrelevant. There is no such thing as a "United Nations Official name" and if there was there would be no reason to use it. And if you don't like any of that, this isn't the place to change it. Kahastok talk 14:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


The only thing clear here, is that you are taking more time thinking what do i think (which is really irrelevant) than in reading past comments and doing relevant advances. In just a few words you have commited so many errors...
1. you assume that i dont know what enjoy means (imposible to tell how you know it...)
2. you assume there are "a few" non-native english speakers, when i have just cited you the article that explains that there are more second language english speakers than native speakers. http://en.wikipedia.org/English_language
3. i also cited you the wikipedia guide that states its not mandatory to use the common name, speacially when it brings neutrality issues. ."Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section... ...when there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."
4. You state that: "United Nations Official Name" does not exist... (!) are you really taking this seriously? because most people here does. please follow the next link, and stop making a fool of yourself and wasting everybodys time. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/CS/SER.A/42
Please take account here that I am not deffending my point of view. I am deffending neutral POV, which I consider United Nations have strougle (trough YEARS of debate of people much more skilled that you and I) to achieve. But if you consider you are more skilled that United Nations, and you have reached a better neutrality, I think we may have reached a deadend. (please send yours CV to UN offices, as there are other 16 other colonies still in the world that may need your help.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.81.44.206 (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Point 1, if you are understanding it correctly you will know that it is neutral and factual, and thus not problematic.
Point 2, chances are most non-native speakers are not going to be confused by "Falkland Islands". But it makes no difference: it's not our problem.
Point 3, the quotes themselves demonstrate that they do not apply ("Falkland Islands" is not ambiguous or inaccurate, is overwhelmingly more common in English than any alternative, and does not have problems as per the guideline).
Point 4, you point at a style guide for internal use at the United Nations, not a definitive decision made by United Nations as to the name of the islands. This is unsurprising since the United Nations does not make definitive decisions about naming of countries or territories. You demonstrate that my point was accurate. Kahastok talk 14:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


1- I have no problems whith the word ENJOY. My request was that you state the Islands enjoy of colonial status. (something you deliberately ommited)
2- How you know "chances are most non-native speakers wont be conffused? Because I think I know far more non-native english speakers (most of them with international certification) and most of them dont even know the name Falkland.. anyway agreeing in this points seems almost imposible... but how would it not be wikipedia´s problem users not finding the apropiate article? (i understand its not your problem, as i see you disregard everything confronting your POV)
3- Acutal name It´s not accurate, for a reliable source (UN) as they use another name for it (which has no contraditions for being used)
4- Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Its United Nations Official name. Its not definitive as it is a territory in dispute and a colony (perhaps its definitive name ends to be Islas Malvinas... who knows, its not us to decide...) Thats why we should use the most neutral POV.

Anyway, i have give my reasons in why we should use UN POV and use Falkland Islands (Malvinas) as tittle, and why it should be stated they are a colony as UN states. But what are your reasons for ommiting both things? Does including (Malvinas) as United Nations does, brings any problem? Does informing the people they are a colony as United Nations states, harms someone?

Why you think your POV is more neutral than United Nations POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.81.44.110 (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Point 1, the UN does not describe the islands' status as colonial, but even if they did, it would still be better for us to describe the status rather than using loaded terms such as "colony" or "colonial".
Point 2, given that anyone who types "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", "Malvinas", "Islas Malvinas", "Malvinas Islands" or any one of a number of other phrases into the search box will get this article, your proposal does not make this article easier to find.
Point 3, that the UN includes "(Malvinas)" does not make "Falkland Islands" inaccurate. Note that the UN does not claim or suggest that "Falkland Islands" is inaccurate.
Point 4, UN POV has not become inherently neutral since the last time you were told it wasn't neutral, nor the time before, nor the time before that. The fact that there is no such thing as a "United Nations Official name" remains unchanged. Of all possible variations, the current title is the most in line with relevant policies (including our policy on neutrality) and with English usage, and that is what is important.
I'm going to stop responding at this stage, because I see no prospect of any consensus for any position other than the status quo on the matters to which you object. Kahastok talk 15:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)



1. This is the 3rd time you state something your are not sure of (and in fact you are wrong) and inmediatly make a salvation (like "but in case i am wrong...". It have already cited and linked where UN states they ARE a colony (a special case). If you dont want to read past comments perhaps you shouldnt be answering.
2. If you google "malvinas wikipedia" the article its not even in the first pages. That is for many of reasons (that I could explain to you, but we would go really off topic), but lacking the word "malvinas" in the tittle certainly is one of the most importants.
3. If United Nations would have though "Falkland Islands" is the most accurate and neutral name, they would be using it as its offical name.
4. You are stating that your POV is more neutral than UN? Ive already shown you that UN has 6 official names for that islands (one for each of the 6 official UN languages) So the English UN Official Name for that islands is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" as a lot of people much much much more skilled and compromised than you, have achieve this through years of consensus.

It seems you have not even read last comments, not even followed a single link, and you show large degree of disrespect to people not sharing your POVs. You even show disrespect for non-native english speaking users, which is something as important as the issues here being discussed.
So I am very pleased to know you will stop answering, as you are not to the level of the other users that are talking here.

I still think the best solution for the time being is to include de "neutral issues tag" over the article tittle, till you explain why you are not using United Nations neutral POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.23.180.79 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont think so we have discussed it and you have no support that the issue is a related to non-neutral point-of-view, none of the other language wikipedias use the name used by the United Nations and none appear to have an issue with it.MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

And just for your interest google searches are not universal and depend on your country if you use "malvinas wikipedia" this article is the first hit on google.com. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

On an encyclopedic level, I have no personal opposition to the title "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". Perhaps setting up a move request would finally create a formal consensus on either the current name or the proposed move? Regards.--MarshalN20 | 20:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a note on the use of the word 'colony'. I've looked through the UN links provided and I cannot see where the UN refers to the islands as a 'colony' (although that is how Argentina and its supports describe the islands). The islands appear on the UN's list of 'Non-Self-Governing Territories', which is how the UN describers the islands. As a Non-Self-Governing Territory, the islands are discussed at by the Special Committee on Decolonization (which might be the reason for the confusion). However, many territories that you would certainly not describe as colonies (such as Western Sahara) are also discussed at the Decolonization Committee. Philip Stevens (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind that the views of the Special Committee are not views of the UN, unless they successfully pass through the Fourth Committee and are adopted by Security Council or General Assembly. This has not happened for anything Falklands-related - they have not made it through the Fourth Committee - since the 1980s. Argentina tends to try and dress up the proceedings of the Special Committee as views - even resolutions - of the UN, but this is not the case. Kahastok talk 22:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
To add to this, let's remember that even if the IP were able to demonstrate an actual current position taken by the UN - meaning the Security Council or General Assembly, not the C24/Special Committee - that the islands are a "colony" (and he won't because the UN hasn't taken any position at all on the islands in at least 25 years), the question would still be whether it is appropriate to replace a neutral description of the degree of self-government enjoyed by the islanders with - effectively - an insult. I would suggest that the answer is no, regardless. Kahastok talk 23:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Just take me a second to find this in one of the links (but there are plenty of reference of its colonial status): "...the Special Committee on Decolonization today adopted a consensus resolution reiterating that the way to end the “special and particular” colonial situation in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)..." http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/55/a5523p2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.81.44.9 (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
A note to you, so you understand how wrong you are. Argentine POV is not it is a colony. Argentine POV (stated in our constitution) is that it is part of Argentina, as any other part, that is been held by force. So for my to ask you to state it is a colony, is not defending my POV nor Argentina POV, but UN POV (a one that Argentina also respects). We must not argue in this issues, as people much more skilled representing both countries SHOULD be discussing it. (United Nations have asked both countries to restart dialogs, but UK keeps avoiding it, deniyng UN authority, a fact that perhaps should also be included in the article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.81.44.9 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not follow you. The UN says it should be called in English the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), which we do. It lists the island as a non-self-governing territory, which is the same as an overseas territory under UK law. The UN has never said it is part of Argentina, the article does not say it is part of the UK. It is however administered by the UK as a BOT. So also was Hong Kong, even though the UK acknowledged it as part of China. TFD (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand the logic here. You're telling us that the Falklands should be stated as a colony based on the Argentine political POV, how is that not defending the Argentine POV? That's precisely what you're doing. As for the UN, ignoring the fact that it isn't a politically neutral body in the slighest, it says the Falkland's is a non self-governing territory. (PS. Argentina isn't willing to do dialogue with the UK either, Argentina will only accept the complete transfer of sovereignty and will not budge from that position, that isn't a negotiation and thus no talks will take place, and the UN has no 'authority' in the matter, you give the UN WAY to much credit, presumably because it suits you to do so in this case.)--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be a very reasonable person, so perhaps its my fault in my english habilities what (mostly) keeps us from understanding. Calling it a BOT its using UK POV, as would be calling it usurpated Argentine land (Argentina POV). The most neutral POV seems to be UN POV.
Calling it a colony its NOT Agentina POV, it´s UN POV ("Reiterates that the way to put an end to the special and particular colonial situation in the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is the peaceful and negotiated settlement of the dispute over sovereignty between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland") http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/55/a5523p2.pdf (page 12) Calling it a colony in fact, its totally against argentina POV, but anyway its something really important and it shouldnt be ommited.
You are not using Falkland Islands (Malvinas) for the tittle. I have just stated all the pros It would bring using it, and that there is no wikipedia guide against it. (the big change, its just adding (malvinas) to the tittle..)
I really think we shouldnt argue soverreignty issues ourselves, but as a matter of fact, UK is who is not sitting in that table (wont judge its reasons as it is really off topic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.125.91.108 (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about title I suggest you start a move request (instructions on how to do this are here: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move). I have no opinion on the name of the page, but it would seem that many institutions that wish to remain neutral (such as the UN, but also the CIA) use the designation "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". But (as we're talking about precedents outside the English Misplaced Pages) I would note that the Spanish Misplaced Pages has separate pages for the archipelago and the British Overseas Territory, neither have "Falklands" in their title.
It is off topic, but as you randomly brought it up, I should say that the UK is constitutionally obligated to consult the Islanders on matters of sovereignty. However, Argentina refuses to talk to the UK if Islanders are present (as demonstrated when Héctor Timerman visited London last year), describing them as a 'third party'. Philip Stevens (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I have a major problem with the notion that we should, for no reason at all, disregard reams of policy on article titles by deliberately choosing a non-English, uncommon and biased name over the neutral, overwhelmingly common and English-language name that we use at present. Kahastok talk 18:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The UN is merely a forum and platform for member states. Resolutions are passed by nations, and are not the views of the 'UN'. The only thing the source supports is that the SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION considers the Falklands a colony. By all means add that to the article, however in my opinion it is not by itself reason to change the anything else. The aforementioned commitee has, btw, been criticised heavily by commentators and is comprised entirely of nations that themselves were former colonies or invariable preclude every foreign policy announcement with a statement condemning 'western imperialism', so yeah... --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No, please don't add it, as it would be massively WP:UNDUE weight. The C24 is already given ample coverage both in this and the article about the dispute. This is an article about the Falkland Islands, not a page for throwing around insults like "colony" (and yes, that's how the word is used, whether the IP likes it or not). Kahastok talk 18:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to see we are getting to some sort of agreement.
1. Its not surprise CIA also uses UN Official name, but im happy to see you found it. good work!
2. dont see how calling it a colony its an insult (its just not British POV)
3. Spanish wikipedia pages are also wrong (in a lot of ways). So I encourage you to make your way into the Talk page of them and strougle to write in a foreign language against a bunch of nationalists (as i am doing here)
4. Allthestrongbowintheworld I think calling UN "merely a forum" is at least inaccurate (IMO disrespectfull). But im happy to see we kind of get to consensus in the colonial situation. I dont know how the comittee on decolonization was conformmed, but it makes sense to exclude some countries like UK that still have 10 colonies under its control. Any organization that has ingerence in such big interest is going to be heavly criticised. But as far as I am concerned there are not public corruption issues involving it, and it has proubed of great aid in the past. If you have found corruption issues involving UN C24 please cite and link us to your references.

As i see we are getting to some kind of agreement, i conclude that i think the 2 most non-neutral points could be fixed just adding "(Malvinas)" to the tittle, and including some refference to its colonial status (UN C24). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.125.91.108 (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The only point worthy of discussion is whether or not to incorporate the "(Malvinas)" term into the title. I suggest a formal move request to be filed in order to properly present points in favor (and against) the change. All other points have been discussed and finalized, and continuing to push for it is disruptive (please read WP:IDHT). Regards.--MarshalN20 | 17:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Apcbg (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice if 186.125.91.108 could put forward their point without the snide comments or passive agressive attitude. Labelling the people who disagree with you as nationalists is not very good for debating and just reveals that they are emotionally bias with the issue. Mishka Shaw (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

is there any point against? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.125.91.108 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Just as certain sources use the term "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" in their titles, others also simply use the term "Falkland Islands". It really comes down to a matter of consensus, although I assume that Misplaced Pages's manual of style may also be a decisive factor. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 02:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment 1: "As a British overseas territory, the islands enjoy a large degree of internal self-governance, with the United Kingdom guaranteeing good governance and taking responsibility for their defence and foreign affairs" this is British/FI speech indeed. I think that at least quotation marks are warranted.
Comment 2: I've always said that "reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands" is an euphemism, but in any case that should be discussed in that article's talk page. --Langus (t) 02:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Comment 1, there is indeed a small difference between the Government section with the introduction. The section mentions that the Falklands "have full internal self-government", but the introduction mentions "large degree of internal self-governance". The rest of the sentence does not seem problematic ("with the UK guaranteeing good governance and taking responsibility for their defence and foreign afairs").
How should the first part of the sentence be fixed?
Regards.--MarshalN20 | 03:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, "good" governance is vague enough as to be questionable. I know I've read opinions against this overseeing in the case of Turks and Caicos Islands.
For starters, a reference would be good for that expression. Even if the sentence is in the lede, there's no policy forbidding us of putting references there --specially if it could be challenged, as I believe is happening right now. --Langus (t) 03:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Referencing it is not necessary if we get rid of the vague statements and match the introductory text with the sourced text in the Government section.
The source (in the Government section) is used to cite "full internal self-government". This means that there is no partial self-government (including no "large degree" or "minor degree").
The "good governance" part is not only vague, but also pointless. No one is going to question what kind of government the UK guarantees, and it's safe to assume it will not guarantee a bad one.
Regards.--MarshalN20 | 03:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per WP:SNOW. There aren't many cases where it's really appropriate to invoke SNOW for a same-day close, but it's pretty clear that this proposal doesn't "have a snowball's chance in hell" of succeeding. I'm not quite sure I understand the first IP's comment, but depending on its intent, there might not be a single editor supporting this. If it makes this any better for the nominator, I would definitely say there's consensus against this title; six more days of discussion won't change that. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Falkland Islands → Falkland Islands (Malvinas) – Move requested per the discussion in the section immediately above this one. I have no personal position on this matter (so, to the closing admin, please do not count my request filing as a vote in favor or against the move). The rationale in favor is that sources in the literature use the heading "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" as a neutral title, including organizations such as the United Nations & the CIA. The rationale against is that such a title is unusual for Misplaced Pages headings and also the fact that the term "Malvinas", in English, is a loaded term. MarshalN20 | 02:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a better term than "negative connotation" is "loaded term". Regards.--MarshalN20 | 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: True that the islands are referred to as the "Malvinas" in Argentina and maybe elsewhere, but the name "Falkland Islands" isn't in any way ambiguous, and therefore doesn't need disambiguating parentheses. -- Ohc  03:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Falkland Islands" is perfectly in line with the article titling policy and does not infringe in any way or form the policy requiring a neutral point of view, which has nothing to do with following the burdensome and cumbersome style of international diplomacy and governmental lingo. Full disclosure: I'm an Argentinian living in Argentina. --Ev (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The policy for article titles says to use the common name and be concise. TFD (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the considerations given above. Apcbg (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was going to support the idea, but as the Spanish language Wiki uses the most common Spanish name (and does not include the English language name, I fail to see why the English Wiki should act in any way different. It is the common English name, and I had a (quick search. It turns out that in a n umber of languages (other then English and Spanish) they are called the Falklands (and the French call them neither).Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I would add, that yes to the British Malvinas is seen as being POV pushing, and has negative connotations.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the point is that no reliable source actually uses "Malvinas" as an English word in preference to "Falkland" unless under direct Argentine influence. There is a certain amount of WP:FRINGE usage by people actively trying to make a point by it (generally on the far left), but nothing more than that. "Malvinas" is not used in English as a rule, and the exceptions are always strongly POV - hence if someone chooses to use it, they look like they're POV pushing.
Various people have disputed this assertion on this page in the past, but in the nearly eight years I've been here, none could cite a counterexample. The neutral term is "Falkland Islands". Kahastok talk 18:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not a matter for a WP:SNOW closure. We need a formal consensus on the article's title, and this is the optimal way to achieve it. Also, the argument in favor of the title "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" is not without logic, given its usage by certain sources in the literature (as well as organizations such as those listed in the proposal). Regards.--MarshalN20 | 21:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

a sentence in "sovereignty dispute"

This sentence - Argentina recognises the UK government as the only legitimate partner in negotiations. - represents a tenuously paraphrased construction of two separate sources that does not adequately encapsulate the Argentine position and misrepresents it through a process of simplification. I would like to respectfully ask for a discussion about a possible change of this sentence to a short phrase or two that more adequately demonstrates the robustness of the Argentine position, to wit, that negotiations must occur on a state-to-state level. As currently worded it simply makes the Argentine position with respect to the #a##### Islands sound dully obstinate. I'm not suggesting specific wording at this time as I'd first like to see if there is even a chance people would be amenable to considering a change, which may be a high hurdle in itself. Thanks, kindly, in advance. BlueSalix (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the word you are looking for Falklands? I don't understand why you can't just type it out instead of doing "#a##### Islands". Personally I don't see anything wrong with the statement as it was reported as such in response to the Falkland Islanders holding their own referendum and wanting to have a say in discussions over their islands. Argentina doesn't want to acknowledge their right to self-determination in the pretense of maintaining the illusion of British Imperialism over the islands hence the statement that the only legitimate partner in negotiations is the UK government. Maybe it just needs put into context. Ironically Argentina is the state acting all Imperialistic.Mabuska 21:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Right. That's probably not an appropriate, constructive, or topical response. BlueSalix (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the statement as it was reported as such.... I don't see where it uses this phrasing or reports that idea. The newspaper article makes it clear that Argentina isn't going to act based on that referendum, and states they reject its legitimacy, but I don't see the phrasing that matches, "Britain is the only legitimate partner." It doesn't say they want Britain as their one-and-only. The current phrasing seems like it's saying something different than the sources. If all that's in the source is "Argentina doesn't want x" then it shouldn't be reported as "Argentina doesn't want x, must want y." even if you have strong feeling about what "not wanting x" means.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Um ... Argentina recognises the UK government as the only legitimate partner in negotiations. is how the article currently reads. Based on your above comment, it appears you agree with me that this is not accurate to the sources and should be changed? BlueSalix (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If I say newspaper article I'm not talking about the Misplaced Pages article. I said I didn't see where it's in the sourced Guardian article, and we shouldn't have a sentence that says something beyond what's reported. I agree that someone saying they don't like bananas is not saying they think oranges are the only legitimate fruit. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Correct, neither the Guardian article, nor the Terra article say Argentina recognises the UK government as the only legitimate partner in negotiations, nor anything approximating that. So, it appears you agree with me that this is not accurate to the sources and should be changed? BlueSalix (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry but I'm really not 100% sure I've understood your last few messages. To clarify, I have not made *any edits* at all to this article at any point during the last 3 years. You and Kahastok are the only two editors who have edited this entry today. But it sounds like you just unilaterally deleted sources that have been in this article for the last several months because you thought I added them? Why would you do that? BlueSalix (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Calling them the #a##### sounds WP:POINTy and will achieve nothing but irritating people here. In English they are the Falkland Islands. If you doubt that, read the RM in the section above this one.Argentina recognises the UK government as the only legitimate partner in negotiations is Argentina's position, repeatedly expressed. We might put "considers" instead of "recognises", but only for flow. If you think that makes Argentina's position regarding the islands sound obstinate, then that's your conclusion. I'll agree that the sources there aren't suitable, but it's not exactly tricky to find others e.g. , all of which refer to an incident this time last year, in which the Argentine foreign minister present in London refused any discussions with the British if Falkland Islanders were to be present, and announced that Falkland Islanders "do not exist". Kahastok talk 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
response to Kahastok that BlueSalix moved, regarding the edit I made If there were better sources, you should have put them before I removed it. Don't expect all editors to understand when you're using a source that doesn't say what's in the article because there are plenty of sources from last year that say it. Put sources that directly support your conclusions, not sources that only somehow imply them by degrees of separation. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Kahastok - I noticed you just went ahead and started making substantial WP:BOLD edits to the very section we have been discussing over the last few minutes. I have opened a discussion on changing a single sentence. You've just neutered this entire discussion by deleting and overwriting the only sentence being discussed, as well as all its attendant references, so that no one now knows what we're talking about. Could you please undo your edits so we can work on this article collaboratively and allow everyone to have the opportunity to express an opinion? Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
BlueSalix I was clearly responding to Kahastok in this edit and you wildly refactored it to make it look like I was responding to you. Don't mess with the order of responses; they're timestamped and it's in the log when you do it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You know, I'm sorry and it really wasn't intentional. I'm so perplexed by this entire discussion that it's easy to get confused, even in the editing of the Talk page. I've kindly asked for a temperate and moderate discussion on changing a single sentence and you and Kahastok have, within minutes of this discussion opening, overwritten the entire sentence this section was intended to discuss and deleted the original sources. Could we work together, calmly and collaboratively, please? Thank you! BlueSalix (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix: no idea what you're talking about. Elaqueate's removed the text at hand and I put it back again. I put my new sources in, sure - I think we all agree the old ones weren't good enough. But the text itself is unchanged over the two edits. Do you actually have a problem with the new sources? This edit suggested you were happy with them.

Elaqueate: your message assumes that I know what you are thinking and that I can stop time. We got crossed wires. That's OK. It happens. Telling me that I should have changed the sources before you removed them, in the period between 22:56 and 22:56, is ridiculous. I didn't know that the sources were unsuitable until I looked at them. I do not own this article, I don't think I added these sources, and I can't really be expected to know that you're going to make an edit before you make it. Kahastok talk 23:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

To add: I don't see any reason why this needs to go to RFC just yet. We haven't yet failed to come to an agreement of our own accord. Kahastok talk 00:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Kahastok, I'm sorry, I'm generally so confused by this whole thing I'm just going to quit. The last 25 minutes have been unlike anything I've ever experienced at WP. I get the feeling this is the anything goes Wild West underside of WP that's like 50% Las Vegas and 50% Baghdad. Also, I may have done something offensive or made an ill-directed accusation - I'm really so confused right now that I'm not sure, though I think I did - but to cover my bases I issue a blanket and universal apology to anyone and everyone. Good luck. BlueSalix (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
To Kahastok. I didn't see your comment when I made my original edit (until after I made it). I didn't mean that you should have added the source in that five minutes, I meant that when anybody adds claims to contentious pages then you should have sources that directly support. I'm sorry if it came across as saying you personally should have. Otherwise, BlueSalix requested a change. I took a look at the sources, saw that they didn't support the claim, and for that reason, agreed it could be Synth. Then I was Bold and removed it, before seeing your comment. You saw that you could support the sentence with other sources and Reverted. This is all fine and no problem at this point. It's reasonable because there are good faith attempts to make the article better. I do think the original sources could usefully support the sentence that starts "Moreover, in 2013" as those sources specifically refer to the most recent walkout. But this all would have been so much easier if someone hadn't moved my comment around. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, lord. You know, frankly, if you two could learn how to properly indent your comments so that they were nested appropriately, people wouldn't move them in an effort to make some sense of it all. Even the above two comments are totally out-of-sync but, you know, whatever. I give up. BlueSalix (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This. Indenting. Was. Fine. Please stop while you're ahead. No harm or ill will, but please consider some kind of meditative breather. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No, your indenting is off - you're addressing Kahastok but nested into my comment. This has been a consistent and persistent issue throughout this thread and may be the source of much of your frustration. That's okay, just please try to slow down, take a bit more time, and pay better attention to your edits. WP is not a race and deliberation avoids future confusion. Also, I'll AGF that "consider some kind of meditative breather" is well-intentioned but - as a friendly suggestion - you really should avoid comments that could be seen as making accusations about the mentality of others. Thank you, Elaqueate! BlueSalix (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So, friends, is the problem with the text resolved?--MarshalN20 | 00:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess. Apparently I was the problem and I gave up. Any attempt at improvement just wasn't worth getting the Union Flag shoved into my eye socket, as per the above car wreck. The text is still not supported by anything contained in the sources, but c'est la vie. Not all of WP is going to be perfect. BlueSalix (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Categories: