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 21:07, 4 September 2013 editKahastok (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,810 edits →Metric v. Imperial: r← Previous edit Revision as of 21:07, 4 September 2013 edit undoKahastok (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,810 edits →Metric v. Imperial: addNext edit →
Line 256: Line 256:
:Is there a way to ask for an expert in this sort of thing? I can't figure out why it's so complicated. From what I saw when I was there, metric is everywhere. ] (]) 20:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC) :Is there a way to ask for an expert in this sort of thing? I can't figure out why it's so complicated. From what I saw when I was there, metric is everywhere. ] (]) 20:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


::] and ] do recommend metric units in most contexts. It is only contexts such as geographic distance in miles, or height in feet and inches, or speed in miles per hour, that are non-metric both in the UK and in the Falklands. ::] and ] do recommend metric units in most contexts. It is only contexts such as geographic distance in miles, or personal height in feet and inches, or speed in miles per hour, that are non-metric both in the UK and in the Falklands.


::The whole thing is quite simple. We follow ] as interpreted by the local consensus at ]. There is no contradiction between them. That means imperial units are the main units in some circumstances, such as geographic distance. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC) ::The whole thing is quite simple. We follow ] as interpreted by the local consensus at ]. There is no contradiction between them. That means imperial units are the main units in some circumstances, such as geographic distance. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:07, 4 September 2013

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.
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

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


GA drive, FA goal

Dear friends,
I have made a series of recent changes to the article. The goal is to first get this article through the GA process and, finally, take it to FA status. The recent changes all focus on subjects not related to history (such as geography, biodiversity, culture, etc.). I would appreciate that all interested contributors to take a peek at these changes, check that everything is OK, and post here any concerns/comments you think are necessary.
I plan to work on the history-related sections next. User:Basalisk has kindly agreed to serve as a supervisor to my edits in the article, but I encourage all of you to double-check my work and point out any mistakes.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 22:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't vandalize the article like that again. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please explain what is vandalistic about my improvements. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 22:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I reacted too quickly on a page likely to be vandalized. I apologize. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology. If you find anything wrong with the article's information, please do comment here or on my talk page.--MarshalN20 | 23:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I should probably point out that I am shaping the structure of this article using the FA article Peru as the model. I think we are close to completing this article, but the history-related sections are the true tough cookies. If any of my edits in those sections raise concerns, please remember to assume good faith but please notify me of any problems (the worst thing you can do is stay quiet). Regards.--MarshalN20 | 01:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Metric v. Imperial

The first problem is in the second sentence of the article. Miles? Is that nautical miles in one instance, or two, or none? And why lead with miles for a metric country? Jonathunder (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. In most books I have ever read, nautical miles are clearly written as "nautical miles" (or nmi). I understand your question, but no need exists to worry for clarification. Miles are just miles.
As to why miles are used instead of the metric system, that's a question beyond my realm. It seems to be a consensus established in this article. I honestly don't care much about it since both measurement systems are used simultaneously. However, if it's an issue that really bothers you, by all means do go ahead and start a section here focused on that matter (to find a change in consensus).
Regards.--MarshalN20 | 05:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The use of imperial vs metric units has been the source of many debates between various parties never had any consensus - all that it had was a ridiculous page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS - if you read the associated Talk Page you will see how ridiculous it is. Also, if you look at the article text you will see that every unit of measure as a "disp=flip" qualifier (Added by User:Wee Curry Monster). You will also notice that the source of virtually every unit of measure is in metric units. If you want the article get "Good Article" status, I suggest that your ditch FALKLANDSUNITS and scrap all the "disp-flip" qualifiers. Martinvl (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You would need a consensus to change that the current consensus is to use imperial first as per the WP:FALKLANDSUNITS Keith D (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I can see from its talk page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is disputed, but setting that aside for a moment, this article doesn't even follow it. "For distances offshore, use nautical miles and follow with both kilometres and statute miles." I asked above if the offshore miles are nautical. Apparently, they are not. The source is in metric. If the source figure is 500 km but the article implies some kind of miles are the primary unit and km is a conversion, it will never pass good article review. Jonathunder (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not surprised this has turned into a small disagreement, but I'll add that the sources I used did not have any nautical miles which I could use in the article. I'll further add that indeed both Guo and Sainato (the authors cited) use the metric system, but the metric number reflected in the article is not a conversion (I simply added the metric number into the formula, which converted it into miles). Ultimately, as long as the consensus at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS stands, I'm pretty sure the article can pass GA review. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 13:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a note: It is not a purely metric country. It is a mixed system. Using the local variance is quite the norm in many cases - the same with the -our/or and -ise/ize issues. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The metric values are the sources, not conversions, but enclosing them in parentheses misleads the reader, giving the false impression metric is secondary. This is not honest. Articles do fail GA review for that. This one should fail until this is cleaned up. Jonathunder (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
We are paying undue respect to WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. It was nothing more than a wikilawyering & bullying exercise carried out by User:Kahastok (see here) and User:Wee Curry Monster (see here) against User:Michael Glass and myself. If this is the underlying reason for the writing of the page, then that page violates one of Misplaced Pages's pillars - that of civility. Wee Curry Monster has since paid the price of incivility - he is topic-banned from the Falkland Islands. Martinvl (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
We are paying the price of your four-year-campaign of disruption that has meant that a prescriptive description of the units to be used is the only way of avoiding what you have previously described as "civil war". We cannot have a system that is more flexible because it is perfectly clear that you will try to game it.
It is ironic that when you quote me as being (what you claim to be) uncivil, I was uncovering yet another of your attempts to game the system here. When you claimed that geography is a science and that therefore miles are completely banned from Misplaced Pages in any context in which they are likely to be used. Including in brackets. No matter what the circumstances. If you don't like being called on gaming the system, you shouldn't have spent four years trying to game the system. Kahastok talk 21:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This article doesn't even follow WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, so let's set that aside. I'm more concerned that it accurately reflects the sources. Right now, it doesn't. Jonathunder (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The lack of nautical miles usage does not immediately discard FALKLANDSUNITS. There needs to be a consensus towards a change. This could be attained through a Third Opinion or (I think, but don't quote me on it) by nominating WP:FALKLANDSUNITS for deletion.
Regards.--MarshalN20 | 14:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Nautical miles aren't the big problem here. Misleading our readers is. The source says the islands are 500 km off the mainland. That gives the reader an idea of the precision in the estimate. When Misplaced Pages says "about 310 miles (500 km)" we falsely imply it's accurate to about 10 miles. A good article would convey the source meaning accurately. This doesn't.Jonathunder (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
... which is a very good reason to discard all the "disp=flip" flags and the page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. BTW, I have tried to delete the page, but as it is in WP: space, it cannot be deleted, only redirected. I have also tried to redirect it to WP:MOSNUM, but User:Kahastok and/or User:Wee Curry Monster objected and another bout of wikilawyering began. Martinvl (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
No, actually it's a good reason to improve the precision of the measurement provided. It is perfectly possible to get the precision correct. WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is consensus and your attempts to get rid of it under the radar have been deeply unhelpful. Kahastok talk 21:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I honestly have no strong opinion either way. I would recommend for this matter to be taken through the dispute resolution ladder. On the meantime, I will keep working on the history section of the article. Please notify me if any changes are made regarding this "metric v. imperial" discussion. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Martinvl, please make those improvements. MarshalN20, I commend you for taking on the history section. Jonathunder (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is deeply ironic that Wikilawyer-in-chief Martinvl accuses others of Wikilawyering. For those who don't know, Martinvl has spent the last four years using every trick in the book - by whatever means, fair or foul - to metricate these articles. The best advice here is ironically Martin's own advice from a couple of years ago: If you must change units of measure, please follow WP:FALKLANDSUNITS to the letter, otherwise a civil war will erupt.

I remain very strongly opposed to this push to use this article, and the rest of Misplaced Pages, as a means to push the political objective of metricating the UK and the Falklands, in direct violation of basic policy and of topic-wide and project-wide consensus.

FWIW the argument for source-based units is entirely spurious. Source-based units are not backed by any policy and have been repeatedly rejected by consensus at WT:MOSNUM. Repeatedly because the same editor has proposed them so repetitiously that such proposals are now dismissed out of hand. There is no reason to assume that the units in any given article should match the units in the sources, and there is no problem if they do not. Kahastok talk 21:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's off topic for this page, which is for improving the article, not for attacking contributors. Please refactor. Jonathunder (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not off topic for this page. It describes what's being going on on this page and other parts of this topic for the last four years, including eighteen months where the topic was entirely paralysed (a paralysis that was only ended when consensus for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was reached). The entire post is aimed at improving the article - but in doing so it is useful for editors to know the history here.
I note with interest that you make no comment on Martin's attacks above against me and others.
We shouldn't have to deal with this POV push so continuously and so repetitiously, but apparently some have decided that metricating the article is more important than improving the article. I don't necessarily mean you here, but you have walked into a mousetrap and are best advised to extricate yourself as soon as possible.
The best advice, as I say, is not to use a system that has been repeatedly dismissed at WT:MOSNUM, and not to submit to the POV push, but to follow the local consensus agreed among all editors (including those who now disclaim it), a consensus that is little more than a more prescriptive and less WP:GAME-able version of the project-wide consensus at WP:UNITS. Kahastok talk 22:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, is that what you consider a consensus? Re-read it's talk page. It was never adopted as a standard. This article doesn't even follow it. Let's move on, please. Jonathunder (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was and is the consensus. Firstly at that talk page, where two supported and the opposition was limited to someone who didn't believe we would go through with it. Both that individual and others - including (despite his repeated attempts to claim the contrary) Martin - later endorsed it. Martin now pretends it isn't consensus claiming (falsely) that he never accepted it. It isn't true. He did. Even taken alone, the multiple years where the topic has followed WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is sufficient to demonstrate consensus. But we do have discussion-based consensus for it, as evidenced by those discussions.
If you feel the article doesn't follow it, then bring it into line. That's fine. But we shouldn't be going against our own topic-wide consensus and the project-wide MOS and saying that this article should go against local usage. Kahastok talk 06:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
There was considerable gaming of the system - by User:Kahastok.
The page never had WP:consensus - it was imposed by User:Kahastok as part of a bullying act, and supported by User:Wee Curry Monster(who has since received a topic ban for disruptive behavior)
Martinvl (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
That's just funny. You're the person who once claimed geography was a science and therefore miles were technically disallowed in any geographical circumstances. You're the one person who redirected WP:FALKLANDSUNITS in the hope that no-one would notice. You're the one who once claimed that we had agreed to use metric for distances over land and imperial for distances along roads. You're the one who repeatedly gave us sources that don't even mention units and announced them as evidence that the British all use kilometres really and just put miles on the road signs to confuse foreigners. You're the one who keeps going on about 2-2, when that isn't what the discussion says and even though both the two you claim to be opposed later endorsed the proposal. And you are the one, right now, issuing repeated personal attacks to try and bully me into submission. Every time you bring this up, you try to WP:GAME the system. FFS drop the stick. Kahastok talk 06:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
In the above statement Kahastok wrote "You're the one who repeatedly gave us sources that don't even mention units and announced them as evidence that the British all use kilometres really and just put miles on the road signs to confuse foreigners". That is an unmitigated lie. Martinvl (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I do recall that exchange occurring in the past - perhaps not quite with the tongue in cheek barb at the end, but we were informed repeatedly and without acceptance of any reality, that the British use kilometres. To be honest, I can't recall who though, nor do I think it important to go and check. The nonsense of what happened in the past should probably stay there. It comes down to: Should we use km or miles primarily on an article? So can anyone provide a summary for their 'side', without going into OMG THE PAST? --Narson ~ Talk • 10:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The bottom line is that roads are designed, built and maintained using metric units (see Driver location sign, sizes of signs in this legislation, design standards here, but on public highways, the signs themselves display imperial units (apart from driver location signs which show kilometres and some height and width warning signs which show either imperial units of both and weight restriction signs which show tonnes. EU "law" requires that government reports use metric units. Academic papers usually use metric units by choice. Most commodities are packaged and labeled using metric units. Martinvl (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
But, if we accept that, does law necessarily define usage? If your argument is that the UK is legally a metric state (Which I think is still a point for debate, as many metric measurements seem to be the convenient translation from imperial) - then clearly the evidence of the road signs indicates it doesn't. If the government passed a law saying bread was now called Tony Blair (to use a...is it Uzbekhistani? example), would the British people use that term? Would we be obligated to follow de jure over de facto usage on articles relating to the UK and bread? To summate: What policy on wikipedia do you think gives superiority to legislation over actual use (And I ask this genuinely, I've been gone for some time, things change, my memory fails)? As the policy and guidelines must be the starting point, I think we agree. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
@Narson - I suggest that you check a few things out for yourself - go to the supermarket check the ratio of metric to imperial units, do likewise at a hardware shop, look at a number of car magazines and check which values are metric and which are imperial (speed, power - mainly imperial, dimensions - mainly metric. (for example). Martinvl (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Martin, the ratio of metric to imperial units on a supermarket shelves might be a reflection of compliance with EU regulation inspired UK laws, but it doesn't reflect the will or preferences of the UK people. The UK is still an overwhelmingly non-metric society, despite the efforts of the lawmakers before they realised how illiberal, intolerant and discriminatory those laws were. Ex-Stanley (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The answer to this is that as a rule Misplaced Pages overwhelmingly prefers actual use over legislation. This applies across the board - hence things like the use of Burma, when the country was officially renamed Myanmar decades ago. Martin's response misses the point: he describes legislation but it's usage that's actually important.
There's a description of UK usage at WP:UNITS, which is based on the style guide of the Times (chosen as the UK's newspaper of record), and forms the basis for existing topic-wide consensus documented at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Kahastok talk 21:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Martin, no matter how much you deny it, no matter how forcefully you assert the opposite and no matter how much you try to discredit those who point out your misguidedness - the Falklands (and the UK in general) are de-facto, essentially a non-metric society. Yes, there are some people and some organisations there who, because of where they work or because of the regulations they work under, do use metric measures in certain circumstances; but if you were to ask a sample of men or women in the street in Port Stanley, London, Glasgow, Cardiff or Belfast their weight, their height, the weight of their baby, their shoe size, their waist size, their shirt collar size, the fuel consumption of their car, the distance they live from the nearest hospital, the length of their garden, how much they drank over the weekend and to guess the weight of an average elephant; you can bet that at least 80% of them will give the answers in stones and pounds, feet and inches, pounds and ounces, barleycorn-based UK shoe size, inches, inches, miles-per-gallon, miles, yards, pints and tons, respectively. Now get down off your soapbox and drop the stick once and for all. Ex-Stanley (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care what units the people in Stanley use, what matters is what the Misplaced Pages readership expects. The Falkland Islands article gets about 2000 hits a day, so unless every man woman and child on the islands check the article three times a week, the readership comes from outside the islands. Again, I don't care about the man on the British street thinks, I care about the readership - the school pupil or university student who is writing an article, the financier who want a quick overview of the island, the military strategist who want some quick info. If these people don't see metric units, they will ask themselves "How has this article been dumbed down? Martinvl (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't care if you don't care. Misplaced Pages is committed to reflect the cultural and customary preferences of the populations concerned and of the subject matter. Otherwise there would be no non-English Wikipedias, and all Misplaced Pages pages would be written in American English, and using U.S customary units. Ex-Stanley (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
One reflection of cultural and customary preferences is what local sources are using. Unless there are compelling reasons not to use these measures I think we should put them first. As conversions have to be supplied, it amounts to a battle about whether miles or kilometres come first. Frankly, I think that accuracy matters more than putting one measure or another first.Michael Glass (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Local sources; as in local newspapers, local private publications and newsletters, locally produced books, etc. - rather than official, government agency or government sponsored sources?
Shouldn't sources be selected on the basis of reliability and whatever the other Misplaced Pages criteria are, and not by whether they use your preferred measurement system? What if the best source says 300 chains - would you honestly expect that to be written in the article?
And shouldn't the units used be those that reflect the most common usage in the community or area most closely associated with the subject of the article?
For example, if the best qualified source says about 500km, and the local customary unit is miles, then what is wrong with saying about 300 miles (500 km)? Or if the source says about 300 miles, then why not say about 300 miles (500km)? Ex-Stanley (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Answer is that there is no reason why we cannot say "300 miles (500km)" in either circumstance. Source-based units is a complete red herring. Michael's proposals that Misplaced Pages replace the current guidelines with source-based units have been repeatedly rejected at WT:MOSNUM - in fact, so repeatedly that some editors at WT:MOSNUM now dismiss them out of hand. There is no rule or requirement that units on Misplaced Pages follow the units in the sources - project-wide consensus is actually firmly against such a system.
The answer to Martin's point is also as you say. His personal preferences are subordinate to the project-wide consensus documented at WP:UNITS and the topic-wide consensus documented at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS - neither of which support kilometres as primary unit of distance in this article. But I would remind everyone that, according to the statistics, the majority of the Misplaced Pages's readership in fact comes from countries in which people use miles as primary unit of distance. The logical conclusion of Martin's argument is quite the opposite of his suggestion: that we should be increasing, not decreasing, the use of miles on Misplaced Pages for the convenience of the readership. Kahastok talk 21:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem with arguing that "300 miles (500km)" and "500 km (300mi)" amount to the same thing is that they aren't. 300 miles is just over 482.8km. 500km is more than 310 miles. If the figure is a rough estimate this may not matter, but as Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I think it would be better to be accurate. Of course, I agree that we should try to source information from the most reliable sources. Michael Glass (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
If the source says about 500 km, then about 300 miles (or even about 310 miles) will do. If the source says it's 498 km, then 309 miles will do; if 506.4 km then 314.7 miles will do. It's an application of common sense. No matter what the source units, a sensible conversion of adequate accuracy is always possible. The main units used in the article should always be those that reflect the most common usage in the community or area concerned - and with any other common unit or units that may be desirable to make the content as accessible as necessary to the readership in brackets following. Ex-Stanley (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
We've been through this with you before - several times I believe. We could, in theory, say 300 miles (482.8032 km), and we could, in theory, say 310 miles, 3619 feet, 11 47⁄127 inches (500 km). Both would entirely remove the issue you refer to (being exact conversions) and neither would be remotely sensible.
Of course it is best to be accurate, but both 300 miles and 500 kilometres are accurate, to within the precision implied by the measurements. They resolve to different exact figures, but that does not mean that they are inaccurate. As per WP:UNITS, along with plain common sense, we should always be using the appropriate precision for the measurement in any conversion. Nothing in WP:FALKLANDSUNITS prevents us from doing this. Kahastok talk 17:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Falklands Units states: "In any case where the primary units do not match the source units, note this in the citation." If this is followed consistently it may partially alleviate the problem of rounding errors. Michael Glass (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
That seems a complete overkill though, an insult to the readers even. Ex-Stanley (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
What? You mean that following policy is overkill? That telling the reader that the source used metric (or imperial) units insults the reader? Interesting comment. Michael Glass (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I mean the policy is overkill. It doesn't matter what units the source is in, so long as the units in which the measurement is expressed are given. Why do you suppose the user would care what the units used in the source are, so long as the units used in the article are clear? To take that principle further, would you expect the font used in the source to be mentioned, or the native language of the author? Ex-Stanley (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand your position, but this provision has been part of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS all along. Actually, the best way to deal with rounding errors is to use the disp=flip function. In that way the display of units is flipped but the information is based on the actual measurement. I don't think it hurts to let people know that the original measurements were done in feet and inches (such as the gauge of the railway) or in acres (Lafone's original land grant in Lafonia, though it is helpful in both cases to give the metric equivalents. The same applies in the other direction, where information from Falkland Islands Conservation is given in metric terms (it was a scientific study, after all).
In general, my personal preference would be to follow the sources, with translations into the other units. However, there are occasions where this is not helpful. Let's say a source gave the area of an island as 103 hectares. An editor may prefer to render the figure as 1.03km to cause less confusion for American readers and then translate it into acres or fractions of a square mile. However, following sources is not an option for many editors, who fear it would lead to the complete metrication of UK articles or that it would cause confusion. Actually, it wouldn't, if only because so many articles are already inconsistent in their use of units. There is a huge amount of information that is only available in imperial measures, but the spin that's put on following the sources is that this is simply a stalking-horse for complete metrication.
Therefore I'd suggest that you simply stick to WP:FALKLANDSUNITS for the time being. However, if you want to change this policy, you might consider the possibility of applying MOSNUM policy for the UK. Michael Glass (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Striking out comments made by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Martinvl (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Martinvl (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have struck out ex-Stanley’s comments – he is a sockpuppet of the banned User:DeFacto – sockpuppets of Defact have a track record of disrupting any article to do with metrication, for example, when a proposal was made to delete the article ], the only support that the proposer has was from User:Ornaith and User:Pother, both Sockpuppets of DeFacto. I therefore class Ex_Stanley’s comments as being purely disruptive.
@Kahastok – you stated that I had agreed to the so-called consensus. The reality was (I might have said this in the past) the User:Wee Curry Monster was trying to get the article classed as a WP:GA. As User:Jonathunder noted here, the way in which imperial units were used could have prevented the article from getting classed as a GA. I was happy to accept a temporary “truce” on units of measure knowing that the GA reviewers would put Wee Curry Monster in the position of having to align this article with WP:MOSNUM or failing the GA review.
Now that ex-Stanley’s disruptive influence has gone, I am following the request by requested by User:Jonathunder, and am aligning the units of measure with WP:MOSNUM, taking as my guiding principal the units of measure used by all other articles about other British Overseas Territories.
Martinvl (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not accept that ex-Stanley's influence was disruptive, and there's nothing in policy that allows you to strike out large amounts of others' text, sockpuppet or not. (For the benefit of others, I wanted to delete Metrication of British transport - over a year ago - as strongly biased, inadequately sourced and mostly unsourceable. It may contain many sources listed - it did at the time - but most of them relied on WP:OR in that the editors were looking at all the units used for measurements in a given source and drawing conclusions that went far beyond the source. The same tactic has been used repeatedly here. But that is irrelevant to this discussion.)
You did not in fact align the page with MOSNUM. MOSNUM very explicitly calls for imperial units in several of the cases that you just metricated. You aligned it solely with your own POV, based on what you would like British units to be. I see no reason to assume that the fact that the article does not follow your POV, but instead follows both project and global consensus should mean that it fails GA. I actually find it more likely that it would fail at GA for failing to meet the standards of project and global consensus as you insist.
Your POV push is strongly disruptive. It has been disruptive ever since you started because of your continual attempts to game the system, including this attempt to claim that the MOS says something that it very clearly does not say. There is certainly no consensus to change in this discussion. Please stop. Kahastok talk 06:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
If you read Misplaced Pages:Banning policy, you will see that additions made by a banned editor may be reverted by anyone. Ex-SStanley has been found to be the same person as Defacto and I am therefore reverting as best I can by striking out (otherwise comments made by other editors would no longer be in context). Martinvl (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I have read Misplaced Pages:Banning policy. It makes it clear that there is no requirement that such changes be reverted. I object strongly to your attempts to leave the talk page in a state where the conversion is very difficult to follow. As I said before, I am happy to endorse quite a few of the points that he made, and it is useful to have relevant points made on the talk page, regardless of who made them. You have made the SPI result quite clear and anyone reading this page will see it.
As to your perverse claim in an edit summary that 100% metrication is required by WP:MOSNUM, given that it is difficult to believe after all these years that you have never actually read WP:MOSNUM, I must put this down as yet another attempt to game the system. Kahastok talk 18:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Although there is no requirement to remove them, it is permissible to remove them and removing them falls outside the 3RR rules. I have again stricken them. Please do not reinstate them. Martinvl (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverting the edits of a banned editor does not count for 3RR. But reverting the edits of a non-banned editor does count toward 3RR, and there's nothing in 3RR preventing you from being blocked for repeatedly editing the talk page posts of banned editors, which is what you seem to be claiming. Misplaced Pages does not routinely strike the talk page comments of editors who are subsequently banned, or who were editing while banned, and this page is no exception. There is no good reason why these edits need to be stricken. Anyone judging consensus will be perfectly aware of concerns you have. But right now it looks very much like you're just trying to strike his comments because you disagree with them, and to undermine the comments of others who responded to him. Kahastok talk 20:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
If you read Misplaced Pages:Banning policy, you will see " An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances.". "Any account" includes the account of a sock-puppet. I have again striken Ex-Stanley's (aka DeFacto's) additions. I also note that you have now undone my changes three times in the last 24 hours. Martinvl (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kahastok's reasoning so I've had that text un-striken. For technical purposes, please regard the un-striken contributions as having been made by me; for all I know I am not banned and therefore am in a position to contribute such comments. Apcbg (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Can an impartial editor or some impartial editors come in and resolve this increasingly pointless war? I'm getting sick and tired of these pissing matches clogging up my watchlist and it's quite clear neither side can be sufficiently impartial enough to make the edits either way. You can level these accusations between each other all you like but NOBODY is interested in reading about it! Bring others in immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeJacketGuy (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this is a case for WP:Arbcom. Martinvl (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If that's what will move this into a more constructive direction, then I am all for it. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Daft question and I am not reading through all the talk pages but what do they use on the island as a system of measurement and why cant that be used? MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Great question, not at all daft. When I was there, I got directions in Stanley in meters, not feet. Road signs were in kilometers. Quantities in shops were in metric. It's a metric country. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Here are a few websites:
Martinvl (talk)
Thanks for that, second daft question if they use the metric system why do have we a problem? MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I have been asking that question for the past few years, but User:Kahastok imposed these ridiculous standards on the project. I have been trying to get rid of them, but so far to no avail. Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
OK not read that before give me a few minutes. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
That, right there, is part of the pissing match that I wrote about, even if it does happen to be true (and yes, I do agree with it). None of the current participants in this discussion should be involved in ending this war. We need outside editors involved otherwise this whole mess will happen again and probably very soon. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
OK but I thought I was an outsider to this? MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, I thought you were someone else. 20:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeJacketGuy (talk • contribs)
OK I have had a read of the unit preferences thing, (oh just to say I am from the UK so am used to a mix of metric/imperial use) frankly it is a bit of a mess and should be discarded, I would recommend you just use metric measures with imperial second for our American cousins (and old British blokes like me who where raised on imperial). Most readers are not stupid and can understand both but to mix the order in an article is clearly stupid. So that is my recommendation for what its worth, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Can I just put WP:FALKLANDSUNITS into perspective. WP:MOSNUM gives guidance for units of measure within Misplaced Pages. There is no additional special guidance for any country apart from the Falkland Islands. Why does a small archipelago covering less than 0.01% of the earth's surface and home to less than 0.0001% of the earth's population warrant its own page? Any discussion about units of measure has got measure that page against Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines. What it the page anyway - a policy, an essay, a guideline or just someone's private thoughts? Martinvl (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I quote WP:MOSNUM:
In non-science UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units (44 kilograms (97 lb)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including:
  • miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon;
  • feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight;
  • imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk.
  • hands for horses and most other equines
WP:FALKLANDSUNITS does little more than repeat this advice. It is consensus for units on Falklands articles. You know this. You endorsed it. We need a more prescriptive consensus on Falklands articles because of the sheer number of times that you have tried to game WP:MOSNUM, most recently by falsely claiming that it endorses metric-only, when it does not. Kahastok talk 20:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The answer to all of this is that we follow our own manual of style and our own local consensus. You will see that the local consensus does little more than repeat the MOS, with slightly more prescriptive language. We need prescriptive language to stop Martin and others from gaming it.

Martinvl calls them "these ridiculous standards", and that I imposed them, even though they were adopted by consensus and even though he himself endorsed them.

Of course Martin gives you a list of sources that use metric units. Do you not think he picked the sources for the units? He wants Misplaced Pages to campaign for metric units in the UK, and mass-converting all articles is a means to an end. Of course, nothing can be divined from those sources because they don't actually use sources mention measurement systems at all. He would also say that the UK is also metric-only, a fact that anyone who has been to the country would know is completely wrong.

The reason we have a manual of style is so that we don't have the reinvent the wheel on every article. We follow the Manual of Style, and the local consnesu. That means using imperial units in some circumstances. It does not mean insisting on metrication. People in the UK - and the Falklands - do not just put miles on all the road signs to confuse foreigners. It is because people actually use miles in day-to-day life. We should not be using Misplaced Pages as a campaigning tool to pressure either the UK or the Falklands to convert the remaining units into metric, and that's precisely what Martin is calling for. Has been calling for for 5 years. It is a fundamental violation of basic policy.

Martin is trying to mislead you. He is trying to trick you, just like he has tried to mislead and trick me and others here on literally scores of occasions. We should not be putting up with this POV push. Kahastok talk 20:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop dodging the question. Why does a small archipelago covering less than 0.01% of the earth's surface and home to less than 0.0001% of the earth's population warrant its own page when every other country is covered under WP:MOSNUM? Until you can supply a proper answer to this question, everything else that you write is totally without foundation. Martinvl (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If any other country needs such a page, they're welcome to it as far as I'm concerned. Given that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS does not contradict WP:UNITS, there is no conflict between them. There is no reason why we should not have such a consensus, particularly one that was endorsed by all parties (including you).
But it is you who are dodging the question. Why are you insisting that WP:UNITS insists upon metric units only when anyone who looks at it sees that it not only allows, but recommends imperial units in many of the contexts that you are insisting have to be metric? Kahastok talk 20:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok is trying to pressure me into a self-revert for the simple reason of disagreeing with him. Outside people need to be brought in before this gets any more out of control. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to ask for an expert in this sort of thing? I can't figure out why it's so complicated. From what I saw when I was there, metric is everywhere. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:FALKLANDSUNITS and WP:UNITS do recommend metric units in most contexts. It is only contexts such as geographic distance in miles, or personal height in feet and inches, or speed in miles per hour, that are non-metric both in the UK and in the Falklands.
The whole thing is quite simple. We follow WP:UNITS as interpreted by the local consensus at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. There is no contradiction between them. That means imperial units are the main units in some circumstances, such as geographic distance. Kahastok talk 21:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I asked you to self-revert because your edit summary led me to believe that you were the false impression that the current consensus was the metric version. It is not. I am pushing nothing. I don't even want to be having this discussion - I want to be discussing the large changes that have taken place on this article but this is taking most of my time. It is Martin who is pushing to force metrication on this article against the MOS and against local consensus. Kahastok talk 21:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving on

I am still interested in improving the article. That's my only agenda here. Now, the article as it stands misleads our readers. It's not a good article, and it's never going to pass good article review unless we can fix some errors. Let's focus on that, not on past disputes. Jonathunder (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Great to hear! But I have to admit your statement hurts my pride a little since I've arduously worked on all the non-history sections. But, if you were referring to the history section, then I agree that the current material needs better sources (the sources used are not of the best available quality).
However, if you have found errors in the other sections (culture, economics, demographics, etc.), please do mention them. I have the sources for those sections readily available and can answer most questions you might have about them.
Best.--MarshalN20 | 01:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
tweaked my statement a bit to improve its meaning.--MarshalN20 | 04:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
tweaked again my statement. "misleading" is harsh and not used in the proper context.--MarshalN20 | 13:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you are drastically lacking in appreciation of context if you feel metric vs imperial is a giant conspiracy to mislead the readers. Let's not engage in silly inflation of the problem, because on these topics it really isn't going to be helpful as there is already quite enough hot air. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Marshall's changes to the article

Over the last few days, User:MarshalN20 has been making some very large-scale changes to the article. While I certainly appreciate the effort, I do believe that there's a good chance that there's a few things in there that will want some further discussion, but also that it will take time for people to work through them. With such a major change over the such a short period it is very difficult to identify simply through things like diffs of the entire article things that might or might not be controversial.

We risk being in a position where WP:FAITACCOMPLI applies, probably not deliberately, but simply because we are dealing with such a large change and it's impossible to give appropriate scrutiny to the entire thing. The normal wait-a-few-days-and-it'll-be-fine won't work.

It seems to me that the standing consensus version at present is this, the version immediately before Marshal started his changes. We could leave that one on the article for the time being or we could leave Marshal's version, but both versions will be in the history regardless so it should be easy to switch between them.

I suggest that we go through the article section-by-section or paragraph-by-paragraph slowly over the course of the next few days or weeks and just make sure that we're all happy with the changes that are made - that they reflect the sources and that the sources chosen are the appropriate ones. Once we've reached consensus on a given section we should then go on to the next one.

I'll kick off with the first few sections (since the changes to the infobox and lede are relatively small) demarcated with level 3 headings. If you have any comments or suggestions, please put them under the appropriate section. Once we've done these, I suggest we add headings. I strongly suggest that we do this methodically and try not to open too many discussions at once. Kahastok talk 12:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, thank you for the hard-work on analyzing the changes. I'm honored and find great appreciation for your dedication.
I suggest we continue working with the current version of the article. Again please see the Featured Article Peru for the model I am using to shape this article. The Falkland Islands article is closer to FA/GA status under the current version, and so (if any changes must be made) it would be best to make changes under the current version. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | 13:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Marshal's proposed change is visible at: Talk:Falkland Islands/August 2013/Infobox

The differences:

  • The link to Desire the Right has been removed and the capitalisation of the word "right" has been changed
  • A few references, rankings and numbers have been changed
  • A Gini coefficient has been added.

Kahastok talk 12:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not know a Desire the Right article exist. It must have been added while I was working in the Sandbox, but the article should definitely link to the motto.
The new rankings & gini coefficient can be accessed through GoogleBooks. I don't know how much partial/full view any of you have available, so if you have a question over the inclusions feel free to ask. Regards--MarshalN20 | 13:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
With the link, I'm happy. Kahastok talk 22:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Lede changes

Marshal's proposed change is visible at: Talk:Falkland Islands/August 2013/Lede

The differences:

  • When discussing native Falkland Islanders, instead of "the vast majority being of British descent", we now have "the majority of British descent"
  • We no longer list Portuguese ethnicity
  • "because of" is now "due to" when discussing the effect of introduced species on the breeding habits of indigenous birdlife.
  • We no longer list oil exploration in the list of "major economic activities", but it is mentioned directly afterward in terms of the ongoing controversy.

Kahastok talk 12:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I can justify these changes, and hopefully others agree with my explanations:
  1. Having "vast" was grammatically redundant.
  2. Portuguese descent appeared nowhere in the sources; neither in the ones I found or on those already in the article.
  3. "due to" is shorter.
  4. I removed it to avoid needless repetition. The "includes" part of the list means that it's intentionally incomplete (only listing a few). The economy section (now more straight-to-the-point) does provide a more complete analysis.--MarshalN20 | 13:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Broadly, there's nothing here I have a problem with. I had a brief think about the change to "oil exploration" and was happy, particularly given that the oil industry is in its infancy and that the point is immediately mentioned directly afterward.
The difference between "majority" and "vast majority" is really a matter of scale. A majority is anything from 50-100%. A vast majority is really well over 50%, say (and I'm picking a number out of the air) more than about 70%. And you would be surprised if an overwhelming majority was much less than 90%. Kahastok talk 22:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The descendants of Jose Faria have Portuguese ancestry.

JoseFialko-FariaorFareas-Family

Of course with marriage to non Portuguese the ethnicity is much diluted. As was the case with the descendants of other settlers. In the 19th and early 20th century, apart from UK settlers and the Portuguese Jose Faria, there were Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, South Americans, French, Americans, Canadians. Perhaps with 19th and early 20th century settlers or their children intermarrying Falkland islanders or settlers from other countries it would be more accurate to refer to ancestries than to ethnicities. Dab14763 (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Using ancestries might make the picture more diverse, but I am not sure about accuracy. In any case, we have to go by what the available reliable sources present, and these focus on ethnicity. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 14:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

Marshal's proposed change is visible at: Talk:Falkland Islands/August 2013/Etymology

This is basically a rewrite. The differences, broadly:

  • It provides more detail as to the etymology of both "Falklands" and "Malvinas" (previously we just said "Falkland" in Scotland and "St Malo" in France, now we explain where these come from).
  • There's a little more on the UN designation
  • Falkland Islander objections to Spanish nomenclature, including the refusal to allow "Islas Malvinas" in the 1982 surrender document, have been removed.

Kahastok talk 12:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing is what led me to the decision to remove the islanders' objections to the Spanish names. There was also a slight issue of plagiarism from another website. If a good source can be found to include the material, it can go on the last paragraph...although I would also encourage it be given a chance in the "Sovereignty Dispute" section. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 13:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're referring to as "plagiarism". I don't see plagiarism of this site at any rate:
General Moore does not allow him to insert the Argentine propaganda term Islas Malvinas after "Falklands."
to:
General Sir Jeremy Moore would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document, dismissing it as a propaganda term
Though it serves mostly as an example of the wider point. For the naming, may I suggest we look into the 1999 agreement, which seems to have included a declaration in which Argentina agreed to review use of Galtieri-era naming. I do think the controversy over naming needs at least a mention - at present I'm not convinced it's clear that Argentina does not use "Falklands" in English and Britain does not use "Malvinas" in Spanish. Kahastok talk 22:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the plagiarism problem, the sentence cited to "Falklands.info" in the previous etymology version which (when typed in Google) linked to "ciaworldfactbook.us" (the web seems dubious, so I recommend not clicking on it) as a direct cut-paste.
Regardless, although "Falklands.info" and "psywar.org" are good places to cite for some support, they are not the best reliable sources available. Once into the GA and/or FA reviews, they are going to get red marked by reviewers. In most cases, the information cited to these sources can be found in more reliable material.
That said, I do see your point about the lack of clarity with regards to the usage of "Falklands" and "Malvinas" by the UK (and Falkland Islands) and Argentina.
The problem is that I can't find a reliable source on the naming standards. The sources I have read just state that "Malvinas is the Spanish name of the islands" (and end it at that).
This is also probably why the old etymology section had General Moore's view (to bring some context to the naming issue).--MarshalN20 | 23:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I added an explanation on the "Malvinas/Falklands" naming. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 17:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's useful, but it seems to be only working from one side. Modern Argentina strenuously objects to Latin Americans using "Falkland", but there has been a major shift over the decades. If you look at the article Beagle Channel cartography since 1881 you will see multiple Argentine maps that use "Falkland", naming the islands "Falkland Occidental" and "Falkland Oriental". Kahastok talk 09:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the need for balance. But, even though we know this to be true, I still need a source that also points out Argentina's disapproval of the usage of the term "Falklands" in Spanish. It doesn't need to be as technical as the one from the Spanish philologist (although it does have to come from a reliable source). The mercopress source is good for evidence of the problem's existence, but it does not go into the necessary depth. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 06:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Government (ex. Politics and Government)

I'm skipping over History for the moment, because I think it is likely to be the most thorny and because I'm not sure Marshal has finished yet.

Marshal's proposed change is visible at: Talk:Falkland Islands/August 2013/Government

Again, this is a rewrite. The differences, broadly:

  • The first paragraph of Marshal's version is broadly the first paragraph and a half of the old version. It no longer mentions the SGSSI, and the defence-and-foreign-affairs formula has been replaced with the islands have greater democratic autonomy, "while retaining sufficient powers for the UK Government to protect UK interests and to ensure the overall good governance of the territory".
  • We now name the Chief Executive and no longer name the Speaker. We also no longer mention the last election.
  • The text on the justice system is completely different, now describing the roots of the law and the RFIP, whereas previously it described the judiciary. The role of the European Courts has been removed.
  • A mention of the UK military presence and FIDF have been added.
  • We've lost the last paragraph on freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Kahastok talk 10:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reinstated the section on the ECRH as part of specifying the courts of final appeal - an important concept in the judicial process. Martinvl (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the addition Martin. I fixed its structure a tad, but the text remains the same. A few notes:
  • The "defence formula" is on the last paragraph now (which makes more sense given the context of its presence).
  • I only mention the head of government & head of state, which is common (and both are also on the infobox).
  • The last paragraph (on freedom of speech & expression) seemed more of an unnecessary brag than an important data. I mean, it even deliberately took a punch to South America ("significantly better than that of any other South American country"). Also, I'm sure plenty of other freedoms are protected in the Falklands...but we should neither list a few nor all of them (they're all important...but for a separate article).
I'd like to add that I noticed there was no article on the Judicial system of the Falklands nor the UK, both (although more the latter) which I found quite strange. There is, nonetheless, a Judiciary of the United Kingdom article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 13:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Of the remainder, my main concern is that:

Under the 2009 Constitution, the islands have greater democratic autonomy, "while retaining sufficient powers for the UK Government to protect UK interests and to ensure the overall good governance of the territory".

doesn't actually make sense. Greater than what? Greater than under the 1985 constitution, which is not mentioned.

Effectively, the FIG has responsibility for all internal matters, except inasmuch as the UK government has the reserve power to intervene to ensure good governance. The UK is also responsible for external powers - effectively, defence and foreign affairs. The FIG is responsible for the Royal FI Police, but the UK government is responsible for the UK forces based on the islands. Kahastok talk 14:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the comparison made in mercopress is with the 1985 constitution.--MarshalN20 | 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the fix just kinda pushes the thing back a bit. More autonomy than under the 1985 constitution is not useful unless the user knows how much autonomy was available under the 1985 constitution - which they probably don't. I may go and look if I can see a better sourced description, but what I think we should be going for is something like,
“ The Falkland Islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory. Under the 2009 Constitution, the islands have full internal self-government, whereas the UK government is responsible for foreign affairs, defence and retains power "to protect UK interests and to ensure the overall good governance of the territory" ”
With the details being based on sourced description. Kahastok talk 11:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a great improvement. I dropped the "defence" part since it already gets mentioned (in better context) in the third paragraph.--MarshalN20 | 15:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sovereignty dispute

Now part of the government section.

Marshal's proposed change is visible at: Talk:Falkland Islands/August 2013/Sovereignty dispute

I will come back and detail the changes in a few minutes, if that's OK. Kahastok talk 18:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph structure is retained but there are several differences in wording. The differences are:

  • It has been moved from its own separate section into the government section.
  • A different image of a "Las Malvinas son Argentinas" sign is used and it is moved to the left.
  • The first sentence has been changed from:
    • The United Kingdom and Argentina both claim ownership for the Falkland Islands", to
    • "The United Kingdom and Argentina claim control over the Falkland Islands and its dependencies"
  • Introducing Argentina's position, it has changed from
    • "Argentina posits that it gained the Falkland Islands from Spain, upon becoming independent from it in 1816", to
    • "Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain, upon achieving independence in 1816"
  • The second paragraph previously dated the current phase of the dispute in 1945, and noted a UN resolution in 1964. It now puts the current phase of the dispute starting with UNGA resolution 1514 in 1960 and notes UNGA resolution 2065.
  • The third paragraph says the same thing as it did before but with slightly different references.
  • The fourth paragraph says almost the same thing as it did before but with some references changed and removed. It adds a reference to the Argentine constitution and removes a 2007 call for negotiations.
  • The fifth paragraph is changed only in its references.
  • The sixth paragraph is unchanged.

I have a few comments on the above that I will detail after signing here. Kahastok talk 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


My immediate thoughts:

I am happy with it to be moved, but I wonder whether a section called "government" is appropriate.

The wording "he United Kingdom and Argentina claim control over the Falkland Islands and its dependencies" is anachronistic. There are no longer Falkland Islands Dependencies - this was a matter of British administration; the British Antarctic Territory (not all of which is claimed by Argentina) was separated from the Falklands in 1962 and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were separated in 1985.

Also worth noting that Argentina does not claim control. Whether one agrees with it or not, it is a matter of fact that the islands are controlled by the British - the government on the islands is the government of a British Overseas Territory.

I may go away and look up the details of the dates in the second paragraph, since the change surprised me.

I wonder if this section is finished - if not, we can leave this open and update the page as required. Kahastok talk 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Sovereignty Dispute sub-section is indeed unfinished. It's also the one with the biggest sourcing problems (please see the comment I made on sources a few sections below), most of which need to be improved.
A section called "government" is the standard for most WP country articles. Since the Sovereignty Dispute is a government issue, listing it within this section makes the most sense.
Anachronistic terms should certainly be changed and/or removed. I think removing it would probably be best so that the focus is centered on the Falkland Islands.
Control and ownership are synonyms, but control has a more open definition and synonym availability (see ).
I was also surprised when I found Laver's information. It makes more sense. The UN resolution was passed in 1965, not 1964. Argentina's protest beginning after the passage of resolution 1514 has more logic to it than "shortly after 1945". Many of the web sources should be removed in favor of more reliable material. However, a few important exceptions include the paragraph on the Falkland Islanders' position and recent history of the dispute.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | 01:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Arana-Southern Treaty

I would like to include a mention of this in Paragraph 4 of the history section. Are there any good sources that analyze this subject? Regards.--MarshalN20 | 18:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I included a small note on it.--MarshalN20 | 17:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Persistent political vandalism

User User:Emilioinsolera seems to be hell bent on disrupting and vandalizing the article in an extremely pro-Argentine view. I am at work and can't take care of this properly. Can someone help? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources 65 and 66...dead links?

A couple of sources used in the Sovereignty Dispute section (presently numbered at 65 and 66) are both dead links (they redirect to some other webpage, or simply state that the link is incorrect). Could anyone please provide a working source for them? Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 | 13:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories: