This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Argentino (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 25 June 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:55, 25 June 2005 by Argentino (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This page was later moved from Talk:Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) to Talk:Falkland Islands. -- User:Docu
Being very far south, I was interested to see what the average temperature and climate was like, and could not find it anywhere... -Greg Ubben, 2005 June 24
Where has the Talk:Falkland Islands page gone? And why was this page moved? Was their a discussion and consensus? If so I missed it. -Wikibob | Talk 11:44, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
- There might not have been a Talk:Falkland Islands-page. I suppose we could just move it back. -- User:Docu
I think you're right, google just shows a cache of the edit window, unless it did its dance very recently. I think I see what happened, Cantu used the name from the CIA country list, maybe automatically with a script. Problem is, the UK Foreign Office gives its full name as "Falkland Islands" , as does the Falkland Islands Government. The islands are not a member of the United Nations, who list them as the CIA does, but disclaims any claim to accuracy. There is no ambiguity with the original name, so I see no need for this name change, and it should be moved back. -Wikibob | Talk 22:01, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
- Ok, the article is back at Falkland Islands from Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) (and this Talk:Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) page was moved along). -- User:Docu
- Looks like User:Cantus moved it again. I think this is wrong because the vast majority of the English-speaking world says "Falkland Islands" as do the inhabitants, plus there are hundreds of links that are now all redirs - by moving it but not fixing redirs, Cantus is being lazy and sloppy here. Stan 17:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Moved back to again. Please do not move pages without consensus. Precent is to use the name used by the party exercising sovereignty (e.g. Senkaku Islands). --Jiang 04:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IMHO, it is really annoying to see a "💕" manipulated by political concepts. Argentina calls them Malvinas, and in fact in Spanish, Portuguese and French, the islands are called Malvinas (Malouines in French), so taking only the name used by the UK is a little pro-UK, ¿don't you think?
- In Germany it is "Falkland-Inseln", in fact I did not even know that they are called "Malvinas" too. Does anyone know what they are called in the US? -- mkrohn 07:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes! That will settle the issue. Ejrrjs 19:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Stop the POV
The United Kingdom "took" the islands in 1833, when they where under Argentina's sovereign administration, but Argentina "invaded" them. The UK's invasion was the first one, and the territory was part of the Spanish crown, so at the moment it was Argentine, and even though it's referred more softly that Argentina's 1982 attept to recover them. The war was stupid, it wasn't the way nor the moment, but it doesn't has to mean free POV.
- Going by History of the Falkland Islands, there was no Argentine presence in 1833, so "took" is a better word than "invaded" for that event, which generally implies some sort of actual or potential armed resistance. I wouldn't have any problem saying Argentina "retook" the islands in 1982 - a few will snicker at the idea that the Argentines ever had that much control of the situation, but it's not a wrong word to use. Stan 16:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If that article is factually wrong, why haven't you fixed it? Stan 21:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Because it is a sensitive issue and I think it is better to try to debate changes like that in the discussion pages. Actually, it was one of the first Misplaced Pages articles I saw, and one of the first "contribution" of mine (before registering). See also Falklands War (or anything on Gibraltar). Unfortunately, while one can be as antiamerican as he/she likes, the British Empire is such an idol that one can't even think to question its POV. Sad. Ejrrjs | What? 10:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh dear, what a bunch of uneducated comments. It's not "pro-British" to call the islands by their official name; besides, where is the slagging off of 'pro-Argentine' fiddling with the officially recognised names? It's not a "point of view" to abide by international law and recognise sovereignty as defined by that law; it's a flawed system but it's the best we've got so far.
The name of the island is not in dispute (except by uninformed Wikipedians), nor is asking 'what do the Americans call them?' relevant; the Americans don't have sovereignty of the islands and therefore can't name them, although you're welcome to think the world revolves around you and give them a nickname if you want.
The islands are recognised by the UN as overseas territories of the UK. Now, that may or may not be an appropriate state of affairs, but claiming that using the official name under international law is 'pro-British' is just farcical and makes Misplaced Pages look like it's written by a playground of 8 year olds. You may as well have a debate about whether to call Germany 'Germany' or 'Deutschland.' This is the American English language version of Misplaced Pages and so 'Germany' is used, but it's not what the Germans call their country. UN names should be the Misplaced Pages standard - CIA factbook is irrelevant, and it speaks volumes that no-one said that using the CIA factbook as the reference is 'pro-American'.
Wake up please. Life isn't all about Americans "POVs" and the British Empire ceased to exist 50 years ago.
- Thanks for your suggestion. I'll update the article to highlight the UN perspective.
According to the UN Committee on decolonization, Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is one of the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories, along with American Samoa; Anguilla; Bermuda; British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; ; Gibraltar; Guam; Montserrat; New Caledonia; Pitcairn; Saint Helena; Tokelau; Turks and Caicos Islands; United States Virgin Islands; and Western Sahara. Ejrrjs | What? 09:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fair is fair
Is there a clear explanation for Argentina's claims to the islands, as it stands today? In school we were briefly taught about geographical/geological closeness claims, historico-political reasons, etc. etc. but I haven't seen these clearly stated anywhere. FWIW I'm an Argentinian and I consider all those absolutely ridiculous, but they should be somewhere because that's what Argentina's government holds in every relevant international forum or summit, in the UN and so on. In Talk:Argentina an anonymous user has just written "LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS" and I'd like to revert that, but directing s/he to this article. --Pablo D. Flores 11:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Here you have: http://imalvinas.tripod.com/. Why are Argentina's reasons ridiculous? I guess that British interests for the Malvinas strategical position and oil reserves are also ridiculous for you...
- Well, no, the reason Britain has the islands is because it's populated almost exclusively by, well, English-speakers.
- English-speaking squatters. Ejrrjs | What? 13:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Squatters who've lived there all their lives. For a fair few generations. No different from the rest of the Americas, really, except a slightly shorter period of occupation. I wouldn't argue that Britain's initial occupation of the islands was possibly wrong, but I'd say that, now it's inhabited by English-speakers, it's become a good idea.BovineBeast
- What? The chicken exists because it laid an egg? The island is populated exclusively by English-speakers because the English keep it that way. Tell and Argie to try to set a factory or even buy a house over there. Mariano 14:05, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
- Actually, there are 25 Argentinians living in the Falklands as of 2001, the fifth largest nationality, after Islanders, Britons, Australians and Chileans BovineBeast
But lets not forget, the Falkland Islands were uninhabited originally, so if it had been colonised by the Argentines, they would be squatters as well.
Falkland War
The article mentions the loss of the war in the "Politics" section, and treats it as a previously established fact, but the war is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. This would prove confusing for those not aware of the war. neckro 09:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Self government
According to British overseas territory, the Falklands are in stage #2 of its colonial evolution; thus hardly qualifying as a largely Self-governing colony. Ejrrjs | What? 18:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could someone give any kind of support to the theory of Falklanders' self-government? Ejrrjs | What? 21:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
describes the extent of their self government quite well; they pass their own laws, subject to approval, but foreign policy and defence remains with the UK. -Wikibob | Talk 23:06, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
Self goverment means choosing the goverment by the people, not by the queen. The governator is chosen buy the queen, as well as 2/5 of the parlament (5 people). Keplers cant choose anything. Argentino 16:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)