Misplaced Pages

Talk:Falkland Islands

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.36.57.10 (talk) at 17:01, 29 May 2011 (→History Section: Don't Waste Your Time, Langus.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:01, 29 May 2011 by 209.36.57.10 (talk) (→History Section: Don't Waste Your Time, Langus.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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: 3 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).
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 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


Edit request from Fsmallmann, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In order to make this article not so biased towards the British point of view on Falklands/Malvinas, I think that were it reads "The archipelago, consisting of East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 lesser islands, is a self-governing British Overseas Territory." it should read "The archipelago, consisting of East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 lesser islands, is claimed by Great Britain as a self-governing British Overseas Territory."

Also, the claim "In pursuit of this claim, which is rejected by the islanders, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982." cites as a reference () a biased source: a British Government site. Thus, in order to make it less biased, it should read "In pursuit of this claim, which is (according to British Government) rejected by the islanders, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982."

Thank you! Fsmallmann (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid inserting weasel words won't help the article much. The first change you propose won't work at all, especially since if only defacto it is a self-governing BOT. The second change may be more valid, but I doubt you'd get a source conflicting this claim, even by Argentina. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I rather suspect this request is a sockpuppet of either the banned user user:Generalmesse, or alternatively User:Alex79818 who has been disrupting Falklands articles with a variety of IP socks. From the date of registration I'm guessing Alex. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, this one fits the pattern of one of the usual Falklands socks- course of action: ignore; if disruptive file a request for checkuser - that will anyway yield another trove of socks... as usual... noclador (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, I do not know the users you mentioned above and I have no association with Argentina in any way. I was born and live in Brazil. I just made some suggestions that I believed would help making the article look more unbiased. Feel free to ignore / not implement them. Too bad wikipedia is turning into the playfield of wannabe experts/"lords of the truth in the world". If someone makes a suggestion you don't agree with then s/he must be a socketpuppet of someone you have a dispute with? Disappointing.

Fsmallmann (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. -Atmoz (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It wouldn't do any harm in finding a second reliable source on the islanders rejecting the Argentine claims *Shrugs* --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I cited a few in the section #According to the British Government above. Thought I'd put one into the article, but apparently not - I've done it now. The point isn't disputed by the Argentine government, but it's not a difficult thing to cite in any case. Pfainuk talk 18:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and for improving the article!

Fsmallmann (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Spanish" name

Referring to Islas Malvinas as the "Spanish" name for the island is just trying to sneak a POV political statement under the radar; it should read "known in Argentinia as Islas Malvinas". Even if it is the primary Spanish name (far from clear despite the weak reference to a dictionary) it's not relevant. Wales doesn't have the Spanish name in the intro, why should this article? --Khendon (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No Spanish-speaking country claims sovereignty over Wales, unlike the Falklands - and we do have to respect the Argentine claim per WP:NPOV.
Your argument that it isn't the primary Spanish name does not appear to be based on very much. For example, at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute you argued that the Spanish Google Maps used "Falkland Islands" first. Entirely accurate, but it also uses "Deutschland" and "United Kingdom" - and indeed fails to mention "Reino Unido" or "Alemania", names that are universal in Spanish, at all. For obvious reasons, I don't accept your argument that this is necessarily authoritative. Pfainuk talk 19:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I was mistaken about google maps; I'm not qualified to say whether it is the main Spanish name or not, but if it is the reference given is still very weak evidence and should be improved. That's very much a side point, though. The Argentine claim, and their use of an alternative name for the islands, is certainly a relevant fact and should be mentioned; that it's also the Spanish name is not relevant. --Khendon (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Pfainuk, Misplaced Pages promotes a neutral point of view, we don't expunge material we dislike. Wee Curry Monster talk

Who's suggesting expunging anything? I'm suggesting a change of wording. In any case, it's not NPOV to suggest that all claims are equal. --Khendon (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

*COUGH* Pf And Wee, where has your pro-British POV gone chaps? OH wait, was never there in the first place ;) And I agree with you both on this subject matter --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh didn't you know we were simultaneously pro-Argentine stooges and British advocates? Can't remember where it was but we had two simultanous threads with both accusations. Ciao. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite being associated with a POV towards Argentine' claim, Malvinas is the only valid name for the islands in spanish. Not only in Argentina but in all hispanic countries that name is used just as in english Japan is referred as Japan and not Nihon. Spanish language is regulated and RAE discourages the use of the english name (quote: "No debe usarse en español el nombre inglés Falkland (Islands)", "The english name Falkland (Islands) shouldn't be used in spanish.") pmt7ar 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no issue here and they have it in English on the Spanish Wiki, so let's move on chaps. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
And Pmt7ar Spanish related things are strictly for the Spanish Article, which is frankly a terrible POV mess if there ever was one. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
And until 1930, the standard Argentine text books referred to Las Islas Falkland (Carlos Escude) and many Spanish speaking nations (eg Chile) do use Las Islas Falkland interchangeably. Just for information. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth pointing out that the Malivna House Hotel is one of the largest hotels in Stanley. This suggests to me that the use of the name Malvinas is not offensive except when one is using it to emphasise a POV. Martinvl (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
There's really no Issue here about that at all, so it's OK. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The Malvina House Hotel is named after the daughter of the original owner, Malvina, as it happens the name is merely co-incidental. Malvinas is a corruption of Malouines and its modern use in Spanish isn't universal. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
One does of course have to be careful when writing about the various geological basins that may or may not be oil bearing - the Malvinas basin is in Argentine waters and the three Falklands Island basins (North, East and South) are in Falklnad Island waters. Martinvl (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Which happen to be British Territorial waters, let's not forget. And the main sovereignty issue is about the democratic rights of the people of the Islands, which Argentina has little respect for based on events 200 odd years ago.. And a bit off topic? There is -no- issue here.--Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM, please. Everyone is welcome to their opinions, of course, but it's best if we keep discussion of the topic off this page. Pfainuk talk 19:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this article too big?

According to WP:SIZERULE, this article has reached a size where we should be thinking of splitting it. In many cases, it appears to me that this camn be done by stripping out less important material that already appears in daughter articles and in merging various sections. AS a start, I intend to start with the article on the economy of the islands. Martinvl (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen that page before. Anyway, the history section can be cut by about half. The landmine section, is it needed? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually think although according to guidelines we might think about splitting it, it doesn't really merit doing so at this time. Moreover it should be done in systematic manner rather than picking a section and hiving it off. That never works. A better idea given the stability of the article would be to consider going for FA status. IMHO, what do others think? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with User talk:Wee Curry Monster. In addition to stripping out less important material, we should also look at merging small sections into larger sections. Martinvl (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Well Climate can be merged into geography. Economy could actually use an expansion, although taking out all those pointless subheaders. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"I've never seen that page before." - That pretty much sums up Misplaced Pages. People you've never heard of before, setting up pages you've never heard of before, holding elections you've never heard of before, and then trying to enforce them on everyone else, especially folk who actually edit articles. -MacRusgail (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

OK as there seems to be agreement on improving the article to FA status and there are a few of us to spread the workload, I've asked for a peer review to start the ball rolling. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with going for featured article status, but if that means discarding large amounts of material I would worry that the baby might be tossed out with the bathwater. For example, just mentioning the major religious denominations is hardly riveting reading, but adding a few details about the smaller bodies, e.g, the Baha'is, helps to add a bit of interest.Even if material is too detailed for the main article, it should find a home elsewhere, perhaps in more specialised articles. Michael Glass (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I retieved the information that I cut out and have transferred it to the article ]. Martinvl (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

We have had the results from a peer review. Looks like we have some work ahead, I'll post my thoughts later and if we have agreement on priorities we can get to work. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an important article and I am glad to hear a group plans to improve it (and thank you for your work. However, I), but think it needs a lot more work before it would pass at WP:GAN, let alone WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The biggest problem I see with the article is that it is missing references in many place. There are some paragraphs with no refs and other places where there is a ref in a paragraph then one or more sentences after that without refs. These need refs (there is one citation needed tag too).
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The refs need to be consistently formatted and provide all needed information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • There is a tool box in the upper right corner of this PR which has a tool for checking external links. This finds at least three dead links, and several possible problem links. All of these will need to be fixed before it could pass GAN or FAC.
  • The same toolbox has a dab link checker which finds several disambiguation links that will also need to fixed.
  • The lead is not really a great summary of the whole article. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I wonder if the Relations with Argentina and Landmines and ordnance sections could be combined as subsections of an aftermath of the war or Legacy of the war section. I imagine the Military section could also be included here.
  • This is a WP:WEIGHT concern, but I was surprised that the War section was so brief. The Landmines section appears to be longer than the section on the war, which also seems odd since the article says the landmines do not much affect the everyday lives of the inhabitants.
  • The article has quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections, which impedes the flow of the article. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • There are at least two places where images sandwich the text, which is not allowed under WP:MOSIMAGE
  • I thought there should be more on Ecology and animals
  • I assume the whale bone arch relates to a history of whaling associated with the island - if this is so, it should be in the article.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>° 02:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Lots of agreement with the PR. Do we want to tackle this section by section, discussions about each section on the talkpage? I'm not sure if there's any high-class articles of similar territories around, but we could loosely base it off some of the FA country articles (Australia, Indonesia, etc.). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with much of the PR. Before we start a detailed program of changes, may I suggest the following changes are made in the article layout:
  1. “History” becomes “Pre-1982 History”
  2. “History#Falklands War” and “Landmines and Ordinance” be merged into a single section “Falklands War and its aftermath”.
  3. “Broadcasting and Telecommunications” be merged with “Transport” under a single heading “Communications”
  4. “Sport” be moved into the article Falkland Islanders.
  5. “Military” be merged into “Population and Government”, but the section on Prince William be moved into the article Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (it never happened).
The rationale for these changes has been the merging of small sections so that each sec tion is about the same size. Once these changes are agreed, we can then work through the article. I am of the view that there should not be any references in the lede – WP:MOS allows that on grounds that everything in the lede is repeated in the article anyway. Martinvl (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of those I'd agree with. May I suggest we dump the section on Prince William. It never happened and per WP:DUE it is no more than an isolated incident. Anyone object if I have a stab at re-writing the lede - drafting here first?
Would a no edit (see WP:NOEDIT) notice be appropriate during the process? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I've transferred the peer review comments to here. May I suggest we tackle the problem of referencing first. I propose we place references into 3 categories. These being footnotes (inline citations), Bibliography (books used in prepared the article) and External links. Is that OK?
This is a handy tool for google book references , I also find this tool useful . Wee Curry Monster talk 13:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The section "Geography and Ecology" needs quite a bit of work. I suggest that the article "Geography of the Falkland Islands" be resurrected (it currently does a redirect to this article), that this section be copied there as it stands and then the section in this article be reworked. Comments? Martinvl (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. The History section is also quite unsourced, but as it's very long I think it could probably be chopped to half it's current size. May be worth then making Falkland War a subsection of history. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
History is my main area of interest, I could take that on if you like. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that since the Falklands War was such a major and that is links history and Argentine relations, it deserves its own section (along with a description of its aftermath). Moreover, since the war is in living memory of many readers, it provides a good break-point as to where the history ends and the present begins. Martinvl (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with that argument, not much of an issue either way. I do however agree with the PR that either way landmines having their own very long section is UNDUE. Wee Curry Monster, go ahead and work on History if you want. Maybe with no subsections there'll be no more edit wars over the titles, like the previous Argentinian settlement one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
A good article that we could use as a reference is Svalbard - it has an area and a population not too dissimilar to the Falklands. Martinvl (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Good find. Martinvl, can you explain the new Government setup? I'm not sure that the small bolded subsections are a good idea. I also don't think Education and Health belong there, as those sections should be general information about education and health rather than summaries of the government responsibility. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved Education and Health to the section on Government as they are Government departments. If the Falklands are amnything like the United Kingdom, then both health and education are paid for thorugh taxation. Martinvl (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that although they are funded through the government, information about the health and education in the Falkland islands does not belong under a government subsection. Both sections could be well improved by general information, life expectancy in health and literacy rates in demographics for example, which may be out of place in the Government subsection. Note United Kingdom currently has them under demographics. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
That is why I initially grouped Population and Government under one heading. They are major areas of Government, especially since many other aspects of government are handled by the UK. Martinvl (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suppose if no other editor has an opinion, we can just see how the article develops. Can you explain the reason for the tiny bolded subsections? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
That isn't quite correct Martin. UK Government is responsible for defence and foreign relations, the rest is handled by the FIG. I would tend to agree with Chipmunkdavis in that these would be better grouped elsewhere. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The text in the Merco Press is "But the new Constitution will also enshrine a power for the Governor not to act upon Executive Council's advice "in the interests of good governance", or in relation to external affairs, defence, internal security, the administration of justice, audit, and management of the public service." This maps onto Para 67 of the Constitution (I checked). I will look into reworking the section on Government to reflect this. Martinvl (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Except those are reserve powers that can only be invoked in the event of corruption or malpractise in the FIG and the Governor would only act on the direction of the British Government. In day to day terms, they are actually irrelevant, could we see what you have in mind before you add it to discuss relevance. I would hate to see undue weight given to reserve powers that have no impact in normal circumstances - in which the British Government acts only for defence and foreign relations. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah I see you'd already done that, I've reverted it with a request that you discuss the changes in advance. Your edit implied these reserve powers were in use, this is misleading and gives a false impression. I did make this point before your edit, so it is slightly disappointing you went ahead and did it anyway. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi User:Wee Curry Monster. May I make a few suggestins regarding the section on government. Firstly, I suggest that we incorporate the existance of the reserve powers into the article by writing "... defence, foreign affairs and ensuring good governance". The term "ensuring good governance" also includes the issue of currency. As I understand it, whenver the FIG issues new coins they have to deposit an equivalent amount (+10%) into a bank account to back up the issue. They get interest on the amount that they have deposited. I have enlarged on that in the article Economy of the Falkland Islands.
The second point that I would like to make is to have separate paragraqphs for the executive council and the legislative council. The degree of overlap between the executive and the legislature gives constitutional scholars scope for endless debates. In the UK, members of the executive (the cabinet) must be a member of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords; in the US members of the Executive may not be a member of either the Senate or Congress and in the EU, members of the executive (EU Commission) may not be a member of either the Council of Ministers or the EU Parliament. The Falklands appear to have a half-way house. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind but I copy edited your comments to correct wikilinks. That seems a reasonable approach, could I also suggest you work this up in a sandpit akin to what I'm doing with the history? I have a vague recollection of the discussion over the constitution, I believe the term is unicameral. The FIG situation reflects the small population, with good governance guaranteed by the the UK Government. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am more than happy for you to have corrected the WIkilinks. For the record, the FIG is unicameral because it has a single legislative chanmber, unlike the UK, the US or the EU, each of which a bicamermal - House of Commons & House of Lords; Congress & Senate and Council of Ministers & EU Parliament respectively. The other issue that should come out is the power of the Governor - does it resemble the Queen's power or the Prime Minister's power.
Meanwhile I have created a sandpit for future changes User:Martinvl/Falklands.Martinvl (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that. The Governor is the Queen's representative as head of state and as such the power resembles that of the Queen as head of state ie not very much at all. For the Governor to intervene would require direction from the British Government, which can only invoke any powers in the event of corruption or malpractise by the FIG. Your comment on ensuring good governance would probably cover it, this being an overview after all. A query, why did you create a sandpit in your userspace rather than here? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the page - see section on sandpits - meanwhile real life is getting in the way. Martinvl (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a slight problem creating a sandpit page - my proposed changes have ended up at Talk:Falkland Islands?Government rework. Would those who are interested please have a look before I update the article. Once I have moved things, I will ask for a speedy delete of that page. Martinvl (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Units

Metric first or imperial? There's currently instances of both orders, we should pick one and standardise. Does the Falklands have a preference/official system? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a convention delineated on the project page. My preference is to use largely Imperial first per the usage on the islands but there has been a consistent push to metricate the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
At the moment there is an uneasy compromise reagarding units of measure. For the record, I would prefer metric units to predominate, but in order not to rock the boat, I suggest that the units of measure be those as they appear in the article at the moment. Martinvl (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Both should appear, the issue is that we now have a mix of both. Eg. "total land area is 4,700 square miles (12,173 km2)" and "the highest point being Mount Usborne, 705 metres (2,313 ft)". Both of those are from geography. I don't really mind which one comes first, and this being a UK article both are acceptable. Anyone want to make the judgement call? Count all current uses and go with majority? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages:FALKLANDSUNITS its a reasonably comprehensive guideline produced for the Falklands Working Group. We should probably highlight what we're up to at WP:Falklands. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Made the change to imperial first, as that seemed to be the general gist of the examples there, even though it said metric first at the start... Anyway, yes, noting it would be useful. In addition, Wee Curry Monster should edit participants list! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd forgotten, appreciate the heads up. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis - If you must change units of measure, please follow WP:FALKLANDSUNITS to the letter, otherwise a civil war will erupt. As I said, a very uneasy compromise has been reached. Distances are in imperial units, but rainfalls and heights are in metric. That is why I asked you to please retain the units as they are. Martinvl (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed: while I can see the point of switching the mountain height at least, this is one of those arguments that is very much best left in the past. I have reverted for this reason. Pfainuk talk 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologise, I did try my best to follow. Anyway, as long as it's sorted, i have no issue being reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that the present uneasy compromise on units is holding. Let sleeping dogs lie. Michael Glass (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandpits

/history rework /lede rewrite Wee Curry Monster talk 20:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done a preliminary copy edit on the history section. Could I get some feedback on what I've done so far. I haven't touched the Falklands War section yet. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously sourcing still an issue, but I suppose that will come. In terms of content, I think that something should be included from earlier, perhaps changing the first sentence to say "The islands were uninhabited when first discovered by European explorers, although evidence exists that Patagonian Indians may have reached the islands during earlier periods." I also think that the 1820 and 1828 incident details can be shortened somewhat, and perhaps combined into one paragraph. It may also be worth avoiding wording such as "positive result". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Sourcing won't be an issue I will tackle that before I put it into the article. I'll take those comments on board. Cheers Wee Curry Monster talk 11:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks for those comment, I've done a further copy edit. If there are further comments I will address those before formatting and adding sources tomorrow. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of adding a "Reflist" at the end of the of the sandpit - it will enable references to be checked. I suggest that the heading "Landmines and ordinance" be replaced with a heading "Aftermath" and that the paragraph that currently precedes the heading (establishment of Mount Pleasant) be moved into the subsection "Aftermath". Martinvl (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Pls note whilst I have inline cites ready to hand, I haven't added them yet as I was being fairly ruthless in editing the text. Thats tonights job. I'll incorporate those suggestions later. Ta for the input. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The visit by Patagonian Indians. I did some work last night looking for a better source. I'm not happy with the sourcing. As anyone got access to a more reliable source, I may remove it if I can't find one. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
OK added the updated history section as dicussed, still not sure about the opening paragraph and the sourcing of it. Comments?
Secondly if anyone is happy I'll make a start on rewriting the lede. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me - I think that on the reworked history is in place, the article balance will be a lot better - maybe we still have to do some work on the section "Relations with the Argentine" and I want to go over the section on broadcasting and maybe add a sentence about shipping. Then we need a second pass ensuring that everything is properly referenced, polish up the language and maybe trim a little bit. My pet hate regardign the languge are sentences that start "There are .... ". Martinvl (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have created a sandpit at Talk:Falkland Islands/Government rework - still working on the text. (The slash came out as a query! when I was creating the article) Martinvl (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am ready to replace the existing section "Politics and government" with the text found here. Any comments before I do so? Martinvl (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Done a minor CE, good work but it needs to be sourced better per the reviewer's comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Additional sources found - OK if I add it as it is now? If sources are still lacking, they can be done on the main section. Martinvl (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

looks good to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "Arms of Government" needed as a subheader? It seems to me that it would be implicitly part of the Politics section, and if it's removed then there isn't a random two lines at the top of the section.
I'd also like to ask if the length of the Flora and Fauna section is good. I tried to make it around the same length of the equivalent Svalbard section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The flora and fauna section looks the right length - if anything at the upper limit. Can I ask the same question about the the first part.
Some years ago I worked as a technical author on a DEC computer manual (DEC are now part of HP). Their style guide emphasised that there should always be some introductory text between a principal header and a subheader - hence the "two lines" that Chipmunkdavis refers to. Furthermore, no section should have a single subsection, subsections should be comparable in length and the introductory text should lead into, not dominate the subsections. I plan to see how the section on Geography and Geology can be modified in this way or whether the section that is there serves as an introduction. Martinvl (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The two lines there don't serve for much though, and the introduction being shorter than the subsections is weird. That's why just deleting the subheader and making the arms of government part of the introduction would be my preferred style. I actually think that relations with the UK would be a useful and expandable subsection there.
As for geography, I think a paragraph on topography wouldn't go astray, although I'd hesitate to give it it's own subheader. Is it worth making Climate of the Falkland Islands (Currently a redirect) to provide a link and a basis for the Climate section? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Navigational templates

{{English dialects by continent}} is appropriate for the Falkland Islands English article, not this one. {{Geography of South America}} and {{South America topic}} are similarly better placed elsewhere. None of these have a direct link to this article, and someone looking at this article is unlikely to want to go to other areas provided in this template, and if they did would go to the relevant subpage first anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with {{English dialects by continent}}, but not with the others as both climate and geography are dealt with in this article. Martinvl (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
By that argument we should include templates for everything that is covered in this article, which would end up with a massive glut of templates. There's no purpose for them here. If someone was browsing through articles on the geography of various south american countries, they would look at Geography of the Falkland Islands and access it from there. It's unlikely that they'd use this article as the stepping stone to geography articles of other countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing "Broadcasting" to "Media"

As a result of overhauling the subsection "Broadcasting", it became apparent to me that the press also deserved a mention, so I included them in the subsection and renamed it "Media". I also dug up some rankings to put the freedom of the press in teh Falklands into context in South America. Pleae check to ensure that I have not been involved in any WP:OR in this respect. Martinvl (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Admiralty Charts

Concerning this edit. The edit is does not comply with WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, which says that there should be conversions and that geographical distances should use either nautical miles, statute miles or yards as primary units.

But also, were the details taken from text or read from the chart? If the former, could we have a quote please? My concern is that reading from the chart would be WP:OR, which would mean that the article would fail on point 2c of the Good article criteria. It would be best, given the nature of the source, to avoid this by quoting the text in the reference. Pfainuk talk 09:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Admiralty Charts use either nautical miles, cables or (kilo)metres for distances. They do not have yards or statute mile scale. Moreover, on pre-metric maps depths were shown in feet up to 30 feet, thereafter in fathoms. None of this is in WP:FALKLANDUNITS. Furthermore, in pre-metric days tidal ranges were not given in feet and inches, they were given in feet and decimals of a foot. Making these elementary mistakes the article look amateurish.
Which part of my comments do you believe is WP:OR?. Martinvl (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not an Admiralty chart, so there's no reason why we have to follow their conventions. On the other hand, we do have our own conventions. These include the use of conversions between units and the consensus on Falklands articles to use WP:FALKLANDSUNITS.
But, as I say, this may be irrelevant. When you got the information to source the following:

The two islands are separated by the Falkand Sound which is approximately 3000 metres at its narrowest point (which is also its northerly entrance). It provides a natural shelter to shipping with a 20 metre clearance at its northern entrance. Much of the northern part of the sound which is clear water, is 30 metres in depth, but the southern part, choked with an archipeligo has a number of passages that are much deeper.

which is referenced to two Admiralty charts, was this based on text beside the chart, or based on your reading of the chart itself? If it was from a written description, that's fine - though I'd like to see a quote so that we can satisfy a Good Article reviewer that no original research is present. If it came from reading the chart, then I believe we've established before on this article that this is original research and cannot be included on Misplaced Pages articles, regardless of what units are being used. Pfainuk talk 18:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not recall ever having agreed that Admiralty Charts were not suitable sources. Martinvl (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not. I don't think it's something that requires your agreement: either they are OR or they are not. But I note that reading distances from Google Earth or using a Great Circle Calculatior between the FI and various landmasses was ruled to be OR in previous discussion here. I can't see that putting a ruler to a map, or similar, is likely to be different. But we can ask again, if you like. Pfainuk talk 17:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I read the section that you highlighted. It was not a case of whether maps were a reliable source, but how they were used and in particular one should be measuring distances between principal airports or closest off-shore islands when measuring the distnace between the Falkland Islands and South America. In the current case the meaning of the distance that I was quoting is pretty unambiguous. Martinvl (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it? It seems to me that it might be not be very easy to put a ruler to a map and be sure that you are measuring the correct distance for the "narrowest point". Can you be sure that the narrowest point is the northernmost entrance? From looking at the map in Google (which I accept is not an Admiralty Chart), it looks to me like there's a potentially shorter distance from Swan Island. It also appears that there are two points on West Falkland that could be taken to be the northernmost entrance, and that the narrower one is actually the more southerly of the two (the southern headland of what Google calls White Rock Bay).
Is the text that "t provides a natural shelter to shipping" your own deduction or actually stated by the map? If the former, I'd say it's definitely OR.
My inclination would be to say that maps would at the very least come under the primary source point of WP:PSTS - in other words, we can't "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material" found there.
I note with interest that you are changing WP:NOR to fit your interpretation here. I will mention this discussion, without further comment, on that talk page. Pfainuk talk 18:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The nearest distance between the two main islands is at the second northernmost narrows indeed, but it is 4.28 km (by Google Earth, accuracy must be more than adequate) and not 3,000 m at all. Apcbg (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be consensus yet in the current discussion on the noticeboard. I argue there that the appropriate criterion is Can a reader with no special skills look at the map and have it be obvious that the description is accurate? (Accurate as a description of what's shown on the map, that is, not as the truth about the islands themselves.) And that question should be settled by argument on the talk page. On the Noticeboard, I'm on the side in favor of allowing very straightforward map-reading. But here I have some reservations as to whether this really is that straightforward. It's not obvious from a map what does or doesn't provide useful shelter to shipping, for example. And with the narrowest point there's disagreement about the facts, so apparently the map isn't that clear. On the other hand, just reading a depth off the chart seems ok. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Timezone

The FIG has anounced that the Falklands will remain on summer time this year. Should we update? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I would suggest adding the text "2011 - UTC-3 for the whole year" (or something of that ilk). If it becomes a permanent fixture, then next year the timezone can be changed to UTC-3 with no mention of DST. Martinvl (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The USS Lexington incident

"A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a visit by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. Argentina claims the settlement was destroyed, although the Lexington reported destruction of arms and a powder store."

Judging for what I read in http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html (which already is used as a trusted source for this article), I would say that this paragraph is biased towards US actions. I'd like to propose replacing "visit" for "raid" (as used in that source), and "Argentina claims..." for a more correct assertion, since all sources which talks about property destruction are written in English by British sources (see http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html for sources of that website). Langus-TxT (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


If nobody replies, does it means that no one challenges this? If so, can an administrator please apply the changes? Or do I need to wait until article is unprotected to do them myself? Excuse me if I'm being pushy, but I see talking going on in other sections and not here, and I'm not sure what does it mean or what should I do. Langus-TxT (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to edit the article yourself! I see no reason to oppose raid, as it is used in the source. As for Argentina claims, it would be good to balance the claims. Citing one statement as fact is in my opinion nota good idea. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The recorded history tends to indicate the impact of the raid, in terms of property damage, was exaggerated by Vernet. He had a vested interest in that he was promised a tax exempt status if he achieved a sustainable settlement within 3 years. As the sources indicate two sides of the coin that is what I tried to indicate in the text. ie follown NPOV by presenting all relevant opinions in the literature. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Israel allegedly supplied arms to Argentina during the Falklands conflict

I'm not sure if this is relevent to the article or not but I thought I would mention it incase it is. There have been a few reports recently about Israel supplying Argentina through Peru with arms during the Falklands conflict. see the follow sites for more information

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8463934/Israel-supplied-arms-to-Argentina-during-Falklands-War.html

and

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4059254,00.html 94.168.210.8 (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It is much too detailed for an overview IMHO but thank you for the suggestion. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Sound

User:Pfainuk removed some additions that I made concerning the Falkland Sound, charging me with "reading them form a map". The items removed were:

  • The depth of the sound which was in the reference that I gave
  • The fact that the southern end of the sound was an archipelgo - anybody with a modicum of knowledge of maps can see that - they only need look at the maps in the article
  • The fact that the channels through the archipeligo are deeper than the sound as a whole - identifying this from the isobaths on a map is GCSE level stuff - if this is OR, why does Misplaced Pages have a template for maps?

If you visit WP:Scientific_citation_guidelines#Examples.2C_derivations_and_restatements, you will see the statement Misplaced Pages's no-original-research policy allows routine calculations based on data from reliable sources. In my view, the sources cited are reliable and the test "A > B" is a routine calculation that yeilds a boolean rather than a numberic answer. Martinvl (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The reference you gave says: "and has depths approaching 40m". The text you're calling for contradicts this, by citing depths greater than 40 metres. It says nothing about it being "choked" with islands in the south, and nothing about it being clear water in the north - both of these are original interpretations from the map. A brief look with Google Maps would seem to suggest that the narrowest channels in north and south are comparable in width, and also that the southern end of Falkland Sound is rather clearer than much of the north. As a generalisation, this seems quite poor.
I'd also say that the islands in the south do not appear to me to unambiguously form a single archipelago, as the edit claims - an argument could be made to split it into a Swan Island group, a Tyssen Islands group and a Speedwell/George/Barren island group, for example. That's all aside the issue that reading isobaths from a map would appear to be original research.
Why Misplaced Pages has a template for maps? If you need a cite for where a city is, or was at certain period in history, then a map would seem a good source. This does not require the original interpretations that you are introducing here. Pfainuk talk 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I am happy to replace "choked by an archipelago" with "has numerous islands".
  • The nautiacal charts show sandbanks as land - Google Maps show them as water.
  • I reject that the statement concerning clear water in the north and islands in the south is OR - it is there on the map for a junior school kid to see.
  • Is the reading of isobaths OR or not? Likewise, is the use of Spanish language sources without a full English translation OR - I don't read Spanish, but I read maps.
  • The nautical charts showed that the "clear water" part of Falkland Sound exceeded 30 metres, but did not reach 40 metres, however there were deeper channels between the islands in the south.
Martinvl (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Strictly speaking you don't read maps in the same way that you can translate text. One is a literal transliteration from one language to another, the other is interpreting a map to provide a textual description and this is WP:OR territory. If you can provide a source that makes that statement that is one thing but generating it from your own interpretation is WP:SYN. Sorry but I would agree this is not a suitable edit, particularly as we're going for GA status.
If you want outside opinion, I would suggest asking for comment at WP:NORN but I fear you will be disappointed. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Are there really that many sandbanks in the southern third of Falkland Sound (south of Fox Bay), in seas that are frequently more than 10 miles from the nearest dry land marked by Google? And surely the fact that sandbanks are dealt with in one way on Google maps and another on an Admiralty Chart demonstrates how this is OR - that there are different ways in which the same information can be interpreted, and you are interpreting it in one way and others might not come to the same conclusion?
I would note that Admiralty charts are designed for a specific purpose: to guide shipping. A sandbank does not need to be permanent or even exposed to be a hazard to shipping, so they need to mark them all. On the other hand, we are not trying to point out specific hazards to shipping in this paragraph, but trying to give a general description of the islands' landforms. A submerged sandbank would seem to be rather minor in this regard, and is not necessarily a type of island.
I endorse Curry Monster's suggestion that you take it to WP:NORN. Pfainuk talk 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I have posted a querry on WP:NORN. Since then I have gone back to basics and found the follwoing in the WP:OR; "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented". In this case I think that Admiralty Charts are a reliable source and that they would directly support my assertion. If that is not the case, what are they used for? Martinvl (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you please post a link? As of 12:45 BST I don't see any query. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
OK I found it. That is not the right place, see WP:NORN. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 11:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Wee Curry Monster. I have removed it (along with your comment - I trust that you do not mind) and will post in the correct place, but after my posting above, I will probably reword it. Martinvl (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

History Section

1. Mestivier was sent to form a penal settlement. 2. Pinedo did not immediately restore order as the edit implied. There was anarchy for months after, Pinedo had only been there a few days before Onslow arrived and Pinedo was only able to restore order with the assistance from the British ship Rampart. 3. It is distinctly POV to assert the garrison was forced to leave, Pinedo was handed a formal written request to remove the garrison. There was no use of force whatsoever. Please note that when I rewrote the history section, I have access to written sources with far more information than the online sources. In some cases, the cite is the book not the online source. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, so I must take your word for it? I did all those additions because they were in the cited online sources. They were all there before I get here, I didn't pick them. So if we have Source A saying one thing and Source B saying EXACTLY the opposite (as in Pinedo story), and we're taking both as reputable sources, the least we must do is point out the two versions and the disagreement, don't you think? Or are we going to take down one source to satisfy you? Langus-TxT (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
To clear my name and respond to the accusation of POV, this is a quote from reference "history3": "Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands." http://www.falklands.info/history/history3.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Langus-TxT (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh and would you please explain what's the problem with replacing the word "although" with a semicolon? I did that as a separate edit in the hope it could survive to your revertion storm... Langus-TxT (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:AGF Saying that text is POV is not a personal comment but a comment on content. The two sources are not in conflict, Pinedo had been away in the ARA Sarandi for a couple of months and returned to find the settlement in uproar following the mutiny. You are creating a clash in sources that does not actually exist. I note the brief history document doesn't cover this aspect in detail, nor does it say that he took command immediately.
Neither are we obliged to use exactly the same words as a source and it is often better not to, instead using neutral langauge and avoiding WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL. Online sources are not superior to written sources and if you don't have access to written sources, then presumption of bad faith in the comment "so I must take your word for it?" is not ameliorated by prefacing it with "With all due respect,". As to the rest, I disagree with your point and please note that the text was established by WP:CONSENSUS above, consulting all involved editors at the time. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, sorry if I was out of line but I couldn't believe that you can't see my point. I'll accommodate to WP:AGF now. Let me try again:
falklands.info says: "The British commander, Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag. Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands."
  • Don Pinedo refused to comply to the British request. I'd say is safe to assume he was against the idea of British control over the island (he was an officer of an Argentinian ship)
  • The Argentine flag was removed by the British
  • Finally, "he and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands". The only interpretation I can get from this phrase is "he left the island against his will". Do you agree with me?
It doesn't matter if he was physically attacked or not. I can say to you "Please sir, leave this room now" and at the same time show you the gun in my belt. I would be forcing you out, even if I don't put a finger on you. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/force_5
What you say about he being away and needing the assistance of the Rampage to bring order, is of no importance to my point, which is: "Why and how did he leave the island under British control?"
What does your source say about this? And also: what book/material would that be?
I'll leave aside the wording issue for the moment, as is not as important. Regarding consensus, I don't know why you mention it but at any case I want to note that "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions (extracted word by word from WP:CONSENSUS section 1.3 Consensus can change) Langus-TxT (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm well aware of what policy says on consensus, so your lecture is not entirely appropriate. You may also care to note that changing consensus requires a compelling argument from your good self. Consensus changes as a result of the strength of argument, it is not an excuse for blocking content, equally "consensus can change" is not an excuse for trying to impose it. i mentioned consensus to simply point out I wrote the current summary in full consultation with all editors and did not put it into the article until I had agreement.
Three sources. Two by Mary Cawkell (Falkland Islands (1960), Falklands Story: 1592 to 1982). Julius Goebbel (The Struggle for the Falkland Islands). Most sources say that Pinedo complied with the British request under protest.
The problem with your simplistic analysis is that the British protested against the appointment of Mestivier, requesting that the Republic of Buenos Aires remove the garrison but did not receive a reply. The squadron was sent with orders from the British perspective to expel an illegal garrison. Although there were 2 ships in the squadron, only the Clio went to Port Louis, it is also worth noting that unlike the Argentine claim she was a Frigate (a major warship at the time), Clio was a Brig-Sloop, one of the smallest ships in the Royal Navy, on a straight comparsion with the ARA Sarandi the two ships were evenly matched there was no superior firepower as you imply. The garrison also significantly outnumbered the 8 Marines on the Clio. The reason Pinedo chose to withdraw was that his crew were British mercenaries.
I've summarised the history appropriately for an overview, writing for NPOV to give equal weight to all viewpoints.
The other problem is you're applying deductive reasoning, which is essentially WP:OR and editing per your conclusions and deductions. And it was Rampart btw, the reason I mention this is that Pinedo had neither the resources, nor the wherewithal to put down the mutiny. The latter point is important as he was unable to assert control without outside assistance. However, there is a risk here of simply adding too much detail. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
BTW I responded to your point on the Lexington visit above. There is also more to that than the simplistic edit you proposed. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
"I mentioned consensus to simply point out I wrote the current summary in full consultation with all editors and did not put it into the article until I had agreement" If you read again WP:CONSENSUS you'll see that the process of reaching consensus usually starts with a edit in the main article (which I did and got us here).
Regarding your objection to deductive reasoning, I guess you're referring to what I thought aloud about the reasons of Pinedo. You can disregard them: they're not important and I don't intend by no means to include them in the article. What it is important is the phrase "he and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands", on which I do not deduct anything, I just try to use reading comprehension with you to see if we're both understanding the same.
Getting back to the point, it struck me as contradictory that you call my additions "simplistic" and the same time refuse to include Pinedo in the story. I don't think that adding one sentence would be too much detail, at least regarding this event. It NEEDS that level of detail because the events in those months are important for the Argentine sovereignty claim over the islands. I say it again: the events in those months are important for the Argentine sovereignty claim over the islands. That would be the "compelling argument from my good self". Langus-TxT (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
That the events are "important" for the Argentine sovereignty claim is not a good argument. All that means it is all the more important to treat these in an objective manner per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. More importantly to address verifiable facts and not present opinion as fact. Again you proceed based on the presumption that I refuse to include Pinedo for some nefarious reason. We are writing an overview here, of necessity this will be brief and certain details omitted for brevity. The salient points are addressed and there is a link to History of the Falkland Islands should anyone wish to read further. I think we have struck the right balance at this point. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I concur with User:Wee Curry Monster. If you look further down the article you will see a short summary of the British and the Argentine points of view regarding the sovereignty dispute alongside each other. In writing that summary, I did my best to give a WP:NPOV. Martinvl (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Martin, I find that section unobjectionable, but I believe the History section needs some work towards NPOV. I don't know who wrote what, so I ask to please don't take it personally and analyze what I say with humility and also presuming good will from myself. I do have feelings about this subject as some of you do too, but one of the virtues I'm most proud about myself is the ability to be objective (when not mad, of course). If you don't want to add more details to the section, at least some words and expressions need to be replaced or removed. I find these passages problematic:
  • "This became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later following the publication of the proclamation in the Salem Gazette" -> Why is this relevant? Is it more important than Pinedo and Onslow's interchange?
  • "The seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy" -> Were they judged? Were they guilty? Why the word "piracy" (Captain Duncan's version) is used here but at the beginning of the paragraph Vernet's actions against US ships are described as a "fishing and hunting rights dispute"? (neutral version). Wouldn't be more appropriate and shorter to just say they were arrested and taken to Montevideo?
  • "British forces requested the Argentine garrison leave. Vernet's settlement continued..." -> It mentions the British actions, but not the Argentine response. It may induce readers to think that the Argentine garrison agreed to leave. Even if Pinedo did it under protest as WCM's sources say, it wouldn't hurt anyone to add "which they did under protest" (this would be an short addition but I see no other way of solving this). Langus-TxT (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the text has been written neutrally based on fact not opinion. You seem to equate the nationality of source, with POV, this is not acceptable.

"This became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later following the publication of the proclamation in the Salem Gazette" Yes, this is an important point. There is a difference between what actually happened and what Argentina claims now. Note I report the facts and not anyone's opinion. "The seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy" This was the reason why they were arrested, this is a verifiable fact. I do not claim they were guilty. This is reporting a fact not anyone's version. About the only point you make of relevance would be to note that they left under protest. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A text can be very well be based on facts and yet be biased, by selecting the things you include, the things you don't, and how do you tell the story, the words you use. All the modifications I'm trying to introduce are based on facts too, the only opinions I'm sharing are about the things that should be said and how.
"Yes, this is an important point" Would you mind to elaborate? I may be very well missing something, but if you just answer with "yes" you must understand that's not enough to make a point.
"This was the reason why they were arrested, this is a verifiable fact" I'm not saying it isn't; read above. In the same line of thinking, Vernet arrested the American ships for illegal fishing, yet it is referred to as "a dispute".
About Pinedo, then if no one is against it we could include the protest note and close that matter. Langus-TxT (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I do hope you're not accusing me of selective editing, its rather irritating to constantly have to respond to allegations of bad faith rather than discuss content in a mature manner. I disagree fundamentally with your comment as so far you seek to cite the opinion of authors rather than the facts they present. Equally you can be biased by selecting only opinions you agree with.
Its an important point as Argentina in the modern context happens to claim Jewett was sent by them. He wasn't, they weren't even aware he was there. I make no comment on the modern claim, just the facts.
They were arrested for piracy by Duncan, I make no comment on the veracity of the allegation. That there was a dispute is also describing matters neutrally as the authorities in BA made a declaration that was immediately disputed by both Britain and the USA.
My only comment is that any note on Pinedo should be brief, we are writing an overview. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Save your breath, Langus. You're dealing with a POV cabal & this is not the first time they've attempted

to supress information on Pinedo & Mestevier -- I rather suspect it won't be the last. The previous time around they were arguing that the 1828 colony was a bilateral private enterprise while ignoring the fact that it started with a unilateral privateer commission in Buenos Aires. As usual, the game they play is that their chosen sources are admissible, and all others are not...or that their interpretations of the sources they cite are admissible, but all other interpretations are WP:OR. Or they'll make accusations of WP:FRINGE, or say that the argument is not "robust" enough, or call it "irrelevant", or "simplistic", or just outright violate WP:RFC. On, and on, and on. Then they ask "why don't you WP:AGF??".

Right.

But don't take my word for it though...if you look back at the discussion history you'll plainly see this article is being controlled by a cabal of British-POV editors. For example, see the following discussion topics:

-"Sub-optimal" July 2007, -"Nootka Sound Conventions vs. Argentine POV" September 2007, -"Phrasing and Sourcing" Jan 2009, -"CIA World Factbook" August 2009, -"Respecting while rejecting Argentine claims" Feb 2009, -"Starting Over" April 2009, -"Units of Measurment" August 2009, -"Revision of the History Section" January 2010, -"Falklands is a Non-Self-Governing Territorry" Dec 2010, -"UN Resolutions and more Argentinian references neet to be included in this article" Feb 2010, -"Invasion?" Feb 2010, -"British bias and edit warring and POV pushing" June 2009,

....etc, etc ad infinitum. There are many, many more instances if you wish to take the time and look them up for yourself, but as you can see, they've been playing these games for years.

They won't listen to reason; believe me, many have tried, all have failed. Even after you've proven your points they'll ignore your edit requests. If you continue to insist, they'll just delete anything you post on the talk page....they take turns alternating their "policing" of the article to avoid WP:3RR. Their only MO is WP:GAMES, nothing more. They count on ARCOM being overworked so they continue their WP:NPOV violations unimpeded and use each other to feign WP:CONSENSUS, you can tell because in all past arguments it's always the same people agreeing with each other, it never fails. They'll just take turns driving you up the wall, coordinating their actions until you become completely frustrated and give up. Then they let things cool down and after a while they'll assert that there's no current dispute on the article.

The only reason they're trying to obtain GA status is to further cement their authority over the article. Unless you know someone higher up that can step in and check these guys, and unless you're prepared to go all the way with a fight that'll drag on for months or perhaps years....it's a complete waste of time.

Not trying to dissuade you; only trying to warn you on what you're in for. No doubt they'll delete this comment from the talk page pretty soon (in which case, I'm sure they'll know what will happen again).209.36.57.10 (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories: