Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 28

Note on Gibran's work

“ Historian Daniel Gibran posits that Britain's withdrawal was "partly because of new strategic priorities and economic considerations" but notes that they "left behind a plaque" asserting the territory as "the sole right and property of His Most Sacred Majesty George the Third". Gibran adds that for the next several years, "Spain, through its vice-royalty in Buenos Aires, was the sole administrator of the Falkland Islands". However, the unsuccessful development of the settlement culminated in Spain's withdrawal amidst fears of invasion during the Napoleonic Wars. ”

If someone reads this note, it would appear that Gibran is remarking the relevance of the British plaque. However, he is most critical towards its relevance:

“ If anyone abandoned the Falklands, it was unquestionably the British when they voluntarily did so in 1774. The mode of abandonment does support Argentina's claim to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. This conclusion was not readily accepted, however, by most writers who were sympathetic to the British case. Their counterargument revolved around the "efficacy" of the plaque left by Lt. Clayton at the time of withdrawal. That plaque was subsequently destroyed in 1781, but more importantly, British silence between 1774 and 1811 and again between 1823 and 1832 "in the face of Buenos Aires assertions to sovereignty" was both a necessary and sufficient condition that signaled their intention to abandon the Falkland Islands. The plaque argument is legally weak and rationally unsound. The current official British position takes no notice of it. ”

See http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=8Y63V3TfO6QC&lpg=PA27&vq=1811&hl=es&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false

It feels like we are mangling sources here. If editors wish to present the plaque argument, quoting Gibran out of context is not the way to do it; he is actually a source for its rebuttal. --Langus (t) 20:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is revolving around the sovereignty claim. The plaque is not relevant for a summary of the islands' history. --Langus (t) 20:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

All of the present Footnote C could also be considered too much information for a summary. I wouldn't mind removing it; I think we can do it. However, it would be good if we could find a way to implement the footnote into the text without going into too much detail. I'm thinking a mention of "new strategic priorities" (in both cases) should be sufficient.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 08:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact of placing a plaque is a part of the historical record and referred to by numerous authors. I would not be happy with removing any and all reference to it, since numerous authors refer to it, it is of relevance per WP;DUE. I would comment that Langus' premise is wrong, the reference to Gibran is not remarking on the significance of the plaque but merely that it existed. The place for commenting on the significance, or otherwise, of the plaque is elsewhere.

Gibran is however wrong on a minor detail, the plaque wasn't destroyed in 1781, it was returned to Buenos Aires and recaptured in the 1806 Invasion of the River Plate. It disappeared shortly thereafter. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Now that I've had more time to think about it, maybe the problem is again with the quoting in the footnote. Unless any source disputes what Gibran presents, we should probably paraphrase the material (which should also help with reducing the footnote's size).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we should simply state what the source says the attribution to a particular author is not needed. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is warranted. Also, note that a) the extent of Spanish control over the Islands as a whole may be contested by other authors (WCM may help here) and b) Spain withdrawal is better explained in the context of the Revolutionary Wars, given that they were recalled by the Royalist government at Montevideo to defend the city against revolutionary forces. At least that's how it was presented in every source I can recall.

Also, c) British withdrawal is contested. Plenty of authors point out there may have been a secret pact to evacuate, made verbally as part of the agreement of restitution of Port Egmont. This is based on the testimonies of both William Pitt, First Earl of Chatham (from the British side), and Adrien-Louis de Bonnières, Count of Guines (French ambassador to London during the negotiations) --both texts are available online.[1][2] Among secondary sources we can enumerate Carlos Escude,[3] Caillet-Bois (p.142-143), Goebel (whole Chap.VII "The Secret Promise"), Destefani (p.57), Gustafson (p.14)[4], Groussac (p.140), etc. --Langus (t) 03:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean that the reason for British withdrawal is contested. If that's the case, then much further work is needed on the footnote than I may have initially expected.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to note that there were rumours of a secret agreement and that Argentina has continued to allege there was a secret agreement based upon those rumours. William Pitt did not take part in the negotiations and was not in Government at the time, the rumours are referred to in letters to Pitt. Goebel devotes a whole chapter to alleging there was a secret agreement and does not produce one iota of evidence to substantiate the claim, Gustafson does rather turn evidential proof on its head by suggesting the British have to prove it doesn't exist (you can't prove a negative). The accurate factual statement is authors have alleged there was a secret agreement but there is not one shred of evidence to support such claims.

Equally yes you can point that Spanish control is limited to Puerto Soledad and there is plenty of documentary evidence to show that British, American and French whalers used the islands with impunity. Spain actually withdrew the Governor in 1807, or more accurately the Military and Civil Commander as Puerto Soledad was a Commandancia, so Spain had withdrawn earlier. The evacuation of 1811 was iniated because the islands were unsustainable given Spain's reduced status.

I have to say, I think this is getting into way too much detail here. I am wary of every article on the Falkland Islands being turned into a monologue on the sovereignty dispute. There is more to the Islands than the fact Argentina claims it has sovereignty and we should not turn every detail into a navel gazing examination of the claims Argentina makes in its pursuit of that goal. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the reason for it Marshal.

@WCM: no, "Argentina has continued to allege" is unfair: academic sources (as shown above) study the possibility, some of them absolutely convinced as is the case with Goebel. As far as we know, Goebel, Gustafson, Caillet-Bois, Escude, ect are far more competent in historical analysis than Wee Curry Monster. They are reliable sources, and they are the only ones entitled to analyze the "documentary evidence". "There is not one shred of evidence to support such claims" is editorialization, and goes against WP:NPOV. We are mere WP editors, not WP:TRUTH seekers.

I agree that we are dwelling too much into the sovereignty issue, that's why I think the mention of the British plaque is most unnecessary. --Langus (t) 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If the reasons for the withdrawals, of both Britain and Spain, are controversial and in need of excessive detail, then perhaps the best solution to this problem is just to state the fact without any of that additional weight. In other words, how about we just mention that Britain and Spain withdrew, and avoid stating the reasoning behind it?

I consider that this should address both Langus' and Wee's concerns.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest the wording of Gibran is sufficiently lacking in detail to not need embellishment anyway. IMHO, I really don't think further details are warranted, or anything needs to be removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Marshal, it would be the best course of action. WCM, current wording does not reflect Gibran's opinion... --Langus (t) 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the controversial "reasoning" for the British & Spanish withdrawals in the footnote. However, the part of the plaque was left in it. I think it best to state the facts without the author's opinions (which should be discussed in the more-specific articles concerning it).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Words, Phrases and data that are not neutral.

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

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

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

3- "Britain re-established its rule in 1833, though Argentina maintained its claim to the islands. In 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands..." or the two of them "re-established them rule" or the two of them "invaded". IMO both were invasions cite:("While Argentine Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the Argentine schooner Sarandí, wanted to resist,[21] his numerical disadvantage was obvious..." http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute)

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

That is the first 3 parragraphs!!!!!! but it continues in most sections. (even http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Malvinas_cartel_-_Puerto_Iguaz%C3%BA.jpg is not neutral... it is the best picture to represent argentines claims??? it even has a broken thing under the sign!!!) google "falkland claims" i dare you to find a more anti-argentine picture (there are a few) cmon people... this qualifies for GA? Im kind of embarrased. whats left for a not so good article? Again sorry for my bad English, hope it doesnt ruin my points.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.247.175 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC) 

This page, which I think is official, says that the islands are 483 km from South America, so to round it to 500 is not a big difference. The word "enjoy" in this context means "has the benefit of"; the word does not not always imply having pleasure as in other contexts. And the terms "invasion", "re-establishment" and other alternatives have been discussed for years, we have finally kept those ones. Cambalachero (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should change it to Patagonian mainland.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

First time I've heard French isn't an ethnicity. Any more explanation on that? Is it the subgroups, like bretons, that are? I don't see how the distance makes an iota of difference to neutrality, but a change to mainland sounds sensible. Perhaps we should also remove the "as" before mentioning the BOT, as each BOT is different (BIOT springs to mind as a fairly unself-governed one). CMD (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The FIG website is doing a bit of a funny with its distance conversions. The measurement we currently give is 300 miles, which converts to the 483 km given by the source, and calling that 500 km is simply a matter of rounding for the precision of the original measurement. It tallies with an OR Google Maps distance test. The imperial measurement they give, 400 miles, actually converts to 643 km, and works only if you force it to.

For years we used point-to-point distances measured using Google Maps, until someone pointed out that this was WP:OR - and the distance given was about 300 miles. At that time we referred to the "South American mainland" (the closest point is Cape Virgenes, very close to the Argentine-Chilean border) and I think it makes sense to clarify that the mainland is what we are talking about. Kahastok talk 12:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes we've had that distances topic clarified before, and the results as I can confirm now (by checking Google Earth, hardly OR as anyone could easily verify that) are as follows:

(1) Minimum distance between any Falklands territory and the South American mainland is between Jason Islands and Punta Buque, 455 km = 283 mi = 246 nm (the distance between the Falklands and Cabo Virgenes is 499 km = 310 mi = 270 nm);

(2) Minimum distance between any Falklands and Argentine territories is between a small island off the south coast of West Falkland (Bird Island) and Isla Estados, 342 km = 212 mi = 185 nm.

Season's greetings to everybody! Apcbg (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again sorry for my bad english, and hope it doesnt spoil my effors for a better article in such a sensitive issue.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.247.175 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC) 

"British Oversea Territory" is the administrative term for British territories under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom. It says nothing about the legitimacy of that claim (and by the way was introduced in 2002, not 1983 (this was an administrative change).

You can invade you own land, invasion means

invasion

ɪnˈveɪʒ(ə)n/

noun

noun: invasion; plural noun: invasions

   :1.
   :an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

There are many instances of invasions by a 'host nation' being called an invasion.

The lead does not list every fact, now we could remove native, and replace it with self-identified.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Ethnicity and race are difficult concepts to understand, mainly because they are created by the equally complex human mind. Naturally, we're all Homo sapiens. The Wikipedia article on ethnic group is a great start, but I can recommend you some books if you're truly interested in the topic.

The consensus that governs this article has been developed throughout the several articles concerning the Falkland Islands. For example, last year there was a consensus to change "re-establishment" to "reassertion" (see [5]) in the article reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833).

My definition of "neutral" does not seem to align with yours, therefore I am unable to understand what you mean by "a more neutral picture".

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia is not an organ of the United Nations, and the view(s) of said institution (while relevant) are not the only reliable material used to build an encyclopedic work.

The archipelago has various official names, and the formal consensus here is to use the official English name (just as the Spanish Wikipedia has a consensus on using the Spanish name).

The current state of the article reflects Wikipedia consensus and the mainstream literature. However, let me again emphasize that you are free to call the islands what you wish and define them as you want.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Please read the "geographic naming convention" at the top of this talk page (or follow this link).

It should provide more information on the present naming consensus.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Good. Now please read WP:UCN.

As you wrote, "[i]ts obvious the most frequent used name in [E]nglish is Falkland."

You would need to first address this matter with the naming convention in that article's talk page.

Happy new year.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I think the consensus is to use the common name in English as this is English Wikipedia, just had a look at http://www.falklands.gov.fk/ and I cant see anything about changing the name as far as I can see it still is called Falkland Islands which appears to match the English common name and the name of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

On the point of not using Malvinas as it is confusing (mainly to non native English speakers), Malvinas is clearly mentioned in the lead and it redirects to this article so unlikely that a user cant find the right article, if they really did not know what the Islands are called it would only take a few minutes read of the article to enlighten them, if they are still confused then the wikipedia article in whichever language they understand also explains it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-English speakers are also likely to have difficulties understanding the titles of articles like whale and snow. We're an English-language encyclopædia and thus English-language usage is most important.

It's also worth reiterating that "Falkland Islands" is the overwhelmingly preferred usage in English-language sources - and particularly that that includes sources that take no side in the dispute and sources that are mildly hostile to the British position. "Falkland Islands" is not a POV term in English. It's not uncommon for neutral sources to acknowledge "Malvinas" when discussing the dispute - this is similar to our convention. Mixed forms are only really used in English by diplomats appeasing Argentina - hence the UN usage, though let's remember that the UN is not and never has been a politically neutral body. Kahastok talk 12:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Point 1, if you are understanding it correctly you will know that it is neutral and factual, and thus not problematic.

Point 2, chances are most non-native speakers are not going to be confused by "Falkland Islands". But it makes no difference: it's not our problem.

Point 3, the quotes themselves demonstrate that they do not apply ("Falkland Islands" is not ambiguous or inaccurate, is overwhelmingly more common in English than any alternative, and does not have problems as per the guideline).

Point 4, you point at a style guide for internal use at the United Nations, not a definitive decision made by United Nations as to the name of the islands. This is unsurprising since the United Nations does not make definitive decisions about naming of countries or territories. You demonstrate that my point was accurate. Kahastok talk 14:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Point 1, the UN does not describe the islands' status as colonial, but even if they did, it would still be better for us to describe the status rather than using loaded terms such as "colony" or "colonial".

Point 2, given that anyone who types "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", "Malvinas", "Islas Malvinas", "Malvinas Islands" or any one of a number of other phrases into the search box will get this article, your proposal does not make this article easier to find.

Point 3, that the UN includes "(Malvinas)" does not make "Falkland Islands" inaccurate. Note that the UN does not claim or suggest that "Falkland Islands" is inaccurate.

Point 4, UN POV has not become inherently neutral since the last time you were told it wasn't neutral, nor the time before, nor the time before that. The fact that there is no such thing as a "United Nations Official name" remains unchanged. Of all possible variations, the current title is the most in line with relevant policies (including our policy on neutrality) and with English usage, and that is what is important.

I'm going to stop responding at this stage, because I see no prospect of any consensus for any position other than the status quo on the matters to which you object. Kahastok talk 15:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• I think it is time to close this now as it is becoming disruptive and uncivil. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

It's worth bearing in mind that the views of the Special Committee are not views of the UN, unless they successfully pass through the Fourth Committee and are adopted by Security Council or General Assembly. This has not happened for anything Falklands-related - they have not made it through the Fourth Committee - since the 1980s. Argentina tends to try and dress up the proceedings of the Special Committee as views - even resolutions - of the UN, but this is not the case. Kahastok talk 22:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

To add to this, let's remember that even if the IP were able to demonstrate an actual current position taken by the UN - meaning the Security Council or General Assembly, not the C24/Special Committee - that the islands are a "colony" (and he won't because the UN hasn't taken any position at all on the islands in at least 25 years), the question would still be whether it is appropriate to replace a neutral description of the degree of self-government enjoyed by the islanders with - effectively - an insult. I would suggest that the answer is no, regardless. Kahastok talk 23:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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

I do not follow you. The UN says it should be called in English the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), which we do. It lists the island as a non-self-governing territory, which is the same as an overseas territory under UK law. The UN has never said it is part of Argentina, the article does not say it is part of the UK. It is however administered by the UK as a BOT. So also was Hong Kong, even though the UK acknowledged it as part of China. TFD (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the logic here. You're telling us that the Falklands should be stated as a colony based on the Argentine political POV, how is that not defending the Argentine POV? That's precisely what you're doing. As for the UN, ignoring the fact that it isn't a politically neutral body in the slighest, it says the Falkland's is a non self-governing territory. (PS. Argentina isn't willing to do dialogue with the UK either, Argentina will only accept the complete transfer of sovereignty and will not budge from that position, that isn't a negotiation and thus no talks will take place, and the UN has no 'authority' in the matter, you give the UN WAY to much credit, presumably because it suits you to do so in this case.)--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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

If you feel that strongly about title I suggest you start a move request (instructions on how to do this are here: Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move). I have no opinion on the name of the page, but it would seem that many institutions that wish to remain neutral (such as the UN, but also the CIA) use the designation "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". But (as we're talking about precedents outside the English Wikipedia) I would note that the Spanish Wikipedia has separate pages for the archipelago and the British Overseas Territory, neither have "Falklands" in their title.

It is off topic, but as you randomly brought it up, I should say that the UK is constitutionally obligated to consult the Islanders on matters of sovereignty. However, Argentina refuses to talk to the UK if Islanders are present (as demonstrated when Héctor Timerman visited London last year), describing them as a 'third party'. Philip Stevens (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a major problem with the notion that we should, for no reason at all, disregard reams of policy on article titles by deliberately choosing a non-English, uncommon and biased name over the neutral, overwhelmingly common and English-language name that we use at present. Kahastok talk 18:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The UN is merely a forum and platform for member states. Resolutions are passed by nations, and are not the views of the 'UN'. The only thing the source supports is that the SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION considers the Falklands a colony. By all means add that to the article, however in my opinion it is not by itself reason to change the anything else. The aforementioned commitee has, btw, been criticised heavily by commentators and is comprised entirely of nations that themselves were former colonies or invariable preclude every foreign policy announcement with a statement condemning 'western imperialism', so yeah... --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No, please don't add it, as it would be massively WP:UNDUE weight. The C24 is already given ample coverage both in this and the article about the dispute. This is an article about the Falkland Islands, not a page for throwing around insults like "colony" (and yes, that's how the word is used, whether the IP likes it or not). Kahastok talk 18:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The only point worthy of discussion is whether or not to incorporate the "(Malvinas)" term into the title. I suggest a formal move request to be filed in order to properly present points in favor (and against) the change. All other points have been discussed and finalized, and continuing to push for it is disruptive (please read WP:IDHT). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Apcbg (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if 186.125.91.108 could put forward their point without the snide comments or passive agressive attitude. Labelling the people who disagree with you as nationalists is not very good for debating and just reveals that they are emotionally bias with the issue. Mishka Shaw (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Just as certain sources use the term "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" in their titles, others also simply use the term "Falkland Islands". It really comes down to a matter of consensus, although I assume that Wikipedia's manual of style may also be a decisive factor. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment 1: "As a British overseas territory, the islands enjoy a large degree of internal self-governance, with the United Kingdom guaranteeing good governance and taking responsibility for their defence and foreign affairs" this is British/FI speech indeed. I think that at least quotation marks are warranted.

Comment 2: I've always said that "reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands" is an euphemism, but in any case that should be discussed in that article's talk page. --Langus (t) 02:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Comment 1, there is indeed a small difference between the Government section with the introduction. The section mentions that the Falklands "have full internal self-government", but the introduction mentions "large degree of internal self-governance". The rest of the sentence does not seem problematic ("with the UK guaranteeing good governance and taking responsibility for their defence and foreign afairs").

How should the first part of the sentence be fixed?

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, "good" governance is vague enough as to be questionable. I know I've read opinions against this overseeing in the case of Turks and Caicos Islands.[6][7]

For starters, a reference would be good for that expression. Even if the sentence is in the lede, there's no policy forbidding us of putting references there --specially if it could be challenged, as I believe is happening right now. --Langus (t) 03:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Referencing it is not necessary if we get rid of the vague statements and match the introductory text with the sourced text in the Government section.

The source (in the Government section) is used to cite "full internal self-government". This means that there is no partial self-government (including no "large degree" or "minor degree").

The "good governance" part is not only vague, but also pointless. No one is going to question what kind of government the UK guarantees, and it's safe to assume it will not guarantee a bad one.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I notice that the Wiki article on East Timor used the name "East Timor" even though the country itself calls itself in English "Timor Leste". So it seems that Wiki is consistent with its policy "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title." --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The population isn't primarily of native

Where are the references for this thing?. It's well-known the "native" falklanders are very few living in this islands. Most of them are living in Great Britain, and the Falklands/Malvinas it's one of the most militarized areas in the world, how much of that percent are from the British Forces?. And... is there a census? And it's validated for a International Organisation?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.169.76 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Map

The map currently used is centred on the South Pole, 4000km from the islands, and therefore doesn't depict the size of the islands, or the distance from neighbouring landmasses well at all. Screenshot of file in Inkscape. Luckily however, there is a orthographic projection centred only 1500km from the islands (this is a lot more accurate, as the effect is magnified). Using this, I could pretty easily create a similar map to the current one, but more accurately centred (and with the more universal green colour scheme). Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 16:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the result would be still better if we could use a map centred on the Falkland Islands themselves instead. Apcbg (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The results would be better, but someone would have to create that map. I don't know how. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's how it looks in comparison:

    

Not perfect, but a lot less distorted. If this is okay, I'll add a zoomed in and world locator inserts. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to have the image cropped to provide more detail, say like this:

Apcbg (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that editors review this conversation, which is where the current map was adopted.

I think I'd want something a bit closer in than the cropped version above, or with an inset map, FWIW. Kahastok talk 19:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have looked at that discussion, but I think the participants in that discussion probably weren't aware that, that map is centred on the south pole, 4000km from the islands. Using File:ARG orthographic.svg, centred only 1500km north of the islands I am willing to create a similar map (with inserts). I'm simply looking for any additional suggestions, as in the previous discussion, editors only had a limited choice. The obvious change is to the now universal green-grey colour scheme. I'm not going to add the inserts until the zoom and proportions are agreed, as they will have to be modified for every change. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

How is this:

Rob (talk | contribs) 19:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I like it.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving the globe midpoint closer to the Falklands sounds like a good idea. CMD (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How about bottom right corner? --Langus (t) 04:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? Rob (talk | contribs) 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can change the map insert to:

I think this is what you're suggesting?

Rob (talk | contribs) 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Forget it actually. Standard Robinson's is likely more accessible. Go with yours, looks good. CMD (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could try a version with the two map inserts located in the lower left and upper right angles respectively, like it was on the old map? And yes, it would seem more natural to have the world map insert centred on the Americas rather than Europe. Apcbg (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the current arrangement. I don't really see the point in moving the zoom insert further from the islands (and it probably wouldn't look great as this map is centred on the Falklands unlike the old one), and the top-left seems the most logical place for the world map insert. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

While the top-left is a logical place for the world map insert in principle, here it overlaps with South America which could be avoided by using the bottom-left space for better visibility instead. By the way, the old world map insert seems more compact (we probably don't need country boundaries on such a small scale image) and true to the Earth's shape. Apcbg (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the world map insert, thoughts? Can be changed back of course. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Rob's second proposed map, "File:Location map of the Falklands.svg"; it is high detail and politically neutral. IJA (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I like both maps, but Rob's seems like the standard across other article pages. Good job!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Rob984:, I was referring to the mini-world map, which is also Apcbg's first point. Sorry for not being clear. --Langus (t) 11:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

First off the colours in the map don't adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, and secondly I agree-if someone can make the map-that the Falkland Islands need to be more prominent in the zoom-in. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the Wikipedia guideline on these maps? I'm currently working with the WikiProject Maps convention for orthographic maps. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The positions and dimensions of the inserts seem to be what people are most concerned about. I don't think making the zoom insert as large as possible is ideal, as I don't think this would look aesthetically good. It would show greater detail of the islands, but is that much detail really necessary for a locator map? Additionally, whether South America is covered by the world map insert is controversial. Apart from the fact that Argentina, which claims the islands, would be partly obscured, I don't know of any other reason why the top-left placing is inappropriate. The Falklands are predominately described as South Atlantic islands, not South American islands (although the latter description is not incorrect), and have very little connection with mainland. Hence why when deciding upon the location of the world map insert, I did not give precedence to South America, and went with the most apparent, top-left position. You could argue that showing Argentina clearly in relation to the Falklands is in the readers interest, but like I said, this is only a locator map. What are peoples thoughts on this? Rob (talk | contribs) 18:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm reasonably happy with yours of 19:14, 1 April 2014. I don't see a major problem with the world map obscuring parts of South America: it is still clear from the map that Argentina and Chile are nearby, and the areas obscured are relatively distant from the islands. If it was a problem to others, you might consider the bottom left, though. The zoom inset I think I would make slightly larger, but it's a matter of taste, I think. The most important thing is that the islands' shape is clearly visible and that doesn't just look like a dot or a smudge if you're at some distance from your monitor. I think the proposed map does this sufficiently well. Kahastok talk 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Rob, my point about the location of the world map insert has nothing whatsoever to do with giving precedence to South America or showing Argentina clearly in relation to the Falklands. (As you may see, the cropped image I posted above on 24 March shows slightly less of South America and more of the Antarctic Peninsula.) It's about the general impression of the entire map. I would have placed that insert bottom left but if the majority is happy with an overcrowded top left, feel free do proceed. Apcbg (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I'm going to upload a few different versions with various suggested changes as this will give us a better idea of what is atheistically and practically ideal. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Would it not be better to center it on the islands?Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It would, but we'd have to make that from scratch, as I don't think an existing image exists like that. CMD (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the image suggested by Rob is good for inclusion. The geography section has a much more detailed image for the Falkland Islands that users can view if they seek further information. All the infobox image needs to do is locate (relative to the rest of the planet) where the Falklands are located, and I consider that this has been effectively achieved by Rob. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's some of the variations suggested:

1     2

3     4

I don't think any one is inadequate, however I prefer 1 as it adequately portrays the location of the islands without being cluttered, or giving prominence to South America.
Rob (talk | contribs) 14:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Of the four variations suggested, my preference would be for # 2; second choice # 4. Apcbg (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the second option. My take on this is that the infobox map should only help with the geographic location of the islands. The article already has an enlarged Falklands map, with much more detail. The full depiction of the Southern Cone is also helpful in identifying where the Falklands are located. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

My vote goes for #4, because when I see it I see first the Islands, then "a zoom-out" to the Islands and South America (i.e, I pay attention to South America after observing the zoomed-in Islands), and lastly the location in the world map. #3 isn't quite neat in this sense, as the world map and South America are seen at the same time, which confuses at first (requires an effort to distinguish one another). The world map may even be distinguished firstly and SA "discovered" later, beneath it.

As a second choice tho, #2 follows almost the same pattern as #4. --Langus (t) 00:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Further to my preference for Rob's # 2 stated above, I'd actually favour a variation of it like this one:

Apcbg (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I also like Apcbg's proposal. You're all doing a great job. It's definitely hard to decide. Would anyone oppose the filing of an RfC to have a more-formal decision (with outside input) on the infobox image?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 23:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think we need an RfC. Is there any serious dispute or do we all agree we're painting the bike shed at this point? Personally I don't like the small insets as the white space to the top and white are different sizes, and the large ones leave too little white space, but they're all good options. CMD (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As a compromise, how about this (and with the requested world map insert):

Rob (talk | contribs) 10:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent job, Rob! In my opinion, this is the best version. Apcbg (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems we have a winner. Well done!! --Langus (t) 23:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Great map, but I must admit to being a fan of the traditional globe.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 06:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As largely a matter of personal taste, I wouldn't generally comment but that seems the best option of those presented thus far. Wee Curry Monster talk 06:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, whichever globe it uses. CMD (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's some options for the world map insert: 1 2 3 4. Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My first choice is # 4, second choice # 2. Apcbg (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the options. I think consensus has already been achieved on your proposal. Anyone willing to boldly take this map where it has never gone before? Cheers.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As trivial as it is, we might as well vote on the map insert, since we've been though every other aspect. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically, the Winkel tripel projection (2 & 4) reduces the distortion of land masses as they near the poles, which is definitely a benefit for the Falklands, and surrounding landmasses. Additionally, having the map's longitude midpoint closer to the Falklands (3 & 4) will also reduce distortion of the shape of the Falklands and surrounding landmasses. Taking this into consideration, 1 is probably least ideal, and 4 is most. However the Robinson projection (1 & 3) reduces distortion of the largest portion of the worlds land area. Considering this, I'm in favour of either 3 or 4. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Illegal Again

Link to previous discussion: [8]
I see that an editor feels it is necessary to put into the article again that Argentina denounces the referendum as illegal again [9], on previous occasions we've seen the usual refrain it is sourced you can't stop me adding it, so I feel it necessary to reprise the reasons why we don't.

1. Argentine political leaders stated it was illegal, none can actually demonstrate why, as such its empty political rhetoric.
2. We can make the point that Argentina rejected the referendum without reference to any of the political rhetoric that accompanied it.
3. Pointedly we do not refer to any British political rhetoric on the subject, referring to the significance of the referendum.
4. Selecting one example of political rhetoric is editorialising to make a political point and using wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX
5. That Argentina rejected the referendum is a fact, the claim it is "illegall" is a political opinion.

I trust we can discuss the matter civilly. Wee Curry Monster talk 06:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Illegal in which law? Such referendums are not subject to International Law. The applicable law in this case is British Law (including Falklands Law) as the Islands are administered by Britain and that's fact not opinion. As far as I know, nobody claims the referendum is 'legal' under Argentine Law which is inapplicable anyway — once again that's fact not opinion — so it makes no sense to allege it's 'illegal.' The referendum is a political act demonstrating the political choice of the Falklands people, and the only way to challenge it would have been if there were irregularities in its carrying out which nobody claims either. Apcbg (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Surely it was not "legal" under Argentine law. As little as under Finnish, German or Vietnamese laws. But it was legal under the the laws of the F.I. That is the only thing that counts. --Muniswede (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not so sure if the referendum could be classified as "illegal" under Argentine, Finnish, German or Vietnamese Law :-) Apcbg (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Under no set of circumstances, can I see the referendum as illegal except under the belief that every sovereign act over the islands is illegal if not carried out by Argentina. But I think that in the effort to be neutral, you are mistaking the map for the territory. It is a fact that the Argentine government firmly and officially believes that the referendum was illegal. It is not a political opinion that they believe this, it is a political opinion that they in fact hold. --Bejnar (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We can make the point that Argentina rejected the referendum without reference to any of the political rhetoric that accompanied it. Emphasis added. To be neutral is simply to note they rejected it. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine. Sometimes, it is better to simply stick to the basic and undisputed facts than trying to explain them, specially when we have specific articles where such info may be better suited. The best place to explain the political reactions to the referendum is the article on the referendum, and perhaps the article on the dispute; overdetailing that info here is just Main article fixation Cambalachero (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No objections. (Although I must confess I'm not sure what it might mean for Argentina to "reject" the referendum; the closest thing that comes to mind is that Argentina did not like the referendum's results.) Apcbg (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It means that it is not legally binding for Argentina. International and British law do not prevent the celebration of the referendum, but international and Argentine law do not legally requiere Argentina to do anything because of the result. Rejecting it means that Argentina continues the claim as before. Cambalachero (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Then it might be better if we make the point that the referendum is considered by Argentina as not legally binding for that country instead. Then the reader would know what is meant by "Argentina rejects the referendum." Apcbg (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's important that we don't commit the same mistake in the other direction. To say that Argentina "does not consider" the referendum legally binding would suggest that it is, and that Argentina would be ignoring a legal duty. Which is not the case. It is correct that it is legal under the legal system that rules the islands, and that it was never intended to be legal in Argentina to begin with. But, on the other side, for those same reasons the referendum does not set any legal duty on Argentina under the legal system that rules the country, and it was never intended that way. The mix of the word "considered" and a legal status should be avoided in both cases: something is legal or legally binding (and under a specific legal system), or it is not. Cambalachero (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The term "not legally binding" is better. "Illegal" sounds to most readers as something "criminal". Most people on the islands are happily breaking Argentine laws on a daily basis. For instance just by driving their cars on the left side of the road and without Argentine driving licences or registration plates. But as Argentina has no jurisdiction over the islands it of course of no practical interest. --Muniswede (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Would "irrelevant" be the right word for the Argentinian opinion? I don't think the referendum was legally binding on anyone, it was just an opinion gauge. CMD (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Better not. Being legal, illegal or legally binding (or not) are facts. Being relevant or irrelevant is an opinion. Cambalachero (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We are reporting Argentina's opinion. An opinion is a fact in much the same way that legality is, in that both vary depending on what person/set of laws they are referring to. CMD (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel you are all missing the point, as has been pointed out previously we can document that Argentina didn't accept the referendum without any reference to the political rhetoric that accompanied that rejection; and denouncing it as the "illegal act of a bunch of squatters" (I'm paraphrasing) is the latter. Is this discussion headed anywhere productive? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We should report Argentina's position, per WP:WEIGHT. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." Saying something is "illegal" is not necessarily a political argument, it is a legal argument. Argentina is arguing that because the Falklands is not part of the United Kingdom, that a vote of UK citizens residing on the Falklands is invalid. The law is international public law. TFD (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually Argentina doesn't argue that at all, it simply denounced it as "illegal". In fact, I'd go so far to say you're the only person I have ever seen to have articulated a legal argument (which per WP:BEANS I can see being repeated ad nausem from now). None have been forthcoming before, other than its illegal 'cos we say it is.

In addition, we don't include anything from the UK side on legality, for instance that it demonstrates self-determination. Its supposed to be a summary here and as someone has already pointed out, its Main article fixation to insist that anything other than it was rejected is in here. We don't need to have a shed load of political rhetoric shoe horned in, this isn't a WP:SOAPBOX. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I answered a point that Apcbg mentioned, and things got a bit out of control again in talking about things with small relation to the article (myself included). Let's go back to that point: Argentina rejected the referendum, period; with a link to the referendum in place. That way, if someone wants to know more, follow the link to the other article. Cambalachero (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That is the Argentinian claim. In fact they used the same argument to denounce the Crimea referendum. Anyway, there is a difference between reporting an opinion and endorsing an opinion. TFD (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get things complicated again. Do you support WCM's proposed text, or do you have any concern about it? --Cambalachero (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the Argentinian position should be mentioned, whether or not it is correct. They do not consider the referendum valid. TFD (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I confirm my support for Wee's text. Just been trying to find out if we understand the meaning of that text (I'm not sure I do) but apparently that's unnecessary. Apcbg (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm lost: are we discussing a text proposal or this edit? If it's the latter, I have no preference for one or the other, i.e. I don't see why it would be an issue to use Argentina's words if they are not put in an editorial way (quotes would prevent that) but I neither think it is necessary to do so, hence we can avoid them for the sake of consensus. --Langus (t) 21:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

FA Review

Many thanks to Miniapolis for their efforts in Copy Editing in advance of an FA Review. Before submitting for an FA review I thought it a good idea to review all of the images and their copyright status. Reviewing the guidelines I was rather surprised to find that Road signs are subject to copyright, hence, I've removed that image. I have checked the others and whilst I was slightly concerned about the flag and coat of arms, they appear to be fine. Any other items to check first? WCM_email 16:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Do the islands use the same copyright law of the UK, or do they have their own one? Cambalachero (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK its the same as the United Kingdom. WCM_email 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not think they have the same copyright law because the UK changed its laws in 1988 to conform with the EU. See Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988#Territorial application. Para 157 of the Act says that it extends to the UK only but may be extended to the CI, Man or "any colony" by order in council. TFD (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have included the status on the "Freedom of Panorama" thing at the photo of the building and the aerial view. But to confirm this, I have asked in Commons as well. Cambalachero (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please sort out the following issues before taking this to FAC (since I've edited the article from time to time I won't review it there):

• lead first sentence: "the Falklands enjoy ... responsibility for its defence" plural or singular, not both, I suggest "... responsibility for their defence" since the islands are plural elsewhere in the article.
• Etymology: honor is American spelling, but the article has Use British English (see OED for an example of "in honour of").
• History: please remove the extra full stop between current callouts 20 and 21
• Geography:
  • "natural harbors" is American spelling, should be [[natural harbour]]s
  • what does "depressed plains" mean?
• Biodiversity: "The treeless Falklands have ..." is rather newspaper style: how about "The Falklands are treeless and have ..."
• Note J: "forbade Chilean aircraft from Argentine airspace": "forbade from somewhere" jars a bit even if it is technically correct (I'm not sure) and I imagine it was only overflights to the Falklands which were banned?
• References:
  • sfns for Central Intelligence Agency 2011 should use |loc= rather than |p= which is for page numbers
  • ISBNs should be formatted consistently, for example all ISBN-13 and all hyphenated. It is a bit laborious to do that by hand, let me know if you would like me to do it, I have a little script
• Bibliography: No links point to Osmańczyk, Edmund (2003) or Rodríguez González, Félix (1996). This causes bold red errors for anyone using User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js which I recommend. If they are of sufficient general interest they could go into Further reading, otherwise remove.
• Further reading: In L.L. Ivanov et al., We don't include page count ("96 pp.") in Wikipedia citations.

--Mirokado (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions Mirokado. Everything should now be addressed except for the ISBN formats; please do help us out on that one.

In regards to the "depressed plains", it basically means sunken plains or lowlands. The term "depressed" was more common in the geography literature (I think lowlands tends to have other usages as well).

Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for the quick response. I have updated the ISBNs. I think "low-lying plains" would be better than "depressed plains" for our general readership. --Mirokado (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

British English

OrangeJacketGuy, my issue isn't with stating that Falklands' dialect of English is British English. It is with stating that Falklands' predominant language is British English. British English isn't a language. You can reword the sentence so that this isn't implied, or you can remove 'British'. I don't really care either way. I was simply correcting a clear inaccuracy. – Rob (talk | contribs) 17:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is absurd pedantry. The current sentence is perfectly satisfactory and does not imply that British English is a separate language - just that this is the variety spoken locally. There is no reason to replace it with something clunkier just to avoid an imaginary misunderstanding. Mezigue (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and I am failing to see why the point has been so aggressively (to put it nicely) pursued to the point where now Rob984 is now in violation of 3RR. Perhaps some introspection is in order before the issue gets any worse. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mezigue that this is ridiculous. The original sentence is more informative than the one proposed; it's definitely better. I don't know why we're fretting so much about phantom implications and semantic arguments about what does and does not constitute a language. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted it, what none of you have addressed is that its the English language and the Falklands don't actually speak British English but their own dialect. You need a source to state British English. You have none, wikipedia relies on WP:RS and WP:V and also per WP:BRD we rely on discussion after a revert to prevent edit warring. Rob clearly objected and is prepared to discuss, to be honest Basalisk I would never have expected you to back this approach. WCM_email 21:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's undoubtedly unclear, even if you think misunderstanding is unimaginable. If the mention of British English is obligatory, we could change the sentence to something along the lines of: 'The Falklands' predominant language is English, largely corresponding to British English; and a small minority (2.5 percent) is Spanish-speaking.'. Why object to clarity at the cost of 4 words? Additionally, Falkland Islands English is not undifferentiated from British English, and therefore this proposal is more accurate also. – Rob (talk | contribs) 21:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As WCM says, citations are also required. – Rob (talk | contribs) 21:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This source states that one Falklander's 'accent sounds like a unique mixture of different British accents, and perhaps a mixture of English accents in general', and that 'his intonation sometimes sounds slightly American'. – Rob (talk | contribs) 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The RS being used to cite information (James B. Minahan's Ethnic Groups of the America) presents the following information:

• (page 139) "The estimated 5,000 Falkland Islanders speak English, the official language of the islands, with many also speaking Spanish or other languages."
• (page 139) "The major language is standard British English, the language of education, administration, and entertainment. Television and radio are mostly in English, often with programs from the United Kingdom."

The "2.5 Spanish speaking" part of the information refers to the ethnic composition of the Falklands (mainly as it regards the Chileans living in the Falklands), but not the spoken language. As the source points out, "many also [speak] Spanish or other languages" (but there is no exact number or percentage. Minahan cites Cawkell (1960), Gustafson (1988), and Hastings & Jenkins (1984). I lack the time to help in the making of the sentence, but hopefully these are enough pieces from which you can all craft it. Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

They speak the English Language and more specifically they speak the British variety of the English language. This isn't politically biased, it is fact. Let's say for arguments sake that the Falklands were administrated by Argentina, the Falklanders would still speak the British variety of English. It don't see the issue is here. Also no-one is implying that British English is it's own language, it is just a variant of the English language. If it is so much of an issue to people, reword it to say "The Falklands' predominant language is the British variety of the English language..." or something along them lines. IJA (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement 'a small minority (2.5 percent) is Spanish-speaking' is unsourced apparently. – Rob (talk | contribs) 22:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the statement refers to the native speakers of Spanish, but does not take into account those who learnt it as a second language. A minor mistake, but a great catch Rob. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)