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. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Falkland Islands is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Falkland Islands at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
No colour key for China on the first map. Although these are allowed on commons, I think their inclusion here would count as original research, particularly in the absence of reliable sources. --Mirokado (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think these maps are a good idea. They gloss over a lot of nuance, and it is not necessarily clear how it was decided which countries supported which side in the dispute. They are OR.
We may use File:CFK en las NU.jpg, a photo of Critina Kirchner in the UN when she made a speech about the dispute. I know that several Argentine politicians in history have refenced the dispute, but the image is A) modern, and B) taken specifically in a related circumstance. Or we can also make a new composite image, with both this one and some British politician opposing the Argentine claim, so it gets more balanced. Cambalachero (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Got to agree with Kahastok, the production of both "maps" involves a considerable amount of WP:OR, anyone who genuinely desires to see this article at FA would avoid them like the plague. I can readily see any FA being derailed by the needless "controversy" over whom supports whom. Not a good idea IMHO. WCMemail 22:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
To add, why do you consider an image is required, if anything two politicians exchanging platitudes would suffice. WCMemail 22:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The OR concerns are what get to me most. I'm surprised that Commons has the image considering such a problem exists.
I would prefer to avoid including any political person in the article.
The idea was to include a visual assistance for the reader. A chart or map would have been neat. If no options are available, then it may be best to just not have an image at all.
Thanks for the comments friends!---MarshalN20Talk 22:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree, the image of CFK and Prime Minster Brown would suffice.  FYI WCMemail 22:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Do we not have images of Argentine protesters holding signs or something? That would have the same sort of message as the road sign. CMD (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Is that the one, where the "veterans" served on the mainland? We could consider using some of the images of Galtieri doing his balcony scene on 2 April but I can understand whey editor on both sides of the fence may find that obnoxious. I did wonder about the UN  but that seems a non-starter . Am I right? WCMemail 08:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
No - their copyright statement here is not compatible with Wikipedia since we presumably won't meet WP:NFCC here.
According to commons, there is no Freedom of Panorama in Argentina for sculptures, so I don't think we can use the war memorial (and don't think the war memorial photo should be licensed as it is if that's the case). CMD (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, I meant that the picture on the right I created for this article in Spanish Wikipedia. The references are there. If anyone wants to add South Sudan and change the color of any country (with references) is invited. I would like the map is in the English Wikipedia. Regards. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
There is some disagreement over whether the term "undeclared war" should be used. One editor notes that it is misleading and that a tertiary source isn't good enough, while another says that it is, and points to the definition in undeclared war.
I think we need to use the best reliable sources available, i.e. a military historians work on this specific conflict. A tertiary source like an encyclopaedia is way down the list. undeclared war is a completely unreferenced stub, so it is of no help at all. While we wait for an acceptable source, the "undeclared" part should be removed. (Hohum@) 17:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you and am about to remove it. I consider this an unsuitable detail for a summary article This is something more suited for the article Falklands War rather than here and its a detail that could easily be left for the dedicated article. Google ngrams would seem to suggest the term "undeclared Falklands War" doesn't have the widespread use outside of Britannica. It also seems rather unhelpful to revert war with an experienced editor who has volunteered to help with an FA driver. WCMemail 18:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion either way, but I do get 319 results in a Google Books search for "Falklands War" and "undeclared" (please see ). Regards.--MarshalN20Talk 18:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
At least half the results on the first page aren't relating the word undeclared to the Falklands. (Hohum@) 20:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
In a focused Google search "undeclared Falklands War" gets 45 hits , "Falklands War"  116,000 hits. That neatly explains the ngram hits "undeclared Falklands War" is very much a minority description. WCMemail 22:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Big oops! Thanks for the corrections WCM and Hohum. [:)]
Nonetheless, my view is the same as before. I don't find either option problematic.--MarshalN20Talk 22:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well to get to FA standard requires us to pay attention to details like this, though fundamentally I have no problem with it, we need to edit to a high standard. I have seen FA derailed by ignoring details like this. WCMemail 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Reasons for removal so far seem pretty weak. Let me recap all the arguments that have been presented:
a) That the Falklands War was not an undeclared war because both parties recognized each other as formal belligerents, and fought a high intensity conflict;
b) That the Falklands War was not an undeclared war because "an undeclared war is a covert war with few rules"
c) That we don't know what "undeclared war" means
d) That reliable sources don't refer to the Falklands War as an undeclared war
Points a), b) and c) are actually the same, i.e. the nature of what the term means. In that sense, let me remind you which is the "tertiary source" you're raising doubts about:
"The Encyclopædia Britannica, published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., is a general knowledge English-language encyclopaedia written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, including 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents. It is regarded as one of the most scholarly English-language encyclopaedias."
Turning down this RELIABLE, tertiary source because of YOUR OWN DOUBTS/REASONING is not how Wikipedia works. Not to mention that there are plenty of similar sources. Allow me to explain myself:
Homum says that "at least half the results on the first page [of Marshall's search] aren't relating the word undeclared to the Falklands"; which is to say that up to half the results on the first page are saying that the Falklands War was an undeclared war between Argentina & the UK. If you go through the second, third, fourth page, positive uses by reliable sources keep coming up. Am I missing something here?? This is the single piece of data that should disperse any doubts about the expression.
WCM: do you really believe that searching for "undeclared Falklands War" is helpful? I mean, a book doesn't need to use the exact phrase "undeclared Falklands War" (which sounds rather clumsy) to express that the FW was an undeclared war, as Marshall's search proves. Also, advising that I shouldn't revert "experienced editors" who have "volunteered to help with an FA driver" seems rather gerontocratic and inconsistent with your recent behavior.
Honestly, you may say that I'm being too sensitive about this, but then neither of you are actually putting forward a valid argument for removal. This smells like the Talk:Falkland_Islands#Philology_discussion all over again... --Langus (t) 02:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
No, your comments are utterly disconnected with the preceding comments and arguments:
Hohum commented that the source for the term "undeclared Falklands War" was from a tertiary source and that we needed to use the "best reliable sources available, i.e. a military historians work on this specific conflict."
I commented that I agreed with him, pointing out that the term is not used via Google ngrams and that "undeclared Falklands War" gets 45 hits  in google books, whilst "Falklands War"  116,000 hits. On that basis I conclude its not a common term being used only in 0.04% of cases.
I further commented it was an unsuitable detail (ie the absence of a declaration of war) for a summary article but suitable for the article Falklands War.
Your comments are in fact nothing more than a classic Straw man argument. No one at any time disputed the absence of a declaration of war. WCMemail 12:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
"Undeclared war" is tendentious. All wars since the Second World War have been undeclared. TFD (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
For the record, that was the only good argument, although I fail to see how exactly it would be tendentious. --Langus (t) 10:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not certain the current text sets the balance correctly.
Under Menem's government, Guido de Tella followed a policy of attempting to (in his words) seduce the Falkland Islands. They established the sovereignty umbrella where the issue of sovereignty was put to one side to concentrate on mutually beneficial agreements. To some extent it worked as there was at one time a schism between the generations in the Falklands, whereby the younger generation did not view Argentina in the same way as the older generation who lived through the war and its aftermath. Since Nestor Kirchner's government, the policy switched back to the old hard line, the agreements on oil and fishery torn up and a policy of confrontation pursued.
Currently the article states:
However, relations again deteriorated because of air-travel disagreements and the UK's refusal to resume sovereignty negotiations "in the absence of evidence that the islanders themselves sought a change".[K] Disputes between the governments have led "some analysts [to] predict a growing conflict of interest between Argentina and Great Britain ... because of the recent expansion of the fishing industry in the waters surrounding the Falklands".
The air travel disagreement stems from the hard line political policy but isn't a cause for the deterioration in relations as the text implies. Similarly the UK hasn't refused to resume sovereignty negotiations, it would be more accurate to note that the UK has not and will not enter into negotiations under terms dictated by Argentina. Pointedly the only nation to have refused talks is Argentina, A) Timmerman refused to meet the UK Foreign Secretary for talks when he found out that the Falkland Islanders would be represented and B) the Falkland Islands Government have offered talks to the Argentine Government and been rebuffed. WCMemail 10:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Argentina and the UK re-established diplomatic relations in 1990. Under the presidency of Carlos Menem, Argentina pursued a "seduction" policy trying to improve relations with the islanders. Relations improved but have deteriorated since more recent Argentine Governments repudiated agreements on oil exploration and fisheries cooperation and now refuse to talk directly with the Falkland Islands Government. The current position of the UK Government is that sovereignty negotiations will only take place if the islanders request it but Argentina insists on talks only between the British and Argentine Governments.
Argentina and the UK re-established diplomatic relations in 1990.
Sometimes less is more. WCMemail 10:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your point of view: current text seems more balanced than the proposal. The UK is in fact refusing to negotiate, for whatever the reason. There is no need to avoid the concept of refusal and instead applying it to Argentina, necessarily (and non-neutrally) switching "UK" for "the FI Government" as the partner in negotiations. Doing so it's actually embellishment or a lifting in prominence of the UK position over Argentina's.
However, the point about air travel disagreement being a consequence more than the cause does seem fair. --Langus (t) 00:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
To paraphrase the words of Mandy Rice-Davies"you would, wouldn't you?" Britain doesn't refuse to negotiate, it indicates the terms under which it is prepared to negotiate. Argentina claims to want to negotiate but only as to how Britain will capitulate and hand over the islands to meet Argentina's demands. Argentina is not prepared to negotiate sovereignty, only how it is granted sovereignty. So no it isn't a neutral wording but, hey, Langus you have consistently demanded we paraphrase the Argentine position; at least you're consistently biased to support one nationalist POV. Adios amigo. WCMemail 17:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Last year it was Argentina who refused to attend talks, not the UK.  The UK is more than willing to have talks with Argentina, just as long as the Falkland Islanders are present, as it is their future which is been discussed. IJA (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
What's fair and accurate to write is that both sides cannot agree on the terms of future sovereignty discussions.--MarshalN20Talk 21:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Lol, Marshal that was my point, the text suggested only the British as responsible. WCMemail 22:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry! I forgot to dent the message (it was meant for IJA). But, yes, the point was that both perspectives are, well, distinct. I won't judge which one is more valid than the other, and I respect the differing views, but (as WCM points out) less can sometimes be more; very wise words. Regards.--MarshalN20Talk 02:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
My comment was actually directed at Langus who was implying that it is only the UK which refuses to negotiate which is of course a fallacy. Any attempt to present this as fact to our readers/ audience would be contrary to a NPOV and intentionally misleading. IJA (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
If we are talking about resuming negotiations, then it is the UK who is refusing, since it won't negotiate under previous terms, i.e. it won't sit at the table one on one without the presence of the FI Government (or something along those lines; I'm not sure about the exact official British invitation).
If you ignore those negotiations of the decades before the War, then it falls to a matter of perspective (point of view):
the UK refuses to negotiate without the presence of the FI Government (or refuses to negotiate and redirects negotiations to the FI Government; again I'm not sure); or
Argentina refuses to negotiate with UK if the FI Government is involved in any way, or refuses to negotiate with the FI Government as the sole negotiation partner.
In this last case, who is "refusing" to negotiate is a matter of where the editor is standing. --Langus (t) 02:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no mention to the local accent and dialect (Falkland Islands English) of English spoken on the isles. Surely this can fit under the culture section somewhere? IJA (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, however it would need a source. Mabuska(talk) 21:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Above we discussed the language matter and ended up agreeing to include "British English" as the language. I'm not really sure how to address what you are suggesting.--MarshalN20Talk 21:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting? I speak the "Yorkshire dialect" which is a form of "British English". The people in the Falklands have their own dialect/ accent too but the Falkland Islands Dialect is still British English. I suggest we mention the local dialect/ accent of English in this article, which is a sub group of British English the same way Yorkshire English is a sub group of British English. IJA (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Listing any more than what is currently there seems overly pedantic and a bit excessive. Also, there is sufficient mention on the Falkland Islands English dialect already in the article. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Original info: The United Kingdom and Argentina claim the Falkland Islands. The UK's position is that the Falklanders have not indicated a desire for change, and that there are no pending issues to resolve concerning the islands. The UK bases its position on its continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except for 1982) and the islanders' "right to self-determination as set out in the UN Charter". Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands. Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833. In 2009, British prime minister Gordon Brown met with Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and said that there would be no further talks over the sovereignty of the Falklands. In March 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, and 99.8 percent of voters favoured remaining under British rule. Argentina does not recognize the Falkland Islands as a partner in negotiations; consequently, it dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum.
Edition: I not propose to replace the information, just fill out and add information, as is incomplete and has only one position, on the issue. Here I propose to add the following item:
The Falkland Islands belong to the South American continental shelf, within the oversea Argentine territory, belonging to the Argentine Sea. Relying on the fact that most of the countries of Latin America, and the majority of countries worldwide, reaffirm the argentine sovereignty over the islands, opposing the ambiguous concepts of colonialism. Frederik1991 (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)