Talk:Falkland Islands

This page was later moved from Talk:Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) to Talk:Falkland Islands. -- Docu

• Archive of discussion prior to March 11, 2006 Straw Poll is here
• Archive of Straw Poll & Falklands vs. Malvinas naming debate (March 11-30, 2006) is here
• Archive of discussion from March 11. 2006 to September 27 2006 is here
• Archive of discussion from September 27 2006 to October 17 2007 is here
• Archive of discussion from October 17 2007 to October 18 2008 is here

Archiving

I've been bold and archived this talk page. An anon did make a response earlier today, and if someone wants me to I'll bring that discussion back (or someone else is welcome to do so) - but it was a response to a different anon who complained of vandalism eight months ago, and I don't think there's much to be gained from keeping it here. Pfainuk talk 22:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki problem

The current version of the article wrongly features two interwiki Spanish language articles, one of which (es:Plantilla:Islas de las Islas Malvinas) actually corresponds not to this article but to another one, Template:Falkland Islands topics (which template has an entry 'Islands' listing the individual islands as the Spanish template does). Apcbg (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The same problem occurs in the articles on particular islands in the Falklands archipelago; could someone help fix this? Apcbg (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. The issue was the interwiki on the template, which the software decided was part of the template and thus something that needed to be added to every article with the template on it. You may still find it hanging around on articles because changes to templates do not always propagate through the system immediately - purge the server cache and it should go away. Pfainuk talk 11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! I think I realize now where the problem was, and restored the link to the Spanish template putting it within the scope of "noinclude" this time. Apcbg (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraph - phrasing and sourcing

"Many trace their origins on the islands to early 19th-century Scottish immigration. The islands' residents reject the Argentine sovereignty claim.[7]"

I have very little knowledge on this subject, but shouldn't this be phrased differently? Also, another source should be found than the British FCO. Which, by the way, is not even flat out saying "the residents reject argentinian claims". —Preceding unsignd comment added by 80.236.203.74 (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no question the residents do reject sovereignty, this is not a debatable issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a fact, the islanders flat out reject Argentina's sovereignty claim. Justin talk 22:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Have there been any referenda or polling done that can be easily cited to put it to bed? --Narson ~ Talk • 23:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no referenda (at least to my knowledge). Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands lists a 1994 poll - which was Argentine-funded - that says 87% were against discussion of the issue and this article from 1995 says that only 7% were prepared to discuss sovereignty with Argentina in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash. This page lists a Mori poll from 1994 in which 4% were prepared to countenance negotiations (full details in this UK government research paper. Chances are they're all the same poll. I'm struggling to find anything more recent - probably because the issue hasn't really been on the political agenda in the UK or the Falklands. Pfainuk talk 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So there is the option of sourcing it to those and changing it to say that the Islanders reject the idea of any discussion with Argentina over its Sovereignty claims? --Narson ~ Talk • 23:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is the option IMO. It's hardly perfect because that poll is over 14 years old - but OTOH the current source isn't perfect either. Pfainuk talk 23:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as we cannot source that there has been a mood swing there in the last 15 years its not really an issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

yo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.228.173 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fishing Story on the BBC News

The BBC saw fit to carry an interview with Dr. Mike Bingham on its web front page a week ago or so.. I was moved by the interview to look at the topic for a moment, and edited the article as below. The edit may not be subtle, but the references are clear. Its a case of an environmental whistle-blower and an entrenched local government. There is abundant evidence of cover-up rather than dealing with the issue in an up-front manner. All the more reason that some mention be made of the controversy at this time in this forum.

The government sale of fishing licences to foreign countries has brought in more than £40 million a year in revenues, and local fishing boats are also in operation. More than 75% of the fish taken are squid, and most exports are to Spain. There is some evidence that these fishing practices have contributed to the global trend in over-fishing, however A British researcher, Dr. Mike Bingham, found that starvation on a massive scale within the indigenous penguin colonies was very likely attributable to sustained over-fishing. He was subsequently harassed and ultimately deported from the island.

I removed it as it was very one sided. One its old news and were Bingham correct the Falkland Islands wouldn't have any penguins by now. Two it only told one side of the story. The actual events were misunderstandings on both sides and a lot of bitter recriminations. I'll try and look it up but about 2 years after the furore broke, the Observer wrote a very level headed piece about the incident. To put it into context, the edit failed WP:NPOV by presenting only one side of the story and the information is no longer timely or relevant. It might warrant a footnote in the article History of the Falkland Islands but thats about all. I will give you kudos for bringing this to the Talk page to discuss the matter but you lose respect by claiming it was a conspiracy theory to suppress the information. Similary, accusatory postings on my talk page won't put you on my Christmas Card list. Justin talk 20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

conspiracy theory belittles the situation.. of course those in politics spin and corral news information. I would not call that a conspiracy theory.. According to UNEP and world fisheries science, we are in the midst of a fisheries freefall.. It appears to me that the local govt in the Falklands are contributing to that.. How is that to be expressed in factual manner ?