Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Islas Malvinas

I'm sure this has been discussed 13,274 times before, but is there any reason why Islas Malvinas warrants mentioning in the first sentence when Spanish is neither spoken nor an official language in the Falklands? There's a whole "etymology" section. — JonC^ॐ 14:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto Falkland Islanders (even more so). — JonC^ॐ 14:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reason the name is up there is because of the sovereignty dispute. In every forum Argentina refers to the Falklands as "Islas Malvinas". What the hell it is doing on the Falkland Islanders page though is a mystery to me - Argentina neither recognises their existence nor does it wish to communicate with them in the dispute process, as was previously made very self-evident... I think it should be kept here, and removed on the Falkland Islanders page. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's common practice to put widely used alternative names for geographic locations in the lead, it isn't based on official or actual usage in a particular area. No idea why it's on Falkland Islanders though. CMD (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the Spanish name from the article about the islanders if no-one objects. — JonC^ॐ 11:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

See the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands Cambalachero (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That guideline is very clearly confined to "geographical articles" and "articles that directly relate to the dispute". The Falkland Islanders article is none of these and thus not subject to the guideline. Apcbg (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The people of the islands have no relation with the dispute? Why, thanks, that's what Argentina has been claiming all along. Nevertheless, we should maintain a NPOV, because Britain subjects the discussions to the will of these people, so they ARE part of the dispute. Cambalachero (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Islanders may have relation with many topics covered by other articles without that meaning the Falkland Islanders article "directly relates" to all such topics. The guideline says "articles that directly relate to the dispute" which the article in question does not. Likewise, the relevant geographical articles may also have relation with the dispute but as they do not "directly relate" they are explicitly listed in the guideline. Apcbg (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's faulty logic, circular reasoning, "X is true because X is true". You say that it is not related, but you did not explain why. Is the national identity of these people pointless to the dispute? Not for Britain. To the point that no sovereignty discussions will take place unless authorized by them. Is the national identity of these people a subsidiary and dismissable topic about these people? Cambalachero (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You keep talking to yourself. "You say that it is not related, but you did not explain why." — Sure I did not explain why because I did not say it was not related in the first place.

Your last reasoning involves a chain of related topics (dealth with in other articles notably the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute), thus confirming that the Falkland Islanders article relates indirectly rather than directly to the dispute, envisaging no Spanish names according to the guideline. Apcbg (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Falkland Islanders article does it, at the "nationality" section. As their nationality is part of the dispute, the guideline applies. In fact, if we check the claims listed at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#United Kingdom, 6 of 11 of them involve the historical or modern Falkland Islanders, without counting the subsection. The core point of the British claim is the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination (in other words, their nationality), a concept that is tied to the Falkland Islanders themselves. An article where the guideline does not apply, and can dismiss the Spanish name, is wildlife of the Falkland Islands, as the wildlife is not related to the dispute. Cambalachero (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero's point is good. If Argentina claims the Falkland Islanders are Argentine citizens, then their nationality is related directly to the Falkland Islands dispute (and, therefore, requires the Spanish translation). From what I have learned during these discussions, the Falkland Islanders do not like the Spanish names and (perhaps) a footnote should be made pointing this out to the reader (in the Falkland Islander article). Also, shouldn't this be discussed in that article instead of this one?. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Except Argentina doesn't claim they're citizens, apart from when it suits them, they're "illegal". Other than that I would agree. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 July 2012

In 2011, broadband was successfully implemented in Stanley and Mount Pleasant Complex, and was rolled out across the islands in 2008/09.[134] The International Telecommunication Union figures for 2010 identified the Falkland Islands as having the highest proportion of internet users in the world - 95.84% as against 95.0% in Iceland (2nd), 84.1% in the United Kingdom, 78.6% in the United States and 67.0% in Argentina

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Pa%C3%ADses_por_n%C3%BAmero_de_usuarios_de_Internet

Mr22Capo (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't use Wikipedia as a source for info I'm afraid. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The above paragraph is already in thew Falkland Islands article with proper citations, but starting "In 2006 ...", not "In 2011...". Martinvl (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Spelling - edit request

• "The average rainall " -- rainfall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.196.26.106 (talk)

Well spotted, made the change thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity

Discussion closed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As the spanish version, the english version should have three articles: the main about the island, and other two about the islands considered as a province of Argentina, and considered as a british dependence. This article seems more from a cheap magazine than from a serious encyclopedia. I know the islands are under british control, but not only Argentina considers this an illegal occupation of their territory, but many other countries like China, Brasil... agree with Argentina. As a conclusion I recommend the editors to modify the article and get inspired from the spanish version in order to be a little bit more objective. The current version has clearly been written/modified by a british person. That is a lack of respect to those wo work every day to improve Wikipedia content. Signature: Ignaz. Or, we could have an article which describes the reality. Neutrality is not political correctness. CMD (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Ignaz, has it to occurred to you the Spanish version probably seems the same to British people? I am not saying this happens with malice, but because of the sources available in English and Spanish. Bevo74 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC) We can have an article describing the reality. From the geographical point of view there is only one Falkland/Malvinas Islands. From the political point of view there are two: Falkland (british official name) and Malvinas (argentinian official name). Thus we have for the same geographical place two countries: a province of argentina or an overseas dependency. But the article says: "The islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory, with the United Kingdom responsible for their defence and foreign affairs." The last part of the sentence is true, but the first only true for less than a half of the world (even the ONU does not agree the british version, and more than a half of the countries in the world considers illegal the british occupation). Wikipedia in english is visited not only by british people, so I suggest editors to be less "british", to be more objective, and to get inspired from the spanish version: Falkland or Malvinas is one article WITHOUT any flag or nationality. Then you can go to the political and historical description of each point of view, two other articles: Departamento Islas del Atlántico Sur and Islas Malvinas (Territorio Británico de Ultramar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.214.4.4 (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC) You're confusing politics with reality. The British dependency is there, a working, functional entity. It's the reality, you could say. The Argentinian province exists only in political fiction. CMD (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I would suggest closing this discussion. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I agree with closing the discussion. There is no sense of trying to be objective with british editors. English Wikipedia loses objectivity in these subjects. Fortunately I am able to understand other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.214.4.51 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC) How do you even know we are British? Your comments are verging on being a Personal Attack. And this so-called Argentine province you are describing is a mere fantasy imagined about by neo-Imperialists, and is nothing short of a fringe-theory. Do Argentina deny that the Islands are under British control? Do they deny that the current administration is wholly British? They may ignore the rights and wishes, and the sheer existence of Islanders who have no personal responsibility for something that happened in 1833, but they in general treat the Islands as part of Britain, which is something they wish to change. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC) THIS IS NOT A FORUM. NPOV. Actually, you're the one whose been treating this place like a forum. You were deliberately trying to goad British editors here with remarks such as the ones you made above. I gave you a suitable response. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Please read what you wrote: "this so-called Argentine province you are describing is a mere fantasy imagined about by neo-Imperialists, and is nothing short of a fringe-theory... They may ignore the rights and wishes, and the sheer existence of Islanders who have no personal responsibility for something that happened in 1833, but they in general treat the Islands as part of Britain, which is something they wish to change" THAT IS A PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT THE SUBJECT, and THIS IS NOT A FORUM (sorry for people who felt attacked when being called British, I ment pro-British). This is a place to discuss the content of the article and not if Argentina or UK are good or bad. NPOV: clearly NOT RESPECTED when saying "Argentinian Invasion" and "Liberation" instead of "British control" and "Argentinian control". And clearly not respected when closing a discussion because you don't agree to listen other people point of view about objectivity: to present this "fantasy" that is shared by more than the half of the planet and documented. I would like to close this discussion and restart a new about the information presented and not about who is right or wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.214.4.99 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Progress?

If anyone remembers, there was aeons ago a desire to get the article up to a good standard. Despite the delays, I think it's more or less there. What do others think? At the moment, we either need citations for all the historical censuses, or potentially we could remove that information and leave it to the subpage. Aside from that, perhaps split programmes from actual stats for education and medical care or something (more in line with what other political unit [countries for example] articles have done), and add anything about Culture if there's something very unique. CMD (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(I have added bullet points to assist with particular topics) Martinvl (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have added the citation needed for the census data. I am not too sure that CMD means by "split programmes from actual stats" - the Falkland Islands have a very small population (about the size of a British village) and the stats in the articles (which I added) were chosen deliberatly to allow the reader to compare the situation with figures with which they are familiar. For example, the statement that there are 382 children at school in the Falkland Islands allows me to compare with the 500 at my secondary school or the 200 at my primary school. Of course each reader has their own experience and we cannot make any value judgements about how many children are in education, but quoting a figure which is verifiable allows readers to make their own jusdgement. Martinvl (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

At the moment the "World Summit on Fishing Sustainability" is red-linked. Was this a notable enough summit to warrant an article? I am not convinced, but if someone feels otherwise, would they please create at least a stub, otherwise we should remove the Wikilinks. Martinvl (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to remove them! Figures are useful. I simply mean that it feels slightly odd reading it under a politics header, as opposed to say government initiatives. It was, at any rate, a minor point, which was just a thought I was throwing out. Much like Culture, which I think isn't that notable, considering the small population and its short history. The summit appears to meet WP:GNG from a quick google, although most information seems to be on Argentina vs Falklands. Either way, WP:REDLINKs aren't a problem.

Anyway, if the points I raised aren't that important, and there are no other major issues, I think we should nominate for GA. At the very least, it'll be an outside perspective. If there are any issues, it'll probably take quite awhile to get through the GA backlog, so there'll be plenty of time to address them. CMD (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the lede must be stand-alone, so anything in the lede must be accurate, even if it is only in summary form - I added the phrase "Guaranteeing good government" to emphasise that appeal procedures end up in London. Martinvl (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• As far as I recollect the two areas that had not been revised were the lede and the post-war sovereignty dispute. The lede is now looking is good shape - I think that it covers all areas, but the sovereignty dispute section still needs work. My understanding is that there have been three distinct phases in Anglo-Argentine relations since the war: the period before resumption of diplomatic relations, the period of cooperation and the current period when the Argentine has torn up the cooperation agreements. These phases do not come out very clearly in the text. Martinvl (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  Good change with the good government thing, although I've removed the Human Rights bit as that's a minor part in the body, so the lead emphasis seemed odd. I don't think there'd be much to say about the time prior to resuming diplomatic relations, but you're right that the second period isn't covered well. On the other hand, there's quite a bit of detail for some of the more recent events, which can probably be cut down. CMD (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  Normally I would agree that the Human Rights bit is a minor part of the constitutional, but in this case I think that it is important in respect of the sovereignty issue which is why I included it. Martinvl (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  I never got that impression from the text, I assume that's taking self-determination as a human right? I don't see the need to emphasise the dispute further in the lead, especially in a way that doesn't make a direct link. CMD (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• There should be a single "History" level-2 section, and subsections inside it. As all articles about administrative divisions do. There are currently 2 level-2 sections talking about history, that's one of the most clear things a reviewer may point. I once tried to fix it, but got a "get consensus before changing a comma" response. Besides, the subsection names should be changed to something better. "History to 1982" is not a good section title for the uninformed reader, as the significance of the year is unclear until getting to that part. "Falklands War and its aftermath" is not a good section name either, as it goes up to modern day. Isn't it a bit excessive to say that the islands are still in the aftermath of the war, 30 years later? The subsections should be the names of historical periods; check other articles of countries, states, provinces, etc, for ideas. The subsections of "Sovereignty dispute" should be renamed as well, their names seem repetitive. And there is a very evident section missing: "Culture". The article won't go anywhere without it. Cambalachero (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  I don't really mind whether the two bits of history are in a single section or not, and agree "History to 1982" could be "History up to the Falklands War" or something similar. As for the aftermath, it's probably not as excessive as it seems, as the islands, well, are actually important now, which they weren't before the war. Still wouldn't object to changing it to "beyond" or something similar. On the other hand, I'm against subsectioning further. This is a summary page, those who want more specific history should go to the main page. As for Culture, I noted above, they don't seem to have something that's very notable, due to the small population and short history. The article will have to move without it, as there isn't a great deal due for this page. CMD (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've converted the level-2 sections into level-3 sections under one "History" section, I hope you agree.

I believe that a section about Culture would be good, I'm sure there are details about life on the islands that would add to the article. Also, early South American presence introduced cultural elements that are not present in the UK. That's pretty unique about them. --Langus (t) 13:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems to mostly be about ethnic origin, rather than any cultural additions, and considering many in South America similarly come from immigrant families, it might be hard to sort out cause and effect. Still, if there is notable cultural elements, I suggest that they be added to the current demographics section, which we can rename "Demographics and culture" or something to that affect, as that would be preferable to a short section or a long section of trivial information. CMD (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Writing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not going anywhere productive CMD (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Please, when you write an article, try to be careful with the words you use. You can not write "Britain re-established its rule in 1833, yet the islands continue to be claimed by Argentina. In 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands...", as if Argentinians were the "bad invaders" and British the "good real owners" of the islands. It is like writing: "Britain invaded the islands in 1833, yet the islands belonged to Argentina. In 1982, Argentinians tried to recover their islands..."

So please, re-write it properly, in a neutral way. Grupo7-ARI2012 (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grupo7-ARI2012 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Britain didn't invade in 1833, it issued an ultimatum which was accepted. CMD (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point about the lack of neutrality in the writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.214.4.31 (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. We describe these in different ways because different things happened. That the facts are awkward to one or other side is not an excuse for us to rewrite history. Kahastok talk 16:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Britain invaded the Islands in 1833, because an armed force forced the partition of another country (Argentina in that case). So please use the word "invasion" for both cases (Argentina and UK) or replace it by "occupation" or something similar in BOTH cases. Without such improvements, the article does not respect the NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignaciobm (talk • contribs) 16:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"According to Wikipedia, Britain invaded the Islands in 1833". Clearly you missed the first sentence fragment of the article you linked to. CMD (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Vernet was on the islands with British permission, most of his men were British, to talk of a 'British Invasion' is disengenuous at best. In 1982 force was used against the wishes of the people who has lived for genrations, that is an invasion plain and simple. Bevo74 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My view is that Argentina both invaded and occupied the islands (further backed by the following: Occupation of the Falkland Islands). I do not see "invasion" and "occupation" as interchangeable terms. Perhaps what should be re-written is:

• "In 1982, following Argentina's invasion and occupation of the islands,...".

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thought. To me, occupation implies something significantly longer than the time of Argentinian control over the Falklands, probably past some ceasefire, be it by treaty of by a stall in military conflict. CMD (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the IP editors are incorrect in thinking that "occupation" is a neutral term which can replace "invasion". In fact, both terms (under military doctrine) are distinct and at no point do they imply any non-neutrality (bias) in the article. An example of a non-neutral usage of the term "invasion" would be the one used by xenophobes, who claim that immigrants are "invading" their countries. Regarding CMD's last point, per the information provided by the Military occupation article (see the Hague Convention part of it), occupation is not identified by length of time or treaty. Thus, Argentinean military forces effectively invaded and occupied the Falkland Islands. This logic is further supported by the notion that the islands were later "liberated" by the UK. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That reasoning ignores the context of the larger NPOV discussion. To so label the Argentine action would be tantamount to openly supporting a British interpretation of Argentine actions, ignoring the Argentine viewpoint of the action being a re-establishment of sovereignty over a national territory under occupation by a foreign power. Thus, what a pro-British editor might consider an invasion, is to a pro-Argentine editor a liberation. When one of these two are presented as fact in the article to the exclusion of the other, such as by labeling the action one way or another, the article fails NPOV.65.213.180.253 (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For it to be a liberation by Argentinian forces, there would need to be Argentine subjects to be liberated. Rather than worrying about page, take a look at the Spanish version, which makes no mention of Vernet requesting permssion from the British and most of his force being British, of there being no 'native' population etc. Bevo74 (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Invasion of Normandy, the allies were also a liberating army, invasion does not preclude liberation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"For it to be a liberation by Argentinian forces, there would need to be Argentine subjects to be liberated." I don't get it, so are you saying only people can be liberated but not territory? And if so, why?65.213.180.253 (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In this case yes, the English speaking Falklands Islanders did not want 'liberating' by the Spanish speaking forces. They did not want to lose their freedom, to be ruled by a military junta. Bevo74 (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You are talking about people's wishes. I am talking about the English language. You said the term "liberation" applies only to people and not to territory. Aren't you talking about the meaning of words? As far as I know, people can be liberated and places can be liberated and objects can be liberated. That's why I don't understand what you're trying to say. Or, do you think the wishes of islanders overrule the English language? So, again, I don't get it.65.213.180.253 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Was a British invasion, it's obvious, they were defeated before, then invade the Islands. Unable to take over Argentina, they did so with their islands.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.189.45 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Liberated means returning to the rightful owners, so if would be liberation if the native population of South America reclaimed the lands taken by the invading Spanish. It would be crazy to suggest the current owners return that land. Think about it. It was not a British invasion as there were no was native population to remove. If you don't get that, I don't get you want other than to destroy the Falklanders' community. Bevo74 (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 21 September 2012

Current text reads, "despite lsoing th war, Argentina still disputes...". Whether the war happened or notis not of relevance to a dispute claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.227.252.171 (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and whilst I to some extent sympathise, the consensus was that it was a quite reasonable edit. I don't feel in the circumstances that your request will be fulfilled. If you feel strongly about it, I suggest you would have to address the points raised in the previous discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about first paragraph

Hello all!, this is my first time on a Wikipedia discussion page (I've been a Wiki reader for many years now). I'll go to my point: there is a phrase in the first paragraph that I think it's biased. It says: "Despite its defeat, Argentina still pursues its claim". I think that is biased to a viewpoint in which the winner is the true owner of something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldemaro (talk • contribs) 07:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The word "owner" is not used in that sentence. When a country loses a war, the assumption is that the winner obtains whatever was contested in the conflict through a treaty (regardless of right or wrong). Hence the word "despite" to contrast the logical assumption with a reality. Nothing biased is meant by it. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Aldemaro. The word "despite" should be replaced by "after" or something similar, something more neutral. ~~Ignaciobm~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignaciobm (talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. I do not support the use of the word "despite" as needed to "contrast the logical assumption" "...that the winner obtains whatever was contested in the conflict through a treaty...". In my opinion, this assumption is not logical. You can only "assume" something when it happens most of the time, and contendents do not give up their claims after being defeated, even if victors impose their terms. History is full of examples, like Taiwan who hasn't give up its claim towards Continental China after losing the civil war, Arab nations that still keep the claims over Israel in their constitution after losing several wars, Republican Spain maintained a government in exile and all its claims after losing the civil war against Franco, France kept its claim over the mainland after Germany invaded and controlled it during WWII, The Northern Alliance kept its claim over all of Afghanistan despite losing 95% of it to the Taliban prior to 9/11, and there are countless territorial claims that still exist and have not been given up despite losing a war. So, I don't believe that thinking one will drop a claim after being defeated in war is a logical assumption, hence I support changing the word "despite" for "after" or something more appropriate. 190.224.234.189 (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the examples you bring up all contradict the logic behind winning and losing. Hence, in all of these cases, the word "despite" applies with perfection. Example: Despite Germany effectively took control over France and established a puppet regime centered around Vichy, the French government in exile continued to claim control over the mainland. Again, nothing insulting or wrong is meant by the usage of "despite"; it is simply a correct usage of the English language.

In fact, perhaps the best example is for you is the one which you bring up: "The Northern Alliance kept its claim over all of Afghanistan despite losing 95% of it to the Taliban prior to 9/11." Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in that "despite" is a proper word to use in a sentence that contradicts what would normally be the "logical" outcome. I just don't find it logical to assume that a contendent will drop its claim after losing a conflict. That's why I came up with all those examples... My point of view is that when there are so many examples of "X" happening "despite" "Y", maybe "X" isn't really such a strange thing to happen, even when "Y". So maybe "after" or another word could be more appropriate than "despite". I dont find "despite" insulting or wrong, and I think that the sentence can be understood as it is, but since this is an encyclopedia, I just thought the wording could be improved to meet the standards. Regards. 190.2.107.79 (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The term "after" does not provide the appropriate grammatical structure to the sentence. Synonyms for "despite" (according to Microsoft) include: In spite of; regardless of; notwithstanding; even though; even with; in the face of; although. If the term "despite" does not meet the standards of an encyclopedia, the aforementioned options are all available to replace it. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"regardless of its defeat, Argentina still pursues its claim" sounds better IMO --190.229.141.3 (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It does have a more academic sound to it. I agree with the change. I suppose this is not a controversial change.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I note that in many of the IPs examples above, there was no peace treaty or similar document to end the war. China and Taiwan are still at war, Arab countries (mostly) still don't recognise Israel, let alone sign treaties with it, Republican Spain didn't sign a note of surrender, etc. Argentina and Britain ended their state of war. I don't see the point of changing to "regardless" from "despite", as they mean the same thing, but I do agree it doesn't seem controversial. CMD (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Culture

Why is there no culture section?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I second that, I find it really strange how there's more info on the religion of the Islands than there is on culture in general. I think you guys need a break from the discussion/argument above, so get to it ;) --Τασουλα (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I had already proposed it at the "Progress?" section, and it was rejected. Cambalachero (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Opposed on notability grounds it seems. There has to be some notable elements of culture worth writing about here... (Even though the only thing I can think of is that the culture is primarily British on the whole, probably with stronger influences from Scotland & Wales...just a guess) --Τασουλα (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Liberation"

This term "liberation" is troubling, particularly as it conflicts points of view on the subject. Contrary to the Huffington Post article, which claims I support the term, I actually wrote it in quotes because I do not see it as correct. Here is an example of Argentines claiming they "liberated" the Falkland Islands: "Argentina invaded the remote FALKLAND ISLANDS, proudly proclaiming that Las Islas Malvinas (as Argentines call the islands) had been "liberated" and restored to the Argentine motherland" (Page 641). I do not know what term could be used to replace "liberation," but it would be wise to arrive at a consensus on it. Any proposals?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It definitely needs to specify that it is the "British". How about "British re-capture"? That seems like something that can easily be twisted towards whatever POV is desired. CMD (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the 14th is commemorated as Liberation Day in the Falkland Islands, it is perfectly reasonable to use that description. Should we change Malvinas Day because it is offensive to the Falklanders and from their POV an anathema? You are both making the classic flaw that NPOV requires us to state individual POV. It doesn't, NPOV requires that we present information from a neutral perspective based on reliable 3rd party sources. Just because it may be unpalatable to certain nationalist perspectives does not mean we tend to their sensibilities. I would say leave as is, to reflect the national holiday in the Falklands it refers to. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wee, glad to see you back (??). Using the term "Liberation" (a term used both by Argentines and British) is definitely not the same as using the term "Liberation Day" (referring to a specific holiday). Moreover, the "Liberation Day" holiday is unique to the Falklands (none else in South America do that, except for the SG&SS islands). Perhaps that is what could be included to remove the ambiguity of "liberation"?

Nonetheless, perhaps including either "British", "UK", or "Falklands" prior to "Liberation Day" (ie, "UK Liberation Day"), just as CMD suggested, would make this even more specific. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not back, though may peek in now again. I'm sorry but I would disagree, there is no sense in the UK prefix as it implies a UK holidy, which it isn't. Its specific to the Falkland Islands, where it is simply known as Liberation Day. As to your comment that it isn't used in South America, so what, Malvinas Day isn't used in the islands. Neutral 3rd party sources should be the guide per WP:NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong was meant by the statement that "Liberation Day" is unique to the Falkland Islands; rather, it was meant to show that using such a term was more precise than the ambiguous "liberation" used by Argentines as well as Falklanders. I agree that using 3rd party sources follows the guideline, hence my earlier citation to the Encyclopedia of World Geography. Would you agree to using "Liberation Day" in the infobox instead of the current "Liberation" term currently in use? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Liberation Day is an annual holiday to commemorate the Liberation in 1982. I think it appropruiate to just use the word "Liberation", but to have a note stating that it is commemorated annually as a public holiday. This has the added advantage of highlighting one of the Falkland public holidays that is not celebrated elsewhere. Martinvl (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What is used in the infobox shouldn't be based on what a holiday is named. An outsider may not immediately know what "Liberation" means, as it is without context and just plainly stated in the infobox. "Britain liberated the Falklands" seems like usable prose, as does "Falkland Islanders celebrate Liberation Day", but the word by itself has no context. CMD (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite amenable to suggestions of expanding the text to explain "Liberation" better, it would improve the article. Any of the suggestions but perhaps "Liberation Day" has the benefit of brevity. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that Wee's change is an improvement. Would a footnote explaining it a bit more make it even better? For example, mixing the input from CMD and Martin, we could have the following: "Official name of the annual holiday commemorating Britain's liberation of the Falklands."--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If something needs a footnote to be in the infobox, that's an argument against it being in the infobox. Explanations should be left to the article text. I'd still prefer "British re-capture" as perfectly self-explanatory and with an indication of who did the Liberating, but looking at the change Liberation Day does work better than Liberation did. CMD (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Liberation day seems odd, I would prefer "British re-estabish rule".Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? We're guided by what the sources say, we don't make stuff up. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But whej w have differing views wwe arrive at a compromise. It's clar that both sies claim they liberated the Islands, thus we should try and be neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it odd because it reads as an undescriptive proper name. If the word liberation must be kept, why not use "British Liberation" or something similar? A google search on "Liberation Day" seems to find a mixed use to describe it as the exact day and as the holiday. CMD (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it odd? Neutrality does not require reflecting differing POV, it requires we reflect the views expressed in neutral 3rd party sources. So we don't make it up if certain nationalist viewpoints find things objectionable, that isn't neutrality. It would be no more neutral to rename Malvinas Day as some people in the Falkland Islands find that grossly offensive. Thats the point. If you really feel strongly about it, just ignore all guidelines, ignore 3rd party sources and make it up if you like but that isn't what writing quality articles are about. Sadly it seems no one cares about that anymore, I give up. 13:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is really not on the realm of neutrality, but rather on the sujbect of ambiguity. None of us here are defending the Argentine POV; instead, we are accepting that such a POV exists and that it also uses the term "Liberation" towards the Falkland Islands. The objective is thus to prevent confusion (ambiguity), and specify the "Liberation Day" being referred to in the infobox.

This is also what makes the "Malvinas Day" example unnecessary. It does not relate to the discussion at present.

So, I don't think that your statements are wrong per se; they simply are not in the same frequency as everyone else's in the current discussion. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Marshal. I don't have any objections to the NPOV of Liberation, or Liberation Day. I find "Liberation"/"Liberation Day" to be odd because they are presented almost by themselves and without any context. I'm not even bothered about whether the Argentinians call their invasion Liberation. My main point is that Liberation could be a few things, an external force, be it British, Argentinian, perhaps even UN, or perhaps an internal movement. Nor does Liberation note continued British sovereignty. CMD (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the infoxox text about the Argentine invasion to match the text of the Briths invasion so that it now refelcts both contires celibrations of 'liberating' the island, wy is this edit silly and to refer to the Bristish invasio as liberatio day not? Sory but this really is POV pushingSlatersteven (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

They're not presented out of context there is a wikilink there. I don't think the addition of Malvinas Day was particularly helpful at this juncture and was clearly WP:POINT. My decision to largely quit wikipedia is looking increasingly like a great move on my part. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Persons, not property, have liberty. Islands are occupied. People are liberated. The only question would be how did the local population react to the presence of the troops? Hcobb (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we need this level of information in the info-box? TFD (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If the term "liberation" is so problematic, then we should seek alternatives. It may be correct under a given reasoning, but it is not mandatory, and if we can find a term that both sides would use, then that would be better. What about Status quo ante bellum Cambalachero (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the proposal. It explains the event in brevity.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of that section of the infobox is to list significant events, Liberation Day is commemorated as an annual holiday. As I have pointed out, many people in the Falkland Islands find the term Malvinas Day highly offensive, particularly as it was moved to April 2 to reflect the invasion of their homeland by Argentina. We don't change the name of that article as a result. If you apply the same logic we should be changing the article Malvinas Day by inventing a new description that the islanders don't find offensive and is more "neutral". Sorry but this is really an invented problem, the term isn't problematic and the mere fact it is disliked by certain national groups is not an excuse. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And many argentines find the name independacne day offensive as well. Moreover we are not talking abut changng the name of the articel, so stop making straw man arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't airily dismiss a logical argument as a staw man, when it quite clearly isn't. In fact, the only straw man argument here is we should change the name of a signficant event in Falklands history, because one side finds it "offensive" to their POV and as a result it isn't "neutral". And you've simply provided another example, should we rename Independence Day as a result of Argentines finding it offensive? The entire argument for change is specious, its based on the fact that one side doesn't like something so we must find a "neutral" alternative. Sorry no, NPOV requires that we present information from a neutral perspective based on reliable 3rd party sources. The argument for change is based on the flawed premise that to be neutral we have to find terms that aren't offensive to certain POV. Sorry you'll never find one that someone of whatever nationalist persuasion doesn't find offensive and this is why we have guidelines to use the mainstream view in neutral 3rd party sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to place ourselves on the correct positions here, because I can understand the foundation for Wee's argument. For my part, I think that "Liberation Day" is already an improvement from the previous (ambiguous) "Liberation" term. So, if no further changes are made, I would honestly be satisfied by the current status of the infobox. However, the term "status quo ante bellum" (suggested by Cambalachero) seems to completely do away with any remaining ambiguity left by the term "Liberation Day". Eliminating ambiguity is the purpose of the argument, not who gets offended by the terms "Liberation" or "Liberation Day".

What is wrong about using "status quo ante bellum"?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The relevant section of the Infobox is supposed to list significant events in the history of the islands. Its not supposed to be exhaustive but to list significant events that have shaped the islands into what they are today. The suggestion of status quo ante bellum is not eliminating ambiguity but actually introduces ambiguity by assigning a legal term as a name for a significant event that is utterly without relevant context. Liberation was ambiguous I agree, Liberation Day refers to an historic event (commemorated by a national holiday), status quo ante bellum refers to no event whatsoever. So to summarise the proposal seeks to assign an invented name to an event creating ambiguity and confusion.

The original comment refers to differing POV on the subject from fairly narrow national perspectives. As a rule of thumb, the moment national perspectives of whatever flavour are mentioned, we should be very cautious to refer to WP:NPOV. All too often people fall into the trap of believing that NPOV is achieved by representing particular viewpoints from a national perspective. If you have POV (A) and POV (B) you don't achieve neutrality by stating both POV (A) & (B) but by describing them from a neutral perspective as written in, ideally neutral, 3rd party sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

WCM comments about what the NPOV "says" are actually in contradiction with the actual content of that policy, specifically the "Explanation of the neutral point of view" section. It says that "the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view". Exactly the opposite of what he just proposed, which is to ignore both points of view and write instead the content of a source considered "neutral". And specifically for this case, it says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements". If the use of "liberation" is contested, then it is not neutral to use it. Infobox entries, which are provided as is and without building context, is clearly something we can consider "direct statements".

Second, try to define neutrality without using "neutrality" or related words in the definition. "NPOV requires that we present information from a neutral perspective" is just a tautology.

As for the use of status quo ante bellum, of course that the article is about the generic concept. That's what piped links are for: link the related article, and use "status quo ante bellum" as the visible text. Cambalachero (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Liberation Day is a day in the Falklands Calendar - if I were to visit the islands on Liberation Day, I would expect to find all businesses closed - however I would expect it to be "Business as normal" on Malvinas Day. For that reason, Malvinas Day has no place in an article dedicated to the Falkland Islands, though of course it is perfectly reasonable to mention both holidays in the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Martinvl (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not confuse the historical event with the holiday Cambalachero (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me demolish that argument with a simple reduction ad absurdum. As someone already pointed out, Independence Day is considered offensive name in Argentina. NPOV does not require us to use an alternative term to represent that viewpoint. Your proposal is essentially to remove a significant event in Falklands History and link it to an obscure legal term in the name of "neutrality". May I politely suggest your understanding of the NPOV policy is utterly wrong. Feel free to take this to WP:NPOVN, where I am confident my comments will be vindicated. BTW I only suggest this as it seems you don't understand the policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Argentine society has no special feeling, negative or positive, towards the independence of the United States. Stay on topic please. Cambalachero (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Do I take it, given your lack of response, that you decline my suggestion of seeking a 3rd party opinion via WP:NPOVN? Wee Curry Monster talk 07:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There are 6 users already in this thread, I don't really see the need. I have pointed that your explanations of the neutral point of view either go against what the policy actually says or consist of mere tautologies, and you replied by immediately derailing the discussion, talking about noticeboards and holidays of the united states. Cambalachero (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality doesn't come into it. WCM and Martinvl are right. — Jon C.^ॐ 13:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero: Yes, but the six of us are the traditional troupe. Perhaps getting RfC opinions from people outside of this area could help bring a wider perspective on the subject. If we continue the argument as it is, ultimately that will only keep burning our circuits and mess with out cheerful days. Listening to the opinions of others could help reach a solution to this important discussion. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Quick question: if Liberation day is acceptable to mark that date then why isn't Malvinas day acceptable to mark April the 2nd? Regards Gaba p (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, this provides an answer for the #Progress? thread. If there is no intention to find a compromise, if every sentence and comma will be turned into a false dilemma between extreme options, then it's no surprise that this article will not go anywhere and will stay under a perpetual state of discussion. Just step back and see, what is all this discussion about? Just an entry in the infobox, and there is no way to find an option that leaves everybody satisfied? Cambalachero (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggested following the normal route of WP:DR, there has been no suggestion of extreme options (other than it has to be said to introduce some weird wikilink to an obscure legal term). And yes the habit of forcing every discussion to go to the nth degree of WP:DR is deeply tedious. Please note who is forcing it, given there is a solution everyone else is pretty much happy with. Your suggestion is not a compromise.

Further contrary to your repeated assertion and incorrect interpretation of policy I have not suggested anything that goes against policy. I'm happy to have that go to external opinion, you have declined that as an option and that speaks volumes. Please drop the WP:STICK. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

As of now if my counting is correct there are 5 (five) editors who would rather see a different wording in the article, considering that Liberation day is troublesome, and 3 (three) editors opposing this. Who's forcing what now?

If there are no valid reasons as to why Malvinas day shouldn't be added and Liberation day should, I'll go ahead and make the edit. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Because the article is about the Falkland Islands, not the dispute. As it stands, whether you like it or not, the Falklands are a British overseas territory and the islanders celebrate Liberation Day. Why would we put a holiday celebrated by a foreign nation the islanders have no relation to, other than that they're invaded them once? What is so hard to grasp here? — Jon C.^ॐ 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, if the reason for the validity of Liberation day is that it is a local holiday then shouldn't the link point to that article (Liberation day)? As it stands right now, given that nobody outside the islands knows that Liberation day is the name of the holiday, it is very ambiguous and furthermore it sends a political message by being linked to the Argentina surrender article. This is not NPOV and it is not acceptable. The Liberation day holiday should be mentioned inside the article where there's more than enough space to properly explain it. The infobox should display non-ambiguous, non-problematic information. That's why Cambalachero's or Slatersteven's suggestions are correct. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that my proposal was not fully understood. Rather than spend lots of time explaining it again, I have implemented it for consideration. Martinvl (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, I support Martin's bold edit, the suggestion of linking to a list rather than the event was not sensible. The infobox does not display any information that is problematic and never did. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the footnote. "Liberation Day" in the infobox signifies the event, and not the holiday. The infobox shouldn't be a list of holidays, and the footnote does not add clarity to the reader as to why that day is important enough for the infobox. For future reference, footnotes can be placed directly in the infobox rather than at the bottom of the article, using a footnote= field. CMD (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox dates

Falkland Islands/Archive 18
Establishment
• British rule re-established	5 January 1833
• Crown Colony	1841
• British Dependent Territory	1981
• British Overseas Territory	2002
• Current Constitution	1 January 2009

Under the title ‘Establishment’ the present infobox version features events and dates that are not pertaining. In my opinion, that section of the infobox ought to be as shown on the right. Best, Apcbg (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I like this proposal quite a lot. However, should the Argentine invasion & occupation also make it in this list? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A good proposal, I think a couple more dates should be added though. Will comment in more detail later. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks good but the 1982 event can't be disregarded, it needs to be mentioned. Regards Gaba p (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a few more dates. Add the different constitution dates, as well as the implementation of the Island Council. One of the things your proposal doesn't chart is the development of devolved/self-government in the islands at present. I will suggest a few extra dates. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

To add, the communications agreement of 1971 should probably be mentioned as well. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

We should make sure that we don't overload the infobox. How important is the Communications Agreement? Also, if we use this format, with just the years (which seems reasonable considering the main text should expand on it), we can just have 1982 - Falklands War. CMD (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands/Archive 18
Establishment
• British rule re-established	5 January 1833
• Crown Colony	1841
• British Dependent Territory	1981
• Falklands War	1982
• British Overseas Territory	2002
• Current Constitution	1 January 2009

I liked the spacing on the other one, but including the Falklands War in 1982 seems the most logical option. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I support MarshalN20's version of the infobox, it's clear and mentions the most relevant points. It would also remove the "Liberation day" issue (back on the table now that CMD removed the note) Regards Gaba p (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The comments above show some confusion as to what is "relevant point" in that section of the infobox which is not a timeline of historical events. Putting the Falklands War there would be mixing apples and oranges as the War marked no change in the constitutional status of the Islands — neither according to Britain nor according to Argentina. Apcbg (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely true. During the Falklands War, the islands were under Argentine military rule. Martinvl (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The short-lived wartime Argentine provisional Military Government (Gobernación Militar) of the Islands (controlled the entire territory of the Falklands for 54 days, 3 April to 21 May), and the Falklands War itself are two different categories. Apcbg (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands/Archive 18
Establishment
• British rule re-established	5 January 1833
• Crown Colony	1841
• British Dependent Territory	1981
• Argentine invasion and occupation	2 April 1982
• British recapture	14 June 1982
• British Overseas Territory	2002
• Current Constitution	1 January 2009

Hence my earlier suggestion to use the "Occupation of the Falkland Islands." The term "occupation" is not a candy term for "invasion." Both are separate things, but the "occupation" part is the only one that truly concerns the government. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

British Dependent Territory status preceded BOT status, there has been more than one constitution, again I'd repeat my suggestion of the Communications Agreement, it may also be worth mentioning UN resolutions - provided the usual POV crap can be avoided. However, after reviewing other infoboxes I may well suggest that I STFU and restrict it to simply adding the BDT status as the transition from colony to self-governing. Thoughts? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

UN resolutions are definitely a bit much, in terms of due vs undue. BDT status seems very relevant however. We should probably mention these events in the article if they're valuable enough to be suggested for the infobox, even if just in a single phrase. I have no preference as to whether it is "Falklands War" or "Occupation" in the infobox. I don't think there'll be much difference for the reader, and it's not hard to get from one to the other. CMD (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that a very brief wartime administrative arrangement is worth including, and have been unable to find any such precedent in other infoboxes. Therefore, I am upholding my original proposal, which incidentally (as Wee and CMD could see above) does include a ‘British Dependent Territory’ entry. Apcbg (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I did have the "British Dependent Territory" in the chart (however, it was under a repeated number). The Argentine occupation is important, as the history of this article and talk page demonstrates to us all. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure both Wee and I did see it included, however it wasn't included in one of the proposals, and it's always useful to clarify. I can't think of a similar example that isn't one about a sovereign state, which has a very different level of administrative situations, if you will. Keeping that in mind, I don't think you'd include German occupation in the France infobox, despite its longlasting effects such as permanently shifting the French timezone to sync with Germany. Thus, I support Apcbg's proposal, at the top of this section. The Falklands War is in the second paragraph of the lead anyway. CMD (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I did, my remarks were more orientated toward suggesting it was put back as it was removed in a later proposal. I do wish to point out that at the moment the way the table is constructed the Argentine occupation appears to be run from 1982 to 2002. Whilst I support this proposal this area needs clarification. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with CMD, the 1982 war must be mentioned. The islands are a disputed territory and the Argentine occupation is a key piece of information associated with it.

I do not think the infobox implies the occupation lasted from 1982 to 2002, as I see it it's rather clear that dates are presented and not periods. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I edited the infobox to match Wee's recommendation, which I think is correct.

CMD, your point is also good, but comparing France the Falklands is really a matter of apples and oranges. The France article's infobox is strange to begin with, particularly since it does such things as mentioning West Francia over the Kingdom of France. Did the Germanic Franks really consider themselves "French" in the modern sense? Other articles, such as GA England, do not even bother with having this part of the infobox. So, ultimately, it's a matter of what editors decided to include in it.

Lastly, I fear that the term "recapture" may be seen as negative. If it is, then please know that I took it from the Falklands War article, mainly to avoid repeating the term "re-establishment," but also to prevent the return of that WP:DEADHORSE discussion we had some time ago. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Equally "occupation" could be misconstrued, I never underestimate the ability of nationalist POV pushers to construct mountains out of molehills. I made a minor suggested change so that it reflected the previous consensus. Hope you don't mind. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind "Liberation Day", but I do not agree with returning the "Argentine invasion" to the infobox. Invasion is a military maneuver, while "occupation" (although also military) has more to do with the government. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, France and the Falklands aren't completely comparable. France has the former entities in the infobox no doubt because there's a direct political lineage from those early states to the modern republic, states being a political idea. We shouldn't have the infobox have both full dates and just years. If 1982 is included, it should be as one entry. It's simpler and probably more helpful for the reader. The infobox is meant to be the most summative of summaries. CMD (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

CMD I both disagree and agree. Yes we shouldn't mix dates but equally sometimes years don't fit. Marshall I don't entirely disagree either but without the invasion there is no occupation and including just the occupation disconnects events in a way that strikes me as illogical. Sometimes summaries aren't easy to achieve. Looking at France the German occupation during WW2 isn't mentioned at all. I wonder if recentism is at work here and in reality we shouldn't include the Falklands War at all as Apcbg originally suggested? I must admit to shifting my opinion in that direction. If we're charting the development of Falklands' governance, whilst the war is a significant historical event, the changes it produced are what we should document not the war itself. What do you think guys? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

“If we're charting the development of Falklands' governance, whilst the war is a significant historical event, the changes it produced are what we should document not the war itself.” Exactly. Apcbg (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I changed 'Liberation day' for 'British recapture' given that the first term brings back the issue discussed above and forcibly re-introduces the note CMD removed. 'British recapture' is a clear phrasing which involves no issues at all. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands/Archive 18
Establishment
• British rule re-established	5 January 1833
• Crown Colony	1841
• British Dependent Territory	1981
• Argentine military government	2 April 1982
• British Dependent Territory (reinstatement)	14 June 1982
• British Overseas Territory	2002
• Current Constitution	1 January 2009

I have updated the proposed infobox to show the status of the government of the day - for the purpose of brevity, all references to military action have been removed. I believe that this text is as close to NPOV as is possible. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I like Martin's proposal. No "occupation" or "invasion". The "reinstatement" part is a wise use of words.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Except again, its an invented phrase, ie original research or WP:OR, which simply isn't sourced. We shouldn't be inventing names, we should be guided by neutral 3rd party sources.

I think I now understand Apcbg's original point and I must say for myself its a compelling argument. If we take for example, France, the infobox there does not mention the German military government of the occupation in WW2. So just reiterate the point we're summarising the development of the Falklands, whilst the war is a significant historical event, the changes it produced are what we should document not the war itself. Hence, in line with that:

Falkland Islands/Archive 18
Establishment
• British rule re-established	1833
• Crown Colony	1841
• British Dependent Territory	1981
• British Overseas Territory	2002
• Current Constitution	2009

Which truly is neutral, its sourced to reliable third party sources, has the virtue of brevity and avoids any phrase that nationalists on either side can find objectionable. I would however suggest we consider adding the nationality act of 1983(?) as perhaps one event we should include. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I support Martinvl's proposal. It mentions all the relevant events and gets rid of the issues associated with 'Liberation' etc. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

France is not even a GA-class article, and I really do not think it serves as a good model for the Falkland Islands.

To arrive at a conclusion to this, we should create a new section to first get everyone's opinion on either one or the other option. The two options being the (a) Apcbg proposal and the (b) Martinvl proposal.

If no consensus is reached, then we should go with the RfC, etc. Hopefully this can be resolved at an early stage. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? Well there is Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway or pretty much any example you'd like to take a gander at. None feel the need to mention a short lived Government of military occupation during WW2, as a relevant historic event the war should be mentioned in the article but it doesn't necessarily belong here. I simply ask you to consider that on the one hand you have an argument from precadent and on the other saying it must be mentioned, well because you say so. I started agreeing with the suggestion but after thinking about it, I'm now convinced Apcbg was correct. However, if you're going to insist then it should reflect sources and not be a made up term. Can we at least agree on that? Wee Curry Monster talk 07:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Also agree that the Argentine occupation shouldn't be mentioned. This article is about the British overseas territory of the Falklands, not the Argentinian province of las Malvinas, or whatever they planned to call their future administration. — Jon C.^ॐ 07:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked the countries that were under Nazi occupation during World War II. France is incomplete - it misses the 2nd, 3rd and 4th republics, it misses the 1st and 2nd Empires, it misses the restored Bourbon monarchy and it misses the Orleanist monarchy. The infobox for Norway mentions end of the German occupation. All other lists are very sketchy.

I disagree with Jon C that this is about the "British overseas territory of the Falklands" - it is about the "Falkland Islands" (with no caveats).

If we are looking for brevity, the I suggest that "British Dependent Territory" has a link a note at the bottom of the infobox stating "Interrupted by Argentine Military government in 1982". (The infobox currently has four notes denoted by "a" ... "d" respectively).

Martinvl (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

@Martin, I think that is a good idea, it allows for brevity. My point is that other articles don't need to mention short lived military occupations and I think we're falling into the trap of assuming the only significant event was the war. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Since this appears top be close to consensus, I have boldly implemented the changes. Still need to change the labels so that they appear in order. Martinvl (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to note, again, that I disagree with the idea that precedent exists in compiling infobox "establishment" dates. Every country article includes whatever they want, even taking obvious irrational decisions as to place West Francia over the Kingdom of France. From my perspective, the current infobox in the Falkland Islands article is one of the best (if not the best, considering the other examples provided). If any such thing as "precedent" should be created, it should be to follow what this article has achieved in a timespan of a couple of weeks. Having said that, I agree with the bold change of Martin. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with the idea that a very brief, wartime occupation might have a place in a country infobox. It doesn't. Having said that, if the present version with a footnote gets an overwhelming majority support, then I wouldn't object to it. Apcbg (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Except that the Falklands are not a country as we all know, they are one of various remaining British colonies and a highly disputed one at that. Disregarding the one entry that mentions this very important piece of information from the infobox does not seem like a good idea to me. The actual infobox is on the verge of not mentioning this at all (the note is hardly noticeable) and for this I maintain my support to the version proposed by Martinvl in this talk page over the current one. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That very important piece of information is mentioned quite prominently in the article. If, as seems agreed by many here, a war and brief occupation is not the sort of thing that belongs in an establishment section, it doesn't need to be included. Half of Guyana is claimed by Venezuela, but we don't mention that in the Guyana infobox. Taiwan doesn't mention its being claimed at all (and not even the 1949 retreat). I'm not saying these are perfect infoboxes, or something we need to follow, but I think they're reasonably comparable situations, even if they're sovereign countries and this is merely a territory. I have no objections to Martinvl's bold change, and personally I don't think that removing the footnote is at all detrimental to the article. CMD (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just stating my preference for the infobox presented by Martinvl a couple of days ago, but if the majority of editors here agree that the current state of the infobox is the best one, then that's the one that goes. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Erasing the Talk Page Hi, can someone please tell me why the talk page is being erased periodically? I realize that it's also being archived, but I'm not talking about the archive. Last May, I made suggestions regarding ways to improve the article. The suggestions were determined to be beyond the scope of this article. Fine. Those suggestions should be in Archive 17, under I don't feel that deleting suggestions is conducive to building encyclopediality. Who is deleting others' suggestions from the talk page? What are the standards to determine whether or not to delete someone's suggestions? --Lacarids (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC) I have done a little research. This diff file shows the removal of the thread in question. The link WP:SIGCLEAN suggests that off-topic discussions on Talk pages should be hidden, not deleted. Martinvl (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC) It was closed initially, at least part of it anyway. With the exception of the last part which was blatant trolling started by an anon, it should not of been deleted.--Τασουλα (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks. It seems to have been an isolated thing. I really don't care that my suggestion was deleted. I thought it was indicative of a larger problem, but it appears that it was NOT part of a larger problem. Oh! And it says that "our friend Lacarids is a suspect in a sock puppetry case." Just for the record, you can refer to my User:Talk page if you're interested in the outcome. --Lacarids (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC) For the record, I believe deletion was appropriate, this wasn't a suggestion per se but rather a debate and talk pages are emphatically not forums. Anyway as this is resolved I'm hatting the topic. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 November 2012

under the media section. "The Penguin News, published by Mercopress" published by Mercopress - should be deleted There is no proof/verification that Penguin News is published by Mercopress.

81.149.125.206 (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked the references. One site does make claim that Penguin News is published by Mercopress, but that site also links back to Wikipedia, so shoudl be discarded. Neither the MercoPress site nor the Penguin News site make any suggestion to substantiate any link between the companies, excpet possibly that Penguin News (a newspaper) buys information from MercoPress (a press agency), in much the same way that The Times might buy news stories from Reuters. I have amended the article accordingly. Martinvl (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Article project

I have looked up the comments made regarding the Good Artcile project ([[initiated 18 months ago) and I think that we have attended to most of them. May I suggest that all editors involved in this article review it against the issues raised last March - once we have sorted these out, we should be in a position to submit for a Good Article. Martinvl (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A good idea, I believe. Apcbg (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Indented line

Units of Measure

I am surprised at User:Wee Curry Monster changing all the units of measure of geographical-related sections. Under WP:MOSNUM, science-related topics should use SI-only and since Geography is a science (see definition in Wikipedia article)the should, in theory, be using SI only. I am not goung to push that, all that I ask is that we use the units of measure as per the sources. Martinvl (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Look Martin, your crusade to metricate wikipedia under the guise of what you and Michael Glass refer to as "source based units" at WT:MOSNUM has been going on for at least 5 years. For gods sake drop the stick mate. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

MOSNUM refers to science-related articles, not topics. To me, Falklands articles would be under the Other articles - non-science related articles. What's the rationale for not following MOSNUM? --Langus (t) 16:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Langus-Txt is absolutely right - there is absolutely no case for not following MOSNUM. If you read this RFC you will see that any MOS-type page has been (or should have been) migrated to the WP:MOS space. When we argued about the metric system about two years ago, I put exactly that case when I tried to merge WP:FALKLANDUNITS with MOSNUM. I was howled down by Wee Curry Monster and Pfainuk (aka Kahastok). Meanwhile, let’s get this article up to a decent article up to a decent standard and follow as many of the conventions of good publishing (as epitomised by academia and quality journals such as The Economist) as possible and also use the same language (units of measure) as is used in schools and Universities.Martinvl (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I believe MOSNUM actually recommends the Times style guide, your suggestion of adopting the metric system has never gained acceptance, nor has your suggestion of "source based units" been accepted; principally because its an excuse for metrication by the back door, since purely co-incidentally you only use sources with metric units. Suggesting an alternative, the Economist, which purely co-incidentally co-incides with your preference for the metric system, is not following either the spirit or intention of MOSNUM. In addition, no one howled you down. MOSNUM actually states WP:MOSNUM#Other articles

“ n non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally a metric unit (44 kilogram (97 lb)), but imperial units can be put first in some contexts, including:[5]

   miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon;
   feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight;
   imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk.

”

You'll note that per MOSNUM, I have ensured that distances are in miles, height is in feet but I did not change Hectare for Acre, nor deg C for deg F; specifically I only changed those units recommended by MOSNUM. This is a non-science article, no matter that you tried to wikilawyer the matter. Please drop the stick, there are more important things in life. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster wrote "I only changed those units recommended by MOSNUM". Why then was the area of the islands changed, why then was the height of the the trussac grass changes, why then were altitude schanges, why then was no mention made "Source text used metric units"? I have reinstated.

BTW, you have have four reversions in the last 24 hours.Martinvl (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No Martin, I'm not going to edit war with you and I won't revert you; there is no point risking a 3RR violation over trivia. You do of course realise to pass the GA nomination, the article has to conform to WP:MOSNUM and so it cannot succeed in its current form. You've effectively kicked the GA nomination squarely in the bollocks. Congratulations, its taken you 5 years but you've finally got what you wanted. Enjoy it while it lasts but is it worth it? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In response to Wee Curry Monster, he is the one who is jeopardising GA status. Using metric units throughout does not jeopardise GA status. Arguing about it does. Using a mixture of units also jeopardises GA status as it presents an unprofessional look. Before continuing the argument here, I invite everybody involved in this discussion to look at and comment on recent developments in WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. If no internal consensus can be reached, then I will be raising an RFC to discuss the matter more widely. Martinvl (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No Martin, that would be you dear boy, pretty much like the past when you hijacked the FI working group that was set up to improve Falkland Islands articles and a vibrant and energetic group of editors was stymied by your insistence on using metric units. You paralysed the group. How many times have you raised the same proposal, how many RFC have you initiated on the same subject? At one point it was settled, then raised again a month later, and again, and again and again. Please do look at the sad history on the talk page of the FI task force, or the archive here, or the history of wp:falklandsunits and particularly your repeated promises to accept the consensus position only for you to raise the same subject repeatedly. You very cynically used edit warring to force your way yesterday, we all know you did, it was so blatant and it lasted what 2 hrs? Take a hint, for once, though on past experience i doubt it. People like you drive creative editors away, its sad but you'd rather block improvement unless we give you in. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster has already opened this discussion up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, so I think it best to continue it there. Martinvl (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated metric units where "permitted" by WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. I have also added "Source uses metric units" where appropriate as per WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Martinvl (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Height of mountains etc is customarily expressed in feet, area usually in sq mi and you're being pedantic in extreme to change the height of plants so the unit order doesn't match. I note also while you constantly advocate "source based units", this doesn't extend to those source, where units are imperial. Your problem Martin is the constant pushing and the wikilawyering just puts peoples backs up and entrenches positions. Really after 5 years you still don't get it.Wee Curry Monster talk 21:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Gaba p and the "Argentine POV"

I have noted that Gaba P is reprising a discussion that utterly hijacked Self-determination and ended up in ridiculous levels at WP:DRN and WP:ANI. Other editos may find this information useful.

Sources suggested by Wee Curry Monster

My suggestion per WP:NPOV is to focus on neutral academic sources.

Neutral

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

“ Sarandi sailed on 5 January, with all the soldiers and convicts of the penal colony and those remaining Argentine settlers who wished to leave. The other settlers of various nationalities, remained at Port Louis. ”

I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.

“ Nevertheless, this incident is not the forcible ejection of Argentine settlers that has become myth in Argentina ”

Empahsis added

Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

“ On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison... ”

Emphasis added

Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

“ Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis. ”

Primary Sources

“ you are not to disturb them in their agricultural or other inoffensive employments ”

Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow. Captain Onslow was commander of the Brig-sloop HMS Clio that carried out the order to remove the Buenos Aires Garrison. His orders clearly precluded any action against the settlers.

“ I had great trouble to pursuade 12 of the Gauchos to remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments to the shipping must have ceased. ”

“ I regretted to observe a bad spirit existed amongst the Gauchos, they appeared dissatisfied with their wages… The whole of the inhabitants requested me to move the government in their favour for grants of land. ”

Onslow's report.

Onslow's report and orders are in the archive at Kew Gardens, ref PRO Adm 1/2276, and PRO FO 6 500. Onslow made two reports one for the admiralty and one for the Charge d'Affaires in Rio.

“ ...those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before... ”

The above is an extract from the report made by Pinedo at his court martial. Both eye witness reports corroborate one another – ie there is no difference in the contemporary record. Source: Argentine National Archive, Buenos Aires, Ref: AGN Sala VII, Legajo 60, p. 22

Another primary source, Thomas Helsby on wikisource:

[1] This gives a list of the residents at Port Louis in August 1833 (some 3 months after the supposed expulsion). The settlement was a diverse mix of numerous nationalities including British, Irish, French, German, Charrúa, the majority of the Gauchos came from what we now know as Uruguay. All were brought to the islands in the service of Luis Vernet. Antonio Roxas is still recorded in the Falklands census of 1851 as a resident and major land owner. Source would be Falkland Islands Government archive, Stanley, Falkland Islands.

Non-neutral sources (use with Caution!)

Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I use Destéfani with caution due to the circumstances in which the book was published. In 1982 during the Falklands War over 100,000 copies were printed and distributed free to various academic institutions to make the Argentine case for sovereignty.

“ Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos ”

David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

I use Tatham with caution as it contains a series of papers written by a number of authors. It is however referenced by many neutral academic sources.

Source for the British Government position

[2] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Source for the Argentine Government position

[3] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands

“ This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina. ”

Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do.

If this is to be a repeat of the previous discussion it was the hijacking of an article improvement task to push the Argentine POV into articles contrary to NPOV. I really can't be arsed with this nationalist crap again but if you need help with sources drop me an email. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What an amazing wall of text by a retired editor. Specially from one who says of WP "Content editors are scum, wikipedia is not about creating an encyclopedia at all". Amazing.

Wee, last time you barely managed to escape a 4 months ban on the Falklands topic (very similar to the 1 year ban you were awarded for similar pro-British POV pushing at Gibraltar articles) because of this. At the time 3 editors agreed that you were utterly wrong in your attempts to obscure several legitimate sources and 4 editors advised you to stop incurring in WP:OR and WP:SYN (if somebody here is new to what I'm talking about, just drop me a line and I'll be happy to provide you with the relevant WP links to check this for yourselves)

Your last edit is borderline vandalism. This is not the place for such argumentative editing as the one you inserted, there's already a whole article about the dispute. Please do not start again. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourced content to neutral 3rd party academic sources is not vandalism but editing to remove such sources is. Again I can link to threads at NPOV which confirm it is not acceptable to repeat claims made by one party in a dispute uncritically, when they are contradicted by such sources. The source you claimed as legitimate, Lopez, was utterly discredited at NPOVN. And those here that know me, also know that no one (aside from various nationalist POV pushers) has ever accused me of partisan editing, I conclude by noting that aside from the usual blatant personal attack you have not one single source that rebuts either the contemporary records in primary sources, nor the conclusions made in neutral 3rd party academic sources, the best you can do is to confuse matters by referring to text that treats the subject matter in an ambiguous manner in an attempt to falsely claim there is some difference of opinion in academic sources, where in fact none exists. Now having let the sources do my talking for me, I do not intend to indulge your passion for tendentious argument but are of course welcome to have the last word as usual. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not only are there 3 sources backing the claim you seem hell bent in hiding (can be seen here: 84, 85 & 86) but the actual Argentinian source says nearly verbatim what Chipmunkdavis wrote:

“ Once order had been restored in Puerto Soledad, a British Royal Navy corvette, with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement. After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base ”

(emphasis added)

No matter what you think, the Argentinian claim is what's written. You don't get to speak for WP saying "neutral sources say" for the simple fact that you don't get to decide which sources are neutral and which aren't. The only reason you keep bringing the Lopez source (which is not used neither here nor at the Self-determination article) is that you know you are wrong. At the RS/N we were advised to use the Risman book and you were told to stop the WP:OR and WP:SYN Let me quote the two editors over there you decided to ignore after they replied to your own request:

• "The other editors would be justified about their OR and SYNTH objections; we should not critically evaluate sources ourselves via cross-checking against their primary sources". Churn and change
• "Yes, the fact-checking you are doing is OR". Churn and change
• "WCM: You aren't a political historian on wikipedia—you're an encyclopaedia editor, stop engaging in original historical research". Fifelfoo

As of now you've reverted 2 times an edit agreed upon by two editors (Chipmunkdavis and myself) Be advised that you are walking the exact same path that almost got you banned not two months ago. Regards Gaba p (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. When there is a dispute, the thing is to identify and point the perspectives, not select a "neutral" (with quotation marks) source and pretend that the "truth" is in such source. The only thing we can require from sources is that they are reliable, not that they are "neutral", because we can't decide who is and isn't neutral without being influenced by our own opinions on the topic itself. To try to use wikipedia to clarify the truth about a disputed topic is doomed to failure.

By the way, WCM, why don't you remove that "retired" banner from your user page? You are clearly not retired Cambalachero (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Okay now, there's no need to get personal and let's all put down the hatchet (if you find yourself still holding onto one) and what say we take this issue to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for comments/reviews by neutral third party. In the meantime, let the current version stay on until a clear result comes out of the noticeboard. Shall we? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If you refer to the sources above, the Argentine claim is that the settlers were expelled, so what CMD wrote was in fact incorrect. I simply corrected it. I don't see him objecting and I ask why you seek to impose an edit that does not accurately reflect what Argentina in fact claims? And again per WP:NPOVN guidance, if such claims are refuted by neutral 3rd party academic sources then we report what those sources say - this is what I've done. As regards the selective quoting from an extensive discussion at WP:RSN see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 132#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN?. As I asked at the board and the source used by Lopez, Goebel, did not support the claim attributed to him by Lopez and I still don't see how pointing this out is WP:OR or WP:SYN. For further reference:

Goebel is not a British source but American, an academic at Yale University.

ReferenceAngel M. Oliveri López (1995). Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-55587-521-3. Retrieved 19 September 2012.

Quote

“ Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833 ”

But in fact Goebel makes no such statement:

Reference Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Quote

“ On April 24, 1833 he addressed Lord Palmerston, inquiring whether orders had been actually given by the British government to expel the Buenos Aires garrison... ”

Emphasis added

If you refer to the discussion, whilst some editors made comments about WP:OR and WP:SYN others pointed out Of course you can form an opinion about the quality of a text based on your own fact-checking. which goes right to the heart of selective quoting.

Fundamentally the discussion concluded the source was not reliable noting that it was rubbished in neutral academic reviews:

“ Lopez approaches the topic from an overtly pro-Argentine perspective… his approach… is unashamedly functional, but his method is novel…relies exclusively on British sources, or rather on British commentators' historico-legal interpretations of crucial episodes affecting sovereignty…" "The reviewer,…was less impressed by the unhistorical manner in which arguments are presented. Basically, the reviewer's publications, like those of other British commentators, have been treated in a functional and selective manner by Lopez, who cites only extracts supportive of the Argentine point of view. No account is taken of the broader position taken by those quoted. From this perspective, the book offers a classic example illustrating the use of quotes taken out of context in order to distort the writer's intended meaning. [A concrete example follows of this error]" "Even worse, 'British' sources are treated in an uncritical, undifferentiated matter, even to the extent of describing Americans, like Jeffrey Myhre, as 'British' (p 9, p 14). No account is take of any commentator's level and sphere of expertise or familiarity with the archival materials which figure so prominently in Lopez's book" "This publication, like its pro-British counterparts…[remind us of] the manner in which history and law have been exploited for contemporary policy purposes. Unfortunately, functional histories promote misunderstanding rather than an informed grasp of the issues at stake… ”

To summarise:

1. Article as written didn't accurately reflect the Argentine claim - I corrected it. 2. Neutral 3rd party academic sources dispute that claim - I supplied an example.

What makes you think that an edit supported by extensive sourcing in neutral 3rd party academic sources, isn't acceptable and justifies personal attacks rather than a neutral discussion of content. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wee did you not read the quote from the source I pasted? Here it goes again:

“ Once order had been restored in Puerto Soledad, a British Royal Navy corvette, with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement. After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base ”

It says verbatim that the authorities where expelled which is what CMD edit said before you marched in with your weasel wording. Bringing in your pal Dave to do your dirty work (like you tend to do, see ARA General Belgrano) helps you not one bit.

Why you keep talking about Lopez is beyond me. Are you bored Wee? The Risman source (among others) was advised to us instead of it and that's what it's used at Self-determination and what I will refer to when I extend this edit to all Falkland-related articles that need it (when I have some time) Really, do tell me: whats your fixation with that book nobody is even mentioning but yourself?

Time and again you have been told to stop the WP:OR and WP:SYN you are incurring here and with the aid of pals like Dave you keep doing it. It's funny how he writes "In the meantime, let the current version stay on until a clear result comes out of the noticeboard" and then proceeds to revert to Wee's version. Could some of the editors reading this please rv back to CMD version? The original source is so clear that I don't understand why we are even discussing it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Take this to RSN. Also stop the PA's and accusation of tag teaming.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Slatersteven this has been to RS/N already and we were told two things

1- Wee needed to stop the WP:OR and WP:SYN

2- The Risman source was to be used

I'm not even trying to use that source here because the original source says what CMD wrote:

“ ...After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base... ”

Is somebody reading this? Furthermore that section is in no way the place for such editing as Wee did. Should I add how Argentina does not believe the current inhabitants have the right to self-determination to the UK's claim? And then that section can evolve into an argumentative monster. There's already a whole article about the dispute. This section merely mentions each sides most prominent claims and there is no need to rebut them here.

This is what Wee said 2 months ago about this issue:

"Look no one disputes the garrison and Argentine authorities were expelled." Wee Curry Monster talk 08:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

2 months ago he said "no one disputes the Argentine authorities were expelled". He is now in fact reverting the edit made by CMD where it states exactly that and attempting to fill the section with his own OR. Really, I can't be the only one noticing this.

Slatersteven I trust your criteria very much since I believe you to be the most NPOV editor here. Do you think the current version is fine? Regards Gaba p (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in anything I've said or written disputes that the garrison was expelled, this is not what Argentina claims (sourced above) and that is what I corrected. Try to address the issue, rather than to continue with personal attacks.

Nor am I conducting OR, the source is explicitly linked to above.

Nor were we told we had to use Risman as a source - noting Risman is self-contradictory. See Risman p.300 and p.306 and the full discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 132#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN? (selective quoting is not helpful).

[4] and [5], User:Gaba p is canvassing. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What Argentina claims is quoted directly from the source in my last three comments. Here it goes again since apparently you didn't read it:

“ ...After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base... ”

The claim is that the authorities were expelled and that was what CMD wrote which was 100% correct. Your constant "rebuttals" of argentinian claims based on what you call "neutral sources" (which you select by hand of course; note how Wee dismisses Risman, which was directly reccommended to us at RS/N, by once again using WP:OR and WP:SYN) are borderline vandalism. That section is not the place for that at all.

Finally, user Gaba p is leaving a courtesy note to those editors whose comments I used in this talk page. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No that is not stating the official position of the Argentine Government:

[6] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands

“ This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina. ”

The above website is the Argentine Government's official statement. I would suggest you stop accusing editors who add content sourced from reliable, neutral, 3rd part academic sources as vandalism. I would also suggest you stop repeating yourself noting I will no longer point out you are incorrect. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wee, the quote:

“ ...After the expulsion of the Argentine authorities, the commander of the British ship left one of the settlers of Puerto Soledad in charge of the flag and sailed back to his base... ”

is taken from the EXACT same source[7] appearing earlier on in that text than the excerpt you quoted. That is the first thing wrong with your edit. The second thing is that you can not decide unilaterally which sources are "neutral" and thus describing the "truth". We've been over this again and again Wee, you know this. The Gustafson mention is completely unnecessary and needs to be removed for the simple fact that we can not mention every source claiming one thing or the other in that section and you can not determine by yourself which sources are correct and which are "self-contradictory". That is WP:OR and WP:SYN Wee, again you know this.

I'm going to propose the following wording based on that source:

...and that the United Kingdom expelled an Argentine settlement along with its authorities by force in 1833.[8]

Comments from other editors regarding this issue are welcomed (and encouraged!) Regards. Gaba p (talk)

So from reading all of the above, am I correct is taking that the dispute is whether Argentina claims the British expelled its settlers or not? The cancilleria source [9] says that both the settlers and authorities were expelled. A quick look at Wee's sources suggest that Argentina has, at least in the past, stated that settlers were expelled. Are there any other Argentinian sources on the matter? CMD (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not deciding anything, the source Risman does contradict itself. I am happy to email a copy for anyone who wishes to verify this for themselves. Again NPOV requires we report relevant opinions from the literature with due weight. I am not deciding anything, I am reporting what the sources say. You wish to remove sources simply because they contradict an Argentine claim. Sorry we don't do that, it violates NPOV, we represent all relevant viewpoints with due weight. Gustafson is merely an example. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried to revert to the last consensus version and Wee Curry Monster reverted me stating that it wasn't that one, so: Wee, could you please put the article in the last consensus state so we can YET AGAIN discuss this? I won't dive into this until the article is left at a consensuated state --see WP:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. --Langus (t) 16:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

CMD: there is not a dispute, Argentina claims the UK expelled both "the people that had settled there" and its authorities. What Wee attempts to do is to handpick sources that say that only a garrison was expelled, not the population, thus making the Argentinian claim (supposedly) invalid. Leaving aside the fact that Argentina never makes a distinction between the garrison and the rest of the population (a distinction Wee pushes because it validates his position about Argentina being wrong) there are sources that clearly state that "the settlers" were expelled. Among those sources the one advised to us for its use at RS/N is Risman. Wee incurs in WP:OR and WP:SYN by analyzing this source and coming to the conclusion that it is invalid. He has been told time and again that he should not take this position because we are editors in an encyclopedia, not historians writing a book.

Furthermore that section is not the place for adding sources for and against since it merely describes the claims by both parties. There's already a whole article about the dispute, which is why I keep asking Wee to please self rv to your version which was synthetic and 100% correct. He knows this of course but will not do it because apparently it goes against his crusade for "truth" and "neutrality" (both unilaterally decided) in every article regarding the Falklands (the same applies to his behavior at Gibraltar)

The Argentinian claim is that "the people that had settled there and its authorities" were expelled and this is the only thing that should be mentioned in that section. As anyone will notice we don't cite sources "rebutting" the UK's claim and so we should not do that with the Argentinian claims. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If RN has found it to be RS, it's RS. I would also agree with Gaba that we do not have rebuttals in the British claims.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed this comment, WP:RSN has not commented on its reliability as Gaba p has claimed and I added a link above to the discussion. Risman doesn't confirm the settlement was expelled, Risman states that the garrison was expelled and refers later ambiguously to the expulsion of an Argentine settlement. There were two settlements in the islands in 1833, the garrison and the civilian settlement established by Vernet. Risman does not contradict the consensus in the neutral academic historical sources that the civilian settlement was not expelled, rather the reference is being abused to infer a conclusion not made by the original author. He constantly attacks me personally, claiming that the views of neutral 3rd party academic historians are mine, or that I'm cherry picking sources. The truth is rather obviously different, the only person selectively selecting sources is User:Gaba p, I repeat the offer to email a copy of Risman to any editor who requests it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There is really no point in having a discussion about the outcome of a particular RS/N incident. It's rather clear from the original discussion that the Risman source was recommended and that Wee does engage in WP:OR and WP:SYN every time he attempts to discredit a source based on his own interpretations of it.

If anyone is interested I urge them to go ahead and read the full original discussion to come up with you own conclusions. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

NEW SECTION ADDED BELOW TO DISCUSS SPECIFICALLY THIS MATTER