Jump to content

Talk:Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV & Capital

[edit]

A couple of points:

  • Let's be careful to be NPOV over the sovereignty disputes. I've improved the balance, but it will need a fair amount more work.
  • Does anyone know what city the Argentines consider de jure to be the capital of "Islas del Atlántico Sur", or is there none? Since the Argentines don't actually hold any cities in the department, the de facto answer is obvious, but is there a city laid down in law? Pfainuk 13:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Islas del Atlántico Sur alone, there are all a single province called Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands and the capital is Ushuaia. --Jor70 14:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I wasn't very clear before. I appreciate that it's all the same province, but in the article we split the province into departments (Ushuaia, Río Grande, Islas del Atlántico Sur and Antártida Argentina), listing capitals for all but the South Atlantic Islands. Argentine Antarctica clearly is not under full Argentine sovereignty either but we still list a capital - I am wondering if that's just speculation, mind.
If the South Atlantic Islands department has a capital under Argentine law then it'd be worth adding IMO - though I suppose it's unlikely that Argentine law gives every department a capital specifically... Pfainuk 14:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Districts and Capitals

[edit]

Beyond the 1991 First Constitution for the new Province of Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur, there aren't an administrative level called "district".

There is the Provincial State, and then the "Municipalidades" (Ushuaia and Rio Grande) and "Comunas" (like a little town, Tolhuin). Municipios and Comunas are the second and last state level. I have not found a "district" division.

No more capitals are needed except Ushuaia (that rules, in theory, Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and the groups of islands.) I don´t know if this organisation have been modified.I think all these explanation could be written with more diplomacy and accuracy. But it´s no easy.- At least, I think it´s better now.--

Incomplete map

[edit]

Hello everyone. I'm not a regular wikipedian so I'm not registered but please take this suggestion into consideration anyway. I believe the map you're showing is incomplete because the entire Province also includes the Malvinas/Falklands Islands, the South Atlantic Islands and the Antartic territories. I know these are disputed territories but they should be shown because that's how the province is officialy formed. In the map there should be a note stating the disputed state.

I agree with the above comment. Even the name of the province indicates that the South Atlantic islands including Malvinas are part of this province. Why is this not shown on the map?--Xania talk 14:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The shown map is incomplete. Province also includes the Malvinas/Falklands Islands, the South Atlantic Islands and the Antartic territories. Then, I will change it. Monxus —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I can correct this by adding a map showing the Maldivas/Falklands in a lighter shade of green, to show that it's disputed, and to keep neutrality. ReiPeixe (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just Curious...

[edit]

I hope someone might help me with this, but, I was reading this, and i wonder, can anyone live on argentine antartica? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.52.131 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this isn't intended as a discussion forum on the subject, if you're still interested, people do live in that part of Antarctica claimed by Argentina - there are many research bases on the Antarctic Peninsula and the islands around it, from many countries. Nonetheless, the people living there are pretty much all scientists and the area has no permanent population in any practical sense of the term. Pfainuk talk 15:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Anyone better at templates than me able to get sort out the awkward malformed links below the flag and COA? They come from the fact that there are line breaks in the name of the province in English above - but if the line breaks are simply removed, the infobox becomes unmanageably wide because the name of the province is so long. Is it possible to set the width of the box and allow the names to wrap or something? Pfainuk talk 15:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC) - The following section was originally part of this one so I have just added this sig to identify me Pfainuk talk 10:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

[edit]

On a separate point, I think the article name ought to be changed since the version we're using at the moment doesn't seem to be the most common.

Excluding Wikipedia mirrors (with a "-wiki -wikipedia"), my google search for "Tierra del Fuego Antarctica and South Atlantic Islands" Province - which includes versions with commas - gives 439 hits of which all but 38 are considered "very similar" to the original 38. "Tierra del Fuego Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur" Province gives 341, including Encarta mapping. "Tierra del Fuego" Province gives 554000. Add the word "Argentina" to the end and you still get 338000 hits.

Encyclopedia Britannica uses simply "Tierra del Fuego" and so far as I can see, Encarta uses both the short version and the Spanish version, but not the English translation of the Spanish version.

Obviously the third search is limited in that the Chileans also have a province called Tierra del Fuego, and it includes the hits from the other two searched. Nonetheless I think the difference is large enough to suggest this article is currently not named in accordance with WP:NCGN. Obviously the official name should be noted prominently in the lead of the article and at the top of the infobox, as is done with other areas such as Mexico, Bavaria and Germany, but I don't think the full name is the most common name used in English. Non-English results should be filtered out because province is not a Spanish word, and neither French- or Italian-speakers use the term "Tierra del Fuego".

Based on this, I would suggest we move this article to "Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina" or "Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina)". I would then rewrite the lead to, say,

Tierra del Fuego (officially: Provincia de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur) is a province...

If the infobox can be sorted, we can probably fit in the full English name as well without spilling on to an extra line, though I don't see it's necessary since it's already in the infobox. Any thoughts? Pfainuk talk 15:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2008)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province → Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina) — per the above section, I believe the widely used English-language name for the province is "Tierra del Fuego" and my proposed name follows the pattern of Argentine provinces whose names are also used for other countries' provinces (in this case Chile). —Pfainuk talk 10:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

Done

[edit]

I deleted the target and made the page move. I'll fix the double redirects in a second; but I'll leave it to you folks to decide which, if any, of the other links to the old page need to be changed. --barneca (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all double redirects are fixed. Rest is up to you, including what to do about the discrepancy with the name of Category:Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur Province and Category:People from Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur Province. --barneca (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (March 2011)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina) → Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina — Per WP:NCDAB. When we disambiguate geographic places by their higher administrative division, we use "province, country", not "province (country)" --MBelgrano (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Technical close, discussion moved to Talk:Córdoba Province (Argentina)#Requested move Mike Cline (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Tierra del Fuego Province (Argentina) → Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina – The article was recently speedily renamed, despite the previous move requests. But, according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation, the DAB in the title is used with a comma, not parentheses. There is no such convention of using parentheses for administrative divisions and commas for cities as mentioned in the move summary, in fact the second page is explicit that the comma is used for "the names of cities, towns, villages and other settlements, as well as administrative divisions", leaving the parentheses for natural features. Cambalachero (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The version with a comma is much more satsifactory, per previous RM move. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just so you know, on WP, the parenthetical disambiguation is used pretty much universally across all the countries of the world for first-level administrative subdivisions. So the guideline is contrary to practice in this instance. So I kind of oppose this change unless all the other countries' subdivisions are going to be implemented this way as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:POINT. If you think that the current guidelines do not go according to the established usages, then propose to change the guidelines to reflect such usage. If it is so "universal", it shouldn't be hard. Otherwise, do not blame pages that, in the meantime, follow that is specifically written that way. By the way, if there was a successful move request before, then you can't simply move it back to the old name just because you think it's "right", you must consider it a controversial move and open a move request instead. I open this move request, rather than just reverting your move, just because of courtesy. Cambalachero (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My "point" is that I think the guideline might at this stage be in need of amending, as you suggest. Right now the article is in line with all the other articles for first-level administration subdivisions, and there is no move to change them except for these ones. So no, I see no need to make an exception here from the de facto standard. I'm not clear on what you mean by "don't blame pages", as I'm not blaming anyone or anything, whether user or WP page. I think we just disagree on our approaches. I favour in-practice uniformity over following a guideline that is widely neglected or ignored. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really a multiple move request, see Talk:Córdoba Province (Argentina)#Requested move. Andrewa (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See subsequent discussion at that talk page. Andrewa (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Córdoba Province (Argentina) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of maps

[edit]

I've removed the map added from es.wikipedia as it is clearly been designed with a nationalist POV in mind. The article already includes a map that addresses the issue of territory claimed by Argentina as part of this province. However, the map as originally shown only includes the territory that has international recognition as being part of Argentina. Hence, I've restored it.

Please do not transfer nationalist conflicts from es.wikipedia to the English wikipedia. WCMemail 19:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, this article is about Argentina's POV, since it's about the political entity that this country has created. You really need to understand WP:NPOVFAQ: "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content."
The province (as defined by Argentina) has 4 provinces:
  • Río Grande Department
  • Ushuaia Department
  • The disputed Argentine Antarctica
  • The disputed Islas del Atlántico Sur
The new map which you're trying to edit-war into the article only depicts the first two; the original image only adds the Falklands but still misses a good part. The image I tried to add, the one used at Spanish WP, is the only one that depicts the whole entity, and the best one for the infobox. Clearly and efficiently informing the reader should be out prime objective here. --Langus TxT 01:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not introduced a new map, I have returned the article to the last stable consensus. The false accusation of edit warring to include a "new" map is utter nonsense. Let us look at the article history the original image is here, you introduced a map with POV issues in the next edit. You have continued to edit war to include maps that include Argentine territorial claims on adjacent territory - simply changing the choice of map is still POV. The article already includes a small section on those claims, so it is both none neutral and duplicating information. You continue with a flawed interpretation of POV, the article is not about Argentina's POV, it is about describing it from a neutral perspective. I've added a NPOV tag to invite wider community input. WCMemail 11:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about the Argentine POV. It's an article about a province of Argentina.
Tierra del Fuego Province is not just a theoretical construct that exists only on paper. It actually exists in real life. But the province that exists in real life has quite different borders compared with the one on paper. We already have a map of the paper province and we describe the position in detail. Actually probably rather more detail than we should since it dominates the article. Since this is primarily an article on the province that exists in real life, it makes sense to use as the infobox map the map of the real life province.
The fact that this article discusses the Argentine POV does not mean that it has to be POV - or even is allowed to be POV - as Langus argues. We do not aim for neutrality for the encyclopædia as a whole, while allowing individual articles to be biased depending on subject. Every article has to be neutral in its own right. The fact that Argentina expands this province on paper to include areas outside Argentine control does not change the fact that the province that exists in real life does not include these areas, and this fact should be respected. Kahastok talk 18:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kahastok, your comment is contradictory. This article is neutral: disputed departments are noted as such. Perhaps a better approach for the map would be painting them in a lighter, different color; but certainly the answer is not removing them altogether. With that logic we should remove all mentions of these departments because, you know, what Argentina has done "is not neutral". No, of course it's not, but our article on such actions should be. Representing this disputed state inaccurately, either by censoring words or images (or both) is not helpful to the reader.
As to the allegation that the map WCM is vouching for hasn't been added recently, I'll just reply with a link to article's past revisions. --Langus TxT 15:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except they're not being removed and you're being disingenuous. The territories claimed are discussed in the article in a separate section with a separate map. What you are doing is re-introducing an old map that is not neutral and duplicates this content. The allegation of censorship is just bullshit, the material is in the article and described neutrally. The map you're imposing isn't. I invite you to self-revert. WCMemail 15:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll revert it then. There are two maps, showing the two points of view. The main map should reflect the reality, namely that the province exercises authority over eastern Tierra del Fuego and its adjacent islands. Hogweard (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, thank you for your intervention. Regards, WCMemail 09:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree. Every map in Wikipedia where a state has a claim on some territory but not actual control over them paints those territories on a lighter color. Removing them altogether because "that's the reality" is evidently one sided. This is fitting Wikipedia to your point of view, i.e. your own version of reality. --Langus TxT 23:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly you're being ridiculous and childish. The claim to other territories is in the article, described in a NPOV and not as you demand the Argentine POV. Just because you wish to reject reality and substitute your own doesn't make you right. WCMemail 00:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this comment I went and had a look. There actually aren't a huge number of parallel cases internationally (subnational states or provinces that on paper also include territory actually controlled by different country) and those articles I've looked at that do have parallels do handle this quite differently. I haven't yet found even one that gives anything like as much prominence to the sovereignty claims as this one does.
My conclusion is that this article may well actually go too far in taking a side in the Falklands dispute - but if it does, it's a pro-Argentine bias, not a pro-British biass. Kahastok talk 09:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the Cyrillic?

[edit]

Is the Cyrillic on the infobox vandalism or not? Sion8 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume so. I've got rid of it. Kahastok talk 09:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I added links to the Geographical Archipelago of Tierra del Fuego, and Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego. Strangely, the one to the Archipelago does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRomanEmperor (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to non-equivalent page

[edit]

This article needs work, but clearly relates to a different entity to the "departments of the Province of Tierra del Fuego" to which it was redirected. To delete the text as has been done would require a deletion discussion, a deletion, rather than merger, is effectively what has been done. The sources on the article need improving, but there is little doubt this can be done quite easily. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD is for actual article deletion. Not for redirecting terms to more appropriate articles. To take this to AFD would be to abuse that process because - at least as far as I now - nobody advocates deletion over redirection.
This article is a redundant WP:POVFORK of Falkland Islands and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. The most useful redirect target IMO is the appropriate part of the article on the province, but I don't necessarily object to redirecting to Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute instead.
However, there does need to be consensus for any change. The settled consensus since this redirect was first set up in 2012 has been that it should be a redirect. If you wish to change this to a full article, you will need consensus for that change. Kahastok talk 11:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus, per this discussion page, the only place that consensus could be achieved, is that the page should exist. I am not convinced by the argument that this is a POV fork, the department clearly exists as a political entity which does not control the territory it claims. The fact the page was redirected without consensus does not affect this. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, that's not how consensus works at all. This redirect has been in place and stable for nine years, therefore it is the standing consensus. You can't just pretend that the last nine years didn't happen.
And to be clear, this is really really basic stuff.
And yes, the version you added is a POV fork. It doesn't contain anything not already included in other relevant articles, like Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. It's just that instead of being written from a neutral point of view, it is (like so much of es.wiki's Falklands content) written from an Argentine nationalist point of view. Kahastok talk 12:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, my flabber is well and truly gasted, I can't believe anyone would seek to edit war to restore such an appallingly written, poorly sourced, propaganda piece. It's sad enough that it exists on es.wikipedia but I'm not entirely surprised. Kahastok is 100% correct this is a POV fork and a redirect is the best way to deal with it. Claiming it has no consensus when its been stable for 9 years is frankly ludicrous. To my mind this is very pointy behaviour. WCMemail 17:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it gets better, I wondered why this popped up on my watchlist the original creator of this article was a serial sock puppeteer and caused long term disruption of Falklands articles. WCMemail 17:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strange , I can't see any bias in the article, could you point out the sections you found to be objectionable? Bad writing is not a reason to eliminate a page entirely. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? WCMemail 18:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article describes the Argentine political structure but clearly states Argentina has no control over the territory. Neutrally describing Argentine positions is not bias, it is the absence of bias. Unfortunately the English WP is exceptionally biased in favour of pro-British positions in Falklands related articles.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[1] In Easter 2016, the Argentine Foreign Ministry announced that the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) had granted Argentina control of the Antartic Continental shelf, the waters around the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands. It had in fact been granted a tiny portion of what it claimed in its submission. This article repeats that claim verbatim, despite the fact it has been comprehensively debunked more than 5 years ago. And before you accuse me of advocating a "pro-British" position, Prof Peter Willets is the Chair of the South Atlantic Council, a group that is sympathetic to the Argentine position. That's just one example of what is nationalist propaganda and fake news in this article. An article you have just described as neutral.
Neutrally describing the political structure is achieved by the redirect, giving it a whole article by itself is giving undue prominence to it. WCMemail 07:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger problem with the sentence which refers to the CLCS is that it doesn't mean anything due to it being a machine translation, though I suspect you are right, there probably is the ghost of a POV hiding under it. But if there is a POV, then the correct attitude would be to neutralise it rather than blank the page and redirect it removing all the content. There may be an argument to be made that the hypothetical department is not notable, but in that case the argument should be made clearly on the talk page, rather than blanking the page with uncivil accusations against users of posting "propaganda" in an edit summary.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly the article on Islas del Atlantico Sur has been transliterated to some languages AridCeption (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood it correctly, we talk about the page of a political district that only exists on paper and in some people's imagination, as it does not have any actual territory or population under its control. Yes, merging and redirecting it into the article of the higher political district this place would belong to (the province) is the correct thing to do. Cambalachero (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the article on the Islas del Atlántico Sur Department only to get reverted in short time. I think there should be an article since it is a valid and legitimate second-level division of Argentina. The article, as it stood, does need neutralizing, but I don't know what's the value of getting it stripped. FOr instance we have Taiwan Province, China. Bedivere (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look at the history of the article and show some judgement before taking such bold action. The article was originally created by a disruptive WP:SPA account before being converted to a redirect that lasted for 9 years, it was briefly restored as a WP:CONTENTFORK and a blatant WP:COATRACK for Argentine sovereignty claims in 2021 and has remained a redirect ever since. The editor who did so, didn't have English as their first language, had a WP:CIR issue and nearly all their articles were deleted. We already cover the department adequately at Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina. If you look at the other departments in that article, their own articles are little more than single sentence stubs. If you want to propose some neutral content on this department, simultaneously expanding other stubs per WP:PROPORTION then by all means do so. But restoring the content you did and slapping a NPOV tag on it, whilst opining it needs neutralising, I have to say my flabber is gasted. WCMemail 19:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to add, the redirect stood unchallenged for over a decade, its also telling that both Argentine and British editors agreed the redirect was the best solution. WCMemail 19:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was my bad and really didn't think it was going to be so disruptive since I read the article and did not find it much controversial but I gave it a second read and understand your point. I might work on an alternate version of the article later, written from scratch. I am neutral on the topic. My approach is the following: the department is a legitimate second level division of Argentina, even though the territory is not controlled nor administered by that country. I think the controversy surrounding the territory should be briefly mentioned besides the fact that it is a kind of a testimonial division, yet existing. It's a messy subject, for sure, but I think something good can come out of it. Let's see what happens. I will write a comment here when I'm done with a draft, not now really but in some weeks time. Bedivere (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be aware that ehere were some major issues in the version you restored, including some fake news from 2016 (which by the way is still in the Spanish wiki version). At the time all editors worked together to keep it out the English wikipedia, even whilst the regular press were losing their s***t over it. I would caution you to be very careful with the claims made lest you repeat such a basic error. WCMemail 13:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wee Curry Monster Bedivere I think a short and neutral version of the article should exist, the previosly mentioned Taiwan Province, China, stating that the department only exist on paper on the Argentine legal system. Janitoalevic (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if 'disputed' should be used for the islands. British sovereignty is sound with no realistic grounds for dispute. Argentina's claims are IMO better described simply as claims by Argentina (for reasons peculiar to Argentina), otherwise we give the impression there is some credibility to its claims. Antarctica is less clear cut though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best word to define it is a "claim" of Argentina. My position is that, independent of the legal status and the (to me, fairly undisputed) UK control of the Falklands, Argentina has a second-level political division which comprises territory that does not belong to them. Bedivere (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is a false equivalence - an instance of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of what that article does that doesn't just rehash the dispute is not relevant in this case here.
That article spends a lot of time going over PRC official nomenclature. Argentine official nomenclature is not - and never has been - based on their formal administrative structure. They tend to refer to Islas Malvinas and Islas Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur. That article discusses PRC's paper subdivisions of the paper Taiwan Province. Argentina's paper department does not, even on paper, have any subdivisions on its own. That article discusses PRC's practice of putting token Taiwan representatives in its legislature. Argentina does not name token Falkland or SGSSI representatives to the National Congress of Argentina or Legislature of Tierra del Fuego - the electoral system in Argentina doesn't really work like that.
There is essentially nothing to say about about the department other than what is already in this article. While it may exist in Argentine legal theory, I find it highly doubtful that creating an article will actually provide any benefit to the reader. On the other hand, any new article is likely to rapidly become a WP:POVFORK of Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, and hence a timesink for editors. Kahastok talk 08:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share similar concerns, the department does little apart from offer the governor the opportunity to proselytise over the Falklands, which currently is largely Peronist sniping against Milei's government. I'd be very wary that this would become a WP:COATRACK for Argentine claims and internecine squabbles between political opponents. As such that would do a disservice to our readers. WCMemail 08:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tierra_del_Fuego_Province,_Argentina&oldid=1215463488"