Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 6

Archiving

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

Interwiki problem

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

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

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

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

Lead paragraph - phrasing and sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fishing Story on the BBC News

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

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

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

conspiracy theory belittles the situation.. of course those in politics spin and corral news information. I would not call that a conspiracy theory.. According to UNEP and world fisheries science, we are in the midst of a fisheries freefall.. It appears to me that the local govt in the Falklands are contributing to that.. How is that to be expressed in factual manner ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.36.114 (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Respecting while rejecting Argentine claims

Chris holte (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Noting Argentine claims is important, even as a case for rejecting them is important. I was at the Argentine Embassy the other day, and they have a handout on the "Malvinas" I'd like to include passages from here, so that the points can be dealt with via facts rather than emotion. They mention Port Louis, the strong presence of the French, they don't mention the fact that Argentina used the island as a Penal Colony, nor its traditional use as a base for piracy and local depredations. It is also important to express their assertion that they still have a right to the Islands that their claim applies the "principle of territorial integrity taking into account the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands." This is still an abusive position, and one widely held by the Military in the Country, with potentially explosive future consequences for regional peace. At the same time, the present administrations don't seem interested in matching deeds with words and so they merely call on the British to resume negotiations. It might be worth discussing the feelings of the Islands inhabitants. Perhaps a new Wiki Page talking about the causes and fallout of the Falkland war might be a better place for that.

Not in this article, its already considered in the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article which already includes exerts from that very flier. Sorry but the article you're talking about already exists and has for some time. Whilst I agree with you that the argumnents are not sound, we have been careful to put that to one side and write this article to WP:NPOV. What concerns me about your comments is that you seem to wish to comment on the position, which veers into WP:OR territory. Email me if you wish to consider further; by the way British researchers have published their own flier that comprehensively rebuts the Argentine version of events. Justin talk 21:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with your statement about NPOV. The very first paragraph of the article ends saying "re-establishment of British rule", therefore taking for granted the British ruled the archipielago at some point, which is documented by the same references (provided at the end) that it never happened.

On the same line, the 2. paragraph starts using the word "invaded" to describe Argentinean actions on April '82. This word and its alternatives have been discussed extensively both in the English and Spanish "versions" of the topic, being rejected in this case to describe what England did in 1833, but accepted to describe what Argentina did in 1982 (regardless of what it was or wasn't). That is precisely object of discusion (UN), and when we use this subtle appointment we are being partial. Not good.

The article, in short, is plaged by these issues. I've red in the discusions some time ago somebody pointing to the fact that the Spanish article was blatant argentinean propaganda. It was, but it has improved, whereas this one has not. And anyway, other articles can say whatever they please, but we should keep wikipedia standards in this one, shouldn't we? Martinmdp (talk)

Apologies, I missed your comments as I've been away. See Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falklands (1833) for discussions of the name of the article. It was discussed at length, with Argentine editors, as to an appropriate name. In the end it was agreed, which included consensus with the same Argentine editors, that the name chosen was neutral and did not reflect a bias to either side. The thing is the events of 1833 don't correspond to a military invasion by any stretch of the imagination and could be characterised as an exchange of harsh notes by both sides. The same couldn't be said of Argentina's 1982 invasion. So the article is in fact neutral. The Spanish article remains far from neutral, I just looked, speaking of the recapture of the Falklands (though the Falklands War equivalent uses invasion). Its also misleading claiming the British uses the term Kelpers as a pejorative, whereas in fact that isn't the case; the use by Argentines is considered offensive. It still reflects Argentine propaganda and is far from neutral. The Falkland Islanders recently reached the 9th generation whereas the Spanish article dismisses them as 5. It has improved but not by much, whereas this article does in fact remain neutral. So it does in fact maintain wikipedia standards, whereas the Spanish language equivalents are far from it. Justin talk 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, the point of my comments has not been clear. Documents tell history so some extent, and the lack of them is filled with more or less subjectiveness. Truth, therefore, is not democratic, merciful, policitally correct of pleasant. And certainly not consesual. Philosophically, we can discuss if the truth becomes such by force, power, time, popular believe, acceptance, etc., but the facts remain. And the fact is, that wheather it was decided or not by whoever (Argentine editors, chinese dogs or martian cooks) there was no British rule on the islands before the ocupation in 1833.

Regarding your observation about "an exchange of harsh notes by both sides", I would greatly appreciate a reference to support this statement. I am aware of the letter from Captain Onslow to Pinedo ("The Falklands/Malvinas case", Roberto C. Laver, page 64), but as far as I could find out, the answer from the latter was verbal, not written, and an attempt to meet the former for conversation was rejected. <-- This is just an example of several assertions ;) made in the article that lack the necessary documentation.

Last and least: as I said, the spanish version of the article about the islands has improved, but it is still far from good. For several reasons, including some that you probably share, others that are of personal nature, I am not so interested in improving that article. However, as I stated earlier, they can write about pink elephants. I do not care ;) What I am talking about here is the english article. Not the russian, not the japanese, and certainly not the spanish. This one: the english. So let's stick the discussion about improvements to it. Any reference to the others should be relevant to the improvement of this one. Mentions of how bad the others are brings little or nothing. Martinmdp (talk)

As Justin says, this name has been discussed at length in discussions including both British and Argentine contributors. I don't believe any of our articles describe it as an exchange of notes as opposed to a verbal communication (in person or through messengers), but I think it is quite right that the events of 1833 and 1982 should be described in different ways, given how different the events that occurred were.

You say that "there was no British rule on the islands before the ocupation in 1833". This is false: there was indeed a British settlement on the islands from 1765-76 (except for a brief period in 1770-71 during the Falklands Crisis). While this did not cover the entire archepelago, I would suggest that it is likely that none of the early colonies - be they British, French, Spanish or Argentine - could reasonably be said to have had de facto control over the entire archepelago except by default. As I recall, this point was brought up in the previous discussion, and the consensus was that "re-establishment" was an appropriate description given the previous settlement.

Oh, and "occupation" rather gives the wrong idea as well, in that Onslow didn't leave any new colonists or any military personnel on the islands. It wasn't until 1834 that the first British government official arrived on the islands.

Final point, since you bring it up, it is ultimately up to policy-based consensus to decide what should go in the article, and policy calls for verifiable fact, not truth. I get the impression (if I'm reading your username right) that you may not be a native English speaker, so I should point out that in English "truth" can be taken to include things that are not based on verifiable fact, such as strongly-held beliefs (that you cannot perhaps prove but that you "know" to be true) or even similarly strongly-held opinions. We, of course, have to rely on verifiable fact. Pfainuk talk 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I will reset the use of the ":" sign so it doesn't take the tabulation too far, ok? I feel that I am hitting a wall here. The article makes reference to the alleged "British rule", clearly implying to the reader the the mentioned "rule" was comprehensive. And even if it doesn't imply, as you well point out, there was a settlement on the islands in the 1765-76 period. That isn't by any stretch a rule. Therefore, when I say "there was no British rule on the islands before the ocupation in 1833", it is correct. If you read what you wrote you'll see that you are making the point that I (apparently) failed to.

Regarding the word "occupation" you are right, wrong choice of wording from my side. Please read "there was no British rule on the islands before the events in 1833". Now, regarding if Onslow left somebody behind, I can't right now recall wheather he did or not, so I'll try to check.

About the last paragraph, I share your interpretation of the "truth". But in the same way that law takes justice as its asymptote, it is in the spirit of the policy that you refer to base the articles on verifiable fact. The verifiable fact here is (or better, said, one of the verifiable facts that I am trying to point out) that there wasn't a British rule over the islands. As you say, there was a settlement. This is a point that has to be treated with more impartiality, and so far I fail to make the point clear. Once again, consensus has little to do with verifiable facts, and ultimately with truth. From what you write, I dare to assume that it is more important to you as person (not as Wikipedia participant) the latter than the former.Martinmdp (talk)

Onslow didn't leave anyone behind, nor did he as Argentina claims expel the settlers in the Falkland Islands. Do you actually have a suggestion for improvement or not? Justin talk 23:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you take 2 minutes and read what I wrote so far, you might find the suggestions you are asking about. Regarding what Argentina claims: sorry but, why do you bring it up? I can't find the connection with what I was talking. When did I said that Onslow expeled those people you mention? I can't seem to find it. Please point it out for me.

Something that this and many works (wheather original or not) fail to bring up is the fact that there is a difference on the surface of what happened in the islands in 1833 and 1982. The difference is military, methodological. Onslow acted knowing and knowing that Pinedo knew what backed him up. Effective violence was clearly unnecessary. Which (together with many other factors, most of them I don't agree with) explains (but doesn't justify) the method used in 1982 by Argentina. But the underlying and ultimately important side of those events is not different at all: geopolitical. Every side claims its rightful sovereignty over the islands, and took the steps towards impossing their own point of view.

So here is one suggestion: let's work to make the article better! In the last 3 or 4 posts this has turned into a diversion about what Argentina claims, the spanish article, my lack of suggestions, the 1982 invasion/occupation/reoccupation/reassertion, etc... Is this what expects anybody trying to contribute to the quality of the article? Has any of my words been read with true curiosity and the spirit to improve the article, instead of leacking one's personal opinion on the matter?Martinmdp (talk)

Actually to be blunt I haven't a clue what you're suggesting. I asked a simple straight question, what are you suggestions? You seem to have and are ariculating the impression that people aren't amenable to changes. That simply isn't true. If you have a concrete suggestion put it on the table because so far all I see is intellectual masturbation. Justin talk 09:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the suggestion is that the words since the re-establishment of British rule in 1833. be changed to something - though I'm not entirely clear on what to. Certainly, I'd be open to suggestions - but note that we've discussed this before at length, that suggestions already rejected are unlikely to get consensus, and that the current version stays unless we get consensus to the contrary. Pfainuk talk 10:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention we are on the wrong page for that. I was kind of waiting for a concrete suggestion to be put out there by Martin before I'd comment, but as that is lacking I'll just comment on the 1833 name: No-one is especially happy with it, but invasion and expulsion which have been used previousl seem to have been rejected. The only solution, apart from that, is to use the common name, which in English texts appears to be 'The British Return' (Not a name I support or want, I should add, hideous POV). --Narson ~ Talk • 12:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you all for your time. The knowledge I've gathered is precious.Martinmdp (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So 3 editors have responded and said give us your suggestions and you have none. Are you just dicking us around? Justin talk 13:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Make that 4, I don't think you understand us: what are you suggesting? What would you like us to do? Ryan4314 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Consistency of measures

While reading this article I noticed that there was an inconsistent use of measures. In the information box, metric measure were put first whereas in the article the reverse was the case, except for temperatures, which were given in Celsius alone. For consistency, I have put metric measures first throughout, except in the case of nautical miles where the conversion gives both kilometres and miles. Michael Glass (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that one editor thinks that making the layout of measures consistent is unnecessary and has reverted the article to the muddle that I described above. At the very least, measures should be both accurate and expressed in both metric and other measures. All editors should be aware that several English speaking countries converted to the metric system a generation ago, so a significant number of readers will not understand other measures. That is why consistency in the layout of measures has value: it reduces the chance for confusing the readers.

I also refer other editors to the following statement: "An overriding principle on Wikipedia is that style and formatting should be applied consistently within articles.... One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within articles promotes clarity and cohesion.'[1]]] Therefore my edit was in line with this Wikipedia policy.

Wiki policy gives guidance on use of measurements. See [2] The principles are:

• for countries other than the US and the UK, metric measures should be put first.
• for the UK, the choice may be metric or imperial, but the usage should be consistent throughout the article.

It also gives this advice in case of a dispute between editors: "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses"

I attempted to remedy this situation in line with Wiki policy. However, another editor immediately reverted my changes. I think we need to discuss how the article can be brought into line with Wiki policy in this regard. Michael Glass (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

From the policy above consider the Falklands to be in the same category as the UK. --LiamE (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, the usage should be consistent. However, it is neither expressed consistently in metric units or in non metric units. Miles are not fine unless the metric equivalent is given. Nor is it appropriate to use the measures inconsistently. Finally, if there is a dispute about which measure should be used first, then the metric system should be used first. Michael Glass (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to get out a bit more. --LiamE (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Falklands=British=UK and there is no need to climb on your high horse. I would also suggest you read WP:MOS as your inline citation is incorrect. Will fix it later. Justin talk 16:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a UK-based article and is uniformly imperial-first. Even United States puts metric units first in the infobox, and that's not a good reason to switch the rest of the article. Note that the SI unit of temperature is Kelvin, not Celsius, and that Celsius is the predominant unit of temperature in the UK (thus, using it clearly fits the spirit of the MOS). Pfainuk talk 17:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Justin, why revert to incorrect information because you object to the style of citing the source? Isn't that a bit high-handed? Pfainuk, for your information, UK based articles can be either metric first or Imperial first. Check the style guide. Michael Glass (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Which part of I'll fix it later didn't you understand? UK articles are imperial first, fix whats broken don't push your own agenda. Justin talk 23:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I understood and accepted that you would fix the link later. That's why I took my concern here. I objected to your mindless revert of an edit which put Imperial measures first. I believe I have every justification for calling this action high-handed.

Now, about Wiki policy on UK articles:

"For UK-related articles, the main units may be either metric or imperial: 23 miles (37 km) or 37 kilometres (23 mi); the choice of metric or imperial first should be consistent throughout the article." WP:UNITS

UK based articles don't have to be Imperial, the choice is with the editors as long as it is consistent and there are rules for resolving disputes about which system to be preferred. Isn't your charge of pushing an agenda a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Michael Glass (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In view of the above comments it would seem that the choice of the editors who have been working on the article so far is imperial, so I can hardly see any case for a change at present other than taking care of consistency. Apcbg (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a choice between Imperial or Metric, and we're all saying Imperial, what more do you need? Ryan4314 (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Ryan, it started as a dispute about whether Metric or Imperial measures should come first. Then when I corrected the distance between Stanley and the airport, putting the Imperial measure first, one editor still reverted my edit on the spot. If that happened to you, I am sure that you would also be irate. As several editors have made it clear that they want imperial first, then that's the way it will go. However, editors of this article should be aware that articles on the UK in Wikipedia are different. The article Great Britain informs us that it "It occupies an area of 209,331 km² (80,823 square miles)". Similarly, the article on the United Kingdom informs us. "The total area of the United Kingdom is approximately 245,000 square kilometres (94,600 sq mi)." Even when we turn to the counties, metric measures come first. Take Suffolk The article says, "The highest point of the county is Great Wood Hill, the highest point of the Newmarket Ridge, near the village of Rede which reaches 128 m (420 ft)." Go to the New Forest and it's the same, "The highest point in the New Forest is Piper's Wait, just west of Bramshaw. Its summit is at 125 m (410 ft) above mean sea level."

So in putting miles before kilometres, the Falkland Islands editors are more Imperial than the British! I also wonder if they are more Imperial than many of the locals. The Falkland Island Meat Company measures the farms in hectares [3]and the cuts of meat in kilograms [4]. Michael Glass (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands Meat company sells its products in Chile, a metric country. Unsurprising it might use metric units then but in general the Falklands are more British than the British themselves. Accusing other editors elsewhere of being hostile whilst admitting you're irate that your changes have reverted does strike me as a trifle lacking in good faith. And sarcasm, way to go to win friends and influence people. Justin talk 09:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop talking, the editor's of this page have spoken, a consensus has been formed, you are just arguing for the sake of it now. Also in regards to: "one editor still reverted my edit on the spot. If that happened to you, I am sure that you would also be irate." At the bottom of every edit page it says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Ryan4314 (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Respecting while rejecting Argentine claims

There's a lot to read here! I've added some text covering Argentina’s constitutional text which still claims the islands but does so 'respecting the lifestyle of the people and International Law'. I'm not sure if this was covered here or if it was discussed previously but it is critically important since today, due to this reform, an new invasion would actually be illegal and unconstitutional under Argentina Law (since it respects International Law etc) as would any type of forced changing of the islanders way of life such as removal of its government. This is an important point which shouldn't be overlooked when examining the interactions between the Falklands and Argentina. If one doubts its validity or strength one needs only to study the overturning of the Menem pardons to military officers accused of genocide, which was overturned based on the new provisions included in the constitution of 1994. I think it is a critical aspect of the new relationship and should be the basis of future legal action by the islanders within Argentine courts to stop all claims to sovereignty Chuckarg33 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I reverted that change, this is an article on the Falkland Islands not Argentina's constitution. The rest of your comments are original research. Justin talk 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that information belongs here: Constitution of Argentina. Also it was totally unreferenced. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have misread what was said there. It isn't about the constitution of Argentina at all, only about the section added in which specifically refers to the Falklands and which specifically relates to how the countries see's the islands. Ignoring it will do no good to you or your cause. Plus throughout the article the islands relation to Argentina is repeatedly discussed, so how could you ignore that section here? And the reference was added, #25. saying that it "Also it was totally unreferenced" is disingenuous, or is this just a biased racial thing???? . Chuckarg33 (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can add some like this to the intro "Under Argentine Law they are eligible for Argentine citizenship.[7] " then the article did refer to the Argentina constitution before (ie legislation of which the constitution is first item). I doubt the sincerity of your (undo) quite frankly! Chuckarg33 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are throwing around allegations of hidden agendas and accusing other editors of being bias. You are acting bad faith, your edit was unreferenced and that information belongs in the Constitution of Argentina article. Three editors have reverted you, yet you do not seem to understand this consensus. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't address the issue here. Why do you undo when it clearly refers to the islands? what the constitution says about the islands?. You can get all our friends out now but it doesn't change the fact that the text actually helps the islanders cause, not hinder it. But it seems from the history of this page that only a few can edit it, and if anyone from argentina shows up in any way, you will dismiss it. In that only you are acting in bad faith. And the text actually favours the kelpers position?*%#^?? And it was referenced with ref #25, obviously you either can't read (can't be since you edit this) or you are just lying? the reference was there and its in the history too! Chuckarg33 (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

From the history of this page one can clearly see why this was an 'undeclared' war and the bad blood continues from both side. Ryan what you are doing, in my opinion, is continuing the conflict. Little wonder those on the argentina side also continue the conflict. I guess only a second war will ever change this, negotiations probably never will! (in my opinion that is, which I can express here? or you won't let me? ) Chuckarg33 (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You claim me and the other editors act in bad faith, yet because no one agrees that your edit belongs in this particular article you think it's all some conspiracy against you. The emotive language, insults and allegations you're using and edit-warring is further proof that you're here just to POV push. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is POV push??? I reject the conspiracy claims and restate that you failed to read the text. Again, it was not about the argentina constitution at all. And it actually helps the kelpers claim, or sorry, the British citizens claims. But the fact you called the other editor 'mate' proves a point. I use 'mate' all day long but not to unknown editors on wiki. But no, its not big enough to be a conspiracy, just cultural bias in my opinion. But like I said before, clearly only another war will fix these differences of opinion, so go fight the argies again 'mate'. Chuckarg33 (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There Ryan, I've sweetened up the text. Is it to your liking now?? Chuckarg33 (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I reverted your changes because they are about Argentina's constitution, its irrelevant to the Falkland Islands - put it in the article on the Argentine Constitution. Instead of discussing that and advancing an argument as to why it should be included instead you have chosen to come here and spray accusations of bad faith about. Way to go to build consensus.

Secondly your claim that it helps the "kelpers", well for starters you are of course aware that name is no longer used much in the islands because it is used by Argentines as a racist pejorative. You might like to think about your language.

And finally, claims that it helps the Falklanders because they could apparently sue the Argentine Government is bunk and WP:OR. You're going to have to provide a cite for that extraordinary claim. Justin

talk 08:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I too fail to see the any direct relevance of Argentina's constitution to an article on the Falkland Islands. If the islands were under Argentine de facto control, then it would be different. But they're not, so it's not relevant.

I would also agree that the proposed edit violates WP:NOR. The interpretations given in Chuck's original comment here (regarding the constitutionality of a second invasion and so on) are also fairly obviously original research at this stage because they are an apparently original interpretation of a primary source. They require a cite, which would (of course) have to meet reasonable standards of reliability - noting that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

I would remind Chuck of the need for consensus for change (which this edit clearly does not have), and also remind him to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. It is perfectly possible to resolve a good faith disagreement - indeed, that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work (and it generally does it quite well) - but by failing to assume good faith you make it difficult for consensus to form. Pfainuk talk 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no good faith from the very start by those who arbitrarily undid the edit because they also undid the text which talked about Blair's visit and the sentence which referred to the end of the dictatorship when they claimed to only delete the constitutional reference (ref on a constitutional article which actually speaks about the Falklands and determines Arg future actions with regards to the islands). If they thought that any ref to the constitution was incorrect then only that part should have been deleted not the entire edit.

The irony here (and the proof of biased reporting) is that the article covers a lot of information about Argentina that has nothing to do with the Falklands, like Blairs visit in '01 to Iguazu were the Falklands were not discussed, the resuming of diplomatic relations between Britain and Arg which is about those countries not the Falklands, the sentence on the fall of the dictatorship (removed yesterday by Johndzz which I see wasn't reversed!) also an Argentina issue not Falklands; but then you will add in Kirchner's speech to 'recover' the islands plus note that the issue was included in his campaign yet you delete text from the most important document Argentina has which specifically talks about the Falklands? Its contradictory to do so. You also keep in what Uruguay, Brazil and Chile have done at times but not what Argentina wrote in its maximum document about the Falklands? Its plain cultural bias; where's the proof?, apart from the above you also keep here that Blair visited Argentina in '01 (although Falklands wasn't discussed) but Menem's visit to London in '98 (when he did met veterans) is not included. All the British newspapers covered it so don't say you never saw it (by the way its not a conspiracy just cultural bias). If you were fair and balanced either you include both visits (were Falklands wasn't discussed) or both visits are left out since neither one had anything to do with the Falklands but were more of a step in reconciliation between Arg/GB ie excluding the Falklands since they were off the agenda.

About suing Argentina? nope, I won't help you now, leave them in ignorance better plus international law may not apply to the Falklands according to Justin or Pfainuk???? and I'm out of here anyway so you can do what you want because obviously only a second war will solve the differences between you guys and the Argies (who I'll now fully support).

Oh, and your statement, Justin, that 'Kelpers' is a racial pejorative is just stupid. Its akin to claiming that 'kiwi' or Toon is racial; I never heard anyone use it in a racially demeaning way at all in the 2 years I spent in patagonia, they only used it to try to (politely) say that they aren't speaking about English or Scotts or Welsh ..... anyway I'm sure you won't accept my anecdotal evidence so there's no point to this anymore. So then guys, go fight the argies ......again! Chuckarg33 (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term "kelpers" is used in a racist context, which is why the term is rarely used these days in the islands. Its a fact, I assumed good faith and merely commented because some people still use the term out of ignorance for its modern context. Clearly you assume bad faith that there was more than that. You won't find me using the term "Argies" either, as these days it is mostly used in a racist context.

What I find most bizarre is that you're now an apparently fervent convert to the Argentine nationalist cause simply because someone on wikipedia undid an edit you did. Forgive me if I treat your comments with a degree of scepticism.

And for the record I've been accused by Argentines of a pro-British bias and by Brits for a streak of "blatant pro-Argentine bias" so I guess I've been pretty good at finding the neutral line upsetting both sides. I've also worked closely with a number of Argentine editors on articles related to the Falklands War. Ask editor [[User:DagosNavy] for example.

All that was asked of you was to talk about the issue in a reasonable manner, you instead chose to come here and spray accusations about. You've approached the whole thing in utterly the wrong way, needlessly creating heat and light when the situation could have been resolved with a reasonable discussion on the matter. Justin talk 08:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Justin. But I would note that the way the diff of your first edit was formatted made your edits within that paragraph difficult to spot. Given that you also didn't mention those edits in your edit summary or your talk page comment I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Justin, when reverting, didn't notice them. I know I wouldn't have noticed them. And even if Justin did revert them deliberately, reversion is not necessarily an assumption of bad faith. Note that the first word of his response to you was "Sorry" - that's hardly what you'd say to someone in whom you were assuming bad faith.

I believe you would find your work here more productive and enjoyable if you read up on core policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR. You will note that our comments had nothing to do with your interpretation of Argentine law. If anyone came along with any new and unsourced argument or unsourced interpretation of documents, then editors on both sides of the dispute would be obliged by policy not to accept that argument or interpretation in the article until sources could be found, regardless of any apparent political benefit to either side. Now, this article is far from perfect, but we're working to improve it.

I do find it a bit bizarre that you appear to believe that people are demonstrating pro-British bias by refusing to allow into the article an argument that you believe favours the British side. But there we are. Pfainuk talk 18:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't favour the British side but the 'islanders' side, but they can work it out themselves. After going through some of the archived pages and what is said here what stands out to me is that a small group of editors here have formed their own consensus, something which goes against the wiki spirit. But not to mind, lets see if we can start over, anew, since you seem to be fair and act in good faith? and this isn't a forum of course!! Chuckarg33 (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Chuckarg33 (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the rather obvious point that the Falkland Islanders consider themselves British, again you're bandying bad faith accusations about. Do you really consider that productive. Justin talk 08:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Visit by Blair

I noticed this sentance: "In 2001, British Prime Minister Tony Blair became the first Prime Minister to visit Argentina since the war." But I read in the telegraph that his visit was a private holiday to the Brazil/Arg boarder. This sentance implies a formal visit and is therefore misleading?JohnnyDzzy (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You could be right, do you have the URL for a copy of the article you refer to? Justin talk 14:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many after a google search. One's http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-making-historic-visit-to-argentina-next-week-679085.html; It has that the visit was oficial to Iguazu Falls with then president Rua but the Falklands was off the record. After this their kids joined them for a holiday, so my memory was off on that but still that visit came after Menem's in 98 to Britain and its more related to international relations between Britain/Argentina not the Falklands as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyDzzy (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well as it was unrelated to the Falkland Islands I have no objection to its removal from this article. Justin talk 10:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea I think we should just remove it, it's disputed and the information would be more relevant on the Falklands War article, or maybe Tony Blair's article. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Starting Over

Lets try and do this from sratch. I have some concerns about the way this article is written and some of the information contained therein and the claims of other editors here in the discussion page, who are in the majority. Can you consider the following:

1- What proof is there that 'kelper' is a derogatory term used by Argentinians? I for one never heard them nor saw it used as a derogatory term in the two years I lived and worked there; it has, though, always been used by the British just like they will use: Aussies, Argies, Kiwis etc. Where is the reference to show that it is used in a 'racists' context by argentinias?

2- in the Intro you have "Under Argentine Law they are eligible for Argentine citizenship.[7]", why is this relevant?, since it is about Argentina Law specifically and when, clearly, the 'islanders' don't want this and ignore it; but then what also appears in Argentine law about the islanders who are to be treated "respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law' can not appears in the article?

3- What proof is there to claim, under the Demographics paragraph, that "The Falkland Islands have been a centre of English language learning for South Americans.", the sentence is totally unreferenced and, imo, should be deleted since both Australia and South Africa attrack more students from south america to learn english (and probably Canada,USA too). The islands may well become one some day, or it may be trying to establish a english language study industry, but current difficulties in transportation plus the ongoing conflicts with argentina make it difficult to claim that it has been a 'centre' of english learning.

4- In the Politics paragraph it starts by covering the politics of the Falklands, make up, constitution etc which I'd say is correctly done. Then it goes to "In 1992 Argentina and Britain resumed diplomatic relations and reopened their embassies in each other's countries." This again isn't relevant to the politics of the Falklands or the relationship between the islands and Argentina, or is it? Or are you implying that because Britain resumed diplomatic relations then by default so did the Falkland government? I'd think it incorrect to do so and that sentence should be deleted as not relevant to the Falkland Islands per se.

5- This sentence is more correctly related to the Falklands War and should either be there or in the paragraph on the war, or better not at all: "On the twenty-second anniversary of the war, Argentina's President Néstor Kirchner gave a speech insisting that the islands would once again be part of Argentina. Kirchner, campaigning for president in 2003, regarded the islands as a top priority" Again, what the argentine president says about his governments intention isn't related to the politics of the islands. If it somehow is then logically what the Arg constitution specifically says about the islands is also relevant, is it not? Or is what Duhualde said about the islands in 2002 also relevant? or what Menem said, or Cavallo as foriegn minister said??etc

6- the sentence "The Falkland Islanders themselves are almost entirely British and maintain their allegiance to the United Kingdom" does this relate to how they see themselves as a member of the commonwealth, who sends athletes to the ComGames etc, or do they see themselves as a part of Britain as Scotland and Wales are? I believe they see themselves as the first, otherwise they would have a seat in the British parliament or seek one rather than at the summit of the Americas.

Well its a lot to cover.

My thoughts are that either you ignore everything that happens in Argentina which is related to the Falklands or ,better , one should include what the largest neighbor does that is related to the islands [since they still claim sovereignty and a second war isn't necessarily an impossibility].

The best way to solve this is to have an article which is only about the Falklands (this one) but with one section or paragraph added where all the Argentina-Falklands related issues are included, from the citizenship laws to the constitution's article about the islands, to Duhualde's comments in 2002 and Kirchners comments in 2003 etc etc. Maybe a section on "Falklands Islands: Relations with Argentina" can be now added? or other title could do. Chuckarg33 (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

-And surely the events described by http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8011539.stm should be covered somewhere in the Falklands article since the claim completely envelops the islands and is at the heart of this conflictive relationship between Arg/Falklands governments. Chuckarg33 (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than its a fact that "Kelpers" is used in a racist context I would probably agree with the idea of separating all the issues regarding Argentina into a separate section. If you want to see some examples of the way it is used try El Malvinense's website. Justin talk 08:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's true "Kelpers" is a racist term.

You have just thrown one major hissy fit, declaring you won't edit here ever again, right before saying you fully support a pro-Argentine bias, accused me of "continuing the Falklands War"!!! and also used the fact I called another editor, whom I had never met before, "mate" as grounds for a conspiracy against you. I find this ironic, as you're editing from Australia where "mate" is used frequently when greeting strangers. Now you expect us to forget your bad-faith actions, without even giving an apology!, just because you say "start over" and start believing that you are here to act in good faith.

For outside readers: User "Chuckarg33" was banned for edit warring to insert an unreferenced piece of material that everyone stated did not belong in this article. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, now that's just petty; 'conspiracy' I've not claimed only bias by 3 or 4 persons not 'everyone'. I've offered a fresh start not a continuation of conflict. Shame; take it or leave it. Chuckarg33 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Justin; I've checked briefly www.malvinense.com.ar + /notasdeguerra.html and /historias.html. The site seems to be an very extreme left-wing one but I can't find a reference to 'Kelpers' but then my Spanish is intermediate at best today (its been nearly 20 years since I was in Patagonia). Is there something to use as a reference for this, for the 'argies' using 'kelper' in a racists context? I'd be interested in seeing it because I don't believe they do so; my experience was that the normal Argentinian is very welcoming of foreigners, including the British, and are not a racists people although the demonstrations for whatever cause do get ugly. Note that I'm not saying at all that the islanders should accept 'kelper' or anything else, they can call themselves whatever they want to but it may be unfair to say that arg use 'kelpers' in a derogatory way.

I hope others agree about adding in a separate section for all the Argentina related matters. What about 3- above? Chuckarg33 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A good example of the use of term 'Kelper' in a normal non-derogatory way in agentina can be viewed at: http://www.nuestromar.org/noticias/politica_y_economia102006_islas_malvinas_un_estado_kelper ,a civilized discussion on the possibility of a 'Malvinas' state with a UN seat etc from the argentinian point of view. Here they are clearly using it in the same context as one would use 'Scott' or 'Kiwi' or 'Aussie' etc. But this doesn't mean that the islanders should adopt it.

The middle class newspaper El Clarin, also uses 'Kelper' in a non derogatory way in http://www.clarin.com/diario/2008/10/20/elpais/p-01785030.htm.

Plus there are many more after a google.com.ar search. So I still say that it is both unfair to claim that the argies use it as a racists term and that any reference to such in Wikipedia is incorrect. Chuckarg33 (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

El Malvinense is a right wing nutter and unfortunately I can't see it work or I'd have posted a link. BTW "Argies" is also considered racist these days - you'll notice we use the preferred term of Argentines. Try one one his friends like Juan Pablo Leronde BTW your argument is rather specious, not so long ago in the UK a white woman on one of these reality TV nonsense shows used the N word, not in a racist sense, but that still caused great offence. But the ract remains that the Argentines do use the word in a derogatory sense to imply a second class citizen. As regards (3) I'd put a fact tag on it, give it a month and then remove it if a reference isn't provided; I share your scepticism. Justin talk 15:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll use Argentines. Fair enough. On the use of the 'K' term, the newspaper articles show that they -Argentines- don't know that it could cause offense and hence don't say it in any offensive or racists way. I doubt those papers would use any offensive words because they aren't tabloids; maybe places like El Malvinense would if they knew it causes offense. But I wont use it anymore since some people see it as akin to the N word. Fine Chuckarg33 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally just to clarify, Justin, if you say that the 'K' term causes offense to the islanders and shouldn't be used, then I support your viewpoint. If you say that the Argentines use it in a derogatory or racists way, then no, I disagree, and know from first hand experience that this isn't the case in many Patagonian settlements I've lived in, plus the people of Argentina may well be accused of many things but racists against foreigners generally isn't one of them (although there may be crazies here and there). Chuckarg33 (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My personal reactions:

I think it's reasonable to suggest that not every usage of the word "Kelpers" in Argentina is intended in a racist way. But it is perhaps also fair to suggest that not every usage isn't. I think we're all agreed that it causes offence to the islanders.

Point 2, on Argentine citizenship. Essentially, it's there to balance out the point that the islanders have British citizenship made directly before (since both sides consider them to be their own citizens). Though the islanders themselves reject the Argentine citizenship, Argentina still considers the islanders to be Argentine citizens - at least in theory - and it was argued (presumably) that it was POV to include the one without mentioning the other. For my part, I would be quite happy to see the removal of both from the lead, but I think that if we are commenting on the relatively narrow question of citizenship we should probably acknowledge both.

Point 3, sounds dodgy to me too.

Point 4, FWIW, the UK government has responsibility for the foreign relations of the Falklands - thus it's the UK government that represents the Falklands overseas. The Falkland Islands Government is not legally able to have formal diplomatic relations with any country at all.

Point 5, I haven't checked but I wouldn't be surprised if that reference was added shortly after the speech was made - or at least when Néstor Kirchner was still president - and never removed, becoming less relevant with every year.

Point 6 is a little complicated. The islands are considered to be United Kingdom territory, without formally being a part of the United Kingdom in the way that Scotland and England are. The islanders do not (I believe) consider themselves to be equivalent to, say, Shetland islanders - but at the same time they consider themselves to be "British", something that could not be said of any independent Commonwealth nation. The islands have a society distinct from Great Britain, but at the same time islanders are likely to mix with people from Great Britain - particularly recently, given the military presence there.

I would add that the term 'British' has a narrow sense of someone from the island of Great Britain; a broad sense that includes Northern Ireland, and an even broader sense that includes the Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories. Even if we are thinking 'British' in terms of Great Britain and Ireland ancestry, many islanders do not have British ancestry only. A large number have Scandinavian ancestry alongside their British ancestry and not only those with Scandinavian surnames. Dab14763 (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be a good idea on principle to organise the information specifically related to the relationship with Argentina (with the exception of historical information) into a single section. Personally, I'd call it "Relationship with Argentina" and put it as a subsection of "Politics". Not so much because Argentina is the islands' closest neighbour (the islanders probably have more contact with Chile than Argentina - that's where the plane goes) but because of the ongoing sovereignty dispute that makes the relationship with Argentina particularly relevant. It needn't go into too much detail - just enough to summarise and to point people to where to find more information. Pfainuk talk 18:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

re Pfainuk: "I'd call it "Relationship with Argentina" and put it as a subsection of "Politics".

Yes, I'd agree and say that it is the solution to the differences of opinion, shown above. Justin also expressed general agreement so I suppose that it could now get done??

2- & 5- I'd say to move it to either Politics or Demographics, or preferably separate them into Demographic for British Citizenship and that new section of Relationship with Argentina for their law. It shouldn't be deleted completely since that may be a form of censorship, in my view. 3- should be deleted now I think? 4- & 6- are true, correctly written today but one needs to keep an eye on it since there is talk of at least of a UN seat for the islanders (from what I read yesterday). Seems to me to be the next logical step in a way that's similar to the East Timor case. Chuckarg33 (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious what talk of a UN seat? Justin talk 09:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we have consensus here at the moment. I've made some of the changes - specifically I have moved the comment on citizenship out of the lead (to the demographics section) and removed the claim about English-language learning because I really don't expect a source to show up (though Justin, if you do want to readd it with a cite tag I don't mind). I have also integrated the sentence stating the islanders' views on the sovereignty dispute into the sentence on the war because I think it makes that paragraph read better. The relationship with Argentina section I haven't done, but I still support it. I'll have a go this weekend if I get a decent chance (unless someone goes for it before me or there is some objection here).

I'd also be interested to hear about talk of a UN seat Pfainuk talk 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work mate, look forward to reading it. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

UN seat: article in Arg paper,not really relevant since its what some think could happen one day. Chuckarg33 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For the new section or for the current "Former Argentine links", I think its interesting what http://www.clarin.com/diario/2009/03/29/elpais/p-01886831.htm says. Its in Spanish obviously, so basically: its that 2 teachers were sent in 1974 from Buenos Aires to teach Spanish to children on the islands, with the Falklands Governor providing housing and heating (probably oil) and the Argentina government paying their wages. Shows, as other things do, that the cooperation between the countries was actually increasing before the war, but obviously that cooperation has decreased significantly after the war, and as http://www.clarin.com/diario/2009/04/12/elpais/p-01896030.htm says, that Arg/Falklands relationship may just deteriorate further in the near future. Chuckarg33 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That was one of the provisions of the Communications Agreement that the FCO and the Argentine Government concocted to make the islands dependent upon Argentina. Which article on a UN seat please post it. Justin talk 20:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

One could've been: http://www.nuestromar.org/noticias/politica_y_economia102006_islas_malvinas_un_estado_kelper , where a Richard Davies is quoted as saying to Chile's La Tercera and then to Argentina's La Nacion (via email) that a possible long term goal could be full independence, but it can't happen while Argentina claims sovereignty since they still need British defense because of that claim. I think I read this in La Nacion (which is anything but tabloid) as an editorial but I can't find it now. I skipped through it since I thought that the islands were similar to the East Timor case but its not quite the same. Notice that they also use 'kelper' but the article seems academic so again I just don't think they know that its seen as derogatory. Notice also that it says that the issue of independence was debated in the Argentine senate (so a complicated search of senate records could prove this) as a problem for Argentina's claims since an independent nation is viewed differently precisely in the UN. The new section is good since its difficult to talk about the islands without the history of its relations to its nearest neighbour.Chuckarg33 (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Communications Agreement that the FCO and the Argentine Government concocted to make the islands dependent upon Argentina." could be, I don't know; what is certain is that it all changed after 1982, so the war also probably ended any chance of the Argentinians having these islands for good -the last 'present' left to the people from the Junta. Chuckarg33 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite probably. Before 1982 the FCO saw the Falklands as a bit of a nuisance, they considered getting rid of them was worth improving relations with Argentina and that as far as Britain was concerned they were of no strategic value. What stymied those attempts was the very real fears of the Falklanders about a forced integration with Argentina and so they managed to put together a very effective lobby in Parliament. The FCO then contrived various inventive ways to foist the islands on the Argentines. In part this was frustrated by the Falklands Lobby but also by the intransigence of the Argentines themselves. To be honest were it not for the war, its my opinion the FCO would have allowed the economy to stagnate prompting emigration and depopulation and eventual transfer to Argentina. The war was responsible for changing that, the economy has boomed with the improvements suggested by the Shackleton report and Argentine policy since has just been counter-productive and continues to be so (with the exception of Di Tella who seems to be about the only Argentine politician that I've seen grasp the idea of the need for rapprochement rather than confrontation). And as Britain doesn't want to be bothered with colonies any more the Falklands and other BOT are self-governing to a much greater degree, the modernised relationship with the UK in the new constitution means they're simply leaving Argentina behind. Justin talk 18:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with this analysis. There might be somewhere, in some section somehow, here or in another article, where this could be added to Wikipedia, but some will see it as POV only. In my view the war was the last of the crimes committed by the Junta of Videla et al, crimes which only brought pain and suffering to the ordinary people. Chuckarg33 (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

British bias and edit warring and POV pushing

What appear to be POV pushing British nationals, given their edit history, seem to continue to insert their POV and uncited fiction as "fact" in this wiki. They claim that all of the Islanders have rejected being granted Argentine citizenship, but supply not one shred of evidence, not even a poll showing the majority of Islanders feel that way. This behavior is unaccetable and should be dealt with by an admin. It would not surprise me if this entire wiki is rife with such blatant British POV pushing. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear..... the two sources quoted perfectly show the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. There has not been (and it is unlikely that there will be) a poll of Islanders wishes but a simple search will show plenty of evidence of Islanders desire to remain British. BennyTec (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The two sources do not substantiate the claim at all. This is not zero sum proposition. People can have multiple nationalities. The wiki states and the bogus POV is being pushed they reject being granted citizenship with absolutely not a shred of proof to back it up. Simple as that. Blatant POV pushing and an admin or soneone should do something about the "pushers".66.190.29.150 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a single source anywhere which substantiates a claim that there are significant numbers of Falkland Islanders who do NOT reject Argentine citizenship then I would be intrested to see it!. I take your point that it may seem POV and might seem unpalatable in this modern 'global village' era but it is simple fact. BennyTec (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That is NOT how wikipedia works. You want to include some supposed "fact" --about living persons, no less-- you need a valid cite that gives that precise information. I only swung by here and saw some blatantly biased statement, corrected it, and now like a pack of wild dogs people swarm to push a British POV. It's really quite sickening Wikipedia can be reduced to such jingoistic nonsense.66.190.29.150 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The section that the IP disputes is perfectly factual and is backed up by the sources given. If one side or other doesn't like the facts, that doesn't make them any less factual. Given how divergent the two positions being noted are, it would be POV not to give the islanders' position on this. Pfainuk talk 18:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying something is true doesn't make it true, nor does repeating it over and over. I don't intend to sit idle while some POV pushers think they can libel several thousand people by putting words in their mouths and thoughts into their minds.66.190.29.150 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

personal experience speaking; I am a Falkland Islander, have lived here all my life and know of not a single person in the Islands who wishes to be anything but British, I know that is not usable as a source but there it is. There are plenty of sources on the internet backing up the section and not one to disprove it. There is no one putting thoughts into the islanders minds or words in our mouths it is just fact. I hope that helps... BennyTec (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of funny, cause every Scottish person I know from the united states/canada hates the idea of just being called "british", and apparently Scots make up a significant portion of the "islanders". We can't use that, either, can we? We also can't say thousands of people have said something when there is nor a shred of proof they did. Can't be done. And if a wiki admin is endorsing this behavior, they better have their admin functions stripped forever, verily and quickly.66.190.29.150 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is kind of funny to me because I'm Scottish and very proud of it. I'm also British and proud as hell of that as well. I'm always amused by people who seem to think they can speak on behalf of others and simply ignore evidence that contradicts their personal opinions. Justin talk 13:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a rather different situation here to either Canada or the US, in fact completely different. In Canada and the US you do not have a beligerent foreign neighbour who claims your country and has invaded and fought a war over your country in recent history. There is absolutely no question that Falkland Islanders prefer to remain British. Having said that, most Falkland Islanders would say the are Falkland Isladers first, British second. But never ever Argentine. BennyTec (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's nice and all Benny, but you entirely missed the point I was making, but it's not that imperative. Anyway, having argentine citizenship has nothing to having british citizenship, or even considering oneself british or an "islander". I have three citizenships, even though I was born in a single country and have never been under the sovereignty of any country other than the USA. Like I said, it's not "zero sum". Few things outside of math and logic are. The facts remain, or in this case, it appears the "facts" don't exist, only conjecture, assumption and generalization 66.190.29.150 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the law surrounding the various types of British citizenship and plurality of citizenship does vary, I believe (as an aside). Your combattive attitude may need to alter if you wish to contribute successfully to wikipedia; we are all here to improve the encyclopedia and engaging in wars over things like English vs American spelling and unclear rants tend to make you come off as far more negative than I am sure you would wish. Moving on to the issue at hand: There are two refs there that I see. Do you believe the point is totally unsupported (that the Islanders consider themselves British and not Argentine?) or do you think the wording is perhaps misrepresenting the source? Is the issue something else? The source is unacceptable? I've read through the sources and I do think that the wording does need tightening and shifting around but I'd just like a clear and calm statement as to what you view as being at fault here. Lets find a problem then worry about a solution. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My issue was purely with the explicit wording that I removed. Further, when I first came across the portion I removed, it was not cited at all. It basically said that "according to the laws of Argentina, the Islanders were also Argentinian citizens", but then it goes on to say that "the islanders reject that (citizenship)" or some similar absolute statement that is, quite frankly, nearly impossible to support in the current rheorical form. You would need to have a poll that said 100% of those polled "reject being given Argentinian citizenship". Considering oneself "british", has nothing to do with rejecting Argentinian citizenship. But even that itself didn't matter, because the sources didn't even come anywhere close to substantiating the claim, instead they lurch off into the strawman-filled left field of "sovereignty", which is not the same thing as citizenship. Even the British thing is a strawman, as no poll even substantiates the claim they all even consdier themselves British. Many of them, in fact, consider themselves neither British nor Argentinian. It's pretty simple, really, what I removed is not substantiated in the cites supplied. It's an issue of basic reading comprhension and basic logic. No more, no less.66.190.29.150 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

ho hum, I think this is going to be impossible to prove to the entire satisfaction of the IP, Islanders do reject Argentine citizenship as it is seen by many as giving credence to the Argentine claim to the Islands. Unfortunately in this case Sovereignty and Citizenship are intertwined, at least in many people's minds. BennyTec (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Then get a cite, benny.66.190.29.150 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And that's the end of that chapter!!!  ;) BennyTec (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! 1) re: 'I only swung by here and saw some blatantly biased statement, corrected it, and now like a pack of wild dogs people swarm to push a British POV. It's really quite sickening Wikipedia can be reduced to such jingoistic nonsense' Yes, this seems to be the strategy a few editors have to keep others away, others who aren't in the project group, from editing here. They will actually go off and recruit others to join in against any outsider. Then, the second step, is to call you offensive or tell you to tone down your writing but they don't or never tone down their own words nor apologize or any attacks. They are majority here and so can claim 'consensus'. Shame that there seems to be no way to stop this happening in WP but those involved should reconsider their actions, reconsider if this helps or hurts WP.

2) Now on the articles' issue here, I always understood that the islanders want to be Islanders first and only lobbied for that British citizenship act because Argentina still wants the islands, so for me it is understandable that the islanders will latch onto british citizenship especially after the war. Before the BN Act '83, Argentina would always include in its arguments that the islanders were not treated as fully english to imply that GB didn't really want them while they did (and then built them a runway etc) but those arguments all become defunct once that Act passed. But some islanders have used argentine citizenship when its convenient for them to do so, eg?, we saw an islander (saw reported here in Sydney) try out for Boca and used his DNI from argentina while there, but then went to GB so he would've left that DNI in some draw I guess; another was interviewed who studied at an aeronautical school in santa fe then married and stayed in BsAs all under his 'Argentine citizenship'; others cross over to Comodoro if they need to for medical care (less so today) but while there would use their argentine DNI. Also an article covered a man who married an argentine women and they both stayed on the islands but kept their DNI until the war. Now I can give you the sources for all this but will that change anything? I mean the Davies interview above and his wishes for a UN seat and claims that part of the Legislative agrees is still in the talk page but not in the article but rather a 'maintain their allegiance to the United Kingdom' was kept. If I add a few sentences on Davie's interview will it be deleted straight away claiming 'no consensus'?? If that did stay then I'll give you the other sources to change the article to something like "while Islanders prefer to remain British some will utilize Argentine Citizenship when necessary" but then will that stay? since it does weaken the british POV a bit? Charlie (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you might like to look up the difference between English and British Charlie. You may surprised to know they are not the same. Falkland Islanders "fully english" huh? I don't think so. While you are at it look up the diference between GB and UK. --LiamE (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like this is Argentine POV pushing. The bottom line is that the Falklands are British territory. For a foreign state to assert its citizenship on the population of another is highly offensive and there is no evidence that this is wanted. --Gibnews (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Up until 1982 Falkland Islanders where forced to carry Argentine identification, the 'white card', in order to travel through Argentina (at the time the only way to travel from the Islands.) There are also Islanders who moved to Argentina permanently before (or in one case immediately after) 1982. Comodoro Rivadavia has not been used for Medical Treatment since 1982, all medical treatment overseas is either carried out in the UK or in Chile. for re-wording how about something along the lines of "Under Argentine Law they are eligible for Argentine citizenship, but due to the Falkland Islands rejection of the Argentine claim to sovereignty this is also rejected by most Islanders" BennyTec (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

When I hear someone coming hear screaming bias and POV, then the chances are they are here to push a bias and a POV. For the record several of us have been accused of a pro-British bias by Argentines and a streak of pro-Argentine bias by Brits. So it would seem by offending both sensibilities we have steered the article toward a NPOV.

The text in the article is supported by valid sources, it satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. And to be frank all I ever hear from you Charlie is a series of assertions, I have never seen you provide a valid cite. You have your opinion and that is what you want to force into the article. As always, always its wading into the article accusing others, demonstrating a complete lack of good faith and you never put forward a constructive suggestion. I've said it before you need to contribute positively all you will simply dismissed as a POV pusher. Justin talk 12:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

just been talking to a couple of people (Falkland Islanders in the Falklands!) about this and actually it would probably be more accurate to say "but due to the Falkland Islands rejection of the Argentine claim to sovereignty this is also DISMISSED by most Islanders" as with many issues which seem to get some editors here riled up it is a bit of a non-issue in the islands but perhaps more of an issue in Argentina, I don't know.. BennyTec (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is noticeable that the person alleging bias and POV pushing is the same person inflaming tensions unnecessarily. And this isn't the first time we've seen this. Justin talk 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just caught up with all this, shame I missed it, it looks like it's been a hoot. The irony of a new IP user, pushing his bias, then telling us how Wikipedia works lol, he's like Chuckarg Jr. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I probably didn't help! Chucky Jr hmmmm... now where have I heard that before....  ;) BennyTec (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It has to be said that if people come along here with all guns blazing, accusing people of things and generally failing to AGF, they are likely to inflame the discussion and entrench people's views. This reaction is not helpful in consensus-building, but is fairly inevitable: starting off a discussion as the IP did with a string of accusations is almost exactly the opposite of what people want to do if they want the article to change. Pfainuk talk 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the use of the word dismissed insted of rejected? That word probably more accurately reflects the feeling here but not sure if it is backed up by the sources. BennyTec (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy with that. I believe the sources we have are sufficient for it. Pfainuk talk 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My work here is done :) BennyTec (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)