Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Page locked

I have locked the page on the wrong version. Too many people are reverting without even bothering to acknowledge a discussion on this page, much less participate. The editors who are discussing above are expressing understandable frustration at being ignored, and good editors have already left the page. This is wrong. Jonathunder (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You've protected the page after being involved with editing the page which isn't great, you are clearly not impartial, so I would ask that you take no further administrative action in relation to this in future. Thanks. Nick (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I locked the page on the version I don't support. I did that because repeated requests to discuss the issues were being ignored. Thanks for your advice, however. Jonathunder (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember that the point of WP:INVOLVED is that you're not allowed to use your tools to your advantage. Protecting a page on a version with which you disagree is nowhere near using your tools to your advantage. Perhaps Jonathunder's violated the letter of the law, but this kind of thing is far from violating the spirit of the law, and operating by the spirit of the law is what we're supposed to do here at Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal citation in intro

Anyone mind if I change "British Nationality Act of 1983" to "British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983"? The latter is the name of the article, and anyway Acts of Parliament in the UK don't have "of" before the year. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody responded, I've performed the edit in question. Leave a note at my talk page if you disagree, and I'll happily revert. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested edit - Lord Falkland

In the Etymology section, "the Viscount" should be replaced with "Lord Falkland" or "the Viscount Falkland" per Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#References to peers. Surtsicna (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The only way I can see this as being controversial due to the premise of an RFC currently being conducted here on the matter in dispute. The premise of that RFC is that WikiProject style guides must be marked up as Wikipedia-wide policies or guidelines. The premise holds further that any WikiProject style guide that isn't is "probably unenforceable" and "at best a draft document" which we should ignore. This would seem to apply to the styles documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage as much as to the point at hand.

I am objecting to that premise and personally have no problem with the rule being applied. The rule would seem to suggest "Lord Falkland" is preferred. Kahastok talk 11:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The matter seems silly to me, but if that's the standard (and proper) way to refer to the Viscount, then the change should indeed be made for the better name. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, reading the section for the nth time, I continue to acknowledge Kahastok's earlier point about the need for balance in the last paragraph of the section. "Falklands" is also a name with added negative connotations in Spanish. If someone could please find a good source that fixes this problem, then it would be greatly appreciated. Best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 September 2013

I would add to the History paragraph the map file Malouines1783.jpg which shows the names used for the islands in the years before the Spanish take-over. Renaud OLGIATI (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that the naming of these islands is highly controversial, Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

edit request

reindeers -> reindeer

It's a collective noun. —rybec 19:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a collective noun but a noun where the plural is identical to the singular. If we were to speak of "a herd of reindeer", the word "herd" is the collective noun. Nevertheless, Done. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

guaranteeing good government

The UK can't even guarantee good government in its own country. How is it supposed to do it 5000 miles away? Surely there is a better way of wording this. Eckerslike (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you didn't read the very top of the talk page, which includes "This is not a forum for general discussion about Falkland Islands. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article". OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the UK "guarantees good government" is encyclopaedic language. I'm guessing that it is supossed to mean free from dictatorship or corrupt government but the current wording implies that the UK government has some magical power to not only govern well but to guarantee everyone else does as well. Eckerslike (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Eckerslike is right to draw attention to this. The source cited in the article - this - makes no mention of "good government". It refers to "good governance" - not the same thing at all - see Governance. The opening paragraph should be corrected accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2013

The reference to "good government" in the fourth sentence of the opening paragraph should be changed to "good governance" - as per the source cited in the article text. It is misleading - incorrect, in fact - to suggest that the UK is responsible for the "good government" of the islands, which is an issue of self-determination. It is responsible for protecting the institutions that allow good government - that is, it is responsible for the island's governance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The word "good" occurs twice in the source, both times followed by "governance", so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

proposed change to text about Gordon Brown

existing:

In 2009, British prime minister [[Gordon Brown]] met with Argentine president [[Cristina Fernández de Kirchner]] and declared that there would be no talks over the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7969463.stm | title=No talks on Falklands, says Brown | publisher=BBC News | date=28 March 2009 |accessdate=24 August 2013}}</ref> As far as the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands are concerned, no pending issue to resolve exists.{{sfn|Lansford|2012|p=1528}}<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/28/falkland-islands-sovereignty-argentina | author=Nicholas Watt| title=Falkland Islands sovereignty talks out of the question, says Gordon Brown | publisher=The Guardian | date=27 March 2009 |accessdate=24 August 2013}}</ref>

proposed:

In 2009, British prime minister [[Gordon Brown]] met with Argentine president [[Cristina Fernández de Kirchner]] and declared that there would be no talks over the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7969463.stm | title=No talks on Falklands, says Brown | publisher=BBC News | date=28 March 2009 |accessdate=24 August 2013}}</ref> Brown's position was that there were no pending issues to resolve concerning the Falkland Islands.{{sfn|Lansford|2012|p=1528}}<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/28/falkland-islands-sovereignty-argentina | author=Nicholas Watt| title=Falkland Islands sovereignty talks out of the question, says Gordon Brown | publisher=The Guardian | date=27 March 2009 |accessdate=24 August 2013}}</ref>

reason:

to make it obvious that the sentence is a statement the British viewpoint (current wording could be interpreted as meaning "there are no outstanding disputes" and as being said in the voice of Wikipedia) —rybec 03:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Lansford makes it clear that this is a government position, not Brown's personal opinion. The current text also does not use Wikipedia's voice. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This Web page explains it better than I did: the expression "as far as x is concerned" has two meanings "from the point of view of [the person] x" or "pertaining to x". If read the second way, the sentence tells us that there are no unresolved issues pertaining to Britain and the Falklands. "The Brown government" would be fine in the replacement. —rybec 06:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The website clearly distinguishes one meaning from the other. There is no two ways to read it. The encyclopedia's voice is not used. Also, I again repeat that this is a government position. Has Cameron changed it?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I did suggest "the Brown government" in response to your first comment. Is there a problem with saying "The position of the British government was that there were no pending issues to resolve concerning the Falkland Islands."? There are two ways to read it because "the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands" doesn't clearly refer to people. —rybec 18:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You keep suggesting terms that refer to past administrations or past positions. Again, I ask, has the Cameron administration changed the UK's position?

Lansford is pretty clear in demonstrating that this position has been a standard since the end of the Falklands War.

When discussing international politics, the states become the actors (or "people").

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the Lansford book. Can you suggest an alternative wording that is consistent with it but avoids the "as far as ... concerned" construction? The Falkland Islands don't conduct their own diplomatic relations, so they aren't an actor here. In the phrase "as far as the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands are concerned," "the United Kingdom" refers to the UK government whereas "the Falkland Islands" refers to the island territory. It's difficult to understand because "the United Kingdom" commonly refers to another set of islands. It's similar to the phrase "apples and orange" where "apples" means the fruit but "orange" means the colour. —rybec 21:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Instead of approaching the matter in circles, you could have simply pointed out your concern of placing the Falkland Islands at the same government level with the UK. Right?

Assuming that's the case, which does have a more justifiable logic behind it, an improved sentence I can propose is the following:

As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, "in the absence of evidence that the islanders themselves [seek] a change", no pending issue to resolve exists.

Because the problem is not with the structure of the sentence. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Worth noting that the UK government always puts the Falklands government's view centre-stage here. The point of mentioning the FI view (and it is the FI Government being referred to here), is that the UK position is that it is up to the islanders - represented by their government - to determine the islands' status. The FI government view is significant because the UK government makes it so. Kahastok talk 22:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't immediately noticed the second ambiguity. I mentioned it once it occurred to me. Here is another Web page explaining the two meanings of "as far as ... is concerned". —rybec 04:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, for the sake of sanity lets ditch the grammatical structure in question. Perhaps the following is better?

The UK's position is that, "in the absence of evidence that the [Falklanders] themselves [seek] a change", there are no pending issues to resolve concerning the Falkland Islands.

Fits your proposed structure change while also retaining mention of the Falklanders. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems clear. —rybec 02:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

current text:

As far as the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands are concerned, no pending issue to resolve exists.

new text:

The UK's position is that, "in the absence of evidence that the [Falklanders] themselves [seek] a change", there are no pending issues to resolve concerning the Falkland Islands.

as discussed above. —rybec 19:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 change made — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Unprotection

The discussion about units seems to be settled. Perhaps it should be a good moment to request unprotection of the aticle (or at least just semi-protection), and go on. Cambalachero (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What would be the case to keep semi-protection as there is not a problem with unregistered editors? FactController (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Weights and Measures Proposal

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

---

Following on from the discussion further up the page I have a proposal to recommened as a compromise, appreciate if you indicate acceptance or opposition only here, so please dont continue the discussion here:

• Proposed that we dont use WP:FALKLANDSUNITS and just use the WP:UNITS as per non-science UK-related articles. If accepted then users agree to initiate no new discussions on this topic unless some new developments in the relevant Falklands practice were to occur. As a record of this proposal if agreed that WP:FALKLANDUNITS can be replaced with a statement:

Units on Falklands-related articles shall be those recommended for non-scientific UK-related articles at WP:UNITS. Where any given unit is explicitly recommended or suggested by WP:UNITS for use in UK-related articles, Falklands-related articles will follow that recommendation or suggestion. No measure shall deviate from those measures without clear consensus, or where other parts of WP:UNITS take precedence.

Accept

• Accept as proposer. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Accept. More precisely, I am inclined to support the proposal, if the safeguard clause is included in the WP:FALKLANDUNITS replacement statement too. The added text could be “The present arrangements will be subject to no review or amendment initiative unless some new developments in the relevant Falklands practice were to occur. Any attempt to infringe, circumvent or otherwise undermine these arrangements would be liable to sanctions through WP:AN or Arbcom motion.” Or something of the sort. Apcbg (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Accept as proposed. Michael Glass (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Accept any compromise to finally move this page forward. Jonathunder (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Accept with the proviso that the term "science-related" is liberally defined - in particular geographical terms. Martinvl (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

...and there we go. Martin wants us to follow WP:UNITS, but only if we accept Martin's gamed version rather than follow the letter and spirit of the policy. Anyone think this is going to help anything? You've got to be joking. Kahastok talk 20:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it clear that science-related articles refers to articles not terms within other non-science articles like this one. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What MilborneOne said is my interpretation also. Jonathunder (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

One more. It's hard to imagine what "miles" is to be used for if not geographical distance. --GRuban (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Within normal British usage, road signs show distances to towns in miles, but schoolbooks show the sizes of land masses in kilometres. Martinvl (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As a refinement, I suggest that the policy will be "Adopt a neutral point of view in respect of the Falkland Islands sovereignty issues by following a "metric-first" policy insofar as this is compatible with the interpretation of WP:UNITS by a significant number of editors working on other similar British-related articles". Martinvl (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that you support the proposal, but only if it says something completely different to what is actually proposed. That isn't a "refinement", it's a completely different text with a completely different meaning, replacing WP:UNITS with your own POV.

Anyone still in any doubt that Martin's going to try to game this? Kahastok talk 08:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, You wrote, "What you seem to be saying..." so it seems that you are not sure what Martin meant. Instead of accusing, why not ask for clarification first? Michael Glass (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think there is a way of interpreting his sentence in a way other than I did? I don't see one. And it is pretty much par-for-the-course in this discussion. Kahastok talk 15:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The sentence can be read two ways: that the units should be metric first because the sovereignty question is unresolved or that the usage should be compatible with the interpretation of WP:UNITS by a significant number of editors working on other similar British-related articles. It's not clear, so it's not safe to jump to conclusions - and accusations. Michael Glass (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

After four and a half years of watching Martin try every trick in the book to push metrication here, I think my conclusion is pretty safe. Kahastok talk 16:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, we've all been dancing around it for far too long, so I'm just going to come out and say it: Kahastok, you have a rather unhealthy obsession with other users on here, chiefly martin. You have been accusing others of longstanding irrational behavior, and to be quite honest, what we've seen lately out of you is no better. I mean, come on, it even unjustly spilled over into my own talk page! I think at this point you would be far better served by stepping away from editing for a while and try to calm yourself down. You do not own this article or any particular parts or details about it, and you need to realize people will disagree on the internet, and others reneging on whatever perceived commitments or agreements is just simply not your purview. This article does not have any trouble gathering any drama and we don't need anyone like yourself fanning the flames. How about we all just try to move the discussion along and not worry about others so much? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think people need to understand the history to this dispute if they want to understand why people are reacting the way they are. I also see nothing wrong with wanting a final resolution to this dispute so that we can all get on with improving the article, and I see no reason why I should not point out what I see the barriers to such final resolution as being, and explaining why I believe the current proposal does not provide such a resolution. This is why I am, for example, pointing out that on one hand Martin is supporting the proposal, but then saying that "[a]s a refinement" it should say something completely different. It is also why I am asking for a formal close and a clear indication of what units would be applied in specific situations.

As to your talk page, I must admit, I still remain entirely confused by your reaction there. I see nothing particularly objectionable or even particularly impolite about what I wrote there. What you wrote is another matter. Kahastok talk 17:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite, let's talk about history here. The direct inducement coupled with a fallacy that you wrote "If you want to leave it as-is until more people arrive, please self-revert now" was taken as a threat due to your long history of either creating or continuing drama here and elsewhere, and I stand by my reaction due to the fact that you were likely to drag the whole thing out there as well unless I took a different approach. And yes, I also stand by my statement there that you "are only using consensus when it suits you". And again, I assert my right to "not have to explain one single thing to anyone involved in a pissing match like that." And furthermore, when I had clearly left that conversation (for reasons which are at this point irrelevant), YOU KEPT GOING! That is what happened, that (and other things like it) is why people are irritated with you, and if you don't do some serious modification to your outlook and behavior, whoever else gets involved in this drama-trap will have to deal with you too! Get some help man, and with all the civility I can muster at this point, you very possibly need it. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to when you talk about "your long history of either creating or continuing drama here and elsewhere". I still have no idea what you mean by "only using consensus when it suits you" and while you don't have to explain your reasoning to me it is disappointing that you chose to abuse me when all I wanted was to understand where you were coming from. I finally note that I wasn't even aware of your comment here when I made your final comment (that was just you assuming bad faith). I think that if someone was creating drama on your talk page it certainly wasn't me. Kahastok talk 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Accept If I understood correctly, UNITS is a long standing guideline for all articles, FALKLANDUNITS is simply a page without any special status. It does not make sense that a discussion about units forces to page-protect the whole article from any editing; just settle this and go on. If the conflict is between a general and accepted guideline and a controversial essay, then just drop the essay and tag it with {{failed}}. After all, I don't see why do we need a special page for the islands. Should we have a ARGENTINAUNITS page as well? A CHILEANUNITS, a URUGUAYANUNITS or a PERUVIANUNITS, perhaps? Let's better keep the Pandora's box closed. Cambalachero (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is not an essay. It is a consensus on this WikiProject, accepted by all for well over two years. Kahastok talk 22:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If it was accepted by all, we wouldn't be here, with a full-protected article because of disputes about meters, yards and whatnot Cambalachero (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It was accepted by all until Martin decided to renege on it, declaring it never to been consensus despite having made all outward appearance of accepting it for well over two years. It is Martin that now brings us back here over and over. Kahastok talk 06:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• We are reminded that consensus can change. And it seems from the discussion here that it may have changed already. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it can. But there comes a point at which the same editors raise the same point at which we can say that the consensus is unlikely to have changed, any more than it did three weeks previously, three weeks before that, three weeks before that, three weeks before that...

The point I was making was because Martin suddenly announced that the consensus that he had previously signed up to never existed in the first place, on the false basis that he had never signed up to it (despite clear evidence to the contrary). This has caused much confusion during this discussion. Kahastok talk 19:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Accept I was reluctant to descend into this morass again but as Cambalachero just said there is nothing special about the Falklands that requires a special set of units. There needs to be a valid reason to depart from WP:UNITS and I don't see any such reason. If it is good enough for the rest of Wikipedia it is good enough for this article. Mtpaley (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS does not depart from WP:UNITS, except insofar as it is prescriptive, which is needed given the rampant WP:GAME violations on this topic. Kahastok talk 22:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Accept, per ... User:Kahastok. Yes, the one who is "strong oppose in all circumstances" just below. Because earlier he wrote "I would be happy to see a rewritten WP:FALKLANDSUNITS that does nothing but endorse WP:UNITS as per "non-science UK-related articles"". Which is exactly what is being proposed. There was a condition on that statement, which was that it be enforceable. Well, with this strong an agreement it will be enforceable, the same way everything is around here - when there is a disagreement, first we try to hash it out nicely, then we call in an admin, and point to the overwhelming acceptance of this proposal. Folks, this debate has already been listed in WP:LAME, and not by me. If an admin needs to be called in, we can point to that as well. --GRuban (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you not think that the normal method has been tried? We had a consensus, that was accepted universally for over two years before Martin decided to fire this up again. That's the current version of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. It's all very well saying "call in an admin", but when the admins aren't interested in doing anything about it - as now - it doesn't help us. Kahastok talk 17:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Admins aren't special. A couple of people who weighed in here happen to be admins, but they are just editors. It looks like we have an emerging strong new consensus of editors here, and that's what matters. Jonathunder (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, hold on. The comment I responded to actually told us, if the thing gets started up again (and it will be because the moratorium is toothless) and isn't resolved easily (and it won't be - see the above discussion), to "call in an admin". We've got into exactly that position with the last consensus, and the admins aren't interested. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that this time won't be the same. Postponing the dispute by a few months is no resolution. Kahastok talk 21:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We have two or three admins in the current discussion so at least some are interested. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

But this fact does nothing to my concern that GRuban commented on that sparked this exchange, that nothing is being proposed in terms of enforcement that has not already been tried and found wanting. With a toothless moratorium - that wouldn't even be mentioned on the page - and admins unwilling to act against clear gaming, we do nothing but kick the can down the road. Rather than resolving this debate once and for all, we practically guarantee another round of it. I want a long-term solution to this, and this isn't a long term solution. Kahastok talk 22:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, do you think any of us want to go through this #$%! again? When my friend at the coffee shop the other day asked what I was editing and why I seemed stressed about it, he looked at me like I was nuts when I told him it had to do with the order of metric or imperial first on an article about some islands. Maybe I am nuts. Maybe we all are. But, for the hope of sanity, can we wrap this up so we can all move on? If we can, I promise anyone who wants to start a fight about this again will be very unpopular. Jonathunder (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

When I asked on ANI for a link to a discussion where this was decided, no one was able to provide one - everyone just mentioned discussions with two people on each side or so. Naturally no reasonable admin will take action over such indecision. What we have here is a noticeable "rough consensus". Admins can and will enforce that, if necessary. (Well, hopefully they'll first say - folks, come on, are you really ready to be blocked over this nonsense? Whether it says km first and mi second or the other way around, they're both there, for the reader to read, a cm/half-in from each other, can't you just leave it... but if there is no choice except blocking or continued reversion wars, "having first exhausted all possible alternatives", they can and will block.) That's the way Wikipedia works. --GRuban (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see your ask for that. The current consensus was first implemented after this discussion. Its position as the standing consensus went unchallenged from July 2010 to November 2012, during which time both those who might have been said to object endorsing it as consensus [1][2] and using it [3][4][5]. In one case the most recent explicit acceptance of the consensus came as recently as last month.[6] I don't know how many controversial discussions you have been involved in, but a lot of the time in my experience you don't get the idealised everyone agreeing to a poll bit, particularly when people are unwilling to endorse anything short of everything they want (as was the case here). A consensus derived from explicit acceptance and usage over a period of multiple years is still a consensus. Kahastok talk 06:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you will thus understand why, having seen this restarted as often as I have, I reacted the way I did when you restarted it and Martin egged you on. You seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that this is the first time, or one of the first times, that Martin in particular has tried to start a fight over this - rather than the reality which is that we're probably entering the teens. Two and a half years ago, he was referring to this as "civil war". The fact that we are still here demonstrates that "anyone who wants to start a fight about this again will be very unpopular" is no disincentive, particularly given the wider community's unwillingness to act over it. Kahastok talk 06:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Accept I accept, if that means anything, but it will do nothing to remedy anyone's unhealthy obsession with others, and that part of the issue should be nowhere in the scope of anything wikipedia-related. Let's just get this over with. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Accept I accept. I don't see a compelling reason to have a distinct WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. M Carling 13:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment a deletion request on the Falkland units page has been opened here Cambalachero (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Accept. No need for separate FALKLANDSUNITS. "Science-related" would apply to whole articles rather than specific portions of non-science articles. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Accept For sanity's sake. Shii (tock) 06:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Accept as an uninvolved editor dropping by after reading the third WP:ANI thread. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Accept as sufficient, rejecting Martinvl's radical re-interpretation of WP:UNITS. Kanguole 07:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Accept bearing in mind that to do so would mean those articles with a particular (say metric) measure would stay that way per WP:RETAIN, but there will no longer be any diktat for Imperial over all Falklands articles. As in UK articles, the format of units will be determined by rules already prevalent. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think so: RETAIN relates to ENGVAR, with similar provisions for other areas where MOS leaves the choice open, such as dates and ERA. In contrast, UNITS says what should happen for each case, and this proposal is to apply those rules to all Falklands articles. Kanguole 18:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• I oppose because no enforcement of any moratorium is included. A toothless moratorium is not worth the electrons it uses on the computer monitors, particularly if it is not even mentioned on the page at hand. I cannot accept this as a credible long-term solution because I believe that this would last roughly until Martin decided to renege on the deal (just as he has every other deal) and restart his "civil war". Which would put us in however-many-months' time having exactly the same discussion in exactly the same terms in exactly the same place and with exactly the same people as today - just as we were back in the Summer of 2010 before the current incarnation of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was adopted.

If we were able to agree sanctions for violations of the moratorium (which is possible through WP:AN or Arbcom motion), which would include edits like this which do not start discussion but which do spark the dispute, I would reconsider my position. Kahastok talk 15:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that Martin is already trying to WP:GAME this, I must switch to strong oppose in all circumstances. I suggest that others consider their positions in light of this. Nobody should be under any illusion that a moratorium is going to be any use here. We need Martin to be topic banned. Now. Kahastok talk 21:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as the clarifications in the WP:FALKLANDUNITS document of grey areas in the MOS provided exact directions as to which units should used in the articles relating to the Falkland Islands. The MOS keeps getting changed and watered down as the metrication POV is pushed by the editors who want to get rid of this document. If this document is removed then the MOS should be tightened to ensure that the perceptive items in the document are incorporated. Keith D (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree part of the problem is that the same editors pushing metrication here have an equally long history of pushing the same POV on the MOS. This is a pretty major flaw with this entire process and is part of reason why I call for topic bans. I note that the intention of the wording is precisely to remove the grey areas you describe, but I can see it could be more strongly worded and I call for the proposal to be changed to strengthen the wording.

I would very strongly oppose any system that did not include an absolute requirement that we include imperial measures in circumstances where they are appropriate, even with enforcement provisions such as I describe above. After four and a half years of watching editors trying every trick in the book to game the system to enforce their pro-metric POV here, frankly, we would have to be complete idiots to accept anything less than that. Kahastok talk 17:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - clearly needed to provide stability for this article. Otherwise need to include provisions in the WP:MOS for the information currently in [[WP:FALKLANDUNITS] also to clarify what is meant by scientific units which appears that some want to extent to cover geographic articles. 12:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.68.41 (talk)

• Oppose as I believe WP:FALKLANDUNITS, being less subjective, has reduced the squabbling over which units to use for what. If we fall-back to the unmodified and more ambiguous WP:UNITS, we will be side-tracked once more by the never-ending units edit wars and discussions. Looking elsewhere, it seems quite usual for Wiki projects to add there own, more specialised, layer on top of Wiki guidelines, to improve consistency, reduce the room for disagreement, improve project harmony and hence lead to more quality edit time, inevitably resulting in better articles. FactController (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

FactController, what brings you to this page? You haven't made many edits under this user name in a long time. Jonathunder (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Request

If we are to have a new consensus, I would like to ask that it be formally closed through WP:ANRFC. If the close is a consensus for the proposal, I would ask that the closer make it clear what exactly has been agreed (particularly with regards the geography question). I want to leave minimum possible avenue for any agreement to be gamed in the future. Kahastok talk 19:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Specific questions to the closer (and anyone else who cares to answer). Based on the current version of WP:UNITS:

• In the general case, does the standing consensus post-close (i.e. the above proposal if it achieves consensus or the existing version of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS if not) require miles or kilometres for geographical distance?
• In the general case, does the standing consensus post-close (i.e. the above proposal if it achieves consensus or the existing version of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS if not) require miles per hour, or kilometres per hour, for speed?
• In the general case, does the standing consensus post-close (i.e. the above proposal if it achieves consensus or the existing version of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS if not) require personal weight be measured in kilograms or stones and pounds?

To me, the answers to these questions, in either case, is obviously "miles", "miles per hour" and "stones and pounds". It seems to me that it would take a fanciful interpretation to come to any other conclusion. But such fanciful interpretations have been commonplace in the past in this dispute. Kahastok talk 14:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There was an interesting observation from one editor here a few days ago:"I got directions in Stanley in meters, not feet. Road signs were in kilometers. Quantities in shops were in metric. It's a metric country. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)" Does anyone else have first hand experience, or better still, evidence, on whether the Falkland Islanders use kilometres on their road signs? Michael Glass (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant, unless there's actual evidence beyond personal experience. I have evidence that the Falklands use miles on their roadsigns, but it is of the OR variety that I frequently reject from you and others. For example, here they quote the speed limit in miles per hour first, and this sign makes it clear that it's miles being used. We can also cite driving guides which give speed limits in miles per hour only. Here the length of the road is quoted in miles with no kilometres, and that's a proper road sign. This page says that signs are in miles, but it is a Wiki.

The simple facts are that the evidence (such as it is) points to use of miles. There is no reason to assume that Falklands practice is different from UK practice in this matter, and UK practice is for miles on road signs. It is not like the SBAs on Cyprus, or Gibraltar, where there is a land border with a country that uses kilometres. I suggest we would need proper evidence in the form of reliable sources that actually describe usage (rather than sources that merely use measurements) before concluding that Falklands practice is different from UK practice. Kahastok talk 15:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Travellers and Tinkers might have been misled by the circular speed limit signs that the British use for MPH. Michael Glass (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No offence, but MOS requires both metric and imperial units in this case. The only question is which goes first. That's why this is such a WP:LAME dispute. For what it's worth, I believe we want imperial first, but since both are going to be there, I really don't care very much. --GRuban (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Note: I have altered the shortcut WP:FALKLANDSUNITS so that it now points at Wikipedia:WikiProject_South_America/Falkland_Islands_work_group#Style_Preferences, which now refers to the statement in the above proposal that achieved consensus, with a link to a diff of the close. Kahastok talk 17:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

cancilleria.gov.ar

The source seems to no longer be properly functioning. Can anyone please provide an improved alternative? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just checked it and it seems to be working fine. Perhaps it was a temporal problem? Cambalachero (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response Cambalachero. The link led to a table of contents, but now it should directly link to the text in question. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 28 September 2013

As per concluding statements in #Weights and Measures Proposal, please remove the "dispute=flip" clause in the "convert" templates that contain the following text

• lede, para 1 - "12173|sqkm"
• lede, last para - "700|m"
• Geography, para 1 - "12173|sqkm"
• Geography, para 2 - "705|m"

Martinvl (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, there is nothing there to mandate metric units first in this case. FactController (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with proposer There is nothing in MOSNUM against the use of square kilometres. Ditto metres for the height of hills. Michael Glass (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review (again)

I think the article is ready for a GA review. Are there any outstanding issues that need discussion at this point? Also, could someone please provide me with a quote from the Reisman source that supports the sentence it cites (it's the only source I cannot access). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Page 306 says "The conflation of contrasting images and the extraordinary sense of righteousness that both self-determination and decolonization generate make cases like the Falklands qualitatively different from mundane territorial disputes. Britain expelled the Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands and barred those who wished to settle there after the English seizure of the islands. In the interim, an entirely British population took root and became the only indigenous Falkland Islanders". Regards, --Langus (t) 01:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Good! Thank you very much Langus. This is the only concern I had left.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Would be worth tidying the authors/editors in references. Most are in "last, first" format but some are in "first, last" format. Keith D (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Another great catch! Thank you, Keith. If they are not authors cited in the bibliography, the format to follow should be "first, last". Don't know why, but that's how I learned to do it in the Chicago MoS. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have consolidated the CIA factbook citations into a single citation. Some referred to the book and others to the electronic version. Martinvl (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin. I restored the CIA factbook book/web difference because both sources have somewhat different information (not contradictory, just different) that complements to the article. However, I kept the MOSNUM improvement. The intention is much appreciated. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted

This article currently references the CIA Factbook in two different ways: via a printed copy and via an electronic copy. When the paper copy was produced, but were identical, but the electronic copy is updated from time to time, making it preferable. Why then was my edit, which consolidated all the CIA factbook citations into a standard format reverted? Martinvl (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I wrote about it in the section above (see [7]). Essentially, the book edition has information that I did not find in the online edition. Strange, but true. I apologize if it caused some confusion or distress. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Falkland Islands/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 11:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Let me start by commending everyone involved in this one. I've been reading the recent talk page discussions, and I'm impressed with how well editors are collaborating on what could have been a much more acrimonious discussion. I hope that can set the tone for this review as well.

So my impression is that the article is stable, and the parties involved feel that any neutrality issues have been resolved; if I'm wrong here, please let me know. With that as a starting point, I'll begin my own review. I'll start with a readthrough for prose/clarity/neutrality issues, and then later do a source and image review. I hope to get through the former today, but it could be any time in the next 1-3 days. Thanks to everybody who's worked to bring the article to this point! I'll look forward to reviewing it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think several of the editors (myself included) have, with the passage of time, become more adept at conducting fruitful discussions (but, if you look at the talk page history, the expected problems should be plenty).

My hope is that this GA review can eliminate any outstanding neutrality issues (if any such are raised).

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Marshal, here are some initial comments for you. This looks quite good so far--it seems neutral at first glance, the prose is strong, the sourcing is clear and seems to all be to reliable places. I made some tweaks as I went, most notably to reduce the link density of the article per WP:OVERLINK. This isn't a GA issue, though, and I'd encourage you revert me if you disagree. I also did some minor rewording for grammar, clarity, or in one case a minor redundancy ("flat plains terrain"). Issues I couldn't immediately fix are below:

• "At present, ongoing disputes ..." -- it's a little confusing to have the quotation in this sentence cited to two sources; I'd think one would be enough here in any case.
• "Land birds make up most of the Falklands' avifauna, followed by seabirds" -- after land birds, couldn't it be assumed that the remainder would be seabirds? It seems like there wouldn't be any other categories left. This might be rephrased.
• "Unemployment is currently at a 4.1% rate" -- this should be tied to a specific time per WP:REALTIME
• "Agriculture, primarily in the form of sheep farming and fishing, accounts for 95% of the Falkland Islands' gross domestic product, followed by industry and services at" -- this isn't a necessary point for GA, but these links seems a bit Easter Egg-y -- see WP:EGG.
• "to attend higher education" -- this seems like an odd phrase to me, but perhaps this is a more common way to put it in British English (I'm American)?

Let me know your thoughts, and thanks again for your (and everybody else's!) work here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Forgot to add--thanks for the fixes for the above; those points can be considered resolved. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20's good work deserves a better response that I'm able to provide now due to my time constraints, but I'm afraid I don't find the history section to be neutral. Some issues presented in my review were corrected but others remain, and there are problems that I haven't mentioned there. I believe it is very difficult to attain a fair amount of neutrality on controversial subjects with the WP process. Particularly when there are systemic biases, such as there is here due to the editors' mother tongues. Therefore, although I appreciate MarhalN20's efforts, I would find it inconvenient to suggest that an article like this is particularly reliable, as people could interpret from a GA qualification. At least, a badge on the controversial sections would be required, indicating that their narrative should be taken with a pinch of salt.

As a test, you may compare Gustafson's historical chapter with the same period as covered here. I think you will find his narrative to be pretty-much more "pro-Argentine". It would tell us something to find the article to be more "pro-British" than a book published by Oxford University... I think the same impression will result after comparing with Yale-expert Reisman, Oxfordian Deas, etc. Besides, the presence of P&P's pamphlet in the "Further Reading" list indicates a lack of proper scrutiny by itself.

I think MarshalN20 deserves credit for his efforts, and I promise to go on elaborating as my time permits. But please don't hurry a GA qualification, and consider the possibility that the WP process is not able to realize, on these topics, the quality that it has on other articles that are justly indicated as good, featured, etc. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't intend to rush, and really appreciate your input. My first impression is that the Argentine position and British position both seem described at length, but I'm happy to listen to what you feel is being omitted. I'm not an expert in this area and will be reviewing sources as I go. That said, the review you link to above is quite long, and seems to mix minor points with larger ones. Could you, concretely and succinctly, give me the 2 or 3 most essential points you feel are being omitted/misrepresented? That'll give us a good starting point for discussion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Khazar2. I'm afraid that mentioning a few short omissions or inaccuracies can hardly represent the tendentiousness of the history section in its current state. Please read this comment that I made some weeks ago. It seems that many decisions that have to be made when attempting a historiographical summary were decided in a way that strongly favors one side of the sovereignty dispute. E.g., What will be mentioned? From which sources? How shall it be expressed? As silly as it may sound, I find bias in most sentences. In a few cases they are tangible omissions or inaccuracies. But in other, not less important, instances the bias is subtle. Yet, it builds up.

For example, the portrayal of Vernet's settlement is a particularly-troubling passage imo, as it is presented as almost inconsequential, thanks, in part, to an apparent disregard of Vernet's expressions in favor of Buenos Airean sovereignty (e.g., in a petition dated in 1823 where he requested the entitlement of Arguatí, who would defend Buenos Airean sovereignty there according to him, and in a memo he wrote in 1832) and the fact that his settlers and he responded to Buenos Airean grants that had a nature of acts of sovereignty, as recognized even by the British FO at the time. I offer some arguments here and there's more. I could start listing arguments yet another time here, but please see that part of the review first, and the RfC that is linked there if possible. Thanks again! -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Andres, I'm happy to hear you out, but you will have to provide some specifics. You're making this a bit challenging by saying there's pervasive bias in almost every sentence of the article, but so subtle that you have almost no tangible examples to point to. I'm not sure if you might have just linked to the wrong comment in your link above, but it seems to be a long discourse on the nature of truth and Wikipedia rather than suggestions to improve this particular article. Could you be more specific above, for example, about the replacement text you'd like to make in the two sentences discussing Vernet, and what secondary sources you're drawing on to indicate that such a change is necessary? Are there other moments you can point to like this? I'd like to try to keep this on a level of constructive engagement, and what you've said so far is very difficult for me or any other editor here to respond to.

So far I don't see any neutrality issues based on what you've shown me, but I'm happy to give you a few more days to give an example or two. I have to be honest that I don't feel obligated to read dozens of pages of your past critiques on this when much of it has already been addressed, and editorial consensus appears to have rejected the rest; it seems more productive to focus on the current article than to rehash arguments about previous drafts. If you could just give me a brief explanation here of the most important remaining points, that would have much more impact on my review. Fair enough? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2! Sorry, although I did mean to link that comment, the other link, with the anchor "here", was meant to point to the fifth section of the review. I think you will find many tangible examples there (I can clarify on specific points if necessary) although stating my sources is pending. On Google Books you can access the chapter from Gustafson that I mentioned, and see that it is compatible with my narrative, particularly on some points that contradict the current article. Eg., starting here we read that Jewett (he spells it "Jewitt") was sent, he took possession, that Areguatí was appointed governor, that they attempted a settlement in 1824, etc. But I wouldn't rely on one sole source, however authoritative, for a controversial subject like this. On the header of the RfC that I mentioned before (wrongly linked too, sorry), I give several other reputed sources that cover this period and are available on the web.

I can offer sources and verbatim suggestions, but I wish we could use what I've already written and in which I've invested a lot of time. Take for example the RfC. I was dealing there with another palpable example, which is the inclusion of some dubious and unique statements by Cawkell that I don't see suitable for this and other articles. Initially, this article said, as the others still do, that Vernet sought British permission, which is one of the chauvinistic misinterpretations that I mention in my review. Now it has been improved to a more-accurate citation of Cawkell, but I don't think she should be quoted, particularly in a short summary such as this, for reasons given in the RfC and summarized in my review. If the arguments and sources I presented for the RfC discussion were disregarded, I don't think it was due to a worthy editorial consensus, and I wish those hours of work weren't wasted. Now that I fixed the links, maybe my previous points are clearer. I can provide further examples later. Thanks! -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andres, I think we're at the point where we simply to have to agree to disagree. Your review is almost 6,000 words long, and even a glance shows it to be out of date; it opens with a complaint, for example, that "Strong's is not believed to be the first landing but the first recorded landing," which appears to have been addressed. It's not realistic for you to ask me to consider this substantial document point-by-point, especially when you're asking me to read pages and pages of your other comments as well, some of it completely off-topic. Check out WP:WALLS--concision works far better in discussion like this than volume.

Since you highlighted it, I did review your Argentina in the Islands section, which lacks almost any reference to secondary sources, making it basically useless for our purposes here. Checking Laver, I do think the current article summarizes it fairly. As for your point that some other Argentine sources should be introduced to rebut the explicitly British assertion in this footnote, it's not NPOV to expect the Argentines to have the last word on every single point, particularly in a brief overview like this one; some British assertions may have to stand without rebuttal, just as some Argentine assertions do.

As for overturning the RfC result, I see no particular reason to believe that this RfC was flawed, and intend to abide by its result.

I do really appreciate your work on this article, and you shouldn't feel that writing your lengthy review has gone to waste, as some improvements and clarifications have clearly been made as a result of your research. But the points you raise appear to have already been settled by editorial consensus, and I'm therefore comfortable considering them resolved for this review. Marshal, you've been quiet so far--do you (or any other watchers of this article) have any thoughts on this? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion, but preferred to let Andres and you discuss it without interfering.

WP:SUMMARY is a good policy to follow in these kind of articles.

The impression I get from the above discussion is that more detail is sought on the text. My response would come from the quote, "perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

In other words, while there is plenty of further dates and facts that could be added in the history section, there really is no need for them in a summary of the history. On the other hand, much of the "take away" has been effectively done by following recommendations from several editors (such as Kahastok and Andres) to the point only the essential is covered (with further information available at History of the Falkland Islands).

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2: I'm sorry that you feel that I'm unfairly asking you to read too much, but this is not a simple subject that can be resolved in some minutes. As a sample, I pointed out the fifth section, which is quite succinct and where none of the issues has been dealt with, and gave you some bibliography that supports those facts, including a link, from a book published by Oxford U., where you have to read just very few paragraphs to find support for some corrections that I listed.

In the RfC I went to great extents to ground my words and answer every challenge, and the discussion ended when I stopped (or rather the others stopped but I didn't try to do anything about it) because, to be honest, I was rather disgusted by the poverty of that discussion. If we are to deem the issue closed because there was apparently a good consensus, then what is the purpose of having this discussion? Let's assume that all that was edited into the article is good for the same reason. Those arguments would also be wasted (because I meant the RfC when I referred to wasted work) if any invocation of them was considered WP:WALLS. If you want a summary, it's in the fifth section of the review.

I sort of feel trapped in a circle: Please explain - Please elaborate and answer to all of these challenges - Too long, start again.

@MarshalN20: I'm sorry that I didn't go on adding sources and am apparently delaying your plans that way, but to be honest I haven't been having any fun editing here for quite some time and I needed a holiday, besides requiring my time and energies for other things. I believe that you guess that what I wrote in my review has grounds even where I haven't provided multiple sources yet. If you compare that text to the current paragraphs in the article, there is much to change that doesn't imply adding length or detail. Some dubious annotations can be removed. I don't pretend us Argentines to have the last word and the current text is zillions of parsecs away from that. I simply pointed out—regarding the cite from Laver—that the responses, not only from Argentines but from international scholars, add to the grounds that subtract importance to that annotation. Likewise, there's no need to say that the islands where ungoverned when there was actually a governor who attempted a settlement, and with a few well-chosen words Vernet can be presented more accurately in regards to his relation with Buenos Aireas, and there's no need to put that inflammatory SPS pamphlet in the reading list (I can write some pointers about it if necessary), and etc.

I still believe that a good historiographical summary won't be achieved, and I wish that argument of mine wasn't considered off-topic, especially given the sensibilities raised by this subject. It would be great if we could place a suitable warning on that section. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andres, I did read the Gustafson you linked and I don't find it incompatible with the current draft of the article. I realize these aren't simple issues, but linking me to outdated points, or your general reflections on Wikipedia, doesn't move us closer to identifying areas for improvement. Anyway, so far as I understand your suggestions, it sounds like your biggest (possibly only?) remaining issue is that you're not happy with the result of the RfC. I will take a final look at that material in my source review, but it would take serious errors there for me to overrule the RfC process.

I'm sorry you've found Wikipedia to be frustrating recently, but you should realize that most of that is because you've been a single-purpose account for some time--you don't seem to have made any significant edits for years except to argue in a narrow and persistent way for one side of this sovereignty dispute, which invites skepticism about whether you're here to build an encyclopedia or simply to promote a point of view. I'd suggest that if you branch out into more varied areas, you may find your editing more rewarding.

I do appreciate your taking the time to comment here, though, and wish you luck with future editing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Andres has mentioned a couple of times his dislike of what he calls the "inflammatory SPS pamphlet". I believe this issue can be addressed by removing the pamphlet (it doesn't seem to add anything important). However, aside from that, I believe matters are placed in a difficult stance when coming from a perspective that "a good historiographical summary won't be achieved" (based on that, Wikipedia could never have GA or FA class work on any controversial topic).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

On the topic of "enjoyment", I agree that Wikipedia can and does often get boring (specially when matters get unfairly decided due to editorial "alliances" and other faction-related work). Nonetheless, what helps me is remembering that Wikipedia is not about me (otherwise, I risk becoming a WP:DIVA); Wikipedia is about selflessly combating ignorance. Hence, I have found personal enjoyment writing about cuisine and music (especially when matters become annoying in other parts of the encyclopedia). Although I will never get an actual face-to-face "thank you" for my work, I am simply happy to look at the page view stats and see the people the article I contributed to has potentially educated. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Round 2

Okay, thanks to Marshal for resolving the initial prose points raised above, and thanks again to everybody who's worked to bring it to this point; it's clear that it's been a long haul. Over the next day or two I'll do a more thorough source review, particularly of the contentious history section. (I'll check images, too.) I'll also check some major encyclopedias for comparison to see how they summarize the dispute in a small space. Regardless of the pace at which I work, I'll leave this open until at least Nov 5 for any other concerned editors to chime in. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Khazar. I appreciate the dedication you're placing on the GA review. If nothing major comes up, I believe this will certainly help it in the FA review. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, my pleasure. This has been interesting to learn in more detail about.

Anyway, comparison to other encyclopedias suggests that our history section is pretty standard in its narrative. If anything, I'd say our history section emphasizes Argentine colonization slightly more than other sources, but well within neutrality boundaries. (Cf. Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations, Encyclopedia Britannica, or Columbia Encyclopedia, or Encyclopedia of World Geography.) EB does point out that Argentine territorial claims were repeatedly asserted between the 1833 dispute and the Juan Perón phase. This might be worth adding a phrase or a sentence about; the article's current draft gives the impression that these claims were not pursued between 1833 and Peron. On the other hand, I don't think from comparison to the other articles that this is a mandatory addition, so I leave it up the regular editors here. I hope to do more source checks on Monday or Tuesday, and assuming no serious problems arise, this is probably ready to pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll think of a way to add it into the article, but will probably do so during the week. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• "UK Parliament. The Falkland Islands (Appeals to Privy Council) (Amendment) Order 2009 as made, from legislation.gov.uk." -- what does the "as made" here mean? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • That does seem like a British spelling. I'm assuming it means "original text".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
    • The phrase could probably just be cut, then. It would be assumed we're looking at the original text. But it's a dead link so hard to confirm either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Here is the direct link ([8]). However, the citation method is done with a strange format ( {Cite legislation UK | type = si | year = 2006 | number = 3205 | si = The Falkland Islands (Appeals to Privy Council) (Amendment) Order 2009} ). I'm not sure how to fix that technical issue.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(Unindent) Hi Khazar,

Navigating through as a reader and going through the comments, I am very surprised this article is even being considered for "Good Article" status. First off I'm sorry that I'm not too familiar with WP formatting, at least not to the degree that everyone else here is, but I hope this doesn't take away from the points I want to make.

Specifically, Khazar2, I hope that you can consider my comments as something from the point of view of a non-initiated wikipedia consumer with some familiarity in the issue being discussed, the history section, which I think is the main point of contention in the article and has, according to the history, repeatedly prevented the GA status being pursued or assign.

I have to be honest in my criticism of your reactions above, and hope that you go back, take the needed time and very carefully re-read and reconsider the input made by Andres Djordjalian above. Please don't take offence, but it seems to me that every time you responded to him you keep saying "dumb it down for me". To put it simply: he can't. No one can. You just have to take the time to read through it. Yes, it's a lot of work. A lot of notes to read. A lot of sources to look at. A lot of article talk pages to go through. And a lot of long comments, like mine here. But that's because it is a complex subject.

As I read your responses to him I hope that you realize the incredible amount of complexity and nuance that regards the Falklands issue in Anglo/Argentine relations. I truly hope that you are up to the task, but - and again, I don't mean to disrespect you in any way - it seems to me that, in the interest of accuracy, if you think it's too much to read through, perhaps you should recuse yourself and assign someone else to the review. That being said, here are the points I want to make.

I find it incredible that you don't see any neutrality issues. The mentioned tendentiousness of the article's history section is replete with pro-British bias in almost every sentence, through a combination of both overt and subtle inaccuracies that act together to cumulatively suggest to the reader that the Argentine POV is wrong or illegitimate while the British POV is right or legitimate. I think this violates the often cited "NPOV" rule.

Since you asked for specifics, I will give three specific examples, out of many MANY more I read and can't mention because I don't have all day:

1. 1. The Article refers to colonel David Jewett as "American colonel David Jewett", suggesting Jewett held a commission from the United States, when in fact he was an officer duly commissioned by and serving under the authority of the Government of Buenos Aires. Further, the article refers to Jewett as a "privateer", when in fact it was the vessel which he commanded, not the man himself, which was a private interest. This inaccurately suggests a lack of "official" action on Argentine side, and where action is admitted, suggests illegitimacy of Argentine actions by portraying them (wrongly) as the actions of private individuals. For reference see "Commissioning letter from Argentina's National History Archives, to be found in the Revista del Archivo Nacional de Historia, Sección del Azuay, Issue 5, pp. 120-121, translated text below my comments". Yes this source is not online, however does it make it any less real? Does the fact that it hasn't been scanned legitimize the inaccuracies presented by the article text?

1. 2. The article also fails to make any mention of Jewett's formal ceremony of declaration of sovereignty (see http://books.google.com/booksid=kEskAQAAIAAJ&q=Jewett+ceremonia+Malvinas+ca%C3%B1ones&dq=Jewett+ceremonia+Malvinas+ca%C3%B1ones&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eH15UsSDJMzPkQeTwoHYCw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA), which was a legal requirement for territorial possession at the time. The omission of this also undermines in the reader the Argentine claim to sovereignty.

1. 3. The article states further, "the islands remained ungoverned", offering no citations for this conclusion. Whose conclusion is that? The editors - which makes this a blatant, uncited original research that is supposed to be forbidden by wikipedia. But it's subtle, most uninformed readers wouldn't notice it, and so it becomes another non-neutral reader suggestion which undermines Argentine assertions of sovereignty history and bolsters British ones.

As Andres said, "it adds up", and the picture it paints is clearly one which suggests that history records Britain did everything right for its title of sovereignty to be legitimate, while Argentina did everything wrong and so its claim to sovereignty must be illegitimate.

Lastly, even a cursory review of the article's history reveals it to be a "battleground" article, where contentious and deep-seated disputes between groups of established editors which many, many times have escalated to edit wars, noticeboards, rfc and even arbitration. The latest example of which has been so recent it can be read in this very talk page, a dispute over units of measurement that dates to the earliest days of this article. It's resolution, years and years and years after it first came up is the exception and not the rule, judging by all the disputes that happened after that still are pending.

By that I mean that historically, in this article, there have been countless accusations of pro-British POV original reserch, cherrypicking sources, fights about which sources make it into the article and which don't, etc. Here's a list of article talk page rows, I'm sure you will agree the tone of the editors hasn't changed that much at all when comparing the level of recent discourse to the level of discourse from years past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_132#Verification_source_citations_is_this_WP:OR_and_WP:SYN.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_18#Neutral_Writing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_16#Vernet_established_an_Argentinian_settlement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_15#.22Britain_re-established_its_rule_in_1833.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_14#Discussion_moved_to_noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=435349098#History_Section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_12#RfC:_USS_Lexington_paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_10#IP_Edit_War_Threat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_6#Respecting_while_rejecting_Argentine_claims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_6#British_bias_and_edit_warring_and_POV_pushing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive116 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_assistance/archive111#User_.22Wee_Curry_Monster.22_refuses_to_talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement%2FArchive77#Wee_Curry_Monster

I submit to you that this can't possibly be indicative of the type of collegial discourse indicative of a "good article". How many of these content disagreements over history can we honestly, truthfully say have been solved by consensus, rather than by admin involvement, blocking of editors, or simple exasperation and frustration on the part of editors who have stopped participating altogether?

I think, very few, if any.

Lastly...it occurs to me that this particular article is the perfect example for the enumerated attacks on the validity of Wikipedia as a source (just today, this article came out http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/6570/who-hates-wikipedia/#), so much so that THIS VERY ARTICLE ITSELF has been reported on by the media (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rafael-fernandez-de-castro/wikipedia-seeks-historic-_b_1955336.html). Surely, there are many other controversial articles on WP, but none that I've heard of whose contentiousness merits their being reported on by major media outlets.

Respectfully, this article should not be given "Good Article" status. It does not even come close. Not while the blatant problems in the history section remain. I would suggest that the problems which prevented this article from achieving GA status still remain, as very few of those objections have been satiated to the satisfaction of the majority of editors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_15#GA_Status

---

Translated text from above-cited sources:

“I hereby name don David Jewett as Colonel of the Army in the service of the National Marines, with a directorial deployment ongoing, this 15th of January, 1820.

Matias Irigogyen Minister of War and Marines

“The Supreme Director of the United Provinces of South America, attentive to services rendered, hereby names David Jewett as Captain of the ship “La Heroina”, and John Adams as second commander, sailing in the capacity of War Frigate of the State, and directing him to take possession of the Malvinas Islands on behalf of the Supreme Government of the United Provinces and of the Nation to which they belong by natural law. Thusly be it communicated and published.

Jose Rondeau Supreme Director of the United Provinces 15 January, 1820” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.180.253 (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your post and your constructive approach. Let me start by saying I think you're incorrect to say that I asked Andres to "dumb it down". I asked him to sort through which of his points he considered most important, and which were still valid after the revisions made by Marshal and others in response to his comments, so that we could try to address them. He was unable or unwilling to do so, and instead linked me to a good deal of pointlessly outdated, unsourced, or off-topic material. A waste of time for both of us, unfortunately.

Anyway, I appreciate your taking a more concrete approach. I've looked into your three points, though I'm not sure I see any serious concern based on them. The cited source does describe Jewett as a privateer; it appears that your offline primary source disputes that, but Wikipedia is primarily concerned with secondary sources. As for his ceremony of possession, the article doesn't appear to mention a ceremony of possession by any of the powers involved, so the Argentines aren't being discriminated against here as you suggest; it's simply a question of level of detail. The ceremony of possession wasn't mentioned in any of the other summary-level sources I consulted on this subject, and we are dealing with the summary level.

The bottom line for me is that I've checked a number of other encyclopedic summaries of the Islands' history and found little discrepancy between their presentation and that of this article draft; I've also checked the sources and don't believe that they're being misrepresented. It's possible there are word choices that can be improved, of course, but I'm not convinced there's a large enough neutrality issue to justify failing this for GA. Indeed, compared to other works, our article appears if anything to give the Argentine claims a bit more weight. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Marshal, a quick note: falklands.info seems unlikely to be a reliable source (and seems dead anyway). On the other hand, the claim it's sourcing is not one that requires sourcing for GA, so it's not a problem here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

While a long-time single-purpose account and a new-to-the-article IP address have raised neutrality concerns, my source review suggests that the article represents its sources fairly and gives them weight comparable to other encyclopedic accounts of Falklands history. Requests for further detail would make sense for the "History of..." article, but not for this overview, and I don't believe that British claims are being presented in significantly greater detail than Argentine. If anything, I would suggest that much more detail be removed from this summary, rather than added, but I understand how the current editing environment makes that difficult.

One source appears possibly unreliable, but it merely identifies a painting in a caption, and has no bearing on this debate. The prose is correct and concise, the article stable, and the images appropriately licensed and captioned. While further refinement is likely possible, the article passes as a GA. Congratulations to all who have worked to bring it to this point! I know it's been a long road. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much Khazar! I'd invite you and everyone else a Pisco Sour, but even I don't have a good Pisco bottle to celebrate.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I don't want to be the grumpy one at the party, but I'm afraid I will be. :) I wish I had had the time to respond earlier.

I haven't had the chance to look carefully, but if the point to conclude the review positively is that there is a superficial compatibility with regular encyclopedias, well, I agree that there is. Luckily, the article doesn't state that the islands were invaded by Teutonic knights led by Yuri Gagarin. But it contains a number of dubious side notes and phrasings that are not in those encyclopedias and say a lot regarding issues of contention between Argentina and Britain. For example, Britannica leads to the interpretation that 1820-1833 was simply a period of Argentine occupation, but WP adds a number of questionable notes and phrasings that diminish that idea. I think it is clear, in my review and in my comments here, that the problems I found were of that kind. I don't see the observations in the review being incompatible with those encyclopedias, and I think attending them would make this article look more like theirs.

@MarshalN20: and @Khazar2:, you may think that these are innocent, meaningless differences, but they are not. For example, disregarding the Argentine protests between 1833 and mid 20th-century, as the article did previously and Khazar2 kindly pointed out, would make a crucial difference legally and politically speaking. There's more that hasn't been attended.

It is true that my participation in WP lately has mostly had a single purpose, but it wasn't to advance a political position. My latest edits on the Spanish-language WP, done before I engaged on this other topic here, were kind of politically opposite, because I clarified some ungrounded anti-British claims that had been entered there on a sensible subject. If I'm having a "single purpose", it is to correct the jingoistic coverage of certain topics, particularly where it provokes hurtful situations for people near me, such as some episodes that I have witnessed. I haven't been fond of editing on other subjects mostly because I spent a lot on these and I'm behind schedule with other outlets where, fortunately for me, I have the chance to satisfy my desire to research and narrate, as other people do with this site. These being my motives, I don't see grounds to discredit my work here with what is, after all, only a simplistic ad-hominem argument. And I'm sure that my focus doesn't justify the poverty of some discussions where I've participated.

Khazar2, I don't think you were fair when you wrote that I wasted our times. I directed you to up-to-the-point remarks that I had carefully written after reading much on this subject, and tried to explain that singling out two or three of those observations, as you were asking, wouldn't summarize the problem well. Much of the annotation of sources was pending, although I did show you precisely where you could find authoritative support online, in some cases very quickly, and said that I was willing to annotate thoroughly, as the topic requires, when I could find the time. I wish I was provided with these kinds of remarks and pointers, albeit incomplete, when I review papers for publication... -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andres, I don't mean to push the meta-debate any further, since it's what's distracting us from concrete article improvement in the first place. I'll simply say again that, unfortunately, I didn't find your comments very helpful for the reasons stated above (lack of focus, failure to sort out what has been addressed and hasn't been, and failure to source). If you wish, though, it's your right to appeal the result at WP:GAR; I'm always happy to have my work double-checked, and this is clearly a subject on which reasonable people can disagree. I would suggest putting together something succinct, concrete, and actionable before you post there, which will lead to a better discussion. All best, Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Syncing Spanish and English Articles: Worth an Attempt?

Since my understanding of Wikipedia's idea of neutrality is to let as many people talk to each other as possible and build a consensus, would it be worth it for bilingual users editing this page to look at the Spanish language version (and for those editing the Spanish language version to come look at the English version)? I took a stab at both, for example adding material from the English article about the newspapers and school systems from this article to the Spanish version, and a little about pre-columbian artifacts from the Spanish version to this one. The English contrib was reverted due to it not fitting WP guidelines about summaries, but my Spanish addition seems to be sticking.

I realize that this may open a bit of a war on contentious issue, but in the interests of all sides being well represented, it might be a fight worth having. What do you folks think? JpTiger (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope the revert I made was not a bothersome one. The WP:SUMMARY guideline is indeed the justification for it.

The proposed plan is certainly not bad (open "inter-wiki" discussion among editors). Nevertheless, both run under a different set of rules, so what is deemed appropriate here might not have justification on the other version.

My experience in the Spanish WP is that administrators with WP:COI run the show. I literally could not even get them to change a mere title of their bicycle kick article to an NPOV one because their Wikiproject Chile (top members & WP administrators) created a fictional consensus; even when this contrasts with the Spanish WP's title policy (for example, they name their vegetable/fruit articles by the scientific name, which is NPOV considering they have different names for those items in Spanish depending on the country/region).

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the question here is: how exactly would these inter-wiki discussions be beneficial to this article?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it can be. While I haven't looked recently, the Spanish-language coverage of Falklands topics has always been pretty poor and strongly POV. Their coverage of the sovereignty dispute has traditionally rarely risen above actively arguing the Argentine side. Kahastok talk 19:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Spanish Use of Name

At the very top of the Wikipedia Article, the Falkland Islands are described (in brackets) as 'Las Islas Malvinas'. Despite the BOT only having one official language and that language being English. This is an outrage. We do not tell people how to say 'China' in Korean, we do not tell people how to say 'United Kingdom' in French and we DO NOT tell people how to say 'Falkland Islands' in another foreign language. How ridiculous. No road signs, official documents, legislation, tourism related content or anything similar is ever printed in Spanish in the Falkland Islands. Their official language is English with their entire population speaking the language. The official name of a country or territory is printed in its official language(s) and the language of the Wikipedia Website it is on. So es.wikipedia.org may include 'Falklands' and 'Malvinas' but EN.wikipedia.org need only include ONE language: ENGLISH. To say 'Malvinas' is to say the Falkland Islands belong to a Spanish speaking country. Do they? No. Currently, they are under British control and whether you dispute the matter or not, they only have one language. So I request that this abomination is removed from this article or AT LEAST some proper talk is done on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnxsmith (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

On a positive note, this further validates the etymology section. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Searching the talk page archives shows numerous discussions on this topic. The existing wording appears to be the most neutral approach per Wikipedia consensus. Bahooka (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps to be more neutral it should include the french name as well. MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The current naming style is in line with the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands. Cambalachero (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not the most neutral guideline around but the name Malvinas is encyclopedic information, of particular importance with respect to the disputed Argentine territorial claim. sounds like something made up without any strong policy basis, I understand it is clearly important in the discussion about any claims but not really needed in the lead, either include all the names that have been used or none. So should we add the French name to the lead to be more neutral. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Malvinas" is used in some current English-language contexts, for example, UN publications. The French name is not. Jonathunder (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) OK I can accept that, but why Islas Malvinas and not Malvinas which one does the UN use? MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Does France have an active claim in the sovereignty dispute now? Cambalachero (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I can accept the use of alternate names in English sources as per Jonathunder or as a list of historic names (hence the interest in the French) but listing as an alternate at the start of the lead because somebody has an active claim is far from neutral. MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's understandable that the naming is a sensitive issue. However, we must look at it from a purely academic perspective. The name "Islas Malvinas" is the widely known other name of the archipelago in English. Not including it in the lead would be a serious omission, again from an academic context. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

OK but as has been pointed out to above the guideline and the UN use the term "Malvinas" and not "Islas Malvinas". Perhaps if the "Islas Malvinas" is of academic importance to include as an alternative in the lead you guideline needs to be changed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on my knowledge of Spanish, the name "Islas Malvinas" is the more appropriate term to use ("Malvinas" is, by comparison, less formal). The guideline does mention "Islas Malvinas" (as an example). Is there really a need to discuss changing the guideline to include "Islas"?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

First point, Malvinas is not significantly used in English by normal people not connected to the Argentine claim or organisations of which Argentina is a member. The point has been discussed many times since the article was created, and nobody has ever provided evidence of such usage - which is why we do not present wordings involving Malvinas as English.

The top of WP:NCGN calls for "relevant foreign language names" (emphasis theirs) to be included. It seems to me that the Spanish-language name is clearly relevant to the topic, in a way the French-language name is not. I do not accept the claim that including the Spanish is non-neutral - on the contrary, including it goes a long way to demonstrating our neutrality on the sovereignty dispute. I note that our usage on this topic - described by WP:NCGN#Falkland Islands - is consistent with that of many external English-language sources, which treat "Falkland Islands" as primary but note "Islas Malvinas" because of the Argentine claim, particularly in articles related to the sovereignty dispute.

I note finally that the Falklands were a step away from ArbCom over exactly this point in 2005-6. No current editor was involved, but it's worth bringing it to people's attention. The consensus to include both has been stable ever since. I see no reason to change it. Kahastok talk 19:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Good Article

Dear Marshal, congratulations for your sustained and successful effort in bringing this article to GA status! Your Half-Million Award is most deserved indeed. It is so kind of you to share it with other editors too (although my own contribution to this has been fairly minor). Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Apcbg. It has been a project all of us have constantly sought to achieve, even if we could not exactly agree on how to get to it. As Khazar noted during the review, this article is perhaps the most informative and neutral available online; only a group project could have achieved it. The next objective should be to achieve FA status, but perhaps we should wait a couple of months for the article to gain stability as a GA. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As an intermediate step, you might go ahead and open a peer review on it and let that run for a bit. This would be a good idea before FA anyway. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well done Marshal and everyone else. Now let's see if we can make it even better. Kahastok talk 19:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations everyone! :) --Langus (t) 02:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Most Recent revert/insert

To whom this may concern,

Since I have not yet read an article/section on the concerned article explaining the reasons behind the pro-Britain/anti-Argentine results of past and recent Falkland Islands sovereignty referenda, I stumbled upon two online articles #REDIRECT[[9]] and #REDIRECT[[10]] written by Mr. John Wight and Ian Mount respectively, that seems to imply that the specific characteristics of Falkland Island's demographics might have something to do with the results of the aforementioned referenda. That is also the reason why I inserted the statement. Note that I worded the statement in such a way giving my insertion and its sources a benefit of doubt--thereby trying to comply as much as possible with Wikipedia's rules on neutrality

I hope this message gets read by the concerned editors and watchers, especially the editors, as I don't intend to start an edit war.

Sincerely yours,

Pcbyed (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that content is that it goes off topic, "Demographics" is only for demography, not for political disputes, which are already adressed elsewhere. Besides, even if referenced, the relation of demography and the result of the referendum is just speculation. It's also possible, and in fact likely, that the Falklanders have considered both the benefits and disadvantages of being a British territory, and the benefits and disadvantages of being part of Argentina, and decided that staying British was the best option for them. Cambalachero (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Cambalachero I think it is not off-topic. Demography (more specifically ethnicities) can influence politics, you can just look up for examples in google. That single proposed inserted statement I intend to be a starting point for anyone else interested to expand on the issue. I don't care if the Falklanders hate to be Argentinian, I just want to let other readers what might influence their referenda, and demographics can be Pcbyed (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I rather agree with Cambalachero on both points. Furthermore, Falklanders of non-British (including Argentine) origins would seem to have contributed to the referendum 'yes' votes, see this and this. Apcbg (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I would add this seems to be synthasis as neither source mentions the referendum.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's synthesis. Neither source mentions the referendum.

It seems to me that any relevant point here is trivial. Because the results of the referendum were so one-sided - because only three people voted "no" - it seems to me that very little demographic analysis that can be done. All demographic groups almost certainly voted overwhelmingly for the "yes". Kahastok talk 12:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Then Cambalachero , Apcbg, Slatersteven, where do you suggest I relocate my insertion? I just find it interesting that immigrants make up half the population of the falklands...and perhaps other people may want to inquire about the effects of immigrants making up half the Falkland population one of the possible factors behind the referenda results

I don't think we can make any such conclusions, with or without synthesis. — Kahastok 13:25, 16 November 2013 — continues after insertion below

That is why I worded it "might" -- to give benefit of doubt. My proposed insertion does not conclude but merely opens up a possibility whether or not there is -- unless you put a statement (with supporting sources) that it's not a factor. It is my intent in the first place -- to find whether or not demographics might have something to do with the refernda's results. Since there is no article, section, or statement yet here in wikipedia or in this article for that matter, I just hoped by inserting the statement, I open up debate and set the wheels going for an initiative to make an article/section addressing the question "Why does the Falkland referenda keep favoring Britain" here in Wikipedia. Pcbyed (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

But let me do some synthesis for a minute. If we assume a 50/50 split between those born on the islands and incomers, and then each group has 825 voters. Remove 825 incomer or island-born votes from the "yes", and 99.6% (688/691) of the remaining valid votes were still for the "yes". Which doesn't make any significant difference to the end result. "One of the factors" - no, because it would have been overwhelmingly for the "yes" in any case. — Kahastok 13:25, 16 November 2013 — continues after insertion below

That is why I worded it "might" -- to give benefit of doubt. You can explain that in the main article of Falkland demographics. Pcbyed (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, no amount of demographic analysis is ever going to say anything other than that the vote was overwhelmingly for the "yes" among all major demographic groups. Kahastok talk 13:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

But Kahastok that does not mean I don't have to put the insertion. Someone (perhaps it might be you who can) must explain that Falklands' underlying demographics might have or might not have an effect on the referenda. I can accept that there might not be, just put a statement (replacing mine) that can help dispell it and cite you sources--because it would be interesting under the demographics section...demography and politics are integrated here, you can't isolate the one from the other. Local People/populations affect politics because they construct their local politic through referenda such as these.

Pcbyed (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It makes life easier if we keep all the posts together rather than adding points at paragraph breaks. Do you mind avoiding putting each post whole in the future please?

Putting in get-outs such as "might" aren't enough to deal with the concern that the point is WP:OR. Yes, of course there is a connection between the local people and the results of a referendum - but the point is trivial as it applies by definition to any fair election or referendum. There is no reason to assume that this is a special case and every reason to assume that it is not (in that the results would suggest that there was no significant demographic split in the electorate at all). We do not put in points to spark debate. That's not our job.

I note that I don't see any need for me to provide any sources here because I support the option of putting nothing in the article. I see no need for any text on this. If I were proposing a change, I would need to source it, but I am not. Your point is not backed up by your sources, and that is sufficient for it not to be included. Kahastok talk 17:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

So, do you want me to add to my proposed insertion that demographics is still inconclusive with respect to the referenda's results? Otherwise, I'll just be placing my insertion on the main article of Falkland's demographics if you want...or I'll revert again if no one replies within the next 24 hours.Pcbyed (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Pcbyed, what you're proposing is WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. Please read those guidelines; you'll understand that we can't include it.

Don't get discouraged by this, tho. Feel free to suggest insertions/improvements, but always remember to resort to talk page if your proposal faces resistance, so as to avoid an edit war. I also recommend reading WP:BRD.

Regards, --Langus (t) 16:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Read the WP:SYN, and yep I think that's what may be wrong for my insertion. At least everything's been made clear to me. Thank you mr. Langus. Pcbyed (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you should add nothing at all unless you can source it in accordance with WP:V and WP:OR. At present, you're not meeting this standard. Kahastok talk 17:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Pcbyed, we are not allowed to speculate on Wikipedia, we can only say what RS say, not what we think they should day. Your proposed edit breaches a number of Wikipolicies, and as such will never be allowed to stand. I suggest you look for WP:RS that support your edit.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Overall Reply (17 November 2013, Philippine Standard Time: 2012H)

So do I just leave you all alone then with respect to this article?

Then, ok, the article's all yours...though I decided to first research about my proposed insertion and when I'm already sure, I may just put in in the demographics or politics section of Falkland Islands/their resepctive main articles in the future, or on a new article discussing the reasons behind the results (or how demography, economic standing, etc. affect the Falkland results). But since Falklands is not really my line of interest (and I admit, I'm kinda lazy), I'll leave that task (of making the new article) for someone else interested to do so.

I would also want to give Mr. Langus the credit for directly and concretely pointing out what may be wrong in my insertion. Thank you for enlightening me.

An edit war averted. Good luck to you guys in maintaining the peace, such as Slatersteven, Kahastok, Cambalachero, EdJohnston, (whomever and wherever you are).

Hope to work with you on other articles, especially Philippine-related articles here in Wikipedia. :-)

Pcbyed (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Pcbyed

You're welcome to stay around Paul, we don't own the article. Cheers, --Langus (t) 15:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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 not moved per WP:SNOW. There aren't many cases where it's really appropriate to invoke SNOW for a same-day close, but it's pretty clear that this proposal doesn't "have a snowball's chance in hell" of succeeding. I'm not quite sure I understand the first IP's comment, but depending on its intent, there might not be a single editor supporting this. If it makes this any better for the nominator, I would definitely say there's consensus against this title; six more days of discussion won't change that. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Falkland Islands → Falkland Islands (Malvinas) – Move requested per the discussion in the section immediately above this one. I have no personal position on this matter (so, to the closing admin, please do not count my request filing as a vote in favor or against the move). The rationale in favor is that sources in the literature use the heading "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" as a neutral title, including organizations such as the United Nations & the CIA. The rationale against is that such a title is unusual for Wikipedia headings and also the fact that the term "Malvinas", in English, is a loaded term. MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Malvinas has not English negative connotation, just British negative connotation. You have just shown how strongly blinded you POV keeps you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.125.91.108 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a better term than "negative connotation" is "loaded term". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: True that the islands are referred to as the "Malvinas" in Argentina and maybe elsewhere, but the name "Falkland Islands" isn't in any way ambiguous, and therefore doesn't need disambiguating parentheses. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Falkland Islands" is perfectly in line with the article titling policy and does not infringe in any way or form the policy requiring a neutral point of view, which has nothing to do with following the burdensome and cumbersome style of international diplomacy and governmental lingo. Full disclosure: I'm an Argentinian living in Argentina. --Ev (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The policy for article titles says to use the common name and be concise. TFD (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per the considerations given above. Apcbg (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I was going to support the idea, but as the Spanish language Wiki uses the most common Spanish name (and does not include the English language name, I fail to see why the English Wiki should act in any way different. It is the common English name, and I had a (quick search. It turns out that in a n umber of languages (other then English and Spanish) they are called the Falklands (and the French call them neither).Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I would add, that yes to the British Malvinas is seen as being POV pushing, and has negative connotations.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that no reliable source actually uses "Malvinas" as an English word in preference to "Falkland" unless under direct Argentine influence. There is a certain amount of WP:FRINGE usage by people actively trying to make a point by it (generally on the far left), but nothing more than that. "Malvinas" is not used in English as a rule, and the exceptions are always strongly POV - hence if someone chooses to use it, they look like they're POV pushing.

Various people have disputed this assertion on this page in the past, but in the nearly eight years I've been here, none could cite a counterexample. The neutral term is "Falkland Islands". Kahastok talk 18:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and SNOW close. WP:COMMONNAME in English-speaking reliable sources is Falkland Islands. Zarcadia (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not a matter for a WP:SNOW closure. We need a formal consensus on the article's title, and this is the optimal way to achieve it. Also, the argument in favor of the title "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" is not without logic, given its usage by certain sources in the literature (as well as organizations such as those listed in the proposal). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - in general we don't go for double titles as a means of settling naming disputes, so there's no Football (soccer) and no Burma (Myanmar) articles. As for choosing which of the disputed names to use, I'm pretty sure that "Falkland Islands" is overwhelmingly the common name in English languages sources from most countries in the world.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, because Wikipedia is not a place for Argentinians (or anyone) to push political agendas. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Falkland Islands" is by far the most common name in English-language sources, including neutral sources and sources indifferent to the dispute. We are not diplomats, nor the UN, so unlike them we do not need to jump through hoops to appease Argentina. Kahastok talk 18:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the only reasons I could see the propose title being used world be if either, this was not the primary meaning of Falkland Islands, or Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is the term that most English-speaking reliable sources use. Since neither are the case the article should not be moved.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. On English Wikipedia we use the common name in English. That is clearly the Falkland Islands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

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.