Talk:Falkland Islands

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

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

Archive

Having received no objections, archived the discussion to date. Justin talk 22:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anthem

Although words remain "God save the Queen" the official name for the Anthem remains "God save the King" regardless to gender of Monarch to the Commonwealth. [1] Sammy Jay 03:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

First Sentence

First sentence has been changed to be factually correct. Falkland has a different etymology to Malvinas - the latter is not a Spanish translation of the former - they are two different names for the same thing. Furthermore, Spain does not recognise the Falklands has being "islas Malvinas," so in so far as the latter name could be said to be a Spanish translation at all, it is peculiar to an Argentine dialect. Praetonia (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in that claimed Islas Malvinas was a direct translation. It does appear to be the general spanish name for the island judging from what I can find. As I put in the summery I'm also not sure on using a ferry booking site as a source. Narson (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page the first sentence is a consensus that was achieved after a long debate. Changes will be reverted immediately if you don't achieve a consensus here first. I would suggest you refer to the wiki guidelines I pasted on your talk page.

PS @Narson we can add "ignorant propagandists" to our list of epithets. ;-) Justin talk 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, it says "Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas[2])". Are you, in fact, disagreeing that this is wrong, or do you just believe it doesnt imply a translation (in which case my edit is merely clearing up something you never intended to say, so there is no problem). We can have a debate if you like, but I think the facts are fairly clear cut, and my edit was given the appropriate citations. I apologise if I have offended any of you, but there's really no need to beat about the bush. Praetonia (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, there are numerous examples where names in two different languages are not direct translations. Your edit implies that its a uniquely Argentine name, it isn't. Justin talk 23:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying "Spanish: Islas Malvinas" suggests a translation to me (saying "Spanish speakers often call them the Islas Malvinas would imply a different name, not a translation). To be honest, I don't know why the name appears at all. Non-English names of places aren't generally given other than for the one used by the people who live there, but there's been enough wrangling on that topic in the past so I'll leave it be. Riedquat (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think because it is better for the project to let it be, for now, and get on with other things. It /does/ have a fairly prominent spanish name, so I imagine it would get mentioned anyway. Narson (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To be quite honest, to claim that there is no translation implied and then leave the reference verifying that mention with a translation resource seems two-faced. To comment further, I have never once seen {{lang}} or its children used as anything other than as a means of indicating a translation on this website. Octane ^{[improve me]} 21.01.08 0850 (UTC)

Well be BOLD and change it if you like. What will happen when it is removed is that Argentine nationalists will descend en-masse and demand that it is restored, the article will be disrupted until they get their way. Look at the many pages of tendentious arguments where they demand that the name of Islas Malvinas be included in the article. Justin talk 09:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you insist. Direct their comments to my talk page if I don't respond right away, if you will. Octane ^{[improve me]} 26.01.08 1525 (UTC)

I've reverted before an edit war breaks out. For the record I would generally agree with your sentiment and reasoning, however, experience tells me the article will only be disrupted. I would suggest you agree a consensus here first if you've a burning desire to see a change. You'd also better be prepared to ask an admin to protect the article as well. Justin talk 15:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]

Can I also draw your attention to the hidden comments.

The first sentence has been established as a compromise consensus between many editors in a long and difficult discussion (see talk page). Trying to change the sentence will be reverted on sight without discussion by many of the editors part of the discussion. If you have overriding NEW arguments, please bring them to the talk page first! Also note that the NPOV tag is in place because this text and its sentiments are in dispute.

And also

Do not edit this article to include or remove any Spanish names without first discussing it on Talk. Any substantial changes without consensus on Talk may result in an immediate block from editing.

Justin talk 15:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

I realise that this is your baby and you've done a wonderful job with the article - respect - but again, there's no relevance. The article states that the majority of the population is British in origin. It then says that a lot of people are also of Scottish and Welsh ancestory. It professes a confusion of the meaning of British. British people are English, Scottish and Welsh and all those identities contained therein. If the article said that most people were of English origin then it would make sense to say that a lot too were of Scottish and Welsh. Otherwise it's like saying that McDonald serves burgers. It also serves Big Macs and McChickens. I'm not denying the origin of people in the Falklands but I don't see the relevance in adding redundant information that sticks out like a sore thumb. That it states clearly and truthfully that most Falkland Islanders are Britons, why include a piece that goes further to imply that what has been said is actually incorrect? Enzedbrit (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would guess because Welsh and Scottish are very distinct nationalities (same as the English) within the general British-ness. I agree that the section does need to be re-worded, the only reason I didn't revert the change myself was the hideousness of the wording and the lack of time to go in and poke around with it. If we have sources that say they are Scottish and Welsh, I would even say that /rather/ than saying they are British. It is like preferring to say Western European over French or German. Lets use the most precise terms. Narson (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the text slightly. I'd agree with the above comments that whilst you can be both Scottish and British, I'm first and foremost a Scotsman. The source clearly indicates that the majority of the population are of Scottish and Welsh descent and I think it should be included. (BTW in your wedding photo which one of you is wearing the kilt?) Justin talk 13:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No.Enzedbrit (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1833 invasion

This article in the first paragraph has a link with the one who talks about the "1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands". That article clearly says "1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands" and not "re-assertion of British sovereignty in 1833". If it was an invasion, and i am sure it was, it has to be clear with no distortions at all. It is not vandalism when the truth is said. --88.23.116.36 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is (and I meant to write this in the revert summary), when I look at your edit history, it's quite obvious you have a POV agenda and are not interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia. I suggest you read this policy; WP:SOAPBOX and also WP:TEND. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've never been entirely happy with that article. I have a problem with describing the actions of 1833 as an invasion - a military engagement. What happened was that two British ships arrived at Puerto Luis, Captain Onslow sent a note to Pinedo which basically said they were there to enforce British sovereignty (after numerous diplomatic protests to Argentina) and asking politely that they took the Argentine flag down. Pinedo thought of resisting but thought better off it (mainly because the majority of his men were British mercenaries) and complied. He returned to Argentina with ams and colours intact, which for the period is quite a magnanimous gesture. So all in all "invasion" does not describe the very genteel and terribly polite affair that it was. It also does not reflect that contrary to Argentine claims the existing settlers were not molested in any way and were encouraged to remain. Justin talk 08:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with Wikipedia, when it comes to naming things. Ya see, whether it's called an invasion or not is pretty irrelevant, what matters is what actually happened on the day. However the name of something often becomes a cause célèbre for un-neutral parties to rally behind and push their cause. Then they'll start arguing by quoting dictionaries, over what a word means (which by the way is original research and we're not supposed to do that). All this debate is unconstructive to the encyclopaedia as it often doesn't involve adding any content to an article (LOL which is ironic as one of the first words these parties normally spout out is "truth" or "fact"). In this article for example, people will read it, and decide for themselves what sort of invasion it was. A similar debate is occuring on the Iran-Iraq War article at the moment here if anyone's interested. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has been a controversial subject. Me, Justin and a few other editors debunked the myth being promulgated by a few editors that the British expelled the entire population of the islands in 1833, the sources for which were merely Argentine propaganda. There was a brief discussion on the name IIRC, the issue is really what you would name it other than 1833 Invasion of the Falkland Islands. It is not a hugely covered subject in English literature (It is hardly a 'sexy' engagement. "We are here. Give up" "OK. We give up" "Cool". Not quite the makings of a blockbuster) which poses a problem. Justin might have some more literature on this than me and so might have some books that refer to the incident by annother name. I have a sneaking suspicion that 1833 Invasion of the Falkland Islands might be the term used by Britannica. One of those popular misnomers, however, when referring to it in a sentence, we are not bound by the article's name. Re-assertion of British Sovereignty is a pretty neutral phrase though, lets here alternatives if people want.

Hrm. As i look for sources while I read this, 'Occupation' seems a popular one for the 1833 incident. Reclaimed is popular too. 1833 Invasion seems to be entirely wiki mirrors or wiki rip offs. OTOH 1833 invasion does keep the same style as 1982 invasion. I really am flip flopping on this Narson (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The name doesn't bother me, although I was wondering how this article came to be named, but I can see you're well ahead of me there. Unfortunately someone makes up a hasty but logical name, then if it's left for ages it becomes lore. Perhaps a name change is in order then... Also can anyone point me in the direction of this nifty little table I saw ages ago, it shows who held the Falklands when, I can't remember what article it was on. As I remember it went France, Britain, Spain, Argentina, Britain, Argetina, Britain is that right? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands it took weeks to put that little table together.  ;)

BTW most of the English language text books refer to the events of 1833 as the British Return to the Islands, which by itself is a misnomer as they never actually totally left. The islands were used from the 1770s right up to the British return by British merchant shipping. Part of the reasons for 1833 was that the United Provinces of the River Plate ignored the first diplomatic protests in 1829 when Vernet was announced as "Governor" and again in 1831 when Vernet proclaimed a monopoly on seal hunting and began to interfere with shipping in Falklands' waters. Interestingly though he left the British well alone.

The other objection I have is that its not even consistent on Wikipedia. In 1770 Spain expelled the British from their settlement on Port Egmont. Do we rename that the 1770 Invasion of the Falkland Islands?

The original cause célèbre was that a number of Argentine contributors wanted to rename the 1982 Invasion of the Falkland Islands to the Argentine return (as the 1833 article reflected English language text books). The renaming of the article was in my opinion a poor compromise since it effectively caved in to a POV push. Justin talk 11:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, well to be honest "return" sounds better. "Invasion" conjures an image of a battle, which there wasn't in 1833. On the flip side, there was battle between Argentine and defending British marines in 1982. Plus there is sources stating the term "British Return to the Islands" right? If we've got the sources I think we should push for name change (to the "invasion" title), what do you think guys? Ryan4314 (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

British Return is probably as bad as invasion. It makes it sound like we came back from a holiday. Re-occupation would be good term, I think. Occupation doesn't confer any sovereignty or rightful claim arguments. Narson (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Either would be acceptable to me, its an improvement over the current version. Nonetheless I would expect houls of protest from certain quarters with their own agenda. Justin talk 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Re-occupation" is fine by me, although I'd prefer "return", just because it has sources. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

'Occupation' sounds to me like what the Germans did to the Channel Islands in WW2 and is perjorative. I chose the phrase 're-assertion of sovereignty' as its neutral and best describes the actual events. I suggest the article is renamed to that, but was waiting to see some discussion on whether people agree.

--Gibnews (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to insist with the invasion term. An invasion do not necessary needs battles or a bloodbath:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/invasion

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/invade?view=uk

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=41780&dict=CALD

If we don´t name things with the most accurate term, why are we here?. It is not an encyclopaedia anymore?. If there is, it is necessary to find the correct term, and i think "invasion" is the one.--88.23.116.36 (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(add) LOL Did you even read this discussion? Look at my 2nd comment up there. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm overly fussed with renaming it, but, the more I look at it, sources don't name the 1833 events as an invasion with the exception of those mirroring or ripping off wiki, which leaves us with a problem. What we need to do is look for sources and see what they name it, the two I found were Occupation and Reclaim. Justin, I'm sure, will come up with something definitive from a book if we give him time. He usually does :) Narson (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Yeah I was worried about the use of "occupation" too, it implies a temporary status which is un-neutral to the pro British side. However if we have a source for it, I'd rather have that over invasion. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. Our anonymous contributor should realise you don't get to insist on anything on Wikipedia, you have to build consensus. Pray tell, playing your game, what military action was there in 1833? Do you classify the exchange of polite notes a military action? It seems obvious that you haven't actually read the discussion so far - the reason for the discussion is that "invasion" does not accurately describe the events. Other than Wikipedia or POV Argentine propaganda can you cite a source that describes it so? It would be fairly easy to name a number of sources that describe it differently. Justin talk 08:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Offical Language

Shouldn't Spanish be included as a major language for local citizens , even if it's a british territory ?  A M M A R  15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, no, it isn't by any stretch of the imagination an official language. Justin talk 15:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody there speaks Spanish. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite true, there is a number of Chileans as well as about 20 Argentines living there. Its also a reasonably common second language - though like most English speakers a second language isn't all that common. Its still by no stretch of the imagination an official language or common enough to warrant mention. Justin talk 17:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish is a second language for the English speaking people of Gibraltar, however it is not an official language any more than the euro is the official currency. --Gibnews (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Act of Union

For the record the date of that was 1707 according to Wikipedial although I thought it to be 1710, in any event NOT 1800 as someone suggested, not that it matters much. --Gibnews (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There are various act of unions, one of which was in 1800 (The union with Ireland). The act in 1707 created Great Britain, the act in 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, then a 1927 act restyled the union as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Despite the Irish Free State having been created a few years earlier, so some date the UKOGBANI to the creation of the Free State in a 1922 act despite the delay in introducing a restyling bill). Narson (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Climate - tundra rather than maritime?

The article claims a cold maritime climate; however according to this climate data, the warmest month is below 10°C, which make it a tundra climate rather than a maritime climate. Even the Cfc need at least one month above 10 degrees. It is, according to the data provided, an extremely maritime tundra climate, as all months are above freezing. Orcaborealis (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That figure is the 24 hour average, [2] gives the average max and min not sure which is supposed to be used for the maritime climate definition though... BennyTec (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Climate classifications always use the 24 hour average. Orcaborealis (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

interesting, are there any other factors in climate classifications or is it just temperature? I always thought tundra had permafrost... BennyTec (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Precipitation is also important, and especially if it is spread out over the year or concentrated in one season (like in winter in Mediterranean climates). See Köppen climate classification. Most tundra areas have permafrost, but not all. Vardø in Norway (the only town along the Norwegian mainland with tundra climate) has no permafrost, as the year average is above freezing. But, some of the coldest inland climates, as in Siberia, have permafrost even in parts of the forested subarctic area (south of the tundra area) because of very cold winters giving a year average below freezing.Orcaborealis (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear, it would be interesting to see what the average recorded temperatures are now, the weather station moved from Stanley in 1985 and is now at Mount Pleasant airport which being inland will presumably get very slightly higher temperatures in the summer and slightly lower in the winter... It is remarkable the difference between Stanley and Cape Pembroke, the two are only seperated by a few miles, but Cape Pembroke is stuck on the end of a very exposed point. Fascinating site! BennyTec (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Martime climate is surely just that - climate that is dominated by the sea. This is abviously the case. It is, however, not warm enough to be classed as cold maritime. Wouldnt it then fit the description of subpolar maritime - despite only being 51 degrees south or so? I cant see tundra being appropriate for the Falklands but rather South Georgia which is notable colder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamE (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem with broad climate classifications. According to the Köppen classification, the climate is a tundra climate as there are no month warmer than 10°C. On the other hand, it is very rare indeed for a tundra climate to have all months above freezing! Maybe explain some more in the article, and mention that the warmest month is about 9°C and the coldest approximately 2°C (depending on which weather station on the island is used) A sheltered spot, say near a brick wall facing north, could probably reach 10 degrees and have a hardy tree growing. Orcaborealis (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

About Flags

Why is Argentinian flag added? This change should be removed, because:

• Falkland Islands belong to UK, that's the first thing;
• Furthermore, there is an official flag of Falkland Islands, recognised in UK.

It was just petty vandalism that gets quickly reverted. Don't worry about it. Narson (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sticking Point

I note that the inhabitants preference to remain under British Rule is given as a "Sticking Point" in negotiations between Britain and Argentina. This wording pre-supposes that such negotiations could only conclude in the handover of the islands to Argentina, rather than acceptance of their British Sovereignty.