Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 27

Dispute
"Most Falklanders favour the archipelago remaining a UK overseas territory, but its sovereignty status is part of an ongoing dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom."

There is no dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands, the above section is misleading in that it may encourage the reader to believe there is validity in the Argentinian claims. There isn't, full stop. I propose the following instead:

"All Falklanders, with a tiny minority excepted, favour the archipelago remaining a UK overseas territory. Argentina currently disputes the sovereignty status of the islands, a claim entirely without merit." 14.0.224.252 (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that the quoted sentence needs to change: it is grammatical incorrect bacause there is no direct link between the two phrases to justify the 'but' conjunction. A simply edit should solve the problem. Your proposed replacement has problems of its own though, including a glaring, and wrong, point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talk • contribs) 07:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a dispute, it may not be valid (or have a legal basis) but it is still a dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think both comments are valid. Yes the dispute should be mentioned, but I also think that the dubious status of the dispute itself also merits attention.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We do.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm supporting the status quo - which to be honest is somewhat unlike me, I admit.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, we should not suggest that the basis for Argentina's case is dubious; we should report the facts and allow readers to determine for themselves whether they think the two sides' positions have merit or not. In fairness, I believe that this is what we do already. Kahastok talk 15:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The proposed text wants to present one of the opinions of an ongoing dispute in wikipedia's voice, which goes against the neutral point of view policy. We have to describe the existence of a dispute and who says what, but without trying to settle ourselves who is right and who is wrong.

This is a featured article about a controversial topic. Let's try to keep its quality. Cambalachero (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Where exactly is the "controversy"?!? How is there anything even remotely close to a "valid" dispute going on here?!? If I suddenly decided to dispute the sovereignty of the USA and claimed that you are all still rightful subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in spite of your insolent rebellion a few centuries ago, you'd laugh me out of here in an instant. You certainly wouldn't add a clause to the USA article here suggesting that there was "controversy" and "dispute" surrounding US sovereignty just because I kicked up a fuss. Yet frankly, the claim I've invented there has in truth far more validity than the those made by the Argentine government regarding the Falklands. There is simply no moral, legal or historical backing for such nonsense and I think it's ridiculous that it should be included in this article under the guise of "NPOV" when it in actuality it demonstrates a bias you simply wouldn't accept anywhere else. 14.0.224.252 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not sopabox.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The dispute is explained in full detail at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. I said that this is a controversial article because, as a result of its topic, it is frequently the magnet of editors (from both sides of the dispute) who try to use wikipedia to right great wrongs, which is not accepted. Good or bad, the dispute exists, we are merely reporting that it exists and what is it about. Cambalachero (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. The IP's argument is clearly strongly POV.  Whatever our own views on the validity or otherwise of Argentina's case, the dispute is clearly significant to the islands and to this article and merits its current weight. Kahastok talk 15:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Everything I just said is the POLAR OPPOSITE of strong POV. 14.0.224.252 (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Declaring something to be "the POLAR OPPOSITE of strong POV" - in CAPS no less - is a pretty strong point of view to hold isn't it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it POV to state there is a controversy? Ridiculous. In much of the world the islands are synonymous with conflict, this is something we cannot escape from. Sietecolores (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

UK held secret talks to cede sovereignty
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past

Can this section and background be added into the profile on the Falklands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.134.126 (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you please elaborate? The source is already cited in the article.--MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 16:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by Sdrawkcab
It is with some dismay that I find myself distracted from editing and creating content on Wikipedia, to deal with a tiresome and petty editing dispute, of the sort that led me to leave Wikipedia some years back for quite some time. I recently made some edits and additions to this page, such as adding references, making some minor wording changes here and there, as well some adding more information where I felt it was necessary and appropriate, as well as splitting some of the sections into sub-sections so that the page is in line with every other country/territory page on Wikipedia. I also linked the numerous specific topic pages (Geology, Climate, Islands etc.) to the main page, plus added the navigation box, so that people might actually be able to find these articles. All edits were overturned twice with no discussion, then referred to some 'Incident' board for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Having being on Wikipedia since 2004, and reverted the removal of my edits on this just page just once, I'm not quite sure this qualifies, but hey ho.

If I had been making major changes to the text, or editing information about the sovereignty dispute in a partisan fashion, I could perhaps understand. I was merely making small but definite improvements, exactly as I have done to many, many other pages without comment. It seems that the FI main page is to be frozen in aspic, with only some self-appointed editors allowed to change it. I have no doubt that if similar edits had been made to a group of islands that didn't happen to be subject to a controversial territorial dispute, they would have passed without comment.

To be perfectly honest I can think of so many better ways to spend my time then engaging in an edit war over a remote group of islands I only have a passing interest in, so please feel free to carry on browbeating anyone who dares to edit this page and I'll move on and carry on making improvements to other pages. Sdrawkcab (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If you think actually discussing your edits on a well-watched and potentially-controversial featured article is somehow beneath you - when that is something we expect of every other editor on every other article on Wikipedia - perhaps the problem doesn't lie with those who disagree with you?


 * For the benefit of others, this is the change proposed. I think some of the proposed changes are useful, others less so.  If you want to discuss them, I'd suggest we make changes more slowly, progressing the uncontroversial and discussing the more controversial as required. Kahastok talk 09:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I thought the edits were generally not wrong but better described as unnecessary, the sort of edits that would come from an enthusiastic newcomer. That is why I did not reverse them all but just changed a few back and gave my thoughts in the edit summary, hoping that you, Sdrawkcab would self revert. I notice user:Moxy had also commented on your talk page not long ago about using Britannica as a RS. Adding references to every other sentence in the lead is not an improvement, particularly when it is the same reference: CIA. Tiffs, spats and the occasional edit war are all part of wikipedia. Surely you have learned to handle all that with having made so many edits? I hope you continue to contribute, to this Talk page discussion, and elsewhere. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have a rule for using Wikipedia - as soon as it stops being fun I'm gone. Discussing whether the world's most respected encyclopedia counts as a valid source, or whether mentioning the FI office in London is ok, is not my idea of a good time. Thankfully I've been using this site long enough to not be put off by it - I'll move on and leave you guys to it. Bye. Sdrawkcab (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay. Anytime you're ready to discuss, I'm sure plenty of editors here would be willing to proceed. Best of luck in your other endeavors. Regards.--MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 18:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

State of article - September 2019
Generally I think this article is considerably better than many other FI articles and editors who have made it that way deserve credit. About today's edits - have the islands ever been treated separately, politically, as east and west? I cannot recall seeing this done. It is often stated that the French and Spanish settled Port Louis on EF and the British on the WI (or Saunders which is associated with WF), but that does not mean there was any intent, or thinking at the time, that the settlements were divided into the two halves. Did the 1770 agreement with Spain, specify an EI-WI split, or just that the British presence at Port Egmont was left as is with sovereignty left to one side? I wonder if the later writings about the matter, including here, are assuming there was an EI-WI divide, because it is often mentioned that the settlements were on the separate halves, and that a form of synthesis has occurred that is not backed by the facts. Or is the error just here with WP. Perhaps relevant texts just mention the two main islands to specify location of the settlements and it is just WP that is taking it a step further into a political separation? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The questions are interesting, but they are more conductive to original research (a peculiar and meticulous one at that). Based on the secondary literature, the idea that Britain or Spain (or Argentina) only claimed one half of the archipelago seems wildly unlikely. When Britain left the plaque in 1774, surely it was concerning the entire archipelago. When Argentina approved the Vernet settlement, surely it also was with the idea that he would govern the entire archipelago (not just one island).--MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 03:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems ORY as well (and if we look at other islands they are sometimes split between colonial masters). But I agree that any such speculation about hypothetical splits is just that, speculation. What we would need if clear cut statements to that effect by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That is what I have always assumed, never a separation. I mentioned it because Tomas8024 is the latest editor to state that a separation existed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The idea of such a separation is a vast inference from a small amount of fact.

We need to always remember the wider context when we discuss these points. In this era, the Falklands were basically at the end of the world. Argentina wouldn't take control of Patagonia until the Conquest of the Desert in the 1870s. The nearest significant European settlements - I think Viedma in the 1830s, Chiloé in the 1760s - were several days' voyage away across some of the most dangerous seas in the world.

And we can probably safely assume that the FI as a whole never had a resident permanent population over a hundred until well after 1833. We're not talking about cities here. None of these early settlements that today's politicians make vast claims about, will have consisted of more than a collection of huts.

In this context, it's quite easy to see how the British might end up with a settlement on Saunders Island, and the French a settlement at Port Louis, both claiming the entire archipelago without conflict. Not because there was some kind of formal separation between East Falkland and West Falkland, but simply because the settlements were 85 mi apart and the populations were small enough that there was no reason why they would bump into each other. Kahastok talk 18:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The answer to the question as posed is no. The islands have never been treated separately, even when there were two competing settlements both sides continued to assert a claim to the entire archipelago.  Whether anyone achieved a meaningful level of control relevant to the establishment of sovereignty is a matter for a legal consideration akin to counting angels on the head of a pin.  And would be seriously dancing into WP:OR territory.  WCM email 22:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Replace "Falklands" for "Malvinas/Falklands". "Malvinas" is not the spanish translation. It is the name of the islands.
Both this and the one about de armed conflict articles say that there is a name for the islands (Falklands) and its spanish translation. This is wrong, because Malvinas is the name of the islands. Is there an endless discussion about wich one is the true name? Yes, but meanwhile, BOTH NAMES MUST BE INDICATED. It should say "Falklands/Malvinas" in replacement of "Falklands". This is the way in which the article has been written in wikipedia in Spanish, determined after a discussion that here seems not to have existed.

The way in which this article was written is absolutely impartial. And the fact that someone have blocked the possibilities of editing it, disgraceful and repudiable. --Kambus (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kambus has a point. Malvinas is not a translation of Falklands, it is an alternative name that is used in English by a not negligable number of sources. This means the lead should not use the translation insert but rather use 'also known as'. The naming convention link is also incorrect in referring to Malvinas as a Spanish translation. The UN decision to demand the use of Falklands (except for Spanish speaking countries) does not change the way we should treat the place name here. Should we start tweaking this, and many other, articles? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, look back over the talk page history and this is opening a can of worms. We've had endless bad tempered discussions that ultimately lead to the current guidance WP:NCFALKLAND.  In English, the predominant name is Falkland Islands, Malvinas is included because of the connection to Argentina's sovereignty claim.  There is clearly a POV motive at play here in this suggestion and the situation on the Spanish language version is not as the OP claims but reflects the usage here.  As such I don't believe the OP has a point, so much as is making one. WCM email 10:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Two minds over this, technically it is not a translation, it is an alternative name. But I am also sure that matters.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * My view of how the lead should read is: The FI, also known as the Malvinas (Spanish" Las Malvinas )There would be citations backing this 'also known as'. I am not sure where his possible POV motive fits here because it is a fact that Malvinas is an alternative English language name and not a translation of FI. Las Malvins is a translation, of the French name that predates The Falkland Isles Malouinesnot of 'The FI' A very quick look at a google search count gave a 10-1 count for FI over The Malvinas. This is not ideal because of the many variations possible of the different names eg The Falklands/Falkland Islands. However, there are clearly quality English language sources that do use The (not Las) Malvinas. Here's one . I do confesss though that I have not seen the earlier discussions about this. I am also aware of the can of worms that might be opened if we started to give anything resembling equality to the Spanish name. But that does not mean we should not do it anyway.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose that suggestion, there are English sources that use the name for minority POV reasons. You're talking about violating policies of WP:UNDUE and also ignoring that to do as you suggest would require changing WP:NCFALKLAND.  The lead already mentions the Spanish equivalent so I don't see what value your proposal is adding, other than kicking a sleeping dog for no benefit. WCM email 13:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A minor point but the article linked to is a Spanish publisher writing in english, most of the english language hits are for example the Argentine Government writing in English but using the Spanish name due to enmity for it's English language name. WCM email 13:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the word "translation" here seems to be being used here to mean something other than "translation".


 * Agreed. Translation of "Falkland Islands" into Spanish is "Islas Falklands". Should we, for example, indicate that "Denali" translates into English as "McKinley"? 68.41.72.83 (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * For instnace, if "Malvinas" is a translation of "Malouines", then it is also translation of "Falklands". By definition.  The fact that "Falklands" and "Malvinas" are not etymologically related to one another is irrelevant.  The Spanish islas is not etymologically related to the English islands, but that doesn't mean that they aren't translations of one another.  Neither is etymologically related to the Hungarian szigetek, but that doesn't mean that szigetek isn't a valid translation of islands or of islas.  And it doesn't matter which came first either.


 * Insofar as "Malvinas" sees any usage as an English word, it is WP:FRINGE usage by a small minority of writers who use it with the deliberate intention of makimh a political point. Doing as Roger 8 Roger proposes would thus be a major problem in terms of WP:WEIGHT.


 * And finally - and unsurprisingly - this debate has been had many times, and at one stage brought this page to the brink of Arbcom (yes, a long time ago, but even so). We've seen nothing at all new in this discussion so far.  I suggest you go back and read the previous discussion and consider whether continuing this adds anything useful. Kahastok talk 17:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

What is exactly under discussion here? There is a name for the island in English language, and there is another in Spanish. Translation, two standalone names... which is the difference, other than a semantic one? What does it propose to change in the way the article is actually written? Cambalachero (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely mate, it's not adding anything. WCM email 15:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The guideline says: The predominant usage in English is Falkland Islands, but the name Malvinas is encyclopedic information, of particular importance with respect to the disputed Argentine territorial claim. It then goes off track by saying Malvinas is a translation of Falklands. Sticking with the first sentence which is probably the intent of the guidelines, it confirms what I am suggesting - that the name Malvinas is sometimes used in English and is encyclopedic enough to be mentioned here. Are we misinterpreting the intent of the guidelines. Trying to keep this on track, the nub of my suggestion is simply that we do not treat Malvinas as a translation of Falklands. That is not a fringe idea at all, it is simply correct and backed by sources. How we incorporate that into this and other articles is open for debate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The guideline uses the current text of this specific article as an example of what to do.


 * I must admit, I would have thought that would have made it blindingly obvious, to even the most inexperienced editor, that it's endorsing the current text of this article. Kahastok talk 21:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to add, both names are of British origin. "Malvinas" comes from Saint Malo, a town in France named after a Welsh saint, and "Falkland" comes from the Scottish nobleman Viscount Falkland. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0C:5BC0:40:109E:6C4F:7968:F789:DDCD (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"Argentine forces XXXXXXed the islands."
Discussion over the latest changes - that I've also contributed to. My reasoning is outlined in my edit summary: "If it's agreed that the terms mean effectively the same thing, and the article linked is the "invasion" article, then the pipe description should match"  It is indeed Weasel wording to link to the invasion article, but attempt to soften the description by simply calling it an "occupation". Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hasn't the link been changed to the occupation article? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being behind the times with fresh changes having been made. It currently reads: In April 1982, Argentine forces invaded the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War. This is synthesis. There is no direct link between an invasion and later governmental control. An invasion is a defined act that does not necessarily imply a successful invasion: Gallipoli; Crete; Caesar 55 BC; 1812 etc. To occupy a country does mean having effective control. To make this sentence flow properly we need to add something to join the two halves. 'Successful' before invasion would work, as would adding the word occupation, as was done, which I think is a bit clumsy. Or, IMO swap occupied for invaded, because that would not be synthesis. 'Occupied', in context here, means an unlawful take over has occurred that is self evidently a military invasion. Anyway, I'm happy with whatever is consensus, but the current sentence needs tweaking. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree, and disagree. Whilst the INITIAL landings was successful the Argentine eventually lost.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article that explains what is a military occupation and how international law distinguishes it from simply an invasion. Because an editor feels triggered by the word "occupation" (assuming it to be a "soft description") we are going to ignore the 74-day occupation in favor of an invasion that took place over the course of just some hours? Occupation is not a "soft" description, it is the right description.--MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 13:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the OP and would remind all concerned that Wikipedia reflects the balance of opinion in the written literature. It is universally described as an invasion, so guidelines suggest that is the terminology that should be used.  I find the suggestion that I am "triggered" by the phrase to be an unhelpful personal attack.  I could equally suggest that other editors are "triggered" by the word invasion.  This sort of comment doesn't belong in a talk page discussion.  This article went through a GA review with wording that reflects the academic consensus, it shouldn't have been changed without discussion following the first challenge - WP:BRD people!  WCM email 13:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I was referring to Chaheel, the OP, who writes that the "wording" is an "attempt to soften the description by simply calling it an occupation". Clearly, such an argument is entirely based on feeling, not logic. I do not consider that pointing this out is a personal attack. I do care that the right descriptor be used to identify the situation. I have never heard of there being an "academic consensus" that Argentine military didn't occupy the Falklands. What did they do for 74 days? Drink mate? Dance tango? Play soccer with the locals?--MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 15:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Invasion" by the very term implies an exclusively military aspect, whereas "occupied" does not. My cat occupies my bed - often at a time when I want to be in it - but I don't consider that she's also invaded the bed.  Using the definition of a word to describe a situation is a logical exercise, not one "entirely based on feeling".  However - fret ye not, as I didn't consider it a personal attack, even if I do consider it flawed.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually he described it as weasel wording to link the invasion article, then call it an occupation. Personally I would agree. So to be blunt, your comments are not accurate and I would say that could well be perceived as a personal attack. Now look what's happened, we're now discussing editors instead of content.

I for one prefer to call a spade a spade not an earth moving implement. Argentina invaded, using military force, the correct description is invasion. WCM email 15:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Chahee Riems, 'occupation' has different meanings depending on context. A military occupation is one such meaning that cannot be compared to a snoozing puss. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course we could just say "militarily occupied" and avoid any confusion. After all Invasion can refer to a temporary occupation (or even in the case of a pitch invasion a non occupation) but it never means an occupation (after all the German invasion of France is not the same as the German occupation of France. So maybe it nerds to be "Invaded and subsequently occupied".Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "So maybe it nerds to be" - that's probably the most accurate - yet Freudian - comment in this entire thread. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What's amusing here is an editor that considers a military occupation is the same as his cat "occupying" his bed (whatever that means), despite our own Wikipedia article on the matter indicates a specific meaning exists for "occupation" under international law. But those who favor accuracy are "nerds"? Really? I honestly can't believe some of you are falling for this mockery.--MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 15:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you actually are skirting close to personal insults. What mockery are you accusing anybody (and who?) of falling for?  I obviously have a better developed sense of humour than you do - a necessity to edit and survive here on Wikipedia - but the point is that "occupation" does not necessarily have military connotations, especially without clarification - which presumably is why the article you linked to is specifically entitled military occupation rather than simply "occupation".  By stating "invasion" in the lede we are removing any possible doubt as to the intent of the meaning of the terms.
 * By the way, it means that my cat occupies my bed. I thought that would be fairly simple to understand.  Sorry for being too highbrow.   Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You mean to tell us that the sentence <<"In April 1982, Argentine military forces occupied the islands">> lacks clarification and "does not necessarily have military connotations"? It seems clear to me that all of this stems from your belief that "occupation" is a "softening" of the term invasion. However, as indicated by International Law, both terms do not have the same meaning. As others have indicated here, an occupation is always preceded by an invasion, whereas it is not certain that an occupation may follow an invasion. In other words, your logic is premised entirely on a fallacy—that's the biggest joke in this discussion.--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 16:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the phrase "In April 1982, Argentine forces occupied the islands" does very clearly imply a military occupation. The suggestion that it might mean what Chaheel Riens' cat does on the bed is entirely implausible.


 * And if we're "skirting close to personal insults" then that unfortunate trend was started with this edit and was continued most notably by this edit, which I feel reflects particularly badly on its author.


 * On the substance of the question, I honestly don't care much, as I feel that the two both accurately describe what happened. I see no attempt to soften the description by simply calling it an "occupation" - because in context I don't find the one word particularly softer than the other.  So I'd just use the word in the name of whatever article we're linking to and be done with it. Kahastok talk 17:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I should remember that not all editors have a well developed sense of humour, or indeed a sense of humour at all. With regard to nerds, I am quite obviously including myself in that statement, and think that the fact it seemed to cause so much offense merely reinforces the accuracy of said statement.  If it offends your sensibilities so much ANI is thataway, but beware the trout.
 * I will point to my original edit summary here, which says "If it's agreed that the terms mean effectively the same thing, and the article linked is the "invasion" article, then the pipe description should match." Is that the case, do we agree?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sovereignty - wording
"The United Kingdom and Argentina both claim the Falkland Islands" is the first sentence in the subsection. Similar wording is used in other articles. To me, this is misleading if not inaccurate. To claim something implies one does not properly have it. This is not the case with the Falklands where full sovereignty is exercised by the UK. Therefore, the UK does not claim the islands, it has them. Argentina on the other hand does claim them because it does not exercise any control over them. The quoted sentence would work with an area such as Kashmir where both India and Pakistan each exercise control over half its area but each claims the whole area. The sentence would also apply to an area under occupation, where full practical control might be with the occupying force, but that control was not accepted by a large proportion of the local population. Some might say that using the quoted sentence amounts to bias, because it gives undue weight to the Argentine position by minimising the UK position. Does anyone have any objection to saying: "The Falkland Islands form a UK overseas territory. They are claimed by Argentina." Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand the concern about the sentence, but the proposed change is not an improvement. It's already indicated 4 times in the article that the Falklands are an overseas territory, 2 of them in the government section. Perhaps a clearer sentence would indicate that both countries claim " sovereignty over " the Falkland Islands. Regards.--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 16:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It also repeats Argentina's claim that the settlers were expelled but doesn't mention that all neutral academic sources dismiss that claim, noting the settlers were encouraged to remain. It's a significant omission when even someone like Gustafson dismisses it as myth. WCM email 16:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

My proposed sentence was not ideal and could be altered, but I can also see how any change may not improve the article too much. As an aside, I am increasingly finding examples, such as this one, of subtle inaccuracies in many sources and articles about the Falklands that create a false impression of the situation. It is as though a type of fake news has been taking place with assertions made that have only an element of truth to them. Throwing in a misleading statement is so easy to do whereas countering every example takes up so much time. The 1833 'expulsion' is an example of this misinformation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that "The United Kingdom and Argentina both claim the Falkland Islands" is not correct, as far as I know the UK doesnt make any claim as it is already has possession. MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I edited the article based on the suggestions. Please indicate what "subtle inaccuracies" are creating "a false impression".--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 18:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Falkland Islands was a Portuguese (Americo Vespucio) or Spanish discovery (Esteban Gómez).
It is a common mistake to attribute the discovery of the islands to british explorers as the first european visitors. Just naming a relevant source: "Mapamundi" (1529,Diego Ribero) reflects the existence of the San Antón islands in the same geographic location discovered by Fernando de Magallanes and Esteban Gómez in a ship called "San Antón". Jhon Davis went to Malvines or Farkland Islands in 1592.
 * We mention this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any of these people, island or ship names mentioned in the article - am I missing something? (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 15:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No we do not name them, because no one is sure if they did. We do say it may (may not) have been discovered before the first authenticated landing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020
Remove the Malvinas name. They're not called that. They've never been called that. 2A02:C7F:70A6:7D00:554F:7E85:1DC5:BFEF (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Err they are in some places.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We often include foreign titles of subjects that have ties to that language. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Split into the administrative division and the landform
Hello,

As we at the Spanish Wikipedia decided to split the article into the British Overseas Territory (administrative division) and the archipielago (landform). So, do you think would be a good idea to split this article too?


 * The landform: Falkland Islands
 * The administrative division:
 * British Overseas Territory of the Falkland Islands, or
 * '''Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory)

--Amitie 10g (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, absolutely not. The arrangement on es.wiki is a WP:POVFORK. Kahastok talk 07:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:OVERLAP. CMD (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Profoundly disagree per Kahastok. WCM email 07:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)  (off at a tangent, are you not embarrased that the Spanish wikipedia persists in using faked images of historical documents?) WCM email 07:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What did you mean with «off at a tangent, are you not embarrased that the Spanish wikipedia persists in using faked images of historical documents?» Wee Curry Monster? This is not a forum, and this kind of answers don't help to answer a simple question. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I take it from that that you, as an editor of the Spanish Wikipedia, are not embarrassed by the fact that the Spanish Wikipedia presents faked images as real.


 * And that, in and of itself, is a good demonstration of why "they do it like this on the Spanish Wikipedia" is not a good reason for us to follow their lead - and is often a good reason for us not to follow their lead. Kahastok talk 17:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Disagree as well, per Kahastok and CMD. An article on British Overseas Territories already exists too.--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 02:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree, as above. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No division. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is insufficient reason for the division, also the move seems politically motivated. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Article move???
I must have missed something. Where was the discussion for the article move from what it is (Falkland Islands) to what appears to be a disruptive move? What's the reason for this? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no discussion; I moved it back and warned the user. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So this actually WAS vandalism then? What possible reason was there for all this disruption? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect it was someone acting in good faith which means they aren't vandalising, but it is misguided. The usual rule is to use whichever term is most common in English for the article title, and "Malvinas" is rarely used by English sources.  Hut 8.5  08:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomenclature defined by the United Nations
Hello. As I said earlier, it is necessary for this project article, the impartial nomenclature used by the United Nations, since this territory is under dispute between two countries. Nomenclature used in all languages, including english. Furthermore, this title adopted by the UN, in addition to being widely used, seems to be the most impartial for the project. Ismael Silva Oliveira (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Welcome FINALLY to the discussion. Your view, that such a convention is impartial, I would imagine is not actually shared by a lot of frequent editors and contributors here. I do not wish to be rude, but I would like to see more than just "the UN says it, so it must be so" in backing up this change and article move. We are, however, all ears to any subsequent material and/or discussion. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have often seen editors keen to assume the UN is impartial, particularly when they are using UN citations to back up their argument. In practise, the UN is not, it's resolutions are achieved by majority voting and corrupted by international power politics.  So in practise the UN is neither impartial nor neutral on many topics.  In fact, the current policy arose because the Argentine government refuses to even recognise or use their English language name (even in documents produced in the English language).  Wikipedia's policy is to use the common name in the language appropriate for the wiki, hence I have no problem with using Falkland Islands on the English wikipedia, Islas Malvinas on the Spanish.  In any case, we have a policy to also include the Spanish name after the first usage of the English name.  Hence, I see no reason to change, in fact I don't see the change as complying with WP:NPOV but rather giving more prominence to a viewpoint that denies the English name even exists. WCM email 16:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia typically uses whatever name is most common in English. From the neutrality policy: If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. The article titles policy also makes it clear that we should prefer the common English name even if that can be seen as biased. English speakers overwhelmingly use the term "Falkland Islands", as "Islas Malvinas" is Spanish. The United Nations isn't the arbiter of English usage. WP:NCFALKLAND also says that articles should use the Spanish name once in the article lead but that "Falkland" should be used otherwise.  Hut 8.5  17:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The UN's considerations are neutral because give equal space to both sides of the dispute. If impartial considerations are not welcome, what would they be? The ideas of a British islander? Or the ideas of an Argentine on the continent? When I read this entry for the first time, it immediately caught my attention the way it was presented, almost completely omitting the situation of the dispute and consolidating only one side. See, Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform to defend a point of view in a dispute. The definitions of the United Nations in this dispute are neutral, and are in agreement with the fundamental principles for the existence of this project. Ismael Silva Oliveira (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've noted the current title is absolutely consistent with the neutrality policy. The article doesn't only present one side of the dispute or pretend that there is no dispute.  Hut 8.5  17:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In my experience, it is quite common for people unfamiliar with these sorts of questions to assume that the United Nations is somehow an inherently neutral body. It is not.  The United Nations is an inherently political body that has actually fought wars in the past.  Its choice of terminology tends to reflect the niceties of international diplomacy rather than the way the language is actually used.  Per WP:COMMONNAME, we prefer the way the language is actually used.


 * It used to be quite common for people to make the same mistake with the CIA. That one happens less nowadays, probably because we no longer use the CIA World Factbook quite so extensively as we did in the past. Kahastok talk 19:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ismael Silva Oliveira. Have you made any effort to change the title of the page of the Spanish wikipedia to °Malvinas (Islas Falkland)"? or that of the Portuguese wikipedia to "Malvinas (Ilhas Falkland)"? There is a lot of space for adding neutrality to Falklands articles on the English wikipedia, but the name of this article is not a legitimate concern in that respect. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Add “Falklander” as demonym
I think the demonym “Falklander” should be added to the quick facts because it is used within the article. It also has a Merriam-Webster entry. Comm.unity (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I see no problem with your suggestion, I support it. --James Richards (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. WCM email 18:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020
JeridoMaster (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC) change "Falklands islands" to "Falkland Islands" even in English translation
 * Where exactly is there an instance of "Falkland islands" with "islands" in lowercase? OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The request was for Falkland s islands, making the request even more puzzling. Where are the examples of this use? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a cite that referred to the "Falklands Island Government" and "Falklands Islands Census 2016", and I've fixed them. I don't know if that's what was requested though. Kahastok talk 18:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kahastok talk 18:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits by R.Jensen
This seems somewhat of a contrived edit to me. It appears on the face of it designed to work the cites that RJensen has been seeking to add to a number of articles, even though they weren't used in the article. I don't see it adds anything to the article and sits rather poorly in that section. Given this is a Featured Article, we should be striving to maintain article quality. However, sticking to my 1RR policy bringing it here for additional review. WCM email 14:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I would say (anything else aside) it's in the wrong place, as it seems to be talking about claims.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely looks like the wrong place for it - the section is about the culture of the Falkland Islands and the added text is talking about British justifications for their position in the sovereignty dispute. I'm also not sure there are any "local demands for decolonization" at all. Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute might be a better place for it.  Hut 8.5  18:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not read the sources, but it seems to me the text used and cited are a bit out of place, but there again the whole subsection weighted to non-cultural detail. Perhaps an rewrite would help? Assuming the sources are genuine and are being used correctly I think a repositioning within the article would be better rather than a removal. But, I have not looked into this in depth or to what extent the editor is or is not pushing an agenda. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hut. Are there "local demands" for decolonization? Are those locals the .2% from the 2013 referendum? I've never heard of it.--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 22:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don’t confuse local hostility towards Britain/“Mainlanders” as some sort of greater indication the Falkland’s wish to be more independent from the UK.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:851A:E67:1C:3751 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion on the merits, I'll just mention two points: when you raise a Talk page discussion about a specific editor as you did here with User:Rjensen, even if it's a side issue, let alone naming the editor in the section header, you are bound to notify them of the discussion, so they can respond. Secondly, User:Roger 8 Roger, with respect to "pushing an agenda", allow me to point out that Richard J. Jensen is a professional historian and creator of H-Net. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hint, I will bear that in mind in the future.  I know who he is but that doesn't give him carte blanche to edit war to force material into a featured article contrary to WP:BRD - I notice he seems to have been emboldened by your post to do so again.  WCM email 00:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What I have been doing regarding many of the territories of the former British Empire is looking at the major scholarly studies that have been fully vetted by scholars and deal with major historical topics. The British actions in 1982 made the islands world famous--and were argued pro/con in terms of colonization and decolonization. Hence a brief summary of the scholarship is appropriate or else our users will not hear about the issues. And yes, the political values of the inhabitants is an important aspect of their "culture"--see Political Culture...an analogy in 2021 is Britons/Brexit and the popular sense of Europeanness; or in USA, a sense of distrust of the federal government. Rjensen (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's clear you don't have a consensus for this edit. I really don't see the point in adding the opinion of one academic, we're building an encyclopedia here not an academic reference source.  And I don't want to give the impression this is a green light for a detailed exposition on the academic literature on this niche subject, it would totally unbalance the article.  WCM email 00:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the material in question was evaluated and approved by a series of five to ten scholarly editors and experts consultants, and has been well reviewed and not challenged. Thus it represent a consensus of experts on a topic central to the recent history of the islands in UK and in the Falklands themselves. The "unbalance" notion is tossed out without any argument or evidence or citations to experts. Fact is the Falklands in the 1980 became am important international issue: affecting the islands themselves as well as Argentina and UK & involving the USA as well. So it's not a little "niche" topic. Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think if it was trimmed down to the essential Cultural aspect, perhaps "There is a strong “kith and kin” identification with the people of the United Kingdom", it would fit. The bit about there being little demands for decolonisation could fit in the Sovereignty dispute section, although it may seem a bit redundant to the referendum result. CMD (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quick question. How did this Argentine academic, reviewed by two American academics gain this insight into Falklands culture, without ever visiting or even talking to Falkland Islanders?  WCM email 07:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever the background of the academic in question, none of the added content from the diff feels like the sort of particularly extraordinary claim that would prompt me to look into it. CMD (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's a very relevant question, when academics are arguing they provide a scholarly analysis of public opinion in Falklands on a major issue without actually doing any research with the people concerned I would question the conclusion they reached. As I have many friends in the islands I would dispute the rather simplistic interpretation of the relationship, whilst they are part of the British diaspora the Falkland Islanders do have their own and very distinctive identity. I also question why this academic was selected and why not a wider view of the literature - again not a green light for a detailed exposition on the academic literature on this niche subject.  WCM email 10:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Mathlog, here ''Secondly, User:Roger 8 Roger, with respect to "pushing an agenda", allow me to point out that Richard J. Jensen is a professional historian and creator of H-Net. Thanks, you are taking my comments here But, I have not looked into this in depth or to what extent the editor is or is not pushing an agenda.'' out of context. I was giving mild support to Jensen's addition. My concern was that they were out of place, which others have also stated. Being wary of editors pushing an agenda on anything to do with the Falklands is a necessary requirement on WP, because agenda pushing comes readily from both sides, but more blatently from the Argentine side. Now that I know now who you are, Rjensen and I note with some interest your reference to Great Britain, when the UK or GB and Ireland would both be more correct; and I am slightly puzzled as to why the islands became world famous in 1982 due to Britain's actions. Why didn't they become famous when the Argentine's invaded? I accept they became more famous once the UK sent a fleet, but they were still already headline news. About the 5-10 scholars, their opinions need to be published and used here to carry ant weight. Although I can see a point in having Jensen's edits in the culture section, on further consideration I also agree that they would be better put elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia, not a text book and should be structured accordingly. However, I welcome any debate about this because it is better than most of the other, usually low key, topics that are discussed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

When I read this, my immediate reaction is, who cares what Ezequiel Mercau thinks? The claim above is that this is a brief summary of the scholarship. But it isn't. The proposed text in the article is quite explicit on this point. It's the POV of a single historian.

So, why should this particular historian's POV occupy such a large proportion of this section? I don't see it. Do reliable sources on the topic of the Falkland Islands routinely give this much WP:WEIGHT to the POV of Ezequiel Mercau? Surely not. So why is he special, that his POV gets expounded in detail and every other historian's gets ignored?

And TBH I'm not convinced the text even makes sense. Instead a predominant sentiment is a close "kith and kin" identification with the people of Great Britain and their "loyalty to the Crown." What does that even mean? Is it claiming a close "kith and kin" identification with the British people and with the British people's "loyalty to the Crown"? Or it is claiming a close "kith and kin" identification with the British people and with the Falkland Islanders' "loyalty to the Crown"? How precisely do you have a close "kith and kin" identification with an abstract noun phrase such as "loyalty to the Crown", when "kith and kin" means "friends and family"?

For these reasons I don't think this is an appropriate text to add to a featured article. Kahastok talk 18:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The History of the Islands prior to John Davis references that should be mentioned on the Article which assumes the first landing to be that of John Strong.
- Americo Vespuccio may have visited the islands in 1502 as they are depicted on his map [Kohen y Rodríguez, 2005. The Malvinas/Falklands between history and law refutation of the British pamphlet "getting it right: thereal history of the Falklands/Malvinas" p. 31]

- In 1520, Alonso de Camargo landed on the Island and lived there for almost a year from February 4th 1540 until the 3th of December 1540 [Goebel, Julius (1983).The Struggle for the Falkland Islands.New Haven and London: Yale University Press. P 32-36]

- The first british landing was said to be attributed to John Davis [Freedman, Lawrence (2005). The Official History of the Falklands Campaing. Whitehall Histories: Government Official History Series. Volume I: The Origins of the Falklands War. Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5206-7. page 3]

- Several maps already existed of the Islands by the time of John Davis landing or any following landing after him [Kohen, Rodríguez, p. 32; 2005, Goebel, p. 56; 1983] (Referred before in this talk post)

- The most unquestionable visit was made by the dutch Sebald de Weert in 1600 [Freedman, Lawrence (2005). The Official History of the Falklands Campaing. Whitehall Histories: Government Official History Series. Volume I: The Origins of the Falklands War. Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5206-7. page 59-60] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We do "Claims of discovery date back to the 16th century, but no consensus exists on whether early explorers discovered the Falklands or other islands in the South Atlantic". The problem is that Cap Strong made the first recorded landing, its not just speculation, he said he landed there (and named them).Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Who (by the way) is John Davis?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to what was said:
 * 1. Kohen and Rodriguez is a self-published work, it's a polemic written by two laywers to try to discredit an influential pamphlet written by Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper. It's riddled with errors, for example at one point they criticise another document as their work, which they didn't even write or have any involvement with.  Per WP:SPS it is not a source we can use.
 * 2. The claim that Amerigo Vespucci saw the islands has long been discredited. It's based on the Soderini letter, which was proven to be a forgery long ago.  No serious historian gives such claims the light of day but it does illustrate the Kohen-Rodriguez document to be flawed in that they repeat it.
 * 3. It isn't likely that Camargo visited the islands, again this is an example of Kohen-Rodriguez presenting conjecture as fact; although you've attributed this to Goebel it's clear it is from Kohen-Rodriguez. The conjecture is based on the description of the islands but some aspects don't fit eg the presence of forests. A reconstruction of Camargo's voyage by Felix Riesenberg indicates that the most likely landing point would have been Isla de los Estados.  In some respects Isla de los Estados is a much better fit as fauna and flora is very similar but there are forests.
 * 4. Some islands do appear on a series of early maps that could be the Falklands and there is conjecture that a Portuguese expedition may have discovered them before Davis. However, there isn't a single documented voyage that includes such claims of prior discovery. WCM email 16:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * John Davis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Davis_(explorer)

1. I do not think is full of errors, as some of their sources are reliable, specially those recording historical documents. I guess is not accepted and disregarded as it contradicts points that do not suit the british claim over the island, but this is my personal opinion. I am going to have a closer look and investigation to their work asap.

2. I wrote that he MAY have, because of course is not sure weather he was there or not. The claim of forgery is not based on the Sorderini letter of the alleged voyage of 1497–1498, (in 1497-98 it is imposible to have maped nor see the southern tip of South america, but later). It is based on Vespuccio voyage of 1502 and even maybe to the trip of 1503 which indeed occur but is unknown if Vespuccio was there or not. So following his records made by him of the americas we can see depicted some islands believed to be the Malvines/Falklands. I think is worth mentioning this on the article because it is not sure if he was there or not. But it indicated that some explorers had at least came around the area.

Leaving it as "Claims of discovery date back to the 16th century, but no consensus exists on whether early explorers discovered the Falklands or other islands in the South Atlantic"(this would also include Strong by the way) as an overly vague referrence that seems to make those discoveries less important in order to make Strong landing stand out as "the first" landing when is disputed internationally to have been so. The voyage of John Strong is also quite unlikely to have been the first and is highly disputed as being the first recorded landing. It's in fact only accepted by British sources for obvious claim reasons, but non-british sources considered previous landings such as those recorded by the expedition led by the ship "Obispo de Plasencia", in which the tripulation went to land in the Big Island of the archipelago that the spanish sailors even named as "Puerto de las Zorras" where they lived for over 10 months. Other sources also indicate the first landing to be a that of a French. [ Lorenz, Federico (2014). «Capítulo 02. Pero ¿quiénes las descubrieron?». Todo lo que necesitás saber sobre Malvinas. Buenos Aires: Paidós. p. 27. ISBN 9789501204049.] and to that we have to add the Dutch Landing on the Islands in 1600

3. Camargo lived for over one year in the islands as it has been recorded in Goebel work as well as in the Kohen-Rodriguez work. I think even the later make reference to Goebel who is, i think as for now, the first to have writen about it. The landing is then writen in both sources. I am going to explore more sources other than this two if I can. This cannot be taken as not likely when there are records that indicate them living there for over a year in 1540. Felix Riesenberg is definitely not a reliable sources as the same point to disclaim Kohen-Rodriguez work is a conjecture presented as fact. There is no clear work that indicated they didnt lived in the Malvines rather than the Isla de los Estados. There are just ideas not uniformely accepted by historians. Specially since Felix Riesenberg wasnt a historian himself but a marine writer. So his work shouldn't be taken above those of historians. We should also bear in mind that the Magellan expedition is said to have gone by the islands (and maybe set foot on them) and I will explore more sources about it.

According to some sources I checked, the name "Falklands" was given by Strong to the strait among the Islands and not really to them proper. However the name was later used to name the archipelago as a whole. The first map showing the Islands with that name was a Dutch map. [Caillet-Bois, Ricardo R. (1982). Una tierra argentina: Las Islas Malvinas. Buenos Aires: Academia Nacional de la Historia. p.22] and [ Lagos Carmona, Guillermo. Andrés Bello, ed. Los títulos históricos. p. 422.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, provide one RS that disputes Captain Strong landed on the islands.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The dispute is not on him being on the islands but of him being the first to set a foot in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But none of the others are undisputed, he is. So if you want to change it so "first undisputed" I would support that. Also its not just the British who say it [].Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

British and American historians do support the claim but Spanish and French, or South American historians do not support it. American support is mostly based on cultural affinity. So basically Strong claim is not undisputed but very much disputed, and is no near international accord among historians. So you must include Strong in the sentence "


 * 1. It is riddled with errors and at least in the first edition the preparation for publication was so lackadaisical they even included photoshopped documents. In any case, we don't use it because it is an WP:SPS.  If we were to allow it to be used, we would also have to allow Dr Graham Pascoe's rebuttal to be used.  Your accusation is completely unfounded and should be withdrawn.  You may wish to read WP:OWB, when an editor starts to bandy around accusations of bias and censorship within a few posts it's a sure sign they're not here to help write an encyclopedia.
 * 2. Nope, you are completely wrong, it's solely down to the Soderini letter, I have copies of both the Spanish and English language texts. I translated the first edition from Spanish to English so I am very familiar with it.
 * 3. It is highly unliklely that Camargo lived in the islands for the reasons already stated. There are no such records, Goebel speculates based on a fragment of a log.  He ignores contrary evidence such as the reference to forests, which I note you've done and also finding reasons to discredit sources rather than consider them is the classic sign of a WP:SPA who is not interested in portraying a WP:NPOV.
 * 4. Magellan went nowhere near the islands, the voyage is well documented by his chronicler Pigafetta from which the conclusion that he did not visit the islands is verifiable. Pigafetta describes meeting giants thought to be the Tehuelche Indians; the Falklands were uninhabited.  Estêvão Gomes who deserted the expedition did not go anywhere near the islands, his log documents the return journey, and even stalwarts of the Argentine claim such as Adm Laurio H. Destefani reject such nonsense.
 * 5. Kohen and Rodriguez are not historians, they are lawyers, you have just completely undermined your own argument.  Felix Riesenberg is a perfectly valid source for the Camargo voyage. WCM email 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1. I am basing myself on the sources on other Wiki articles about the Islands that the English version is not taking into consideration. So it's not anything biased but is clearly a deliverate try to assert the claim of the Islands on Britain by manipulating history. As I said before John Strong being the First landing in the Islands is disputed. His landing is recognized but definitely disputed (and unlikely) to have been the first.
 * 2. The claims are based on 1501, not on Sorderini letter of 1497-98 which is the one said to be a forgery. However I do believed that is highly unlikely that he went to the Malvines/Falklands. I just checked by myself now and the claim is based on him reaching as far as 52-50ºS in the voyages of Coehlo. However as I said there is no consensus as if Vespuccio was there in the voyage of 1503. However, most of the articles on other languages mentioned that Vespuccio may have or may have not visited the islands or at least recorded them. The english wiki is the only one I checked who doesnt even make any reference to the slight posibility of Vespuccio having recorded the islands.
 * 3/4.Goebel is not the only source that talks about Camargo's voyage. Other authors have talked about it and have definitely come to a conclusion that Camargo probably lived in the Islands. There is abundant cartographt right after 1520 suggesting that the members of the expedition of Magellan had seen the islands. The most popular version attributes the discovery to Esteban Gómez, from the ship known as San Antón or San Antonio which name gave origin to the islands in the first spanish records. After the mutiny against Magellan on 1 november 1520, Gómez went back to spain through the guinea route. Another version gives the discovery to the ship Victoria sent by Magellan to look after the San Antón in Atlantic waters. On a side note, The Captain Pedro de Vera with the ship Anunciada deserted from the expedition of García Jofre de Loaisa right in the river Santa Cruz to navigate to the Moluccas though the good hope cape, but it was never known of them again. Some historians have believed that considering the route he took he may have seen the Malvines/Falklands. ​
 * Simón de Alcazaba y Sotomayor left spain with 2 ships on september 21, 1534. The San Pedro ship commanded by Rodrigo Martinez, split from the Madre de Dios by a storm around the lattitude of the Rio de la Plata and they were found again on 17 january 1535 in the Vigenes cape, a history narrated by Alonso Vehedor which mentions some Islands believed to be perhaps the Madives/Falklands. [Museo del Fin del Mundo - Biblioteca Virtual - en torno a la Tierra del Fuego]
 * However, the most important sources, give credit to the ship comanded by Fray Francisco de Ribera, Camargo's voyage. It is said to have lived in the island for a year in 1540.Your claim saying to have been in Isla de los Estados is unlikely as the cronicles mention describe the expedition to have sighted 8 to 9 islands, as well as several geographical descriptions that could only match the Malvines/Falklands [Caviglia, Sergio Esteban; en "Malvinas: Soberanía, Memoria y Justicia: 10 de junio de 1829" (Vol 1, Ed. Secretaría de Cultura del Ministerio de Educación, provincia de Chubut, Argentina, year 2012] and [Ernesto Basilisco: La armada del obispo de Plasencia y el descubrimiento de las Malvinas]. This is not only said by Goebel but by other authors: [Destefani, Laurio H. (1982). Malvinas, Georgias y Sandwich del Sur ante el conflicto con Gran Bretaña. Buenos Aires: Edipress.]. I think these Historians are more reliable sources than Felix Risenberg.
 * John Strong landed in the Islands for refurbishing himself, but no formal possesion of the Islands took place, as Goebel says on page 137., which means it had no legal consecuences for britain. On the same note Gustafson on p.5 notes that in the following 76 year the islands remained permanently uninhabited and agrees with Goebel on the fact that Strong expedition had no legal advantages for England.[Gustafson, Lowell S. (1988). The Sovereignty Dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. New York: Oxford University Press.]
 * On top of this, on the expedition of magellan, acording to the maps made by Diego de Rivero (1529), some islands shown and named as "Sanson" support their discovery of the islands.
 * 5 Felix Risenberg is not a valid source for the same reason you descredit Kohen and Rodriguez: none of them are Historians. So if you disregard Kohen-Rodriguez work for being lawyers, you have to discredit Risenberg work as well for being a marine and amateur writer. It makes him not a reliable source for Camargo's voyaye and thus cannot dispute the unlikelyness of his voyage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not say he took formal possession, only that his was the first confirmed landing. You have failed to make your case, please drop this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But you arent taking my considerations over Camargos voyage: However, the most important sources, give credit to the ship comanded by Fray Francisco de Ribera, Camargo's voyage. It is said to have lived in the island for a year in 1540.Your claim saying to have been in Isla de los Estados is unlikely as the cronicles mention describe the expedition to have sighted 8 to 9 islands, as well as several geographical descriptions that could only match the Malvines/Falklands [Caviglia, Sergio Esteban; en "Malvinas: Soberanía, Memoria y Justicia: 10 de junio de 1829" (Vol 1, Ed. Secretaría de Cultura del Ministerio de Educación, provincia de Chubut, Argentina, year 2012] and [Ernesto Basilisco: La armada del obispo de Plasencia y el descubrimiento de las Malvinas]. This is not only said by Goebel but by other authors: [Destefani, Laurio H. (1982). Malvinas, Georgias y Sandwich del Sur ante el conflicto con Gran Bretaña. Buenos Aires: Edipress.]. I think these Historians are more reliable sources than Felix Risenberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I am, I am giving them the same credit as all of the other sources, hence our text. As to your opinion of what are more reliable sources, take it to wp:rsn and make a case there that source A is better than source B. This is my last reply as we are just going round in circles, you have not gained wP:consensus you should now drop this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Felix Riesenberg is acknowledged as a noted maritime historian. Per WP:SPS we do not use Kohen & Rodriguez because they are self-published and reference to the established academic literature shows the work to be riddled with errors.  I merely pointed out the inconsistency in your approach in seeking to disqualify sources that contradict the flawed premise you wish to portray. WCM email 18:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2021
I request for the total area; currently showing 12,200 km^2 to be edited to 12,173 km^2. Sources: 1. https://www.google.com/search?q=size+falkland+islands&oq=size+falkland+islands&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60l2.2845j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 2. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=size+falkland+islands 190.215.16.230 (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Search results are not reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

New paper on visitation of Falklands by patagonian peoples
See Evidence of prehistoric human activity in the Falkland Islands, based on a midden mound on New Island, dating to 1275 to 1420 CE, likely created by the seafaring Yaghan people. Probably merits incorporation into the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The possibility of prehistoric human activity in the Falklands is already addressed in the article in the history section. e.g.: "Although Fuegians from Patagonia may have visited the Falkland Islands in prehistoric times." Thanks for sharing the article, nonetheless.--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 04:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we already cover the possibility and I'm always wary of rushing to include new material per WP:NOTNEWS. I was already reviewing that article and I'm not convinced it has revealed anything especially new.  WCM email 06:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems people are already trying to include it regardless, I've done some clean-up, but it is likely that will be more driveby editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that's also why we have the revert option. Changes that are more disruptive than helpful should not be accepted, specially per WP:RECENT.--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 21:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You guys are the stewards of this article, so that's up to your editorial discretion, not mine. I have no issues with the current (reverted to) version. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's good to have conversations about this, specially as new relevant information comes up. So, thanks again for sharing the article! I have edited the language a little to also reflect the scholarship considering the Western Hemisphere as land with human activity prior to European exploration. But I kept "discovery" when specifically tied to the European claims that are key to Falklands history.--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 21:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, the place to give the claims of pre-Columbian discovery a thorough treatment is History of the Falkland Islands, not here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is no longer "a possibility" since the recent research have probed the prehistoric activity in the islands already existed.--Elelch (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

150 C.E is not prehistioric. "Indigenous people likely visited the islands for multiple short-term stays, as opposed to long-term occupation, according to the UMaine researchers. " So not this does not say they did, it says they might.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Responsible British minister
The article says "Wendy Morton" but these things change quickly. It is now the Minister for European Neighbourhood and the Americas, who is Chris Heaton-Harris. --2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:C9E8:7D9:690A:AFB6 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated. WCM email 17:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of M/monarch
gf reverted my gf edit of Monarch to monarch. Per MOS:JOBTITLES, capitalisation should only be used for an official title, not just a role/office. Monarch here is just a description: there's no such title in any act of the UK parliament, and its occurrences in secondary/devolved legislation are just as an ordinary noun with a lower-case m (e.g. ). The equivalent generic title is Sovereign (e.g., ) which does take a capital when used as a title. So I recommend either using monarch with a lower-case m or, if a title is preferred, Sovereign with a capital S. Charlie A. (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that in this example capitalisation is correct in British English.  There are number of odd capitalisations relating to the monarchy e.g. Her Majesty's Government and this is one of those idiosyncrasies of British English.  Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong but I'm almost certain that I'm not.  WCM email 09:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the quick reply! Please do take a look at the links I posted – monarch isn't capitalised in law, but King, Queen, Sovereign, Majesty etc are, because "monarch" is an ordinary noun not a title. See and  for the Telegraph (who like to capitalise anything they can) also using a lower-case m in "monarch of the United Kingdom". If you would like a capital letter, I recommend Sovereign, which is the non-specific title. Charlie A. (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting here that the UK Parliament capitalises Monarch in its literature [1 ] [2 ] but the Royal Family prefers Sovereign [3 ]. I would therefore support a change to Sovereign per :@Charlie Awesome's suggestion. SamWilson989 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since we are discussing words, I suppose semantics is also important to consider here. I think that "monarch" is a more suitable technical term than "sovereign", the latter implying supreme authority. If we have evidence that a reliable source capitalises "monarch", then capitalising it in this article should not be a problem either. The good faith concern by Charlie is noted and appreciated nonetheless.--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 14:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:LINKCLARITY The guideline for wikilinks suggest using a title reflecting the article you're linking to, in this case the [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom, which would tend to suggest monarch is appropriate, as it is referring directly to HM, it should be capitalised. Whilst I don't have a strong objection to the use of Sovereign, it may be better to change the link to Elizabeth II.  Happy to everyone's thoughts on the change. WCM email 15:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think "monarch" is usually capitalised, and Wikipedia doesn't particularly capitalise it either (e.g. it's not capitalised in the Monarchy of the United Kingdom article). "Sovereign" is less clear than "monarch".  Hut 8.5  16:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * it is when used as part of a title. WCM email 17:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Monarch" isn't used as a title like that though. Rather it's a generic term for a category of titles (King, Queen, Emperor, Sultan etc). Just as "peer" or "noble" aren't titles, but "Earl", "Duke", "Baron" etc are. Your link doesn't say that "Monarch" should be capitalised, the only time it appears it's lowercase.  Hut 8.5  18:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree. I don't even think this a borderline case. Monarch is an ordinary generic noun describing a solo ruler under a wide variety of titles, not a title in and of itself. Established mainstream and scholarly third-party sources use lower case m (including The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, The Independent, The Sun, The Mail, Britannica, Journal of Victorian Culture (OUP), CUP, Springer, and the overwhelming majority of results on Google Scholar). Monarch isn't a part of the Queen's official full style. The word isn't used in Acts of Parliament, and isn't capitalised when found in secondary or devolved legislation. The House of Commons library, reports from Commons committees, the parliamentary API and Hansard all use in modern times use lower-case m.
 * Even if monarch were part of an official title, MOS:JOBTITLES is clear that contexts like this would still call for a lower-case letter because it is in fact a reference to the office and not the title (e.g. "...was the king of France", but "...became King of France"), and it is not "used to refer to a single person in place of a name during their time in office" because the sentence would apply equally following a demise of the Crown. Charlie A. (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We have to be informed by reliable sources. I think @Charlie Awesome has demonstrated sufficiently that we can follow MOS:JOBTITLES whilst also following reliable sources. The OED lists a variety of sources for the word monarch - some are capitalised and some are not, both when it's referred to as a title and as the office. I don't think it would be fair to say we weren't following British English therefore by not capitalising the word. I appreciate the argument, @Wee Curry Monster, but I don't think this *is* one of the "idiosyncracies of British English." SamWilson989 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022
new governor has been appointed since 23rd of July 2022. The name is Alison Mary Blake. details can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Blake Papathimas (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We already say it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done &#128156; melecie   talk  - 13:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The infobox is updated, but the government section says "Governor Nigel Phillips was appointed in September 2017...". Isn't that the part we should update? Cambalachero (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed that bit.  Hut 8.5  11:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)