Talk:Simonstown Agreement

Untitled
Gerhardt's treachery had nothing to do with the Simon's Town Agreement. The article implies that any anti-British activity on his part was officially-sanctioned. Not so, in fact the South African government provided covert assistance to the RN in 1982, despite Britain having unilaterally abrogated the treaty.

What is the relevance of the (false) claim that this treaty was not a treaty? JohnC (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The (alleged) relevance had something to do with the ability of some countries, which were more vigourously opposed to apartheid than the UK Government, to hassle the UK Government at the United Nations. Whether there is any basis to this, I don't know, but that was the argument.Eregli bob (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Nominator's rationale does not seem to be supported by any policy or guideline and there is strong consensus not to move. Andrewa (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Simonstown Agreement → Simon's Town Agreement – The town's correct and proper name is "Simon's Town" - two words. "Simonstown" is an unfortunately popular, yet definitively wrong, misspelling - probably influenced by the Afrikaans form of the name which is indeed written as a single word. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless evidence is provided of the agreement as having been written as the "Simon's Town Agreement". I have failed to find any but have found a majority of references to the "Simonstown Agreement".  the article could well be modified to highlight the discrepancy in name presentations.  The agreement was written between the United Kingdom and the (then-officially) Union of South Africa and I can well imagine that a local name for the town could have been officially used.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  13:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you discounted all the hits for "Simonstown Agreement" that ultimately originate from this page? I'm afraid a major source of such hits tend to be copies or extracts of this article itself. I'm not sure what you mean by "a local name for the town could have been officially used" because the correct and official local English name is, and always has been, "Simon's Town". As I explained in my first post the incorrect spelling is probably due to "contamination" by the official and correct Afrikaans (and originally Dutch) name "Simonstad". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Simonstown" is used in references to the agreement in the following:
 * African National Congress: South Africa's Defence Strategy; and
 * --Cuppysfriend (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The ANC's website is hardly a paragon of correct English and in any case just because an error is popular does not make it any less wrong. If that was the case we would have to accept the zillions of then/than and there/their/they're errors that infest social media. The simple fact is the town's official correct name is Simon's Town, not Simonstown; a million people misspelling it - even if they are lawyers, academics or politicians - does not make it right. Period. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would hope that the Lawrie article from the South African Law Journal would be authoritative. Law journals have a weighty tradition of close editing and citation checking. --Cuppysfriend (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It does not really matter for this purpose what the proper English name of the town is. The agreement's title is set by usage in reliable references, and the evidence is that this is 'Simonstown agreement'. It is also possible that the agreement was named after the Afrikaans version of the town's name, even in English. Imc (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the above; the present title is supported by sources. OTOH there no reason why the mistake can't be acknowledged in the article, so I have done just that. I trust that is OK with everyone. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.