Talk:Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands

My additions
Justin, please relax. Why the Argentine submision to the Convention on the Continental Shelf is less relevant than the British one ? And the arms embargo which UK relaxed came only in the form of spare parts and/or items for AR peacekeeping forces which were launched due Bill Clinton support ( Argentine do not have money to pay for those interventions mainly Croatia and Cyprus ) in the 1990s. --Jor70 (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Due coverage of both would be appropriate not a dedicated Paragraph - ie one line. The relaxing of the embargo is unrelated to the status conferred on Argentina by the US. Thats all (and I'm perfectly relaxed).  Justin talk 16:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you took it the wrong way then my apologies, I intended to add a single line as I've just done. If I appear fractious then my apologies also, I've been tied up with endless tendentious arguments on Gibraltar and it has made wikipedia a chore rather than a pleasure of late.  Justin talk 16:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see, do not worry. Regarding the MNNA I admit is not THE official reason but is clearly somehow ligated to the arms ban. I know would be a bit difficult to find an independent source explicity refering this but you know the British do not sell Tornados!, just a bunch of jeeps for UNFICYP and things like that. Im confident that with your help we could work out some sort of mention, perhaps with a {cn}? --Jor70 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sell Tornadoes? They would but I doubt Argentina would want an F-3 as they're crap.  This is going from memory but as I recall at the time, it was the New Labour Government trying to normalise relations with Argentina and I really don't think it had anything to do with the US designation.  I'll go over what I have but it may take a few days - bug me if it appears I've forgotten.  Justin talk 17:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Couldn't find an awful lot, your comments about the UN appear to be correct, the lifting relates to support of Argentine forces on UN duties see p 127. Justin talk 15:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

New sentence
I have added the following line:


 * 1940: The Index of Foreign Office files at the Public Record Office shows an entry labeled: "Proposed offer by HMG to reunite Falkland Islands to Argentina and acceptance of lease," tacitly admittting that the islands were once Argentine.

Please, show me your reasons to delete it, as you do with everything I write in this article. Kind regards --AndeanThunder (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * POV nonsense as you well know and completely unsuitable for this article or for wikipedia. I could of course add numerous opinions by various authors that Argentina relinquished all claims in 1850 but I respect wikipedia's policy of NPOV, rather than abusing it for a propaganda mouthpiece either way.  It will be deleted because it violates wikipedia policies and your edit warring to impose POV changes will eventually get you blocked. Justin talk 00:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And I note tha someone has been busy adding none neutral items about other events, I will be fixing those too. Justin talk 00:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV would have something to do with it, yes. So you've found an Argentine-biased source and are using it to present the Argentine POV as fact?  So what?  It doesn't make it not POV.


 * You're also still peddling crap on what Chile did in 1999. Both sources make it clear that Chile did not force its airlines to stop flying to the Falklands, so your claim that they did is inaccurate.  And neither source claims that this left the Falklands entirely cut off from the outside world. Pfainuk talk 07:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm holding off on editing for at least 24 hrs due to the 3RR warning. However, I note another, sadly British, editor has introduced several POV edits.  I would be grateful if somone would look and concur before I do so.  Justin talk 13:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed a couple of obvious points, but thought I'd bring up 1850 and 1884 here as being a slightly closer run thing - though 1850 in particular seems concerning and probably should be reworded. Are they the issues you're referring to?


 * For the record, you're currently on 1RR. Your last revert was 15:59 UTC on Friday 6 August. Pfainuk talk 15:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You've nailed most of them but the 1850 description caused me most concern. I'm being extra careful as certain editors still have the knives out.  Justin talk 15:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the description entirely. As I recall (and I haven't rechecked sources), the convention doesn't actually mention the islands - so while the British may argue that that's what happened, we can't say that definitively. Pfainuk talk 15:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can, partly, Lord Palmerston issued a statement that the dispute over the Falkland Islands was over following conclusion of the treaty. Moreno issued a denial in London - though he was not party to the negotiations.  The treaty was then endorsed without any change by the Argentine Congress; with Lord Palmerston again stating the dispute was over without further protest.  Argentine protests ceased in 1850 and did not resume till 1885, the next time it was raised in Congress was in 1941.  Nevertheless I'd support your edit as being brief and to the points, neutrally summarising the facts and not reporting opinion as fact. Justin talk 17:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This sentence (The Index of Foreign Office files at the Public Record Office shows an entry labeled: "Proposed offer by HMG to reunite Falkland Islands to Argentina and acceptance of lease.) is perfectly neutral and referenced. Is the research of an academic, published by Princeton University. On the other hand, the sentence: tacitly admitting that the islands were once Argentine, is just an opinion and it is not unsuitable. --Jcestepario (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering you were WP:Canvassed by a blocked editor here, i can not support any inclusion supported by that blocked editor at this time. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors should be aware that the accusation of canvassing is well founded. These messages broke WP:CANVASS rules on votestacking (sending messages to people expected to support one side only), on campaigning (sending non-neutral messages) and probably also on stealth canvassing (canvassing outside the English Wikipedia).  And all occurred while the editor was blocked on en.wiki (the block having now been extended at ANI for disruptive canvassing).


 * All we can do about it really is ignore the comments of canvassed editors for the purposes of finding consensus. It's not a particularly pleasant conclusion, and is nothing against Jcestepario personally - it may be that s/he didn't even know that this was a problem (I don't know the rules on es.wiki) - but that doesn't change the fact that the canvassing did occur, and it's the only thing we can do the rectify the situation. Pfainuk talk 06:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mmm, dropped by this morning to carry out my promise to remove contentious pieces added by a British editor.
 * As I pointed out above, the contentious sentence is an opinion and whilst sourced is not suitable for inclusion. I could equally well point to many British opinions that Argentine relinquished all claims in 1850 - but I won't be adding those to the article for the same reason. It is also troubling that the editor involved chose to introduce a racist pejorative and then justify it on the basis that the Falklanders are white and you can't be racist against white people.
 * I note also that the two editors accused of censorship have been busily removing equally contentious phrases introduced by British editors. I'm far from convinced this is a suitable addition to the article, troubling also that it was edit warred into the article following canvassing by a blocked editor.
 * Indeed as I've noted elsewhere there is a cadre of British and Argentine editors who have been able to work together to respect NPOV, something I note that Falklands articles on es.wikipedia do not.  The article as written respects NPOV, starting to add pieces like this will remove that balance.  Justin talk 09:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

June 2012
Why does the map show The Falklands as "administered by the UK"? It is a self-governing territory with the UK responsible only for Defence and Foreign Affairs. I'll also draw attention to the Wiki editors of this fascinating article written by law people I presume: Especially points 7-11 for legal folks.http://falklandshistory.org/sites/default/files/false-falklands-history.pdf --31.185.254.183, 8 June 2012‎

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.historyofnations.net/southamerica/falklandislands.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070221064745/http://diplomacy.shu.edu:80/journal/new/pdf/VolINo1/laucirica.pdf to http://diplomacy.shu.edu/journal/new/pdf/VolINo1/laucirica.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Shorter version?
Is there a shorter version available somewhere with just the most important events? 86.142.23.133 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing since 2009?
--ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty, it hasn't been updated. WCM email 08:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Country and western music?
On the 1966 part, it says that "Due to much persuasion (involving playing constant Country and western music), the terrorists surrender and are repatriated to Argentina.". How can that music have relation to what is talked on this article? Isn't this vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typos Checker (talk • contribs) 07:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's a sleep deprivation technique, they played loud Country and Western music to keep them awake. WCM email 07:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Under construction
This was one of my first articles written about 12 years ago, with a little help from my friends. It's always been on my to do list to update the cites. So I'm in the process of doing so and have started to bring the 21st Century up to date. I'm happy if anyone wishes to help just pitches in, the tag isn't intended to deter that. WCM email 18:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * By way of observation, I note the article is broken down into century chunks, a very common method throughout WP. I assume it is done this way for no other reason than what initially appears to be chronological simplicity. However, this is invariably not the best way to do it, and not the method used in most history books. Is it worth considering a breakdown based on significant events rather than centuries? For example, 1810-1833; June 1982 to present, etc. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)