Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

What I often wonder is why the climate of the Falkland Islands is important to have its own subsection? I propose that the Geography section is the next one that gets an improvement for the GA Review. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's because we were loosely basing our format off Svalbard. I have no objection however to simply incorporating the significant bits into the overall geography section. CMD (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the explanation. The Svalbard article is a tad strange (it has its geography prior to its history), but I think the following segment from the article serves as an explanation for the emphasis placed on climate: "Traditional Norse accounts exist of a land known as Svalbarð—literally [u]'cold shores'[/u] [...]" (emphasis added on "cold shores"). Thanks again!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 11:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Is 'Falkland Islander' a ethnic group? Mtpaley (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say no. Ethnically, most (if not all) Falkland Islanders can be classified as White British (from British people).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree, try telling the Scots they're not a different group for example. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

True, but ethnicity does have a weird way of adapting itself differently with migrants. For instance, in Peru several Scots and English (and even some Welsh) formed a strong "British" community in

British Peruvian

ethnic identity developed out of it.

Nonetheless, the Falkland Islands is another special case, so ethnic identity there might be different.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As the IP editor responsible chose to seek admin intervention rather than using the talk page, I will initiate the talk page discussion. As far as sourcing goes, yes the IP added a source, but if you checked the source, Johnson did not draw the conclusions referred to. Johnsons pamphlet was actually written to draw precisely the opposite conclusion and was intended to deflect criticism of a peace deal with Spain. Seems a clear case of

18:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• WP:GA) states the following: "In 1771, his Thoughts on the Late Transactions Respecting Falkland's Islands cautioned against war with Spain", followed by a citation to a reliable source. Martinvl (talk
  ) 21:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Before we go any further, I want to make something categorically clear - I have been an editor of this website far longer than I have been an administrator, and I am clearly
  _berate
  21:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

By every definition, Johnson is a

WP:SECONDARY sources exist for that idea. And probably, in that case, just use them instead. --Langus (t

) 02:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Falklands

Should we add 'commonly known as the Falklands'? This is a very common name for the islands and is often used instead of 'Falkand Islands' for example in 'Falklands War'. Thanks

talk

) 22:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that is colloquial and is discouraged in writing a better article see WP:COLLOQUIAL]]. I believe there is still a desire to go for GA status. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

'Falklands' is sometimes used officially such as in 'www.falklands.gov.fk' and therefore is not colloquial. Thanks,

talk

) 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well; it is seeing as its not the official name of the territory. People often refer to the UK as just 'Britain', but that isn't its (full) official name.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in COLLOQUIAL that says a common name should not be used. It is interesting that both the United Kingdom and Great Britain articles include the shorter name (UK, Britain) in the first sentence. I don't see why this article should not. 213.120.147.18 (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

talk

) 13:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree, it isn't used in formal speech or writing, its a colloquial shortening of Falkland Islands', the same as Faroe Islands is often shortened to just Faroes. A redirection may be useful if it doesn't exist but it certainly doesn't belong in the lede. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

'Falklands' is used formally in 'www.falklands.gov.fk'. Although it's a shortening of 'Falkland Islands' it's not colloquial. Thanks,

talk

) 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A URL is not evidence it is not colloquial, they routinely use colloquialisms to shorten names. It is colloquial example Falklands almost always redirects to Falkland Islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands Government website URL is formal and therefore would not contain colloquialism. See

talk

) 18:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that such usage is pretty standard colloquial English. I can think of plenty of similar examples and would not expect to see them in an encyclopædia. I don't accept that the fact that "Falklands" is used in an official URL means that the usage is formal, but even if it did, I'm not convinced that a predictable abbreviation such as this is very useful. I mean, we could start articles such as this with half a dozen small variations without actually improving any reader's understanding of the topic in any significant way. Kahastok talk 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

All it does is tells the reader that there is an alternative formal name. It's standard in articles, even with GA status such as

talk

) 21:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Rob drop the

WP:STICK. Wee Curry Monster talk

21:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

See

talk

) 22:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher Day

There's no mention of

but it would be better to:

• add the content here (10 January)
• and then change the redirect back here
• re-add to the DAB page Margaret Thatcher (disambiguation) (in the see also section) as say
  • "
    Margaret Thatcher Day
    , 10 January in the Falkland Islands"

or

• • "Margaret Thatcher Day, 10 January in the Falkland Islands"

depending on if it has its own section Widefox; talk 12:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I don't believe it would get its own section on an overview article such as this, so the second of those two options for the dab page would seem more appropriate. Kahastok talk 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons that the Falklands are thought to be Argentine in Argentina is because they are on the continental shelf of Argentina [1][2] , the bit of shallow sea -- the Argentine Sea -- next to Argentine land mass before the ocean gets deep, as can be seen here on Google Maps satellite view. I think that, bearing in mind the ownership of the islands is disputed, and that the UN recognizes 'claims' and continental shelf or "natural prolongation" [3] as factors in deciding sovereignty it is important show this information. In the geography section however, the continental shelf is refereed to as "the Patagonian Shelf," the area of water in which the islands are situated is the "South Atlantic", and that the Islands are off the "Patagonian" coastline. The Argentine Shelf is (in the Patagonia Shelf wikipedia entry) an alternate name for the area of shelf / shallow sea. By using the name "Patagonia" and not "Argentina" (both for the coast and the shelf) the geographical connection between the Argentine and the islands is obscured. I think that to be NPOV both names should be used. I.e. something like the following

The Falkland Islands are located in a part of the South Atlantic Ocean also known as the Argentine Sea on a projection of the Patagonian or Argentine Shelf about 310 miles (500 kilometres) east of the coast of the Argentine region of Patagonia.

This becomes very clumsy I admit, and I am not sure that using "Argintine" three times is necessary but the current

The Falkland Islands are located in the South Atlantic Ocean on a projection of the Patagonian Shelf about 310 miles (500 kilometres) east of the Patagonian coastline

is as NPOV as

The Falkland Islands are located in the Argentine Sea on a projection of the Argentine Continental Shelf, about 310 miles (500 Kilometers) east of the coast of Argentina.

which is clearly not NPOV either.

Incidentally, competing claims are summarised well here and the fact that the Falklands are on the Argentine continental shelf is mentioned in the Argentine Sea entry -- "The Falkland Islands are also located within the continental shelf of the Argentine Sea." .--Timtak (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you for the information.

I think that the mention of the Argentine Sea would be good. Something such as:

"The Falkland Islands are located in the South Atlantic Ocean, within the Argentine Sea, on a projection of the Patagonian Shelf about 310 miles (500 kilometres) east of the Patagonian coastline."

However, I would not include anything else to it. Patagonia is a natural region, and the common term for the sub-continental shelf is the "Patagonian Shelf".

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The present version is more adequate as there is no ‘Argentine Sea’ according to the International Hydrographic Organization, see here. Apcbg (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Apcbg. Could you please provide a specific page number? I cannot find the part where it says that there is no Argentine Sea. Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Timtak's observation and support Marshall's edit as a more adequate one the the current in place. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think what is being said is that the 'Argentine Sea' has no international recognition.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to wait for Apcbg's response. However, to respond to Steven, why is there a WP article for Argentine Sea if it does not exist? I am ignorant about this "Argentine Sea" situation, so I appreciate any knowledge on it. (If it does not exist, we should also think about fixing the Argentine Sea article appropriately).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The so-called Argentine sea doesn't exist outside of Argentina and is a name applied by that country to part of the South Atlantic. It has no recognition internationally for that part of the ocean. The article Argentine Sea is a POV fork that really should be deleted but in all likelihood few have the stomach from the howls of protest from the Argentine nationalists and the venomous personal attacks that would result. I would suggest it doesn't belong in this article for the rather obvious POV elephant lurking in the room.Wee Curry Monster talk 16:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. Marshal, the IHO does not list oceans or seas that do not exist (i.e. are not internationally recognized according to the IHO rules and procedure), they list and define those that do exist. 'Argentine Sea' is not among the latter, hence its proposed usage here would not be appropriate. Apcbg (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you WCM and Apcbg. The IHO does indeed provide a stronger premise for your position. Although I honestly still do not see anything inherently wrong with mentioning the Argentine Sea in the sentence, it is hard to oppose the official position by the IHO. Unless Gaba or Tim have a better position from which to argue their case, it might be best to leave it as it stands. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How about as a see also linkSlatersteven (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see the point about the IHO not listing it as such or by that name, but I'm not sure as to why that should be determinant regarding its mention. A quick search returns about 2500 books that mention the term "Argentine Sea" explicitely by authors from all over the world which rivals Wee Curry Monster statement that it "has no recognition internationally". I believe the term "Argentine Sea" has enough recognition in the literature as to be worth at least a single mention.

Currently, the use of the terms "Patagonian shelf" and "Patagonian coast" (4 times total, including once each in the lede) instead of (or in addition of) "Argentine shelf" and "Argentine coast" appears to aim at mentioning any word related to Argentina as few times as possible thus obscuring the evident geographical relation. I propose a more balanced use of the terms, so the lede could read:

• ...located in the South Atlantic Ocean on Argentina's Patagonian Shelf. The principal islands are about 310 miles (500 kilometres) east of the Patagonian coast

and the Geography section:

• The Falkland Islands are located in the South Atlantic Ocean also known as the Argentine Sea on a projection of the Patagonian Shelf about 310 miles (500 kilometres) east of Argentina's coastline

I believe this makes for a much more balanced article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am with Gaba.--Timtak (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Using Patagonia is not aimed at not mentioning Argentina, it's the name geographical area under discussion. As for your suggestions, the Falklands are only on "Argentina's Patagonian Shelf" if you take the view they are Argentinian territory (else they'd be on the Falkland's Patagonian shelf), and the South Atlantic Ocean is not also known as the Argentine Sea. The South Atlantic Ocean is much, much bigger. In addition, phrasing along the line of "X also known as Y" is poor grammar, breaking up flowing prose for unnecessary pedantry. CMD (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec with below) I agree with both these points. It seems a touch perverse to suggest that the dispute means we have to mention Argentina at every opportunity, even when discussing points not clearly related to the dispute. The points we make here are geographical and so we should stick to geographical descriptions.

I think that "Argentina" is a geographical description, and there is a geographical link between the Falklands and Argentina which is being obscured. --Timtak (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(IIRC, when we measured the distances for a previous incarnation of the lede we actually found that the closest point on the South American mainland to the islands was Cape Virgenes, which is all of 3 miles (4.8 km) from the Argentine-Chilean border.) Kahastok talk 16:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I copy/pasted Timtak's suggestion wrong. The actual wording was:

• The Falkland Islands are located in a part of the South Atlantic Ocean also known as the Argentine Sea on a projection of the Patagonian Shelf about 310 miles (500 kilometres) east of Argentina's coastline

If you disagree with the grammar (personally I think it's fine) then perhaps Slatersteven's suggestion of adding Argentine Sea to a "See also" would be more appropriate. There's also Marshall's proposal:

• The Falkland Islands are located in the South Atlantic Ocean, within the Argentine Sea, on a projection of the Patagonian Shelf about 310 miles (500 kilometres) east of the Patagonian coastline.

As for the lede, how about this then?

• ...located in the South Atlantic Ocean on Patagonian Shelf. The principal islands are about 310 miles (500 kilometres) east of the Argentine coast..

I really don't see the reasoning in saying Patagonian coast instead of Argentine coast. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We're not going to go out of our way just to mention the Argentine Sea for no reason other than to mention the Argentine Sea. The wording doesn't flow, and there's no reason to put it in the See Also section, as it's not going to link the reader to a topic similar to the Falkland Islands. As for Patagonian coast vs Argentine coast, so far there's been no reason given to change it other than a dislike of Patagonia. Looking at other island groups off coasts, such as São Tomé and Príncipe, Cape Verde, and Sri Lanka, geographical areas seem to be used rather than political units. Using geographical terms seems a sensible principle for placing areas on a map. CMD (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The idea is not to mention the Argentine Sea just for the sake of mentioning it, I believe it warrants at least a single mention given its presence in scholarly texts as I presented above.

As for Patagonian/Argentine coast I believe it's a matter of balance and common usage. In Spanish "costa Patagónica" (Patagonian coast) is hardly ever used compared to "costa argentina" (Argentine coast), you can do a quick search to prove this. In English as far as I can see both terms are used with about the same frequency so the case is less compelling.

To summarize: regarding the Argentine Sea, I believe Marshall or Timtak's proposals to be more balanced than the current state since they don't replace but actually add information of encyclopedic value to the article. Even though the term "Argentine Sea" is not listed as such by the IHO, it's presence in books would point at a minor mention being warranted.

Regarding Patagonian vs Argentine coast, CMD makes a valid point so I could go either way. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any distinction between arguing that "it warrants at least a single mention given its presence in scholarly texts" and arguing that it should be mentioned for the sake of mentioning it. Looking down your books, most of them actually have nothing to do with the Falklands. Wikipedia articles are not written as a survey of all the words used in scholarly texts, regardless of subject, used in proportion.

That said, I do see more than one book in your list that points out that the term "Argentine Sea" is specifically intended to imply Argentine sovereignty over the stretch of water concerned. See for example, this one, which was the second entry on your list when I looked. Most of the time, if a sea is named after a country ("

WP:NPOV

.

The point adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the location of the Falklands, or indeed anything else of relevance to the article. Both proposals read like the term has been shoehorned in for the sake of including the term: the flow of the sentence is significantly disrupted. And there is a risk that by using the term we inappropriately bias the article, by accepting Argentina's POV that the islands are within Argentine sovereign waters. For these reasons, I remain opposed. Kahastok talk 16:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, please see

WP:NPOV than having no mention at all. Regards. Gaba ^(talk)

00:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This book has a lengthy discourse about the "Argentine Sea" - in particular whether it is a geographic term or a statement of sovereignty. Martinvl (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Martin, note the map on page 119 there, according to which the 'Argentine Sea' is not a proper part of the South Atlantic but includes also an extensive area of the Southern Ocean; no 'geographic' sea is divided between two oceans. By the way, have you found in that book (or elsewhere) any formal Argentine definition for 'Argentine Sea'? For instance, the Chileans have Decreto 346 defining their analogous 'Mar Chileno', as well as Ley 19080 defining the wider concept of 'Mar presencial'. Apcbg (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason to use the term "Argentine Sea". It's clearly contentious, is non-neutral to at least some degree and doesn't add any needed degree of accuracy. The location is already appropriately described without it.
  _berate
  08:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Informing the reader

What I enjoy the most out of these discussions are the sources used to back up each position. It's a great learning experience for people (like myself) that had no knowledge of the "Argentine Sea" situation. It also seems much more effective to simply tell the reader what is going on in the Argentine Sea debate rather than arguing over it in the talk page.
Therefore, I would like to make two (reasonable) proposals to reach a positive conclusion to the discussion:

• Proposal 1: Add a footnote to the first sentence in the Geography section where the "Argentine Sea" matter is briefly discussed (present both Gaba's sources as well as the position of the IHO and the Falkland Islands).
• Proposal 2: Include one sentence at the end of the first paragraph that, again, provides a brief discussion of the topic. Something such as: "According to Argentine law blah blah blah, the Falkland Islands are located within the Argentine Sea; however, this is not recognized by the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) or the Falkland Islands government."

Thoughts?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel either of those proposals should be adopted, because they aren't about the Falklands. Our aim in this article is to provide a concise but comprehensive overview of the Falkland Islands, and going offtopic, for however minor a point, detracts from this. It's a common problem in articles of disputed territories for the dispute to overtake the article, which is a result of many editors each trying to make sure a certain POV is present. This isn't even always intentional, it can be just subconscious conflicting worldviews. However, putting a certain worldview in is not the same as adding pertinent information to an article, and focusing on a dispute can deprive readers from actually learning about the subject itself. In this case it's not even a dispute about the subject in question, but about a name one country gave to a body of water it defines. It doesn't belong on this page. CMD (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Given the discussion above, I would have to disagree that the Argentine Sea is not related (offtopic) to the Falkland Islands. I also add that these proposals are not meant to simply present a certain POV (in this case Argentine), but rather also explain (as you, WCM, Apcbg, Basalisk, etc. have effectively done in this talk page) that the Argentine position is disputed and unrecognized by organizations such as the IHO. One sentence of this in a footnote or at the end of the paragraph would not hurt the article, and it would also put to good use the information developed in this discussion. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Argentine Sea may not be offtopic, but on an overview article like this the dispute over its name is. For comparison, Argentina doesn't detail the dispute, although I admit that may not show much. If a good reason is found to include a note of the sea, I'm not against it, but if consensus is to include it then we don't need a long explanation to justify that. As it stands, I'm leaning towards the line of reasoning that we shouldn't mention bodies of water which have been made up and supported by a minority. Perhaps a precedent would be our practice for Sea of Japan, where it's just called "Sea of Japan" without qualification on almost all articles (the exception being articles about Korea). The Sea of Japan naming dispute has its own page. CMD (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with CMD about this naming being supported by a "minority". As I've presented above, the mention of the "Argentine Sea" in more than 3700 highly reliable sources (counting published books and scientific articles) can hardly be dismissed as "minor" by any standards.

WP:WEIGHT

requires us to mention that the body of water where the islands are located is usually referred to as "Argentine Sea" by published authors and researchers in the field of Geography, which definitely is information of value in a geographical sense.

With this in mind, Marshall's last proposals seem quite reasonable to me. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This sort of claim is precisely why this kind of argument is not generally accepted on Wikipedia as a means of establishing weight or notability.

3700 sounds like a big number. But you are searching for all books in Google, regardless of topic, that use the words "Argentine sea". 3700 out of the entire Google archive of tens (if not hundreds) of millions is not many at all. By the standards of your search parameters, 3700 is a very small minority indeed.

You may argue that a lot of those millions of books are irrelevant to the topic at hand. But if so, we must then note that a lot of your 3700 are irrelevant to the topic at hand as well. I've found plenty that aren't even referring to that particular stretch of water, let alone in the context of the Falklands. They just happen to have the words "Argentine" and "Sea" next to each other. This and this are examples among your claimed 3700 sources - but I could cite several others.

Even if they did all refer to to the stretch of water, your contention that all books and scientific papers are inherently "highly reliable sources" is inaccurate. Some of them are. And some of them aren't. Most of them probably aren't reliable sources in the context of naming the seas around the Falkland Islands.

Ultimately, the logical conclusion of your argument is that the fact that Google Books finds 704000000 results for the word "house", and Google Scholar finds 3,180,000 instances, means that we have to give the houses of the Falklands over 191000 times as much weight as "Argentine Sea".

I find your claim that "the body of water where the islands are located is usually referred to as "Argentine Sea" by published authors and researchers in the field of Geography" to be unproven, and I do not accept its accuracy. And that's ignoring the POV concern I raised above. Kahastok talk 17:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, your comment is pretty much a large strawman. Comparing the number of books on a given topic or that mention a certain term with all the books in the entire Google database and saying that, in comparison, the number of books regarding that topic/term is small is so silly I'm not even going to comment further. The same goes for your "houses of the Falklands" argument. Silly beyond words and truly poor argumentation.

That those books or scientific articles refer to that body of water "in the context of naming the seas around the Falkland Islands" or not is of course irrelevant. We're talking about a geographical entity and it's name as given in relevant literature, not about a political statement. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect that we obtain the names of all seas, rivers, mountains, etc only from books that regard the issue from a political view.

You found one book (don't know what the other is supposed to show) that should be excluded from the count and you are discarding the other 2500 based on this? What about the more than 1200 scientific articles I presented?

Let me ask you something: since you find that my claim that "the body of water where the islands are located is usually referred to as "Argentine Sea" by published authors and researchers in the field of Geography" is "unproven", what would you consider enough "proof"? When thousands of books and scientific articles are not enough to prove common usage of a term, one has to wonder: what is? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

...cut Argentine sea and air lines of communications.... The Argentine sea lion colonies.... Argentine, Sea Hawk, Twin Six. ...mullet, Argentine sea bass, trout or salmon. Argentine, Sea Hawk, Twin Six (different advert, listed separately) ...of Argentine sea-thugs subjecting their victims to a fatal ceremony....

I could go on and on. If you care to look, it is trivial to find these and plenty more like them in your searches. You claimed that every single one of these sources is written by a published author or researcher in the field of geography. I must say I'm struggling to find any sources in either search that come from the field of geography. You claimed that they are all "highly reliable sources" demonstrating the use of the term "Argentine Sea" in reference to a particular patch of sea.

I don't feel that I need to point out every source in that list that fails to demonstrate what you say they do. I'd be here all day. I believe that I have demonstrated that the claims you make for your searches do not stand up to scrutiny.

And it's also worth mentioning that the Google Scholar results actually include Google Books results, so your 3700 does include double-counting. I found this - which is the same as one of those I cited above - in your Google Scholar search.

All this demonstrates a simple and widely-accepted principle. Counting Google hits alone cannot prove notability or the need for weight on Wikipedia. Kahastok talk 20:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I never said that "every single one of these sources is written by a published author or researcher in the field of geography". That's a gross misrepresentation of my comment from your part Kahastok and I'd ask you to be more careful. I said verbatim: "the body of water where the islands are located is usually referred to as "Argentine Sea" by published authors and researchers in the field of Geography"; which differs quite a bit from your interpretation of it. Of course there's going to be a considerable amount of sources related to the marine biology field since it's a sea we are discussing.

What you did was go through the first 6 pages of the Google Books results (60 in total) and came up with 6 books that should not be counted. That's 10% of the 2500, which still leaves a fair amount of books that do mention "Argentine Sea" (around 2250 books).

Your point would be valid if the number of books we should not count is high enough to dismiss the entire set of results. So I went further than you and searched the first 10 pages. Here's a rundown of the results that do mention the "Argentine Sea" as such (not counting books that showed up as a result but didn't show the term in the snippet):

• First page: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] -- 8/10
• Second page: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] -- 9/10
• Third page: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] -- 10/10
• Fourth page: [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] -- 8/10
• Fifth page: [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] -- 9/10
• Sixth page: [48][49][50][51][52] -- 5/10
• Seventh page: [53][54][55][56][57] -- 5/10
• Eight page: [58][59][60][61][62][63][64] -- 7/10
• Ninth page: [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] -- 8/10
• Tenth page: [74][75][76][77][78][79][80] -- 7/10

Averaging these results we can say that only ~76% of the books in the list represent a true match. Thats 1900 books.

Google Scholar returns 1200 published scientific articles and I have seen no argument from you as to why these should be dismissed. Google Scholar includes very few Google Books results, in the first 10 pages only 2 results are from books.google.com which means that roughly 2% of the results should be discarded. That leaves more than 1100 articles.

The total still adds up to 3000 books and articles. So my question still stands Kahastok: how many published books and scientific articles do you feel are necessary? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The term Argentine sea has no International recognition. Its clear that you're not even looking at the sources you're listing to prove it does. [81] "While the Argentine sea is a symbol of potential national greatness, it also dramatizes national failures. The Argentine Sea suffers not only from a lack of international recognition but also from its overlap with the Chilean Sea, even after the 1984 Treaty as shown on Map 4." And again [82] is also talking about Argentine pretensions to an Argentine Sea/ Just to re-iterate the books discussing the term Argentine Sea are often discussing Argentine pretensions in using the term, are published solely in Argentina for Argentine consumption or are papers written by Argentines using the Argentine term (which isn't recognised by anyone else). As such insisting it has to be mentioned is simply pushing Argentine claims into an article where they do not belong.

My initial comment said that it had no international recognition, that it was an invented term in Argentina that represented national pretensions and has no value for this article. The sources presented simply confirm this. Shoehorning a mention in is turning this article into yet another POV battle for Argentine nationalism. It has zero relevance for the Falkland Islands and as a fringe term has no merit for inclusion in this article. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And that is leaving aside that we don't quite know what exactly water body we have been discussing so far :-) Apcbg (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, I'm sorry but your approach is exactly the same as that of Kahastok. Taking one source (or two) out of thousands, dismissing it and then claiming all the others should be equally dismissed constitutes a strawman. I have looked at many of the books in that list and found out that your assertion that they "are published solely in Argentina for Argentine consumption" definitely does not hold up.

We are trying to determine whether this term can be said to be commonly used or relevant enough to be worth a single mention, so I'll ask you the same question I asked Kahastok: how many books/articles would you consider enough? (Also, I'd appreciate it if you could keep accusations of "Argentine nationalism", "POV", etc.. to a minimum. Preferably zero? Thanks) Regards Gaba ^(talk) 13:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Any accusations you perceive, are just that, your perception. I accused no one. I will respond only once. I simply looked at the first page of your listing to find the sources didn't support your claim, in addition as Kahastock already indicates there are too many false positives and per

WP:WEIGHT; explicitly [83] "Google result counts are a meaningless metric. The count that you are pointing to proves nothing at all. Stop using this meaningless metric and make a proper argument based upon proper research instead.". You're insisting on introducing a term that has no recognition and your own sources CONFIRM THIS. Wee Curry Monster talk

16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As I proved above, dismissing false positives (remember I went even further than Kahastok) still leaves thousands of sources that use the term. Kahastok found 6 false positives in 60 (the first 6 pages), you found 2. I'd hardly call that "too many".

I'm not simply using Google counts (incidentally, no idea why you would assume that random link you posted would mean anything), I'm presenting a list of books/articles that do use the term correctly. Would it make a difference to you if I presented them here one by one instead of linking to a search result in Google? Then tell me please: how many reliable sources would you say are sufficient to warrant the term a single mention in the article? Or are you saying that the only way the term could be included is if the IHO mentioned it? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't insult peoples's intelligence by claiming Google counts is not the sum total of your argument when that is the sum total of it. You are ignoring the fact that the sources you claim support you, don't. As usual you ignore the thrust of the argument, construct a straw man and attempt to malign the editors commenting instead of constructing a cogent argument. The term you insist must be inserted, has no International recognition and the sources, multiple sources, back this up. You have in fact proven the direct opposite to what you claim, the fact you're trying to still argue the converse is simply bizarre. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What I find bizarre is your amazing inability to grasp the simple concept of what is being discussed here. You seem to believe I'm arguing that the term has international recognition. I'm clearly not. Please actually read my previous comments. I'm arguing that the term is used/discussed often enough to warrant a single mention in the article. As Marshal stated above, a mention of the "Argentine Sea" and how it's not recognized internationally would add important information to it.

I've presented a huge number of books/articles that use the term which, as per

WP:WEIGHT, means that a mention is indicated. Even the very book

you've used as evidence that the term has no international recognition is proof that the term is relevant enough to be discussed.

What I have proven Wee Curry Monster, and what you and Kahastok attempted to disprove with obvious strawmans, is that this term in fact is used quite often and even discussed in reliable sources. I truly can not see the logic behind your opposition in mentioning this issue.

So again: would it make a difference to you if the sources were presented in a list here? How many books/articles would that list need for you to consider that

WP:WEIGHT applies (which apparently you do not)? I've asked this many times now, is there a reason you are avoiding giving a simple direct answer? Regards. Gaba ^(talk)

00:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally like my proposal #1 (using a footnote). Proposal #2, given the discussion, might be too much for a term that lacks recognition. The footnote would explain how Argentina does consider the Falklands to be in the Argentine Sea, and how others (pretty much the rest of the world) disagrees. I might as well also say that I find it surprising that Gaba is in favor of this (since it provides no good outcome for the Argentine position), and viceversa. The unexpected responses are entertaining, nonetheless.

The discussion is also reaching a point where consensus will obviously not be attained in favor of a change. The status quo is where the consensus is settling, and that should be respected. That being stated, all of the information gotten in this discussion could be effectively put to use in the Argentine Sea article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this discussion might be continued at Talk:Argentine Sea if necessary. Apcbg (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Tend to agree as well, the discussion is not going anywhere. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd also agree. Even though I too like Marshal's #1 proposal, with no other editor providing support for it the consensus seems to be the status quo. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 12:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That escalated quickly. Thanks for your effort Gaba. --Timtak (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I added tags to the ethnicity section of the infobox for this article. Essentially none of the information in that section appeared in the source given (http://www.joshuaproject.net/countries.php?rog3=FK), unless I’m missing it somehow. I cannot conceive that the Joshua Project ever had the information currently in the infobox on its website (if so why would they delete it?), so it does not appear to have ever been referenced.

I have waited a couple of weeks to amend this information in case anyone knew where it had come from, but it seems more appropriate to now update it with referenced material. This gives two options:

1. Use the information currently on the Joshua Project website. Unfortunately this is extremely basic and less detailed than what is there at present.

2. Use the information from the Falkland Islands 2012 Census (http://www.falklands.gov.fk/headline-results-of-2012-falkland-islands-census-released/ Unfortunately the information on this page and the more detailed pdf (linked at the bottom of the page) provide ethnicity information thus: “59 per cent of residents consider their national identity to be ‘Falkland Islander’. 29 per cent consider themselves British; 9.8 per cent St Helenian, and 5.4 per cent Chilean.” This adds up to 103.2%. Clearly it cannot be correct. However it is a legitimate source (and the figures in the infobox at present do not add up to 100% either).

Why doesn't it make sense? Some islanders may consider themselves to have dual ethnicity (e.g. British Falkland Islander or Chilean Falkland Islander)--Timtak (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any suggestions or a preference for which option to take? I am minded to go for option 2, but obviously I want to improve this section and giving a potentially inaccurate (albeit referenced), figure may not be the best way to do that. 213.120.147.18 (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The infobox should be used for uncontroversial clear and concise facts. This field is really only helpful for countries with distinct ethnic groups, like Ethiopia. British isn't even an ethnicity, it is a nationality. TFD (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think the wikipedia articles on 'Ethnic Group' and 'White British' disagree with you to an extent, but I see your point. Would it be better to delete that section of the infobox and put the information in the demographic section instead? Especially as the 2012 census is more focussed on national identity. 213.120.147.18 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I shall make this change if no-one objects. 213.120.147.18 (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be an article strictly about the British Overseas Territory, possible titled 'Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory)' and that the article 'Outline of the Falkland Islands' should be the main article under the name 'Falkland Islands' and should talk about the archipelago geographically from a neutral perspective. Considering the archipelago is disputed territory by the United Nations, i do not think it's fair to shape the main article on who it is currently administered by, on an international wiki. Even as a Briton, i feel this article is highly biased towards the British as the Motto, Anthem, Flag, etc do not represent the archipelago internationally, and only to those who recognise it as being a British Oversea Territory. On the Spanish Wikipedia, where the main article is not about the British Oversea Territory, the reader can experience a much less bias view on the archipelago geographically as well as get information about the archipelago as a British Overseas Territory. Thanks,

) 23:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK

. The fact that the Spanish Wikipedia attempts to downplay the existence of the FIG should not surprise: in this as in just about all other Falklands-related matters, they take a very strongly pro-Argentine editorial line - in some cases meaning that es.wiki takes a significantly more pro-Argentine POV than even the Argentine government would accept.

It would not be neutral, and would do our readers a great disservice, for us to pretend that we have two sides here in the same position, when in real life that's not what we have. The existence of the FIG as the principal authority on the islands is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. Kahastok talk 16:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well i agree that the Spanish Wikipedia has a pro-Argentine view however i still feel this article is very much pro-British and I think having a strictly geographic 'Falkland Islands' article with links to 'Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory)' and '

talk

) 21:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Geography of the Falkland Islands already exists, if that is your concern. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I know, i think that article should be the main 'Falkland Islands' article with links to both 'Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory)' (this article moved to a new name) and '

talk

) 17:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't suggest anything such thing, I see that as a complete strawman argument, since the article contains a section that addresses the sovereignty dispute. I do not see any of the bias you suggest is there, nor do I see you trumpeting "I am British" as having any relevance. In short, I see an allegation of bias, which does not exist, and I don't see any merit in your proposal. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is based on current occupation as it shows the British Overseas Territory Flag, Motto, Anthem etc, and not the international view on the islands, which although i now agree isn't bias, possibly may not be the best way to approach the article. I understand your point and i'm only suggesting an alternative possibly more appropriate approach, however, going with the general consensus, most seem more in favour of the current approach. Thanks,

talk

) 02:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no international view of the Islands. Some nations recognise UK sovereignty, whilst others a support Argentinians claim. Most seem to hold no opinion. Moreover I would point out that [Argentine Antarctica] includes both the flag and the coat of arms, but is disputed with two countries.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The International view is that the islands are disputed, whereas this article having the British Flag, Motto and Anthem suggests that the British claim is more significant then the Argentine claim. As for the 'Argentine Antarctica' article, that is specifically talking about a disputed territory from the argentine perpective, and is not the main article for the region (

talk

) 15:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As has already been stated, there is no "international view" of the islands, Slatersteven is correct in every aspect.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the fact you keep using the term 'occupied' speaks volumes. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The

WP:STICK can be dropped at this point...--MarshalN20 | ^Talk

13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Map

Looking at the map with the article, the westernmost point of the Falkland Islands appears almost on the same latitude as the easternmost point of Isla de los Estados (off Argentine mainland). However on Google maps they would appear further apart. I have heard some maps produced in Argentina show the islands closer to the continent - could someone sympathetic to the Argentine cause have inserted such a map !? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.111.196.81 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of maps in the article with Patagonia and the Falkland Islands. Which map are you concerned about? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The one in the infobox, I think. The problem isn't Argentine bias - just a poor choice of projection.

The first issue is that, for some reason, somebody decided that all overseas territories location maps should contain the country whose overseas territories they were. In cases where the territories concerned are relatively close-at-hand, this isn't a problem. But Britain and France have overseas territories dotted throughout the world, and you end up with a map like this one that shows a large proportion of the planet.

Because they are so distant, whoever it was chose a projection on which lines of longitude are curved rather than straight (except the prime meridian). Here is a world map with a similar (though possibly not identical) projection. The advantage of this is that it avoids making areas near the poles seem a lot larger than they actually are. The disadvantage is that away from the Equator and Prime Meridian it means that north and south are no longer up and down the map.

The inset map is just a larger version of a portion of the main map. The islands appear to be directly above Isla de los Estados, and the OP has made the not-unreasonable mistake of assuming that up is north and down is south. I say "not-unreasonable", because the inset map is a small area that doesn't actually need a curved projection and there's nothing to suggest that it uses one. But it does. The map is formally accurate but sufficiently misleading to be a problem.

We should probably be using a better map. Kahastok talk 16:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis Kahastok. I guess the next question then is: what other map can we use?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As Kahastok says, all BOT maps were changed to this format relatively recently. The previous map was, however, awful. How about making a standard globe map, based on File:South America (orthographic projection).svg, with an insert? An insert could be made easily from say File:UK Falklands comparison.svg, if the projection there is suitable (after making it north up of course, per standard cartographic convention). I don't think we need to include the UK and the former Falkland Island dependencies like the current map does. CMD (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking through other-language articles (all those Wikipedias with >100000 articles) and the Commons, and I'll put a gallery in here so that we can see them clearly.

• 
  (1) This is the status quo, used on French, Dutch, Japanese, Polish and Chinese Wikipedias.
• 
  (2)This is a map that we have used in the past IIRC. It is used by the Spanish and Vietnamese Wikipedias.
• 
  (3) This is used by the German Wikipedia.
• 
  (4) This is the map used by the Italian Wikipedia.
• 
  (5) This is used by the Portuguese Wikipedia.
• 
  (6) This (or a variant) is used by the German, Russian and Swedish Wikipedias.

To be honest, I don't think any of them are particularly good for the purpose. Numbering them 1-6 from left to right, 3 and 5 are too small-scale to see the islands properly. 4 suffers the same problem as ours (1) - north is not at the top of the map because it's just a square taken off a larger map. The main problem with 2 is that it doesn't look very professional and is not in the style of those used for other similar states (territories or countries). And 6 fails to actually locate the islands to the reader.

FWIW I wrote this before Chipmunkdavis' text but I agree with his conclusions. Kahastok talk 20:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I much prefer to projection from the Portuguese wikipedia (number 5) to the standard South America one, as it's tilted further south. I also prefer the colour scheme, although it's not the standard one, and I don't think the red will look good blown up. How does number 5 with an insert sound? (It would look similar to File:Trinidad and Tobago (orthographic projection).svg.) If acceptable, opinions on colours? CMD (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I like 5 because it shows how close the islands really are to Antarctica. The others don't. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How's this? CMD (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Covering the South American continent is not good. The T&T image has the insert on the Atlantic; this one could probably do the same.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

So you want the inset slightly smaller and between South American and Africa? That seems to be the largest area of water if you don't want it to cover any land. Any other thoughts? CMD (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It could also cover the South Pacific.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That rather obvious point never occurred to me. Very well, I've shifted the inset to cover French Polynesia. Better? CMD (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Perfect!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: wouldn't it be better if the inset was moved to the South Atlantic? I mean, so it wouldn't cover any land mass. Just my 2 cents, the map is fine with the islands to the left but I think it'd look cleaner moved to the right. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a minor trade off with size. To fit in the South Atlantic without covering the African coast, the inset has to be a bit smaller. I personally like the inset going off the globe a little, as it makes it more distinct. At this point it's a matter of taste I reckon. CMD (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a matter of taste. If both you and Marshal are ok with this last version then I'm ok too. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the map for a while, it started to strain (hurt) my eyes a bit. Not sure if the rest of you are also having this issue. For whatever reason, the left-to-right alignment of the current map (in the article) and the T&T map does not cause this effect.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• 
  (8) another one
• 
  (9) one more
• 
  (10) one more
• 
  (11) one more
• 
  (12) like (11) +grid (zoom in to see but maybe not 100% accurate) +inset
• 
  (13) like (12) w/close zoom
• 
  (14) like (10) +inset

I've added one two more you may consider. Please tell me at de:Benutzer Diskussion:TUBS if you have more suggestions (as long the suggested map matches my usual color scheme).--TUBS (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

upon request at de:Benutzer Diskussion:TUBS one more --TUBS (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(11) and a very similar but more detailed one --TUBS (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I like 10, but would like for it to have an insert (projection of the islands) on the southern section of the image.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Map 10 is the best one in my opinion (the rest waste too much space). I'd like to see one with an insert as Marshal requests if TUBS is willing to do it. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's see. I think number 7 is fine, but I think it loses slightly in that the shading for the inset covers the islands' closest neighbours in the south of South America, so I prefer the layout of number 8. I'm not so keen on 10 because it lacks detail - I'm concerned that this will be noticeable on the scale we're going to want it. On the other hand, the longitude on which north is vertical is through the islands - on numbers 9 and 11, the region around the islands is slanted slightly in the opposite direction (I believe that 90°W is vertical whereas on number 1 it was the Prime Meridian?)

The best theoretical option I think would be a more detailed version of 10, possibly with an inset. Failing that, I would probably go for number 9, which has lines of longitude and latitude, which I think are useful if north isn't up the map. Kahastok talk 21:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't have a very nice template for the grid for (11), so I didn't paint it, but it should equal this one: File:South America laea relief location map.jpg, (9) is centered at -90°, (1) is centered at +11.30°. Just for your information. Don't know if that helps you. Depicting land near the poles is always a tough one..... --TUBS (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

added alternatives derived from (11) + (10) w/inset as requested /(can't make it more detailed 'cause I'm lacking better templates)--TUBS (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be content with 14.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My preference goes to (10) or (14), with (11) or (12) acceptable as well. I am hesitant on two points. First, the level of detail. Details look fine with contrast colours used as e.g. in our old location map, even with no coastline drawn. With the present soft colours, the less detailed versions — (10) and (14) — would possibly look better in the infobox, without being opened for closer view. Second, I am not sure if we need a second insert depicting the Falklands. The location map becomes somewhat overladen, and the article already has a detailed map of the islands anyway. So, I would probably opt for (10), but if the majority happens to favour some of the other versions mentioned, that would be fine with me, too. Apcbg (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we definitely need a map showing location on the globe/world map, whether as the whole map or as an insert, as readers may well not recognise Southern Patagonia/the Antarctic Peninsula. I also agree with Apcbg that we shouldn't use two inserts. Either we have a close up of the area with a world insert, or a global map with a close up insert. CMD (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(10) is still the best option IMO. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

In my view no (7) is the best option - firstly it has the largest representation of the islands and secondly it is quite celar as to where the islands are. Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think an even better option would have elements of both (7) and (8). Like 8 with the planet rotated slightly east, so having the islands at the center, and then enlarged in a rectangle to the right, over the Atlantic. But having that rectangle be the one from 7: larger and with the islands in green. Jonathunder (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jonathunder, I'm sorry I'cant help you on this issue. Neither I do the grey/green scheme nor I'm really capable of creating new globes. Please ask the guys of Commons:Grey-green orthographic projections maps & Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Orthographic maps (ask there or there) - or ask one of the contributors there like user:Gringer). In addition to only rotating the globe, you could also try to center the map over Falkland Islands. I' dont know if this helps (maybe that map looks too odd) but you could give it a try. Greeting from Germany.--TUBS (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Polling

While polling is no substitute for discussion, it does help, when we have a large number of options, to help us see which options are favoured and which ones are not.

We have fourteen options above, usefully numbered 1 through 14 - though I believe we've rejected options 1-6. I propose that each editor say which of the remaining options (7-14) they would be willing to support and which they would be willing to accept, in order of preference. I'd encourage you to provide comments and reasoning alongside this, and if you have a particular objection to any map, say that as well. (If someone feels that I'm wrong and actually wants to advocate one out of maps 1-6, by all means do.) Kahastok talk 20:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I still see 14 as the best option. Perhaps changing the color from red to green.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

My best choice is (10). Second — (11). Further details given in the discussion above. Apcbg (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Choice 1: (7), choice 2: (14). Reasons as above. Martinvl (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't commented, for the simple reason its down to a matter of taste. However, I still see (1) as perfectly valid and has the added benefit of demonstrating the relationship with the UK and South America. My second choice would be (6) as it provides more details of the islands themselves. Inclusion of both I don't see as a problem, unless I've missed something. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding (6) to the infobox makes the infobox very long - IMO the infobox is already too long, though I am not sure what should be removed - we certainly should not be adding to it. IMO Map (6) should be left where it is - in the Geography section. Martinvl (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My preferences are 13 and 14 in that order. I like 12 but was slightly concerned about the accuracy point in the caption (and I think the what appears to be the 60°S line is a little too far north, as it appears to be north of Southern Thule. 9 is also probably a fourth place. Kahastok talk 19:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My choices would be 10 and 14 in that order. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Inserted

I've put in 14, as it seems to be a common second choice. MarshalN20 prefers it in green, no other opinions were expressed on that, but if so I'm sure it's a minor matter discussable below. Hopefully this takes us out of the

) 15:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Time zone

This occurred to me based on the IP edit this morning.

The infobox currently presents the time zone as UTC-4 in winter and UTC-3 in summer. The IP changed it to suggest UTC-4 year-round. In fact, the islands have been on year-round summer time (UTC-3) since September 2010. This is mentioned in the infobox, but should we move to make it more prominent - to present the islands' time zone as UTC-3?

(There is also the question of Camp time, in that most Camp settlements did not in practice observe DST before 2010 and presumably remain at UTC-4, which could perhaps be mentioned). Kahastok talk 15:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Heroes Welcome

I don’t think that this paragraph is appropriate for an encyclopaedic discussion about the Falklands War – if it were more specific about the degree of support given by the Falkland Islands, it might have been suitable for the section on the Sovereignty dispute, but if we added it there, we would have to comment every time that Kirchner rattled her sabre. The result will be a "My daddy is bigger than your daddy" type stand-off.

The sentence about Gibraltar was pure

) 19:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I quite agree. Well done for taking it out. --John (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have removed this before and I certainly support its removal now because I can't see how it is significant enough to be included, here or elsewhere. Kahastok talk 20:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends,
I have made a series of recent changes to the article. The goal is to first get this article through the GA process and, finally, take it to FA status. The recent changes all focus on subjects not related to history (such as geography, biodiversity, culture, etc.). I would appreciate that all interested contributors to take a peek at these changes, check that everything is OK, and post here any concerns/comments you think are necessary.
I plan to work on the history-related sections next.

has kindly agreed to serve as a supervisor to my edits in the article, but I encourage all of you to double-check my work and point out any mistakes.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't vandalize the article like that again. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please explain what is vandalistic about my improvements. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I reacted too quickly on a page likely to be vandalized. I apologize. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. If you find anything wrong with the article's information, please do comment here or on my talk page.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I should probably point out that I am shaping the structure of this article using the FA article Peru as the model. I think we are close to completing this article, but the history-related sections are the true tough cookies. If any of my edits in those sections raise concerns, please remember to assume good faith but please notify me of any problems (the worst thing you can do is stay quiet). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I am still interested in improving the article. That's my only agenda here. Now, the article as it stands misleads our readers. It's not a good article, and it's never going to pass good article review unless we can fix some errors. Let's focus on that, not on past disputes. Jonathunder (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Great to hear! But I have to admit your statement hurts my pride a little since I've arduously worked on all the non-history sections. But, if you were referring to the history section, then I agree that the current material needs better sources (the sources used are not of the best available quality).

However, if you have found errors in the other sections (culture, economics, demographics, etc.), please do mention them. I have the sources for those sections readily available and can answer most questions you might have about them.

Best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

tweaked my statement a bit to improve its meaning.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

tweaked again my statement. "misleading" is harsh and not used in the proper context.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you are drastically lacking in appreciation of context if you feel metric vs imperial is a giant conspiracy to mislead the readers. Let's not engage in silly inflation of the problem, because on these topics it really isn't going to be helpful as there is already quite enough hot air. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to include a mention of this in Paragraph 4 of the history section. Are there any good sources that analyze this subject? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I included a small note on it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

User User:Emilioinsolera seems to be hell bent on disrupting and vandalizing the article in an extremely pro-Argentine view. I am at work and can't take care of this properly. Can someone help? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple of sources used in the Sovereignty Dispute section (presently numbered at 65 and 66) are both dead links (they redirect to some other webpage, or simply state that the link is incorrect). Could anyone please provide a working source for them? Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Over the last few days, User:MarshalN20 has been making some very large-scale changes to the article. While I certainly appreciate the effort, I do believe that there's a good chance that there's a few things in there that will want some further discussion, but also that it will take time for people to work through them. With such a major change over the such a short period it is very difficult to identify simply through things like diffs of the entire article things that might or might not be controversial.

We risk being in a position where

applies, probably not deliberately, but simply because we are dealing with such a large change and it's impossible to give appropriate scrutiny to the entire thing. The normal wait-a-few-days-and-it'll-be-fine won't work.

It seems to me that the standing consensus version at present is this, the version immediately before Marshal started his changes. We could leave that one on the article for the time being or we could leave Marshal's version, but both versions will be in the history regardless so it should be easy to switch between them.

I suggest that we go through the article section-by-section or paragraph-by-paragraph slowly over the course of the next few days or weeks and just make sure that we're all happy with the changes that are made - that they reflect the sources and that the sources chosen are the appropriate ones. Once we've reached consensus on a given section we should then go on to the next one.

I'll kick off with the first few sections (since the changes to the infobox and lede are relatively small) demarcated with level 3 headings. If you have any comments or suggestions, please put them under the appropriate section. Once we've done these, I suggest we add headings. I strongly suggest that we do this methodically and try not to open too many discussions at once. Kahastok talk 12:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, thank you for the hard-work on analyzing the changes. I'm honored and find great appreciation for your dedication.

I suggest we continue working with the current version of the article. Again please see the Featured Article Peru for the model I am using to shape this article. The Falkland Islands article is closer to FA/GA status under the current version, and so (if any changes must be made) it would be best to make changes under the current version. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Marshal's proposed change is visible at: Talk:Falkland Islands/August 2013/Infobox

The differences:

• The link to Desire the Right has been removed and the capitalisation of the word "right" has been changed
• A few references, rankings and numbers have been changed
• A Gini coefficient has been added.

Kahastok talk 12:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not know a Desire the Right article exist. It must have been added while I was working in the Sandbox, but the article should definitely link to the motto.

The new rankings & gini coefficient can be accessed through GoogleBooks. I don't know how much partial/full view any of you have available, so if you have a question over the inclusions feel free to ask. Regards--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

With the link, I'm happy. Kahastok talk 22:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Lede changes

Marshal's proposed change is visible at: Talk:Falkland Islands/August 2013/Lede

The differences:

• When discussing native Falkland Islanders, instead of "the vast majority being of British descent", we now have "the majority of British descent"
• We no longer list Portuguese ethnicity
• "because of" is now "due to" when discussing the effect of introduced species on the breeding habits of indigenous birdlife.
• We no longer list oil exploration in the list of "major economic activities", but it is mentioned directly afterward in terms of the ongoing controversy.

Kahastok talk 12:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I can justify these changes, and hopefully others agree with my explanations:

1. Having "vast" was grammatically redundant.
2. Portuguese descent appeared nowhere in the sources; neither in the ones I found or on those already in the article.
3. "due to" is shorter.
4. I removed it to avoid needless repetition. The "includes" part of the list means that it's intentionally incomplete (only listing a few). The economy section (now more straight-to-the-point) does provide a more complete analysis.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Broadly, there's nothing here I have a problem with. I had a brief think about the change to "oil exploration" and was happy, particularly given that the oil industry is in its infancy and that the point is immediately mentioned directly afterward.

The difference between "majority" and "vast majority" is really a matter of scale. A majority is anything from 50-100%. A vast majority is really well over 50%, say (and I'm picking a number out of the air) more than about 70%. And you would be surprised if an overwhelming majority was much less than 90%. Kahastok talk 22:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The descendants of Jose Faria have Portuguese ancestry.

JoseFialko-FariaorFareas-Family

Of course with marriage to non Portuguese the ethnicity is much diluted. As was the case with the descendants of other settlers. In the 19th and early 20th century, apart from UK settlers and the Portuguese Jose Faria, there were Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, South Americans, French, Americans, Canadians. Perhaps with 19th and early 20th century settlers or their children intermarrying Falkland islanders or settlers from other countries it would be more accurate to refer to ancestries than to ethnicities. Dab14763 (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Using ancestries might make the picture more diverse, but I am not sure about accuracy. In any case, we have to go by what the available reliable sources present, and these focus on ethnicity. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

Marshal's proposed change is visible at: Talk:Falkland Islands/August 2013/Etymology

This is basically a rewrite. The differences, broadly:

• It provides more detail as to the etymology of both "Falklands" and "Malvinas" (previously we just said "Falkland" in Scotland and "St Malo" in France, now we explain where these come from).
• There's a little more on the UN designation
• Falkland Islander objections to Spanish nomenclature, including the refusal to allow "Islas Malvinas" in the 1982 surrender document, have been removed.

Kahastok talk 12:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing is what led me to the decision to remove the islanders' objections to the Spanish names. There was also a slight issue of plagiarism from another website. If a good source can be found to include the material, it can go on the last paragraph...although I would also encourage it be given a chance in the "Sovereignty Dispute" section. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "plagiarism". I don't see plagiarism of this site at any rate:

General Moore does not allow him to insert the Argentine propaganda term Islas Malvinas after "Falklands."

to:

General Sir Jeremy Moore would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document, dismissing it as a propaganda term

Though it serves mostly as an example of the wider point. For the naming, may I suggest we look into the 1999 agreement, which seems to have included a declaration in which Argentina agreed to review use of Galtieri-era naming. I do think the controversy over naming needs at least a mention - at present I'm not convinced it's clear that Argentina does not use "Falklands" in English and Britain does not use "Malvinas" in Spanish. Kahastok talk 22:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the plagiarism problem, the sentence cited to "Falklands.info" in the previous etymology version which (when typed in Google) linked to "ciaworldfactbook.us" (the web seems dubious, so I recommend not clicking on it) as a direct cut-paste.

Regardless, although "Falklands.info" and "psywar.org" are good places to cite for some support, they are not the best reliable sources available. Once into the GA and/or FA reviews, they are going to get red marked by reviewers. In most cases, the information cited to these sources can be found in more reliable material.

That said, I do see your point about the lack of clarity with regards to the usage of "Falklands" and "Malvinas" by the UK (and Falkland Islands) and Argentina.

The problem is that I can't find a reliable source on the naming standards. The sources I have read just state that "Malvinas is the Spanish name of the islands" (and end it at that).

This is also probably why the old etymology section had General Moore's view (to bring some context to the naming issue).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I added an explanation on the "Malvinas/Falklands" naming. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's useful, but it seems to be only working from one side. Modern Argentina strenuously objects to Latin Americans using "Falkland", but there has been a major shift over the decades. If you look at the article Beagle Channel cartography since 1881 you will see multiple Argentine maps that use "Falkland", naming the islands "Falkland Occidental" and "Falkland Oriental". Kahastok talk 09:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the need for balance. But, even though we know this to be true, I still need a source that also points out Argentina's disapproval of the usage of the term "Falklands" in Spanish. It doesn't need to be as technical as the one from the Spanish philologist (although it does have to come from a reliable source). The mercopress source is good for evidence of the problem's existence, but it does not go into the necessary depth. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Government (ex. Politics and Government)

I'm skipping over History for the moment, because I think it is likely to be the most thorny and because I'm not sure Marshal has finished yet.

Marshal's proposed change is visible at: Talk:Falkland Islands/August 2013/Government

Again, this is a rewrite. The differences, broadly:

• The first paragraph of Marshal's version is broadly the first paragraph and a half of the old version. It no longer mentions the SGSSI, and the defence-and-foreign-affairs formula has been replaced with the islands have greater democratic autonomy, "while retaining sufficient powers for the UK Government to protect UK interests and to ensure the overall good governance of the territory".
• We now name the Chief Executive and no longer name the Speaker. We also no longer mention the last election.
• The text on the justice system is completely different, now describing the roots of the law and the RFIP, whereas previously it described the judiciary. The role of the European Courts has been removed.
• A mention of the UK military presence and FIDF have been added.
• We've lost the last paragraph on freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Kahastok talk 10:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reinstated the section on the ECRH as part of specifying the courts of final appeal - an important concept in the judicial process. Martinvl (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition Martin. I fixed its structure a tad, but the text remains the same. A few notes:

• The "defence formula" is on the last paragraph now (which makes more sense given the context of its presence).
• I only mention the head of government & head of state, which is common (and both are also on the infobox).
• The last paragraph (on freedom of speech & expression) seemed more of an unnecessary brag than an important data. I mean, it even deliberately took a punch to South America ("significantly better than that of any other South American country"). Also, I'm sure plenty of other freedoms are protected in the Falklands...but we should neither list a few nor all of them (they're all important...but for a separate article).

I'd like to add that I noticed there was no article on the Judicial system of the Falklands nor the UK, both (although more the latter) which I found quite strange. There is, nonetheless, a

Judiciary of the United Kingdom article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk

13:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Of the remainder, my main concern is that:

Under the 2009 Constitution, the islands have greater democratic autonomy, "while retaining sufficient powers for the UK Government to protect UK interests and to ensure the overall good governance of the territory".

doesn't actually make sense. Greater than what? Greater than under the 1985 constitution, which is not mentioned.

Effectively, the FIG has responsibility for all internal matters, except inasmuch as the UK government has the reserve power to intervene to ensure good governance. The UK is also responsible for external powers - effectively, defence and foreign affairs. The FIG is responsible for the Royal FI Police, but the UK government is responsible for the UK forces based on the islands. Kahastok talk 14:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the comparison made in mercopress is with the 1985 constitution.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the fix just kinda pushes the thing back a bit. More autonomy than under the 1985 constitution is not useful unless the user knows how much autonomy was available under the 1985 constitution - which they probably don't. I may go and look if I can see a better sourced description, but what I think we should be going for is something like,

“

The Falkland Islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory. Under the 2009 Constitution, the islands have full internal self-government, whereas the UK government is responsible for foreign affairs, defence and retains power "to protect UK interests and to ensure the overall good governance of the territory"

”

With the details being based on sourced description. Kahastok talk 11:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a great improvement. I dropped the "defence" part since it already gets mentioned (in better context) in the third paragraph.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sovereignty dispute

Now part of the government section.

Marshal's proposed change is visible at: Talk:Falkland Islands/August 2013/Sovereignty dispute

I will come back and detail the changes in a few minutes, if that's OK. Kahastok talk 18:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph structure is retained but there are several differences in wording. The differences are:

• It has been moved from its own separate section into the government section.
• A different image of a "Las Malvinas son Argentinas" sign is used and it is moved to the left.
• The first sentence has been changed from:
  • The United Kingdom and Argentina both claim ownership for the Falkland Islands", to
  • "The United Kingdom and Argentina claim control over the Falkland Islands and its dependencies"
• Introducing Argentina's position, it has changed from
  • "Argentina posits that it gained the Falkland Islands from Spain, upon becoming independent from it in 1816", to
  • "Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain, upon achieving independence in 1816"
• The second paragraph previously dated the current phase of the dispute in 1945, and noted a UN resolution in 1964. It now puts the current phase of the dispute starting with UNGA resolution 1514 in 1960 and notes UNGA resolution 2065.
• The third paragraph says the same thing as it did before but with slightly different references.
• The fourth paragraph says almost the same thing as it did before but with some references changed and removed. It adds a reference to the Argentine constitution and removes a 2007 call for negotiations.
• The fifth paragraph is changed only in its references.
• The sixth paragraph is unchanged.

I have a few comments on the above that I will detail after signing here. Kahastok talk 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My immediate thoughts:

I am happy with it to be moved, but I wonder whether a section called "government" is appropriate.

The wording "[t]he United Kingdom and Argentina claim control over the Falkland Islands and its dependencies" is anachronistic. There are no longer Falkland Islands Dependencies - this was a matter of British administration; the British Antarctic Territory (not all of which is claimed by Argentina) was separated from the Falklands in 1962 and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were separated in 1985.

Also worth noting that Argentina does not claim control. Whether one agrees with it or not, it is a matter of fact that the islands are controlled by the British - the government on the islands is the government of a British Overseas Territory.

I may go away and look up the details of the dates in the second paragraph, since the change surprised me.

I wonder if this section is finished - if not, we can leave this open and update the page as required. Kahastok talk 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Sovereignty Dispute sub-section is indeed unfinished. It's also the one with the biggest sourcing problems (please see the comment I made on sources a few sections below), most of which need to be improved.

A section called "government" is the standard for most WP country articles. Since the Sovereignty Dispute is a government issue, listing it within this section makes the most sense.

Anachronistic terms should certainly be changed and/or removed. I think removing it would probably be best so that the focus is centered on the Falkland Islands.

Control and ownership are synonyms, but control has a more open definition and synonym availability (see [84]).

I was also surprised when I found Laver's information. It makes more sense. The UN resolution was passed in 1965, not 1964. Argentina's protest beginning after the passage of resolution 1514 has more logic to it than "shortly after 1945". Many of the web sources should be removed in favor of more reliable material. However, a few important exceptions include the paragraph on the Falkland Islanders' position and recent history of the dispute.

Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The first problem is in the second sentence of the article. Miles? Is that

) 04:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. In most books I have ever read, nautical miles are clearly written as "nautical miles" (or nmi). I understand your question, but no need exists to worry for clarification. Miles are just miles.

As to why miles are used instead of the metric system, that's a question beyond my realm. It seems to be a consensus established in this article. I honestly don't care much about it since both measurement systems are used simultaneously. However, if it's an issue that really bothers you, by all means do go ahead and start a section here focused on that matter (to find a change in consensus).

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The use of imperial vs metric units has been the source of many debates between various parties never had any consensus - all that it had was a ridiculous page

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS - if you read the associated Talk Page you will see how ridiculous it is. Also, if you look at the article text you will see that every unit of measure as a "disp=flip" qualifier (Added by User:Wee Curry Monster). You will also notice that the source of virtually every unit of measure is in metric units. If you want the article get "Good Article" status, I suggest that your ditch FALKLANDSUNITS and scrap all the "disp-flip" qualifiers. Martinvl (talk

) 07:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You would need a consensus to change that the current consensus is to use imperial first as per the

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS Keith D (talk

) 11:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see from its talk page

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is disputed, but setting that aside for a moment, this article doesn't even follow it. "For distances offshore, use nautical miles and follow with both kilometres and statute miles." I asked above if the offshore miles are nautical. Apparently, they are not. The source is in metric. If the source figure is 500 km but the article implies some kind of miles are the primary unit and km is a conversion, it will never pass good article review. Jonathunder (talk

) 12:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised this has turned into a small disagreement, but I'll add that the sources I used did not have any nautical miles which I could use in the article. I'll further add that indeed both Guo and Sainato (the authors cited) use the metric system, but the metric number reflected in the article is not a conversion (I simply added the metric number into the formula, which converted it into miles). Ultimately, as long as the consensus at

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS stands, I'm pretty sure the article can pass GA review. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk

13:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a note: It is not a purely metric country. It is a mixed system. Using the local variance is quite the norm in many cases - the same with the -our/or and -ise/ize issues. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The metric values are the sources, not conversions, but enclosing them in parentheses misleads the reader, giving the false impression metric is secondary. This is not honest. Articles do fail GA review for that. This one should fail until this is cleaned up. Jonathunder (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We are paying undue respect to

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. It was nothing more than a wikilawyering & bullying exercise carried out by User:Kahastok (see here) and User:Wee Curry Monster (see here) against User:Michael Glass and myself. If this is the underlying reason for the writing of the page, then that page violates one of Wikipedia's pillars - that of civility. Wee Curry Monster has since paid the price of incivility - he is topic-banned from the Falkland Islands. Martinvl (talk

) 14:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We are paying the price of your four-year-campaign of disruption that has meant that a prescriptive description of the units to be used is the only way of avoiding what you have previously described as "civil war". We cannot have a system that is more flexible because it is perfectly clear that you will try to game it.

It is ironic that when you quote me as being (what you claim to be) uncivil, I was uncovering yet another of your attempts to game the system here. When you claimed that geography is a science and that therefore miles are completely banned from Wikipedia in any context in which they are likely to be used. Including in brackets. No matter what the circumstances. If you don't like being called on gaming the system, you shouldn't have spent four years trying to game the system. Kahastok talk 21:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This article doesn't even follow

) 14:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The lack of nautical miles usage does not immediately discard FALKLANDSUNITS. There needs to be a consensus towards a change. This could be attained through a Third Opinion or (I think, but don't quote me on it) by nominating

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

for deletion.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nautical miles aren't the big problem here. Misleading our readers is. The source says the islands are 500 km off the mainland. That gives the reader an idea of the precision in the estimate. When Wikipedia says "about 310 miles (500 km)" we falsely imply it's accurate to about 10 miles. A good article would convey the source meaning accurately. This doesn't.Jonathunder (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

... which is a very good reason to discard all the "disp=flip" flags and the page

WP:MOSNUM, but User:Kahastok and/or User:Wee Curry Monster objected and another bout of wikilawyering began. Martinvl (talk

) 15:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, actually it's a good reason to improve the precision of the measurement provided. It is perfectly possible to get the precision correct.

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is consensus and your attempts to get rid of it under the radar have been deeply unhelpful. Kahastok talk

21:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I honestly have no strong opinion either way. I would recommend for this matter to be taken through the dispute resolution ladder. On the meantime, I will keep working on the history section of the article. Please notify me if any changes are made regarding this "metric v. imperial" discussion. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl, please make those improvements. MarshalN20, I commend you for taking on the history section. Jonathunder (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is deeply ironic that Wikilawyer-in-chief Martinvl accuses others of Wikilawyering. For those who don't know, Martinvl has spent the last four years using every trick in the book - by whatever means, fair or foul - to metricate these articles. The best advice here is ironically Martin's own advice from a couple of years ago: If you must change units of measure, please follow WP:FALKLANDSUNITS to the letter, otherwise a civil war will erupt.

I remain very strongly opposed to this push to use this article, and the rest of Wikipedia, as a means to push the political objective of metricating the UK and the Falklands, in direct violation of

consensus.

FWIW the argument for source-based units is entirely spurious. Source-based units are not backed by any policy and have been repeatedly rejected by consensus at

21:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's off topic for this page, which is for improving the article, not for attacking contributors. Please refactor. Jonathunder (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not off topic for this page. It describes what's being going on on this page and other parts of this topic for the last four years, including eighteen months where the topic was entirely paralysed (a paralysis that was only ended when consensus for

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

was reached). The entire post is aimed at improving the article - but in doing so it is useful for editors to know the history here.

I note with interest that you make no comment on Martin's attacks above against me and others.

We shouldn't have to deal with this POV push so continuously and so repetitiously, but apparently some have decided that metricating the article is more important than improving the article. I don't necessarily mean you here, but you have walked into a mousetrap and are best advised to extricate yourself as soon as possible.

The best advice, as I say, is not to use a system that has been repeatedly dismissed at

WP:UNITS. Kahastok talk

22:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, is that what you consider a consensus? Re-read it's talk page. It was never adopted as a standard. This article doesn't even follow it. Let's move on, please. Jonathunder (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

is sufficient to demonstrate consensus. But we do have discussion-based consensus for it, as evidenced by those discussions.

If you feel the article doesn't follow it, then bring it into line. That's fine. But we shouldn't be going against

the project-wide MOS and saying that this article should go against local usage. Kahastok talk

06:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There was considerable

gaming of the system - by User:Kahastok

.

The page never had WP:consensus - it was imposed by User:Kahastok as part of a bullying act, and supported by User:Wee Curry Monster(who has since received a topic ban for disruptive behavior)

Martinvl (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That's just funny. You're the person who once claimed geography was a science and therefore miles were technically disallowed in any geographical circumstances. You're the one person who redirected

FFS drop the stick. Kahastok talk

06:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In the above statement Kahastok wrote "You're the one who repeatedly gave us sources that don't even mention units and announced them as evidence that the British all use kilometres really and just put miles on the road signs to confuse foreigners". That is an unmitigated lie. Martinvl (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I do recall that exchange occurring in the past - perhaps not quite with the tongue in cheek barb at the end, but we were informed repeatedly and without acceptance of any reality, that the British use kilometres. To be honest, I can't recall who though, nor do I think it important to go and check. The nonsense of what happened in the past should probably stay there. It comes down to: Should we use km or miles primarily on an article? So can anyone provide a summary for their 'side', without going into OMG THE PAST? --Narson ~ Talk • 10:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is that roads are designed, built and maintained using metric units (see Driver location sign, sizes of signs in this legislation, design standards here, but on public highways, the signs themselves display imperial units (apart from driver location signs which show kilometres and some height and width warning signs which show either imperial units of both and weight restriction signs which show tonnes. EU "law" requires that government reports use metric units. Academic papers usually use metric units by choice. Most commodities are packaged and labeled using metric units. Martinvl (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

But, if we accept that, does law necessarily define usage? If your argument is that the UK is legally a metric state (Which I think is still a point for debate, as many metric measurements seem to be the convenient translation from imperial) - then clearly the evidence of the road signs indicates it doesn't. If the government passed a law saying bread was now called Tony Blair (to use a...is it Uzbekhistani? example), would the British people use that term? Would we be obligated to follow de jure over de facto usage on articles relating to the UK and bread? To summate: What policy on wikipedia do you think gives superiority to legislation over actual use (And I ask this genuinely, I've been gone for some time, things change, my memory fails)? As the policy and guidelines must be the starting point, I think we agree. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Narson - I suggest that you check a few things out for yourself - go to the supermarket check the ratio of metric to imperial units, do likewise at a hardware shop, look at a number of car magazines and check which values are metric and which are imperial (speed, power - mainly imperial, dimensions - mainly metric. (for example). Martinvl (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Martin, the ratio of metric to imperial units on a supermarket shelves might be a reflection of compliance with EU regulation inspired UK laws, but it doesn't reflect the will or preferences of the UK people. The UK is still an overwhelmingly non-metric society, despite the efforts of the lawmakers before they realised how illiberal, intolerant and discriminatory those laws were. Ex-Stanley (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The answer to this is that as a rule Wikipedia overwhelmingly prefers actual use over legislation. This applies across the board - hence things like the use of

Burma

, when the country was officially renamed Myanmar decades ago. Martin's response misses the point: he describes legislation but it's usage that's actually important.

There's a description of UK usage at

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Kahastok talk

21:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Martin, no matter how much you deny it, no matter how forcefully you assert the opposite and no matter how much you try to discredit those who point out your misguidedness - the Falklands (and the UK in general) are de-facto, essentially a non-metric society. Yes, there are some people and some organisations there who, because of where they work or because of the regulations they work under, do use metric measures in certain circumstances; but if you were to ask a sample of men or women in the street in Port Stanley, London, Glasgow, Cardiff or Belfast their weight, their height, the weight of their baby, their shoe size, their waist size, their shirt collar size, the fuel consumption of their car, the distance they live from the nearest hospital, the length of their garden, how much they drank over the weekend and to guess the weight of an average elephant; you can bet that at least 80% of them will give the answers in stones and pounds, feet and inches, pounds and ounces, barleycorn-based UK shoe size, inches, inches, miles-per-gallon, miles, yards, pints and tons, respectively. Now get down off your soapbox and drop the stick once and for all. Ex-Stanley (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care what units the people in Stanley use, what matters is what the Wikipedia readership expects. The Falkland Islands article gets about 2000 hits a day, so unless every man woman and child on the islands check the article three times a week, the readership comes from outside the islands. Again, I don't care about the man on the British street thinks, I care about the readership - the school pupil or university student who is writing an article, the financier who want a quick overview of the island, the military strategist who want some quick info. If these people don't see metric units, they will ask themselves "How has this article been dumbed down? Martinvl (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care if you don't care. Wikipedia is committed to reflect the cultural and customary preferences of the populations concerned and of the subject matter. Otherwise there would be no non-English Wikipedias, and all Wikipedia pages would be written in American English, and using U.S customary units. Ex-Stanley (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

One reflection of cultural and customary preferences is what local sources are using. Unless there are compelling reasons not to use these measures I think we should put them first. As conversions have to be supplied, it amounts to a battle about whether miles or kilometres come first. Frankly, I think that accuracy matters more than putting one measure or another first.Michael Glass (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Local sources; as in local newspapers, local private publications and newsletters, locally produced books, etc. - rather than official, government agency or government sponsored sources?

Shouldn't sources be selected on the basis of reliability and whatever the other Wikipedia criteria are, and not by whether they use your preferred measurement system? What if the best source says 300 chains - would you honestly expect that to be written in the article?

And shouldn't the units used be those that reflect the most common usage in the community or area most closely associated with the subject of the article?

For example, if the best qualified source says about 500km, and the local customary unit is miles, then what is wrong with saying about 300 miles (500 km)? Or if the source says about 300 miles, then why not say about 300 miles (500km)? Ex-Stanley (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Answer is that there is no reason why we cannot say "300 miles (500km)" in either circumstance. Source-based units is a complete red herring. Michael's proposals that Wikipedia replace the current guidelines with source-based units have been repeatedly rejected at

WT:MOSNUM

now dismiss them out of hand. There is no rule or requirement that units on Wikipedia follow the units in the sources - project-wide consensus is actually firmly against such a system.

The answer to Martin's point is also as you say. His personal preferences are subordinate to the project-wide consensus documented at

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS - neither of which support kilometres as primary unit of distance in this article. But I would remind everyone that, according to the statistics, the majority of the Wikipedia's readership in fact comes from countries in which people use miles as primary unit of distance. The logical conclusion of Martin's argument is quite the opposite of his suggestion: that we should be increasing, not decreasing, the use of miles on Wikipedia for the convenience of the readership. Kahastok talk

21:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with arguing that "300 miles (500km)" and "500 km (300mi)" amount to the same thing is that they aren't. 300 miles is just over 482.8km. 500km is more than 310 miles. If the figure is a rough estimate this may not matter, but as Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I think it would be better to be accurate. Of course, I agree that we should try to source information from the most reliable sources. Michael Glass (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If the source says about 500 km, then about 300 miles (or even about 310 miles) will do. If the source says it's 498 km, then 309 miles will do; if 506.4 km then 314.7 miles will do. It's an application of common sense. No matter what the source units, a sensible conversion of adequate accuracy is always possible. The main units used in the article should always be those that reflect the most common usage in the community or area concerned - and with any other common unit or units that may be desirable to make the content as accessible as necessary to the readership in brackets following. Ex-Stanley (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We've been through this with you before - several times I believe. We could, in theory, say 300 miles (482.8032 km), and we could, in theory, say 310 miles, 3619 feet, 11 47⁄127 inches (500 km). Both would entirely remove the issue you refer to (being exact conversions) and neither would be remotely sensible.

Of course it is best to be accurate, but both 300 miles and 500 kilometres are accurate, to within the precision implied by the measurements. They resolve to different exact figures, but that does not mean that they are inaccurate. As per

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS prevents us from doing this. Kahastok talk

17:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Falklands Units states: "In any case where the primary units do not match the source units, note this in the citation." If this is followed consistently it may partially alleviate the problem of rounding errors. Michael Glass (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems a complete overkill though, an insult to the readers even. Ex-Stanley (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What? You mean that following policy is overkill? That telling the reader that the source used metric (or imperial) units insults the reader? Interesting comment. Michael Glass (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean the policy is overkill. It doesn't matter what units the source is in, so long as the units in which the measurement is expressed are given. Why do you suppose the user would care what the units used in the source are, so long as the units used in the article are clear? To take that principle further, would you expect the font used in the source to be mentioned, or the native language of the author? Ex-Stanley (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand your position, but this provision has been part of

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

all along. Actually, the best way to deal with rounding errors is to use the disp=flip function. In that way the display of units is flipped but the information is based on the actual measurement. I don't think it hurts to let people know that the original measurements were done in feet and inches (such as the gauge of the railway) or in acres (Lafone's original land grant in Lafonia, though it is helpful in both cases to give the metric equivalents. The same applies in the other direction, where information from Falkland Islands Conservation is given in metric terms (it was a scientific study, after all).

In general, my personal preference would be to follow the sources, with translations into the other units. However, there are occasions where this is not helpful. Let's say a source gave the area of an island as 103 hectares. An editor may prefer to render the figure as 1.03km² to cause less confusion for American readers and then translate it into acres or fractions of a square mile. However, following sources is not an option for many editors, who fear it would lead to the complete metrication of UK articles or that it would cause confusion. Actually, it wouldn't, if only because so many articles are already inconsistent in their use of units. There is a huge amount of information that is only available in imperial measures, but the spin that's put on following the sources is that this is simply a stalking-horse for complete metrication.

Therefore I'd suggest that you simply stick to

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS for the time being. However, if you want to change this policy, you might consider the possibility of applying MOSNUM policy for the UK. Michael Glass (talk

) 13:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Striking out comments made by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Martinvl (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Martinvl (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have struck out ex-Stanley’s comments – he is a sockpuppet of the banned User:DeFacto – sockpuppets of Defact have a track record of disrupting any article to do with metrication, for example, when a proposal was made to delete the article [Metrication of British transport]], the only support that the proposer has was from User:Ornaith and User:Pother, both Sockpuppets of DeFacto. I therefore class Ex_Stanley’s comments as being purely disruptive.

@Kahastok – you stated that I had agreed to the so-called consensus. The reality was (I might have said this in the past) the

WP:GA. As User:Jonathunder noted here

, the way in which imperial units were used could have prevented the article from getting classed as a GA. I was happy to accept a temporary “truce” on units of measure knowing that the GA reviewers would put Wee Curry Monster in the position of having to align this article with WP:MOSNUM or failing the GA review.

Now that ex-Stanley’s disruptive influence has gone, I am following the request by requested by User:Jonathunder, and am aligning the units of measure with WP:MOSNUM, taking as my guiding principal the units of measure used by all other articles about other British Overseas Territories.

Martinvl (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not accept that ex-Stanley's influence was disruptive, and there's nothing in policy that allows you to strike out large amounts of others' text, sockpuppet or not. (For the benefit of others, I wanted to delete

WP:OR

in that the editors were looking at all the units used for measurements in a given source and drawing conclusions that went far beyond the source. The same tactic has been used repeatedly here. But that is irrelevant to this discussion.)

You did not in fact align the page with MOSNUM. MOSNUM very explicitly calls for imperial units in several of the cases that you just metricated. You aligned it solely with your own POV, based on what you would like British units to be. I see no reason to assume that the fact that the article does not follow your POV, but instead follows both

global

consensus should mean that it fails GA. I actually find it more likely that it would fail at GA for failing to meet the standards of project and global consensus as you insist.

Your POV push is strongly disruptive. It has been disruptive ever since you started because of your continual attempts to game the system, including this attempt to claim that the MOS says something that it very clearly does not say. There is certainly no consensus to change in this discussion. Please stop. Kahastok talk 06:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Banning policy, you will see that additions made by a banned editor may be reverted by anyone. Ex-SStanley has been found to be the same person as Defacto and I am therefore reverting as best I can by striking out (otherwise comments made by other editors would no longer be in context). Martinvl (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:Banning policy. It makes it clear that there is no requirement that such changes be reverted. I object strongly to your attempts to leave the talk page in a state where the conversion is very difficult to follow. As I said before, I am happy to endorse quite a few of the points that he made, and it is useful to have relevant points made on the talk page, regardless of who made them. You have made the SPI result quite clear and anyone reading this page will see it.

As to your perverse claim in an edit summary that 100% metrication is required by

game the system. Kahastok talk

18:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Although there is no requirement to remove them, it is permissible to remove them and removing them falls outside the 3RR rules. I have again stricken them. Please do not reinstate them. Martinvl (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting the edits of a banned editor does not count for 3RR. But reverting the edits of a non-banned editor does count toward 3RR, and there's nothing in 3RR preventing you from being blocked for repeatedly editing the talk page posts of banned editors, which is what you seem to be claiming. Wikipedia does not routinely strike the talk page comments of editors who are subsequently banned, or who were editing while banned, and this page is no exception. There is no good reason why these edits need to be stricken. Anyone judging consensus will be perfectly aware of concerns you have. But right now it looks very much like you're just trying to strike his comments because you disagree with them, and to undermine the comments of others who responded to him. Kahastok talk 20:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Banning policy, you will see " An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances.". "Any account" includes the account of a sock-puppet. I have again striken Ex-Stanley's (aka DeFacto's) additions. I also note that you have now undone my changes three times in the last 24 hours. Martinvl (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kahastok's reasoning so I've had that text un-striken. For technical purposes, please regard the un-striken contributions as having been made by me; for all I know I am not banned and therefore am in a position to contribute such comments. Apcbg (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Can an impartial editor or some impartial editors come in and resolve this increasingly pointless war? I'm getting sick and tired of these pissing matches clogging up my watchlist and it's quite clear neither side can be sufficiently impartial enough to make the edits either way. You can level these accusations between each other all you like but NOBODY is interested in reading about it! Bring others in immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeJacketGuy (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this is a case for

WP:Arbcom. Martinvl (talk

) 18:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If that's what will move this into a more constructive direction, then I am all for it. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Daft question and I am not reading through all the talk pages but what do they use on the island as a system of measurement and why cant that be used? MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Great question, not at all daft. When I was there, I got directions in Stanley in meters, not feet. Road signs were in kilometers. Quantities in shops were in metric. It's a metric country. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few websites:

• Retail - not known, but supplied by the John Lewis Partnership. Within the UK, most if not all the John Lewis goods use metric units. WEbsite says that goods supplied in the UK are also supplied to the store in Stanley.
• Ferry dimensions - metric
• Agriculture - metric
• Fishing - metric
• Nautical charts - drawn up the the British Admiralty to British standards.
• Government reports, for example State of the Environment Report - metric.
• Education - The Falkland Islands Community School uses the British syllabus and enters pupils into the British GCSE exams. These exams use the metric system.

Martinvl (talk)

Thanks for that, second daft question if they use the metric system why do have we a problem? MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been asking that question for the past few years, but

these ridiculous standards on the project. I have been trying to get rid of them, but so far to no avail. Martinvl (talk

) 20:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

OK not read that before give me a few minutes. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That, right there, is part of the pissing match that I wrote about, even if it does happen to be true (and yes, I do agree with it). None of the current participants in this discussion should be involved in ending this war. We need outside editors involved otherwise this whole mess will happen again and probably very soon. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

OK but I thought I was an outsider to this? MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought you were someone else. 20:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeJacketGuy (talk • contribs)

OK I have had a read of the unit preferences thing, (oh just to say I am from the UK so am used to a mix of metric/imperial use) frankly it is a bit of a mess and should be discarded, I would recommend you just use metric measures with imperial second for our American cousins (and old British blokes like me who where raised on imperial). Most readers are not stupid and can understand both but to mix the order in an article is clearly stupid. So that is my recommendation for what its worth, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I just put

WP:MOSNUM gives guidance for units of measure within Wikipedia. There is no additional special guidance for any country apart from the Falkland Islands. Why does a small archipelago covering less than 0.01% of the earth's surface and home to less than 0.0001% of the earth's population warrant its own page? Any discussion about units of measure has got measure that page against Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. What it the page anyway - a policy, an essay, a guideline or just someone's private thoughts? Martinvl (talk

) 20:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I quote

WP:MOSNUM

:

In non-science UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units (44 kilograms (97 lb)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including:[5]

• miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon;
• feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight;
• imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk.
• hands for horses and most other equines

WP:MOSNUM, most recently by falsely claiming that it endorses metric-only, when it does not. Kahastok talk

20:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The answer to all of this is that we follow our own

gaming

it.

Martinvl calls them "these ridiculous standards", and that I imposed them, even though they were adopted by consensus and even though he himself endorsed them.

Of course Martin gives you a list of sources that use metric units. Do you not think he picked the sources for the units? He wants Wikipedia to campaign for metric units in the UK, and mass-converting all articles is a means to an end. Of course, nothing can be divined from those sources because they don't actually use sources mention measurement systems at all. He would also say that the UK is also metric-only, a fact that anyone who has been to the country would know is completely wrong.

The reason we have a manual of style is so that we don't have the reinvent the wheel on every article. We follow the Manual of Style, and the local consnesu. That means using imperial units in some circumstances. It does not mean insisting on metrication. People in the UK - and the Falklands - do not just put miles on all the road signs to confuse foreigners. It is because people actually use miles in day-to-day life. We should not be using Wikipedia as a campaigning tool to pressure either the UK or the Falklands to convert the remaining units into metric, and that's precisely what Martin is calling for. Has been calling for for 5 years. It is a fundamental violation of

.

Martin is trying to mislead you. He is trying to trick you, just like he has tried to mislead and trick me and others here on literally scores of occasions. We should not be putting up with this POV push. Kahastok talk 20:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop dodging the question. Why does a small archipelago covering less than 0.01% of the earth's surface and home to less than 0.0001% of the earth's population warrant its own page when every other country is covered under

WP:MOSNUM? Until you can supply a proper answer to this question, everything else that you write is totally without foundation. Martinvl (talk

) 20:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If any other country needs such a page, they're welcome to it as far as I'm concerned. Given that

WP:UNITS

, there is no conflict between them. There is no reason why we should not have such a consensus, particularly one that was endorsed by all parties (including you).

But it is you who are dodging the question. Why are you insisting that

WP:UNITS insists upon metric units only when anyone who looks at it sees that it not only allows, but recommends imperial units in many of the contexts that you are insisting have to be metric? Kahastok talk

20:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok is trying to pressure me into a self-revert for the simple reason of disagreeing with him. Outside people need to be brought in before this gets any more out of control. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to ask for an expert in this sort of thing? I can't figure out why it's so complicated. From what I saw when I was there, metric is everywhere. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNITS

do recommend metric units in most contexts. It is only contexts such as geographic distance in miles, or personal height in feet and inches, or speed in miles per hour, that are non-metric both in the UK and in the Falklands.

The whole thing is quite simple. We follow

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. There is no contradiction between them. That means imperial units are the main units in some circumstances, such as geographic distance. Kahastok talk

21:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked you to self-revert because your edit summary led me to believe that you were the false impression that the current consensus was the metric version. It is not. I am pushing nothing. I don't even want to be having this discussion - I want to be discussing the large changes that have taken place on this article but this is taking most of my time. It is Martin who is pushing to force metrication on this article against the

local consensus. Kahastok talk

21:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• A bit dissapointed you asked for outside help, I read a bit of stuff and came up with a recommendation, one of which was get rid of
  WP:FALKLANDSUNITS and the other was to use metric first, imperial second, not a difficult concept. Nobody has taken any notice of what I recommended you just carried on with the same arguments, if this is the way you treat outside help then the best of luck to you all but I didnt make the recommendation lightly. It would be appreciated if you at least listened to what I recommended otherwise I cant see you ever coming to an agreement. MilborneOne (talk
  ) 21:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You've made no argument that persuades me that we have overturn the

WP:OR

), which gives a highly biased impression of the state of units. Ironically the MOS and local consensus propose we use metric units for many of the things Martin quotes - he's arguing for metrication based on measures that were already metric in the first place.

We're not talking about kilograms and tonnes here. We're mostly taking about whether British people really do for the most part use miles, or whether they just put miles on all the road signs to confuse foreigners - which is effectively what Martin would have you believe. Kahastok talk 21:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What does this have to do with that? We are talking about Falklands, right? Not Britain. Different place. I think MilborneOne is right: metric first, imperial second. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Falklands are controlled by the UK as a British Overseas Territory, and as such Falklands articles are UK-related. You can't reasonably expect the MOS to go into vast detail of every territory - that's why we have consensus at the WikiProject level, in other words,

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Which you will note makes it clear what it is doing. Kahastok talk

21:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The article about South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands uses metric first. Is it a British Overseas Territory? Road signs in the Falklands use metric first, or only. Are they wrong? Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Kahastok talk

21:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever guys, I'm out. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have taken the bull by the horns and proposed

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS as official Wikipedia policy. In this way it will either get the full support of the Wikipedia community or be flagged as a "failed proposal". I invite everybody's participation. The final decision regarding the page will then be taken by an administrator. Martinvl (talk

) 21:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Except you didn't, you just tagged it as something that is "definitely still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus for adoption". This is patently false when being used to describe something that has been consensus on Falklands articles for several years. As well you know. More

gaming? I think so. Kahastok talk

21:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok. you assume I based my recommendation on one users list of sources, you dont know that so please dont judge. I was just giving an opinion/recommendation from what I can see if, I have not read all the talk page stuff I dont know who supports what (and dont really care) I just used common sense. But as you ask I will start with FALKLANDSUNITS which I recommended that it be ignored, no I didnt read the talk page of it either, but even from my British-centric viewpoint it is clearly some sort of joke. We should be serving the reader and to mix the units is clearly a stupid idea, evidence clearly is that the metric system is the primary measurement system used on the island so it would seem logical to use it. This is not Falklandpedia we dont have to confuse stuff, just make it clear and concise for the reader. And I would like to think that most readers dont have a problem with both units being displayed we are clever enough to work out which one we understand. The problem would be if you only used one measurement system, but we use both so I cant see what is the problem. The reader doesnt say oh it says kilograms first that must be the local measurement they are looking for something they understand, so metric first imperial second from start to finish, doesnt confuse and is clear, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh and just to repeat myself as it clearly is going over some heads, this is an encyclopedia we are writing for the different users all over the world not a local readership, we are not a regulatory authority for weights and measures we are hear to serve the universal reader. Nearly ever reader can understand one or both systems. dont confuse clear and simple metric first/imperial second, clear and concise. I would like to understand why anybody would want to deliberately confuse the readers. MilborneOne (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You say that mixing measurement systems is "clearly a stupid idea", but that is precisely what people in Britain do. Do you mentally convert all the speed limits into kilometres or do you measure temperature in Fahrenheit? If you do neither, you are doing something that you are saying is clearly stupid.

It is also what

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

.

Making stuff clear and concise for the reader actually means using miles for distance. Most of our readers live in either the UK or US, where miles are the standard units used. We should also be looking at wider changes to push US-customary units to the fore, given the huge proportion of our reader who live in the US. Kahastok talk 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Next time I visit Stanley and they give me directions in meters, I will tell them they should be more like America. I'm sure that will be a popular idea. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You tell them what you want. I'm just pointing out that the consequences of MilborneOne's argument for reader-based units is for more US-customary units, not metric units. But that is not an argument for here: we should be following the

project consensus, which call for a mix of units. I would note that your personal experiences are not evidence of anything much. A single person giving directions in metres does not mean that everyone uses metres. You might next time find someone who gives you directions in yards. Kahastok talk

22:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the a WP:ENOUGHISENOUGH? This debate/rant/war is getting embarrassing. To misquote 'rarely has so much be argued by so many for so little'. Maybe it is time to give up and hand the entire thing to some uninvolved admin and ask for a deciding vote. Mtpaley (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been saying that enough is enough for years now. If Martin did not insist on bringing it up every three months - effectively trying to create a

WP:BATTLEGROUND

out of this - it is highly unlikely that anyone else would, and if anyone did, it would be easily resolved.

Getting outside help should not be an iterative process, whereby we go to RFC after RFC after RFC, or outside opinion after outside opinion after outside opinion, until one of them agrees with Martin. Don't fool yourself. Consensus fails to support full metrication against the MOS this time, in three months Martin will have pushed us right back into the same place we are now. Consensus fails again, and it'll be back three months later. That's what Martin does. What this topic badly needs is for him to stop or be stopped. Kahastok talk 22:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with this Martin fellow? You blame him for other articles that are in metric. You act like he's the only one who thinks it should be used here. I don't even know who Martin is. I am me. I have been to the Falklands. I think if anyone from there read this, they would shake their heads in wonder. This is insane. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If Martin didn't keep on this campaign of disruption, I would have no concerns with him at all. What I want is to maintain neutrality and uphold Wikipedia's standards. When there is an editor that behaves as disruptively as Martin does, there should be concern to everyone. He is a POV pusher, and I - as all Wikipedians should be - am against his using Wikipedia to push his POV. Kahastok talk 22:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Then we need a attentive admin who is willing to watch this page and squash this war if it starts again. Mtpaley (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be nice, but it would be a lot of effort and there are enough places where he could try to blow it up elsewhere. The admin is likely to have lost interest after a couple of months and it'll blow up again. That's what normally happens. The more effective method would be to topic ban him. In this case those of us who consider improving the article to be more important than metricating it would be able to get on with it without having to deal with his ceaseless POV pushing. Kahastok talk 22:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't care where else it blows up. For now I am just trying to bring some sanity to this article. Mtpaley (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm done. I added a photo to this article of a nice cathedral. I will remove it and I'm out. Wikipedia is insane. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A definitive statement on the talk page from someone in a position of trust (and power) saying that the answer to the debate is X and this stands unless someone in a position of more trust (I.E. higher up in the wiki rights structure) says otherwise then the issue is over. Anyone changing the units gets a single warning then a temporary ban. This is all we need and from what I can see as a ever more irritated lurker it is the only way to end this. It is clear that this has got personal and as the last poster says it is insane. If the admin who accepts the job looses interest then it is upto us to try and find a replacement but whatever happens nobody should contribute any more points of view - it is way past the point where it can be regarded as a meaningful debate. Mtpaley (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I will upload one of my photos of Port Stanley cathedral to replace the one that 'Travellers & Tinkers' has removed - give me a day or two to find it.... Mtpaley (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If within 24 hours nobody can give me a good reason why not then I will go to 'Dispute resolution' or something similar and try and get this finished. I am receptive to any good reason why I should not do this but anyone saying that X is biased or Y are the correct units will not be regarded favorably. If a decision by higher powers is made and that higher power subsequently looses interest I will push to find a replacement. Mtpaley (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Lets not escalate this for 24 hours even if you think you have a legitimate complaint. Some time for reflection is always worth while. Mtpaley (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not complicated, folks. International place,

international system of units. And my two cents' worth is coming from a place where very few people know what a meter is. Eric ^talk

03:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Why, in your opinion, should the United States be the only place allowed to use the units in use locally? Why, in your opinion, should we not follow our own

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

consensus, both of which call for a mix of units?

Answer is simple. Actually follow the MOS. That means a mix of units. Kahastok talk 06:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

My opinion? If you're addressing me, Kahastok, you have assumed something I did not imply above. My opinion is this: While I'm happy to walk a kilometer for a pint, if I'm writing an encyclopedia article about the Falklands, I'm going to express measurements using the predominant international system. Eric ^talk 13:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? Given that what you're saying goes directly against global consensus represented by

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, you'd need a pretty good reason to start ignoring them and I don't see you've offered one. Nor, for that matter, has anyone else here. The default position is a mix of units - mostly metric, but a few imperial contexts, based on the style guide of a major British newspaper. Would you also write Nebraska in the predominant international system? I see nothing in your arguments that would not apply similarly. Kahastok talk

17:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Since the call for fresh eyes, it looks like every one of them that has come in on this has endorsed what MilborneOne proposed: lead with metric units. Kieth D again reverted to what he calls the old consensus, but there is clearly none for that. Discuss, please, before this escalates further. Jonathunder (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Like so many others in this I give up. It was a sincere attempt to find a way of closing this but the debate has just relocated to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It is entirely clear that the main participants in this will fight to their last breath over a issue so tiny that I am still amazed that it even got a single comment. Now I am out of it I can give a opinion in that the units should be metric (imperial) like any GB county. Mtpaley (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There you go. "Any GB county" should use imperial units first in some circumstances. The

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS that is entirely consistent with it. Kahastok talk

21:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh.

WP:DEADHORSE OrangeJacketGuy (talk

) 21:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If we're happy to say that this discussion died a natural death and there is nothing more to be said, I have no problem with leaving it. But the point remains: nobody here has given a good reason why we should not follow our own manual of style or our own project's local consensus. Frankly, this horse has been dead since about 2009, and yet Martin in particular keeps insisting we flog it some more. Kahastok talk 22:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You have grossly misread the situation. The conversation is at a draw and those of us who have given up have done so out of exhaustion, not so much out of any win or loss scenario. You are no better than the accusations you type out there with your keyboard warrior ways. Peace out. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Best of luck to you Jonathunder. Mtpaley (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Way forward?

I think it could be a good time to open a clearly structured

. It could as a simple as asking the editors which of the following options they prefer:

• A) Use
  WP:FALKLANDSUNITS
  .
• B) Tag
  WP:FALKLANDSUNITS
  as historical; use metric (imperial).
• C) Tag
  WP:FALKLANDSUNITS
  as historical; use imperial (metric).
• B) Tag
  WP:UNITS
  apply.

Just my 2 cents. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, no need for that many options. Tweaked accordingly. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. Since the Argentine claim is recognized by a number of countries, the question should try to avoid mixing up sovereignty with units of measure. If the sovereignty issue comes up in the discussion so be it. I favour the original version in that it avoids the sovereignty issue. Martinvl (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In any case, the wording was all wrong, as then the question should be whether UK-specific instructions given in

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. 88.148.249.186 (talk

) 12:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Martinvl (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No. We have reached the stage where there is no point in continually asking the same question is disruptive. You don't get to keep having RFCs until you get your way. Kahastok talk 06:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough; I only read the current discussion. Still, as an outsider I don't see the point of

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. It's governed by UK; I don't see any reason why Falklands needs special rules. Argentina claims the islands too, but since it does not actually govern them, this claim is irrelevant to the unit discussion. 88.148.249.186 (talk

)

Regardless of the likelihood of the Argentine actually controlling the islands, the mere statement that "Falklands is governed by UK and therefore ..." could be a red rag to a bull and could upset the neutrality of the question. The initial set of choices was the most neutral. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Writing neutrally does not mean that we cannot acknowledge that the current government of the islands is British, and has been for all but a few months of the last 180 years. On the contrary pretending that the current situation on the ground is not the situation on the ground would badly mislead our readers and would be highly non-neutral.

This question is not bound up in the sovereignty dispute at all. It is merely acknowledging the facts on the ground. If at some point in the future Argentina controls the islands, then obviously that would change the circumstances and the decision could be removed - even if the legal situation does not change one iota.

As to the current suggestion, I believe that

WP:UNITS

tells us to use in UK-related articles such as this one. If that could be made clearer I am open to making it clearer. Prescriptive is better when situations are as controversial as this since it gives far less room to manoeuvre.

But we need a guarantee that we will not be back in exactly the same place in three or six months time. There is absolutely no point in spending effort trying to resolve this if we're going to be back in the same place in a few months' time. Kahastok talk 17:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion: Past RFCs are mentioned. Could someone kindly provide links to them? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units#Requested move

• Opened 1 December 2012
• Closed 24 January 2013

Proposal

“As I said, a very uneasy compromise has been reached. Distances are in imperial units, but rainfalls and heights are in metric.”

In view of this statement of Martin’s, which has been reminded by Kahastok, I would propose that:

(1) The present discussion is closed;

(2) The actual measure units arrangements stay in place; and

(3) No new discussions on this topic are initiated unless some new developments in the relevant Falklands practice were to occur. Apcbg (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I made that proposal to try and avoid rocking the boat. The boat has now capsized. I therefore disagree with Apcbg and commend 88.148.249.186's RFC proposal (above). Martinvl (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If the boat capsized, it is only because you decided to capsize it, with very little help from anyone else. If you want the boat not to be rocked, FFS stop rocking it. Kahastok talk 16:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please Martinvl and Kahastok surely you both know that this has become absurd. If either of you have any respect for Wikipedia then just stop posting on this topic, everyone knows your views so you are both just flaming/trolling each other. If you both stop then this will come to a sensible conclusion. Mtpaley (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The page

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS has not yet been formally adopted as an offical guideline. I have created a proposal to regularise the position. Please feel free to comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units#Proposal for acceptance as a formal guideline. If the proposal is accepted, then the page will indeed be part of Wikipedia policy, otherwise it will be tagged a "failed proposal". Either way the uncertainty that has dogged this page for the last three years will be resolved. This message is being sent to every editor of good standing who has contributed here or here. Martinvl (talk

) 03:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also a complete straw man. There is nothing at all wrong with a WikiProject documenting its own consensus on matters of style and absolutely no need to go through the process that you claim to be trying to instigate. All this is is yet another RFC over a

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is the standing consensus. Endorsed by all parties in the dispute in 2010, and having been the standard on the topic in practice for the last three years. Kahastok talk

16:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't have consensus from the new voices on this page. Please, let's hear more from them. You have stated your own views many times now. Jonathunder (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Jonathunder I came to this discussion as an outsider and made a recomendation based on common sense and others also support my recommendation but sadly the regulars on this discussion have just ignored it or tried to rubbish it. I am not going to keep repeating my recommendation but it appears to have a clear consensus so far on this page. Consensus does and has changed on this matter but the incumbent argumentors continue to ignore it. Not sure what the answer is but to close the discussion is not the right way to go unless we can stop the circus and accept the new consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

What you said was:

"We should be serving the reader and to mix the units is clearly a stupid idea, evidence clearly is that the metric system is the primary measurement system used on the island so it would seem logical to use it."

In four and a half years of this discussion, no-one has ever provided a shred of evidence that the metric system is the primary measurement system used on the islands. There is no evidence-based reason to assume that metric is the primary measurement system on the islands. Based on the evidence we have, this is nothing but your own conjecture.

The closest to evidence you get is the sort of speculation you see from Martin above. And to be clear, it is perfectly possible to find imperial-only usage on Falklands-based texts and it is perfectly possible to find similar examples to those above from the US or UK. I don't list such texts because I reject their relevance - the whole process is nothing but OR.

Beyond that, it appeared to boil down to an argument to dismiss both the

WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't wash as an argument. If we're going to override the MOS, we need a lot better reason than that. Kahastok talk

22:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you are just repeating yourself over and over again, and attributing ideas to me that I dont have, I dont need to explain I made a recommendation using common sense and not alphabet soup, some others have agreed. It would appear you and Martinvl have been repeating the same old arguments for years over and over again so I propose that perhaps you both leave the discussion to others to conclude. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's that unreasonable to ask people to explain when they take this sort of position. What you are saying isn't just a matter of common sense. Mixed unit systems are all over the place. Our own

WikiProject consensus

) say we should use here. Listen or watch to the BBC, and you'll find that measurements are regularly mixed, sometimes in the same sentence. All the distances might be in miles, building or cliff heights in both systems and the temperature in the weather report at the end in Celsius. This is not something we normally notice, but it happens all the time.

Whether you like it or not, what you are telling us to do is to throw out the manual of style because you think it "clearly a stupid idea". If you think it's clearly a stupid idea, take that to

WT:MOSNUM

. We need a good reason beyond your negative opinion of the manual of style before we start ignoring the manual of style.

I don't know at this stage on what basis you are arguing that "evidence clearly is that the metric system is the primary measurement system used on the island". Given your unwillingness to give any form of explanation of this comment, I cannot see how I can in good faith do anything other than dismiss it out of hand. If you have such evidence, please show me. If you're saying it's in the discussion above, cite the diff. As I say, in the past four and a half years, I have never seen anything that would back up such a statement.

When it comes down to it, lots of people have made assertions here but not one of you is willing to even back them up with reasons, let alone argument or evidence. And policy makes it clear that assertions made without reasons - supporting something because

you don't like it) rather than because there's a good reason for it - aren't worth a lot. Kahastok talk

22:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

OK how about something different as a compromise, ditch the

WP:UNITS as per non-science UK-related articles: If we dont like WP:UNITS then we can discuss that at the related talk page rather than going round in circles here. MilborneOne (talk

) 23:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to see a rewritten

WP:UNITS

because of the dispute that you are now well aware of.

But my support comes with a condition. Because of the way this dispute has unfolded in the past, I will not support or accept any change without a guarantee, enforceable by block, that this is the end of the matter so far as Martin is concerned. That Martin will not seek to change this, and will not edit in violation of it. I've been burnt too many times by Martin removing himself from deals that I thought we had agreed - in the case of

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS two years after the deal was agreed - to accept anything less than that. There is no point in trying to resolve this in short term without dealing with the long term issue, and I do not believe that the long term issue can be considered resolved without such a guarantee. Kahastok talk

23:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds very much like a demand to own this page, which none of us do, or can grant. And this talk page is not for your history of issues with one user, however valid you may think they are. There are other places for that. Jonathunder (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I just don't want this page in six months' time to be in exactly the same position with exactly the same dispute as it is now, after Martin's announced once more that he doesn't like the consensus and will start the POV push again. Do you want to see this dispute flare up again? In exactly the same terms and with exactly the same people? We were having this same discussion round and round for eighteen months, every three weeks, over and over again, eliminating essentially all possibility of article development because Martin (and Michael) would not

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

was agreed. The argument was that consensus might have changed within the past three weeks, when it didn't in the previous three weeks, or the three weeks before that, or the three weeks before that...

Very few other people initiate the discussion now. None of the other regulars here do. Either because they consider it unimportant or are aware of the history. Michael is very keen to point out that he stopped bringing it up when

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

was agreed. You were the first person other than Martin, I believe, to initiate such a discussion in two and a half years, and Martin immediately sprang in to take over the discussion. This dispute is poisonous and we need to be rid of it, and it would be gone - if only Martin would leave it alone.

I am not prepared to make concessions and come to an agreement just because Martin decided to pull out of the old one. If there was some guarantee that Martin would honour the agreement, I would say yes, absolutely. But I see no benefit to anyone in reaching an agreement that will last a few months before Martin reneges, and starts up exactly the same argument with exactly the same people. Which is exactly what he did at the end of last year when he reneged on

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS - and even that wasn't the first time. It's a complete waste of time. I would note that I am not the first to bring up some kind of future restriction - the proposal at the top of this section also had a proviso that we would not be bringing this up again. Kahastok talk

07:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Support — I am prepared to withdraw my proposal and accept MilborneOne's one instead, namely to use in Falklands-related articles the

WP:UNITS as per non-science UK-related articles. In addition to that, I would suggest (my Point (3) above) that we agree to initiate no new discussions on this topic unless some new developments in the relevant Falklands practice were to occur. Apcbg (talk

) 06:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with of a moratorium on discussion per Apcbg. MilborneOne (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

So long as it is enforceable, I'm happy with it. If it is toothless, it is worthless.

I would consider "initiate" to include actions like this, which came largely out of the blue (and was apparently deliberately hidden given the benign-looking edit summary). If that results in an edit war or a new discussion, the initiator was the person who made the initial edit in the edit war, who knew it to be controversial - even if the talk page discussion is started by someone else. Fact is, as I say, most editors here are sufficiently sick of this discussion that they aren't going to initiate it. Such a system will only in practice affect one editor.

We are also going to need to be able to deal with those few outsiders who bring up the point, without this same argument blowing up again.

The other thing is that I think my suggestion is slightly different from yours. I am talking about a prescriptive requirement that we follow all the imperial exceptions, and the metric-in-general rule, unless there's a clear consensus against in a given context. A strengthened version, if you will, that is not open to the "can is not must" argument that some here have used repeatedly. This would be documented at an edited version of

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

(probably in something similar to those terms). Do you have any objection to this?

(For background, at the time

non sequitur, but that's nothing to be surprised about from these editors.) Kahastok talk

10:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I really thing that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is one of the problem areas hence my suggestion to get rid of it, if UNITS causes a problem then we should try and get that right, as far as I can see we would just move the battleground to FALKLANDSUNITS. If UNITS causes a problem then we need to sort out that guideline, but we will see what other views they are. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

said something like:

Units on Falklands-related articles shall be those recommended for non-scientific UK-related articles at

WP:UNITS

(e.g. nominal or defined units) take precedence.

Then

WP:UNITS. Kahastok talk

10:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's another proposal: count up the editors in favour of change and those in favour of not changing and go with the majority. Michael Glass (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That clearly doesnt stop discussion and arrive at an agreement, do you have a comment on my latest proposal? MilborneOne (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

My apology. I have now gone through your comments and I believe that your proposal on 7 September is the one you are referring to: "...ditch the

) 09:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you are right I should have made it clearer it is the ditch the WP:FALKLANDSUNITS and just use the WP:UNITS as per non-science UK-related articles proposal. MilborneOne (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's simply ditching

WP:UNITS did not endorse miles for UK-related articles when it plainly does. Kahastok talk

10:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

OK but clearly WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is a I dont like the rules we will write our own scenario, what we need is a method of getting UNITS right. If some editors cant behave then we need some better policing of the articles not creating our own rules or guideline. I cant see any logical argument or otherwise that says miles is not appropriate for the UK related articles when it is clearly mentioned as an exception at UNITS. Perhaps we need some more common sense and compromise here. MilborneOne (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

See my suggestion above for what I'm advocating. The point is that

WP:UNITS decides the units, and that we just agree to follow it to the letter, including any units that are explicitly recommended or suggested. Kahastok talk

10:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Understood but the proposal is to ditch FALKLANDSUNITS in its present form and use WP:UNITS, but I dont have a problem with it being used to record any agreement or consensus that we might reach here as long as it defers to WP:UNITS as you suggest. MilborneOne (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, but we still need to flesh out the moratorium enforcement issues (no point in having an unenforceable moratorium). The moratorium ought to be documented on

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

as well, possibly with some explanation of background so that we can just point at the page in the hope that any outsiders who raise the issue will accept it.

We also need to deal with the issues raised at the ongoing RFC here. The premise of the RFC is that WikiProjects are not allowed to document their consensuses without going through the full-blown policy/guideline acceptance procedure for Wikipedia-wide rules (despite the fact that many WikiProjects even outside this one do precisely that). Kahastok talk 11:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement should be by project or talk page consensus if it can be shown that users disregard a consensus then that could be treated as disruptive and raised at a higher level, not sure a project or a page can do any more than agree a hold on further change as perUser:Apcbg above. Thanks for pointing that RFC out I had missed that, thanks for mentioning this discussion, if we agree to change it as a record of consensus without any recommendation or guidance it would not be a guideline just a project essay so that discussion is probably a bit of a waste until or if we conclude here. MilborneOne (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case this entire discussion is a waste of time. I return to my previous point. Unless we are able to guarantee that Martin will not put us right back in the same position in six months' time by reneging on this deal as he has done with every other, I cannot accept any change to the current position. And that guarantee must be properly enforceable by block, or else it is meaningless.

As you describe it, this is not the long-term solution we need. Frankly, it's not even a short-term solution. What this sounds like now is non-binding guidance, and that guidance could and (given experience) certainly would be entirely ignored by those wishing to push their POV. Even if it was accepted in the short term, it would last until Martin decided to spark off his "civil war" again. We'll all be back in exactly the same place having exactly the same discussion within months. In the long term, there is no benefit to this article in accepting this.

I'm not buying the same horse twice. As you describe this, I must oppose. Kahastok talk 14:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Well he cant or anybody else as it would be a consensus of other editors here, if he fails to follow it then he or anybody else would being disruptive and subject to sanction like a topic ban, we have no requirement for any user here to agree just a majority. This latest proposal is not my starting position but a compromise for the best reasons but that said once a consensus is agreed then I and others will support it whatever point of view they had originally, thats why we discuss and work these things out. If you think I am wasting my time I will get my coat but the proposal doesnt actually need your support either if a majority agree to it. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"Well he cant or anybody else as it would be a consensus of other editors here, if he fails to follow it then he or anybody else would being disruptive and subject to sanction like a topic ban, we have no requirement for any user here to agree just a majority"

He did precisely that with

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS in its existing incarnation. It started as a consensus of editors here. He endorsed it, accepted it for well over a year, even used it to back up his edits [85][86]

. Then he reneged on it. Announced it was never consensus and started the discussion again. The fact that we're here is a demonstration that the process you describe has not worked. He has not been topic banned or even sanctioned for it. And there is no reason whatsoever to assume it will work any better with your proposal.

Make no mistake. If there is nothing in this agreement that allows us to prevent exactly the same thing from happening again, as you suggest, exactly the same thing will happen again. Given how much experience I have of this dispute, I would have to be startlingly naïve to accept such a solution. Kahastok talk 14:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

OK but anybody who is disruptive should have been sanctioned, somebody needs to make an effort so I will make one more try to gain a consensus, if it fails then the best of luck in your continual edit war. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"[A]nybody who is disruptive should have been sanctioned" is a great principle, but in seven years on Wikipedia I don't think I have ever known it applied by administrators in the topic areas I edit, particularly the Falklands. Even in what one would have thought clear and obvious cases - people whose posts never rise above long and aggressive rants, never assume good faith, practically never post without issuing threats or personal attacks - are quite happily accepted by admins who won't look into it unless you can prove something simple like sockpuppetry. That's why we need sanctions built in. So that admins can look at the report, look at the sanction and say, yes, this is a breach.

To be clear, in the situation I describe, admins were made aware of Martin's behaviour and did nothing about it. There is no reason to assume that they would do anything about a future breach. Kahastok talk 15:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A general summary of this entire debate is

) 22:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)