Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 7

This page 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.

I wish there were a section on the economy of the islands. I was led to look this article up after reading a humor cartoon saying the main export was guano. I recall from news reports at the time of the war that the economy was mainly based on sheep farming, and since the Falkslands are non-tropical I doubted the guano bit. Unfortunately I don't see anything in here about how people make their living or if there are any significant exports. I'd really love to see that information here. --

There is one at Falkland Islands#Economy. The main article on the subject is Economy of the Falkland Islands. Pfainuk talk 12:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

At present, the beginning of the article reads:

The Falkland Islands (

Chilean claims to Antarctica in that region). There are two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, as well as 776 smaller islands.^{[a 2]}

However, the Falklands Island website, which is footnoted as the source of the information, has recently been updated [1]. It now reads:

Location

The Falkland Islands are situated in the South Atlantic, some 650 kilometres (400 miles) from the South American mainland and 1,400 kilometres (850 miles) north of the Antarctic Circle. They are located between Latitude 51° and 53°S and Longitude 57° and 62°W; approximately the same latitude south as London is north.

The archipelago consists of two main Islands (East and West Falkland) and 778 smaller islands, with a total land area of approximately 12,000 square kilometres (4,700 square miles), roughly the size of Connecticut in the USA or just over half the size of Wales in the UK.

The distance from Stanley, on the extreme east, to New Island, on the extreme west, is some 240 kilometres (150 miles). Topographically the Islands are generally hilly, with the highest points at Mount Usborne, 705 metres (2,312 ft), on East Falkland and at Mount Adam, 700 metres (2,297 ft), on West Falkland.

I believe that the wording has the following problems:

1 The distances in the article are at variance with the Government website that is referred to as the source.

2 The distance to South Georgia is not supported by the source.

To deal with these issues I propose the following revision:

The Falkland Islands (

Chilean claims to Antarctica in that region). There are two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, as well as 776 smaller islands.^{[a 2]}

What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately,

WP:MOSNUM

did not change as a result of our discussions six weeks ago. It did not change, as I recall, because it was impossible to gain agreement as to whether sources should be explicitly mentioned in the text of the guideline or not. This of course means that the old consensus - which (as you are aware) I am not very happy with - still applies. Last time you brought this up here there was a strong consensus that this article would be imperial-first. It may have changed since, but I doubt it.

If consistency is what we want, let's go about changing the guideline in such a way that we can ensure that the same measurements will be primarily in the same units on all UK-related articles. Much easier to do this with the MOS behind you - not least because it won't make it look like you're pushing for all-metric (and you can come across like that, even if it's not your intention). Pfainuk talk 17:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Again I would re-iterate that the consensus has not changed and the article should reflect imperial first. Also at the closest point to Argentina the two are about 300 miles apart. I fear that if you make this change you'll fall into the usual POV trap of the Argentine editors complaining that you're trying to over emphasise the distance from the mainland, whilst the opposing viewpoint will claim you're caving in to Argentine pressure to understate. Farsical I know but good luck. Justin talk 09:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Pfainuk and Justin, thank you for your responses.

Michael, its not the units its the numbers that matter and never underestimate the POV warrior's ability to argue over trivia. Justin talk 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes - it's the fact that you've changed the distance from 300 miles to 400 miles that's the problem in that sense.

Having looked through the history, I note that the reason that the geography section appears to be metric-first is because you changed it two and a half weeks ago. The landmines bit you added six weeks ago. OK, they haven't been changed in that time, but you'll excuse me if I don't find this a compelling argument to change other parts of the article.

On 8 May, at

WT:MOSNUM

you said:

I believe it is essential that distances be expressed in both units and would prefer that SI came first. ...I understand that using units consistently means that all measures in an article be expressed with either metric measures coming first or with Imperial measures coming first. If buildings are measured in metres but people are measured in feet and inches, this, in my opinion, is inconsistent.

And on 4 June, in reference to metric measures of distance on Shetland (a metric-first article) you said:

It would be better to leave them alone than apply some ham-fisted inconsistency of measures on them in the name of consistency.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am pleased that you no longer appear to believe this - and are apparently happy to see articles use the units most appropriate to the context - regardless of whether they are metric or imperial (and naturally I hope you would similarly change metric units to imperial ones). In particular, I am pleased that you embraced the idea of using imperial units to measure distance while using metric units to measure the heights of hills in the edit you made earlier this month.

Now let's go for inter-article consistency and adopt a system of measure based on the Times Style Guide - and adopt this system consistently throughout the specifically UK-related parts of Wikipedia. Such a system would be consistent and would match the system of units commonly in use in the UK (and territories). It would not be beyond the wit of man to write a |UK attribute or similar into {{convert}} - making it easy to change any part of this system should consensus change.

Because the thing is, while I'm sure you have the best intentions, it is beginning to look like you're trying to make this a metric-first article by the back door - without consensus. Consensus remains that this article should be imperial-first (based on the MOS as it is now). As you know - as I've just said - I don't support the notion of UK-related articles being metric-first and imperial-first. They should use the most appropriate units in the context, falling back to a system based on that used major British publications (such as the Times). But the place to change this is

WT:MOSNUM, not on individual articles. Pfainuk talk

17:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, I wouldn’t change the first sentence; maybe update some distances as listed here. In view of the above, I wouldn’t use the FIG site as a source on this matter. Apcbg (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think using Google Earth to verify distances between points is a good idea, and the source should be acknowledged. If there is a better and more accurate source of information than the Falkland Islands Government website, then by all means use it.

Here are my reasons for changing the first sentence:

• The distances given to the British Antarctic Territory and Shag Rocks are not documented by the source quoted. We should either remove the references or document the distances with a linked reference to Google Maps or some other source.
• The term British Antarctic Territory claim extends from the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula to the South Pole, so it would be preferable to specify one locality in this vast territory.
• The British Antarctic Territory claim overlaps with claims by Chile and Argentina and is only recognised by a few countries, so the term itself is problematical if we are aiming for a neutral presentation of geographical facts.
• The source quoted gives the distance from Argentina to the Falkland Islands as 650 kilometres (400 miles). Either we should go with this distance, or we should use a better source and quote from it instead.
• Using miles for distances over open ocean is problematical as it is not immediately clear whether it is statute miles or nautical miles. This was a problem with Economy of the Falkland Islands because the 200 mile limit was in nautical miles and not in statute miles [[5]]. Using kilometres, which are unambiguous, gets round this problem.

Now about my edits. There is no back door in editing Wikipedia. My edits were all up-front. That is why Pfainuk was able to document them so easily. The basic problem with measuring in UK based articles is that there are two competing systems of weights and measures. This leaves editors the problem of deciding whether articles should be Imperial first or metric first, or a mixture of both, or if they should conform to the Times style guide or some other style guide. In the absence of clear direction, people have come to different and shifting compromises about usage, depending on the preferences of the editors of different articles. As may be seen from the history, I thought that the best solution to this problem was to allow both systems but express a preference for the metric system. This, however, proved quite controversial on

When it comes to Falkland Islands, it should be noted that East Falkland and West Falkland and the articles on most of the other islands in the South Atlantic are all metric first, Also, if you look at the British Counties, I think a majority of them are also metric first, so it's not really a big issue, as long as we are true to the sources. Michael Glass (talk)

WP:OR guys. --Narson ~ Talk

• 11:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And going to the East Falkland and West Falkland articles we find that a certain Michael Glass edited those articles and those edits reversed the units to put metric first. The last time you proposed this change you failed to get a consensus. It would appear that you have instead chosen to make the article metric first by the back door by a series of small edits. As Apcbg points out the source you propose to use has been shown to be inaccurate. I take Narson's point about

WP:OR but that does not apply to talk pages, in deciding to use a source we can conduct a certain amount of OR to verify claims in sources. Now unless anyone has a good reason for objecting I propose to edit the article to put imperial first. Justin talk

13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin, please note that the edits I have made have been backed up by sources. Where the source has given a distance in miles (such as the distance from Stanley to the Mount Pleasant Airport) [6] I have not changed it. In the case of the first sentence, I took my proposal to the talk pages. Apcbg has listed distances that he obtained from Google Maps for distances quoted in the article. I have already stated the following, which I quote verbatim: "I think using Google Earth to verify distances between points is a good idea, and the source should be acknowledged. If there is a better and more accurate source of information than the Falkland Islands Government website, then by all means use it. "

The issue being discussed here is the accuracy of the first sentence. I have pointed out that the present information is not true to the source quoted. Apcbg has pointed out that good measures of distance can be obtained from Google Earth and I am happy to use them. You have gone off on a tangent about changing other measures. I oppose this. The metric measures are not the problem; the problem is the accuracy of the first sentence. This is the problem that needs to be addressed. Michael Glass (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As a postscript, I have found the following distances that may be helpful in judging the accuracy or otherwise of distances given in the first sentence of the article:

Stanley to Ushuaia (Tierra del Fuego): 778 km 484 miles 420 nm

Stanley to Río Gallegos (Santa Cruz) : 782 km 486 miles 422 nm

The source is [7] Michael Glass (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The quoted new distances (which are correct by Google Earth) measure something else than the distances in the first sentence, and cannot be helpful in judging the accuracy of the latter. Distances between the nearest points of two extensive territories is one thing, distances between some particular points in the territories is something else.

If we seek to present the geographical location of the Falklands by giving the distances between Stanley and some notable settlements in neighbouring territories, then surely it's not just Ushuaia and Rio Gallegos. There are other directions from Stanley besides southwest. Here follow some relevant distances:

Stanley – Puerto Williams (Chile): 741 km

Stanley – Grytviken (South Georgia): 1455 km

Stanley – Villa Las Estrellas (Antarctica): 1171 km

Probably, the foreign town nearest to Stanley is Tolhuin (Tierra del Fuego, Argentina): 698 km. Best, Apcbg (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the first paragraph could read something like this:

The Falkland Islands (

South Atlantic Ocean. The capital, Stanley, is about 780 kilometres (480 mi) from Río Gallegos and Ushuaia in Argentina, 741 kilometres (460 mi) from Puerto Williams in Chile, 1,171 kilometres (728 mi) from Villa Las Estrellas in the Antarctic Peninsula and 1,455 kilometres (904 mi) from Grytviken in South Georgia. The two main islands are East Falkland and West Falkland and there are 776 smaller islands.^{[a 2]}

This, with appropriate links to establish the distances, would be a possibility. Michael Glass (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You (Michael) seem to be trying to gloss over what appear to be your attempts to switch this article to metric-first. You say that "[t]he metric measures are not the problem". They may not be a problem for you, but that does not mean that they are problem for others - this being, per consensus, an imperial-first article per

WP:MOSNUM

is what it is, is there any substantial reason why these measurements should not be changed back to imperial?

Next point is that I do not find that distances measured from Stanley to be particularly helpful in determining whether the figure we give from the Falklands to Argentina are accurate. If you were measuring the distance from Australia to New Zealand, would you pick

Perth

as the starting point on the Australian end? Would you consider my measurement of 2900 miles between Australia and New Zealand to be particularly helpful in judging the distance between those two countries, given that start and end points are Perth and Queenstown?

Pretty clearly, if you pick a starting point at the far end of the islands from the Argentine coast, you'll get a longer distance. But I would imagine that very few people, when being told the distance from the Falklands to Argentina, would assume that that includes the distance from one side of the islands to the other. Pfainuk talk 09:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Response: The measures I changed were in accordance with the sources quoted. As I stated before, where the source was Imperial first I left it alone. The issue in this discussion here is the beginning of the article. If my other edits are your major concern, stop muddying the issue here and start another discussion thread.

Response 2: Good point for the continent like Australia, but if the distance between Australia and New Zealand is in dispute but we can get an authoritative measure of the distance between Sydney and Auckland or Wellington, then it makes sense to use those measurements. As the distance between the Falklands and Argentina was in dispute, and as you were unwilling to accept the distance on the Government website, we went with the distance from town to town.

Response 3: If measurements from town to town don't satisfy you, then I suggest we go back to the information as supplied by the Falklands Island Government website, as I originally proposed.

Michael Glass (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Which as we've noted is problematic for the reasons already said; are you suggesting adding information you know to be misleading simply because its sourced? And again the consensus on the article was imperial first, so with knowledge of that you've been adding text with metric first and then suggesting that the article is changed again. I suggest not and reversing those changes. Any objection? Justin talk 14:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironically enough, you were the one in that discussion on

WP:MOSNUM

that insisted that articles should be either purely metric-first or purely imperial-first. And of course we both know that your source-based proposal didn't actually go into the guideline. This is a relevant part of this discussion because you propose to switch the order of the units in this section, something that others find inappropriate.

We can check these distances out, incidentally, using Google Earth or one of the many great circle calculators out there. I used this one. Measure the distance between 51°0'2"S, 61°18'46"W and 49°58'43"S, 67°52"40'. The answer is 297.87 miles (479.38 km). Now measure between 51°50'7"S, 61°20'52"W and 52°19'16"S, 68°21'12"W. The distance is 300.20 miles (483.13 km). Check the locations of those points - you'll find the first in each case is on the Falklands, the second on the South American mainland. Which number do you think more accurately reflects these figures, 300 miles or 400 miles?

We use sources to get to the facts, not just for the sake of it. Knowingly putting inaccurate information in an article, just because it happens to be sourced, is rules for the sake of rules, not for the sake of any good sense. Pfainuk talk 14:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Another one - to Punta Buque, which Apcbg already mentioned. 51°0'2"S, 61°18'46"W to 48°6'22"S, 65°55'3"W is 287.78 miles (463.14 km). Pfainuk talk 17:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In view of the above discussion, I would suggest the following version of the first sentence (the exact coordinates of the relevant points of measurement are given but not visible). It is the present one with an added clarification about distances to Argentina in general and its continental part, an important addition -- the distance to Chile, and updated distances. I propose to accept Google Earth as a source on distances, provided the relevant coordinates are given so that anyone could easily verify the figures for oneself:

The Falkland Islands (

Chilean claims to Antarctica in that region).^{[a 6]}

^{a 6}Google Earth

Best, Apcbg (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for that, though by preference would cite each location in the reference, thereby making it a bit more obvious to the casual reader how these distances were calculated. I would also suggest you recheck the latitude of Punta Buque because it seems to be in the middle of the sea. The distance looks right though. Pfainuk talk 18:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction and apologies for the misprint; the latitude is fixed now. Apcbg (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, seems a trifle over the top, what is wrong with sticking with the approximately 300 miles comment? Justin talk 20:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

300 miles is the distance to Chile (which is important and worth including in any case). As some might argue that 212 miles is more like "approximately 200 miles" than "approximately 300 miles", perhaps it would be better to give the exact figures. Apcbg (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going by the figures quoted by Pfainuk, I'm also confused how you get 212 miles from the coast and 287 miles from the mainland? Justin talk 20:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's 212 miles to a coast that is not mainland coast (Isla de los Estados), and 287 miles to the continental coast. Apcbg (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Then approximately 300 miles would appear to be correct. Justin talk 20:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, my 287 miles is the same as Apcbg's Cape Buque one (the Argentine mainland), and my 300 miles is practically the same as Apcbg's Chile one - I chose Cabo Virgenes (on the Argentine side of the border) rather than Punta Dungeness, but the two are within a few miles of one another. My 298-mile figure comes from an apparently obscure bulge of the central coast of Santa Cruz Province. Pfainuk talk 21:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. However, Isla de los Estados exists, and its northeast extremity happens to be the coast of Argentina nearest to the Falkland Islands. Apcbg (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Which I'm not disputing but quoting the distance from an island the average wikipedia reader probably doesn't know about is misleading, since most will assume this is the mainland. I think it is best to stick with the 300 miles from the mainland figure. Justin talk 08:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I am leaving the choice to you. Should you keep the wording “approximately 300 miles”, then it better be “approximately 300 miles from the coast of mainland Argentina” because “approximately 300 miles from the coast of Argentina” is not quite true. By the way, the distance from the Falklands to Tierra del Fuego (respective points Bird I 52°10'11"S, 60°56'22"W and Cabo San Diego 54°39'20"S, 65°06'60"W) is 243 mi (391 km) – which still fails to qualify as “approximately 300 miles”, and probably Tierra del Fuego would be known to the average Wikipedia reader. I am adding in the article the distance to (mainland) Chile which I believe is relevant. Best, Apcbg (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy to use the coast of mainland Argentina to clarify matters, I'd prefer to stick to the approximately 300 miles figure (based on 287 miles positions) since that is usually the least controversial from all sides ie from memory the Argentine Government uses it. I'd rather keep things simple to avoid the usual POV problems as delineated above. Are you OK with that? Justin talk 15:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's okay with me. Best, Apcbg (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that accurate information may be put into the first paragraph though I would have preferred it to be expressed in metric measures. One reason for this is that distances in miles over open ocean are inherently ambiguous, because a reader cannot be sure if they are land miles or nautical miles unless the kind of mile is specified in the text. I also believe that the co-ordinates should be included in the footnotes so that interested readers can verify the measures from a source which should also be linked.

Another issue is the way we refer to the Antarctic Peninsula. I think it would be preferable for the Antarctic Peninsula to be referred to by its geographical name. Claims in Antarctica are only recognised by a few governments, and there are conflicting claims over this territory, so mentioning one of the claims immediately raises POV issues.

There is no consensus for articles to be either all metric first or all Imperial first because it would not work. End of story as far as I am concerned. And if that seems inconsistent of me, so be it. When I am convinced that my opinion is wrong, I change my opinion. What do you do?

As for reversing the order of measures against the sources quoted, I oppose it. If people did not even notice the order of the units until I pointed out where the article was metric first, then this demonstrates what a non-issue it is. Finally, instead of accusing me of wanting to put inaccurate information into the article, please look at the record, where as soon as Apcbg proposed using better information I immediately agreed to it.

The policy of Wikipedia is to assume good faith

WP:AGF is not being demonstrated when you attempt to turn that around to imply my comments were made in bad faith. Quite frankly accusing others of assuming bad faith is simply unnecessarily elevating a trivial dispute, you can expect the same when you treat others in the same way. Justin talk

10:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

These are the points I think are important for the beginning of the article. If there are other issues than the wording of the first paragraph to discuss, let's deal with them under another heading and use this heading to concentrate on the wording. Michael Glass (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Again the consensus was imperial first, what the source states is immaterial, despite knowing that you have deliberately chosen to introduce edits with metric first. You're avoiding discussing that, even excusing it, you have not provided a rationale other than your own personal agenda. That isn't good enough, so I am informing you here and now I will change the article to conform to the established consensus. The fact that I've chosen to discuss it first does not as you seem to think justify what you did, indeed your justification seems to be you got away with it before now. That is again unacceptable. :I also find it irritating and irksome that you're continuing to imply I opposed Apcbg's proposal. I did not. I simply pointed out it appeared to be contradictory and slightly overly complex for an introduction. Justin talk 14:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You say there's no consensus for the current MOS's rule that units should be the same throughout an article. You are quite right - no-one was willing to argue for it in the discussion we had. But as with all Wikipedia discussions, if there is no consensus as to what to replace such a position with, the previous position remains. No consensus was reached as to what to replace it with, so the previous consensus remains.

Hardly anyone likes it, but it will remain until we get agreement on what to change it with. There is no consensus - in

WP:MOSNUM

or elsewhere - that the units supplied in the sources of information in this article should always be used on this article.

No-one has thus far argued that co-ordinates should not be placed in the references, and no-one has opposed Apcbg's proposal above. So perhaps you should stop implying that people have. Justin said it was a bit fussy. For a lead, it probably was a bit fussy - maybe some of the details can go in the geography section. But the principle is a good one.

Third, it is not exactly difficult to use 300 miles (260 nmi; 480 km) if you find the difference between nautical and statute miles awkward. If we're doing that though, it would probably be best to move most of these measurements to the geography section since the lead would end up being a mass of figures. We can then use "approximately 300 miles (260 nmi; 480 km)" with the reference location as "Mainland South America". Per

WP:LEADCITE, we can rely on references in the body text to back up the lead as necessary. Pfainuk talk

17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No objections to any of the proposals from Pfainuk, all are acceptable to me. I do, however, oppose a change from British antarctic territory since the text explicitly states already that this is disputed by both Chile and Argentina. Justin talk 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that you have changed the references against the sources I suggest that you check your work, correct any broken links and make sure your conversions are accurate. Michael Glass (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Already did, feel free to point out any mistakes. Justin talk 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see the effect of rounding errors, try comparing the temperature grid in the present article [8] with the article before it was demetricated. [9]. The source is from Weatherbase [10]. As a result it is full of rounding errors.

Justin got the weather table into this mess. It is now his responsibility to sort it out. Michael Glass (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See [11]. No rounding errors. Thanks for your concern. Justin talk 15:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Now that you have changed the reference your Fahrenheit temperatures may agree but your Celsius temperatures do not agree with the Celsius temperatures that they give. See [12]. Michael Glass (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mere rounding errors introduced by the template. Justin talk 19:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So you admit that there are errors. What's more you know they are avoidable errors. However, to remedy the situation you would have to ditch the template and its errors and quote directly from the website for both the Fahrenheit and the Celsius temperatures. Over to you. Michael Glass (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest. If you put centrigrade figures in and converted to fahrenheit THERE ARE ROUNDING ERRORS. Your own edit introduced rounding errors. You are being a complete and utter

dick about this. Justin talk

07:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have shown you that the figures in the article are at variance with the figures given in the website. I have shown you how you can fix the problem. If you are not prepared to do this, then so be it. There is no more that I can do. Michael Glass (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with it. I see no reason to change it, the same problem with rounding errors existed with your own edit. This is bordering on harassment. Justin talk 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We are now informed that landmines are to be found over an area of 7.72 square miles or 12.0 km². Sounds impressive but it's over-precise. The source merely said that there were 12 km² of landmines and other ordnance [13]. Instead of respecting the source it gives an over-precise rendering of the area and makes the information look more precise than is warranted. This is one of the more subtle effects of changing one measurement into another. Michael Glass (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the horror. Justin talk 15:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And fixed, the work of a moment. Happy? Justin talk 15:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It still misrepresents the source to put the derived figure first. Michael Glass (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. As per

WP:MOSNUM

it is acceptable to do that.

So having failed to achieve your objective by stealth is it your intention now to nit pick people into submission? Justin talk 19:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT, Michael. Disruptive behaviour to prove a point is not acceptable. --Narson ~ Talk

• 22:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

3. An area of land that is two thirds the size of Weddell Island is a mighty big nit to pick. What I am asking for is that the text reflect the source, which clearly and unambiguously says that the area of the Falkland Islands is 12, 173 km². It is not acceptable to quote the CIA Factbook as a source of information and to misrepresent the figures it gives. Rounding is no excuse for a discrepancy of such a magnitude. As others have failed to correct this obvious error I will fix it myself. Michael Glass (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The FACTS. You came here suggesting that we edit the article to change to metric first in line with your personal preference. The consensus of editors was it should stay as it was with imperial first. You then made a series of small edits, putting metric first, knowing that consensus was against you and then try again. So its clear you CHOSE to edit against consensus. The fact that people didn't check your edits merely reflects that people assumed good faith and trusted you to edit with the consensus as a long standing editor and so when it came up on their watch list they did not scrutinise it. You seem to think that because you managed to insert it without anyone noticing thats acceptable - you knew what the consensus was so, no, it isn't.

And you're not nit picking to improve the article, you're nit picking to make a point. You're being obsessive, deliberately obstructive and disruptive simply because you didn't get your own way in your quest to make all of Wikipedia metric first.

Now you're nit picking with pedantry in the extreme, making an issue over something that is nothing. 4700 sq mi is 12173 sq km to an acceptable degree of accuracy. If you being pedantic converting 12173 sq km to sq mi introduces a possible error or .021 sq mi ie sod all and certainly not 1% of the land mass of the Falklands as you claim. In addition as per

WP:MOSNUM we don't quote figures to that level of accuracy, both figures should be quoted to the same order of magnitude. There is no innaccuracy, there is no obvious error, frankly you're being ridiculous. Justin talk

08:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Our source for the figures gives 12,173 km². It does not give a figure in square miles. Therefore 12,173 km² is our primary figure.
• Even if the derived figure of 4700 square miles comes first, the primary figure must be reported accurately.
• Putting in a figure of 12,000 km² misrepresents the source.
• This figure is different by 173 km², or more than 42,000 acres, two thirds the size of Weddell Island, so it is not a trivial difference.
• You have reversed my edit, calling it petty vandalism. This reaction is not rational. It is therefore makes no sense in pressing this point any further at this time. Michael Glass (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I haven't reverted your edits to East Falkland.

There is a consensus for imperial first, which you acknowledge when you say that you tested it. In reality your edits weren't scrutinised because you were trusted. So claiming that people no longer cared is actually pretty disingenuous.

And again 4700 sq mi is 12173 sq km, it is not misleading. Nor is it misleading to round down to 12000 sq km as per

WP:MOSNUM. Do you remember your comments above? Justin talk

14:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd imagine the petty vandalism part of that revert was the 'if only Argentina could breed anything more that 17 yr old girls they may have won the war and have control of the Falklands now.' bit put in by the IP. Now, your complaint appears to be that numbers are converted from their original source, in this case 12173, and that there is an error creeping in? The area bit on the info box when I look at it reads 12 173 square kilometres and 4700 square miles. I do see the 12000 in the geography section of the main text but that appears to be a rounding issue with the wikipedia rounding tools. This is entirely the wrong place to kvetch about the innaccuracy of tools. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (EC)

I reverted the petty vandalism Narson described this morning but I haven't touched the edits on East Falkland. Justin talk 16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin, that is not the whole truth. When you edited away the petty vandalism you also removed my edit at the same time. You know you did this. Please don't come the raw prawn with me.

Nevertheless, I note that you left my edits on the East Falkland article alone.Michael Glass (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your edit followed my reversion and its still there. Justin talk 08:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

When you reverted away the vandalism, you reverted back to apcbg's edit of 17:53 on the 5th, wiping out the two IP edits but also an edit of Michael's edit of 03:54 on the 6th. (See, I assume Justin made a mistake, so I explain it in detail and clearly, rather than making accusations. You decide which approach acctually gets things done) --Narson ~ Talk • 08:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd no idea I'd done that, I guess I screwed up when I reverted the IP edits. Apologies for any confusion. Justin talk 09:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And its fixed, once again apologies for my mistake. Justin talk 09:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

NB I have just noticed Justin's apology. For some reason or other I did not get an edit conflict message. I withdraw my accusations about this edit and regret that we had to clash so sharply.

But of course you are right about not making accusations, like accusing people of editing by stealth, or kvetching about the inaccuracy of tools. We shouldn't do that, should we? Except I say that if this rule applies to me it should also apply to you and Justin as well.

You say we should not kvetch about the conversion tools. Let us look at what happens when we use the the conversion tools on two numbers: 4,700 square miles (12,000 km²)4,699 square miles (12,170 km²) There's your conversion tool for you. When converted into square kilometres, 4699 sq miles comes out 170 km² more than 4700 sq miles. Lose one square mile, gain 65.6 square miles. Why? Because of rounding when a number ends in two zeros. So much for relying blindly on a conversion tool!

I say we should ensure that the conversions are accurate, and that accuracy should take priority over conversion tools. As far as I am concerned, a fair conversion between units is non negotiable. Where do you stand, Narson: are you going to defend a fallible conversion tool or are you going to take principled stand for a fair conversion of units of measurement based on the primary unit of the source? Michael Glass (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I said you should not kvetch about it /here/, not in general (And I only mentioned it when you were actively complaining about the accuracy of it, it was not meant as criticism, I'm just highlighting that the issue with the tools is not solveable here so it just adds to an argument without possibility of resolution). It is a wider issue than this page. My view is for us to not use the tool and just put the conversions in. I've also not accused anyone of editing by stealth, I should add. My personal preference is for SI units, I'm sure Justin's is really considering his work in science, though unlike him I have no real feelings when it comes to this page. I couldn't care if we do it in miles or km, providing we are accurate within reason. The conversion tools are behaving abherently, the complaint should be made to the chaps that maintain it. If they won't fix it or view it as a feature, we can simply use manual efforts. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My preference is for a consistent policy on wikipedia and in the absence of such a policy for consistency in the article. As you've asked the same set of units should be used in a consistent manner, mixing them according to personal preference is sloppy practise. I'd also respect consensus and not "test it" by editing against it. Assuming good faith for a moment, testing the consensus by deliberately editing to the opposite was wrong. Applying deductive reasoning and noting your obsession with unnecessary precision it would appear you attempted to edit by stealth to change consensus. Either way you were out of order.

I'm an engineer, I'm pragmatic about accuracy. It amuses me when I see graduate engineers specifying dimensions to the nm just because it came out of a computer program. Equally when you convert units it is ridiculous to claim an accuracy in the conversion orders of magnitude less than the original figure. The Falkland Islands Survey was originally done in imperial units, the CIA factbook conversion of 4700 sq mi is specified to a silly precision. Yet you're obsessively demanding we respect the CIA Factbook, when it is guilty of the very over precision you criticised me for at the start of this section.

If your problem is the precision of the tools, the place to raise the issue is the talk page for the template. Not here. Justin talk 16:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Narson, I agree that the conversion template issue needs to be taken up elsewhere. However, when it affects this article then it is proper that I should raise it here and that we take it into account in this article. I have demonstrated that the conversion template produces anomalous results when it works with numbers ending in zeros. Your solution, to use a manual conversion is a good one, and is exactly what I have been asking for in this case.

It was Justin who accused me of editing by stealth, a charge which I take great exception to. It is Justin who called me obsessive because I insisted on accuracy. I did not accuse you of saying this. I note that you are silent on his aggressive and hostile behaviour towards me.

Justin, I tried to get a more consistent policy on units at MOS and MOSNUM and failed. One reason was that when it comes to UK articles, consistency is impossible because so many British people are happy to use a mixture of units. Another reason is that information is often only available in metric or imperial units, so complete consistency is well-nigh impossible in practice. Therefore I changed my opinion. I still believe, like Narson, that SI units are preferable, but I now accept that a rigid policy is unworkable in UK based articles.

Now about this article, you say that there is a consensus that it should be Imperial first. However, when we look at the footnotes, a great number of the references are metric, so they have to be converted to fit in with this policy. A few references are available in both systems and a few are available in Imperial measures. Your 'Imperial first' policy means that many, if not most references have to be changed, including the temperatures. I understand that most British now use Celsius temperatures, and this was how this article was when I first came to it. Now, under a rigid 'imperial first' policy, it's Fahrenheit. It would appear that a rigid 'Imperial first' policy is out of step with modern British practice, but if that is what suits people, so be it.

You have stated that 'mixing them [measurements] according to personal preference is sloppy practice'. But this is not true. I used metric measurements only when the source used metric measures. This is source based, not based on personal preference. By ignoring this you distort what I was trying to do.

Even despite the fact that I have demonstrated that the conversion template produces anomalous results with numbers ending in zero, you persist in abusing me for insisting on accurately reflecting what is in our primary source. For the purpose of this article the information on the area of the Falklands is based on the CIA Factbook. You say that the CIA have converted the figures from Imperial ones. Where is your evidence? Unless you can supply credible evidence that the survey was done in square miles, the CIA Factbook remains our primary source of information, and must be treated as such until we find a more authoritative source.

You say I was wrong to test the consensus. I had my doubts that there was a consensus because the article was not completely consistent, anyway. Therefore, when I verified information or put new information into the article I used the measurements that were supplied in the source. These edits were not challenged. I then found that the Falkland Islands Government website had changed over to putting metric measurements first. When I wanted to make a further change at the very beginning of the article I took it to the talk page first. When I pointed out how much metric-first material was in the article, you changed the article back to Imperial first. I have not challenged this even though I disagreed with it. All I have insisted on is that the article must reproduce the source material accurately.

I have treated you with respect. In return you have been accusatory, aggressive and abusive. I expect better of you. Michael Glass (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Raw prawn"? Is that respectful? I have been none of those things, the written record is there. On the other hand you have been rude and hectoring because you didn't get things your way. Your conduct bordered on harassment. Now if you wish to write reams of self-justification for your behaviour fine, note I don't feel the need to do the same. Justin talk 21:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The record speaks for itself. You are entitled to your opinion and I stick to mine. I make no apology for battling hard for accuracy, and that's all I have to say. Michael Glass (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

These need to be supplied. Michael Glass (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

While the co-ordinates are supplied, the actual distances are not linked. Is it possible for these distances to be linked? Michael Glass (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If deemed necessary, those distances could be formally linked to Google Earth, say like "715 mi (1,151 km) from mainland Antarctica^{[b 1]}".

Apcbg (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Google Earth would work, as would linking any one of the number of great circle coordinate calculators out there.

WP:NOR refers to "routine calculations" as being fair. We're at least on, if not well over, the limit of the word "routine" here, so citing a calculator probably wouldn't be a bad idea. Since we give co-ordinates, it may be more helpful to point readers to a dedicated great circle calculator (such as this one

) rather than Google Earth - though either is acceptable to me.

Per our article Great-circle distance, there is some scope for rounding errors - but only where distance between the two locations is small or where they are antipodal. Neither applies here, so while I don't know which calculation the site I gave (and others) use, it doesn't really matter. Pfainuk talk 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added a reference to Google Earth to the references and also rounded the distances given in the lead to the nearest hundred miles (since the South America one is rounded already). The actual distances are given in the references, so there's no information lost to the article. While I don't have a strong objection to reversing this (and using distances to the nearest mile in each case), I think we should be consistent in our rounding, and given that a lead is supposed to be general I don't see we need to be giving huge amounts of detail. Pfainuk talk 18:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems adequate to me. Apcbg (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, it seem unnecessary to go to such extreme precision, it is intended to convey an impression of the location. Justin talk 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Justin has restored my edits. I wish to thank him for that courtesy. I hope that from now on we can work better together. Michael Glass (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The article states "Since the war, there has been strong economic growth in both fisheries and tourism", and I have requested a citation for this statement. It has been undone twice. If this is a fact, there should be no problem providing a citation. The user Justin A Kuntz has chosen to delete this request for a second time. A third deletion of the request for a citation by this user, with or without discussing it first here to a

Incidentally, for the benefit of others, this edit is presumably the one you're referring to as your first. It was made and reverted a month ago (on 18 October). 3RR is based on a 24-hour period. In this case you're arguing for two reverts that are more than 24 days apart.

I would suggest that coming on to a talk page threatening to get people blocked after you've been reverted once - with a reasonable request given - is not really the best way of getting people to address your concerns. Rather, it's likely to get people annoyed.

As it is, the thing you're complaining about is pretty trivial to cite. Given the time difference between your article edit and your talk page edit, it would actually have been quicker to find the source than it was to complain about its being missing. I have added two citations to the article, and removed your tag: note that per

WP:LEAD, material does not need to be cited in the lead if it is already cited elsewhere in the article as this would be redundant. Pfainuk talk

18:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Justin made 1 revert, a further 2 would be required in a 24 hr period to violate 3RR. Your post here is quite threatening, which implies the reversion of your tagging upset you, you need to relax a bit mate. Secondly, some strategic advice: You are more likely to catch bees with honey than vinegar. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Pfainuk for providing the long-due references.

For everyone's edification, the

wp:3rr

includes much more than what's being alluded to here.

This matter is now closed. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just chill out mate, he only removed a bloody fact tag, once. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, I'm unimpressed by threats and would be deeply amused by a 3RR report. Also as I pointed out, you didn't bother to provide an edit summary, nor did you identify what you disputed. It was utterly useless for anyone following you. Use of fact tags in the manner you choose to can be considered disruptive editing.

And as another editor has already pointed out, there was actually no need to provide a cite as it was redundant and already cited elsewhere. Justin talk 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it really needed that comment in the article lead? If the lead talks about the economy, should do it at a higher level: mention some production statistics, or position at some international or regional ranking, or something like that.

By the way, I would advise against citing that essay in this way, and under those kind of circumstances. It can easily be seen as insulting, and do little to calm the conflict.

I think it's useful there. A mention of the main industries of a place gives a clear idea of the character of the place - a place where the major industries are fishing and tourism is likely to be different from a place where the main industries are mining and logging. Similarly, a place where certain major industries are growing rapidly is likely to be different from a place where those same major industries are stagnant or in decline.

Economic statistics are awkward in the lead because they have to be understood in the context of a territory with a small population (a context that we would have to explain). For example, the figure of 36,000 tourist arrivals in 2004 is very small by international standards - on the list of countries by tourist arrivals it would put the Falklands somewhere near Djibouti and the Central African Republic (figures) - countries that are not known as tourist hotspots. You might be forgiven for assuming that this means that tourism is not significant - until you realise that this means that, that year, the Falklands received twelve tourist arrivals per resident, a number that few other countries or territories could match. I don't think we ought to go into this much detail in the lead. Pfainuk talk 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, citing ranking positions instead of production is not a novel idea of mine, it's what is usually done at the lead of most articles about countries or states, and I don't see why it should be done differently here

talk

) 22:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This article states: "The first European explorer to sight the islands is widely thought to be Sebald de Weert, a Dutch sailor, in 1600..."

What is about

Does anybody know more about it?

--91.63.182.116 (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands sightings before Seebald de Weert are all disputed. John Davis is pretty solidly reliable but its disputed by various scholars. De Weert was the first uncontroversial accepted sighting. Justin talk 19:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)