Talk:Falkland Islands: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:37, 19 March 2006

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falkland Islands article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

This page was later moved from Talk:Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) to Talk:Falkland Islands. -- Docu

Opening section

I added a section outlining the claims by the two nations regarding sovereignty - as this is a 'disputed territory' I feel that this is of interest to anyone researching the islands. NB: I am just stating these arguments - that does not mean that I agree with them. Personally I think both countries have some merit in what they say, but leave out big chunks - important chunks at that. Please feel free to add anything to these points - maybe also we should put some of the objections to these claims as well. Overall I think that this article is good - but it does seem to have a few POV issues. I don't think that they are necessarily deliberately or consciously so - but it seems to show only the British viewpoint of the situation. I do think that it is more balanced than the Spanish language version though. They could be articles about two different places.--Pysproblem 1 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)

- I don´t have the information for this, but I think that this page should give some indication as to the international recognition of the claims to soverignty - The UN considers them to be a territory "to be considered for decolonisation" - does anyone have a good explanation of what that means in practice? I know that in ´82 the EEC supported the UK (although Italy and the Republic of Ireland objected to this) - At the same time most South American countries supported Argentina (except Chile) Brazil has recently called for negotiations to recommence and condemned the inclusion of the islands as a British territory in the (now seemingly irrelevant) proposed EU constitution... but I think we need more details than that...--Pysproblem 5 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)

Being very far south, I was interested to see what the average temperature and climate was like, and could not find it anywhere... -Greg Ubben, 2005 June 24

Where has the Talk:Falkland Islands page gone? And why was this page moved? Was their a discussion and consensus? If so I missed it. -Wikibob | Talk 11:44, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

There might not have been a Talk:Falkland Islands-page. I suppose we could just move it back. -- User:Docu

I think you're right, google just shows a cache of the edit window, unless it did its dance very recently. I think I see what happened, Cantu used the name from the CIA country list, maybe automatically with a script. Problem is, the UK Foreign Office gives its full name as "Falkland Islands" [1], as does the Falkland Islands Government. The islands are not a member of the United Nations, who list them as the CIA does, but disclaims any claim to accuracy. There is no ambiguity with the original name, so I see no need for this name change, and it should be moved back. -Wikibob | Talk 22:01, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

Ok, the article is back at Falkland Islands from Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) (and this Talk:Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) page was moved along). -- User:Docu

Looks like User:Cantus moved it again. I think this is wrong because the vast majority of the English-speaking world says "Falkland Islands" as do the inhabitants, plus there are hundreds of links that are now all redirs - by moving it but not fixing redirs, Cantus is being lazy and sloppy here. Stan 17:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moved back to [Falkland Islands] again. Please do not move pages without consensus. Precent is to use the name used by the party exercising sovereignty (e.g. Senkaku Islands). --Jia ng 04:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, it is really annoying to see a "free encyclopedia" manipulated by political concepts. Argentina calls them Malvinas, and in fact in Spanish, Portuguese and French, the islands are called Malvinas (Malouines in French), so taking only the name used by the UK is a little pro-UK, ¿don't you think?

In Germany it is "Falkland-Inseln", in fact I did not even know that they are called "Malvinas" too. Does anyone know what they are called in the US? -- mkrohn 07:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes! That will settle the issue. Ejrrjs 19:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone shed any light as to what the islands are called in other Spanish-speaking countries - I personally have never heard "Falklands" used in Spanish speaking South America - what about Spain? I have seen them referred to as "Ilhas Falkland ou Malvinas" on a Brazilian map... What about the name for the capital - I understand that the name "Puerto Argentino" comes from 1982 - Is this followed in other countries, it seems less likely to be independent of the speakers opinion of sovereignty...--Pysproblem 15:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the POV

The United Kingdom "took" the islands in 1833, when they where under Argentina's sovereign administration, but Argentina "invaded" them. The UK's invasion was the first one, and the territory was part of the Spanish crown, so at the moment it was Argentine, and even though it's referred more softly that Argentina's 1982 attept to recover them. The war was stupid, it wasn't the way nor the moment, but it doesn't has to mean free POV.

Going by History of the Falkland Islands, there was no Argentine presence in 1833, so "took" is a better word than "invaded" for that event, which generally implies some sort of actual or potential armed resistance. I wouldn't have any problem saying Argentina "retook" the islands in 1982 - a few will snicker at the idea that the Argentines ever had that much control of the situation, but it's not a wrong word to use. Stan 16:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You mean, according to the 1879 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Kind of biased, I would say! Ejrrjs | What? 19:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If that article is factually wrong, why haven't you fixed it? Stan 21:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because it is a sensitive issue and I think it is better to try to debate changes like that in the discussion pages. Actually, it was one of the first Wikipedia articles I saw, and one of the first "contribution" of mine (before registering). See also Falklands War (or anything on Gibraltar). Unfortunately, while one can be as antiamerican as he/she likes, the British Empire is such an idol that one can't even think to question its POV. Sad. Ejrrjs | What? 10:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a bunch of uneducated comments. It's not "pro-British" to call the islands by their official name; besides, where is the slagging off of 'pro-Argentine' fiddling with the officially recognised names? It's not a "point of view" to abide by international law and recognise sovereignty as defined by that law; it's a flawed system but it's the best we've got so far.

The name of the island is not in dispute (except by uninformed Wikipedians), nor is asking 'what do the Americans call them?' relevant; the Americans don't have sovereignty of the islands and therefore can't name them, although you're welcome to think the world revolves around you and give them a nickname if you want.

The islands are recognised by the UN as overseas territories of the UK. Now, that may or may not be an appropriate state of affairs, but claiming that using the official name under international law is 'pro-British' is just farcical and makes Wikipedia look like it's written by a playground of 8 year olds. You may as well have a debate about whether to call Germany 'Germany' or 'Deutschland.' This is the American English language version of Wikipedia and so 'Germany' is used, but it's not what the Germans call their country. UN names should be the Wikipedia standard - CIA factbook is irrelevant, and it speaks volumes that no-one said that using the CIA factbook as the reference is 'pro-American'.

Wake up please. Life isn't all about Americans "POVs" and the British Empire ceased to exist 50 years ago.

Thanks for your suggestion. I'll update the article to highlight the UN perspective.

According to the UN Committee on decolonization, Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is one of the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories, along with American Samoa; Anguilla; Bermuda; British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; ; Gibraltar; Guam; Montserrat; New Caledonia; Pitcairn; Saint Helena; Tokelau; Turks and Caicos Islands; United States Virgin Islands; and Western Sahara. [2] Ejrrjs | What? 09:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair is fair

Is there a clear explanation for Argentina's claims to the islands, as it stands today? In school we were briefly taught about geographical/geological closeness claims, historico-political reasons, etc. etc. but I haven't seen these clearly stated anywhere. FWIW I'm an Argentinian and I consider all those absolutely ridiculous, but they should be somewhere because that's what Argentina's government holds in every relevant international forum or summit, in the UN and so on. In Talk:Argentina an anonymous user has just written "LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS" and I'd like to revert that, but directing s/he to this article. --Pablo D. Flores 11:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have: http://imalvinas.tripod.com/. Why are Argentina's reasons ridiculous? I guess that British interests for the Malvinas strategical position and oil reserves are also ridiculous for you...

Well, no, the reason Britain has the islands is because it's populated almost exclusively by, well, English-speakers.

English-speaking squatters. Ejrrjs | What? 13:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Squatters who've lived there all their lives. For a fair few generations. No different from the rest of the Americas, really, except a slightly shorter period of occupation. I wouldn't argue that Britain's initial occupation of the islands was possibly wrong, but I'd say that, now it's inhabited by English-speakers, it's become a good idea.BovineBeast

What? The chicken exists because it laid an egg? The island is populated exclusively by English-speakers because the English keep it that way. Tell and Argie to try to set a factory or even buy a house over there. Mariano 14:05, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Actually, there are 25 Argentinians living in the Falklands as of 2001, the fifth largest nationality, after Islanders, Britons, Australians and Chileans BovineBeast

But lets not forget, the Falkland Islands were uninhabited originally, so if it had been colonised by the Argentines, they would be squatters as well.

If you classify Falkland Islanders as "squatters" you should also classify most US Citizens, Australians, and even a large amount of Latin Americans the same way. It is not only the Native American Indians who have rights there, nor only the Aboriginies in Aussie. Also any Argentinians who are descended from Spanish settlers should be excluded as well. How far back do we go? We cannot re-write history, or turn the clock back to a point we find convenient. We can only accept today's realities, and deal with them. --Gibraltarian 16:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But today's realities do change. If Spain stormed Gibraltar tomorrow at 0:01, could she stop the clock at that time and claim that her control of Gibraltar is the du jour reality? Ejrrjs | What? 22:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why Americans are not "squatters" in North America is there are just too few Native American Indians left alive. The reason why Argentine still claims citizenship over the Islands is there are about 40 million Argentinians alive just an hour from the Islands. (WormE)

Falkland War

The article mentions the loss of the war in the "Politics" section, and treats it as a previously established fact, but the war is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. This would prove confusing for those not aware of the war. neckro 09:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) "Ecuanimidad" is something that the article about The Islas Malvinas (Falklands)don't have. The habitants of the islands have the right to choose their nationality, conseve their culture, language, religion. But they can't say that the territories were took by the British Empire from the hands of a young Argentina in 1833. The Falkland War, and this is the opinion of the major part of argentinians today, was stupid and innecesary. A madness of the argentinian dictator Galtieri, who believed in that way he could last more time in the presidence. Argentina is a country with a lot of colectivities and minorities. There are big cities founded by british settlers, just like Puerto Madryn, Rawson, and near Buenos Aires localities like Banfield, Temperley, Hurlingham or Longchamps. This places mantains their english architecture,(mansions Tudor's Stile, Rail Stations). There are towns of at least 10,000 people in Cordoba founded by German inmigrants who maintains their language and culture in a perfect integration with the rest of the argentinians. It's silly to think that if the Islanders became argentinians someday they will have to change their way of life. Spanish, Italians, Sweedish, Polish, Chinese, Koreans and other latin americans are living in Argentina in peace.

Brief history about British occupation of the Islas Malvinas

Since 1774, the Spanish Crown took control of the islands, and that presence were constant till 1810, when The 25 de Mayo Revolution expulsed the Virrey from Buenos Aires and implanted the first Goverment at The United Provinces Of the River Plate ( a few years later, Argentina). There were 10 years of not constant human presence in the islands, but in 1820, the Directorio of Buenos Aires ordened to put an argentinian flag for the first time. The first Argentinian Governor of Islas Malvinas was Luis Verne designed in 1829. But in 1831, tree American ships were arrested for the argentinian authorities for fishings issues, and a few months after, Puerto Egmont (the old capital town)was attacked by an American Warship (named Lexington), took prisioners and burned parts of the town. In January 2 1833, British forces ( two warships called Clio and Tyne)commanded by Captain John Oslow invaded the islands and the few argentinians there surrender and gone back to the continent. In that moment, Argentina were inmersed in a cruel civil war between two political forces, Unitarios and Federales and at the same time the port of Buenos Aires were attacked and blocked by French forces. This complex situation made impossible for the argentinians authorities to recover control over the islands. Bibliography: -120 Years of Argentinian History (1808-1928) R.R Ediciones -Enciclopedia Espasa Calpe Spanish Edition

--200.123.78.149 05:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson[reply]

You are conveniently forgetting the mapping of the islands by the Englishman John Strong in 1690, and the British settlement at Port Egmont in 1766, which was later expelled by the Spanish. To be honest, I could never understand the logic of the Argentine claim. By their own reasoning, surely the islands should be Spanish. By what right does Argentina claim control over this former Spanish colony? Why not all the other former Spanish colonies as well, such as most of South America? It is completely ludicrous. TharkunColl 09:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you are conveniently forgetting some information, my British friend:

1501-1502 Americo Vespucci's voyage
1503-1504 Binot Palmiere de Gonneville's voyage
1520 Esteban Gomez's sighting, ship San Antonio
1520s Piri Reis' first cartografic record of the Falkland Islands
1525-1526 Pedro Vega's sighting, vessel Anunciada
1529 Map of Diego de Ribero where the position of the Islands is indicated
1540 Visit by Alonso de Camargo, Commander of La Incógnita Bishop of Pencia's fleet
1541 Mapa XV del Islario de Alonso de Santa Cruz (atlas)
1543-1545 Juan Bautista Agnese's nautical chart
1562 Bartholome Olives' map
1562 Diego Gutiérrez' map
1571 Fernao Vaz Dourado's map
1577 Martínez' nautical chart
1580 Bartholome Olives' nautical chart

--Nkcs 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference. The British settled the islands long before the Argentines did, because Argentina didn't even exist as an independent state at the time. You are claiming a Spanish heritage to which you have no right. In any case, Spain no longer claims the islands, and neither do the French, who also had a colony there. TharkunColl 23:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to repeat what I've written before. There was an Argentinian goverment in the islands in 1833. Those men were attacked by invaders. Spain lost control over River Plate in 1810, and they tried to retook them till 1819, but they could't. Those islands were part of the Virreinato del Rio de la Plata, so they belongs to Argentina. Legally and geographically

--200.123.80.212 01:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson[reply]

From Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata:

Its limits roughly contained the territories of present Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay.

Why doesn't Argentina claim Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uraguay? If their claim is based on the fact that the Falklands were once part of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, then surely they have a right to all those other countries as well? It is also interesting to note that the Viceroyalty was only founded in 1776, ten years after the first British colony on the Falklands. TharkunColl 09:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oriental Republic Of Uruguay, knowed in those times as Banda Oriental (which means Oriental coast, of course of River Plate) was one of the principal provinces who conformed the United Provinces since 1810. But after years of civil war,Portuguese and Brazilian invasion of Uruguay, a brief war against Brazilian Empire, and the always opportunist intervention of the British pirats, the United Provinces recognized the independence of Uruguay in 1828. Artigas, the Uruguayan Heroe wanted the union of Uruguay with the rest of the confederated provinces, but it was not possible.

The actual bolivian provinces of Charcas, Chichas,Cochabamba and Mizque signed as Provinces in the Argentinian Independence Declaration in Tucuman in 1816, but they passed to form part of the Republic of Bolivia. Paraguay expulsed Spanish forces from Asunción in 1811. In the begining they formed part of the United Provinces, but they declared their independence in that year. But argentinian goverment never recognized as valid the british occupation of the islands.

--200.123.88.125 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson[reply]

In 1766 the islands were already part of Spain and also part of the Intendency of Buenos Aires (Provincial Administration of Charcas), so your statement about the British settlement has no importance.

Self government

According to British overseas territory, the Falklands are in stage #2 of its colonial evolution; thus hardly qualifying as a largely Self-governing colony. Ejrrjs | What? 18:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could someone give any kind of support to the theory of Falklanders' self-government? Ejrrjs | What? 21:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[3] describes the extent of their self government quite well; they pass their own laws, subject to approval, but foreign policy and defence remains with the UK. -Wikibob | Talk 23:06, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Self goverment means choosing the goverment by the people, not by the queen. The governator is chosen buy the queen, as well as 2/5 of the parliament (5 people). Keplers cant choose anything. Argentino 16:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The government is chosen by the people in accordance with the principles of self determination as per the UN Charter. The islands require military aid because of an unfriendly neighbour, so full decolonisation, which would mean independence not secession to that unfriendly neighbour is not possible, atleast in the short term. Dunc|☺ 23:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina was not an unfriendly neibourg, argentinas`s militar goverment, wich was NOT democraticaly elected and killed 200,000 people was an unfriendly neibourg. If the queen wanted we could buy your fish at REAL good prices, not that miserable prices that brits pay. Dont worrie, when the European Constitution will be accepted, 1,295,834 argentinians with italian and spanish nationality will be able to get in there, and you wont be able to take them out like in 1833 Argentino 12:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC) And i dont care if i have some typing errors. i havent got that time to talk here. In the Falknand island`s official page says that the governor (Howard Preace) was chosen by the queen. 2 options: you are not democratic or the official web page is wrong[reply]

There is a third option - you don't know the role of a governor within the British Commonwealth. All commonwealth territories, even independent ones like Australia and Canada, have a governor or governor-general who is officially appointed by the Queen. Would you say those countries are not democratic?

My friend, there's no secession when a territory returns to its legitimate owner.

The Falkland Islands are not part of the European Union, therefore the EU constitution would not be valid there. The consitution mentions the Falklands in the context of defining the United Kingdom only. None of the British colonies or territories worldwide are part of the EU except for Gibraltar. In any case the constitution has been rejected by France and the Netherlands, so will unlikely to be in force in any case. Astrotrain 20:05, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've read in newspapers from Spain that the United Kingdom included their overseas territories as a part of the European Union in the Constitution. Perhaps I'll drink a beer soon in Port Stanley. What about Patagonian Sheep??. Get out of your nutshell,Hamlet!!! Argentina is so big and interesting,too many places, Universities, Coleges, Nightlife, beautiful women... you have the right to meet us, brother, we are only 3000 kilometers away from you.... Let the Queen rest in peace

--200.123.78.149 06:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson[reply]

Genocidal tyrants, miltiary dictatorships, rampant corruption, grinding poverty, stinking ghettos, organised crime, third world economy - yes, Argentina has it all! Do you seriously think that the Falkland Islanders would want to give up their British lifestyle to join with you lot? TharkunColl 13:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think that all countries in the world with corruption and poverty must be part of the UK... are you kidding?

Crimes of war, abuses of power, racism, ... there are too many adjetives for the UK. YOu have forget Margareth Tatcher. Nowadays, Argentina lives in peace, and we are growing quickly. Here we respect our inmigrants, there are 150,000 chineses, 750,000 bolivians, 500,000 paraguayans, thousands of ucranians, peruvians, romanians living, studying in our Universities(without pay) and working, they have public hospitals for free... we are poor and we have a third world economy but we are humans... ASk anybody if somebody could do the same in the UK. If your policemen see a dark man running, they shoot. That brazilian boy murdered after bombing in London last year, runned because he was afraid to be expulsed like a rat from your country. I don't want to belong to your NAZI country which goverment is exterminating sistematically the people of Irak. Don't forget, (ask your grandfathers) Argentina feeds Britain during 2nd. World War. So, Have you seen how many times fits the British tiny Islands in our territory?? Till the Victory, always

--200.123.88.125 02:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson[reply]

Margaret Thatcher was elected, unlike Galtieri - the UK did the Argentine's a favour by bringing about the fall of his military junta. As for respect of immigrants, they receive all sorts of benefits, and there are literally millions and millions of them here. And yes, we too have free healthcare. I think you've been listening to too much propaganda - our policemen are not racists, and would find themselves out of a job very quickly if they were. I'm very glad that you don't want to belong to our country - but please remember that the Falkland Islanders don't want to belong to your country - and who can blame them? Why give up freedom, democracy, and prosperity in order to become second-class citizens on their own land? TharkunColl 09:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an Argentine not endorsing the Argentine Government's position, I find that your way of referring to my countrymen is debasing, despicable and racist (if Argentines can be considered a race). It is the second post of that aggresive nature that I read from you. If you want to have an argument, please refrain from attacking Argentines since I will take it as a personal attack the next time you do. And for the record, the Falklanders might be better being part of the UK, but they are second class citizens there also. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are the Islanders currently second-class citizens?

Some of you really need to grow up. No wonder Wikipedia finds it so hard to make quality historical/political articles with nationalist trolls like Hernan Ferguson around. Pobbie Rarr 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should go back and calm down, we have shouted too much. I my personal point of view the islands are not free, because the islanders: 1 dont elect the governor 2 dont have any way to change laws 3 dont have any way to change constitution 4 dont send representatives to the english parliament. I dont really care about wether they are or are not free, i only know that they are going to be part of the EU (and i doubt there was a referendum, or at least the south georg. and shet. couldnt have one because there are 0 people) and I, like a million and three hundred thousand argentines, am going, maybe, to be able to go there, and live there, if i wished (of course i, and nobody, am NOT going to moove to a place lost in the middle of the sea in wich i'm unwanted, so i cant work, and it is most of the time cold and cloudy, and doesnt have loads of suff we have here, as our food and culture, et cetera). Please notice that my opinion is influentiated by the fact that i am argentinian and i possibly dont know, and no one does, every single detail of the matter. I am leaving Wikipedia almost entirely, unless i see there is any big problem Argentino 17:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Falkland Islands are not part of the United Kingdom, that is why they don't send representatives to the British Parliament. They are also NOT a part of the European Union. In any case I am confused as to why you think Argentine citizens have the right to move to any EU country- they are subject to the same immigration controls as other non European citizens. Also the Falkland Islands manages their own immigration controls independent of the UK, even British citizens would need a visa to reside there. Astrotrain 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astro, he meant that Argentines can't live in the FI, and to even visit them they need a special permit, regardless of the islands' EU status. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, i didnt want to start another fight, it wasnt the important point but i say: the F/M are going to be part of UE when the EU constitution starts having legal authority (Kirchner was very angry about that); and i, like 1.3 milion argentines, as i said, are going to be able..... because we have italian/spanish or other european nationality, now goodbye, ("baby im gonna leave you"), keep working for free, you are doing a great job. Argentino 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Falkland Islands/Malvinas Islands are now a COLONY of the United Kingdom. The user Astrotrain says that they're not part of the UK, so they can't be included in the European Constitution... But I can read in others articles about the islands and I see that their governor is elected by the Queen...not by the people. Those people have the advantage that they know who will be their next governor. I've took this fragment from Wikipedia:

".....government since May 1999 have been Governor Donald Lamont and Chief Executive D. F. Howatt. Lamont was succeeded by Howard Pearce at 3 December 2002.He will be succeeded by Alan Huckle, the current governor of Anguilla..."

I think, that they're far away of the self goverment reclaim. The future governor will come from a tropical weather, an island of the Caribean sea. I propose the inclussion in this article that the islands are recognized by the Argentinian Constitution as a part of the Tierra del Fuego province, which capital is the city of Ushuaia. And the fact that the almost 3000 islanders could vote a governor, conselours and their president. It's not nationalism, is a fact. Trolls don't exists. --Hernan Ferguson 03:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson[reply]

I see the problem here, the governor is not like a President or Prime minisiter that is causing some confussion. The Governor doesnt make the laws and its not the kind of role that would normally be elected anyway. The governor is like an overseer. They ensure that the peoples interests in that area are maintained be they british or otherwise. It is also the job of the governor to ensure that sovreignty of the islands is maintained, they are more of an ambassador than a ruler. Please reasearch what the Governor of the Falklands Islands (or any other teritory under UK control) actually does before giving that as a cause to suggest the people arent free. Please also note - The falklands islands do have an elected government which decides what taxes the people pay. The people of the Falklands do not pay money to the UK as they are not citizens and so are taxation exempt. Furthermore the elected government decides how to spend the money the UK government sends them each year. Its a very democratic process albeit rather monotonous though theres little else it could be on an island of only 3000 people. Thats also a case in point, the falkland islands population (which after 200 years then can be called indiginous) is maintained by money given to them by the UK, raised from the taxes of UK citizens.

I would like to agree with the above. I happen to live in a place with a governor 'in charge' and his role is much like the role of the Queen herself; largely ceremonial. People seem to be presuming the role is like that of a president which is not the case at all. The most imortant role of a governor is to be invited to important events like openings of new public buildings etc. Although the Queen technically has to approve all laws, she would never actually object to anything as she would effectively make herself jobless if she did, and it is largely the same with the role of the governor is much the same. Please could people stop bashing people of other nationalities in what has become less of an intellecutal discussion and more of a racist diatribe! - A Concerned Reader

UN Committee on decolonisation

Some user keeps on deleting the fact that these islands are one of the very few territories of the world that have not been decolonised. S/he seems to believe that the corresponding UN Committee is an "obscure" one, ignoring the long and bloody path to the independence of many, many countries during the fifties and sixties. Perhaps we could find a common ground here. In the meantime, I'll revert. Ejrrjs | What? 17:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Falkland Islands are not a colony in the traditional sense. They were not inhabited by natives, and subsequent migration was from other countries (Spain, then Argentina). These people were then expelled, and the islands occupied by the British. Therefore they are not a colony, as they are inhabited by peoples of British descent. They cannot be decolonised, as they cannot be returned to a state were they are administered by natives pre-colonisation. For instance India was decolonised in 1948, when the British administration ended and was tranfered to Indian administration. This cannot happen here, as there is only the Falkand Islanders, there is nothing remaining before these people arrived. And this has nothing to do with the Argentine claim to the islands. Astrotrain 19:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yours is but an opinion; the UN Committee on decolonisation thinks otherwise, and is more relevant to the subject matter than your reasoning. Ejrrjs | What? 21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is better covered in the Argentine claim section, not the introduction. Afterall the UN has no power on the matter. Astrotrain 21:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

But it is not there! Ejrrjs | What? 22:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is! "and that the UN considers the territories as territories to be considered for decolonization"

Perhaps you should read the wikipaedia article on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The list is considered controvertial and politically biased due to the inclusion and exclusion of certain states (Tibet for example). 00:58, 19 August, 2005 (UTC)

Just a quiet question in reference to the description of Argentina as an 'unfriendly neighbour' - although it's fair to say the government at the time were, how do you say - completely f****d up, and certainly deserve that title, would a friendly neighbour continue to publicly tell the islanders (on January the 2nd every Year) that 'this year the islands will be Argentinian again?'

Once again, it is a 'neighbour' from the British POV. From the Argentine POV it's a part of the country that has been invaded by a foreign power. How difficult is it to understand that there is a conflict and that it is not Wikipedia's mission to issue a veredict? Ejrrjs | What? 11:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The contention that the Falklands cannot be decolonised is utter nonsense. Following your argument Australia should not have been decolonised either, unless only the Aboriginies were involved and all others expelled. Similarly with the US, Canada, and indeed most of South America. Many modern day South Americans are descendents of the spanish settlers, not the indiginous peoples many of whom were wiped out in acts of genocide by the spanish forces. How far do we turn back the clock? Do we claim that the Neanderthals travelled from Africa into Europe, and therefore no-one in Europe is indigenous?

Argentina claims that the British landings in 1833 were illegal, and Britain claims that those Argentinians there at the time were unlawfully on British territory. Too much time has passed to try & turn back the clock & right the supposed "wrongs" of history. In the 3rd millenium the only sensible way forward is for all countries to drop territorial claims and allow democracy to settle the matter. Self-determination is the only way to decolonise. If the inhabitants of the territory in question wish a certain status, why should anyone else argue?

A Gibraltarian

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gibraltarian (talk • contribs) 5 Oct 2005.

The problem is the threshold; you feel that 172 years of occupation is enough; what about 60 in Palestine, thirtysomething in West Bank, 30 since the Green March, and so on. The doctrine of le fait accompli is a poor guidance for international harmony. It was just not feasible for Argentina to repel the UK invasion, being the UK the du-jour superpower.

In any case, all of these are moot points regarding this Encyclopedia. I just believe that the Argentine claim (whether if it legit or not) is a very relevant issue in the Falklands article. Some people think otherwise, which I believe is a breach of NPOV policy. Ejrrjs | What? 18:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about if this page just states that there is a dispute over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (and the countried involved) then references that page? Val42 01:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Law?

I reckon what this article is really lacking is something that details which elements of international law apply to the islands (there are some mentions of UN decrees in various parts - they could probably be consolidated into this section). I´d do it myself, but I don´t really know much about it... I guess it´s difficult to judge the situation in a 2005 context - We need to look at the context in 1833 - Were there concepts of international law then - we´re talking about a time when a number of European countries were busy annexing various parts of the globe and a number of former colonies (ie. USA / Brazil / Argentina etc..) Were 'consolidating' their territory by exterminating/exiling/confiscating territory from the indigenous population and/or neigbouring countries. What was this regulated by? What concepts were in use? I guess it would be based on treaties and suchlike - what ´validity did they have? I´ll try and do some research if I get a chance... What does anyone else think? --Pysproblem 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain...

Why when Argentina occupied the islands in 1982 it was an invasion, but when the UK usurpated them in 1833, it was an 'invasion'? (look at the article, section 'Argentine claim') Please sign your comments. The answer is because 'invasion' refers to the act of moving troops onto foreign territory, regardless of who happens to claim it or the previous 'ownership' situation.

In Argentina the "invasion" of 1982 is not considered an invasion because it is not seen as foreign territory--Pysproblem 13:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AllanHainey 15:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement Drive

South America is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can support the article with your vote.--Fenice 12:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secret negotiations for join-administration of the Islands

Secret negotiations for join-administration of the Islands in 1982, months before the war. Article of Clarín newspaper, July 20, 2005.

DOCUMENTO DE LAS NEGOCIACIONES SECRETAS ARGENTINO-BRITANICAS and Un borrador de lo que se acordaba -Mariano 10:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page Malvinas

There is a page Malvinas, which should be merged to here. Anthony Appleyard 06:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is a disambiguation page Ejrrjs | What? 00:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary reference

(from User talk:Duncharris#Falkland Islands, SqueakBox 19:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, with respect to the reversion which you did of my changes I can say two things:

1)The image Image:Malvinas.jpg was taked in Argentina and remembers to the fallen ones in the war by these islands.

2)For England the capital is Port Stanley, for our Country (Argentina), the capital is Puerto Argentino, so I do not see because they cannot appear both names. I am going to return to revert to my version, if you have in agreement, we can pass the discussion to the coffee. A greeting. Loco085 19:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bit about Argentina's claim at the disambig, SqueakBox 01:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake, so I rv. It didn't say that it was sustained. It merely explained why some places are called that way, which is a fact. Ejrrjs | What? 05:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV check

{{POV check}} I've removed the above tag from the article since no discussion was provided here by the Anon user who put it on the article. Ian Cairns 08:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say:

The article has a NPOV dispute tag, but the reason for this is not discussed on the talk page - which is unhelpfull. I have just read the article and can not realy see the problem (with the possible exception of a couple of descriptions of the '83 Argentine government as Junta) - both the UK and Argentina stake there clame to the islands but that is discussed sensibly, I think. Can we remove the notice? Andreww 08:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

could anyone tell me who cares about all the war and that stuff? The falklands are always rainy and cold. Who wants to live in such place? Argentino 12:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So is the UK and large parts of Argentina, SqueakBox 15:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squeak, don't bother.... And let me state for the record that he doesn't show the opinion of all Argentines. A large percentage of us would rather leave the islands alone. They obviously don't want to be a part of our country, why force them? How can they possibly be better with Argentina than what they are with the UK. I personally think the issue is just show-off politics. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

some user removed the argentine claims to another article, but i can't find it, and there's no link to it. also all geografic names should be in both versions (british and argentine) so I'm putting the NPOV tag back

This is an article about the Falkland Islands, not the Argetnine claim, therefore it is in the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands page which deals with the Argentine claim, and the British claim. I added a link to this page. Astrotrain 14:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit looks very good, I just touched it slightly to avoid stating that the islands are a "British Posession". That would be endorsing a UK POV. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no one appears to have any current POV issues in relation to this tag (or they have all been resolved) and also given that the tag is now on the talk page (which makes this talk page appear on the possible POV lists rather than the article), I'm removing the tag for the time being. If there is anything that anyone feels needs a POV check, feel free to readd the {{POV-check}} tag in the article and discuss the reasons for it here. Thanks and good luck! -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV, again

Hiya all,

I am reading the article, and it seems to be very NPOV. The only objection I have is the use of the word "invasion" (not only here, but throughout the whole Falkands series).

To say that Argentina "invaded" the islands is UK POV. Honestly, I can't think of a better word to use, but it sounds awfully biased. "Retook" is out of the question as blatant Argentine POV. Maybe "attacked" or "captured"? I'm open to ideas.

Having said all this, I want to avoid any accusation of bias so I'll state that I am probably one of the few Argies that couldn't care less about the islands and thinks that they should remain British, especially since their inhabitants prefer to do so. I personally think they're better off with the UK, but that's just me.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with invasion. We talk of the Allied invasion of Normandy as being a good thing, after all. It was an invasion, why not say so? jguk 18:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but in this case is not portrayed in a "good" way. I don't know, just the impression I got from reading the articles. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV -> to consider all sides of a subject

In my opinion the article is POV as long as the Argentine claims are not considered as valid as the British claims. I am not an Argentinian and I think it is pretty stupid to battle for a couple of rocks in the Southern Atlantic. But the Argentine claim exists and it should be mentioned along the official Spanisch names. This would be NPOV. (We do it like this in the German Wikipedia). --ALE! 12:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that would not make it NPOV - indeed, as in English we tend to use the term "Falkland Islands" throughout (and not "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)") to start calling them "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" would imply that we were giving more weight to the Argentine claim than it merits. This is the English language Wikipedia, it is perfectly proper that we use the English language name throughout. The WPs of different languages can be expected to do something different, jguk 12:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One question: Why does the British claim merit more weight than the Argentine? Is that not a very British point of view? --ALE! 13:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying (although it'd be easy to rehearse those arguments again). Here the issue is that this is the English language Wikipedia, so we use the English language - using English here does not voice an opinion of the relevant merits of each claim, jguk 14:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to remeber that regardless of claims the islands are British (ie ruled by Britain), SqueakBox 15:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly tells us who administers the islands. It may be useful to compare with other disputed territories. Typically, those articles say who administers it, who else claims it, and reports the names both sides use. Jonathunder 15:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squeak, Jguk... you clearly have shown how you can demonstrate a good point with bad arguments. The fact that us Argentines call them Malvinas shouldn't even be important in this article and barely mentioned in passing. It is just the difference between "Deutschland" and "Germany" which is none. The fact that the British control the islands is absolutely IRRELEVANT as far as NPOV goes, take a look in Palestine or West Bank to see how little important that is. As far as the fact that adding "Malvinas" to the name would give the Argentine claim more importance than it merits... I don't think any of us can judge merits to a claim. In fact, NPOV means that we should present all aspects.

I think it is pretty clear that I think "Falklands" should stay alone, with just a passing reference to "Malvinas" but only to mention the spanish name. Editors in the Spanish Wikipedia can worry about the use of "Falklands" in their article.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither Argentine nor British, and all I'm asserting is that the article should report both claims and both sets of names used in the relatively recent occupation. But while we discuss this, Duncharris has used the rollback (which should be for vandalism) to go to his prior version, then protected on that version, but continued editing the protected page. This is not right. Jonathunder 15:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Duncharris is a clear abuse of his power. If he doesn't unprotect the page immediately I will ask for unprotection from other admins.

Having said all of this, the name "Malvinas" doesn't reflect the Argentine claim, just states the name that is given to the islands in Spanish. We alsoe need to consider the islanders' wishes that "Falklands" remain the name, especially since it's their own country.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported this on WP:AN/I. Jonathunder 16:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article, Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands which deals with the Argentine claim, and the British counter response. This article should only be about the islands themselves, and follow the format of the other country pages in wikipedia. The Argentinian name, Islas Malvinas can be stated, but it should not be given the same status as Falkland Islands, since only Argentina refers to the islands with this name. The Falkland Islands are recognised to be British territory by rest of the world, with only Argentina disputing sovereignty. In any case Islas Malvinas is not the Spanish name of the islands, since it is clearly not a Spanish translation of Falkland Islands (I assume it would be Islas Falklands?). The Argentinians happen to refer to the islands using a Spainish name different from the English translation. Astrotrain 18:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Spanish speaking world calls them the Malvinas, so there can be no Islas Falclandias, SqueakBox 18:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese speakers call them as ilhas Malvinas too, [4], SqueakBox 18:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astro, it doesn't need to be a translation to be the same name. Some names are translated but other just refer to the traditional name different peoples gave to a place throughout history. As SqueakBox very well points out, the whole spanish world calls them Malvinas. I should know, I lived in Argentina for 23 years and travelled throughout South America and Spain... --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Spainish Wiki page [5] uses the introduction: "Las Islas Malvinas (Pronunciación) o Islas Falklands (Falkland Islands, en inglés". Therefore the phrase Islas Falklands must be the literal Spainish translation of Falkland Islands. Islas Malvinas is based on the old French name for the islands. In any case, the offical name of the islands is Falkland Islands, as determined by their constitution. The article already mentions that the Argentinians call them Islas Malvinas. Astrotrain 18:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC
- Also note the Spainish name for the capital is Puerto StanleyAstrotrain 18:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with NOT using the word "Malvinas" anywhere except in passing, I can't stress enough that Malvinas does NOT translate into Falklands. 2 Names, 2 Languages. Port Stanley was founded by the british, stands to reason to use that name. Puerto Argentino was an attempt by the Argentine military government to emphasize nationalism during the war. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that the Spanish translation is Malvinas. It is something all the Latins except the Italians do. In French it is Îles Malouines. I do not see the name Malvinas as actually having a connection to the sovereignty issue, so those Spanish speakers who believe the Falklands rightly belong to the British will still call them the Malvinas, as do I when talking in Spanish, SqueakBox 18:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, Aye... In a moot comment, it is a translation solely in the sense that the two words refer to the same place not that they were derived from the original name, as it often happens with geographical names (i.e.: Estados Unidos-United States, Gran Bretaña-Great Britain or Reino Unido-United Kingdom). The name Malvinas comes from Malouines via St. Malo whereas Falklands comes from a different place, which I don't know. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: named for Viscount Falkland, an English politician who supported the expedition that did the naming. (Various of the other islands in the area were named for politicians - South Georgia was Pepys Island for a bit) The name there comes from Falkland, Fife - which itself is apparently from Gaelic "falach loinn", shaded glade, or "falca-land", place of falconry. Finding a Spanish translation of those is an exercise for the reader... ;-) Shimgray | talk | 10:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how about Tierrahalcón? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of the Claim

Having started the problem by including the Argentine names, I am suprised how aggressivly such a name issue is handled in the English Wikipedia. I only wanted to do the same as in the German Wikipedia: To give both sides (the British and the Argentine) the same amount of space because both have a valid claim on these islands. Besides of that I find it quite silly to dispute on a couple of rocks in the Southern Atlantic and go to war for that. Another point to be stressed again: The whole Spanish speaking world calls them Islas Malvinas. --ALE! 19:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the name has nothing to do with the Argentine claim. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To claim Argentina and the UK both have an equally valid claim to the islands is very POV, wrong (the UK are the actual rulers) and should be dealt with at Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, SqueakBox 19:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It really is immaterial who rules what. Under that rule, Israel has more valid claims over the West Bank than the Palestinians. We both know that's not quite true, especially in the international view.

I agree that the issue should be resolved in the Sovereignity of the Falkand Islands page, but discrediting a claim just because the country doesn't have territorial ruling is naive, especially since the territorial ruling IS the basis for the claim. If Argentina had sovereignity over the islands, there would be no claim to speak of, at least not on their part.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is really not my business to defend the Argentine point of view, but only so much: Look at a world map. To which country are these islands closer? And if you read Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands I think there are enough arguments as valid for the Argentine claim as there are for the British claim. Current rule does not make the point. With the same argument all of Africa would be still under European rule. --ALE! 20:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes the point in the introduction that they are claimed by Argentina and the Argentine name is Islas Malvinas, and sovereignty is disputed between the UK and Argentina. That is enough information for the main article on the islands. I can't see how we have discredited the Argentine claim? Astrotrain 20:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astro, you didn't, we were commenting on SqueakBox's comments on the previous section. I believe the article to be just fine. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use of kelper in Argentine Spanish

Sebastián, you've commented out:

The word kelper is used in Argentina with the meaning of second-class citizens as a reflection on the legal status of the islanders within the UK prior to the passing of the Nationality Act of 1983.

stating that it wasn't true.

If you think it is not used in Argentina, please, take a look at these examples:

"La cuestión no es aumentar la tarifa por los accidentes sino terminar con una ley que convierte al trabajador en un kelper, con menos derechos que los demás ciudadanos [6],

Y te vas del país, o te quedás como un kelper en tu propia Argentina. [7]

En ese mismo momento uno se siente un kelper y un estúpido cliente que tuvo la maldita idea de ir a consumir a ese lugar [8] (pdf)

no son kelpers que no pagan impuestos sino que, por el contrario, necesitan tanta o más atención que los habitantes de la zona urbana [9]

pareciera que soy un trabajador de segunda, un “kelper” dentro de lo que es el Estado o el empleo público provincial. [10] Versión taquigráfica de la Cámara de Diputados de Salta.

If your don't believe kelpers used to be treated as "kelpers" read British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983.

Regards, Ejrrjs | What? 00:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here there is a nice one, worth reading, and related to the subject matter too:

En fin: nos hemos kelperizado en degradantes circunstancias.

Ejrrjs | What? 00:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the Argentine claim should not be the focus of this article, the paragraph about the use of "kelper" has nothing to do here. Therefore it should be deleted and not commented out ;-) (For me this article has still a too strong British bias. Sorry. In the end these islands are still a colony of the long gone British empire.) --ALE! 07:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and adding an NPOV tag. Jonathunder 08:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm back today. Besides that quote from Salta, it is the first time in my life that I hear the word kelper referred to a second class citizen. I won't deny their status within the English government, I have no knowledge one way or the other but after living for 23 years in Buenos Aires (including during the Falklands War, although I was a child then), one would think that if the word was "commonly" used I would've heard it and probably used it with that meaning as well. Evidently, some use the term with that derogatory meaning, but I don't believe that the note has any relevance unless we put it maybe this way...

Especially after the war, there are people in Argentina that use the word kelper with the meaning of second-class citizens as a reflection on the legal status of the islanders within the UK prior to the passing of the Nationality Act of 1983.

And even like this I don't think I like it too much, but it's an improvement.

Oh, and BTW, the NPOV tag was an exaggeration, to say the least.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, ALE! convinced me that the paragraph was an unnecessary detour. I still think that is a useful bit of knowledge. Would it fit into a kelper entry at Wiktionary?

Ejrrjs | What? 18:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: Here there is another one:

Durante la guerra de Malvinas empezó a manejarse el término kelper, aplicado al habitante nativo de las islas Falklands que era legalmente un ciudadano de segunda con relación a los ingleses de las islas británicas. Cuando los conscriptos argentinos que fueron convocados a servir en el escenario de la lucha volvieron a casa, se los desembarcó en forma silenciosa en previsión de disturbios. Empezó entonces a difundirse en la población civil la idea de que los verdaderos kelpers eran los ciudadanos argentinos, sin derechos cívicos, víctimas de la ilegalidad, llevados como niños a una guerra insensata aunque su objetivo fuera justo.

(Pacho O´Donnell)

I would believe that in Wikitionary would fit like a charm... Or in a Kelper page on Wikipedia. :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV 2

Moved NPOV from article back to here for discussion. An opinion and an agreement do not (yet?) constitute evidence of lack of neutrality in the article. Ian Cairns 08:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should go out. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag because it was showing up in the NPOV disputes category. Apply it to the article if necessary. -- Kjkolb 07:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley

Well, it seems that the anon was right.

I just looked in [11] and they refer to the capital as just "Stanley". Also, look at how they write the address:

Falkland Islands Immigration Service Customs & Immigration Department 3 H Jones Road STANLEY Falkland Islands FIQQ 1ZZ Tel: +500 27340 Fax: +500 27342 e-mail: admin@customs.gov.fk

I will change the names to "Stanley" but we need to preserve the wikilinks, so until an Admin makes the move from "Port Stanley" to "Stanley" I'll keep that page that way.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to make the move to Stanley, Falkland Islands. Hope nobody minds. I'll try to avoid redirects and clean up. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! I cleaned all the redirs except those from talk pages or user pages. I am now officially tired! :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great work!SoLando 23:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages

Is it wrong to start the article like this:

The Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas, French: Îles Malouines) are

, including the names in Spanish and French? Many pages include a number of related names in other languages, such as Kuala Lumpur, Lower Styria, Pula, Adriatic Sea. All places that are or have been under different countries. Mariano(t/c) 08:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro already states that they are called Islas Malvinas by Argentina. This is not a Spanish translation of Falkland Islands which would presumebly be Islas Falklands or some variant. Generally we only put other languages in if it is an offical language of that country or territory. Spainish is not in the Falklands Astrotrain 17:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish translation of Falkland Islands is really Islas Malvinas. The only country in the whole Spanish-speaking world that calls them Islas Falkland is Chile.

Having read this dispute to date, nobody has made the point that this is the ENGLISH language version so what Spanish people call the islands or the smallest room is quite immaterial. They are British and the official name is the Falkland Islands. Bombay is now called Mumbai because the people living there deem it so. The wishes of people living in a territory are paramount. --Gibnews 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all territories' articles have all possible translations because Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and not British. Your example about Bombay is ridiculous and irrelevant, and if you want to agree with "the wishes of people living in a territory" then show some community service and don't censor other opinions, ok?

The answers to the original message don't respond to my question. The examples I gave include names in languages of people that inhabited or had control over that area, or ar at least closely related. For instance, Pula has right at the beggining of the article the names in English, Croatian (local), German (many tourist), Italian (once under control), and Slovenian (neighbouring country). There are tons of similar examples. I don't know if it is right or not to include the French and Spanish names in this article, but wiping them without reaching consent seams to me precipitated. It is very common to see the word Malivans in English articles, and the Falklands War is ofter referred to Falklands-Malvinas War (asseting the British-Argentine dispute). Therefore, I think it is neither biased nor just a whim to include at least the Spanish name at the article's very beggining. Mariano(t/c) 08:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed an opinion and did not 'censor' anything, but this looks like yet another attempt by foreigners to impose their view about the ownership of a territory contrary to the wishes of its inhabitants. Were it was run by the Argentines or Real Madrid you could call it whatever you fancy, its not.--Gibnews 09:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My intention of having the French and Spanish names at the beggining of the article has nothing to do with the ownership of the islands, but respond to both historical, and practical reasons. As I have already pointed out before, the Spanish name is widely referred to in the English speaking coutries, and probably the most important encyclopedia, the Britannica, opens the article of the islands (as well as that of the war) stating the Spanish name. So far, all the objections to the proposal were either not objective (British persons that don't like the idea of references to the old Argentine ownership), or were just insulting. Mariano(t/c) 09:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Malvinas", in my experience, is hardly ever used in English speaking countries except in reference to the impositions of the Argentine military occupation of 1982. It is certainly not regarded as a neutral alternative name. And to characterise my objection as based on me not liking the idea of "old Argentine ownership" - if you're referring to the 72 days of Argentine control during 1982, then you're correct. How would you like it if a foreign military force occupied your home, and told you that from now on, you had to call the place "Malvinas" instead of Falklands? TharkunColl 10:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the title should be is the English name, then in brackets the name in any of the countries native or offical languages (if different from the English). So for Scotland we have: Scotland (Alba) giving the English and Scottish Gaelic names. If the country or territory does not have a language different from English then the English name only should be used.

If you look you will see that the intro already has the name Islas Malvinas- included in its proper context (ie the name of the Islands as used by Argentina).

Also Islas Malvinas is not a Spanish translation of Falkland Islands it is a different name altogether.

The other articles may included various languages but this is incorrect. Astrotrain 09:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) The Spanish translation of Falkland Islands is Islas Malvinas. The only country in the whole Spanish-speaking world that calls them Islas Falkland is Chile.

2) Many pages include a number of related names in other languages, such as Kuala Lumpur, Lower Styria, Pula, and Adriatic Sea.

3) Stop reverting changes, you violated the 3RR rule several times and I'll personally request AIAV if you continue.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.68.127.172 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps I'm not clear enough. I'm not discussing the name of the article, nor ever said Islas Malvinas was the translation of the English name (I used the term "Spanish name"). I was only suggesting we should include, right after the [English] name of the article, the Spanish name, since it is not uncommon to come across it in English language articles, as well as foreign ones. Perhaps I failed to find the article conventions that you mention regarding the opening paragraphs of the articles; If so, I appology. Whether it exists or not, I suggest we include the Spanish name for it's frequently used also in English, and I give as an example the Encyclopedia Britannica whose Falkland Islands and Falkland Islands War articles start specifying their Spanish names. Mariano(t/c) 12:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, Islas Malvinas is a widely used name and a well know alternative for the name. I agree that using it as the standard translation for spanish is incorrect, but I would think a compromise would be possible. What about:

The Falkland Islands or Islas Malvinas as the Argentines call it, are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, 300 miles (483 km) from the coast of South America. --KimvdLinde 00:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Argentines call them "Malvinas" is mentioned in the article. To put it in the first paragraph is a bit like saying "The Czech Republic - known as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia by the Germans." TharkunColl 00:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, there is a magnitude of difference with that example. --KimvdLinde 00:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think so? For the Falkland Islanders, the term "Malvinas" was just as much a foreign, fascistic imposition as was the example I quite deliberately gave. TharkunColl 00:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think so. Could you provide a reliable verifiable source for the contention that it sounds as a foreign, fascistic imposition to the islanders? --KimvdLinde 01:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stil think the best (and shortest) way would be The Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) are an archipelago.... If there are no objections, I will place such comment in short. If someone thinks the french name should also be included at the opening paragraph, plase say so. Mariano(t/c) 07:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing that "Malvinas" is a name for the islands in Spanish, but given that this is an English language encyclopedia, why should it be included? Spanish is not a language native to the Falklands, and furthermore it must be obvious to all - given the events of 1982 - that the term "Malvinas" is likely to be offensive to many if not most of the islanders. I described the Argentines as foreign and fascistic earlier - foreign they certainly are, and under Galtieri, who may have murdered upwards of 30,000 of his own people, I think "fascistic" is also a fair comment. Fascist regimes are also notable for invading their neighbours. In short, to place the term "Malvinas" in that opening paragraph is a deliberate affront to the sensibilities of the people of the Falklands, and should therefore not be included. TharkunColl 09:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it is your contention that the islanders find it objectable because you interpret the argentinian regime as fascitoide, please provide sources for that. Second, invading countries is not limited to fascitoide regimes, along that line the USSR, Israel and USA are as well in the eyes of at least some people. Many other pages have commonly used foreign names included in the first sentence, which I think is a very good policy. I think the clarity of the encyclopedia is more important than the objection of a small group of people, because along that line, many articles would be impossible to write. --KimvdLinde 14:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article about Leopoldo Galtieri if you doubt the nature of Argentina's right-wing dictatorship at the time of the invasion of the Falklands. At no point did I say that fascistic regimes have a monopoly on invading other countries, but it cannot be doubted this this is, nevertheless, a characteristic of them. The point about "Malvinas" is that it's not just an alternative name with no political connotations - it's a name intimately associated with the Argentine invasion of the islands, and their attempt to supress the local culture in favour of their own. This included, but was not limited to, forcing the islanders to drive on the other side of the road, renaming Stanley as "Puerto Argentino", imposing the Spanish language in general, and renaming the islands "Malvinas". TharkunColl 16:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political forum and in that line censored. --KimvdLinde 16:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It already states Islas Malvinas in the intro, placed in context to Argentina's claim. This is the most sensible solution. Astrotrain 20:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on this. If you come from the Islas Malvinas redirect, it is not immediatly clear that you are at the correct page. --KimvdLinde 20:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to History of the Falkland Islands, the Falklands have had the following names:

1519/20: Islas de Sansón (in Spanish)
1592: Davis Land (in English)
1594: Hawkins' Maidenland (in English)
1600: Sebald/Islas Sebaldinas (in Dutch/Spanish)
1690: Falkland (in English)
1764: Îles Malouines/Islas Malvinas (in French/Spanish)

A number of interesting facts also emerge upon reading that article. Firstly, that the original Spanish name from 1519/20 was actually applied to the Jason Islands, and only later, incorrectly, applied the Falklands proper. The first person to actually explore the Falklands was the Englishman John Davis in 1592, and so this must be considered the first true European contact. Furthermore, the name "Falkland" dates to 1690, the best part of a century before the French decided to call them Îles Malouines in 1764 (the name is derived from the French port of Saint-Malo in Britanny). The Spanish term "Islas Malvinas" is simply a translation of the French. In the interests of fairness we should list all of these, but to put them on the first line would overload it, so better to have no foreign language terms there at all. TharkunColl 20:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I go for all if you give me the choice between nothing or all. However, I do not find that a good argument, as the name Islas Malvinas is still used by part of the world population, the remaining are not. I have no opinion about having the French translation up. --KimvdLinde

Spanish speakers habitually call England Inglaterra, yet that has no mention on the England page because Spanish is not a language native to England. TharkunColl 20:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different magnitude, see also for example Kuala Lumpur, Lower Styria, Pula, Adriatic Sea. I remain that clarity (for example redirects) should prevail politics. --KimvdLinde 20:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the original Islas Malvinas in bold, and added that its a Spanish translation of the original French name. Does this suit? Astrotrain 20:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to sense so much nervousness from some users. Astrotrain, I really don't understand why you find it wrong the have the so often mentioned Spanish name at the opening paragraph, as the English Britannica Encyclepdia does. I only read long explanations about ownership and rights. I think the Spanish name should be there because it is very common to see it in English text, that's it. Mariano(t/c) 14:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some users, this is a political issue (as they clearly point out themselves) and not to offend people etc. Unfortunately, they forget that Wikipedia is not a political forum or soapbox, but an encyclopedia, and as such, clarity, readability and being factual, should have the highest priority. Forget about people who search Islas Malvinas because they are spanish speak some english and search here. Forget the people who come here through redirects, links etc. --KimvdLinde 14:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mariano and KimvdLinde; as stated before, many pages include a number of related names in other languages, such as Kuala Lumpur, Lower Styria, Pula, and Adriatic Sea. Nearly all the Spanish-speaking world calls them Islas Malvinas, the same with French-speaking countries; I don't see any reason for the recent deletions. --OneEuropeanHeart 15:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling on this talk page

I hate to break it to you - but ultimately discussion on this talk page affects only one thing: The article page it is attached to. Even if there was a gigabyte of discussion on this page, it won't change the state of the world - ever. Wikipedia is about documenting what already exists, in a neutral way. If it's not related to improvements to this page - why not take it somewhere else ? There are about a million discussion forums on the internet and wikipedia is not one of them. Megapixie 03:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megapixie, what would you call this? [12].

Important information

The 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands article states:

After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right and seized them. The Englishman who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered. A British officer was next sent, unsupported by any power: and when we arrived, we found him in charge of a population, of which rather more than half were runaway rebels and murderers. (The Voyage of the Beagle.)

If this is true, maybe the Argentine government renounced sovereignty with that sale and the Falklands are really British, but the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands article also says:

Great Britain abandoned their settlement in 1774, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention.

So apparently the Falklands are neither Argentine nor British. Is this correct?

The name "Islas Malvinas" is recognized by most prestigious Encyclopedias in the world, Why it name can't appear in this article? There are too many people who know them with this name, most south american countries, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and the British encyclopedia There is an example: www.tour2000.it/vacanze-Isole-Falkland-Malvinas.htm www.ruta40.it/tour_malvinas_falkland.htm

(two italian sites wich sells vacations in the islands)

Krieg aus Dilettantismus - Politische Hintergründe für die Eskalation des Konfliktes um die Falkland-/Malvinas-Inseln bis zum Krieg zwischen Großbritannien und Argentinien ... Der Falkland-/Malvinas-Konflikt zwischen Argentinien und Großbritannien, der sich im Frühjahr ... den Konflikt um die Falkland-/Malvinas-Inseln, der seit 1833 zwischen Argentinien ...

sur la question des îles Falkland-Malvinas, le Comité des 24 a réaffirmé ce ... particulière propre aux îles Falkland-Malvinas. Le Comité spécial chargé d'étudier la ...www.un.org/News/fr-press/docs/2002/AGCOL201.doc.htm - 33k - En cache -

Both names are used in the world, so they must included

Edit war

There has been an edit war over the addition of (Spanish: Islas Malvinas, French: Îles Malouines) after the name of the islands. I do not see what is wrong with including this. I am English. Why shoulod we not include this, it is normal for locations known by notably different names in different languages. Just zis Guy you know? 11:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved in this discussion any further than to point out the following page, on proposed naming conventions policy. Although this has not yet been agreed on, it may well become canon, so it is worth bearing in mind duing considerations here.

Interestingly, it does offer a third possible alternative, which has not been discussed:

From section 2 - Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative names^Names). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.

I think this could be a good solution here, as

a link to the names would remain in the very first line, which makes them easily found
the names would be the very first thing discussed after the statement of what the islands actually are, which helps put the history of the names into context,
the dedicated paragraph would give plenty room for a full explanation of each of the names and their uses, which is currently missing.

Personally I also think it looks more elegant - I think this article [13] for example would have looked a lot better with this treatment, as the long first line looks ungainly, confusing and puts off any description of the island itself to the third line. But that's my personal preference.

Hope this helps Aquilina 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Just zis Guy you know? 19:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. --KimvdLinde 23:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have people put the foreign language terms back into the first line? Now we have "Malvinas" not only there, but also in bold further down. It was put in bold as a compromise, instead of having the name on the first line. I will remove the names from the first line unless I hear a good reason to give so much emphasis to them. TharkunColl 08:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See arguments all over this talk page. Most people are in favour to have it at the top. --KimvdLinde 08:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove the compromise solution further down, whereby "Malvinas" is repeated, in bold. TharkunColl 08:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done. --KimvdLinde 08:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better than the bold version, and more consistent with other articles. Just zis Guy you know? 09:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it may be useful to mention that the place had an alternative name later in the body of the article, it gives it over importance to put it at the top.--Gibnews 11:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some guidance on this issue may be obtained from the article on the Channel Islands, which does not list the French name, iles anglo-normandes, even though the islands were once under French control. TharkunColl 11:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the non-English names is quite obviously politically charged. After checking twenty-odd other Wikipedia versions, I found the names in the first paragraph too. This seems to be causing "trouble" only in the English version. I think some people should grow up and stop staring edit wars for the sake of it. There is plenty of subjects and pages they could help editing in a constructive way. Of course, I guess that does not make you feel so good as a little bit of school yard bullying. Anyway, I will revert the article to include all the names as for International consensus. Asterion 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about politics, it's about having the name in the native language. Spanish is not a native language, and neither is French. — Dunc|☺ 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about native english, but frequent used foreign names, and I would call 7.3 million hits at google of the name not a to be ommited name. And in my opinion, if the iles anglo-normandes is often used, it should be mentioned as well. --KimvdLinde 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So French is a native language of the Falkland Islands then is it? French Guyana is probably the nearest place but it's a long way away!

Anyway, in English (since we follow the Use English guideline) there are 86 million hits for "Falkland Islands" and 2 million for "Islas Malvinas", of which 1.8 million mention both "Islas Malvinas" and "Falkland Islands". So that's not 7 million hits but 0.2 million. 0.2 million against 86 million is not worth mentioning. — Dunc|☺ 10:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunc, the focus of this version of WP is English, but facilitating the usage of the English version by providing common foreign names is good practise, as is done at many many articles. As such, the 7 million remnains and is a substantial number. --KimvdLinde 15:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, "Falkland Islands": 55.3 mill., Malvinas:19.7 mill "Islas Malvinas": 2.0 mill. Why would you substract pages that use both names? We don't say Malvinas should be used instead of Falkland, but that it is widely used in English texts. Mariano(t/c) 13:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunc, the name "Malvinas" became very prominent during the Falklands War, and it is still the name by which the islands are known in most of South America; having the name and its etymology seems entirely appropriate. The article makes the Islanders' opposition to Argentine rule abundantly clear, I see no problem at all with including the names especially since they undoubtedly are in common usage elsewhere, even if they do score "only" a couple of million Google hits. And actually Malvinas gets nearly forty million hits. Oh, and even the CIA agree! Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it is mentioned in the lead but not in the opening line, where it is innappropriate. The eytmology is important, but the name Iles Malouines is only important in that context.

Secondly, the issue of common name is not important; native language is. Or would you have 美国 in the lead of the United States article because it's the name used by 1bn Chinese? After all that must be common! Most of the hits - in English - for "Islas Malvinas" only come when "Falkland Islands" is mentioned also; it is not used as a standalone English name. — Dunc|☺ 13:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the English common name, but of common references in the English language. CIA, Britannica, and many others include it as commonly used, and at the very top of their articles. Mariano(t/c) 13:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree that the Spanish name needs prominence, probably could be worked into the lead section a bit higher (shift the location and geographic description a bit lower) and go straight into the territorial dispute. However, the French name is largely irrelevant (and the CIA don't use that!). — Dunc|☺ 14:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested (a long time ago already) to have the Spanish name in the opening paragraph (" (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) "), and then have the ethymology in the article with the French name (as it is now I believe). Mariano(t/c) 14:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not see a problem with having it in the opening para as it was. Forty million hits on Google is a very significant number, and as noted both Britannica and the CIA see fit to put it in the lead para. Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to include the Spanish name for the Islands. I think it is really important in the context of the story of the falklands. --Wikipediatastic 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is good naming convension, see link above to there. Second of all, I have no strong feeling about the French name, as it is less used, but on the other hand it is s historical name. --KimvdLinde 15:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original version mentioned names in alternative languages later in the body of the article which was sufficient. If every place 'must have' alternative foreign names, we need to include the name in Mandarin as there are a lot more people using that. If the attempt is political, which it certainly looks like, it should not be allowed. Next they will be trying to claim Gibraltar is Spanish :) --Gibnews 16:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is ridiculous and fallacious, both Spanish and French names are important for the Falklands' history whereas Mandarin is not; as far as I know articles like Kuala Lumpur, Lower Styria, Pula, and Adriatic Sea include foreign denominations because they are historically relevant. --Darklegions 00:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that is 'ridiculous and fallacious' is the Argentine claim to the territory, and the desire to call something by another name other than its correct one.--Gibnews 08:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NPOV. We are not here to make judgments over the merits of the competing claims, only to report them in a neutral manner. The fact that the Spanish mane has wide currency is inescapable, regardless of the merits of whatever agenda causes that. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a political forum, and the edit summary of Bloody foreigners is very strong POV. --

KimvdLinde 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the Mandarin name should be added, I prefer that over removing the spanish name. --KimvdLinde 18:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be WP:POINT --KimvdLinde 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to voice my support for the Spanish and French translations being included right at the top.--Mais oui! 18:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise whereby we have the english name at the top (that is what they are known as in most places and are what people will search under) but make mention of the Spanish and French names within the article explaining them within historical context. After all we don't have an article that calls London Londinium or Londres.--Wikipediatastic 09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation nopt to do that is that you want to make sure that people who come to the page becasue they searched for the commonly used Islas Malvinas though either google, wikipedia search, or the redirects of that name, that they are at the correct page. People scan very wuickly, and could have the impression that they came to the wrong page. As such, clarification at the first sentence of commonlyused names is a very good practise. The main objections are not of encyclopedic matter, but political and contain a strong POV.--KimvdLinde 09:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islas Malvinas, or Malvinas, already has its own disambiguation page. Anyone searching under that name would immediately discover that the English name for the islands is Falklands, and could then, if they wish, go directly to the article about them. TharkunColl 11:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not solve all searches (google, yahoo, wikipedia), direct and wiki links from the name Islas Malvinas etc. --KimvdLinde 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest following the example of The article on Spain which does not refer the English name for the territory.

Alternativly someone could include it and see how the Spanish react. --Gibnews 10:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:POINT --KimvdLinde 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Spain has never been governed by England.--Mais oui! 10:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so you confirm it is a political matter rather than anything else; No, Spain has not been run by the British, otherwise they would have introduced better law and institutions - however it was governed by the Arabs and there is no mention of its name in that language in the introduction, although there is a mention lower down in the Andalucia article about Arabic names. The original article on the Falkland Islands contained a similar mention to alternative names later on and apart from those wishing to make political points, this was quite adequate.--Gibnews 20:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a political forum, and whatever happened with whatever other country is irrelevant for which names are frequently used nowadays and historically for this group of islands. --KimvdLinde 20:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case its appropriate to mention it in the text but not the title. Its only really important for those who wish to persue a sovereignty claim for political purposes rather than be informed of reality.--Gibnews 11:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the page have been moved from Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) to Falkland Islands which I think is correct. So, it is not in he title, and I do not think anyone is seriously suggesting to do that.--KimvdLinde 13:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK but in the second paragraph it says, and I quote:

"Argentina maintains a claim over the islands, which they call Islas Malvinas, a Spanish translation of the earlier French name, Îles Malouines."

Thats enough to provide a reference to the name in the article for searching purposes, witout suggesting there is a legitimate alternative name for the territory. The Spanish name at the beginning should be removed as its not appropriate and this is the ENGLISH language wiki not the Spanish one. Lets follow the example of no mention of Spain in the es pages for that territory. --Gibnews 19:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a common used name. If people come to the page from anything indicating "Islas Malvinas", is is just nice that when you read "Falkland Islands" with, without having to seach to somewhere atbthe page, the name that you though you were looking for. The proposed guidelines on names also indicate to provide the names there. --KimvdLinde 19:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that's nonsense because as per special:whatlinkshere/Islas Malvinas nothing does. — Dunc|☺ 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely one of the aims of an encyclopedia must be to educate the ignorant, if the name is 'commonly used' its time people learnt the correct name for the territory. Foreign names are of historical interest only and a curiosity.--Gibnews 08:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external linking? --KimvdLinde 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I can almost hear the scabbling around on the floor looking for excuses. So again, how is the French name relevant? — Dunc|☺ 22:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the root of the highly relevant Spanish name, and because the English and Spanish clearly belong at th ehead of the article so separating one of the languages of the competing claims would make little sense. Just zis Guy you know? 23:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps somebody should add the phrase (Kingdom of Spain en inglés) to the Spanish wikipedia article about Spain, on the justification that there are a very large number of British ex-pats living in Spain, speaking English. It will be an interesting experiment to see precisely how many seconds it remains there before being deleted. TharkunColl 10:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an case of WP:POINT --KimvdLinde 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there are probably more people in the world who refer to that country as 'Spain' rather than Espana, and certainly a lot them in the province of Malaga.

However, in relation to the Falkland Islands, their correct name is as stated and foreign names are shown later, which is adequate.

Inclusion of the word 'Malvinas' as an alternative name with equal weighting to the real name of the territory is offensive.--Gibnews 16:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as far as I can count, many others disagree with you, and within the light that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, offensive is not an argument why things hould be removed. Wikipedia is not a political forum, nor is it censored. --KimvdLinde 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see you disagree with it and are throwing your weight around. The territorial dispute is given due and appropriate prominence. Your arguments are as pathetic as your defence of the then Argentine military junta as not being fascist above. Of course it's offensive, of course it's not used and it's completely inappropriate. The French name is even more pointless. — Dunc|☺ 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Your arguments are as pathetic as your defence of the then Argentine military junta as not being fascist above"... please no personal attacks, ok? --Nkcs 04:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments you are giving make clear that your removal is politically oriented. Unfortunately for you, wikipedia is not censored. --KimvdLinde 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the fact that calling the islands "Islas Malvinas" offends people is not relevant to the discussion but since this encyclopedia is aimed to the english speaking world, and almost none of it knows the islands as "Islas Malvinas" ("Malvinas Islands" would make more sense, even), then the name shouldn't be there. The spanish wiki, though, should be the other way around. We should try to leave the political correctness aside. I don't plan to continue in this discussion, just wanted to leave my 2 cents. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English is the lingua franca of our time. As such, you have to think wider than the limited group of people that speak this language as their first language. --KimvdLinde 23:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many pages include a number of related names in other languages, such as Kuala Lumpur, Lower Styria, Pula, and Adriatic Sea; nearly all the Spanish-speaking world calls them Islas Malvinas, the same with French-speaking countries; both Spanish and French names are historically relevant... of course there are so many reasons for their inclusion. But, if this article must really be pro-British and show only their political perspective, then forget WP:NPOV, forget WP:NOT, forget WP:BRD, forget the Falklands' history, forget the people who come here through redirects and links, forget the French-speaking and Spanish-speaking world, forget the users who call them Islas Malvinas or Îles Malouines, and forget all about "community service" or "assume good faith". --Nkcs 07:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is NOT about that - it is about whether the unofficial names of the territory should go on the first line implying they have equal merit.

Looking at the British page there is no mention that its called inglaterra, and on the Spanish language page for Espana there is no mention of Spain.

The inclusion of the word Malvinas in this way is itself a political statement and is wrong the alternative foreign names are already given and explained fully in context in the second paragraph.

There is no 'consensus' on this matter there is a dispute, and the arguments for its repeated inclusion IN THIS WAY do indeed seem weak and suspect.--Gibnews 09:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on foreign names

(No reference to the current UK foreign secretary)

OK Guys it seems that whatever arguments are invoked nobody is being convinced, lets see how the numbers stack up for the active participants simply add your signature to the appropriate list:

Note: one line will do, we do not need a essay here.

A) To add foreign language names at the beginning conform Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names): Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. Note: this is a partial quote of a proposed policy: see C) below.

KimvdLinde 17:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (on Spanish name only, no opinion on French name)[reply]
Darklegions 20:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (on Spanish and French, both are important for the Falklands' history)[reply]
Coat of Arms (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (on Spanish and French)[reply]
Just zis Guy you know? 20:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC), Spanish and French being relevant to the article per endless above. Not Mandarin, thanks ;-) The alternative supported by the "not in the first paragraph" advocates seems to em to be designed for a case where there are large numbers of names, or where the alternative names are of lesser significance. The first para proposal suits the situation where multiple names are in current use (which is indisputable - Malvinas is stil the name used by the Argentinians, for example).[reply]
OneEuropeanHeart 20:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (Spanish and French, same reasons as above)[reply]
ShiningEyes 01:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (Spanish and French per Darklegions and JzG)[reply]
Jonathunder 14:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ragib 16:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Big Adamsky 16:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (English and Spanish names only; the French name can be duly mentioned in the etymology section)[reply]
Asterion 17:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (on Spanish name only, no opinion on French name)[reply]
Nkcs 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (on Spanish and French)[reply]
—Nightstallion (?) 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khoikhoi 22:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (agree with Big Adamsky)[reply]
Mariano(t/c), thought it shoudn't be decided with a Poll. 08:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calton | Talk 21:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (English, French, and Spanish)[reply]
Thumbelina 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rob 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gnetwerker 23:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (Spanish only)[reply]
feydey 12:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC) (on Spanish name, possibly on French name)[reply]

B) To show them in context in the second paragraph as previous.

C) To show foreign language names in a names section in conformity with proposed policy Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names): Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative names^Names). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.

dave souza, talk 08:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gibnews 09:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Astrotrain 14:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Latinus 16:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Big Adamsky 16:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian 18:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ian3055 19:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aquilina 19:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (only marginally over A due to scope for extra info; strongly prefer either to B)[reply]

Add your signatures between the lines and lets see how the numbers stack up. Keep it real. --Gibnews 17:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the format to a more common one, it's easier to see. --Darklegions 20:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent vote tampering, anonymous or new users (people with less than 50 contributions) cannot vote. --Coat of Arms (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can not decide just like that who can and can not vote. This is just to get an idea of what people think, not a decisive vote. If there are signs of sockpuppets, we deal with it at that time. --KimvdLinde 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the "policy" is a proposal, developed in reference to Eastern Europe, and while the talk page proposes adding it to to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#General issues, this had not yet been done. The proposed policy paragraph includes an option for a naming section or paragraph, and I propose that this option be taken. ..dave souza, talk 08:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is labeled as a straw poll just to get a feel on what people think in order to try and resolve an endless argument rather than any attempt to 'make policy' Also at last, a good use for lines !

Thanks to Darklegions changing it to a more standard layout as I haven't a clue how its been done before and to dave souza for inclusion alternative C which I would support although B is IMNSHO quite satifactory.

Lets run it for 10 days and see.--Gibnews 09:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. =) --Darklegions 19:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Several people have now two votes, that is not the way it works,so please remove one of the two. --KimvdLinde 16:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)~~ Per explanation of dave -KimvdLinde 18:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think option B is a rotten idea, but options A and C complement one another so I vote for both of those. Maybe we could call that option D, then? //Big Adamsky 16:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Himm, how would you combine those two? Something like: The Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas, French: Îles Malouines, see ^Names)) are ... ? --KimvdLinde 16:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, more to the effect of: The Falkland islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) are a group of islands in.... Section 1: ==The name== The current official name is derived from.... The Spanish name comes from the French.... Following the example set at Myanmar, where official or commonly used names are in the intro, while etymology and usage is dealt with just below the index box.

//Big Adamsky 16:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea of C) is to have it as The Falkland islands (known also by several alternative names^Names) are a group of islands in.... Section 1: ==The name== The current official name is derived from.... The Spanish name comes from the French.... Your proposal is kind of the situation now, although the naming would get more prominence as a seperate header. --KimvdLinde 16:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that makes the French name special is its source as the basis of other Romance language names. Only the official name and the Spanish name are important to have in the intro, in my opinion. //Big Adamsky 16:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am with you on this, have no strong opinion about the position of the French name. --KimvdLinde 17:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's be completely straight with each other here - the main idea of C (and even more so B) is to avoid acknowledging that the islands are currently known as the Malvinas by a very large number of people. I accept that moving the French name ot an etymology section is fair, but to fail to mention in the lead that there are two names in current use would be a glaring omission. It doesn't matter that the Islanders don't like one of the names, that's not our problem as an encyclopaedia. However, this straw poll is not binding on anyone, it's just an attempt to establish the consensus view among those editing. Conditions on numbers of edits and such are worthless, since the poll itself has no formal status. The more people who express their views the better, I guess, but in the end it is very hard to justify, form an encyclopaedic standpoint, excluding the Spanish name from the lead. Just zis Guy you know? 08:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, please remember that polls are evil and Wikipedia is not a democracy. As this is a straw poll, the guidance that "If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place" presumably applies. Jon, it's naughty to change the title to suit your position: gonnae no dae that? I've changed it back to foreign, which in this context means not English language. If you want to claim that Malvinas is English language as well as historical, that deserves a new section of discussion. Let's hope that a consensus can be found, using the proposed policy which despite my initial concerns seems well considered to deal with such disputes. ..dave souza, talk 18:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this lead then?

The Falkland Islands, also known as the Malvinas (in Spanish Islas Malvinas), are an archipelago […]

As previously stated, I find no support in the proposed placaname policy for including the French name, whose association with the islands (in any language other than French) is probably limited to a discussion of early history and etymology. The Spanish name on the other hand, is commonly mentioned as an alternative, due to recent current events and the continued dispute, even though its usage is neither official nor local/indigenous. //Big Adamsky 21:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Considering how many obscure alternative exonyms there are for Germany and China, imagine how it would look if those articles were to be filled up with foreign or historical names! =P[reply]

Spanish name

It should be noted that the Spanish translation of the Falkland Islands is Islas Falklands. It has already been noted that this is used in the Spanish speaking Chile. Argentina names many regions in the South Atlantic with different names to reflect their territorial claims. For example King George Island is called Isla Veinticinco de Mayo in Argentina, yet the Spanish wiki calls it Isla Rey Jorge and not the unoffical Argentine name.

Most offical Spanish language situations will use Islas Falklands eg the European Union Astrotrain 20:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you, the current Spanish traduction (Islas Malvinas) is not derived from the English name, it comes from the French denomination, Îles Malouines (and please see History of the Falkland Islands if you disagree with this). As stated before, the only country in the whole Spanish-speaking world who calls them Islas Falkland is Chile, for obvious reasons; but even the Chilean TV and/or newspapers sometimes refers the Falklands as Islas Malvinas, exactly because is the most used and common denomination in Latin America. --Darklegions 02:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that (I did write most of the article!). What I am saying is that to say "(Spanish: Islas Malvinas)" implies that this is the Spanish translation of Falkland Islands in the same way as saying Londres is the French translation of London. However the actual Spanish translation is Islas Falklands (as used in Chile and in formal contexts in the Spanish language such as EU documents). That is why we add the name Islas Malvinas in context in the second para as it relates to the sovereignty dispute. Astrotrain 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Argentina has not participation in the EU, so it's obvious that they'll support the UK. How about the Mercosur or other international organizations that REALLY have Argentine delegates? [14]. --Darklegions 01:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The EU use is hardly surprising, they avoid conflict among member states. Maybe we have to add both versions of the names used in Spanish? However, Islas Falklands only returns 848 hits at google, as such, it is not used that widly as 'Islas Malvinas' (7 miljoen hits). --KimvdLinde 18:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting adding Islas Falklands, as no foreign names should be added to the English Wikipedia. If we are going to have Islas Malvinas as the poll suggests then it should be described as an alternative name, not a translation. Astrotrain 18:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For arguments on foreign names, see talk above. You are just repeating the same arguments. --KimvdLinde 18:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to go with the consensus. However we must be accurate. I personally do not mind the name Islas Malvinas being used in its proper context. But it is misleading and POV to describe this name as the offical Spanish translation when it is clearly not used as such. At the end of the day the alternative name has been included as people wish, so hopefully it will be a solution. The french name never had much support, and is included in the second para. Astrotrain 19:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why whould it not be indicated that it is a Spanish name? KimvdLinde 21:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The offical name of the Islands is the Falkland Islands. The Spanish language translation is Islas Falklands. Argentina uses the term Islas Malvinas, as well as being used by some other Spanish language speakers either as the most popular name in that language or in support of their sovereignty claim. Thus we say the offical name, note an unoffical name and then explain its origins as the Spanish translation of the French name. We cannot say the offical name in Spanish is Islas Malvinas. Perhaps a better name para should be included to explain all this? Astrotrain 22:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the translation in English for Islas Malvinas? Malvinas Islands? C'mon, man! --Darklegions 05:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know those political arguments. This is an encyclopedia, and the list is not a list of official names, but names that are for whatever reason often used. --KimvdLinde 22:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about... "The Falkland Islands (alternative Spanish name: Islas Malvinas)..."? I'm with Astrotrain on the arguments about this, but if the consensus is to put Malvinas in the first line then we need to make sure its not misleading. Hopefully this version shows that Malvinas is a Spanish term without giving it legitimacy as a direct translation. Ian3055 09:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. --KimvdLinde 15:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The foreign name is used to assert a claim to the territory against the wishes of the people who live there. In the same way that we all have the right to call ourselves whatever we like and pronounce our names the way we chose, so have people in a territory and trying to call a spade a pointed shovel to make a political point has no place in an information resource apart from as an aside that it happens.--Gibnews 10:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or not. The Spanish name is the name in comon use by a significant number of people. The fact that they do so on contentious grounds is stated fully in the article, but that doesn't stop it being the case. Malvinas gets over forty million Google hits. To fail to acknowledge this makes us look ridiculous. Please note: I am British. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original wording in the second paragraph acknowledged the foreign names of the territory and a redirect from Malvinas to Falkland Islands whould enable anyone to find what they were looking for without any problem. Malvinas gets 12,100,000 hits on Google Falkland gets 36,000,000 and 'Elvis lives; gets 2,900,000. Your nationality is not important, what is important is an attempt to assert that an alternative name to the official name of the territory has equal validity.--Gibnews 10:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are attributing motives to the use of a name. The Spanish-speaking community (which dominates South America, the adjacent landmass) uses the Spanish name. The fact that the islanders don't like it is irrelevant - it is a name which is very widely used to describe the islands, as seen in the CIA World Factbook and other sources, where it is in the lead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are motives in the use of the name, forcing foreign names on someone is a classic act of oppression and thats WHY its objectionable. If you want to accomodate the 'Spanish Speaking Community' give them a link the the SPANISH Wikipedia. Although its valid to note a foreign name for a territory its not a legal alternative.--Gibnews 16:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, how do you explain this? 1, 2, 3, and 4. --Darklegions 02:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you politics out of the encyclopedia. Names in the first line are NOT legal alternatives, but just names it is commonly known under. --KimvdLinde 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of keeping the politics out, the use of the word Malvinas as an alternative name is a political act. Spanish people have different names for many things and every article in the English Wikipedia does not give alternatives.--Gibnews 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the name is not political, it is you who makes the link with politics. --KimvdLinde 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah then what exactly is the point of using an obsolete name used solely for the purpose of oppression and denying the rights of a people in their homeland? --Gibnews 17:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name is NOT obsolete (7 milion hits at google is NOT obsolete). And the name is NOT solely used for the purpose of oppression and denying the rights of a people in their homeland. Furthermore, wikipedia is not sensored WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored because some people are offended by it. --KimvdLinde 17:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more claims:

Last week, Chávez specifically demanded to Tony Blair that Great Britain return the Maldives to Argentina, eventually calling Blair who refused, an “imperialist pawn” see this Do they teach geography in the US? --Gibnews 23:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaves will do everything he can to upset countriwes in the west. --KimvdLinde 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement only confirms your lack of community service, Venezuela is not Argentina; if you're trying to deliberately change the vote of American wikipedians you're wasting your time. --Darklegions 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not clear who the above is directed at; if its me then I suggest you read more carefully and look at a map. Wonder what the Spanish name for the Netherland Antilles is.--Gibnews 09:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the latter I can help ;-) : Antillas Neerlandesas or Antillas Holandesas. Source: http://europa.eu.int/eurodicautom/Controller --ALE! 17:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the answer from a guy who thinks Maldives is the same as Malvinas. As the talk header says: "THIS IS THE PAGE FOR DISCUSSING CHANGES TO THE FALKLANDS ARTICLE", if you want to start another edit war at the Netherland Antilles page do it there, ok? Certainly I know what's the current Spanish name, thanks, it is you who's trying to include a false one without consensus, or more briefly, with a consensus clearly against you -- guess who need to read more carefully. --Darklegions 17:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know exactly where the Maldives are, if took a moment to actually read what I said you would find its a quote from an American journalist, and they are referring to the Falkland Islands.

It shows the problems that occur when people start using foreign names without understanding their meaning.--Gibnews 17:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, did you read the name of the article? I thought it said "Falkland Islands" and not "Maldives". Yes, it really shows that occur when people start using foreign names without understanding their meaning -- or in this case, without any idea about the purposes of a talk page. --Darklegions 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the article title is FALKLAND ISLANDS and not Malvinas (or as clueless American journalists write 'Maldives') its called the Falkland Islands because Argentina failed in their invasion. If they had succeeded they could have renamed all the sheep maria - but thats not what happened.--Gibnews 23:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the name, not the invasion; nevertheless, it's still a widely-used name, just google some terms if you disagree. --Darklegions 03:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that is why an encyclopedic article should be so clear about commonly used names. --KimvdLinde 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was, and they were explained in a historical context. --Gibnews 23:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not just a historical name as your preferred translation gets 848 hits with the unofficial name gets over 8,000,000 hits. So much for the offical translation. So start with the fact that Islas Malvinas is a commonly used name, or would you like to deny that? As it is commonly used, it should be mentioned as a commonly used name. KimvdLinde 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's role

In this article, and Politics of the Falkland Islands it says the governor represents the Queen, which is technically true. But, could we put in the article the person who actually picks the governor (and decidees whether to renew his term). I assume it's the PM of the UK (or if I'm wrong, maybe its a local decision). The Queen, I beleive, obviously doesn't pick the person she wants. She names whoever she is advised to. So, I think both articles should state who's advice she follows. This is more of an issue for Politics of the Falkland Islands, but I thought I'ld post it here, as it applies to both articles (and this is more visible). --Rob 22:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you stated, the article says the governor represents the Queen, it doesn't state "the Queen picks the governor". --Darklegions 02:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested this article is literally false. But this and Politics of the Falkland Islands (which says the "Governor is appointed by the monarch") give some people an incomplete understanding, if they are not familiar with the British monarchy. It's important to understand, we mention the Queen's role for those who aren't familiar with it, not for those who already know what it is. Currently, we're not giving a good practical understanding of how the executive is chosen. --Rob 07:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Gibraltar, its a reccomendation by the foreign office so its an anonymous committee of mandarins, and is subject to approval by the Government of Gibraltar - I imagine its the same in the Falklands - although the Governor has more or a role there, here he is more or less a substitute for HM in that he does the ceremonial stuff and signs the papers he is told to.--Gibnews 10:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Malvinas" in English

In my experience, the name "Malvinas" is only ever used in English in reference to the Falklands War and the Argentine territorial claims. I've altered the first line to reflect this. TharkunColl 19:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Than your experience is pretty unique. KimvdLinde 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being English, I think I have a better idea than you, for example. TharkunColl 19:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are pushing your own political POV. KimvdLinde 19:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - you completely fail to understand the point here. "Malvinas" is not a neutral alternative term. It's a term imposed on the islanders by a brutal fascistic regime. It is only used in English by people referring to this event, or by people making some sort of political point. TharkunColl 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know your position, and that is a political statement. KimvdLinde 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is pushing a political agenda, not I. My own position is linguistic. And you are not even a native English speaker, so why are you getting involved in this debate? TharkunColl 19:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the personal attacks out of the discussion please. KimvdLinde 19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way have I made any personal attack on you? TharkunColl 19:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether my native language is not english. KimvdLinde 19:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it means that you probably don't have a full grasp of how the word is used. TharkunColl 19:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. KimvdLinde 19:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native speaker of English, as are most of the editors in the poll above. I know how the place is labeled on most maps and atlases. I have seen the google searches. I know "Malvinas" in connection with these islands is very common. Jonathunder 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native English speaker. I have some Huguenot ancestry and a drop of Irish blood somewhere, but I was born in England, my parents and grandparents were Londoners, and I went to a thousand-odd year old English school. In fact, I was at that school during the Falklands War. I have a friend who fought in the Falklands War, and lost most of his unit in the bombing of the Sir Galahad, on his birthday. And guess what? I still think that malvinas should go in the lead. Beause in the end sometimes we have to swallow our national pride and remember this is an encyclopaedia and we are supposed to be neutral. Just zis Guy you know? 22:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats your POV mine is that I followed the conflict closely on the BBC and Spanish television, so got to see both sides coverage. The word malvinas is a historical curiosity and needs to be shown in that context, otherwise its use is a fraud. --Gibnews 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed the conflict as well, and I am 100% with the Brits in kicking the Argentinians out. The name Islas Malvinas is alive nowadays, and as such not to be dismissed as a curiosity. KimvdLinde 03:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the above comments amount to stating that only native English speakers not resident in Britain can possibly have a valid perspective on this. In other words, only those participants to this debate who have expressed a preference for not having Malvinas in the lead have any right to an opinion. I'm sure that is not what people mean. But I'm equally sure that arguments based on the status of the individual as a native or non-native English speaker, a resident or non-resident of England, a follower or non-follower of the war on TV, are all fallacious. As indeed are arguments based on the preferences of the islanders. We are supposed to document what is, not what people wish for. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (I am neither british, nor native English speaker). KimvdLinde 14:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other names

Lets see where we can get to on this. Can people Agree/Disagree with the following?

The French name doesnt warrant inclusion in the first line

Agree Ian3055 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Darklegions 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree ShiningEyes 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree OneEuropeanHeart 03:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Nkcs 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Coat of Arms (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Use of the Argentinian (not Spanish) name implies ownership, which is a political POV Rockeagle 11:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This user has only 18 contributions in Wikipedia. --Darklegions 00:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree -- Gnetwerker 23:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islas Malvinas is not the direct translation of Falkland Islands

Agree Ian3055 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Darklegions 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree ShiningEyes 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree OneEuropeanHeart 03:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Nkcs 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Coat of Arms (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Holland is not the direct translation of Nederlands. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. KimvdLinde 14:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously, because the correct Spanish translation is Islas Falklands. TharkunColl 19:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to achieve with this? Nobody disputes that Islas Malvina is NOT the translation. It is besides the point altogether. The current dispute is not the French name, but the inclusion of political motivated sentences. KimvdLinde 19:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that "Spanish: Islas Malvinas" is misleading. Ian3055 20:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Is it not a general used name? KimvdLinde 20:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought most readers would say that "Spanish: Islas Malvinas" was saying it was the translation. I think that the addition of something else in there also helps to show that there is some controversy about the usage of the two names. Ian3055 21:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never understood that listing of names implied a translation, but a list of often used current or historical names. The controversy is already discussed in the second paragraph, do we need to highlight it in the first sentence as well? The name is partially linked with the conflict, but the wide usage of the name is not a result of that conflict, but from the historical usage of that name from far before the conflict. It would be similar as saying we can not use the name "British Isles" anymore because Ireland is not British anymore but the meaning still implies that. KimvdLinde 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it until the second paragraph doesnt make any sense. The controversy should be included at the first instance of the word Malvinas. To be fair refering to the UK as the British Isles would be wrong, British Isles is a geographical term rather than a description of a political entity. Is there something in particular which has swung you away from my previous compromise of "(alternative Spanish name:..." which you previously said you'd go with? Ian3055 22:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disputing the accuracy of the addition I made? TharkunColl 19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say it is politically motivated. KimvdLinde 19:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are wrong. Please don't accuse me of this again, which I shall interpret as a personal insult. TharkunColl 19:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a personal insult. --Darklegions 03:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It's a list of the reasons why the Falkland Islanders will never agree to be ruled by Argentina. TharkunColl 09:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, and also a violation of WP:HAR. --Darklegions 05:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Than please provide evidence that the name Islas Malvinas is not used widely nowadays in the world for this Island group as indicated by the +8,000,000 google hits. KimvdLinde 19:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't saying Malvinas is not used- it clearly is. However, it is 100% unoffical, even in formal Spanish language situations. As such I believe it should not be included in the main title. However, the consensus appears to be to include its mention in the title. That is why I have added "(also known as the Malvinas)- this way we note its existence but do not pretend it is offical, or the actual Spanish translation. Appears to be the most sensible situation. Astrotrain 23:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that that is a sensible position. --Mais oui! 08:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the UK is 100% unofficial, for the Spanish-speaking world is not. --Darklegions 03:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not important whether the name is offcial or not. The inclusion of names should be based on encyclopedic reasons, not political or otherwise. As such, the name is commonly used, and needs to be mentioned. KimvdLinde 03:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Astrotrain If we are looking a hits on Google, which is a foolish exercise there are 41,700,000 for bombay which is not called that. There are 8,320,000 for Elvis lives. I do, however, prefer listening to Elvis to hearing about failed territorial claims, symantic neo-colonialism and foreigners telling me how to use my language. --Gibnews 23:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay is mentioned in the first sentence of the article. You nor the Brits own this page, and it is complete irrelevant whether you like what those foreigners have to say, they are editors here, and they have their say. The failed territorial claims are frm far after the spanish name was given to the island group and has become a commonly used name. --KimvdLinde 03:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the translation in English for Islas Malvinas? Malvinas Islands? C'mon, man! --Darklegions 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term used in English, where appropriate, is 'The Malvinas'

As regards the comments from KimvdLinde - no WE are all the editors here and things that are wrong and offensive will not survive --Gibnews 09:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored and Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer. At the content disclaimer: Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable. And at Wikipedia is not censored: ... some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), .... KimvdLinde 14:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a case of censorship. To place "Malvinas" on the first line with no further comment is actually giving a false impression. Anyone who doesn't know the background might assume that it is simply a neutral alternative, but in fact it is very far from neutral. The word has very strong associations in English, all of them negative. If we have to have it on the first line, then, in the interests of linguistic accuracy, we must also state why the word is so offensive. TharkunColl 16:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That you and other Brits (and maybe some others) add that very strong negative conotation to the word does not rule out that the word is used in large parts of the world without that conotation. As such, addressing the negative conotation as percieved by some people is POV. KimvdLinde 16:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Malvinas" is certainly used by large numbers of people in the world - in Spanish. This is an English language encyclopedia, so we must address how the word is used in English. It is used primarily to refer to the Argentine military occupation of the islands in 1982. It is not POV to point this out - not to do so would be dishonest.TharkunColl 16:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, but that does not imply we are not making clear that some places have different names in different langauges, see for example Names of European cities in different languages. A good encyclopedia provides alternative names used in other languages in a clear neutral manner, see the many examples all around wikipedia (or are you intending to remove those as well?). Your insistence to link the name to the Argentinian occupation does not reflect the general usage of the word worldwide. Furthermore, English is the Lingua Franca of our time, and as such bears to the requirement to be as clear and neutral as possible not only for native English speakers, but for the wider public as well. KimvdLinde 16:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is fair to mention that the word is considered offensive by many. Do the opinions of the people who live on the islands mean nothing? As for English bearing some sort of international requirement, are you saying that the English deserve to have less control over their own language than any other ethno-linguistic group? TharkunColl 17:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term is considered offensive by a minority. The question is whether that needs to be done in he first sentence where the name is mentioned as an alternative used by many people. And I and several other editors clearly do not think so. It is made abundantly clear in the second paragraph. On the second question, it is not about control of the language. It is about whether you sanitise the english Wikipedia from anything foreign. KimvdLinde 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The offensiveness tag should go with the name, otherwise you are deliberately excluding important information. Since you are so obviously knowledgeable about the sensibilities of the Falkland Islanders, I'll ask your opinion on a slightly different though related matter. Which is more offensive for a Falkland Islander to be called - "Benny" or "Still"? TharkunColl 17:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should not go with the name, as it is generally a non-offensive word, and the insistence of the linkage is a form of unacceptable changing of the meaning of a foreign word to fit a politial opinion of a minority that uses a different language (It is not up to the english to define that the Spanish word Islas Malvinas needs to have the negative conotation, per your own arguments above). The second question has nothing to do with whether a generally non-offensive term shouldn't be mentioned in the first line of the article because some people find it offensive. KimvdLinde 17:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you put the word "Nigger" in the first line of an article about black people? TharkunColl 17:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Nigger is generally used word? KimvdLinde 17:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it is. So you'd really start an article like this, would you - "Black (race), otherwise known as niggers, form a large proportion...etc, etc."TharkunColl 17:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you should propose it as a commonly used name for them, although I do not encounter that here in the deep south of the USA where I would expect that the word is commonly used in the normal language. But if you have better data, please go to that page and change it. What I do know is that I encounter the word Islas Malvinas everywhere where I go in Spanish speaking area's, and that it does not have a negative conotation. I think a nmore valid comparision would be to consider the that the term Britisch Isles is not used anymore, because Irelans is not Britsh anymore, and some Irish feel offendd by usage of that term as it implie that they are part of the British empire. KimvdLinde 17:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to add the word "nigger" to any page. I used it as an analogy. It's no surprise that you often encounter the word "Malvinas" in Spanish speaking areas - it is, after all, a Spanish word. As for Ireland being part of the British Isles, that's another discussion, but the fact is that the term "British Isles" predates the British state by many, many centuries. All my arguments have been linguistic, and I always try and oppose what I regard as a bastardisation of English. TharkunColl 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Than I do not see your objections, because providing a very commonly used Spanish name has nothing to do with bastardisation of English. And analogous to the British isles, Islas Malvinas also predated the Falkland war by many many years.KimvdLinde 17:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But not in English though. It was only because of the Falklands War that most English speakers ever heard of "Malvinas". Whatever it means in Spanish is irrelevant. In English, the word refers to the Argentine military occupation of the islands. TharkunColl 19:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, in British it migh mean that, here in the US is does very clearly does NOT have that conotation that you and some other have. Secondly, there is no valid encyclopedic reason to exclude commonly used names in different languages. KimvdLinde 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I consider removing Malvinas fomr the lead to be wrong and offensive. So that rules out that particular argument. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French name

Does anyone object to the removal of this from the first line? Ian3055 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I object, at least to its removal from the second paragraph its part of the history of the place and explains the origin of the Spanish name. The whole thing was quite reasonably explained before this edit was broke out.--Gibnews 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object. --Mais oui! 08:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Falklands Islands are not a British colony.

This needs clarification for this discussion as it is a reoccuring theme here. I have placed this in a new comment in order to keep the discussion organised as its rather overflowing at present. The falkland islands have no indiginous peoples and so cannot be considered as a colony.

Colonialism (by definition) exists by taking over not just an area of land but also the native people who reside there. But the people living on the falklands are of British descent though after 200 years I dare say they have earnt the right to be recognised as indiginous to the islands. The falklands is really more a principality of the UK than a colony, though officially it is neither. As it is not a colony it cannot be regarded under the UN 'decolonisation' bill. These people now residing on the Falklands were its first permenant populus as the spanish and argentine peoples before them were walers using the islands as a temporary stop off point. In no sense of the word are the Falkland islands a British colony. The people who live there arent even British - they are Falklanders (An attitude very much maintained by themselves).

Inevitably as time goes on the situation with the Falkland islands will be clarified most likely by the EU, and it will I imagine be recognised as a principality state of the UK similar to the islands of Jersey and Guernsey. (but this remains to be seen) Please avoid using this 'its a colony' approach to the discussion as it simply doesnt apply here. Its like trying to say that kent is a colony of london. —This unsigned comment is by 86.10.158.152 (talk • contribs) .

It's not actually very much like saying that Kent is a colony of London, as Kent does have a long-term history of human habitation, and it is possible to walk from Kent to London. Which is not to say that colony is technically correct. I think posession is the term I'd use. Just zis Guy you know? 08:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'Colony' has a lot of bad baggage attached to it and is not appropriate these days. The UN C24 refer currently to 'non self governing territories' rather than colonies. Similarly the FCO term these places 'Overseas Territories' which is a more neutral term than 'Colony' or 'dependency';

The traditional view of a colony was that people from one country went and oppressed the natives. This hardly applies to the Falklands or indeed Gibraltar, where any original inhabitants are long gone.

If one goes back far enough we are all from somewhere else, what is paramount is the right of the people living in territories to determine their own future, certainly which states they do not wish to form part of.

It suits those states who wish to annex such places contrary to the expressed views of their peoples to use the word 'colony' as the UN has a policy of eliminating colonies/non self governing territories

However, that desire is itself the worst form of colonisation which has no place in the modern world. Given that there seems no dispute with France over the status of the channel Islands, or obscure territories like Llivia its time others followed and got on with improving their domestic affairs. --Gibnews 11:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your agenda is showing. But I agree that "overseas territory" is appropriate. There may be other appropriate terms, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 17:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My 'agenda' is telling it like it is - the OFFICIAL term is British Overseas Territory, as used by HMG, the FCO and even Wikipedia. It is not a matter of whether you approve or consider it appropriate, thats the way it is. If you can improve on the explanation please do - Colony: from colnus (Latin), settler. --Gibnews 18:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your agenda shows in your statements re territorial How long do the Turks have to remain in Cyprus before Greek opposition to their invasion becomes "the worst form of colonialism?" Just zis Guy you know? 11:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I've tagged this article POV while it still states that the offical Spanish name is Islas Malvinas. Please don't move the tag while discussion is ongoing. Astrotrain 19:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the tag as WP:POINT. KimvdLinde 19:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added, discuss here first to resolve issue. Several users above complain of POV with the way you and a few others insist on having. Astrotrain 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of editors as seen by staw poll. KimvdLinde 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we were getting towards a consensus version noting Malvinas but not insisting on Spainish. The poll only says inclusion of the foreign names, not stating that this is the offical Spanish name. Astrotrain 19:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were thinking you were going towards a consensus version, the majority of the editors has a different opinion. KimvdLinde 19:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing POV on the spanish name. KimvdLinde 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I didn't bother voting in that poll because it was deliberately designed to split the anti-Malvinas camp into two factions. I think, however, that my views are quite clear. TharkunColl 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that one of the anti-Malvinas (Nice POV) editors started the poll. KimvdLinde 19:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which just goes to show that we ought to try and reach a consensus by discussion, because all our views are different. I'm not particularly happy with having Malvinas in the first line, but if we do, we must say that the term is considered grossly offensive to some. Remember that hundreds of people died freeing the Falklands from Argentine occupation, so it is hardly surprising that some people hate that word. TharkunColl 19:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it in the first line because it forces the reader to jump straight into the sovereignty dispute; as well as implying it is an offical name. Previosuly the term was used in context, and was 100% neutral and eaiser to read. Unfortuantly the majority of people wish to include it the title, so the question is how to do this in a neutral fashion. I beleive simply stating that it is also called the Malvinas is the best solution, as we breifly note its existence but without letting it hijack the article. Then on the second para, the reader can place the term in context. I don't think mentioning the occupation or war is necessary in the first line if Malvinas is included is necessary. It brings up this subject too early, which is better placed in context in the sovereignty para. Astrotrain 19:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vote was on the Spanish and french name, so deal with that. The linakge of the war is a conotation that SOME people have. See below for more.KimvdLinde 19:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You won't reach consensus as long as you try to push a very strong POV. The name Islas Malvinas is commonly used and whether you like it or not, it is a Spanish word. So, leaving Spanish away is confusing and POV. Words like sometimes are not in line with the common usage of the word. Maybe come with an alternative here at the talk page, and discuss it. Maybe this would be acceptable Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas translated from the earlier French name: Îles Malouines)..... KimvdLinde 19:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Islas Malvinas" is never used in English, it is just "Malvinas". TharkunColl 19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat: Wikipedia is not sanitised from foreign words. KimvdLinde 19:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But foreign words are only used in context. Spanish is not a native language to the Falklands, and English speakers never call them "Islas Malvinas". So what is your justification for including them? It comes across as a political statement. TharkunColl 20:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Falklands are close to South America, and thus close to a large area where Spanish is the prime language. Whether they dispute the British pressense or not (most not actually), they use this name. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and providing the Spanish name for an island group that is so close to such a large contigent of spanish speaking people is just a nice and good thing to do. KimvdLinde 20:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now you finally admit your extreme POV. If those Spanish speakers want to look it up, they have their own wikipedia. England is quite close to France, but we don't put French words all over the articles about England. As for being nice, I'm not particularly inclined to feel nice towards a bunch of fascist thugs who feel that it's okay to bully the little people who can't fight back on their own (the Falkland Islanders). TharkunColl 20:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you find that POV, go ahead, it isn't. And your political motivations are abundantly clear. KimvdLinde 20:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your motivations are clearly political, not mine. Why should an English encyclopedia pander to a foreign language group that has no connection with the islands whatsoever? TharkunColl 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained why. 20:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You didn't explain why it was so important to placate these South Americans. TharkunColl 20:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "pandering" to anybody, it's recognising that a very substantial number of people use that name. The CIA World Factbook also uses it. Google for Malvinas, you get over 41 million hits. Just zis Guy you know? 20:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough you get 60,700,000 hits for 'Hitler' and exactly the same number for 'Fuck off' which suggests to me there is a limit to what Google will return. None of this has anything to do with the fact that the Official name of the territory is the Falkland Islands and trying to imply it is currently called something else is a political act. --Gibnews 21:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might see it as a political act, but I have only seen political arguments made by people who want to eliminate the name. I have not seen anything along the line: The name has to stay because the islands are actually Argentinian. KimvdLinde 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very large numbers of people use it in Spanish. This is an English encyclopedia. How many times do I have to say this? TharkunColl 20:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, I explained that the islands are close to South America. Whetehr this is an English encyclopedia is irrelevant for the inclusion of the name or not. KimvdLinde 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what proportion of the US population has Spanish as their first language these days? In any case, it's irrelevant: the name is widely used and that is recognised by other authorities just as it's recognised here. Just zis Guy you know? 20:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You win. By threatening to block me, you have censored me. Congratulations. TharkunColl 20:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's censored anybody, you were being a dick. If you can contribute without throwing your toys out of the pram that will be much better. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that my arguments were reasoned and constructive, though I suppose they probably didn't seem like that for those who had already made up their mind. So, once agsin, I say this - why use a name that is associated with fascistic military occupation - without, at the very least, saying so? TharkunColl 20:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the name is generally NOT linked to that. KimvdLinde 20:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it is.--Gibnews 21:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that difference in perception. KimvdLinde 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from remembering what was said on Spanish television about the invasion at the time, which may be an experience you missed. Perhaps you would like a copy of the DVD version when I get round to transferring it from tape. --Gibnews 00:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What actually is the problem with Falkland Islands (also known as the Malvinas) ? Astrotrain 22:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It misses the obvious point that the common used name at the continent next door is Islas Malvinas which is a Spanish name. KimvdLinde 22:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

Falkland Islands (also known as the Islas Malvinas) or
Falkland Islands (unoffically known as the Islas Malvinas in [some/most/many] Spanish speaking countries) Astrotrain 22:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about: Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas a translation from the historical French name: Îles Malouines).....

This indicates that it is a different name (so not translation from English), it indicates that it has a historical (pre-war) origin and it indicates all historical names. KimvdLinde 22:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't write it as if it is the offical Spanish name- that is the POV. Astrotrain 22:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what we have is an article with a great big tag at the top saying the whole damn article is a mess of POV, when actually it's just that some people can't bring themselves to admit that the islands are called Malvinas by a substantial number of poeple, to the extent that Malvinas gets just under half the Google hits that "Falkland Islands" gets, because they think that acknowledging this will somehow result in the Argies waliking in unopposed. Brilliant. I find it really hard to make any further comment without violating Godwin's Law, so I'll stop there. Just zis Guy you know? 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I couldn't care less what the Islands are called. However, as a Wikipedian, it is essential that articles are written in an NPOV way. The offical name is Falkland Islands. Argentina calls them Islas Malvinas as part of their sovereignty claim. The name is also used informally by some Spanish speakers. Offical Spanish documents call them Islas Falklands. All this is 100% fact

Previously the article mentioned the Malvinas name in context of the sovereignty claim, as appropiate. Now people want it in the main title- all we are saying is that it must be done neutrally ie not (Spanish: Islas Malvinas but rather a variant as suggested above. As all you are bothered about is mentioning the Malvinas name, surley this should appease your google hits based viewpoint? Astrotrain 23:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who wants it in the main title? Did not see that argument. I do not find your position NPOV, but rather strong political based POV. Because what the Brits determine to be the official Spanish name is irrelevant, as long as the Spanish official name is Islas Malvinas. I have only a few EU-related spanish instances that use Islas Falklands, so stop about what is official (848 hits at google) versus unofficial (8,000,000 + hits). Argentina call them that for claims, most other people in the Spanish speaking world do not. KimvdLinde 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is Malvinas the "official" Spanish name? The only Spanish speaking institution that has any sort of quasi-political and/or economic control over the Falklands is the EU, of which the UK is a member and of which Spanish is one of a large number of official languages. And, as you admitted, they call the place "Islas Falklands". No other Spanish speaking institution (such as the Argentine government, for example) has any sort of constitutional, legal, or even de facto control over the islands. TharkunColl 09:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when can the Brits determine what is the official Spanish language or not. That it is not a direct translation does not matter, what is official in a language is what is used by them. And offical names have nothing to do with control or anything. KimvdLinde 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My viewpoint is not based on Gogole hits, that is just one of the many factors proving the obvious: that the islands are known as the Malvinas to a substantial number of people. We have a straw poll above, which is more than 2:1 in favour of the name being in the lead, we have the CIA World Factbook, we have Google hits, and we have an article which is about one edit away from being protected. The debate on this page shows most editors in favour of the name in the lead, Britannica has it in the lead (twice!), and the sole reason for not appears to be that it somehow endorses a territorial claim, presumably in the same way that discussing Turkish Cyprus endorses that claim. Just zis Guy you know? 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That straw poll was created to see what the strength of feeling was, it is not a binding vote [Read this carefully ]

The CIA factbook, until I had it changed, claimed there was a railway down the road from me that has not existed for 50 years.

Numbers of hits in Google are immaterial to anything, The official name of the territory is the Falkland Islands and nothing else.

To have a 'consensus' you would need a large number of people agreeing with your POV which has no basis in fact.

Spanish people have different names for all sorts of things and we don't find it necessary to include them in every article.

--Gibnews 00:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who originally pointed out that it was not binding. You are still ignoring consensus, int e Wikipedia sense of a 2:1 majority of editors expressing an opinion. Goodnight. Just zis Guy you know? 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People believe in the strangest things, but that does not make them true or appropriate for a reference source - personally I believe its time for a cup of tea and a late breakfast.--Gibnews 09:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time for a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Bourbon cream anyone? I also think that the footnote idea has definite merit. Just zis Guy you know? 11:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I've been party to a similar conflict at Joan of Arc that still smolders a little even now that the article is featured. The closest thing to a fully successful solution has been to create a footnote, supply a brief summary there, and cite a respected source. Is there any neutral article or book that discusses both sides of your naming controversy? I suggest that the fairest solution in this case would be to note the unofficial status of the Spanish name within the footnote and describe its French origin there, then provide a reference. Would that satisfy all concerned? Durova 04:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with that. But of course I have no fundamental objections to having Malvinas at the head anyway, which objections are the apparent source of the problem here. Just zis Guy you know? 09:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from the RfC, I feel that Islas Malvinas is the superior option to the direct translation; whichever (if either) is picked in the top line should be explained later in the article anyway, so it should be quite immaterial. Our friends at the spanish language Wikipedia have it at Islas Malvinas, with Islas Falklands as a redirect, which is worth noting I think.

Just out of interest, if you type in Islas Malvinas or Malvinas in our Wikipedia you will reach a disambiguation page, which, along with a few other bits of info, tells us that Islas Malvinas is also the name of a group of tiny islands near Ibiza. I would suggest that since these islands (a) belong to Spain, and (b) don't have an English name, then these little islands should be the primary definition of the term. In any case, quoting from the Spanish Wikipedia indicates a complete misunderstanding of the situation here. You are assuming that the Spanish Wikipedia has some sort of equal weight with the English, but it doesn't - for the simple reason that Spanish is not a native language on the Falklands. TharkunColl 11:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, if anyone speaks Spanish, their only mention of 'Islas Falklands' is: 'Nombre de las islas: islas Malvinas utilizada por todos los países de habla hispana (aunque también se reconoce el uso de islas Falklands; el nombre oficial en inglés es Falkland Islands' Robdurbar 10:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Spanish version for hat matter is much more NPOV, they do not fuss around with names, the start with the normal spanish name, put the english in parentheses, and go on with the article. KimvdLinde 13:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because they are a Spanish language encyclopedia, talking about a place whose native language is English. They put the Spanish name first, then the local language in brackets. But for the English encyclopedia to adopt the equivalent practice would be highly misleading, because Spanish is not a native language on the Falklands. You seem incabable of understanding this basic difference. TharkunColl 15:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I find it highly misleading to suggest that milions of Spanish speaking people use the wrong name. And if it looks for you that I am incapable of understanding something, so be it. However, it does not invalidate my opinions. KimvdLinde 16:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name in English is the Falkland Islands, and this is the English wikipedia. The article should be factual.--Gibnews 18:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any suggestion that the name of the page should be changed to Islas Malvinas, or that we should eliminate the name Falklands from the first line. KimvdLinde 18:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My central suggestion has been sidetracked: would the editors who dispute the matter consider footnoting as an NPOV solution? Durova 16:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that. KimvdLinde 18:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horse's Mouth

I've just sent the following e-mail to the Falkland Islands tourist board:

Greetings. I'm one of the editors for Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopedia, and we are currently having a debate over which name(s) to include in the header describing the Falkland Islands. I would like to ask you a question: In your experience, would the name "Malvinas" be regarded as offensive by a significant proportion of Falkland Islanders? Or alternatively, would most islanders regard it as a purely neutral term? Thanks.

I shall post their reply if and when it arrives. TharkunColl 16:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOld be a nice addition in the main text, but it would not invalidate the usage of the Spanish name worldwide and as such tha inclusion of that name in the first line. KimvdLinde 16:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the answer is yes, however, it would be only fair to say so on the first line as well. TharkunColl 16:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update... I have now had two replies, one from a representative of the Falkland Islands Tourist Board, and another from a representative of the Falkland Islands Development Corporation. I have requested permission to reproduce their replies in full, and have also invited them to take part in this debate directly, if they so wish. In the meantime, I can state with assurance that the term "Islas Malvinas" is not acceptable to them. TharkunColl 19:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? They don't own this article, and they have no more business determining the opening sentence of this article then the Argentine government does. If their opinion is published in reliable sources, we could quote those sources (although there are probably higher level sources to quote). Even if in an article specifically about the tourist board, we wouldn't cater to their opinion. We're neutral. Also, what you're doing is original research, and is therefore not to be used. This is an article about the Falklands, not by the Falklands, and not for the Falklands. We don't censor something because some government beaurocrat tells us its "not acceptable". --Rob 19:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research, it's a direct quote. You appear to think that the Falkland Islanders have no rights with regard to the definition of their own ethnic identity. According to Wikipedia policy, they do. TharkunColl 00:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for us to get involved with the online debate, but for information, I am happy for you to reproduce the following:

"As you have correctly surmised, many people here would be insulted by the term Malvinas as it implies an element of Argentine authority. Conversely, the alleged Argentine insult of "Kelper" is considered quaint but irrelevant and raises no tensions.

"Without prejudice to any political debate, there is also a linguistic consideration and most people in the Spanish speaking world (not only Argentina) generically refer to the Islands as the Malvinas. ISO-3166 has us listed as Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

"Regarding other place names, there are Argentine names for Stanley whose historic basis is debatable as Stanley was founded around 10 years after British rule commenced in 1833. Also, we no longer use Port Stanley, just Stanley."

Regards,

Tim Cotter MSc BSc

Infrastructure Development

Falkland Islands Development Corporation

Stanley

Falkland Islands

Further update... well, it has been remarkably silent round here all of a sudden. I'm going to delete the foreign names. Anybody who wants them back in, please explain why. TharkunColl 00:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mail as i makes clear that they themselves recognize that Malvinas is a often used name: there is also a linguistic consideration and most people in the Spanish speaking world (not only Argentina) generically refer to the Islands as the Malvinas. ISO-3166 has us listed as Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

So, they even recognize this is the most neutral way of stating it. KimvdLinde 02:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not what they said at all. In correspondence that I have not received permission to quote, they have described "Malvinas" as a term that to them implies Argentine sovereignty. As for the ISO-3166, they have been trying to change that. One of them told me that they had even lobbied the UN on this issue. But there is a wider issue at stake here, that of the right to self-identification of an ethnic group. The Falkland Islands are not a multi-lingual society - the only language native to the islands is English. Furthermore, not only is "Malvinas" foreign, it is also offensive to them. Your reasoning is flawed - all those speakers in South America are speaking Spanish, and this is an English language encyclopedia. TharkunColl 09:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is offensive is irrelevant, see WP:NOT. Apprently, even up to the UN, there is support for inclusion of Islas Malvinas, nice to know. Finally, this is an encyclopedia, not a soap box for political activism. KimvdLinde 09:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment and recommendation

The straw poll as an enquiry to judge support for foreign language names should A) be included in the first paragraph, or B) be shown in context in the second paragraph, was quickly amended to make the former option "To add foreign language names at the beginning conform Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names): Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages." This is an extract from a proposed policy paragraph which earlier states "The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis" – such names are an option, but not required. The question of what a "foreign lanquage name" means is not defined in the proposed naming conventions. The outcome of the straw poll was that a majority supported A), with around a third supporting B). As in Wikipedia:Consensus "it is clear that consensus has not been reached".

Some supporters of B) have proposed as a compromise a mention of the Malvinas in the first paragraph with a brief explanation of the context. This has been vigourously rejected by some supporters of A), who contend that Malvinas is the name used by Spanish speakers worldwide and is in widespread use on the adjacent landmass, and that to leave the name out of the first line is political. The implication of this position is that names used in adjoining countries must be listed. In support of A) the following examples were cited: 1, 2, 3, and 4. If this is correct, one would expect the first line of Germany to include Allemagne, but it only includes Bundesrepublik Deutschland, and similarly France should include Frankreich, but only includes République française. Examples 1 - 4 are interesting: the first three give multiple language names, relating to places "with a cultural mix of people and languages", the fourth gives no alternative language names. The implication is clear: the first line should include names in languages used in the territory, not names used by neighbouring countries. In accordance with this, Switzerland gives names in Latin and the various Swiss languages.

It has been asserted in various ways that it doesn't matter that the Islanders don't like one of the names, that's not our problem as an encyclopaedia. In this context Netherlands gives a useful example: the name "Holland" is often used in English, German, and other languages to mean the whole of the Netherlands, but is not included in the first line or paragraph: oddly enough, it is explained in the second paragraph. As one who flinches when "England" is used to mean UK I can appreciate the local sensitivities. Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Types of entities comments that "names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.", and Example sets out an imaginary scenario with some parallels to the Falklands, concluding that "This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised."

An alternative argument might be that contentious cases should be mentioned at the outset. The Channel Islands conflict is long in the past, but the French name is not mentioned until the third section, under Geography. The various names of Northern Ireland are a hot topic, and here a disambiguation links to one of the terms before the start of the lead section. There is no mention of alternative names in the lead section, but section 3.4 Variations in Geographic nomenclature gives details, and is adorned at the outset with a merge tag and a neutrality disputed tag.

In conclusion, there seem to have been unfortunate misunderstandings about what Wikipedia NPOV policy is in regard to foreign names, whether "foreign names" means non-English local names or names used by nearby countries, and what weight should be given to local sensitivities. In my opinion option B) fully complies with all these requirements, but personally I am willing to accept as a compromise a mention of Malvinas in the first line provided that it is made clear in that line that the name is used by nearby Spanish-speaking countries and is not acceptable to the people of the Falklands. Editors on both sides of the debate may have difficulty in finding such a compromise acceptable to reach consensus, but I note that a suitably worded phrase was recently added, though quickly reverted by a proponent of A). If such consensus cannot be reached, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) sets out a procedure which was raised as C), creating a new first section which replaces the alternative name(s) in the first section, and substitutes in the first line the following text: (known also by several alternative names^Names). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. To avoid revert wars, it is recommended to ask for help at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. I hope that a suitable consensus can be reached without having to invoke this procedure. ...dave souza, talk 17:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above was actually very convincing reading to me, and the parallels drawn for perspective/cmparison should make it easier to reach a reasonable compromise. //Big Adamsky 21:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This reflects a lot of careful thought and research. However, there's a substantive difference between names for places that are merely geographically close and places where a territorial dispute exists. Unless I'm mistaken, Germany and France settled their borders many years ago. It would be better to compare against Western Sahara, Tibet, and the Spratly Islands. Durova 22:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting links. The Western Sahara recent talk indicates work for a mutually acceptable compromise, mostly on the disambig, and reversions appear to be of anon vandals. Tibet has a suggestion of connotations in the intro linked to a name section, the Spratly Islands intro begins with the dispute and doesn't give alternative names. The different situation of names not being listed for neighbouring states with settled borders makes the point that including the names in the intro is a political decision related to the dispute. Thanks for your comment, and also to Big A, ...dave souza, talk 23:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the fundamental driving factor is the neutrality and accuracy of the encyclopaedia, I have no problme with any of the above. As soon as the desires and political aspirations of the islanders - or indeed of the neighbouring states - rise to the surface, I have a problem, because in the end we are supposed to reflect reality, not what some people wish was reality. Just zis Guy you know?

Yes, and the reality of the situation is that the Falkland Islanders are English speakers who object to the term "Malvinas". TharkunColl 09:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is irrelevant for an encyclopedia. KimvdLinde 09:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, please read the above assessment carefully, in particular Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Types of entities "names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names." Are you now proposing a campaign to include Holland on the first line of Netherlands? ...dave souza, talk 11:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Perspective

Saw this on RfC, and here is a perspective by a non-British, non-Argentine, non-Spanish-speaking person who was an adult during the Falklands War: most people who think or wonder about the windswept little hunk of rock and grass in the South Atlantic are going to do so as a result of the war over it, one that (IIRC) cost almost 1000 lives. Without commenting on the specifics of that action, people expect that the opening line(s) of an encylopedia article will state the most salient thing about the place. In this case, it is the Falklands War, and (with respect to the sensibilities of the British), I am shocked (shocked!) that the first line does not read something like "The Falkland Islands, called Islas Malvinas by Argentina, are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, over which the United Kingdom and Argentina fought in 1983." -- Gnetwerker 23:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I protected this page to stop the edit war. Please request unprotection in no less than 3 days.

Thanks.

PS: For those that saw previous posts of mine about this issue, please note that I happened to protect while the version on the screen was the one I was opposed to. I am taking no sides here.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested resolution

The ISO descriptor Falkland Islands (Malvinas) is neutral and concise. How about making that the first three words of the article and using either a footnote or an article section to discuss the name in greater depth? Durova 09:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we must have "Malvinas" on the first line, then we must also say - on the first line - that the Falkland Islanders object to it. To do otherwise would be negligent. TharkunColl 09:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no need for that. KimvdLinde 09:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You state it, but you offer no reasons. My reasons are simple: not to do so would be at best negligent, at worst dishonest. To the Falkland Islanders, "Malvinas" is not a neutral term. TharkunColl 09:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the sensitivities of the Falkland Islanders are not dispositive in this matter. That they object can be explained (at length, if need be) anywhere in the article. Wikipedia cannot cater to every party's sensibility, unless it was empty. -- Gnetwerker 09:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why treat the Falkland Islanders differently to any other ethnic group? As has already been argued at length above, the convention on using foreign names is only to do so if they are native to the place in question. The fact that "Malvinas" also happens to be highly offensive merely adds an extra reason not to use it. TharkunColl 09:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that Falkland Islanders were a distinct ethnic group. However, this is of no matter. I suspect that there are Asians who find the Wikipedia page Mongoloid offensive, and many who would find Nigger so. Mount McKinley is listed under that page, even though the native name is Denali (the first line starts"Mount McKinley or Denali ..." and the second para begins "It is commonly known as Denali" and goes on at length about the naming controversy and offensiveness of the non-native name. Wikipedia does not currenyly seem to have a page on Squaw Peak, Arizona, but if it did, what would it be called? I find the ISO argument above persuasive and your argument less so. -- Gnetwerker 10:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All your examples are those where a foreign language is also spoken. This is not the case with the Falklands. TharkunColl 10:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support Falkland Islands (Malvinas) as being the most NPOV title. This is the English language edition of Wikipedia; it is not the English version of Wikipedia. Some people seem to fail to understand the distinction (although I am certain that this type of systematic POV is even worse in other language editions).--Mais oui! 10:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durova's wording/footnote proposal is the way to go. The footnote will address any objections to people who don't like a term. I think the only objection to this approach, is that Wikipedia isn't explicity siding with the people of the Falklands over the matter (as some wish it would). --Rob 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this is precisely the problem. It's not a question of Wikipedia "siding with the people of the Falklands", but rather siding with reality. Spanish is not a native language to the Falklands, and the people there reject the term Malvinas. The only true NPOV is to acknowledge these facts, no matter how unpalatable they may be to some. TharkunColl 16:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop he soapbox arguments. KimvdLinde 18:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of how not to start articles

Can anyone spot what's wrong with the following hypothetical article headers?

"Black people (also known as niggers)..."
"British people (also known as limies)..."
"French people (also known as frogs)..."
"Germans (also known as krauts)..."
"Pakistanis (also known as pakis)..."

All these words are common in English, yet for some reason we don't start articles in this way. That is not to say that these terms are not mentioned somewhere else, because they are. But not in the first line. TharkunColl 10:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder: the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the CIA World Factbook both use Malvinas in the lead. WP:NOT censored. Just zis Guy you know? 10:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The islanders are trying to change this. TharkunColl 10:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed compromise

The Falkland Islands (also known as Malvinas, a term generally regarded as unacceptable by the inhabitants)... TharkunColl 10:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with the current style, Malvinas should be italic rather than bold, and "generally" seems an unnecessary qualification. Otherwise, fine. ...dave souza, talk 11:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following, which actually encapulates what its about and is both neutral and accurate:

The Falkland Islands (Called The Malvinas by Argentina, which maintains a territorial claim) --Gibnews 12:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I am very strongly against an opening sentence which appears to be trying to recruit the reader to an agenda. The compromises suggested by Durove are much more neutral. The comment that the islanders are trying to change the CIA World Factbook and Britannica is telling: WP:NOT a soapbox. Just zis Guy you know? 12:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not recruiting readers to an agenda, it is simply stating a fact. Surely it must be supremely relevant that the islanders reject the term Malvinas? Why are you treating the Falkland Islanders differently to any other ethnic group? TharkunColl 12:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its dissapointing to read that 'telling it like it is' is perceived to be 'enforcing an agenda'. The ONLY reason the word malvinas has any currency is because of the Argentine claim and their promotion of an alternative name for the territitory.

If it must be included lets be HONEST - I think my form of words is a reasonable way of explaining the use of the word, and haven't seen one from anyone else which does.

The name is used by Argentina and its supporters
They have a territorial claim
It is not a translation it is an alternative name

--Gibnews 19:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at this in dry editing terms.^[15] An introduction must be brief and to the point. Otherwise the article will lose readers, who will surf away in full possession of whatever views they already held. Durova 15:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Normally any information that cannot be explained in a few words would go into the body of an article. Name conflicts present a particular challenge for editors. This provides space to present the origins and content of the name dispute. Durova 15:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to me that in the recent discussion here there is nearly universal agreement (strictly speaking universal minus one). With respect to TharkunColl, if it's good enough for Britannica, the CIA Fact Book, and ISO, its good enough for Wikipedia. When the islanders succeed in changing those documents, we can follow suit. -- Gnetwerker 17:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the CIA factbook is not reliable, I've had to correct several howlers in it.--Gibnews 19:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis of the factbook is not really material here. It is an accepted secondary source, and meets the WIkipedia definition of a reliable source. You may wish to read up on the verifiability policy, in particular the section headed Verifiability, not truth. -- Gnetwerker 20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I supprt Durova's solution. KimvdLinde 18:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one, as you well know. I have provided hard evidence that the Falkland Islanders find the term "Malvinas" offensive, yet you appear to believe that their views are irrelevant. This goes against all Wikipedia policy concerning the rights of self-definition for ethnic and other groups. Bear in mind that I'm not saying we shouldn't mention "Malvinas" on the first line, simply that if we do we should also point out that it is a term rejected by the actual inhabitants of the place that the article is supposed to be about. I cannot believe how people are willfully missing or ignoring this point. TharkunColl 18:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know your arguments. I am not missing or ignoring it, I just do not find it right to use Wikipedia for political means as you are doing. KimvdLinde 18:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting extremely annoyed at your constant accusations of political bias on my part, because from my point of view it is you who are the one who is pushing a blatant political agenda. This must be the only article where Wikipedia editors think it's okay to use a foreign name that is found offensive to the inhabitants of a place. It's not even as if Spanish is native to the Falklands, if it were then the situation would be different. TharkunColl 18:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sorry if it annoys you, but that does not change my opinion that wikipedia should be NPOV. Islas Malvinas is used without any conotation by milions in the world. Wikipedia is not censored for political reasons, or because people find it offensive WP:NOT. It can be explained in detail in a seperate paragraph, but you want to give it undue weight by insisting that it is explained in detail in the first that some people of the islands find it offensive that many milions of people use the name, even when they do not have the same conotation to the name that they have. KimvdLinde 18:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of people speaking Spanish. This is an English encyclopedia. But why bother? You obviously don't give a shit. TharkunColl 18:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, millions speak that language. And yes, this is an English language encyclopedia, not a english owned encyclopedia. And you are right, I am pretty immune to political arguments. KimvdLinde 18:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At what point did I ever say, or imply, that this encyclopedia was owned by the English? How does my being English in any way affect what the Falkland Islanders think about the term "Malvinas"? Your comments, however, do indeed shed some light on your political views, so to claim that you have none is completely disingenuous. By your own admittance the term "Islas Malvinas" is used in Spanish - so why should it be given so much prominence in an English language encyclopedia? Why don't we put "Inglaterra" in the article about England?

All the pro-Malvinas votes in the straw poll - most of which were cast by people who haven't even bothered to take part in this debate - are, in my opinion, based on ignorance of the situation. I am the only one here who has looked into it properly, and confirmed that "Malvinas" is an offensive term to the islanders. But in any case, I'm sure you and your cronies will win this, by sheer weight of numbers - though certainly not by any reasoned argument, since you have provided none. So congratulations! The Falkland Islanders are no strangers to being pushed around by bullies, so I hope you're proud of yourself. TharkunColl 19:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am immune to your policical arguments WP:NOT and you do not own the page WP:OWN. My political view is that the Argentinians have no right to the islands, and should renounce all claims. That does however not imply that the name Islas Malvinas should be suppressed because some people link that with the Argentinian occupation (by a regime that has since than been disposed) despite that the name is abundatlty used throughout the world as a alternative without any conotation. KimvdLinde 19:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Falklanders distaste for the term "Islas Malvinas" or even "Malvinas" doesn't seem to be in question and I'd hope we'd all agree it's relevent to the subject as a whole. It's not the sole factor in defining which names might be used though, and given for a brief time in the early eighties they were under Argentinian control and called "Malvinas" then it's important to include it as historical detail. It's not uniquely a Spanish term, a large number of English speakers across the globe know exactly what it refers to without having to speak the tongue it originated from. Similar to Bungalow, Luftwaffe or even croissant in that respect.

In comparison Gdansk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gda%C5%84sk has also suffered a contentious history, and all the names are listed regardless of various factions dislike for them.PhilipPage 23:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Durova. Although I think the endnote is superfluous, since it is amply explained within the article, it costs little. Just zis Guy you know? 19:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, TharkunColl, please endeavour to be polite. Your position is not helped by attacking others. Secondly, I am one of many, many English-speaking people who know the islands by both names, as that is how they were referred to in the U.S. media during the Falklands War. TharkunColl, I most strongly suggest that you set your efforts to a good paragraph (fully sourced and verifiable) that explains why the name is so offensive, for inclusion elsewhere in the article. Durova's suggestion certainly appears to be the best NPOV solution. -- Gnetwerker 19:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any other reason to call the territory the malvinas apart from the Argentine claim then someone could enlighten me. --Gibnews 20:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as pointed out above, that is what secondary sources call it. Again, see Verifiability, not truth. -- Gnetwerker 20:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? The CIA is an agency of the US Government and the reference to the Malvinas on their site is simply an expression of American policy of arse kissing any non communist regime in South America.--Gibnews 21:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that the CIA World Fact Book is not a reliable source, then almost 1000 other Wikipedia pages will have to change. Oh, and do you include that hotbed of anti-British sentiment, The Encyclopedia Britannica in your list of unreliable sources? -- Gnetwerker 21:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnetwerker, you have helpfully pointed out a fundamental issue in this disagreement. The term Malvinas is commonly used in the US as a neutral alternative term, which makes it hard to understand why this is an issue. Given the large Spanish speaking population of the US and its diplomatic relationships with South America this is not surprising. However, the term is not used or accepted in the islands, and Wikipedia:Naming conflict draws attention to the importance of self-identifying names. There is nothing POV about dealing with a contentious name in a separate paragraph or section: Holland gives an example. Durova's proposal of an explanatory section (rather than footnote) is fine if the mention in the first line is of "other names", but not if "Malvinas" is used without qualification. ...dave souza, talk 21:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dave souza, I find your logic perfectly reasonable, and as a non-partisan in this fight, I would have no problem with that as a solution. However, on balance, I found the use of the ISO standard name (with or without a footnote), per Durova's suggestion, more compelling (though I have also suggested an explanatory paragraph elsewhere in the article). What I do not find compelling is the putative offense taken by the islanders. If I (and others) were to declare our offense that the U.S. is not (e.g.) The United States of Vespucci, that is of no matter to the official (ISO), designated, recognized (Britannica, CIA) name. I do actually think the Mount McKinley/Denali example is instructive. Of course, this is just my opinion. -- Gnetwerker 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a different way of looking at this? There are millions of people in the English speaking world, mainly in the United States, who live in bilingual Spanish regions. I know these islands by both names, but the subject doesn't get raised very often and the names aren't cognates. Frankly it helps to see a reminder that these two names refer to the same place. I don't mean to offend anybody and I'll call these the Falkland Islands if I ever visit, but if I send a young friend to Wikipedia's article the first thing I would want them to know is that the U.K. and Argentina fought a war 24 years ago. Durova 01:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I (mostly) agree. My previous rough suggestion (lost above in the cruft) was: ""The Falkland Islands, called Islas Malvinas by Argentina, are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, over which the United Kingdom and Argentina fought in 1983.". The conflict, which is arguably the most notable thing about the place, is what should be highlighted in the opening sentence. A statement of this sort is NPOV and accurate (if not precise). However, I do not think this accrues to Spanish-speaking Americans, as I am not one. U.S. media coverage used/uses both names, not out of deference to allies or our native Hispanic-heritage population, but because the combination is most widely accepted and in itself portrays the essential conflict. -- Gnetwerker 01:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that sentence is that it ignores that not only the argentinians, but also all other Spanish speaking countries use that name. It also makes a name that is only centengious for a limited group of people contengious for everybody. KimvdLinde 01:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the difference between its accuracy and its precision. I do not believe that the name use in the balance of the Spanish-speaking world is relevant to the first sentence. It should certainly be mentioned elsewhere in the article. -- Gnetwerker 03:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I proposed my version which is perhaps more subtle than you might think. The term 'The Malvinas' is not Spanish, but English and thus acknowledges it appropriatly. If it were not for the Argentine territorial claim, about which the wording does not make any value judgement, there would be no dispute, and probably very few people would have ever heard the M word. I think its fair and reasonable and should end this argument. Of course anyone can revert it and we can continue until the sea level rises enough to flood the place and it vanishes.

PS: I just checked the Encyclopedia Britanica and it seems the editorial board lacks anyone English. --Gibnews 02:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So any reference work not taking your position is guilty of anti-British bias? Get a grip. -- Gnetwerker 03:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why add a name as an English term just to avoid the notion that millions of people use the Spanish variant without any conotation? It does not make sence to me. The falklanders are doing business with the argentinians, they do reseach together, they discuss about the management of the sea in between them, etc. If the hatred would be as deep as I have to believe, they would not do anything with them. KimvdLinde 02:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple reason, the official name is the Falkland Islands not the Malvinas, that name is only used in connection with the Argentine territorial claim. However you seem to have won for the moment as the page has been protected. Personally I feel the person doing that should have removed the disputed wording.--Gibnews 02:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. See below, the "official" name is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" -- that is the ISO designation. You are perhaps thinking of the official UK designation. -- 69.29.222.19 03:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the name is used by a large population beyond the Argentinians and the name is NOT only used as a territorial claim. And the strawpoll makes clear that the removal is the disputed version, not the inclusion. KimvdLinde 02:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does the UN, or any outside body, have the right to give any place an "official" name? Surely the only people who have a right to confer an "official" name are the people who live there. The anonymous poster above seems to think that the UK official name is somehow inferior in status to any that are given by outside bodies. But the fact is that the people who live on the islands accept the UK designation as their own. This really should be the end of the matter, for anyone who is prepared to look at this issue without bias. TharkunColl 08:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts

I think we have lost track of the facts here. I think they are (in no order):

The ISO designation for the place is Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
The UK (and EU?) name is Falkland Islands
The Argentinian name (in Spanish) for a location over which they claim sovereignity is Islas Malvinas
Some other Spanish-speaking countries follow the Argentinian usage
Certain notable secondary sources, includng the CIA Fact Book and the Encyclopedia Britannica use the ISO designation

There are also some notable opinions:

The residents of the Falkland Islands may be offended by the designation Malvinas
- Not clear if they are offended by the ISO designation
The U.S. media tends to use the terms together (in the rare event they are used at all nowadays)
Use of Malvinas alone (in English) may be associated by the reader with sympathy for Argentina's claim

Are any of these facts wrong, and are the opinions incorrectly stated (vs. wrong, as they are opinions)? -- Gnetwerker 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question above - yes, the islanders are indeed offended by the ISO designation, and the CIA factbook - indeed, they are actively seeking to change it. This was explained to me, independently, by two different correspondents. Since they did not give me permission to quote them, all I can do is paraphrase. One of them told me that the Falklands government have been lobbying the UN through a number of different member states in order to change this. TharkunColl 08:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another fact: as stated above, WP:NOT a soapbox. I wish the Islanders luck, and once they succeed in getting ISO, the CIA, Britannica and the US media to change it, it's quite likely we'll follow suit. But it is not our function to support that agenda. Unaccredited universities fight long and hard to remove "X is an unaccredited university" from the lead of their articles, but it would be a failure of WP:NPOV to omit it. Same here. The neutral point of view means we must recognise that this is a name which is very widely used. Just zis Guy you know? 09:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be a failure of NPOV not to point out that the islanders find the term offensive - and not to bury it halfway down the article or in a footnote, but to state it when the term "Malvinas" is first mentioned. I really, truly can't understand why people are objecting to this. The article is about the Falklands and its people, so it surely must be relevant to say which terms they like, and which they don't. People are accusing me of POV, political bias, and all sorts of things, but in reality it is those who advocate suppression of relevant facts (the islanders dislike of the term) that are the biased ones, and it really makes no sense to me why this simple piece of info is causing so much trouble. TharkunColl 10:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dispute with the facts listed, but the list is incomplete. I'll give more time to considering thie, but off the cuff:

The islander's language is English {CIA factbook}
The islander's nationality is British (CIA factbook)
There is no NPOV requirement to list at the start names used in other countries or territories for the area in question. The demand that this should be done here is a political one arising out of the long standing diplomatic conflict. The name should be included in the article, in context.

The following points may also be usefully considered:

The dispute over territory involved overt actions by Argentina in 1966 and 1967, and their military invasion of 1982: Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands
The dispute is an active controversy, recently involving a refusal by Argentina to allow charter flights to the Falklands over its territory[16]. The issues are hotly debated in a forum set up by a Florida based organisation aimed at mediation of international conflicts[17]
The United States takes a diplomatically neutral position on the dispute, reflected in the CIA handbook and Britannica.

Hope this is useful for now. TharkunColl, the evidence you have found is interesting and coincides with my understanding of the islander's views, but is not admissible in the article itself in terms of WP:NOR. It would be useful if you or your correspondents could refer us to reputable source material covering the same point. ...dave souza, talk 10:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some quotes from websites listed at the "Official Falklands Islands Portal" [18]:

From "Keith and Val's Falkland Islands" [19]: The Falkland Islands are situated in the South Atlantic, about 280 miles north-east of Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America. They are an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, independently governed but fiercely british. Most people think immediately of the conflict in 1982 when the Falkland Islands are mentioned. One of the aims of this site is to show that the Islands are worth far more than that! [my bold]

From "The Falklands Advertiser" [20]: English is the language of Islands. It is said that Falkland Islanders (Kelpers) are “more British than the British”! [my bold]

From "Falkland Islands Information Portal" (section describing UN Resolution, 18 June 2004) [21]: Petitioners representing the Falkland Islands Government called on the Committee to grant the people of the Falkland Islands the basic right to self-determination - the right to pursue their own political ambitions and choice of sovereign status. The draft resolution before the Committee did not take into account the wishes and ambitions of Falkland Islanders and did not respect their right to determine their own future, said Roger Edwards, Legislative Councillor of the Falkland Islands Government. He said Falkland Islanders did not wish to see a change from British sovereign status and he, therefore, urged all delegates not to adopt the resolution. [my bold]

From the same source: MIKE SUMMERS, Legislative Councillor of the Falkland Islands Government, said his country was not a colony. The people neither felt they lived in a colony, nor did the Government of the United Kingdom treat the Falklands as a colony. The world, led by the United Nations, must not tolerate those who pursued territorial disputes while manifestly ignoring the wishes of the people of those territories. The people of the Falkland Islands had been devising and implementing strategies for the political, economic and social development, and strengthening the internal self-government, of their country for many years. [my bold - note the self-identification as a country]

There are some interesting examples of Falklands patriotic poetry here [22]. To quote a few lines from "The Falkland Islands" by Lynn New (verse 3): Her lands marked by battle/Fought for and freed/A future secured/For islanders need/Witness the magic/Share in their fame/The Falklands are worthy/Of their island name [my bold]. Or how about "Motherland" by Ernest H. Spencer (verse 6): Hail Falklands Motherland!/We pledge our faith in thee/Beneath our banners proudly stand/To work for peace, forever free [my bold - does anyone still doubt that the people of the Falklands are a nation?]TharkunColl 12:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added - I notice that the anti-Falklands votes keep piling up, from people who have made no contribution to this debate whatsoever. So be it. For those who wish to trample on the Wikipedia policy concerning the rights of self-identification for ethnic groups, all I can say is this: How would you like it if a larger, foreign neighbour wanted to occupy your country, extinguish your nationhood, and rename it as something else? TharkunColl 12:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of special pleading is going to change the observed fact that the other authorities have Malvinas in the lead and discuss the disputes later. Just zis Guy you know? 13:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What other "authorities" have is not relevant, if they are contradicted by facts. The fact is that the people of the Falklands self-identify the name of their home as "Falkland Islands". I have provided abundant, written evidence that the Falkland Islanders self-identify as such. Why is there still a dispute over this? TharkunColl 13:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA

Would anyone mind if I added Estados Unidos de América to the first line of the article about the USA? After all, large parts of it were once owned by a Spanish speaking power, and (unlike the Falklands) Spanish is still widely spoken there. TharkunColl 13:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are being sarcastic, stop it. If not, I apologize.--Greedy 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 13:13, 19 March 2006 edit TharkunColl (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 11,559 edits →Facts ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:37, 19 March 2006 edit undo Greedyredbag (talk \| contribs) 529 edits →USA Next edit →
Line 1,444:		Line 1,444:

	Would anyone mind if I added ''Estados Unidos de América'' to the first line of the article about the USA? After all, large parts of it were once owned by a Spanish speaking power, and (unlike the Falklands) Spanish is still widely spoken there. [[User:TharkunColl\|TharkunColl]] 13:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)		Would anyone mind if I added ''Estados Unidos de América'' to the first line of the article about the USA? After all, large parts of it were once owned by a Spanish speaking power, and (unlike the Falklands) Spanish is still widely spoken there. [[User:TharkunColl\|TharkunColl]] 13:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

			:If you are being sarcastic, stop it. If not, I apologize.--[[User:Greedyredbag\|Greedy]] 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)