Talk:Falkland Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falkland Islands article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.
Falkland Islands is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine politics.

If you would like to participate, you can improve Falkland Islands, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject South America, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

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

  • Archive of discussion prior to March 11, 2006 Straw Poll is here
  • Archive of Straw Poll & Falklands vs. Malvinas naming debate (March 11-30, 2006) is here
  • Archive of discussion from March 11. 2006 to September 27 2006 is here

Contents

[edit] Name should also include Ille Malouines

The first paragraph of the article should also include the French name Ille Malouines as this is still the name used by the French and French speaking countries.

Try telling the French post office anything else! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.248.193.146 (talk • contribs).

And how about the name used in Chinese, or Swahili, or Arapaho? Please remember that this is the English language Wikipedia. TharkunColl 14:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The French name is the original name for the islands (Iles Malouines, from the port town of St. Malo in France), and is the origin for the Spanish name "Malvinas". I think it's definitely more relevant to include it than it is to include the Chinese name or any other silliness. The name in other languages is bound to be a local variation on either Malouines or Falklands anyways. 24.201.253.66 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Quickly, think of what you call the largest city in the state of New York, United States. Now, here are a few sentences from the History section of the New York, New York article:
... European settlement began with the founding of the Dutch fur trading settlement, later called New Amsterdam, on the southern tip of Manhattan in 1613. ... In 1664, the British conquered the city and renamed it "New York" after the English Duke of York and Albany. The Dutch briefly regained it in 1673, renaming the city "New Orange", before permanently ceding the colony of New Netherland to the British a year later.
I think that the history of New York City is relevant to this discussion, but make of this history what you will. Val42 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Malvinas" -> "the Malvinas"

Not trying to stir up the hornets... but I've made a (very) minor change to the lead. I have changed "The Malvinas" to "the Malvinas", as it is not correct to capitalize "The" in this case. (Check out this Argentine government page.) There was a previous reversion of this change when another editor "de-capitalized" the "the", with a summary note about the consensus version. However, I cannot find a reference in the archives as to the use of "The", and I don't think it is correct to capitalize it here. (We've been having a similar discussion over at Moon for a while, as there was some debate as to whether the name is "Moon" or "The Moon".) Anyways, if there is a part of the discussion that covered capitalization, please point me to it, and I'll certainly apologize if I've made a mistake. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A note to "Gibnews" - it would be nice if you could please provide something more than just "look a bit harder" when you revert - there's been a lot of discussion on this page and its archives, and I made an honest attempt. You could at least have left a more helpful comment. (Sorry if this sounds like I'm irked, but come on...) --Ckatzchatspy 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Long ago, after fierce battle, the consensus was reached that the ISO designation, which uses the initial capital, would be used. I suspect that Gibnews was merely defending that hard-won compromise. -- Gnetwerker 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I went back a fair ways in the talk archives, but obviously not far enough. I appreciate the information, and can understand the frustrations that surface with regards to this particular article. It might be worth establishing a short note at the top of the talk page that outlines the agreed-upon compromise, with notes on particularly hard-fought points such as including "Malvinas" and capitalizing "the", to avoid future problems. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 20:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. However, in reviewing the record, I feel compelled to correct myself. I said above that the capital 'T' in "The Malvinas" was part of the ISO designation. It is not. I spelled out the "facts", such as they are, here, and the core (perhaps "germ") of the consensus can be found here. My opinion is that this doesn't change anything, but mea culpa, I did not mean to mislead. -- Gnetwerker 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: Now I really have to eat my words. Here is the version of the page at the time of the consensus. The lower-case initial 't' was used then. (Sigh) My advice -- work this out with Gibnews offline. I will mediate if anyone thinks it will do any good and that I am unbiased. -- Gnetwerker 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment seemed abrupt, it was simply meant to be concise, it took a lot of discussion and hot air to achieve a consensus that everyone could live with. Frankly, what the Argentine government says does not matter, the Falklands are British. However, in order to keep everyone happy the orignally agreed wording and style should remain intact. There used to be a warning in there to that effect. Having gone through the exercise one would hope it is not necesarry to the can of worms.

I got banned from the Spanish wikipedia for posting a picture of a roadsign to Stanley which some mistakenly believe has another name. The people of Whitby would be dissapointed. --Gibnews 14:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the line 'also called the Malvinas' should be included at all. The Falkland islands are British and have never been officially Argentinean. They're only called Malvinas in English by British-hating anglophobic idiots who'll think of anything to say in order to insult the British. It doesn't matter how Argentina refers to the Falklands, unless included in a subcategory designed to state that in Argentina, and the Anglophobic sphear of humanity, the islands are called the Malvinas. To say 'also known as the Malvinas' is far less relevant even than saying Germany is also known as Deutschland, whereas this is the name of the country in its native language. Enzedbrit 10:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We have been round that a number of times. The bottom line is until you can stick a rocket up the arse of the British Standards people who represent the Falklands on ISO and change the designation from Falklands (Malvinas) there is some justification for the title. I asked a man from the Falklands where the Malvinas was and he claimed not to know. You might also care to update the pages on es.wikipedia.org which were full of 'Puerto Argentina' nonsense, but write to BSI first. When thats sorted we can change the consensus lead. --Gibnews 10:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on South America at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#South America whose scope would include the Falkland Islands. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case for Sovereignty

I deleted the following from the intro "are British citizens and support British sovereignty" since this is clearly making a case for British sovereignty of the Islands, when the intro should be neutral. If that statement is allowed, then it would only be fair to present the case of the other side as well, such as saying something along the lines of "Argentina however maintains this and that". --Bobobobo, 24 Dec 2006

  • They are British citizens, and the Islander's views are well documented. Astrotrain 13:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is about the Falkland Islands and its people, not the delusions of others. --Gibnews 17:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We must remember the island is British and therefore only the Argentinians claim sovereignty. The British dont claim sovereignty, they have soveriegnty, an altogether different thing, so Bobo was right to remove an inaccurate statement but what we have now looks good as it focuses on the rejection of the Argentinian claim, SqueakBox 17:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corruption, Lack of Democracy, Un-accountable Police ??

I know it is a long long read, but speed-read this http://www.falklands.net/FalklandsCorruption.shtml -- and tell me if you don't think this should be somehow mentioned in the Politics section of the article. I don't mean exactly as that article describes things. The reason I post this in talk and not touch the main page is because I'm in no position to figure out the relative importance and/or accuracy of the above. I'm also in no position to properly put the above article into a proper context wrt the whole situation on the island with respect to democracy, accountability, and justice. The above is clearly a one sided POV. We need someone who has enough information for the non-POV.

But if the information in that article is not distorted, it's clear that the Island has enough independence from British justice such that a level of grossly un-democratic and underhanded corruption can exist without any checks or balances. I'm also unhappy about the statement that it's a port of call for cruise ships because of all the penguins, and yet the Islands government has merrily done absolutely nothing while 80+% of the population has starved to death over the past 10 years -- while places like Chile and Argentina are able to protect their penguin populations from a similar fate without badly affecting their fishery industries.

I'd love to hear a more independent "in the know" opinion on that article's claim in the 8th paragraph about the re-distribution and concentration of wealth due to "secret" meetings - "Much of the division of wealth which exists in the Falklands today stems from these dealings."

It's also quite disturbing to hear of a Brit being denied citizenship and fleeing to Argentina because he's afraid for his life.

CraigWyllie 18:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Its certainly suspicious that he has gone to Argentina and set up a website making allegations about corruption in the Falkland Islands. However they can legally deny residence to people, whatever their nationality. Whatever this might be a topic for 'panorama' but is not really for wikipedia. --Gibnews

Its certainly true that Brits dont have any more automatic residence rights in Falklands than they do in Gibraltar, SqueakBox 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, its quite different; Gibraltar is part of the EU and all community nationals are free to come and live here. The Falklands are different. --Gibnews 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


This is not the first time. Alexander Jacob Betts was a falklander who researched the islands' history. He soon found out that the dutch and german documents told a whole different story, and after a lot of research he became the first falklander to recognize that their government lies. His house, his money, his car and his daughter were taken away and he had to flee to argentina.
(Unsigned) 2007-01-08T17:39:18 Argentino
Judging from his comments reproduced below, he deserved deportation. Generally if one looks hard enough its possible to find a malcontent who will support any position, see also Quisling. --Gibnews 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heritage of Inlanders

"The great majority of islanders are of Scottish and Ulster Scots descent."

In researching Falkland history, I believe this statement to be true, but could not find any online sources that can be cited. Gohiking 23:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it might be true or would have already deleted it but unfortunately we need to base wikipedia on cited sources, SqueakBox 00:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will of the people?

Not that I in any way disbelieve that a broad majority of Falklanders reject Argentine claims, but isn't it a bit strange that the source of the claim in the intro is a UK government website? ([1]) Wouldn't it be better with some media or academic reference? --Soman 12:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Well, there are many who dont like the brits very much.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/L/2003/A/un030636.html (United nations Decolonization Comittee)

JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, petitioner, said he was a Falklands Islander who had lived on the Argentine mainland for several generations. Since the turn of the nineteenth century, Argentina had welcomed immigrants from around the world. Argentina had just elected a new president and Argentine democracy was slowly maturing. Record crops, herds and the increase in the wool industry made him optimistic about Argentina’s economy, despite its foreign debt. In southern Patagonia, where most Falkland Islanders had settled, there was a promising future in tourism. Many farms in Patagonia had had a good season, and the possibility of working and sharing experience with farms on the Islands would be interesting.

He said Argentina’s legitimate claim to sovereignty could not be denied. An agreement must be reached. The rights of Argentina’s claim to sovereignty would not be dropped. He requested the United Kingdom to respect resolutions on the matter to find a just and lasting solution to the controversy.

ALEJANDRO JACOBO BETTS, a petitioner from the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said the issue was one of sovereignty, and the only parties involved in the dispute were Argentina and the United Kingdom. The cause of the problem was the illegal occupation of a territory by an occupying Power and the resulting claim by the prejudiced State for the full recognition of its pre-existing legitimate sovereignty. The only acceptable basis on which to find a just and definitive solution to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas question was through the application of the principle of territorial integrity. The dispute began in 1833, when British military forces invaded and occupied the Islands by force, expelling the original Argentine authorities and inhabitants, he said. Since then, Argentina had never consented to that violation of her territorial integrity. The principle of self-determination could not be utilized to transform an illegitimate occupation into full sovereignty, under the protective shield of the United Nations. He wondered why, in an age when colonialism was being eliminated and mutual respect between nations was being consolidated, did the United Kingdom persist in maintaining its occupation of the Falklands/Malvinas in detriment to its relations with a friendly State.

Hello ! JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, petitioner, said he was a Falklands Islander who had lived on the Argentine mainland for several generations So unless he is claiming multiple ressurections, he is an Argentine citizen. Argentina has a claim, they may view it as legitimate - others disagree - however the most important consideration is the view of the people of the territory, who have the right to self-determination and at present do not wish to form part of Argentina. What anyone else thinks is immaterial. If the UK wanted to reclaim its former territories in North America they could find someone living in Cornwall who several generations ago left because of those troublesome yankees asserting their rights and breaking away from the UK. But this is not really a place to debate irredentist claims, or the words of puppets paraded in front of the UN C24, itself comprised of members from countries some of which enjoy less freedom than the territories they waffle on about.

--Gibnews 09:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, nobody cares what Alejandro Betts and James Lewis think. --RaiderAspect 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your statement reflects ONLY your personal opinion.
The thought that nobody cares what Alejandro Betts and James Lewis think, sounds more like a childish temper tantrum on the part of those who dislike Argentina rather than the true reality that the islands will one day return to Argentinian control via diplomacy, or other means.
If the uk refuses to act on a resolution passed ordering a decolonization, then why should the rest of the world respect any other resolutions?
Seems a little one sided.
Argentina's claim of sovereignty over the islands, is based on more than just their rightful ownership.
Statements have been made regarding the occupation by the uk of the islands as a security risk for Argentina, and all of "nuclear free" Latin America [2] by high ranking officials. Argentina's claim also gives the people living there rights and privileges. Never has Argentina made threats against those living in the islands, and they guarantee the rights of those living there.

What you mean like the "right" to speak Spanish and the "right" to drive on the right, though I must say the statement that Argentina has never threatened the English speaking people there is clearly untrue unless you consider that the Falklanders didnt feel threatened by the military occupation of their land by heavily armed troops they were unable to communicate with. Sounds like so much Argie propaganda to me, SqueakBox 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the claim that one day the islands will return to the Argentinians, this is not a forum and how can such a silly statement possibly help us produce a better article, SqueakBox 18:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Alexander Betts

The book La verdad sobre las Malvinas, mi tierra natal (The truth about the Falklands, the land in which I was born) was published by AJ Betts in 1985. English source: http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/falklands/ar-war.htm , Argentine sources: a lot. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mostly broken links there The page cannot be found; Should the Falkland Islanders be consumed with a desire to speak Spanish, drive on the right and remain British they could visit Gibraltar. We also have someone who writes strange books and websites about the place Like This.
That site is wonderful! --Deaconse 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
None of the above has anything to do with writing an encyclopedia, which should deal with things that are real.
Wonder who paid for Mr Betts airfare to New York. --Gibnews

Well if the Falklanders want to speak Spanish and drive on the right they could always go to Argentina. I believe that you dont have to speak Spanish to achieve anything official in Gibraltar, ie you can pay your taxes etc in English, an option the falklanders were not given, SqueakBox 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereignty claim: Unilateral changes in consensus text

This clearly dates from 1833 as between 26 and 33 they had sovereignty they didnt claim it and before that it was uninhabited, if they were claiming it as there's while it was uninhabited 16-26 please source your claim here first, SqueakBox 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that this is the version agreed by consensus. An anon user rephrased it to be then removed by Apcbg. I just restored the version prior to the controversial anon edit. --Mariano(t/c) 17:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
SqueakBox, your question shows that you have not even read the article (Colonel Jewett, 1820 etc.), but that's not the point: Whatever your opinion, you are making unilateral changes in a consensus text.
Mariano, the article log confirms that the consensus version was modified on 24 December 2006 by SqueakBox without discussion, and then on 17 January 2006 by 201.235.117.83 and by 82.26.191.43 before I restored the consensus version.
SqueakBox and Mariano: Please take into account that there is no new consensus for changing the approved phrasing. Unilateral changes in a consensus text amount to a POV push to which I object. I did restore the consensus text twice, and now rather than entering an edit war I would expect you to restore it. Apcbg 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are making this up as you go along. How can more than one editor unilaterally change consensus (lol), the article log confirms absolutely nothing about a consensus version, besides which this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Also my alleged question shows nothing as I havent asked a question. We need good sources that Argentina disputed the sovereignty claim before 1833, Jewett didnt claim sovereignty he gained it, cant you see the difference? claim implies dispute and there is no evidence of a disputed claim to sovereingty before 1833, and if there is please source, as your consensus claim is meaningless and is not a substitute for a source, SqueakBox 18:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Apcbg, I just wanted to express that I was restoring a version prior to an anon editor, because I thought that better fixed those edits than your edit. I now realize that this was introduced a few days ago by another anon. --Mariano(t/c) 19:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that what you say was exactly what happened. However, before those two anonymous edits we had a consensus version of the preamble established on 28 May 2006 following a debate (in which both of us took part among other participants), which phrasing of the preamble was respected until SqueakBox's unilateral edit of 24 December 2006. I trust that you would agree that the original consensus text should be restored, with whatever suggested changes discussed in the talk page first. Apcbg 20:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly does this edit [3] exactly change that consensus, and what does it have to do with what you have been arguing about. I added in 1810 relating to Argentine independence, added in pursuit of this claim re the argentine invasion, added the word sovereignty andf then added with English and not Spanish being the language used on the islands. How does what I wrote affect either the consensus or what you are arguing about today. I hope this isnt merely trolling on your part buyty I dont have a clue what you are on about, my edit seems very uncontroversial. Or are you just claiming nobody can edit the opening, as if you are this is somwething I oppose very strongly, of course we can edit the opening, there is no way any policy remotely saying we cant do so, SqueakBox 20:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

First, what '1810' are you talking about? In 1810 there was a Spanish Governor on the Falklands (the Spaniards left later, leaving a plaque reasserting the claim on behalf of the King of Spain — a claim that was only resigned by the Argentine-Spanish Treaty of 9 July 1859 recognizing Argentina's independence); in 1810 the future Argentines had not even declared their wish for independence (that happened in 1816).
Second, the present text in the preamble — text inserted by you this time! — says '1833' not '1810'. This present wording (endorsed by you) was originally introduced by an anonymous editor whose 'knowledge' of the Falklands history made him believe that Vernet was the Argentine Governor of the Islands in 1833! (Ever heard of Mestivier or Pinedo?)
How this mess of inconsistency and factual errors might "seem very uncontroversial" to someone is beyond me. Apcbg 20:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden text

I removed the following hidden text as having no consensus

The first sentence has been established as a compromise consensus between many editors in a long and difficult discussion (see talk page). Trying to either change the sentence to include less (e.g. "The Falkland Islands are an archipelago") or to include more (e.g. "The Falkland Islands, (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) are an archipelago") will be reverted on sight without discussion by many of the editors part of the discussion. If you have overriding NEW arguments, please bring them to the talk page first!

What was there implied wrongly that Malvinas is a common usage English word which I have replaced with a ref that it is a Spanish translation of Falklands, SqueakBox 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove the word altogether. It is not the native name for the place. TharkunColl 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would rather wait for further consensus before doing that but I certainly dont disagree with you, SqueakBox 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Tharkun is tright. As Jonathunder refuses to join in the discussion here I am revertin g him. To say there is consensus on the talk page while refusing to comment here doesnt strike me as the rigth attitude--Swuekilafe 17:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And your revert has been undone. I think - given how long the text has been there - that it is reasonable to discuss the matter first, and then make changes. --Ckatzchatspy 18:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Well we are discussing. It seems that people arent happy with the opening (3 editors at least) and nobody is defending the current version, people are jsut reverting without giving a reason. Why even administrators engage in mindless edit warring without even coming to the talk and then claiming consensus here against the wishes of 3 editors here today confuses me--Swuekilafe 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK - this is a controversial subject, with a long (long long) history of debates, disputes, and discussion about how to format the article. I really don't think that you can claim that "nobody is defending the current version" when it has only been up for an hour or so. Wiki custom would suggest that the better approach is to discuss the matter here first, give it some time for other editors to join in, and then implement a change. --Ckatzchatspy 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Swuekilafe, you're claiming "consensus" on an undiscussed change made just over an hour ago, versus a version of the lead that has been in place since December. You yourself have only six edits, three of them being reverts here and the other three being on this talk page. If you feel so strongly about this matter, why not allow everyone to participate? Given the history of this article, it seems that your actions will only invite another edit war. --Ckatzchatspy 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What the Argies think is of no relevance. We might as well say London, also known as Londres, for the relevance it has to the topic at hand--Swuekilafe 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As the person responsible for the actual wording of the introduction, I will defend it in the following terms; Personally I also do not give a damn what the Argentines think, because The Falkland Islands are British with the consent of the people who live there, and their opinions are paramount. However it is also true that in a large number of places the alternative name is used, and that is reflected in the ISO designation for the territory. The purpose of Wikipedia pages is to inform people and the wording used did that in a manner which made it clear what the official name was and that there was a common alternative. Those who wish to change it should use their time and energy in improving other things rather than fighting over a consensus which so far has held up well. We argued long and hard over this matter, lets move on.

--Gibnews 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree. Malvinas is a Spanish translation of the English word Falklands which I referenced and added. I agree we should keep the word Malvinas but also that we should keep the sourced information that it is a Spanish translation which I added, SqueakBox 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the template as in spitye of Gibnews wanting to move on I dont believe we should. I have asked for a citation that Malvinas is an English word whjich is what the text says now. Regarding the hidden text, its the most bad faith and aggressive text I have seen, SqueakBox 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Jonathunder would care to explain why he has removed an NPOV tag when their is a dispute and also why he has removed a cite request that Malvinas is an English word, SqueakBox 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets be clear I removed the NPOV tag, because this is nothing to do with 'POV' and if you look at the history of the discussion about the subject you can see what my personal point of view is. However, as stated above, the territory is described as the Malvinas and for better or worse until such time that BSI as the responsible party in ISO change it from Falkland Islands(Malvinas) its appropriate to mention it in consensus manner.
When I interviewed a politician from the Falklands I asked him where the Malvinas was he said he did not know, but he might not have a NPOV. If you want to dispute something, there is a disputed tag available. --Gibnews

[edit] Citation that Malvinas is English

I see this cite request has been removed. The problem is that on other Falkland talk pages when people try to cite Malvinas as an English word they fail dismally, offering gems such as LaRouche (banned from wikipedia for extremism) and the Socialist Workers Party. I, on the otehr hadnd, have refernced that it is a Spanish translation of an English word. What happened to verifiability. People removing cite requests always makes me uneasy and I havent seen a scrap of justification for doing so, SqueakBox 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument that 'its an English word' or not is pretty pointless, English contains words taken from all sorts of other languages. But really we have been there and done this 'ad nausiam' which is an English phrase taken from the Latin. --Gibnews 20:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well if we had a decent cite we wouldnt have to go there any more, that's one of the reasons we have cites in wikipedia. And of course many words from Spanish become Anglicised but I dont believe Malvinas is one of them and hence I request a cite. What's the problem? Sdaying it has been discussed before isnt an argument, SqueakBox 20:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What, exactly, are you hoping to have cited? Is it to prove whether or not "Malvinas" is an English word? (And if so, why? It is the English Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that every single word used in it must be English.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I cited it was a Spanish word and that reference got removed. Its either a Spanish word or an English one so I would either like my reference restored or one that indicates it is an English word of reasonably common usage. I agree its fine to have a Spanish word but equally to note and refence that fact, and I am baffled as to people's objection to this (and havent seen a reason given yet eitherSqueakBox 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read what I said again and you might see the reason, but its has been debated at length and we achieved a consensus. The fact that YOU don't want to agree is your POV problem, and although you might not like the template I added, its appropriate. The consensus was something that everyone could live with and which added value to the page. Mentioning an alternative name that is in use is simply being factual. Banging on about 'Puerto Argentina', as they do on the .es pages is not. --Gibnews 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well not everyone can live with it. I know how wikipedia works and am one of its most daily editing committed editoers so this isnt going to go away. 2 editors have expressed a more extreme pov than me so how is consensus already achieved, SqueakBox 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then come up with a valid argument. Just being persistent is not really good enough - some of us can be online 15+ hours a day watching boring things with time to kill. That the Falkland Islands are called Malvinas is a fact. It is not their official name, and I remember a number of guys who went there to ensure it was not, but wikipedia is about presenting facts. --Gibnews 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Its about presenting facts with sources to back them up and your failure to do this kind of invalidates what you are saying. Not sure what you mean about watching boring things or about persistence, eventually unsourced information wioll always be removed as that is the wikipedia way. You still need to source that the Malvinas is an English name or accept that it is a Spanish word and accept the refenced statement I added yesterday, SqueakBox 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point, Malvinas is a Spanish word, but English contains lots of foreign words, it aquires and incorporates them greedily. A word does not need to have been engraved on Boadicea's chariot to qualify for use in the English language or in an article in the English Wikipedia. Your attention is drawn to this document which is in English. As I see from your page that you understand Spanish perhaps instead of this you might put some effort into the es.wikipedia fk pages which were far too pro-argentina, and where they booted me out for posting a picture of Stanley, with a comment that 'Wikipedia is not a repository of pictures' :)
To explain the comment - I spend a lot of time removing malware from clients machines connected to the internet. Its time consuming but one can often do other things concurrently. --Gibnews 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "Malvinas" does indeed exist in English, though it is pretty rare. It means something like, "the name the Argentines tried to impose on the Falklands when they invaded in 1982." Its connotations are decidedly negative. TharkunColl 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly rare. Looking at a number of atlases and globes, I see "Malvinas" as often as "Falklands" written next to those islands, even on ones that predate the war. Jonathunder 19:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please give us a source for this, Jonathun, eg an online map or something we can all see. Personally I would be happy to see the current version were it backed up with an impeccable source (not LaRouche), SqueakBox 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook - Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)
CIA World Factbook - South America map
--Ckatzchatspy 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
ISO naming standard ISO 3166-1 : FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS) Jor70 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
And as I quoted above the UN cartographic section
--Gibnews 21:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, here it is, As you can see at the UN, it is not listed under 'Altenative names' but under 'Short form' , so its a official name (and BTW NPOV) Jor70 21:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I suggest you reference these in the text and then remove the hidden text notice, as if it is solidly referenced it shouldnt be the subject of any disputes, and by offering refences we make the article into a better quality, more relaible piece, SqueakBox 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The hidden text serves a purpose to discourage people changing the introduction, which includes the word Malvinas in a neutral manner. Argentina has managed to push it through ISO which is something we discussed previously at length before coming up with the consensus version and I suggest we stick withit. Otherwise TharkunColl hits the nail on the head about its use. --Gibnews 22:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Although the UN and the CIA both describe the territory as The Falkland Islands(Malvinas), they only do so because ISO incorrectly includes it in their designation. Please can we stick with the agreed version.
  • Can we now remove the neutrality template, or is there something else it refers to ?

--Gibnews 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews - we seem to have been of like mind in terms of adjusting the page and asking for discussion. I didn't see your fix while I was restoring Flapdragon's earlier version, so please ignore the edit summary as it's not related to your changes. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 01:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

quote: because ISO incorrectly includes it in their designation. lol, excuse me ? what a long time mistake without correction!! . Also, I dont understand why I was revert, if my version was just like the current one but with the references. Jor70 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine ISO have the same problem of disputes we have here in correcting this mistake. However, I have moved your reference to the section that describes the usage of the name, so its not wasted. The present introduction is a compromise and generally seems to hold, so best not to try and improve it and move on to other things. --Gibnews 09:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well this debate has moved on from Decemmber. Why remove referenced material Gibnews? I have reverted your unexplained blanking of refenced material provided by Jor. Also to suggest we m,ove on when there is a POV tag on the article re this issue doesnt seem right, SqueakBox 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate it's a touchy subject, but I;ve just tried to tidy up the citations using templates - to make them easier to see and understand for those nto familiar with the topic. hope that doesn't cause offence

I have not made any 'unexplained blanking' I moved the reference to the ISO naming to the correct place and explained it on this talk page. The reason for including the word Malvinas in the title is in order to make it clear to those who may mistakenly believe the territory is called that, and who themselves use the name. IF we accepted the ISO designation we should refer to the place by that name. In long arguments which you can find in the archve you will find it was not accepted. Thus were were left with a consensus version which had enough balance that everyone could live with it and we asked for it to be left alone in the header. The references to the ISO naming belong with the section describing that and I've moved them there in their detailed glory, all credit to the editor that produced them.
SECONDLY: justification for the disputed tag, what is disputed? --Gibnews 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It wa Swuekilafe who placed the NPOV tag I believe, SqueakBox 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The New Treasure Hunt

On The New Treasure Hunt (a mid-1970s United States television game show produced by Chuck Barris), there was once a 'klunk' prize (one of several booby prizes on the show), a one-year residency in the Falkland Island.

72.82.177.130 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting joke, however they not in a position to authorise residence in the Falklands. The losers had to live in the US, how ghastly for them. --Gibnews 10:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opthamologists, and opticians, and dentists, and bears. Oh my!

Why is the following text included in the Name section?

There are no ophthalmologists or opticians on the islands, although an optician from the UK visits about every 6 months and an ophthalmologist comes to do cataract surgery and eye exams on irregular intervals (once every few years). There are 2 dentists on the islands.

There's not even a paragraph break! What about doctors? Nurses? Veterinarians? In its current context, this information is a ""non sequitur."" This bit of trivia, if true (sources?) is interesting, but totally out of place. Perhaps if it were in a section about their remoteness and the challenges presented by it. . . ?

Upon reading the article, I was surprised that its neutrality is in question. It seems to me that it provides the right information in the proper tone, including the whole name issue.

I've tried to read most of the current discussion about whether to include "Malvinas" in the article or not and grant that there are many valid points pro and con. Since I have no vested interest on the claim issue, I can't say that I read it all, and I don't really know who is advocating what point.

As it reads now (Feb 23, 2007 at 12:45 a.m. Eastern) the name thing is handled well. I conclude this because I think the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform the uninformed. While accuracy and lack of bias are important, it is not imho an encyclopedia article's function to present what is the ""truth"" about something.

"Malvinas" is not just any foreign word, as the intensity of the whole discussion demonstrates, so whether it is an accepted part of the English language is not dispositive. The article's title does not include the M word, so it is not misleading as to the legal status.

That the Falklands are also called "the Malvinas," or "Las Malvinas," is an accurate statement that does not imply or conclude anything about sovereignty. If you wanted to be extremely picky you could add that it is sometimes called . . . -- or even: sometimes referred to as . . . .

If several authoritative sources list them as: the "Falklands (Malvinas)," then it is appropriate to include that designation. Consider our uninformed readers. Is it relevant and important or helpful to let readers know that the name Malvinas and Falklands, for better or worse, are associated with each other in fact? If readers of this article subsequently turn to the CIA Fact Book or run across some UN documents (or have come to this article from such a document), the readers will know that these Falkland Islands are the very same.

I ran across this article when my son wanted to know the date of the Falklands war. I was in college then, my son not even a gleam in a parental eye. If he was reading this wiki article, would I and his teachers want the information about the Falkland Islands to include the M word? Absolutely.

I would remove the bias alert, leave that portion of the article as is, and turn this energy and productivity to more pressing issues. Ileanadu 05:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)ileanadu 23 February 2007


It was a syntax error with the <ref> tag that was hidden several paragraphs. I need to remove it so who put it, should rewrite it. thks for the tip!. About the name, nationalism plays an important role for many in this issue but I think things have finally settled down. Jor70 10:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Name again

I would have rather hoped we could move on from arguing about the name of the territory. We have already discussed at length before arriving at this form of words (see the archive) that the CIA factbook is not a definitive source. I spent a lot of time correcting glaring errors in it in relation to Gibraltar, and in fairness to them they listened. The flag they showed was totally wrong at one stage and they mentioned a railway that vanished just after WW2.

Citing Wikipedia as a source is recursive, and surely against the rules ?

There is an argument that ISO used the word Malvinas (not Islas), however they are an international body and subject to lobbying by those who wish to promote the alternative name. I am told that South American telephone books omit an entry for the Falklands to avoid upsetting anyone.

However, long and hard we argued until an agreeable version was found and it has survived, so please can we leave it alone? Surely there are better things to do - like perhaps removing the references to Puerto Argentina and the description of the natives as malvanises in the Spanish Wikipedia. --Gibnews 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Gibs, although, is Puerto Argentino and Malvinenses :-) --Jor70 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Gibnews is mostly correct. Linking to a Wikipedia article on ISO standards is sketchy — mostly, because it's probably inaccurate; the actual ISO en1 list solely uses Malvinas, here. However, the The CIA World Factbook is certainly a reliable source that uses Islas Malvinas, and I'm not sure we should just wipe any trace of it in the references. That doesn't mean we need to change the lede, though. Gibnews' reversion to the language in the lede is long-standing consensus, and I still haven't seen any convincing arguments for change. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In support of omitting the 'Islas' bit I draw your attention to:

http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/tstories/jsmith/images/road%20sign%20malvinas.jpg

As an example of the use of the M word

Looking at the CIA world factbook, the recent entry on Gibraltar:

Spain agreed to allow airlines other than British to serve Gibraltar, to speed up customs procedures, and to add more telephone lines into Gibraltar. Britain agreed to pay pensions to Spaniards who had been employed in Gibraltar before the border closed in 1969. Spain will be allowed to open a cultural institute from which the Spanish flag will fly.

Uh no, Spain allowed Spanish airlines to fly here, the telephone lines remain the same but the ITU code of 350 is used, the pensioners get an increase. As for the Spanish Flag, it may fly briefly IF it gets planning permission and is asbestos.

CIA 3/10 for accuracy. Wikipedia is by contrast correct.

Their factbook contains nonsense. --Gibnews 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Islas Malvinas is a compromise between Malvinas and having nothing,. i would rather thave nothing but particularly oppose Malvinas as it is used by sonme POv pushing people who believe that the Falklands "should" belong to Argentina, SqueakBox 20:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'd rather call the place what the natives call it, like Mumbai However the M word does deserve a mention. One amusing thing I discovered was This - (Malvina is an old Scottish name, once popular in the Falklands, and is unconnected with the Argentine name for the Islands). --Gibnews 23:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Malvina is a well known spanish female name, e.g. Malvina Pastorino [4] --Jor70 00:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I never disagreed with your reversion, but you ought to admit that there are plenty of other reliable sources that use "Islas Malvinas." I suppose you get a kick out of being combative, though, so OK, you win. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Squeakbox, if you add the word islas, you should add also Ilhas, Isole, etc too because that is the way that they are used. Jor70 13:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I dont agree but your question begs "in that case why are we putting the Malvinas in at all?" SqueakBox 13:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
well, I dont agree with you neither. Malvinas, as we had already established, is part of the United Nations name of the territory. If some english-speaking people use it for shown argentine sympathy as the same way some spanish-speaking people (such the chilo mils in 1982) used fakland has nothing to do with this Jor70 13:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No one has yet come up with a reason why we should accept the United Nations designation as authoritative. Surely, in line with every single other country or territory described in Wikipedia, we should use the official name as defined by the place itself. We also, since this is the English Wikipedia, put the common English name first. In the case of the Falklands, of course, there is no difference. English is the language of the Falklands, not Spanish. TharkunColl 14:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
the reason is, if we do not mention the UN, will be simply british pov --Jor70 16:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The introductory wording is sufficient for the moment, and given the time that some other squabbles have gone on the Argentine Irredentist claim will probably not go away - let us hope that its persued and rejected by diplomatic means. --Gibnews 14:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Added the POV tag re the naming issue (not for anything else), SqueakBox 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the POV tag. As outlined in my edit comment, it isn't needed as the issue: 1) is under active discussion; 2) pertains only to the word "Malvinas" in the lead, and not the whole article; and 3) the use of the template suggests that the entire article is suspect, which is not the issue under discussion. Squeakbox has reverted this, I have once again removed it. It really is not needed. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, it's not a reasonable solution for Squeakbox, as he/she is reverting instantly. However, i think that it really should be a group decision, rather than just Squeakbox. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 21:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This matter was already discussed and an agreeable version was found . Ones call them Falklands, others Malvinas and United Nations Falklands(Malvinas) so is reasonable to mention both, not mentioning would be POV Jor70 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree, should Argentina reclaim the territory it can be called whatever you like - until then lets stick with what we have and feel free to revert 66.191.141.46 who is persistently changing it. --Gibnews 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Settlement

'Settlement' implies a recent and transient urbanisation, however the general principle in English is that a town with a cathedral is termed a city.

Now see:

http://www.jim-mclaren.co.uk/new_page_3.htm

--Gibnews 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That definition of a city hasn't been used for a very long time. Settlement is the best I could think of however I agree this could be taken to mean transitory but it can also be used as a general term for any grouping of human habitation. [5] Stanley is not a city. It has never been a city and is unlikely to become a city. See [[6]] for a full list of British cities. The word "city" really has no place in the article.--LiamE 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That may be a definition of what is a city in the United Kingdom However Gibraltar (equally not in the UK) is referred to as a city, but is not on that list on Wikipedia. I note this:

http://www.penguintravel-falklands.com/tours/gypsy.htm

referring to a 'Stanley City tour'

http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/samerica/fk.htm

Capital City Stanley (1,989)

Wikipedia says for city A city is an urban area that is differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status. so perhaps Stanley merits it on importance by being the capital.

--Gibnews 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

Lots of people reading this article right now and many will think wikipedia supports Argentina. Malvinas is unacceptably mentioned before Falklands and then Malvinas is ofered as a second common name for thre islands. When I try to reach a compromise it is always reverted, hence we need the POV tag, SqueakBox 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that a mention of 'Malvinas' in the introduction is a problem providing its not given equal weighting. (which someone sneaked in and has been reverted) Nor is its presence demonstrate a lack of neutrality, indeed it might be without it. The article should not 'support' anyone, just tell it like it is. --Gibnews 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry to pop this back in, but could we maybe reword the introductory sentence like we had before "Falkland.... (Spanish: Malvinas)"?? This seems to work well in the Jerusalem page and I don't see why it can't work here. After all, neither "Al-Quds" nor "Malvinas" are english common names for the places, are they? It doesn't (and it shouldn't) imply equal footing but instead offer an alternate name for the islands in the intro. Call it being Politically Correct if you wish. I won't debate here, I don't want to, just maybe put forward an example that works in another controversial page and maybe we should imitate. If somebody wants to do it, go ahead. If the consensus is negative, then let's not. Again, I probably won't get into a debate of "why yes - why not" since we've all been there and done that. I just think it's better the other way but I can accept that majority rules.

Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and from my point of view this would indeed resolve this issue that doesnt seem to want to go away, SqueakBox 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Malvinas is also a name used in English, not just Spanish. unsigned by User:Poi dog pondering

Not agree, Malvinas is not a translation, its the name for non-spanish speaking people too, we already discuss this. Jor70 10:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The U.N., the CIA, and other sources use it in native English. It should not be italicised as if it were not used in English: that is incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poi dog pondering (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/l/Talk%7EFalkland_Islands_0860.html"