Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

This is an archive of the naming debate from March 11 (the Straw Poll), through the unprotection, up to (roughly) March 30. Please do not further modify this page.

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)
Darklegions 20:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (on Spanish and French, both are important for the Falklands' history)
Coat of Arms (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (on Spanish and French)
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).
OneEuropeanHeart 20:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (Spanish and French, same reasons as above)
ShiningEyes 01:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (Spanish and French per Darklegions and JzG)
Jonathunder 14:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ragib 16:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Big Adamsky 16:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (English and Spanish names only; the French name can be duly mentioned in the etymology section)
Asterion 17:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (on Spanish name only, no opinion on French name)
Nkcs 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (on Spanish and French)
—Nightst a llion (?) 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Khoikhoi 22:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (agree with Big Adamsky)
Mariano(t/c), thought it shoudn't be decided with a Poll. 08:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Calton | Talk 21:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (English, French, and Spanish)
Thumbelina 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Rob 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Gnetwerker 23:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (Spanish only)
feydey 12:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC) (on Spanish name, possibly on French name)
Upon the stair 19:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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)
Gibnews 09:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Astrotrain 14:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Latinus 16:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Big Adamsky 16:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hectorian 18:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ian3055 19:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Aquilina 19:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (only marginally over A due to scope for extra info; strongly prefer either to B)
TharkunColl 11:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

So having read most of this, made a small comment I'm not permitted to vote because I've a vote tamperer? Most disheartening. Is there anyway of sorting out the threads I'm not permitted to vote on? PhilipPage 00:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can vote. KimvdLinde 00:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

~~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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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? [1]. --Darklegions 01:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is the same in the Falklands, the FCO choose a someone then its approved(appointed) by the Queen. Jasonflk 23:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islas Malvinas is not the direct translation of Falkland Islands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

French name

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

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

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)

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

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 indigenous 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 permanent populus as the Spanish and Argentine peoples before them were whalers 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 aren't 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 'it's a colony' approach to the discussion as it simply doesn't apply here. It's 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

There are some that sadly can't understand this. Mariano(t/c) 17:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Let's look at this in dry editing terms.^[2] 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)

^ 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Americans can't even spell colour correctly, and think that a bog is a restroom. What they think about a BRITISH territory is not important.--Gibnews 16:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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[3]. The issues are hotly debated in a forum set up by a Florida based organisation aimed at mediation of international conflicts[4]
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)

Here's some quotes from websites listed at the "Official Falklands Islands Portal" [5]:

From "Keith and Val's Falkland Islands" [6]: 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" [7]: 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) [8]: 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 [9]. 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)

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)

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)

By 'other authorites' you mean those controlled by the US Government which supported the military junta in Argentina.--Gibnews 16:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To repeat myself: get a grip. There is no vast conspiracy regarding the naming of this godforsaken hunk of rock (or yours either). -- Gnetwerker 18:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a substantial well documented and funded campaign by the Government of Spain against Gibraltar dating from the days of Franco, which covers everything from banning roaming agreements for our GSM phones, and ITU IDD code to preventing the Gibraltar flag being flown at meetings of the Special Olympics held in Spain. This is not the place to discuss it in more detail nor a place to deny it exists. I doubt the Argentines are less active in promoting their interests than the Spanish internationally.--Gibnews 09:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Read WP:POINT. KimvdLinde 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't actually done it, and am well aware of WP:POINT. My intention was to highlight a very important issue - namely the right of a country to choose its own name. And yet, what is seriously wrong with my suggestion? Lots and lots of people round the world call the USA Estados Unidos de América, just like lots of people called the Falkland Islands Islas Malvinas. The fact that in both cases, the people concerned are speaking Spanish seems to make no difference whatsoever in the opinion of some editors here. TharkunColl 16:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Estados Unidos de América is a direct translation, Islas Malvinas is not, and despite the objections of the Brits/falklanders, still used widely in the world. KimvdLinde 17:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

By Spanish speakers. As for the objections of the Brits, not once have I mentioned these, and yet you are obviously of the opinion that such is the nature of my alleged bias. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but being English in no way prevents me from having an opinion too. The only opinion with weight, however, should be that of the actual inhabitants of the place, and I have provided numerous written examples that make their position clear. Why will you not address this issue? TharkunColl 17:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have a proposal about the US article you need to take it to that talk page and not this one. Of course US people call themselves Americans as if they are the only ones, clearly not true, as indeed their United States of America is also patently false. Byut at the end of the day that is what US Americans do. If we can tolerate that we should tolerate English idiosyncracies as well. Actually Malvinas is not used at all in the English language and what the Spanish is is not relevant in this case, SqueakBox 17:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC) las malvinas son argentinas

The day that Mexico reasserts a territorial claim on the United States you may rename the article, although you'll find yourself changing it back two hours later when the entire Mexican air force gets shot down (trivia of the day: they still use biplanes). Viva Zapatos! ;) Durova 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

To 85.195.119.14 - the vandal who deleted this talk page and added the phrase LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS. Is it any wonder that the Falkland Islanders reject you and everything you stand for? Yours is not the politics of agreement, but of force. TharkunColl 18:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect, TharkunColl, you could practice the "politics of agreement" a little more effectively. The vandal is, of course, still a vandal. Having a political POV does not excuse that. -- Gnetwerker 18:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

New compromise suggestion

How about the footnote proposal with the replacement of "Notes" with some word which makes the situation more noticable? It would then include the ISO designation. Such as:

The Falkland Islands (Malvinas^Objections) are an archipelago in ....

Views? Ian3055 19:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting better I suppose. But why is the ISO designation to be preferred over the actual name used by the islanders? It is, after all, their own country. Wikipedia doesn't put "Chinese Taipei" in the first line of the article about Republic of China, so why are the Falklands any different? TharkunColl 19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"But why is the ISO designation to be preferred over the actual name used by the islanders?" -- Because it is in dispute! This has been discussed half to death, and you keep repeating the same point, over and over. Controversial place names are referred to by their international standard designation, and the wishes of the residents are beside the point, as are your many, many examples of silly articulations of undisputed names. I feel your continued iteration of this point is disingenuous. -- Gnetwerker 20:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that any tinpot little dictatorship, like North Korea or Libya, could make a ludicrous and frivolous claim to any piece of territory in the world (let's say Alaska), and rename it something else, and the international community, followed by Wikipedia, would have no choice but to give equal prominence to both alternatives? Forgive me, but it really, really does seem like this is what you're arguing here. TharkunColl 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with ISO is that the most important people in this matter do not actually get any direct input into ISO as their foreign affairs are managed by HMG.

In practice this means that its not a UK priority and given that Argentina will lobbby for the name Malvinas to re-inforce its claim and the likes of Spain and its running dogs around the world will back them even if there was a strong objection it would be over-ruled.

The same thing happens to Gibraltar where Spain spends much time and effort to frustrate us joining any international sporting bodies - thus some of our athletes, who have the ability to compete at a world level, are denied any chance.

Similarly Spain tried hard to change the rules in the ITU to exclude Gibraltar from operating satellites. We noticed the change in wording and stopped it. But .fk is small and not well organised. Its residents of have a very uphill battle. Mind you if they had got .fm from ISO instead they might have made more money from it.

However - the version I proposed was correct, the name Malvinas is ONLY in use because of the Argentine claim. --Gibnews 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

None of this matters in the least to Wikipedia. It is not a vehicle for anyone's political ambitions or self-realization, no matter how noble and widely-supported the cause. See again WP:V#Verifiability, not truth -- Gnetwerker 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Then why are you so unwilling to let it be pointed out - prominently - that the Falkland Islanders reject the term? It seems like these rules about NPOV etc. are conveniently forgotten by those who wish to deny the islanders the right to self-identification. As for verifiability, look at all the websites I listed.TharkunColl 23:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have suggested previously that you write an entire paragraph on the subject, and (personally), I do not think it would be amiss if this were the second para of the article, as is the case with Mount McKinley/Denali. No one could possibly miss it. The first sentence, though is meant to be a simple description, without particularly controversial content. Unlike you, I (and most other commentators) do not find the naming conflict of such vital importance. Why you are obsessed with the first line, I do not understand. And what I really want to know is, when someone tells you to go to a Falklands website, are they really telling you to go ".fk" yourself? (joke, joke). -- Gnetwerker 23:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?

It would appear that no headway is being made with our few intransigent partisans. I would suggest that formal mediation is the next step. Comments? -- Gnetwerker 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A Straw Poll was already organised and a compromise solution proposed by User:KimvdLinde. This has so far been ignored by a few intransigent partisans. Regards, Asterion 23:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are two problems:

the partisans have not been moving toward a compromise on anything, either the results of the straw poll or any other compromise proposed; and
the discussion has (IMO) moved past the question of whether "foreign" names should be used, and onto the question of whether the ISO-standard name should be used, as per Britannica and the CIA Fact Book.

Whether or not one accepts the second position, it would seem clear that the Straw Poll has not created a consensus. -- Gnetwerker 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a point we can agree on. However being factual

I think the FCO country profile has as much weight than the CIA and is generally more accurate. They do not use the word Malvinas. Similarly the European Union is a large multinational entity and in all the references in their English language site refer solely to 'Falklands Islands'.--Gibnews 09:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, every pull-down menu for "Country" on the EU site lists Falkland Islands (Malvinas) -- Gnetwerker 09:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That may be the case as it is common practice to copy the ISO list in order to translate the country name to its two letter code, however the articles refer to the 'Falkland Islands' and political and legal documents are the important thing rather than what a webdesigner thinks.--Gibnews 14:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link for that? Anyway, it doesn't much matter, because I've got an even better one - the Falkland Islands Government website itself! [10]. Surely this is the most authoritative site of all? TharkunColl 09:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here: [11] and every other "Contact" page. -- Gnetwerker 10:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think mediation is needed. Some people will just repeat their political arguments over and over again, and it has to stop. I am here to make an encyclopedia not a political manifest. KimvdLinde 00:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"I am here to make an encyclopedia not a political manifest." Isn't that what everyone is claiming, on both 'sides' of the 'debate'?

I've just read through the entirety of this 'discussion' with the exception of the odd paragraph, and the vast majority of the text seems to be not discussion on what to have in the introduction to the article, but who is and who is not pushing a political agenda. Let's remember that a large proportion of the reason you're all editing this is precisely because you *do* have a view on these islands and their article. Whether you want to or not, the way you word your argument will *always* be at least leaning towards your own disposition. Human beings are biased, that's just the way it is. Lordandmaker 08:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"I am here to make an encyclopedia not a political manifest." Strangely enough, so am I. We need to ask ourselves why the ISO and CIA place the word "Malvinas" after the name of the islands, and it should be crystal clear to anyone who looks at this without a pre-formed political agenda that this is purely as a result of Argentine beligerance. As I pointed out above (but no one bothered responding), any tinpot dictatorship could make a frivolous claim to any other country in the world, give it a new name, and on your logic the international community, followed slavishly by Wikipedia, would be obliged to give equal preference to both names. Well, as far as I understood it, Wikipedia is in the business of reporting facts. It's not as if the Falklands have a divided society, some of whom speak Spanish and support the Argentine claim. If that were the case, then it would indeed be reasonable to give both names top billing. But the fact is that the Falklands are not so divided. All territorial claims come from outside the islands, from people who have no linguistic, cultural, or legal connection with the place whatsoever. That being said, I fully realise that I'm not likely to win this argument - even though I'm the only one here who has provided any sort of independent evidence to back up my position. There are two many here who appear to honestly believe that the fair thing to do is report the claims of outside aggressors as if they were of equal status to the people of the country itself. I shall therefore, tentatively, give my agreement to the compromise suggested by Ian3055, along with an explanatory second paragraph. For reasons I have made clear, I'm not particularly happy with it, but there it goes. TharkunColl 09:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC):

The Falkland Islands (Malvinas^Objections) are an archipelago in ....

Again, and again, and again -- the "linguistic, cultural, or legal connection" that Wikipedia editors have (or don't have) with the Falklands has absolutely no bearing on this discussion, and if it did, it would be to exclude you for POV. And also, again and again -- this has (IMO) nothing to do with "outside aggressors". For an encyclopedia article, we use verifiable information from published, credible sources. None of your arguments about other countries hold water, and your continued suggestion of systematic political bias on behalf of ISO, the CIA Fact Book, Encyclopedia Britannica, and other reference works is simply absurd. And regarding "facts" -- for the (probably not) final time -- Wikipedia is in the business of verifiability, not truth.

In any case, Ian3055's suggestion is clumsy, though I would not object to a simple footnote, a la:

"The Falkland Islands (Malvinas)¹ are an archipelago in ....

although my preference would be

"The Falkland Islands (Malvinas), an archipelago in the Southern Atlantic ocean, were the site of a war between the United Kingdom and Argentina in 1982. The formal name of the islands is a matter of dispute. The islands are located 300 miles (483 km) from the coast of South America and consist of two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, and a number of smaller islands.

The islands are a British Overseas Territory and are referred to by the United Kingdom as "(The) Falkland Islands", and commonly in English as simply "The Falklands". Argentina and a number of Spanish-speaking countries refer to the islands as "Islas Malvinas", though that designation is considered part of Argentina's continued claim to the islands, and hence offensive to Falklands residents and many Britons. Many English-language media sources use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".

This works for me. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And a final footnote: I think that those on both sides of this issue will find yourselves better served by coming swiftly to an agreement that by mediation. Mediators will look at Wikipedia policies, and I would lay even odds that the result will be something liked even less than the various proposals so far. Further, it may be instructive to study the recent case of User:Gibraltarian. This is not the direction anyone wants to go, I hope.-- Gnetwerker 10:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As you mention that incident, he was set up and demonised. however if you want to discuss it further, email me as its not appropriate here; I am trying to present arguments and facts rather than those tactics. However I admit a bias towards small territories who have no wish to be annexed by their Spanish speaking neigbours and get pushed around internationaly as a result of dubious sovereignty claims.--Gibnews 14:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood what I have said, based on the assumption that my stance is political (which it isn't - it's linguistic, like most of my edits to Wikipedia). When I said "linguistic, cultural, or legal connection" to the Falklands, I was referring to the Argentines, who, since they have none, have no right to dictate to the international community how another country chooses to refer to itself. Can you give any other example on Wikipedia of the self-designated name of a country being eschewed in favour of the ISO name, where the two happen to conflict? TharkunColl 11:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In what way is a war over a territorial claim not a connection? But I sugest they be renamed peach blossom island. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very amusing. And I would genuinely like to thank you for reminding me of a book I used to love, but haven't thought about in decades. The trouble is, the analogy won't work. You're assuming that the British and Argentine claim have equal validity, whereas in fact the only validity is the self-determination of the islanders and the fact that they have successfully asserted it (by which I mean they are currently governed exactly how they want to be). TharkunColl 12:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are missing the point: it's not about the legitimacy or otherwise of claims, it's about what people call the islands. And a very large number of people call them the Malvinas. That number includes the CIA and Britannica. 62.73.137.190 14:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You have almost understood the whole basis of my argument, but unfortunately, not quite. The people of the islands call their islands the "Falkland Islands", and the undisputed fact that they do so should lead us to use that name. Any other names can be given later. As for "a very large number of people call them Malvinas", do you have any evidence for this assertion? Simply repeating that the CIA and Britannica use it is not proof of widespread usage, I'm afraid. But even if it were, it is still not the prefered term on the islands, so once again should be relegated to a later mention. TharkunColl 14:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not widespread used? 8 million + hits at google is not widespeard used? An encyclopedia is not tehre to ONLY represent the view of the islanders..... KimvdLinde 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome the proposal of Wikipedia:Mediation. A formal survey conducted as Wikipedia:Current surveys could still be tried first, in the light of significant efforts to compromise to achieve consensus following the informal straw poll. Advocates of B) "To show them (foreign names] in context in the second paragraph" have accepted position A) "To add foreign language names at the beginning", but intransigent supporters of A) have hardened their position to refuse to accept any attempt to properly show the context in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Types of entities. The suggestion of (Malvinas^Objections) at least hints at the controversy, but fails to follow Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) which was introduced by an advocate of A) as a proper guideline, and if all mention is to be moved to a second section I consider the wording firmly set out in that guideline to be more appropriate. However, as a further attempt to compromise I am willing to see all mention of controversy left out of the first paragraph by giving a simple statement of relevant facts, thus –

(called Islas Malvinas in Spanish speaking countries, but not in the islands themselves which are English speaking)

dave souza, talk 10:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gnetwerker, your preferred option looks promising. The wording of the first paragraph looks fine, the formatting would in my opinion look better as in the currently protected version favoured by the A) supporters, as :"The Falkland Islands (Malvinas), an.... The second paragraph should, in my opinion, begin "The islands are an English speaking British Overseas Territory and are referred to by the islanders and in the United Kingdom as "(The) Falkland Islands"," with a similar link being provided to Spanish-speaking. My concern has been apparent disregard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the advice of mediators would be welcome, but hopefully will not be necessary. ..dave souza, talk 10:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC), amended 14:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion for a compromise (which at least makes clear that the ISO designation differs from the name given by the islanders themselves):

The Falkland Islands (ISO designation Falkland Islands (Malvinas)¹) are an archipelago in .... TharkunColl 12:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The ISO designation should go in a box along with the currency and telephone code and other such data.--Gibnews 14:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would go with that one. TharkunColl 14:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with ALSO menitoning it there, but the continues push to get it of the first line is not going to fly with me as long as I only see political reasons for that. People can keep using this as a soapbox as long as they like, but soapbox arguments are not going to convince me. KimvdLinde 15:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this argument; I have no emotional stake in it, and the Falkland Islands hadn't even entered my consciousness in years before I wandered onto this article. Anyhow, here is my take: the Falkland Islands are English-speaking, and this is an English-language encyclopedia. To prominently include a name used in any language other than English would be, quite conspicuously, a statement of some sort (most likely political). Incidentally, I was aware in the back of my mind that some people called the islands "Malvinas," but I don't once recall the American media (other than the citation above, sort-of) calling them anything other than "The Falkland Islands." kdogg36 20:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Much mention has been made of Britannica's usage. My Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004 DVD introduces its article as follows:

Falkland Islands officially Colony of the Falkland Islands , also called Malvinas Islands, Spanish Islas Malvinas British self-governing colony in the South Atlantic Ocean. It lies about 300 miles (480 km) northeast of the southern tip of South America, and a similar distance east of the Strait of Magellan.

Quaintly, Islas Malvinas is linked back to the same page. Do they have an editor? More to the point, this "also called" wording differs significantly from the versions being pushed as A). Does the US version phrase its intro differently?

Usage on Wikipedia is not determined by the editorial decisions of Britannica or the CIA, it is set by Wikipedia guidelines and policy, which we should pay attention to. ..dave souza, talk 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only is that Britannica source highly revealing, it is also demonstrably wrong or out of date. The Falkland Islands have been a "British Overseas Territory" since 2002, not a colony (and most assuredly do not have "Colony" as part of their name). So much for the Britannica, eh? TharkunColl 15:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That can be changed: What about:

Falkland Islands, also called Malvinas Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas), a self-governing British Overseas Territory, are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, 300 miles (483 km) from the coast of South America.

KimvdLinde 17:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary of the debate so far (as I see it)

There are still a number of unanswered questions that I invite responses to. Accusations of political bias, however, will get us nowhere, because one person's political bias is another's neutral stance. In other words, let us please confine ourselves to the facts.

Who has the right to determine a country's official name? The government of the country itself, or outside bodies?

In particular, why are outside bodies such as ISO, CIA, Britannica etc. regarded as neutral or indeed accurate sources? The Falkland Islanders have no representation on these bodies.

As has been pointed out, Wikipedia policy is to give proper consideration to the name that a country chooses for itself. Those who dispute this should provide examples of Wikipedia articles that favour the ISO name (for example) over the name that the country calls itself.

The Falklands are not a bilingual society, and no other article in Wikipedia lists foreign names in the header that are not also native to the country in question.

Furthermore, Malvinas is not simply a neutral term, but one that the Falkland Islanders specifically reject. Those who advocate its listing in the header should cite examples of Wikipedia articles that list similarly offensive terms in their header.

As for the dispute with Argentina, this is a matter external to the Falklands. No constituency of opinion in the Falklands favours the Argentine territorial claim, so it is not an internal matter. Why, then, should the nomenclature of this dispute be given in the header? Mention it further down by all means.

And, in more general terms, I have yet to see any evidence that "Malvinas" is a common word in English. On the few occasions that it is used in normal conversation, it always refers to the activities of the Argentines during the Falklands War. If anyone can provide evidence that it exists in English independently of this war, then please do so. TharkunColl 15:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary of the debate so far as I see it

Wikipedia is supposed to reflect existing authorities. These include ISO, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the CIA World Factbook, the media, what's "out there" as found by Google etc. All of these support Falkland Islands (Malvinas). The point above, why are outside bodies such as ISO, CIA, Britannica etc. regarded as neutral or indeed accurate sources, is telling. Wikipedia's view of what constitutes a reliable source is long settled - and the one thing the Islanders are not, in this case, is neutral.

If the islanders want to change this, they must go the long way round. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As far as I can see every "compromise" suggested by those who do not want Malvinas in the lead has been tantamount to advocacy. The neutral suggestions made by Durova appear to have considerable merit, but a small number of editors appear to object to the on principle.

Many of us have sympathy with the Islanders in not wishing to support a territorial claim, albeit based on "squatters' rights", but Wikipedia is not here to assist them in promoting their campaign for change, it's here to reflect the real world, and in the real world Malvinas is a name commonly applied to these islands. Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(not in answer to anyone in particular) I think the main conflict here is between using the term of 'existing authroities' (being 'Falklands Islands (Malvinas)) and using the term in common usage (Falkland Islands). I can see arguments for both - the ideal of verifiability certainly makes a strong case for the former, but there's also the ideal that, being an open encyclopaedia, this can adapt to follow trends, and common usage, quicker than the 'closed' ones.

I'm not exactly sure which I prefer - I don't see the reasoning behind having 'Malvinas' in the name of the country. But by the same token, on here verifiability is more important than absolute truth, so that's what, according to the guidelines, we really should go with. --Lordandmaker 16:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't all the official Falklands government websites I quoted and linked to count as verifiable sources? Surely they are the most authoritative of all? TharkunColl 16:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In the same way as the Argentinian government sites count as verifiable sources, yes. But the neutral verifiable sources, like ISO and Britannica, use Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Lordandmaker, Malvinas is also a term in common use. That is part of the problem! Just zis Guy you know? 16:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

JzG, please note that the version of Britannica I've cited does NOT use the formulation "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", but "Falkland Islands..., also called Malvinas Islands, Spanish Islas Malvinas". Your version may vary ...dave souza, talk 17:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

This continuing argument reflects the difference(s) between conflicting yet verifiable, "authoritative", sources. These seems to be broadly aligned on American English (including the ISO) and British English. In the circumstances, until such time as the verifiable "authoritative" sources resolve their differences, is there any alternative to putting both terms into the first sentence - perhaps along the lines of:

The Falkland Islands (according to ...) or the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) (according to ...) are ...

Ian Cairns 16:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly the Encyclopedia Britanica has a missleading name, its American. The Falkland Islands are British and deserve a BRITISH name. If ISO mistakely names them something else to appease a would be claimant, lets reflect that by noting it in a box along with other items of that kind. when the FCO call it the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) then I will believe thats the name.--Gibnews 17:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I was including Encyclopedia Britannica in the American media.

It seems to be ISO, CIA, EB, American media on the one hand and the Falklands Government, British media on the other Ian Cairns 17:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And the EU which is quite a large entity.--Gibnews 21:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this discussion is not going to resolve itself as win / lose or lose / win. Perhaps if we could agree to set aside the differences in the sources and go for something like a win / win ? Ian Cairns 17:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A very good point. My investigation turned up mention of a book about how the debate has been mythologised in both Britain and Argentina. It is evident that US sources are presenting a third narrative, and some nationalists are using the Spanish name to support their perspective of British colonialism. I'll try to pull together the sources as time permits. ...dave souza, talk 18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A win / win suggestion

Editors on both sides of the argument expressed interest in the proposal by Gnetwerker, which I set out below incorporating my suggested modifications and a revised opening drawing on KimvdLinde's comment:

The Falkland Islands, also called the Malvinas, are an archipelago in the Southern Atlantic ocean, which was the site of a war between the United Kingdom and Argentina in 1982. The formal name of the islands is a matter of dispute. The islands are located 300 miles (483 km) from the coast of South America and consist of two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, and a number of smaller islands.

The islands are an English speaking British Overseas Territory and are referred to by the islanders and in the United Kingdom as "(The) Falkland Islands", and commonly in English as simply "The Falklands". Argentina and a number of Spanish speaking countries refer to the islands as "Islas Malvinas", though that designation is considered part of Argentina's continued claim to the islands, and hence offensive to Falklands residents and many Britons. Some English-language media sources use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".

The last sentence opens with Some rather than Many, as verification would be needed of the numbers and circumstances. This could form the basis of discussion as a way forward. ...dave souza, talk 18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As usual, I have no objection to this either. Just zis Guy you know? 18:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Jim62sch 19:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As usual Dave Souza has come up with a common-sense solution. Fine by me. --Mais oui! 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Gnetwerker's solution, minor tweaks by me. ..dave souza, talk 20:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good co-edited solution.PhilipPage 22:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That introduction is completely unsatisfactory:

The 1982 war or the sovereignty dispute is not the most important thing about the Islands
Too much focus is given on the name
I doubt any Briton is offended by the term Malvinas

It is better to say Falkland Islands (also known as the Malvinas) and then keep the existing intro. Astrotrain 20:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"The 1982 war or the sovereignty dispute is not the most important thing about the Islands". What is, the sheep? For most non-British speakers of English, it's the only thing they know about the islands.
"Too much focus is given on the name" -- the name appears to be part of the dispute on this page.
"I doubt any Briton is offended by the term Malvinas." Well, there's the Queen, the British Sailors interviewed during the war... Jim62sch 20:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

On this entry I don't think the war nor the Argentinian claims are the most important details, it's about the islands as a whole, everything about them and for the reader to decide what's important. A web surfing shepherd would find the sheep the most fascinating bit, wildlife fans the penguins, etc. PhilipPage 22:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone else was concerned earlier that the war wasn't given an early mention, so I was content that Gnetwerker had included it. Other aspects of the islands are important, so it might be a good idea to add to the sentence "but have since become increasingly prosperous with a growing tourist industry attracted by the scenery and unique wildlife". Someone with more knowledge of developments, please rework this. ...dave souza, talk 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any problems with that. It is accurate, verifiable, neutral and informative. I can't really see any reason anyone could argue with it. Lordandmaker 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Data (again)

Here is some data of the type called for in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). It is presented here without further comment. Please don't edit this section, though if you find errors, put a note below and I will correct them.

Data gathered from Google Scholar (GS), Google Books (GB), New York Times (81-06 search). New York Times (1851 - 1980 search), Guardian.co.uk (G.uk) (1998 - 2006 archive), Encylclopedia Britannica (Brit), Encarta (Enc), and Columbia Encyclopedia (Col) on word/phrase usage. In all cases, the most obvious online sources/sites (e.g. www.britannica.com) were used, and no "advanced" searches were performed. When quotes are given, they were used in the search:

Name	GS	GB	NYT 1981-2006	NYT 1851 - 1980	G.uk 1998 - 2006	Brit	Enc	Col
Falklands	6230	16,300	1722	225	1624	25	39	5
"Falkland Islands"	6160	14,100	1773	1984	234	111	42	24
Malvinas	4930	8100	219	53	63	38	36	3
"Islas Malvinas"	750	1180	12	6	2	31	44	2

Opening paragraphs of other encyclopedias (mostly presented before, but I wanted everything in one place):

Britannica: Falkland Islands, officially Colony of the Falkland Islands , also called Malvinas Islands , Spanish Islas Malvinas self-governing colony of the United Kingdom in the South Atlantic Ocean. It lies about 300 miles (480 km) northeast of the southern tip of South America and a similar distance east of the Strait of Magellan. The capital and only town is Stanley, on East Falkland, but there are several small, scattered settlements. In South America the islands are generally known as Islas Malvinas,

Article on "Falkland Islands War" uses "Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)"
Article on "Cheek, John" uses "Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas"

Encarta: Falkland Islands or Islas Malvinas, island group, British dependency, in the South Atlantic Ocean, east of the Strait of Magellan and northeast of the southern tip of South America. ...
The Falkland Islands (formerly known as the Falkland Islands and Dependencies) constitute a self-governing British dependency. Until 1985, South Georgia (4,070 sq km/1,570 sq mi), an island 1,300 km (800 mi) southeast of the Falkland Islands, and the South Sandwich Islands (3,590 sq km/ 1,390 sq mi), about 750 km (470 mi) southeast of South Georgia, were governed as dependencies of the Falklands. Under a new constitution, however, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands became a separate British dependency.

Note: Map titled "Map of Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)" here: [12]

Columbia Encyclopedia (Bartleby.com): Falkland Islands, Span. Islas Malvinas, officially Colony of the Falkland Islands, group of islands (1991 pop. 2,121), 4,618 sq mi (11,961 sq km), S Atlantic, c.300 mi (480 km) E of the Strait of Magellan. The islands are administered as a British crown colony with the capital at Stanley. There are two large islands (East Falkland and West Falkland) and some 200 small ones. From 1908 to 1985 South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were dependencies of the colony. The Falklands are rather bleak, rocky moorlands, swept by wind and drenched by chill rain. The population is almost entirely British, Christian, and English-speaking.

That's all for now. -- Gnetwerker 01:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also note for completeness and as previously mentioned:

CIA World Factbook: Falkland ISlands (Islas Malvinas) Although first sighted by an English navigator in 1592, the first landing (English) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (French) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to Spain two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between Britain and Spain, then between Britain and Argentina. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in 1833. Argentina invaded the islands on 2 April 1982. The British responded with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982. Here: [13]

ISO 3166: FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS) A2=FK; A3=FLK; Number=238.

Just zis Guy you know? 09:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Good overview, it also makes clear how generally the name Islas Malvina is used thoughout the world. KimvdLinde 04:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting together the data. Which edition of Britannica? I note you've spelt it ~pedia rather than ~paedia as in my UK copy. ...dave souza, talk 06:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The numbers above are from whatever the online britannica.com searches by default (and any spelling errors are likely mine alone). Also, I want it understood that (despite the above?) I (personally) continue to support use of the ISO designation. -- Gnetwerker 06:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. I was just wondering because my DVD copy of the "Encyclopaedia" (UK, 2004) has been superseded by newer editions they keep trying to sell me, and I don't have access to US or the full online versions. Just remembered that a Google search gets access to the intro of articles as a taster, and right enough the Britannica.com intro you've quoted is effectively the same as my DVD: so they're now about four years out of date in calling it a colony, and they still sneer at Wikipedia for not being "definitive"! A bit nitpicking, but the online US version does have subtly different wording, saying "of the [UK]" instead of "British". ..dave souza, talk 09:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Malvinas describes a name that used, Falkland Islands is what the place is actually named spot the difference.

Being repetitive, Britanica and Encarta are American sources, Americans are notorious for their knowledge of countries outside the US. As an example, the CIA factbook on Gibraltar is reasonable because I took time to update it and they listened.

Britanica says British colony occupying a narrow peninsula of Spain's southern Mediterranean coast, just northeast of the Strait of Gibraltar. It is 3 miles (5 km) long and 3/4 mile wide and is connected to Spain by a low, sandy isthmus

NONSENSE ! The above wording is not even consistent with itself.

Encarta is even worse.

But despite that Wikipedia can get it right.--Gibnews 09:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia can get it right, and there have been several comproimise versions of right suggested. By what policy does supporting the Islanders' agenda to change right become more important than being right? :-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If the residents of an inhabited place are in broad consensus that it should be called by a particular name, I can see no rational reason for considering any conflicting name to be "right." kdogg36 20:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to stick to facts than deal with agenda's you are ignoring the fact that the name of the place is the Falkland Islands.

Country names have a political significance, which is why Zimbabwe is called that and not Northern Rhodesia. It may be appropriate to describe former names in an article, however insisting on the inclusion of an illegal name in the title stikes me as a bad idea.

In English the name is Falkland Islands, in the dominant language of the nearest large landmass it's Malvinas. The facts are that the major secondary sources all use Malvinas in the lead; the agenda is that the Islanders want to change that. Good luck to them. Wehn they succeed in changing the ISO tag, and getting the US Government to change, and so on, then we will surely follow suit, because we always go with the reliable secondary sources. Just zis Guy you know? 16:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What on earth has the language spoken in 'the nearest land mass' got to do with it? Take a look at a map and see where the Canary Islands are, or Perejil ... You really are clutching at straws with that sort of argument.--Gibnews 17:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough people also cite Wikipedia as a source, so its important that we get things right. As I have demonstrated, there alternative sources to those quoted of equal merit and regretably some of them are not as scrupulous as we can be here.--Gibnews 11:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the points of posing the above is that it is the information a mediator or arbitrators will use to determine the answer, as it follows the criteria in the relevant policies. If there can be no better compromise reached, I think we will end up with "Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)" or some other version using the Spanish name, which I think is less preferable than the ISO version. -- Gnetwerker 15:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I am a bit tired of being told I am pushing an agenda, other than Wikipedia policy. Why would I do that? What possible interest do I have in supposedly promoting the Argentine claim? Beats me. Just zis Guy you know? 16:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Same here. KimvdLinde 17:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Then leave the article titled 'The Falkland Islands' and lets add an article about alternative names in the section about the territorial claim and put this to bed.--Gibnews 17:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone is proposing to change the article title. We have been (I thought) discussing the opening paragaph. -- Gnetwerker 22:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral sources

Some have argued that the British government is not a neutral source, and likewise the Argentine. So let's ignore de jure (since some dispute it), and concentrate on de facto. Which name is used by the people who run the islands? Which name is accepted by the people of the islands? Please remember that this is not an article about international territorial claims, but rather about the Falklands and its people. As for all those so-called neutral sources souch as ISO, CIA, Britannica - time and again they have been proved to be inaccurate and/or woefully out ot date. TharkunColl

Why on earth would you want to cross out the two national governments and rely instead on the one group whose agenda is strongest and least neutral? What a bizarre suggestion! Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely the Falkland government is likely to be the least neutral? I'd leave the governments of the Falklands, UK and Argentinia out of the list of sources to compare, given that all have their own agenda, and all are working to change the common terms, and are generally using their terms, not the common ones. Lordandmaker 16:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The UN is a fairly neutral body; it says "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" by official default, i.e. with no islas mentioned ([14], [15]). But then again, it also by default uses terms such as Viet Nam and Timor-Leste, and sees fit to collate Occupied Palestinian Territory, Republic of Moldova and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia under O, R and T, respectively... (!) // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 17:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want to cross out the two national governments and rely instead on the one group whose agenda is strongest and least neutral? This, of course, is the very heart of the matter. Whatever we may think of the fact that the Falkland Islands exist in their current form, the fact is that they do. For the sake of neutrality, we must use this as the basis of our description of the place. By all means mention the territorial claim further down. Those who disagree that this stance really is the truly neutral one should provide examples of Wikipedia articles where externally conferred names are favoured over those adopted by the place itself. I have asked for this many times now, but nobody has actually done so, which is surely telling. TharkunColl 19:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And that is exacly NOT in line with the policies of Wikipedia. The Falklanders are NOT a neutral party in this, adn as such, their opinion does not dictate how Wikipedia is shaped. KimvdLinde 19:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Types of entities: "A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. The country formerly called Burma now calls itself Myanmar. These 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." ...dave souza, talk 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Myanmar: The Union of Myanmar (also known as the Union of Burma by bodies and states who do not recognize the ruling military junta) is the largest country (in geographical area) in mainland Southeast Asia.

Gdańsk: Gdańsk (pronounced Audio file "Gdansk.ogg" not found, Danzig in German, Kashubian: Gduńsk, Latin: Gedania; also other languages) is the.....

Along this line, Islas Malvinas should be included. As it is not a term exclusively used by Argentina (to the contrary), no need for anything qualifying. KimvdLinde 21:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl and dave souza, the arguments you make are correct, but red herrings. As KimvdLinde points out, we are not proposing to call the islands something other than their given, local name "(The) Falkland Islands". This entire debate is about the inclusion of a secondary name in the article introduction. In my opinion, if your position was toward clarity and not a political one, you would appeciate this. Your concern, manifestly, is not to have the islands called "Falkland Islands" (which is uncontested), but to exclude from the introduction alternative names validated by various reference works, world standards, and third parties, or to insert such obtrusive objections to the secondary name as to stigmatize it. That, in my view, is the root of the accusations of POV -- your position that another named should be summarily excluded. -- Gnetwerker 21:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Win / win mark III

The slightly modified version of Gnetwerker's proposal above attracted a lot of support, and one objection which I've attempted to address with a few revisions as shown below. For most editors this generally seems to be a tolerable proposal.

The Falkland Islands, also called the Malvinas, form an archipelago in the Southern Atlantic ocean and were at the centre of a war between the United Kingdom and Argentina in 1982, but since then they have become increasingly prosperous with a growing tourist industry attracted by the scenery and wildlife, notably the rockhopper penguins. The formal name of the islands is a matter of dispute. The islands are located 300 miles (483 km) from the coast of South America and consist of two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, and a number of smaller islands.

The islands are an English speaking British Overseas Territory and are referred to by the islanders and in the United Kingdom as "(The) Falkland Islands", and commonly in English as simply "The Falklands". Argentina and a number of Spanish speaking countries refer to the islands as "Islas Malvinas", though that designation is considered part of Argentina's continued claim to the islands, and hence offensive to Falklands residents and many Britons. Some English-language media sources use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".

Any constructive suggestions will be welcome, and I hope that it will be possible for the protection to be lifted and this proposal added for the first two paragraphs to allow normal editing to resume. ...dave souza, talk 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Other than s/centre/center/ (your roots are showing :-) ), I of course support. -- Gnetwerker 21:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Go with Mark II - it had consensus. We should not try to bend over backwards to try to satisfy every single individual.--Mais oui! 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it really neccessary to put penguins in the very first sentence? The sentence is too long even before it gets to that point. Jonathunder 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair points. Would ending the sentence at "industry" be preferred, leaving the scenery and penguins for later? ...dave souza, talk 00:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Mk. II was fine by me. This seems a bit less concise. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a different suggestion:

keep the existing intro, using the The Falkland Islands, also called the Malvinas as noted above as the title.
use the second para noted above in a seperate name section, either before or after the history section Astrotrain 22:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this different suggestion would not satisfy the indication in Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms that when contentious term are used, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained. If all mention of the controversy is to be moved to a separate section then the exact wording and procedure specified in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) will be required. ...dave souza, talk 00:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue of the name only arises from the sovereignty dispute, which is adequately explained already in the intro and gives context to the dispute. Your intro does not give context. At the end of the day, the naming dispute is not important enough to take up the whole introduction. Astrotrain 11:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Another important Wikipedia policy reference here is WP:LEAD. The most important sentence in it, IMHO, is: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article.". -- Gnetwerker 00:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Mad

Crazy debate. Territorial claims are completely irrelevant. Look at all the territorial claims, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia etc., have all made in the 20th century alone. And enshrined in the Constitution of the Irish Republic is a territorial claim to part of the United Kingdom. So, like the Argentinian "claim" its all meaningless. the important thing here is that the islands are under British sovereignty and that this, the English-language version of the Wikipedia, should present the name of the islands in English. 81.131.109.124 13:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This IP address traces to BTOpenWord in Great Britain -- Gnetwerker 16:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Along wiht the other languages in common use as listed in the reliable sources, yes. Just zis Guy you know? 13:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Its about time the foreigners learnt English.--Gibnews 18:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Is goed, leer jij dan ook buitenlandse talen als jij naar onze landen komt? KimvdLinde 18:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's time the Brits learned American. The Empire is dead. Long live the Empire. :-) -- Gnetwerker 19:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect article

Although some disagree with the foreign names in the title lead (including me), I think we all now agree that the majority consensus is to include The Falkland Islands (also known as the Malvinas) in the title. So why is the debate still continuing?

I think we should unprotect the article, and add this new title line in. And then we can look to put a naming section in. The discussion here has gone on long enough; and is now becoming stale and going off topic. Astrotrain 16:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Do it and lets get on with life.--Gibnews 17:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we solve it first completly. There are several people who do not agree with putting Malvinas in and there is substantial debate about the lead. I say, we solve that first before we end up in the next revert war. KimvdLinde 17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No. I agree with KimvdLinde. We must resolve this here. If we unprotect before a solid consensus is reached then the revert warriors will just resume business as usual. I note that it is the party which cannot win the debate on the Talk page that wants the page unprotected.--Mais oui! 18:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of protection is to prevent an edit war. If everybody can agree to maintain civil dialogue here and not make changes without broad agreement, there is no particular reason it should not be unprotected. I see no reason why we should not assume good faith on the part of all concerned and no reason why TharkunColl, Gibnews or anyone else should not continue trying to persuade folks on this Talk page, just as long as they are not going to start another revert war. Debate makes good article, as a rule. If everybody is prepared to send Mr Ego on a long Wikibreak I will happily unprotect it. Just zis Guy you know? 18:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No objection, but can someone state what they think the first two-para consensus is. I see "Falkland Islands (also known as), but what about the war reference in 1st para, naming conflict in 2nd? Is that consensus? If we don't know, it will be a quick trip back to protection, and/or a trip to User:Gibraltarian-land for someone. -- Gnetwerker 20:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally this debate has been polite and people have avoided personal attacks. As a Gibraltarian I am offended by the above reference. This is NOT the place to discuss that unfortunate matter, apart from noting that ONE Gibraltar user was blocked for bad behaviour provoked by a number of equally bad Spanish users with an agenda. The Gibraltar page today shows mindless vandalism by Spaniards is again rife, albeit swiftly contained.

I do not intend to make the mistakes of others, please do not dump in my direction.--Gibnews 09:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed intro

The Falkland Islands, also called the Malvinas, are an archipelago in the Southern Atlantic ocean. Following the war between the United Kingdom and Argentina in 1982, the islands' economy has revived with growing tourism. The formal name of the islands is a matter of dispute. The islands are located 300 miles (483 km) from the coast of South America and consist of two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, and a number of smaller islands.

The islands are an English speaking British Overseas Territory and are referred to by the islanders and in the United Kingdom as "(The) Falkland Islands", and commonly in English as simply "The Falklands". Argentina and a number of Spanish speaking countries refer to the islands as "Islas Malvinas", though that designation is considered part of Argentina's continued claim to the islands, and hence offensive to Falklands residents and many Britons. Some English-language media sources use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".

This splits the first sentence, briefly mentioning growth and tourism to give an indication of the whole article. Otherwise as the Mark II version. ..dave souza, talk 22:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd wikify a bit, maybe change "the islands" in second reference to "they", other minor stuff, but I'd say let's put that up, unlock the article, and we can progress on that. Jonathunder 22:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good enough, although I think this is not correct: Argentina and a number of Spanish speaking countries and would change that to Argentina and most other Spanish speaking countries, because I have only heard of Chili using Islas Falklands, and that was mainly in political context to distinguish themselves from Argentina. --KimvdLinde 22:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I can live with the current wording, but its self evident that a Spanish phrase is used in spanish speaking countries.--Gibnews 09:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm a native Spanish speaker. There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding re the Spanish name for the Falkland Islands. At least one editor here believes it to be "Islas Falkland". I'd like to point out that this is not the case. The official Spanish name is Islas Malvinas. You can confirm this by simply clicking on this link, which will get you to the website of the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas (roughly translated as Panhispanic Dictionary of Difficult Words), and typing the word Falkland in the search bar. It redirects you to Malvinas. That dictionary, which came out in 2005, was the result a joint effort by the Real Academia Española (Royal Spanish Academy, the publisher of the official Spanish language dictionary, the DRAE) and the Association of Spanish Language Academies from the rest of the Spanish-speaking world. It's as official as you can go for all things Spanish.

Thus, the sentence that reads Argentina and a number of Spanish speaking countries refer to the islands as "Islas Malvinas" is not correct. All Spanish speaking countries call the islands las Malvinas. The fact that the Chileans call them occasionally las Falklands has to do more with the ever present rivalries among the South American nations, as another editor has pointed out.

The name Malvinas is not offensive per se, unless you want to give it that meaning. We Spanish-speakers call them las islas Malvinas, (just as we call Germany Alemania, for example), and that does not mean we're automatically taking a stance in the matter. They were "las Malvinas" before, during, and after the war of 1982.

In my humble opinion, that introductory paragraph suffers from what Wikipedia calls English-speaking point of view. The word "Malvinas" may be offensive to Falkland residents and many Britons, but again, I see this sentence falling into what Wikipedia refers to as "UK nationalism", unless you specify also that the British presence in the islands is also seen as an offense (actually, more like a slap in the face) to the Argentinians. I, for one, see room for improvement regarding the Neutral Point of View of this particular paragraph. Best Regards. Andres C. 06:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This was never the point. "Malvinas" is a word that hardly ever occurs in normal English usage, and when it does, it invariably refers to the activities of the Argentines during the Falklands War. Every single Spanish speaker on earth might use "Malvinas" every day, but if it's not used in English, it shouldn't be in the header. TharkunColl 06:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andres, the sentence you're concerned about was changed a while ago to the more neutral "Argentina and a number of other countries refer to the islands as "Islas Malvinas"..." The Argentinian claim is clearly set out, as is the "slap in the face" to the islanders of use of the term Malvinas in pursuit of that claim. An editor recently muddied the question of normal Spanish usage in the History section, I've rephrased that and trust that your concerns are now met. ..dave souza, talk 09:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Tharkuncoll. I was not referring to the header but to the next paragraph. Hello Dave, I stand corrected. The "Spanish speaking" part had indeed been edited. Still, the question remains re the second part of the paragraph: ...though that designation is considered part of Argentina's continued claim to sovereignty over the islands, and hence offensive to the Falklands islanders who themselves wish to remain British, as well as to many other Britons. I mean, who is doing the "considering" here? My point is, the designation has nothing to do with Argentina's claims. It just happens to be the Spanish name for the islands. They way the paragraph is worded now, it looks as if the very use of the name "Malvinas" is tantamount to making a pro-Argentinian political statement. That is not the case. If the article is to state that the use of the word "Malvinas" offends the sensibilities of the islanders and of many Britons, I suggest it should state it more clearly.

If I may, I'd like to propose this: The islands are a self-governing and English speaking Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom and are referred to by the islanders and in the United Kingdom as "(The) Falkland Islands". The Spanish language name for the islands, "Islas Malvinas", which comes from the earlier French name, "Îles Malouines", is offensive to the islanders, as well as to many Britons, as they consider this designation to be part of Argentina's continued claim to sovereignty over the islands. This claim is opposed by the islanders themselves, who wish to remain British. Some English-language media sources use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".

It may be polished for synthax, but you get the idea. All the views are presented clearly and there is no judgement passed on the word Malvinas per se. Regards. Andres C. 13:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Andres, I am also an Argentine, but I think it's fallacious to say that the English WP "suffers" from an "English-Speaking POV". The same way the Spanish has a "Spanish-Speaking POV". It's natural, and since each WP is geared towards readers of that language, I think that's the way it should be as long as the "POV" refers to names and not content bias. I do like the way the intro is written today, and is the result of a big compromise (and big fight) among several users. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sebastian. I am not from Argentina, and I have no particular stance on the Falklands status. I was just pointing out that "Malvinas" is a Spanish geographical name and is not an offensive word per se. I don't know about the Spanish wikipedia as I don't take part in that project, but this Wikipedia does give editors some advice on how to avoid English-speaking point of view, so I was offering an advice, that's all. Perhaps your use of the word fallacious was uncalled for? I was just following an RfC link form March 17. Best Regards, Andres C. 23:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No word is offensive per se. Even the word "nigger", for example, is simply derived from the Latin for "black". Words gain their offensive nature by the way in which they are used. The term "Malvinas", unheard of in the general English-speaking world before the Argentine invasion, is forever associated with the brutal military occupation by a foreign power. The fact that Spanish-speakers might use the word with no such connotations is irrelevant because Spanish is not a language that is native to the Falklands, and this is an English-language encyclopedia. TharkunColl 08:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect

The discussions are much more civil now. I hope nobody starts the edit war again. Great job in reaching a consensus to all.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Implementation of consensus intro

I have copied dave souza's paragraph from above, with a few small changes: I wikified South Atlantic Ocean (changing it to its canonical WP name), and added the sentence about the capital city, which had been orphaned by the changes. I left the sovereignty para more-or-less as-is, expect a little wordsmithing to reduce (but not eliminate) the redundancy of mentioning Islas Malvinas both there and in the opening para. This probably needs more work. I also wikilinked "ISO" to ISO 3166 and may have wordsmithed a little here and there. Let's see how long this lasts! (And in the spirit of a "clean slate", if this compromise holds for a few days or a week, I propose archiving this whole discussion and starting fresh here, unless there are major objections. This Talk page is still well over 150kb.) -- Gnetwerker 23:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

P.s. - I specifially did not implement KimvdLinde's suggestion, and here is my reasoning: the current wording "a number of" conveniantly ducks the issue of who does and who doesn't use Islas Malvinas versus Islas Falklands versus something else. Saying "most" requires (IMO) some actual count or substantiation. I almost changed it to simply "some other Spanish-speaking countries", but this would have been simply weaker, not more NPOV, so I didn't. -- Gnetwerker 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the google count of 848 versus 8,000,000 does warrant most. KimvdLinde 23:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, that is a count of usage, not the number of countries using it that way. It would be correct to say "the most common usage in Spanish is ..." but we do not yet know (though I suspect you are correct) that most or only a number of Spanish-speaking countries follow Argentina's usage. -- Gnetwerker 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

P.p.s - I also almost inserted "self-governing" before "English speaking", but did not, simply because it hasn't been thoroughly discussed. I personally support doing so, per Britannica and Encarta (see above). -- Gnetwerker 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It is self governing, so I can think there is no objection against that. Ican live with the "the most common usage in Spanish is ...". I do not think that if Islas Falklands is only mentioned 848 times, that there is any Spanish speaking country (including Chili) that does it consistently. So, most is in hat context even conservative. KimvdLinde 00:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, if anyone objects to Kim's suggestion, please speak up. -- Gnetwerker 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made some small amendments to correct grammar and structure. I've also removed the line "Following the war between the United Kingdom and Argentina in 1982, the islands' economy has revived with growing tourism". As well as being poor grammar, the line does not make much sense as the second line given the 1982 war hasn't been mentioned yet; and how exactly has the Islands' economy revived since the war? Astrotrain 19:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

These "small amendments" have removed agreed wording, including points I considered essential: reverted and moved below for discussion. ..dave souza, talk 19:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not bad...

Almost despite myself, I actually find this current version not too bad. Let's hope somebody doesn't revert it in the meantime... TharkunColl 00:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Added... I think I might replace the phrase "a growing tourism" with "a growth in tourism" - simply for linguistic reasons.TharkunColl 00:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, misread it. I've added a single letter (so as to conform to proper English usage). TharkunColl 00:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Astrotrain's proposal

Astrotrain made "small amendments", which I post below for discussion:

The Falkland Islands, also called the Malvinas, are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, located 300 miles (483 km) from the coast of South America. They consist of two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, and a number of smaller islands. Stanley, on East Falkland, is the capital and largest city.

The islands are an English speaking Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom and are referred to by the islanders and in the United Kingdom as "(The) Falkland Islands". Argentina and a number of Spanish speaking countries refer to the islands as "Islas Malvinas", a Spanish translation of the earlier French name, Îles Malouines, though that designation is considered part of Argentina's continued claim to the islands, and hence offensive to Falklands residents and many Britons. Some English-language media sources use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".

In my opinion pointing out the disputed name in the first paragraph is essential, and mention of the war and economy in the intro is important: exact form up for discussion. ...dave souza, talk 20:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The name Malvinas is commonplace in Portuguese-speaking countries too (Brazil, Portugal, Angola, Mozambique and East Timor) and heavily used in Italian (i.e. Isole Malvinas). As the text has been phrased, it gives the idea that the word Malvinas is simply used as a way to annoy Britons, when in fact it is the common denomination for the islands (in those countries). On the other hand, I am happy we are getting somewhere. Regards, Asterion 11:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point, I'll modify the second paragraph and at the same time remove a duplicate link to Spanish language. ..dave souza, talk 13:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I am happy with the article as it stands. Regards, Asterion 13:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

there is no need to discuss on talk everytime a minor change is made to the intro, especially if it is to correct poor grammar and sentence structure. The line about the economy has no source and is vague. Why don't you add back anything you think is missing, rather than start off another discussion. It will be much quicker. Astrotrain 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, getting back to a "normal" editing regime is clearly desirable. On the other hand, we want to make sure that the current state of consensus does not dramatically fail. Personally, I never liked the economy sentence either, as it was unsourced (as noted) and the result of a certain amount of political correctness. But let us try to be sensitive, especially those editors who took strong positions during the previous debate. -- Gnetwerker 00:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see things evening out, those changes seemed more than minor from my perspective but it's looking better now. The economy and tourism reference was undeveloped, not really pc (from a mac user). It was added as the balance of the lead did seem too skewed to dispute and war. Here's the source that was in mind[16], and some more[17], [18], [19] and[20]. On this basis I've added a short bit to the second sentence. The third paragraph in the lead was beginning to look superfluous, so I've moved the link to sovereignty to the second para, and the rest to the first section. Hope that's acceptable, will try to update the economy section soon. ...dave souza, talk

I am trying to find some information on squid (calamari) fishing in the islands. I read in The Independent a while back something about this and how it has actually become a considerable source of income, with most of the catch then sold to Spain and Portugal. Asterion 13:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

don't mention the invasion?

I thought it useful to mention that the reason for the so called 'Falklands war' was the invasion. Although I don't intend to persist with it, its cause and effect. It was not war for regime change. There was no POV or value judgement involved, it was strictly factual. Why is telling the truth 'incendiary' ?

In 1982 The islands were in invaded by Argentina. The United Kingdom sent a taskforce and recaptured the territory in the Falklands War.

--Gibnews 19:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with para 1 of the History section? That states that the islands were briefly invaded promoting the Falklands Conflict. What more is needed? Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The consensus we achieved was in relation to the use of foreign names to describe the territory, the same foreign names that were previously in the second paragraph on the main article and which some, like Just zis Guy you know? insisted should go in a more prominent position.

The invasion and conflict in the Falklands is very important as without it I doubt most of us would even know the place ever existed. The conflict or 'war' occured because of the invasion and the term is pretty neutral and factual, and the wording used makes no value judgement on the merits of either the invasion or the recapture, again a neutral term which describes what happened.

As it is the single most important event in the territory it deserves prominence and should not offend anyones sensibilities excepting anyone who wants to gloss over history.

'liberation' is term that implies other things 'recapure' describes what happens when a subsequent invasion succeeds. --Gibnews 13:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The problems with your edit are:

It isn't what we got a consenus on; but more importantly
It opens the door for a pro-Argentine partisan to claim it should say "the islands were liberated from British occupation in 1982" or some such.

If someone were to write that, I would certainly expect that you would hit the roof (with good reason). The details of occupation, capture, etc are well-covered in the accompanying articles. It is not appropriate to recapitulate them in the intro. An alternate version would be fine, but it it needs to avoid "war words" like "invasion" that will just set off a series of reverts. -- Gnetwerker 21:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone who changed it to"liberated from British occupation" or some such would be reverted instantly. Let's not "fix" problems which don't exist. Just zis Guy you know? 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My humble position: That Argentina invaded the island (legally or not, is another issue) is a fact, the word invasion sounds aggresive but I can't find a better one. That the UK recaptured them is another issue. I don't think there's another way to describe it more POV. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Occupied or invaded, I don't much care which we use. Just zis Guy you know? 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What about "took control of the islands after a swift military takeover", instead? Asterion 01:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Har, har. If there is consensus, then use "invade". I just want to avoid another edit war. -- Gnetwerker 02:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Or "pwn3d"? ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

the islands were the site of the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Sounds to me like the location was arbitraly picked for a war game, and does not explain why the conflict occured in a concise manner.

However, if someone likes my wording, please change it that way, I don't want to engage in an edit war either.--Gibnews 13:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Some handy links

Well, that's me done. The following links might be useful to someone:

INTER-MEDIACION. Inc., a Florida, USA company dedicated to the peaceful resolution of international conflicts
Falklands-Malvinas - View Topic - Charter flights
"Undue Reverence" - Questioning national identity in the media coverage of the 1982 Falklands War
Falklands-Malvinas Forum - intermediacion "The book: National Identity in Times of Crises: the scripts of the Falklands-Malvinas War (1996) by Nora Femenia, (N. Y.: Nova Science Publishers), covers the reciprocal construction of enemy-images between Argentina and the United Kingdom".
UnitedIrelander January 2006 on the Malvinas and "the terrible legacy [of] the British Empire".
Argentina is menacing Falklands, say Tories

dave souza, talk 00:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)