Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 2

message: ::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)
thread_title: How about this lead then?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Queen's role 

message: 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)
replies: text: Than your experience is pretty unique. KimvdLinde 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are pushing your own political POV. KimvdLinde 19:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree (I am neither british, nor native English speaker). KimvdLinde 14:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "Malvinas" in English

message: Does anyone object to the removal of this from the first line? Ian3055 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Falklands Islands are not a British colony. 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protection 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Stop he soapbox arguments. KimvdLinde 18:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested resolution 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Examples of how not to start articles

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: USA

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vandal

message: 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 (MalvinasObjections) are an archipelago in .... 
Views? Ian3055 19:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New compromise suggestion 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Other than s/centre/center/ (your roots are showing :-) ), I of course support. -- Gnetwerker 21:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Mk. II was fine by me. This seems a bit less concise. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Win / win mark III

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Its about time the foreigners learnt English.--Gibnews 18:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is goed, leer jij dan ook buitenlandse talen als jij naar onze landen komt? KimvdLinde 18:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unprotect 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Implementation of consensus intro 

message: 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)
thread_title: Not bad...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: What about "took control of the islands after a swift military takeover", instead? Asterion 01:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Har, har.  If there is consensus, then use "invade".  I just want to avoid another edit war. -- Gnetwerker 02:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or "pwn3d"? ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Amen to that. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't mention the invasion? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Some handy links