Talk:Falkland Islands

message: Can someone explain WP policy on endonyms vs. exonyms? The endonym in Spanish is Islas Falkland. Inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, and official documents, refer to themselves as Falkland Islands, or Islas Falkland in Spanish. Per Taiwan, Sami people, Romani people, this seems to be the end of the discussion. It doesn't seem relevant what usage the PRC attempts to enforce, nor does it seem relevant what usage Argentina attempts to enforce. In each of these articles, claims by outside groups are noted later on in the lede, but the official and self-name is the determining factor. 
If it is common in Chile to refer to the Islands as Islas Falkland, then shouldn't we include that? 19:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign you comments. I questioned this a long time ago but it stays as is and on reflection I think that is best even if not quite right. A [rime consideration is the name used in a sizable number of sources. Islas Malvinas is very often used so to omit it would be wrong to be making a point to give an opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the corresponding articles note that the term is offensive and rejected by the people. We should do the same here. DenverCoder9 (talk) DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if it's offensive, or even if it's wrong. It matters what it secondary sources use. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: September 2022

message: This article says founded in 1766, the Port Egmont article says 1765. I'm adding to the John Perceval, 2nd Earl of Egmont article. Help!? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipeida is a not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on your definition of founded. Argentine nationalists have a habit of slipping it to 1766, which is when Captain McBride arrived to formally set up the colony.  It was founded by Byron in 1765 who laid the ground work, then slipped away.  Similarly the French settlement is backdated to 1764 when Bougainville laid the ground work, not 1765 when he came back with colonists.  Its a bit of a double standard, should be 1765 and 1764 for both. WCMemail 08:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port Egmont 

message: The discussion at Talk:Indigenous peoples got me thinking. Are the current residents the indigenous people? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: UNESCO would classify the islanders as indigenous, having existed for 9-10 generations in the islands.  Bit off-topic and violating WP:FORUM to discuss though and since I'm not aware of any source making such a claim it would be WP:OR to put in the article.  Plus I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from here in Scotland. WCMemail 11:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In everyday usage, when talking about indigenous people" in the Americas we usually mean those who lived in the continent before the Europeans came, and that's it. Indigenous groups that displaced other indigenous groups before that (such as the Mapuches) are still called indigenous, for that matter. Cambalachero (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevance would be I did think of adding it to the article, but I too could see the likely result. I had thought if the UN definition is clearlt met that would be source enough. I had wondered if 200 years was long enough. And I wondered about the earlier settlements that preceded 1833 that were ended in differing circumstances. Could they be described as the indigenous people? Anyway, if I did add something, certainly without a good RSS I would testing the ground, ie giving an opinion, so I will let it be. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous people