Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 1

Untitled
'''This is an archive of the discussion prior to March 11, 2006. If you wish to participate in the discussion, you should do so on the current page.'''

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

IMHO, it is really annoying to see a "free encyclopedia" manipulated by political concepts. Argentina calls them Malvinas, and in fact in Spanish, Portuguese and French, the islands are called Malvinas (Malouines in French), so taking only the name used by the UK is a little pro-UK, ¿don't you think?
 * In Germany it is "Falkland-Inseln", in fact I did not even know that they are called "Malvinas" too. Does anyone know what they are called in the US? -- mkrohn 07:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes! That will settle the issue. Ejrrjs 19:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Fair is fair
Is there a clear explanation for Argentina's claims to the islands, as it stands today? In school we were briefly taught about geographical/geological closeness claims, historico-political reasons, etc. etc. but I haven't seen these clearly stated anywhere. FWIW I'm an Argentinian and I consider all those absolutely ridiculous, but they should be somewhere because that's what Argentina's government holds in every relevant international forum or summit, in the UN and so on. In Talk:Argentina an anonymous user has just written "LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS" and I'd like to revert that, but directing s/he to this article. --Pablo D. Flores 11:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Here you have: http://imalvinas.tripod.com/. Why are Argentina's reasons ridiculous? I guess that British interests for the Malvinas strategical position and oil reserves are also ridiculous for you...
 * Well, no, the reason Britain has the islands is because it's populated almost exclusively by, well, English-speakers.
 * English-speaking squatters. Ejrrjs | What? 13:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Squatters who've lived there all their lives. For a fair few generations. No different from the rest of the Americas, really, except a slightly shorter period of occupation. I wouldn't argue that Britain's initial occupation of the islands was possibly wrong, but I'd say that, now it's inhabited by English-speakers, it's become a good idea.BovineBeast


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


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

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


 * If you classify Falkland Islanders as "squatters" you should also classify most US Citizens, Australians, and even a large amount of Latin Americans the same way. It is not only the Native American Indians who have rights there, nor only the Aboriginies in Aussie. Also any Argentinians who are descended from Spanish settlers should be excluded as well. How far back do we go? We cannot re-write history, or turn the clock back to a point we find convenient. We can only accept today's realities, and deal with them. --Gibraltarian 16:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But today's realities do change. If Spain stormed Gibraltar tomorrow at 0:01, could she stop the clock at that time and claim that her control of Gibraltar is the du jour reality? Ejrrjs | What? 22:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The only reason why Americans are not "squatters" in North America is there are just too few Native American Indians left alive. The reason why Argentine still claims citizenship over the Islands is there are about 40 million Argentinians alive just an hour from the Islands. (WormE)

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

Brief history about British occupation of the Islas Malvinas Since 1774, the Spanish Crown took control of the islands, and that presence were constant till 1810, when The 25 de Mayo Revolution expulsed the Virrey from Buenos Aires and implanted the first Goverment at The United Provinces Of the River Plate ( a few years later, Argentina). There were 10 years of not constant human presence in the islands, but in 1820, the Directorio of Buenos Aires ordened to put an argentinian flag for the first time. The first Argentinian Governor of Islas Malvinas was Luis Verne designed in 1829. But in 1831, tree American ships were arrested for the argentinian authorities for fishings issues, and a few months after, Puerto Egmont (the old capital town)was attacked by an American Warship (named Lexington), took prisioners and burned parts of the town. In January 2 1833, British forces ( two warships called Clio and Tyne)commanded by Captain John Oslow invaded the islands and the few argentinians there surrender and gone back to the continent. In that moment, Argentina were inmersed in a cruel civil war between two political forces, Unitarios and Federales and at the same time the port of Buenos Aires were attacked and blocked by French forces. This complex situation made impossible for the argentinians authorities to recover control over the islands. Bibliography: -120 Years of Argentinian History (1808-1928) R.R Ediciones -Enciclopedia Espasa Calpe Spanish Edition --200.123.78.149 05:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson


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


 * And you are conveniently forgetting some information, my British friend:
 * 1501-1502 Americo Vespucci's voyage
 * 1503-1504 Binot Palmiere de Gonneville's voyage
 * 1520 Esteban Gomez's sighting, ship San Antonio
 * 1520s Piri Reis' first cartografic record of the Falkland Islands
 * 1525-1526 Pedro Vega's sighting, vessel Anunciada
 * 1529 Map of Diego de Ribero where the position of the Islands is indicated
 * 1540 Visit by Alonso de Camargo, Commander of La Incógnita Bishop of Pencia's fleet
 * 1541 Mapa XV del Islario de Alonso de Santa Cruz (atlas)
 * 1543-1545 Juan Bautista Agnese's nautical chart
 * 1562 Bartholome Olives' map
 * 1562 Diego Gutiérrez' map
 * 1571 Fernao Vaz Dourado's map
 * 1577 Martínez' nautical chart
 * 1580 Bartholome Olives' nautical chart
 * --Nkcs 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


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


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


 * --200.123.80.212 01:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson


 * From Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata:


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


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


 * The Oriental Republic Of Uruguay, knowed in those times as Banda Oriental (which means Oriental coast, of course of River Plate) was one of the principal provinces who conformed the United Provinces since 1810. But after years of civil war,Portuguese and Brazilian invasion of Uruguay, a brief war against Brazilian Empire, and the always opportunist intervention of the British pirats, the United Provinces recognized the independence of Uruguay in 1828. Artigas, the Uruguayan Heroe wanted the union of Uruguay with the rest of the confederated provinces, but it was not possible.
 * The actual bolivian provinces of Charcas, Chichas,Cochabamba and Mizque signed as Provinces in the Argentinian Independence Declaration in Tucuman in 1816, but they passed to form part of the Republic of Bolivia. Paraguay expulsed Spanish forces from Asunción in 1811. In the begining they formed part of the United Provinces, but they declared their independence in that year. But argentinian goverment never recognized as valid the british occupation of the islands.
 * --200.123.88.125 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson


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

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


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


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


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


 * The gover n ment is chosen by the people in accordance with the principles of self determination as per the UN Charter. The islands require military aid because of an unfriendly neighbour, so full decolonisation, which would mean independence not secession to that unfriendly neighbour is not possible, atleast in the short term.  Dunc|&#9786; 23:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Argentina was not an unfriendly neibourg, argentinas`s militar goverment, wich was NOT democraticaly elected and killed 200,000 people was an unfriendly neibourg. If the queen wanted we could buy your fish at REAL good prices, not that miserable prices that brits pay. Dont worrie, when the European Constitution will be accepted, 1,295,834 argentinians with italian and spanish nationality will be able to get in there, and you wont be able to take them out like in 1833 Argentino 12:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)   And i dont care if i have some typing errors. i havent got that time to talk here.  In the Falknand island`s official page says that the governor (Howard Preace) was chosen by the queen. 2 options: you are not democratic or the official web page is wrong

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


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


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


 * I've read in newspapers from Spain that the United Kingdom included their overseas territories as a part of the European Union in the Constitution. Perhaps I'll drink a beer soon in Port Stanley. What about Patagonian Sheep??. Get out of your nutshell,Hamlet!!!  Argentina is so big and interesting,too many places, Universities, Coleges, Nightlife, beautiful women... you have the right to meet us, brother, we are only 3000 kilometers away from you.... Let the Queen rest in peace
 * --200.123.78.149 06:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson


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


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


 * Crimes of war, abuses of power, racism, ... there are too many adjetives for the UK. YOu have forget Margareth Tatcher. Nowadays, Argentina  lives in peace, and we are growing quickly. Here we respect our inmigrants, there are 150,000 chineses, 750,000 bolivians, 500,000 paraguayans, thousands of ucranians, peruvians, romanians living, studying in our Universities(without pay) and working, they have public hospitals for free... we are poor and we have a third world economy but we are humans... ASk anybody if somebody could do the same in the UK. If your policemen see a dark man running, they shoot. That brazilian boy murdered after bombing in London last year, runned because he was afraid to be expulsed like a rat from your country. I don't want to belong to your NAZI country which goverment is exterminating sistematically the people of Irak. Don't forget, (ask your grandfathers) Argentina feeds Britain during 2nd. World War. So, Have you seen how many times fits the British tiny Islands in our territory?? Till the Victory, always
 * --200.123.88.125 02:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson


 * Margaret Thatcher was elected, unlike Galtieri - the UK did the Argentine's a favour by bringing about the fall of his military junta. As for respect of immigrants, they receive all sorts of benefits, and there are literally millions and millions of them here. And yes, we too have free healthcare. I think you've been listening to too much propaganda - our policemen are not racists, and would find themselves out of a job very quickly if they were. I'm very glad that you don't want to belong to our country - but please remember that the Falkland Islanders don't want to belong to your country - and who can blame them? Why give up freedom, democracy, and prosperity in order to become second-class citizens on their own land? TharkunColl 09:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As an Argentine not endorsing the Argentine Government's position, I find that your way of referring to my countrymen is debasing, despicable and racist (if Argentines can be considered a race). It is the second post of that aggresive nature that I read from you. If you want to have an argument, please refrain from attacking Argentines since I will take it as a personal attack the next time you do. And for the record, the Falklanders might be better being part of the UK, but they are second class citizens there also. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

How are the Islanders currently second-class citizens?

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

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


 * The Falkland Islands are not part of the United Kingdom, that is why they don't send representatives to the British Parliament. They are also NOT a part of the European Union. In any case I am confused as to why you think Argentine citizens have the right to move to any EU country- they are subject to the same immigration controls as other non European citizens. Also the Falkland Islands manages their own immigration controls independent of the UK, even British citizens would need a visa to reside there. Astrotrain 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Astro, he meant that Argentines can't live in the FI, and to even visit them they need a special permit, regardless of the islands' EU status. Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Yours is but an opinion; the UN Committee on decolonisation thinks otherwise, and is more relevant to the subject matter than your reasoning. Ejrrjs | What? 21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is better covered in the Argentine claim section, not the introduction. Afterall the UN has no power on the matter. Astrotrain 21:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * But it is not there! Ejrrjs | What? 22:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it is! "and that the UN considers the territories as territories to be considered for decolonization"
 * Perhaps you should read the wikipaedia article on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The list is considered controvertial and politically biased due to the inclusion and exclusion of certain states (Tibet for example). 00:58, 19 August, 2005 (UTC)

Just a quiet question in reference to the description of Argentina as an 'unfriendly neighbour' - although it's fair to say the government at the time were, how do you say - completely f****d up, and certainly deserve that title, would a friendly neighbour continue to publicly tell the islanders (on January the 2nd every Year) that 'this year the islands will be Argentinian again?'
 * Once again, it is a 'neighbour' from the British POV. From the Argentine POV it's a part of the country that has been invaded by a foreign power. How difficult is it to understand that there is a conflict and that it is not Wikipedia's mission to issue a veredict? Ejrrjs | What? 11:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A Gibraltarian - &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gibraltarian (talk • contribs) 5 Oct 2005.


 * The problem is the threshold; you feel that 172 years of occupation is enough; what about 60 in Palestine, thirtysomething in West Bank, 30 since the Green March, and so on. The doctrine of le fait accompli is a poor guidance for international harmony. It was just not feasible for Argentina to repel the UK invasion, being the UK the du-jour superpower.
 * In any case, all of these are moot points regarding this Encyclopedia. I just believe that the Argentine claim (whether if it legit or not) is a very relevant issue in the Falklands article. Some people think otherwise, which I believe is a breach of NPOV policy. Ejrrjs | What? 18:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

AllanHainey 15:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

Edit summary reference
(from User talk:Duncharris, SqueakBox 19:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was about to say:


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

POV, again
Hiya all,

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

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

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

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


 * Squeak, Jguk... you clearly have shown how you can demonstrate a good point with bad arguments. The fact that us Argentines call them Malvinas shouldn't even be important in this article and barely mentioned in passing. It is just the difference between "Deutschland" and "Germany" which is none. The fact that the British control the islands is absolutely IRRELEVANT as far as NPOV goes, take a look in Palestine or West Bank to see how little important that is. As far as the fact that adding "Malvinas" to the name would give the Argentine claim more importance than it merits... I don't think any of us can judge merits to a claim. In fact, NPOV means that we should present all aspects.
 * I think it is pretty clear that I think "Falklands" should stay alone, with just a passing reference to "Malvinas" but only to mention the spanish name. Editors in the Spanish Wikipedia can worry about the use of "Falklands" in their article.
 * --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


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


 * What Duncharris is a clear abuse of his power. If he doesn't unprotect the page immediately I will ask for unprotection from other admins.
 * Having said all of this, the name "Malvinas" doesn't reflect the Argentine claim, just states the name that is given to the islands in Spanish. We alsoe need to consider the islanders' wishes that "Falklands" remain the name, especially since it's their own country.
 * --Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


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

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


 * The whole Spanish speaking world calls them the Malvinas, so there can be no Islas Falclandias, SqueakBox 18:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Portuguese speakers call them as ilhas Malvinas too,, SqueakBox 18:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


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


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

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

Use of kelper in Argentine Spanish
Sebastián, you've commented out:

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

stating that it wasn't true.

If you think it is not used in Argentina, please, take a look at these examples:
 * "La cuestión no es aumentar la tarifa por los accidentes sino terminar con una ley que convierte al trabajador en un kelper, con menos derechos que los demás ciudadanos ,
 * Y te vas del país, o te quedás como un kelper en tu propia Argentina.
 * En ese mismo momento uno se siente un kelper y un estúpido cliente que tuvo la maldita idea de ir a consumir a ese lugar (pdf)
 * no son kelpers que no pagan impuestos sino que, por el contrario, necesitan tanta o más atención que los habitantes de la zona urbana
 *  pareciera que soy un trabajador de segunda, un “kelper” dentro de lo que es el Estado o el empleo público provincial. Versión taquigráfica de la Cámara de Diputados de Salta.

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

Regards, Ejrrjs | What? 00:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Here there is a nice one, worth reading, and related to the subject matter too:


 * En fin: nos hemos kelperizado en degradantes circunstancias.
 * Ejrrjs | What? 00:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


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


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


 * Ok, I'm back today. Besides that quote from Salta, it is the first time in my life that I hear the word kelper referred to a second class citizen. I won't deny their status within the English government, I have no knowledge one way or the other but after living for 23 years in Buenos Aires (including during the Falklands War, although I was a child then), one would think that if the word was "commonly" used I would've heard it and probably used it with that meaning as well. Evidently, some use the term with that derogatory meaning, but I don't believe that the note has any relevance unless we put it maybe this way...
 * Especially after the war, there are people in Argentina that use the word kelper with the meaning of second-class citizens as a reflection on the legal status of the islanders within the UK prior to the passing of the Nationality Act of 1983.
 * And even like this I don't think I like it too much, but it's an improvement.
 * Oh, and BTW, the NPOV tag was an exaggeration, to say the least.
 * --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine, ALE! convinced me that the paragraph was an unnecessary detour. I still think that is a useful bit of knowledge. Would it fit into a kelper entry at Wiktionary?
 * Ejrrjs | What? 18:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S: Here there is another one:
 * Durante la guerra de Malvinas empezó a manejarse el término kelper, aplicado al habitante nativo de las islas Falklands que era legalmente un ciudadano de segunda con relación a los ingleses de las islas británicas. Cuando los conscriptos argentinos que fueron convocados a servir en el escenario de la lucha volvieron a casa, se los desembarcó en forma silenciosa en previsión de disturbios. Empezó entonces a difundirse en la población civil la idea de que los verdaderos kelpers eran los ciudadanos argentinos, sin derechos cívicos, víctimas de la ilegalidad, llevados como niños a una guerra insensata aunque su objetivo fuera justo.
 * (Pacho O´Donnell)
 * I would believe that in Wikitionary would fit like a charm... Or in a Kelper page on Wikipedia. :) --Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV 2
Moved NPOV from article back to here for discussion. An opinion and an agreement do not (yet?) constitute evidence of lack of neutrality in the article. Ian Cairns 08:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


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


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

Category
Ok, this article is really creating some of the most trivial of grievances. I agree that it shouldn't be in Category:Argentina - this is POV. I believed it should, however, be placed in Category:History of Argentina as it has played a very prominent role in the history of that country. What does everyone think? SoLando 18:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not a history article, or an article about a historical event. Therefore it should not be in a history category. Astrotrain 18:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you object to History of the Falkland Islands being placed in that category? Also, Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands could perhaps be placed in Category:Argentina. That way, something pertaining to the dispute over the islands would be in a category about Argentina. SoLando 18:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Argentina category only contains subcategories, and the Argentina article itself, I don't think it is necessary to include it there. History of the Falkland Islands does not fit into the History of Argentina series, only specific events such as the 1833 invasion and the 1982 war do. I think you should look at the Category guidance to see how best to place categories in the different articles. Astrotrain 12:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The Falkland Islands' role in Argentina's history has involved more than the 1833 invasion and the Falklands War. The History of the Falkland Islands article contains text documenting Argentinian rule, so should be placed in the Category:History of Argentinia - unless you would like to create a separate article on Argentinian rule of the Falkland Islands (1820-1833). By the way, yes I realise now that Category:Argentina is not the appropiate place. SoLando 15:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Astrotrain. Try it with the Falklands War (if not there already) but this is a geographical not a historical article. I also agree it should not be categorised Argentina, as that would wrongly imply it is a part of Argentina. I don't oppose SoLando's latest ideas, SqueakBox 18:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been lurking for a while. My interest in this article is because I lived in Argentina for over a year shortly after the ending of the Falkland War.  It seems that most issues have been ironed out.  Here's what I suggest for the resolution of this dispute:
 * This article should be about the current state of the islands, with brief references to the history, sovereignty and the war.
 * Since the U.K. currently holds the islands (rightly or wrongly), it should appear in U.K. territorial categories but not Argentine ones.
 * It held some significance in Argentine, French, German, Spanish and U.K. history so the history article should be in the history category of each of those countries.
 * Since only Argentina and the U.K. are currently in the dispute over these islands and others in the South Atlantic, the sovereignty article should also be linked to the history of these two nations.
 * A suggestion from someone who has an interest, Val42 20:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been looking around in different pages with similar characteristics (multiple claims, etc...) I then stand corrected and reverse my position about Category: Argentina. It shouldn't be here. Maybe, in Falklands War or on the Sovereignty article.... --Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Stanley
Well, it seems that the anon was right.

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

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

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

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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


 * Great work!SoLando 23:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) --Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Other languages
Is it wrong to start the article like this:

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * 1) The Spanish translation of Falkland Islands is Islas Malvinas. The only country in the whole Spanish-speaking world that calls them Islas Falkland is Chile.
 * 2) Many pages include a number of related names in other languages, such as Kuala Lumpur, Lower Styria, Pula, and Adriatic Sea.
 * 3) Stop reverting changes, you violated the 3RR rule several times and I'll personally request AIAV if you continue.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.68.127.172 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps I'm not clear enough. I'm not discussing the name of the article, nor ever said Islas Malvinas was the translation of the English name (I used the term "Spanish name"). I was only suggesting we should include, right after the [English] name of the article, the Spanish name, since it is not uncommon to come across it in English language articles, as well as foreign ones. Perhaps I failed to find the article conventions that you mention regarding the opening paragraphs of the articles; If so, I appology. Whether it exists or not, I suggest we include the Spanish name for it's frequently used also in English, and I give as an example the Encyclopedia Britannica whose Falkland Islands and Falkland Islands War articles start specifying their Spanish names. Mariano (t/c) 12:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, Islas Malvinas is a widely used name and a well know alternative for the name. I agree that using it as the standard translation for spanish is incorrect, but I would think a compromise would be possible. What about:
 * The Falkland Islands or Islas Malvinas as the Argentines call it, are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, 300 miles (483 km) from the coast of South America. --KimvdLinde 00:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


 * It already states Islas Malvinas in the intro, placed in context to Argentina's claim. This is the most sensible solution. Astrotrain 20:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree on this. If you come from the Islas Malvinas redirect, it is not immediatly clear that you are at the correct page. --KimvdLinde 20:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

Important information
The 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands article states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interestingly, it does offer a third possible alternative, which has not been discussed:
 * From section 2 - Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative namesNames). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.

I think this could be a good solution here, as
 * 1) a link to the names would remain in the very first line, which makes them easily found
 * 2) the names would be the very first thing discussed after the statement of what the islands actually are, which helps put the history of the names into context,
 * 3) the dedicated paragraph would give plenty room for a full explanation of each of the names and their uses, which is currently missing.

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

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


 * Makes sense to me. Just zis Guy you know? 19:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here. --KimvdLinde 23:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why have people put the foreign language terms back into the first line? Now we have "Malvinas" not only there, but also in bold further down. It was put in bold as a compromise, instead of having the name on the first line. I will remove the names from the first line unless I hear a good reason to give so much emphasis to them. TharkunColl 08:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See arguments all over this talk page. Most people are in favour to have it at the top. --KimvdLinde 08:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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


 * done. --KimvdLinde 08:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


 * It's not about politics, it's about having the name in the native language. Spanish is not a native language, and neither is French. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


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

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

Anyway, in English (since we follow the Use English guideline) there are 86 million hits for "Falkland Islands" and 2 million for "Islas Malvinas", of which 1.8 million mention both "Islas Malvinas" and "Falkland Islands". So that's not 7 million hits but 0.2 million. 0.2 million against 86 million is not worth mentioning. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 10:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dunc, the focus of this version of WP is English, but facilitating the usage of the English version by providing common foreign names is good practise, as is done at many many articles. As such, the 7 million remnains and is a substantial number. --KimvdLinde 15:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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

Secondly, the issue of common name is not important; native language is. Or would you have 美国 in the lead of the United States article because it's the name used by 1bn Chinese? After all that must be common! Most of the hits - in English - for "Islas Malvinas" only come when "Falkland Islands" is mentioned also; it is not used as a standalone English name. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 13:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not about the English common name, but of common references in the English language. CIA, Britannica, and many others include it as commonly used, and at the very top of their articles. Mariano (t/c) 13:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that the Spanish name needs prominence, probably could be worked into the lead section a bit higher (shift the location and geographic description a bit lower) and go straight into the territorial dispute. However, the French name is largely irrelevant (and the CIA don't use that!). &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggested (a long time ago already) to have the Spanish name in the opening paragraph (" (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) "), and then have the ethymology in the article with the French name (as it is now I believe). Mariano (t/c) 14:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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


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


 * Read WP:NPOV. We are not here to make judgments over the merits of the competing claims, only to report them in a neutral manner. The fact that the Spanish mane has wide currency is inescapable, regardless of the merits of whatever agenda causes that. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a political forum, and the edit summary of Bloody foreigners is very strong POV. --

KimvdLinde 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think the Mandarin name should be added, I prefer that over removing the spanish name. --KimvdLinde 18:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That would also be WP:POINT --KimvdLinde 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to voice my support for the Spanish and French translations being included right at the top.--Mais oui! 18:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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


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


 * Islas Malvinas, or Malvinas, already has its own disambiguation page. Anyone searching under that name would immediately discover that the English name for the islands is Falklands, and could then, if they wish, go directly to the article about them. TharkunColl 11:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That does not solve all searches (google, yahoo, wikipedia), direct and wiki links from the name Islas Malvinas etc. --KimvdLinde 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * That would be WP:POINT --KimvdLinde 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Spain has never been governed by England.--Mais oui! 10:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah so you confirm it is a political matter rather than anything else; No, Spain has not been run by the British, otherwise they would have introduced better law and institutions - however it was governed by the Arabs and there is no mention of its name in that language in the introduction, although there is a mention lower down in the Andalucia article about Arabic names.  The original article on the Falkland Islands contained a similar mention to alternative names later on and apart from those wishing to make political points, this was quite adequate.--Gibnews 20:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a political forum, and whatever happened with whatever other country is irrelevant for which names are frequently used nowadays and historically for this group of islands. --KimvdLinde 20:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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


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


 * But that's nonsense because as per special:whatlinkshere/Islas Malvinas nothing does. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


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


 * external linking? --KimvdLinde 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I can almost hear the scabbling around on the floor looking for excuses. So again, how is the French name relevant? &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 22:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As the root of the highly relevant Spanish name, and because the English and Spanish clearly belong at th ehead of the article so separating one of the languages of the competing claims would make little sense. Just zis Guy you know? 23:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


 * From what I can see you disagree with it and are throwing your weight around. The territorial dispute is given due and appropriate prominence.  Your arguments are as pathetic as your defence of the then Argentine military junta as not being fascist above.  Of course it's offensive, of course it's not used and it's completely inappropriate.  The French name is even more pointless. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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