Talk:Falkland Islands/etymology

Etymology
The Falkland Islands took their English name from "Falkland Sound", the channel between the two main islands, which was in turn named after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, by Captain John Strong, who landed on the islands in 1690. The Spanish name, Islas Malvinas, is derived from the French name, Îles Malouines, named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France. The ISO designation is Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and its ISO country code is FK.

As a result of the continuing sovereignty dispute, the use of many Spanish names is considered offensive in the Falkland Islands, particularly those associated with the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. General Sir Jeremy Moore would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document, dismissing it as a propaganda term.

Name and etymology
The Falkland Islands took their English name from "Falkland Sound", the channel between the two main islands, which was in turn named after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, by Captain John Strong, who landed on the islands in 1690.

The Spanish name, Islas Malvinas, is derived from the French name, Îles Malouines, named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France.

In accordance with a 1965 UN decision the name to be applied in all United Nations documents is: in English "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)"; in Spanish "Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands)"; in all other languages the equivalent of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". When there is a bearing on sovereignty a note must be added reading "A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)."

The ISO designation is Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and the ISO country code is FK.

General Sir Jeremy Moore would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document ending the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, dismissing it as a propaganda term.

In an agreement signed on 14 July 1999 the Argentine Government said that it was "prepared to look at the question of toponomy [sic] in the Falkland     Islands". The Editor of the Falkland     Islands Newsletter noted that this referred to "an undertaking by the      Argentines to remove the offensive names that were imposed on the      Falklands during the Argentine occupation in 1982, the best known of these      being the name 'Puerto Argentina' [sic] for Stanley".

Proposed (pol098)
I propose the following (and may edit this according to the discussion)


 * Etymology Heading: Both the etymology and the use of the name are relevant. They could be different sections, or section and subsection

The Falkland Islands took their English name from "Falkland Sound", the channel between the two main islands, which was in turn named after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, by Captain John Strong, who landed on the islands in 1690.

The Spanish name, Islas Malvinas, is derived from the French name, Îles Malouines, named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France.


 * Use of names Heading: This doesn't come under etymology, needs separate section

The ISO designation is Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and the ISO country code is FK.

This paragraph is pretty clearly true and supported by myriad examples but, as has been pointed out, there isn't a reference that says so in so many words. I think it belongs, but can't object if it's deleted. The use of the name "Falklands" or "Malvinas" is not a pure issue of language and translation (as is, for example, the universal use of "England" in English and "Inglaterra" in Spanish for the same country), but a political issue; either name can be used in either language to express an opinion about ownership of the islands.

The official name used by the UN seems relevant to the name section, rather than political, but it could be moved In accordance with a 1965 UN decision the name to be applied in all United Nations documents is: in English "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)"; in Spanish "Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands)"; in all other languages the equivalent of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". When there is a bearing on sovereignty a note must be added reading "A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)."

The original text (not the modified version below) is completely outside guidelines. (1) It's nothing to do with either the etymology or the name of the islands, but of placenames within the islands. (2) The original article text is "use of many Spanish names is considered offensive in the Falkland Islands, particularly those associated with the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands". Even if this were relevant, the source doesn't say this. The editor of a newsletter (one opinion, not an established fact) says that the use of offensive names that were imposed (not "in particular", only those imposed) will be looked at. In actual fact the original text is probably true, but it's not backed by any source. I think the following text is better, and follows the source, but don't think it belongs in the article at all, at least not in this section. In an agreement signed on 14 July 1999 the Argentine Government said that it was "prepared to look at the question of toponomy [sic] in the Falkland Islands". The Editor of the Falkland Islands Newsletter noted that this referred to "an undertaking by the Argentines to remove the offensive names that were imposed on the Falklands during the Argentine occupation in 1982, the best known of these being the name 'Puerto Argentina' [sic] for Stanley".

General Sir Jeremy Moore would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document ending the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, dismissing it as a propaganda term.

On the other side, all mentions in Argentina are normally to the "Islas Malvinas", even in English-language publications.

Name and etymology
The Falkland Islands took their English name from "Falkland Sound", the channel between the two main islands, which was in turn named after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, by Captain John Strong, who landed on the islands in 1690. The ISO designation is Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and the ISO country code is FK.

The Spanish name, Islas Malvinas, is derived from the French name, Îles Malouines, named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 after the first known settlers, mariners and fishermen from the Breton port of Saint-Malo in France. General Sir Jeremy Moore would not allow the use of Islas Malvinas in the surrender document ending the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, dismissing it as a propaganda term. In an agreement signed on 14 July 1999 the Argentine Government said that it was "prepared to look at the question of toponomy [sic] in the Falkland Islands". The Editor of the Falkland Islands Newsletter noted that this referred to "an undertaking by the Argentines to remove the offensive names that were imposed on the Falklands during the Argentine occupation in 1982, the best known of these being the name 'Puerto Argentina' [sic] for Stanley".

In accordance with a 1965 UN decision the name to be applied in all United Nations documents is: in English "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)"; in Spanish "Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands)"; in all other languages the equivalent of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". When there is a bearing on sovereignty a note must be added reading "A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)."

Comments
I wouldn't put the UN stuff in here, if anything it belongs in the sovereignty dispute section, I also feel its important to note that the islanders see the toponymy associated with the invasion as offensive. If you can find a reference that the Argentines find Falklands offensive thats fine but I have never found a source to say that. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd agree. Though I'd also express some small concern about the relevance about Argentina's 1999 declaration, given that it's now 13 years later and nothing has happened. Pfainuk talk 19:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole paragraph deriving from that agreement could be deleted. Pol098 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Again I will state that I don't think the comments about the UN naming style belong in this section. This is highly political in nature and such an esoteric detail it should go into either the dispute section of the article or alternatively in the article dealing with the sovereignty dispute. Its really too much here.

As regards the section on toponymy, the reference to the 1999 agreement was used to cite the fact that the names associated with the invasion are considered offensive in the islands. As such this is relevant to this section. The details of the 1999 agreement, well to be honest we're in danger here of implying that Argentina has reneged on that agreement (which you can make a case for). We have to be careful of nuance.

I don't think many people will agree with your comments on translation, you could for example find a cite quite easily that Mercosur countries have agreed with Argentina to stop using the term Islas Falkland (common in Chile for example). But in wikipedia terms, this a clear example of WP:OR and not suitable content. Even your last sentence is WP:OR, you're drawing a conclusion from an example. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The UN naming style: if you're reading an encyclopaedia, one question you might want an answer to is "what do I call this place, what is its name?". It seems to me that a name as used by the UN is as official and authoritative as you get. And the section about the name is the logical place for it. Possibly shorten this and drop the sentence about clarifying that there's a dispute, maybe: . Is it really too much here in this form, hardly overloading the article? MY RECOMMENDATION: include the official UN names, at least in the short for jere, in the section dealing with name.  Toponymy et al.: I don't really think this belongs in the article at all. To start with the section is about the name of the islands; the reference is about place names in the islands, which is not what we're talking about. And we just have a comment by the editor of a newsletter saying that a term of the agreement is about "an undertaking by the Argentines to remove the offensive names that were imposed on the Falklands [such as] 'Puerto Argentino' for Stanley". This doesn't support "the use of many Spanish names is considered offensive in the Falkland Islands, particularly those associated with the invasion". But I said this in more detail above; please read it. The purpose of my text was to include the reference (as someone wants it, OK by me), but at least to quote it accurately. If we want to say that all or most islanders find all Spanish names replacing English ones offensive (which I am sure is actually true, as is much of the text I don't have references for), Wikipedia needs a proper source for that fact.  I know there are people who choose to speak of the Malvinas Islands in English for political reasons, and there are some examples of the reverse in Spanish (you say some Mercosur countries have agreed to stop using Islas Falkland - that just confirms what I'm saying, now they've agreed to stop!). But, as you say, I don't have a good reference - fair enough, I won't push it. MY RECOMMENDATION: drop everything to do with this agreement, it doesn't document widespread offence, and what it does say is unimportant.  Regarding other points I drafted, I might try to look up some references, they can be left out till then, unless others think they belong in the article.  Changing the subject, not now discussing the article but the 1999 agreement itself, which I hadn't heard about: what does it actually mean, if anything? What it actually says is "The Argentine Government is      prepared to look at the question of toponomy in the Falkland      Islands.  To that end it will continue to consult the appropriate      national institutions." Is Argentina expected to stop using "Puerto Argentino" and use "Puerto Stanley", etc. in their own newspapers and so on, for example? I've just (for the first time) had a quick look and I have found references to "Puerto Stanley" in Spanish-language Argentine newspapers, which surprised me; I'm not in a position to say how systematic this is, but have the impression that "Puerto Argentino" is still the norm. I'm not trying to make any point here, I'd like to know what they were expected to do. My impression is that the text was included so the British negotiators could tell their masters "we made them sign this concession" and the Argentines could say "we signed something but don't have to do anything", win-win for the bureaucrats.  Would anyone else like to comment, please? Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The UN is not official or authoritative. It is a political organisation with political aims and political policies.  There are several international disputes in which it has taken a clear political position (Iraq in 1990-1, Korea in 1950-53, for example).  In this case, usages like "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" or "Islas Malvinas (Falkland)" (the Spanish version) are not uncommon in international diplomacy where both the UK and Argentina are involved (because each side will object if their preferred name is left out), but don't otherwise reflect official or common usage.


 * In terms of the 1999 agreement, my understanding (from memory) is that it is roughly as you describe. It was agreed that Argentina would look into it.  They may well have done, but nothing came of it.


 * In terms of names, your text seemed to me to imply that any use of any name implied a position on the dispute. This isn't the case: in each language, the native name (Falkland Islands in English, Islas Malvinas in Spanish) is used in most neutral contexts and does not necessarily imply a political position.  I also felt that it implied more common usage of opposite-language names than actually exists.


 * The specific term Puerto Argentino was coined during the 1982 occupation. It is, I believe, the norm (though not universal except officially) in Argentina, though I don't believe it has caught on outside Argentina in the way that other terms have. Pfainuk talk 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the latest proposal to the bottom. I don't particularly object to this, with the exception of the bit about the UN. I don't think this is necessary here, its duplicating in part the ISO designation and its really of relevance in the sovereignty dispute section, which is the better place to put it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I evaluated that as well, but figured that it would be best to have all things concerning the name on the etymology section. Afterwards, the article should avoid mentioning anything regarding the name.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To some extent I would agree with that, however, the issue with Falklands articles is there is a temptation to constantly refer to the sovereignty dispute. Hence, my preference to put it all in one section.  After all there is more to the place than Argentine claims.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's ultimately a matter of consensus. I will not oppose the majority opinion on the matter considering that both options are good. My preference is that of maintaining all name-related things on the etymology, but I do not oppose your position. I also completely agree that there is more to the article than the Argentinean claim, and I do hope that (based on that) you also understand my view that there is more to the article than the Falklands War (though that will probably be an item of discussion for the future sections). Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)