Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

About the oil

The lead describes the economy and says "Oil exploration, licensed by the Falkland Islands Government, remains controversial as a result of maritime disputes with Argentina". Do those controversies have an actual impact on the economy, or do the islanders just do their business as normal while Argentina protests? If it is the second, perhaps the line should be moved to the paragraph about the dispute, and explain the economy as its own thing. Or just removed: the sections "Economy" and "Sovereignty dispute" do not mention the protests about the oil exploration.

Besides, I remember that some years ago the islands announced that they found oil reserves (or something similar to that, it was many years ago), and the newspapers exploded with protests. But is there a formal and legal dispute somewhere about the oil, or was it just the usual political bickering? There's the sovereignty dispute itself, right, but at this moment and unless something changes it is the Falklands who have the sovereignty, and that includes the legal right to the explotation of everything within that territory, including the oil. Unless the oil dispute goes through another path, unrelated to the main dispute, we could also say that the controversy has simply died down. Cambalachero (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Only if RS say it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the topic in much detail, that's why I'm asking those questions. Cambalachero (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's normal for the dispute (and relationship with South American politics, culture, geography, etc.) to appear in other parts of the article besides the SD section. It's a part of the reality of the Falklands. Since we are also bringing up the economy, it might be good to update any recent economic developments, perhaps related to the COVID pandemic? Are there any updates to the oil situation?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Plural or singular?

If anyone is interested, I mentioned this article on the talk page of New Zealand outlying islands regarding the use of 'is' or 'are'. It seems we here are in a minority among similar articles in using 'is'. I recall the discussion arose here when the use of 'is' was preferred. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

There are others, e.g. Cayman Islands or Pitcairn Islands. I assume it's because the first sentence describes the subject as "an archipelago", which is singular. Hut 8.5 18:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Edits reverted

@Roger 8 Roger - You are correct for reverting my edit as I just realised that they were the same company. I deleted the link too fast without looking properly. But I think the "Falkland Islands Company" link should be replaced with the actual link for the Falkland Islands Company, instead of it linking to its parent company established in 1997. It would make more sense to link it to the 1851 company since that section of the page is talking about 1851. DDMS123 (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave it up to you. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the link. DDMS123 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023

The spelling in Spanish. Change Spanish: Islas Malvinas [ˈizlaz malˈβinas]) for Spanish: Islas Malvinas [ˈislas malˈβinas]) 85.57.198.23 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Not done, can you cite a source for that change? WCM_email 09:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The phoneme /z/ doesn't exist in standard Spanish, and is unsourced here. The IPA page for Spanish does not even include /z/, though I think it might be possible as an allophone of the first /s/ for some dialects. Other island groups on here have /islas/ see Galapagos, although Balearic Islands has /izlaz/. I think the IP is correct here.Boynamedsue (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Having checked various linguistics texts, many pronunciation guides give /s/ > /z/ as the correct pronunciation before a voiced consonant like /l/ and /m/, which would mean /izlaz malBinaz/ is correct. I'm fairly sure that this is not universal, more complicated across word boundaries, and that a strong case exists for using /s/ in line with our own policies on English /t/ and post-vocalic /r/. But I am no longer confident enough to change this without a source.Boynamedsue (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

[z] was removed from the Help:IPA/Spanish key a few days ago following a talk page discussion. The request wasn't correct in view of MOS:PRON when it was made, but it is now. Nardog (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Summary of European settlements

The top section very briefly discusses that the islands have had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Nevertheless, the mention of a date begins with the year 1833, which is the year the British took over the islands for the second to last time. I say it is arbitrary to start at the year 1833; this was not the first European settlement, and it wasn't even the first British settlement. Including a concise summary that starts with the very first European settlement (French one in 1764) is a more neutral POV than the previous version. Themidget17 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw this from the dispute resolution noticeboard. It seems like the current consensus is contrary to Themidget17's proposal, primarily because 1. this is an article on the current Falkland Islands, which indeed begin in 1833, and 2. the details before the current establishment are nebulous. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The established version is Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans.

At various times, the islands have had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands.

Themidget17 wants this version: Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. The islands were first settled by the French in 1764, then by the British a year later. The French agreed to leave the islands in 1766 after pressure from the Spanish, who settled East Falkland the next year. British forces retired from the islands in 1776; their colony was destroyed by the Spanish in 1780. The islands remained under Spanish control until their forces withdrew in 1811. In 1820, the flag of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata was planted by David Jewett under orders from the Buenos Aires government. The British returned to the islands in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands. In April 1982, Argentine military forces invaded the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War. In a 2013 sovereignty referendum, almost all Falklanders voted in favour of remaining a UK overseas territory. The territory's sovereignty status is part of an ongoing dispute between Argentina and the UK.

I think we run into problems when we go back before 1833 because exactly what happened isn't clear, leading to opinions. I think you might have a point about meantioning 1764 but what was already there isn't misleading in any way and 1764 can easily be first mentioned in history. Why not start with a date when the islands were first discovered trodden on by people?Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The blow by blow is far too long for the lead. CMD (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

What happened before 1833 is as clear as what happened around 1833. The events before and after the year 1833 are discussed in similar veins in the history section, with no reservations regarding the verifiability of the events prior to 1833. In my eyes it's still arbitrary to start at 1833, 69 years after the first European settlement. If I at any point thought it misleading and not just arbitrary to start at 1833, it's because this leaves out three relevant developments: the first European settlement in 1764, the British retirement from the islands in 1776, and the attempt by the United Provinces to colonise them in 1820 (which was the Argentine government's very "justification" for their invasion in 1982). I think it's equally valid to summarise this section using no dates at all, or a succession of dates which includes at least these three distinct and historically relevant events (although Spain's undisputed rule over the islands during 1776-1811 is arguably just as important, albeit irrelevant to the current sovereignty dispute). It's not NPOV to bring up dates that start at 1833: either start by the beginning or do not mention dates. Since CMD found my earlier one too lengthy a revision, I propose the following version, which would take the established version:

Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. At various times, the islands have had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands.

and make it into:

Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. The islands were first settled by the French in 1764, then by the British a year later. The French turned their colony over to the Spanish in 1766. The British retired from the islands in 1776; they remained under Spanish control until their forces withdrew in 1811. In 1820, the islands were claimed by David Jewett at the behest of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. The British returned to the islands in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands.Themidget17 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This is still far too much detail for a lead, which is meant to be a very very short summary. I'm not understanding how including the 1833 date is somehow misleading, it's very clearly preceded in the current text by other events, but if you think it works better without the date, then propose that. CMD (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The text is plain wrong. The British didn't leave in 1776, they withdrew the garrison in 1774 as part of a general retrenchment related to the War of Independence in America. But the British remained in the islands concentrating as the British did on commerce; namely fishing, sealing and whaling. It seems to me this is an attempt to introduce the false narrative that the British were absent for 59 years. Plus the claim that Jewett acted on behalf of the United Provinces is controversial, we know he certainly claimed to be doing so but there is much to suggest this was a ruse to claim exclusive salvage rights over L'Uranie. I prefer the current lede as neutral and a simple summary, the expansion isn't needed IMHO. WCM_email 07:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There is an article by Peter Calvert in which, I think, he claims that France never handed over its sovereignty to Spain in 1766. All the French did was withdraw, acknowledging a prior claim by Spain. Some money was given to the French in goodwill for their costs, not to buy the French claim. Therefore, the question is simply, was the basis for the earlier Spanish claim valid? If not, the first people to claim and confirm that claim by settlement, and not withdraw that claim, were the British in 1767. So the French didn't 'turn their colony over to the Spanish', they just left and the Spanish moved in. This might not be exactly correct but I think it is close. The point is there is a risk in stating something that might look to be obviously factual because on closer examination it will become less obvious. I have never been keen on the phrase 'reassert its sovereignty' but nothing else is better. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The French did not relinquish sovereignty, France and Spain were joined in the Pacte de Famille, with France agreeing to remove Bougainville's Acadians and allowing the Spanish to take over Port St Louis. France continued to harbour a desire for a base in the South Atlantic and petitioned the British to return to Port St Louis during the negotiations for the Treaty of Amiens in 1801. Another reason for why the less is more approach taken with the current lede is appropriate, it avoids all these details and nuances, which get bogged down in nationalist disputes. WCM_email 11:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm taking a two-line segment and making it into four lines, CMD. In other words, I'm adding a grand total of two lines to the lede. If that's "far too much detail for a lead" then I don't know what sort of improvement to this lede wouldn't be. On the other hand, WCM and Roger 8 Roger bring up items like "the British didn't leave in 1776" or "France never handed over its sovereignty to Spain in 1766", that deviate from the established version of this article. Those perspectives are not canonical. What I did with the lede was simply take what is on the History section of this established version and make it into a summary that includes all major events instead of starting arbitrarily at 1833. How does that not make the lede objectively more informative than before? I keep thinking it reads curt without these changes. Themidget17 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you considered Themidget17 that 1833 is not arbitrary? Working backwards from now, that is when the current established situation began, so it makes perfect sense to use that as the starting point, much the same as 1066 is sometimes treated as the starting point for the current England/UK system, or 1776 in the USA. If we don't do that we can go backwards in a exponential curve to an unknown point in the past. If you use 1764 as the start it gives an impression that the current UK settlement is somehow shared with others which it isn't. What happened before 1833 fits well in the history section. Anyway, the muddied history before 1833 is referred to in the established lead, at a level I think is appropriate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to unpack a few things here, Roger 8 Roger:

-"1833 is when the current established situation began". That's debatable. The first European settlement was in 1764. "Established situation" could mean European colonisation to some people. On the other hand, if one takes the meaning of "established situation" as continuous British sovereignty, then the current situation started in 1982, not 1833. If one takes the meaning to be simply British sovereignty, uninterrupted or not, then the current situation started in 1765, and was interrupted twice, during 1776-1833 and in 1982.

-"If we don't do that we can go backwards in a exponential curve to an unknown point in the past". I don't see how that would make it an unknown point in the past. The islands don't have a native population, which helps make the history before the European settlements nebulous, but the point at which they were first settled is a definite point in the past.

-"If you use 1764 as the start it gives an impression that the current UK settlement is somehow shared with others which it isn't". Firstly, there isn't anything in my proposed version of the lede that makes it seem like sovereignty over the islands is currently shared. It's a concise, linear sequence of events. Secondly, my counter-interpretation to "starting at 1764 raises a POV issue" is that the present lede makes the current situation seem more "natural", because non-British settlements prior to 1833 are crammed into a passing mention. If somebody was trying to write this lede from a British-friendly POV, it would make the most sense to start precisely at 1833. Such a starting event gives a first impression of the Argentine invasion as dumbfounding and historically baseless; it implies that the historical standing of European settlements prior to 1833 is below that of the British colony that formed in 1833. I agree with your calling the history "muddied", but I disagree that because it's muddied it ought to be written about in a terse maner.

At the end of the day, a NPOV is only as neutral as the people who agree to call it neutral. If you check out the Spanish language version of this article, the NPOV over there reads very different from this article's NPOV. Neither version is fully neutral, but the change I'm proposing here would make this version a tad more neutral in my honest opinion. Themidget17 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I will assume good faith that you are not the proverbial xxxxx your post implies. This is a talk page, not the article, so don't treat it as such by nit-picking at every word written when the meaning is totally clear. You would do well to swat up on what sovereignty means, especially during a war. UK sovereignty was not lost in 1982; although unlikely it is possible humans lived on the islands before 1765; a better alternative to 1833 for the established situation would be 1840, not earlier; who says there isn't a native population? Those living there now might have something to say about that? I never said the pre-1833 detail should be left in the history section because the facts are muddied. The lead is a summary of key facts in the article: it refers to pre-1833 European settlement and that, IMO, is all that is required. The detail is in the body. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that by native population, the user you replied to is talking about indigenous people of the Falklands 2800:560:20:1F88:9967:D820:7DE7:7D19 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes User:2800:560:20:1F88:9967:D820:7DE7:7D19, so am I. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not mean to flare any tempers, Roger 8 Roger, I'm only trying to articulate a perspective on things. As regards the question of a native population, a British defence expert has stated there weren't humans on the islands prior to the European settlements, while others have suggested South American natives may have visited the islands intermittently without establishing a permanente presence. Modern-day Kelpers are, naturally, native to the islands, but by talking about a native population earlier I was talking about pre-European inhabitants, like the Ona or Tehuelche peoples of Patagonia for instance. Now when I said I agreed with you that the history is "muddied", I meant prior to European settlements, not prior to 1833. 1833 is still arbitrary. We know very convincingly when the French settled the islands, when the British first did, when the Spanish left, etc., and these events seem glossed over in the lede. The lede would read more neutral if it were made informative about these events. Themidget17 (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I was more concerned about my morning coffee getting cold while I wrote my reply. This is what is there now: At various times, the islands have had French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, but Argentina maintains its claim to the islands. There is disagreement about each of the pre-1833 settlements. I don't mean the actual dates of landing and leaving but about the detail surrounding those dates and interpretations of what those detail mean both to each party involved and in terms of international law, past and present. That is why it is muddied. If we give any more information in the lead than what is already there we risk giving an opinion on that muddied detail, which can best be dealt with in the article below. I am not adamantly opposed to tweaking the lead a bit but I think your suggest is too much. I don't think 1833 is arbitrary. It is the start of the current situation there, one that has lasted considerably longer than the pre-1833 settlements. If it is changed, I think there might be room for mentioning 1764 as the first settlement date but that is all, no elaboration. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the heat death of the universe while I wrote my reply. You point out there's disagreement about what earlier settlements meant in terms of international law, and that is why my proposed change doesn't involve an interpretation of what those events meant, but rather a mention of the relevant ones. As I was saying in an earlier comment, by not giving more information about pre-1833 events we are "giving an opinion on that muddied detail", the opinion that those events are historically less relevant than what came after 1833, the opinion that earlier settlements are somehow inferior or even–god forbid–illegitimate. The POV emerges just as much from what's stated as from what isn't, and a NPOV isn't always the most concise one possible. Themidget17 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps some other editors could give an opinion on this? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The pre-Vernet settlements are less relevant to this article than the Vernet settlement, because the settlements on the islands today all directly descend from the Vernet settlement. The current text does acknowledge prior settlers, including Argentine settlers (i.e. the Vernet settlement as it existed before 1833). But the lead isn't the place for a fully-detailed blow-by-blow account of the history of the islands.

This is supposed to be an article on the Falkland Islands, not on the dispute, nor even on the history of the islands. The article (and hence the lead) should concentrate on what is important to understand the Falkland Islands, which is not necessarily the same as what is important to understand the dispute or what is important to the history of the islands. Kahastok talk 17:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Kahastok that "the lead isn't the place for a fully-detailed blow-by-blow account" like I agree with CMD who raised identical concerns. But like I said before, that's not the sort of lede I'm proposing.

I don't disagree that pre-Vernet settlements may in some fashion be less relevant, the thing is, are pre-Vernet events that much less relevant so as to be omitted from the lede? You are raising valid but tangential arguments about how earlier settlements weren't as relevant, about how the lede shouldn't be extensive, about how the point of this article isn't the history. I have expressed agreement with these and as a result revised my proposal to a shorter version. But the point I'm raising here is about NPOV: the lede doesn't appear neutral so long as it omits an arbitrary selection of historical events. Themidget17 (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The lede is neutral, you're alleging a neutrality issue when none exists. The lede is supposed to summarise the article and it does, albeit arguably giving too much attention to prior settlements that have no lasting influence on the islands. This is also a featured article, which has already gone through significant scrutiny by the community and was worked on by a multi-national group of editors. You're welcome to try and convince the WP:NPOVNB there is an issue but I fear you'll be disappointed. WCM_email 08:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

WCM, the fact that this is a featured article should make it a more pressing matter to improve upon it! Featured articles fulfill a set of criteria that renders them more encyclopedic than the other articles, now does that make them perfect? Ought such articles to become calcified by virtue of being featured? Another suggestion from the guidelines is MOS:LEADREL, where the weights assigned to events in the lede and the body should be similar. This is not the case with this article as it stands. We could diminish the History section by making the discussion of pre-1833 events less detailed, or we could augment the lede by adding an appropriately concise mention of them. I honestly don't understand where this kerfuffle is coming from. Themidget17 (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The History section devotes a paragraph to each of the following periods: 1764-1771, 1774-1811, 1820-1831, and 1832-1844. The lede devotes a seven-line paragraph to the history, two lines of which cover pre-1833 events; the remainder concerns itself with the British settlement, the war, and the referendum. Yes the lede summarises the History section alright, but in what manner? Is this summary adequate, is the threshold that low? Like you said, this is a featured article. How does a referendum from 10 years ago merit a mention more detailed than that of the earliest settlements combined? Themidget17 (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You imply that the history section has four paragraphs. It has ten - including two long paragraphs devoted to the period 1845-1945, which you don't seem nearly so keen to expand upon.

MOS:LEADREL does not mean that we have to count the number of words and make sure that they are in precise proportion with the article. If it did then it would be impossible to write a coherent lead.

MOS:LEADREL means the weight given to points in the lead and the article should be the same, i.e. that the lead should summarise the article. This one does. This is unlike the article History of the Falkland Islands, an article explicitly discussing the history of the islands, whose lead reads as though nothing of significance happened after 1833. Kahastok talk 20:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You raise a valid concern about the 1845-1945 period, Kahastok. I propose the following revision:

Controversy exists over the Falklands' discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. The islands were first settled by the French in 1764, then by the British a year later. The French turned their colony over to the Spanish in 1766. The British retired from the islands in 1776; they remained under Spanish control until their forces withdrew in 1811. In 1820, the islands were claimed by David Jewett at the behest of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. The British returned to the islands in 1833; economic activity began to thrive around 1851 with the advent of wool farming. The islands played a role during World War I and during World War II. In April 1982, Argentine military forces invaded the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War. In a 2013 sovereignty referendum, almost all Falklanders voted in favour of remaining a UK overseas territory. The territory's sovereignty status is part of an ongoing dispute between Argentina and the UK.

This change would append four lines instead of the two I proposed earlier. If anybody would suggest a more concise phrasing that'd be appreciated. I am also going to log a dispute resolution request given all the friction we've been having. Themidget17 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Themidget17, that paragraph is not at the preferred standard, both in style and fact. Every sentence is questionable. For example, what does 'turn over to the Spanish' actually mean? Unless there is a suggestion to amend what is currently there without extending it further I think this discussion should be ended because it is going nowhere.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You could very well revise the mention of Port St. Louis's takeover by the Spanish if you find it's ambiguous, or else propose another sequence entirely. I don't think it's fair for me at this point to entertain an argument such as "every sentence is questionable". At every turn, you and fellow editors have done nothing but bash my every proposal. Themidget17 (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No WP:CONSENSUS is very much against you, because you allege a neutrality issue when none exists, proposing a text that introduces neutrality issues. A number of editors have patiently explained their issue with your content proposal, you continually present the same content albeit rehashed and the issues remain. This being a featured article, people are concerned to maintain article quality. I've suggested a route by which you could obtain a 3rd opinion, instead you forum shop to DR prematurely. This is a behavioural issue, a classic example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. WCM_email 07:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

A third opinion has already been summoned by Roger 8 Roger, WCM. Plus, my concern is both about NPOV and MOS:LEADREL, as I outlined in my DR request, so the NPOV board might be insufficient for the challenge. I am disappointed in seeing my actions interpreted as "forum-shopping" after after having acted in good faith. Themidget17 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a reply to your summary of the dispute on the DRN, WCM. You allege that there isn't a POV issue and I want to restate why I think that there is. The History section of this article is rich and balanced. There is significant treatment of the activity on the islands prior to 1833; the section is fairly detailed for 1764-1982. The lede, on the other hand, glosses over all pre-British-settlement events and highlights the war and the referendum. This is a British-friendly lede rather than a neutral one about the Falkland islands. Yes the islands are part of British sovereignty, but the article is about them, not about how and why they belong to the British, as there's an article devoted to that dispute. The lede appears to emphasise events that are reassuring of British sovereignty, while the History section is more informative and neutral. Themidget17 (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This is like saying the United States article emphasizes American sovereignty but instead it should be more neutral and present both the possibility of American and British sovereignty. When the people living there unanimously vote to remain British, it becomes a fact and there is no need to prevent a "British-friendly" lede. Chamaemelum (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That is a poor comparison. The islands aren't a country. The US isn't subject to a sovereignty dispute. I could go on. Themidget17 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like an intentional time wasting joke. What about the established lead is not neutral? Nothing! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Port Egmont

This article says founded in 1766, the Port Egmont article says 1765. I'm adding to the John Perceval, 2nd Earl of Egmont article. Help!? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipeida is a not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of founded. Argentine nationalists have a habit of slipping it to 1766, which is when Captain McBride arrived to formally set up the colony. It was founded by Byron in 1765 who laid the ground work, then slipped away. Similarly the French settlement is backdated to 1764 when Bougainville laid the ground work, not 1765 when he came back with colonists. Its a bit of a double standard, should be 1765 and 1764 for both. WCM_email 08:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Malvinas

An islander has requested here that he Spanish translation of the Falklands be used (Islas Falkland) in the lead, not the alternative name, Malvinas. This has come up before but perhaps it is worth raising again. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

As I saw in that thread, the government of the islands rejects the term "Malvinas" because it's a POV term that they do not endorse. Neutral point of view is in fact the whole reason we use both names the way we do. Cambalachero (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Would it not be neutral to acknowledge the alternative Spanish name? Having both Spanish names introduced e.g:

> The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːklənd, ˈfɔːl-, ˈfɒl-/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas, also known as Islas Falkland) are an archipelago...

seems like a fair compromise. I don't think it would be wise to continue to completely omit the alternative Spanish name, strictly from a utilitarian and informational standpoint, as there are early signs that some Spanish-language media are using the term.

Links to instances to back this up (because I couldn't figure out how to cite in Talk pages, sorry):

(https://es.mercopress.com/falklands-malvinas, https://elpais.com/internacional/2021-11-06/tras-el-rastro-de-la-huella-indigena-en-las-islas-malvinas.html, https://news.un.org/es/story/2016/06/1359521, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfqK2j9dOBM, https://elcomercio.pe/mundo/actualidad/fotos-habitantes-islas-malvinas-sacan-luz-su-patriotismo-referendo-noticia-1548182/), (The BBC, which of course as a British institution has a certain perspective, chooses to use both terms in Spanish media)

I can appreciate that this small selection of cherry-picked, curated links is inadequate to demonstrate widespread usage. However, I think the more important conclusion to draw from this, is the current extent to which Islas Falkland is used is remarkable. Since it is being used, it would follow that it ought to be described, or at least mentioned.

I also think it's potentially worth considering the Spanish version of this article. While it doesn't introduce the alternate name in the opening preamble as I'm suggesting, it does actually use the term Islas Falkland multiple times throughout. If both Spanish and English Wikipedia are aiming for a neutral perspective, parity with the Spanish version in regards to the alternate term seems sensible.

---

This is off-topic but in the interest of transparency and disclosure, I am the account that started the thread that @Roger 8 Roger linked. I was advocating for both names to be used in the preamble, and I am not an islander. I do, however, have relatives there. I don't think these details affect my request in any way, just felt like clearing that up lmao. Titfortat-skag (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The usage of "Islas Falkland" in Spanish is rare and not worth mentioning in this article. Perhaps a note at best at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Also, "Malvinas" is not a pov term. Scotland is called "Escocia" in Spanish; that's not a pov term either.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 01:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem IMO is the misuse of the translation term. Malvinas is an alternative name for the islands, not a translation. There are English sources that use Malvinas just as there are Spanish sources using Falklands. Each language has a heavy preference for one which gives the impression that one is the translation of the other, which it isn't. I think the lead should say something like: "The Falkland Islands, also sometimes know as the Malvinas, (Sp=Las Malvinas), are..." Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Spanish is a regulated language by Real Academia Espanola and the translation is officially Islas Malvinas. Islas Falkland is also used and used extensively in South America especially Chile, so much so that Argentina has pressed its Mercosur partners to stamp out the use of the term. It also used to be regularly used in Argentina until the 1930s. For those interested, there is a paper by the Argentine academic Carlos Escude who looked at the use of the Argentine education system by it's government to reinforce certain national myths and stereotypes. In that he notes before Alfredo Palacios had Isles Malouines by Paul Groussac translated into Spanish and integrated into the curriculum 30% of Argentine text books used the term Islas Falkland. This reflects the close ties between the islands and sheep farming in Patagonia going back to the 19th Century, when islanders were enticed to assist in the establishment of farming in Patagonia. Summarising Islas Malvinas is the official Spanish translation, whereas Islas Falkland is used in the Spanish vernacular particularly from South America and those countries with ties to the Falklands, principally Chile and Uruguay.

Malvinas is not an English language term, its principally used in minority groups such as Irish nationalism or certain extreme left wing circles with an anti-UK agenda. Per WP:FRINGE it would not be appropriate to use it. The use of Malvinas in English has definite POV connotations, which often reflects an Argentine attitude of intolerance and refusal to recognise the existence of the islanders. So I do understand why the islanders may have made such a request.

I am not going to advocate adding Islas Falkland. Although you can show the English use of Malvinas is definitively WP:FRINGE, whereas Islas Falkland has both historic and modern usage in vernacular Spanish, I am nontheless mindful that any discussion to look at this objectively has failed with a poisonous discussion in which advocates of Argentine claim push loudly that neutral POV means we have to give equal value to the English usage of Malvinas. As such I am suggesting we let sleeping dogs lie and take no action with this request.

PS The original Spanish name for the islands was Islas Maluinas, reflecting the French name of Isles Malouines, I understand this was corrupted to Malvinas. #WCM_email

"Malvinas" does not receive an equal treatment to that of "Falklands". It is only used once in the lead of specific articles, to get it out of the way, and then the articles use just "Falklands" from then on, unless the article discusses the naming itself or it's talking about some other Argentine thing that uses the name (such as the Malvinas Argentinas Partido). And it is fine that way, and I don't see a need to make changes. In any case, "Islas Falklands" is not really a translation, it's just the same name and the only thing that is translated is the type of geographic feature, so it is pointless to mention it. Any place with "Island" in the name gets that part translated in Spanish, such as "Manhattan Island" = "Isla de Manhattan". Cambalachero (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The Escude information is interesting, nonetheless. Perhaps we could include a line about it in the etymology section?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Islas Malvinas is a translation of Falkland Islands, if we use the word "translation" according to its ordinary plain English meaning. People overcomplicate this massively. It's really pretty simple.

If I translate a word from English into Spanish, I do not assert that the two words are used in precisely the same way. If I translate a word from English into Spanish, I do not assert that the two words are etymologically related. If the word "translation" implied either of those things, the concept would be useless because the result would be that a huge number of really basic words would be entirely untranslatable.

As per WCM, the use of Malvinas as an English word is WP:FRINGE and so your proposal would give it vastly too much weight. I would strongly suspect that using Islas Falkland as a Spanish term in the first sentence would also give that term significantly too much weight. I would note that the current text is the conclusion of a dispute that nearly ended up at Arbcom. I would note that, since then, the text has been remarkably stable - with little significant dispute for probably 15 years. I see value in retaining a tried and tested solution and little benefit to the encyclopedia in litigating it further. 21:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

• I would suggest the text should read "Spanish: Islas Malvinas or less frequently Islas Falkland." It might be difficult to source a pronunciation though. Neutral as to whether Malvinas should appear as an alternative English name, with some qualification. It would depend what the sources say on the matter.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

If anything, I consider that titling this article by the island's British name and adding only as a side-note, it's Spanish alternative, is already biased towards the a British perspective. The Spanish name should be included in the title of the article. Please amend!IqbalHamid (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is an unbiased fact: it is the British who held the effective sovereignty right now (they live there and use the land and sea as they see fit). Right or wrong, that's just the way things are. It makes sense that the article uses the name they use for it. Or should we rename the article Argentina as "Argentina/Wallmapu", too? Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

IqbalHamid, it isn't a matter of bias. The title should be the name commonly used by English speakers. That will be Falklands not Malvinas, as sources will verify. There is a not insignificant percentage of English sources that use Malvinas or Falklands/Malvinas, and that is what this debate is about - how great that number is. Another angle on which name to use is around the local variant of English, and should that take precedence. Personally. For a title I do not think so. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, I consider your logic to be non-sequitur (it does not follow). Your stated reasoning does not justify your conclusion: While Falklands may indeed be the name commonly used by English speakers, you need to consider that English is accepted as de-facto universal language of our world. As such, this article will be read by people around the globe, not just the Anglophone nations, UK and USA. Language itself is irrelevant because there are political sensitivities involved here. Therefore, for the sake of true neutrality, the title of this page should include the 'Malvinas' identity recognised by Argentina. Argentina still makes a claim to the islands. Also, in light of the announcement made by China recently where they are supporting Argentina's claim, so as not to alienate half the people of the world (the Chinese, Argentinians and I imagine also including the Russians, Indians, Africans and Portuguese (that's most of the international community if you think about it)), the title of this page should be, for the sake of peace and neutrality: 'Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)'. IqbalHamid (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the number of English speakers in the world or the popularity of the language; it's about the relevant language edition of Wikipedia. In this case, we're talking about en-two.iwiki.icu. For the this edition, WP:COMMONNAME is understood in the context of spoken English (i.e., "...as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources"). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:COMMONNAME is very clear on the matter. While another name may be more common in other languages, we are supposed to use the native English name. I don't think we are at the point yet where non-native usage is considered to be as correct as native usage.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

IqbalHamid, the question to consider is how great a usage Malvinas gets in English sources. It does get some (the UN uses a form of dual name, and several academic texts also use a dual name. A few PC people will also use it. IMO that is enough to warrant mention in the first sentence as an alternative name or as the Spanish name because the Falklands are very much relevant to Argentina, but not in the title. BTW, I know what non sequitur means, even without a hyphen. :) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I don't understand why this topic was revived two months after discussion finished.

It's not so much "a few PC people". Most English-language sources that use Malvinas as an English word are from the Argentine government. The rest are people actively trying to signal support for the Argentine claim. When these are from English-speaking countries, they are near exclusively on the outer fringes of the far left trying to make a point. This is nowhere even close to our standard for a significant English-language name.

However, as a Spanish-language name, Islas Malvinas probably does meet the standard, and it's generally beneficial to include it.

I'll reiterate my previous point. It is more common for Spanish speakers to refer to Falklands than for English-speakers to refer to Malvinas. But neither is common enough to be worth mentioning in the lead. The current text is the long-term stable solution to a dispute that nearly ended up at Arbcom. I see no reason to change it. Kahastok talk 17:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Re why the topic was "revived", a discussion on a talkpage has no time limit. Users can give their input at any time, and two months is not an unreasonable amount of time to consider a question to be open. The above discussion actually seemed to lean towards consensus that inclusion of "Islas Falkland" might be justified, but the fear that it might lead to "Malvinas" appearing as an English term should stop this from happening. My suggestion here would be to possibly leave the lead as it is and add a naming section after etymology, based on sources discussing the various English and Spanish names used for the islands. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my comments did not justify adding "Islas Falkland", I in fact opposed it. [1] See various discussions and if anything new can be brought forward, I might be persuaded to change my mind. However, bitter experience suggest this is a can of worms best left unopened. WCM_email 08:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The 'UN' does not use a dual term at all, instead it refers to the Islands as Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Using the name in that way as a leading globally recognised body will be indeed draw many followers in masses. The name 'Malvinas' is made up, also a non-political term, used politically by some. It is offensive in its connotations to those who recognise the islands as being 'British' and being mutual should recognise that. I would also like it known that the term 'Malvinas' regardless of its origins should be respected as

such, and used accordingly in a non-political way by any Spanish' speaking country. In terms of the 'UN' given the minor dispute over sovereignty, for me personally they should lead by recognising all points of view and mutually/neutralise the matter by amending what they show to the rest of the world to reflect both terms as follows 'Falkland Islands/Malvinas until such times that other matters arise from this discussion. All said and done, respecting the human rights of the Islanders is key to making any harmonious progress, and as things currently stand they, and the islands are first and foremost British, and we the rest of the world should be led to accept that without malice, anger, upset and pettiness. 2A02:C7F:687A:DB00:75C4:A72A:8B88:6D0B (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually it does, the UN uses Islas Malvinas (Falkland) in Spanish, Falkland Islands (Malvinas) in English. I see no compelling reason to change the status quo noting that the malice, anger, upset and pettiness is very much one sided. WCM_email 15:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing petty about inventing a name whose sole purpose is to claim illegal ownership over the islands. 78.148.151.43 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This is true, but we let the Argentines do it as it makes them feel better about themselves, even when the rest of the world knows differently. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

When and where was "Malvinas" first used? Anyone know? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Early 19th Century, around 1767 when the Spanish took over Port St Louis, renaming it Puerto Soledad, the Spanish used the name Islas Maluinas, a more or less direct transliteration of Isles Malouines the French name. Due to the difficulty of pronouncing that by Spanish speakers, it was corrupted to Islas Malvinas at the turn of the 19th Century and that is the name recognised by the Real Academia Espanola who regulates the Spanish language. You will find the names Maluinas and Malvinas used interchangeably, with the earlier Spanish name being Sansón y de los Patos although strictly speaking whether that was the Falklands is debatable. Islas Falkland was also in common use in South America right up to the 1930s even in Argentina. In the 1930s, the Argentines expunged Islas Falkland from their textbooks and ensured the curriculum only used Islas Malvinas, they've since put pressure on Mercosur partners to stop using Islas Falkland, though if you go to the South of Chile they continue to use it. WCM_email 13:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

September 2022

Can someone explain WP policy on endonyms vs. exonyms? The endonym in Spanish is Islas Falkland. Inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, and official documents, refer to themselves as Falkland Islands, or Islas Falkland in Spanish. Per Taiwan, Sami people, Romani people, this seems to be the end of the discussion. It doesn't seem relevant what usage the PRC attempts to enforce, nor does it seem relevant what usage Argentina attempts to enforce. In each of these articles, claims by outside groups are noted later on in the lede, but the official and self-name is the determining factor.

If it is common in Chile to refer to the Islands as Islas Falkland, then shouldn't we include that? 19:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please sign you comments. I questioned this a long time ago but it stays as is and on reflection I think that is best even if not quite right. A [rime consideration is the name used in a sizable number of sources. Islas Malvinas is very often used so to omit it would be wrong to be making a point to give an opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the corresponding articles note that the term is offensive and rejected by the people. We should do the same here. DenverCoder9 (talk) DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's offensive, or even if it's wrong. It matters what it secondary sources use. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

New line in subject "History": President-elect Milei of Argentina stating that Argentina has a "Non Negotiable" claim on the Falkland Islands (stated "Malvines")

The title says it all. Sources from about 24 hours ago or earlier have stated that Milei had stated this claim on the campaign trail, with one of the sources saying that he said if I recall correctly: "military conflict is not an option."

He also supposedly compared it to British Hong Kong to China. [2]

Perhaps this is worthy of a small reference in this article? If this is Milei's position on the issue, it could be subject to some notable change in the future.

Thanks for reading and Thank you in advance for adding. 2601:601:A400:D4A0:1005:5852:C084:2ACC (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Not really of any relevance to the Falkland Islands, so I would suggest not. If it makes a material change then maybe, till then, no. WCM_email 14:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

So far it's just things said to the press. Milei has not taken office yet and does not manage Argentina's international relations yet. We should wait and see, first for him to become president, and then what things does he actually do. Have in mind that he will receive a country with a devastated economy (inflation is over 100%, and that's not a typo!), so don't be surprised if he has other priorities than the Falklands conflict for a time. Cambalachero (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It might be worth a sentence in Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, which mentions quite a few statements from the leaders of Argentina and the UK about the dispute, but I don't think it belongs in this article. Hut 8.5 18:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend caution there, too. Keep in mind that Milei is in the minority in both houses of Congress, has no governors from his party, and his party is almost deprived of a political structure. His only strength is his popularity, but popularity may be fleeting, especially when the country is in an economic crisis of this scale. The claim over the Falklands remains popular among Argentine people, and even if Milei does not agree with it he may opt not making changes to the current international policy, to avoid the decline in his popularity that it may cause. Cambalachero (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

hey its the same anon guy that posted this here.

thank you all again for your suggestions and answers, I'll be sure to keep them in mind regarding Argentina, their new president, and the Falklands. :)

Indeed the whole subject in the future may be subject to change (as well as concern if; if the conflict possibly grows), but we shall soon see. 2601:601:A400:D4A0:E45D:217A:579:5260 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Dispute status

It is deeply inappropriate to plaster a country's Wikipedia page with a dispute raised by one country. At most it should be a historical footnote. For Lithuania, Ukraine or Poland, you have not allowed Russian editors to claim dispute that these countries are claimed by Russia. For Taiwan, you have not allowed PRC editors to claim dispute all over that page. The list goes on. So why would you disrespect the people of the Falklands, and the people of the UK by allowing Argentinian editors to plater their claim over this page? Its discovery is not disputed. It was discovered by Europeans. Just as Argentina, or the USA or Puerto Rico was. Subsequently some populations adopted these countries more than others. 82.71.8.175 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't, we (in the UK) are just not that bothered by it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous people

The discussion at Talk:Indigenous peoples got me thinking. Are the current residents the indigenous people? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

UNESCO would classify the islanders as indigenous, having existed for 9-10 generations in the islands. Bit off-topic and violating WP:FORUM to discuss though and since I'm not aware of any source making such a claim it would be WP:OR to put in the article. Plus I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from here in Scotland. WCM_email 11:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In everyday usage, when talking about indigenous people" in the Americas we usually mean those who lived in the continent before the Europeans came, and that's it. Indigenous groups that displaced other indigenous groups before that (such as the Mapuches) are still called indigenous, for that matter. Cambalachero (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The relevance would be I did think of adding it to the article, but I too could see the likely result. I had thought if the UN definition is clearlt met that would be source enough. I had wondered if 200 years was long enough. And I wondered about the earlier settlements that preceded 1833 that were ended in differing circumstances. Could they be described as the indigenous people? Anyway, if I did add something, certainly without a good RSS I would testing the ground, ie giving an opinion, so I will let it be. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the divisiveness of that highly derivative definition, if China invaded USA tomorrow, displaced and deported everyone who was not of native American (1st nation) descent, then no indigenous people would have been displaced. Even if 98% of the population of the USA (including African Americans) would have been displaced. Maybe we can move away from the European bashing. Did the Argentinians not come from Spain? They would therefore not be indigenous to Argentina 82.71.8.175 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)