Talk:Falkland Islands

Template:V0.5

Pronunciation

I have altered the phonetic rendering in the first para. ˈfɔːlklənd is never heard, ˈfɔːklənd is most common, but ˈfɔlklənd is also heard.

Boynamedsue (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations in lede

I have removed the citation in the lede in accordance with WP:LEDECITE. A few months ago, as part of improving this article, all citations were removed from the lede into the body of the article. Once the overhaul of the article is compelete, it is proposed to rewrite the lede. Please do not reinstate this citations (which is repeated anyway) unless consensus is obtained. Martinvl (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. --Langus (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Spanish name - why?

Can anyone point me to the discussion that provided the consensus that it was appropriate to put the Spanish name in the lead please. FactController (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See [1], more in Archive 4. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Archives 1 and 2 also have a fair bit on it. Suffice to say, the topic's been fairly well covered. Pfainuk talk 19:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, a fair bit of material to read through then, all from four or five years ago. Can anyone briefly summarise why this English article has the name used by some Spanish-speaking countries too whereas say, the articles for the Pitcairn Islands or Turks and Caicos Islands don't? FactController (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because a number of English-speaking sources, such as the CIA fact book, also have the Spanish name. Martinvl (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And the ISO designation includes the Spanish name. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to include the spanish name. We don't generally translate terms on wikipedia. I suggest removing it.Polyamorph (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in leads, we do, but either way, the Spanish name is commonly used for the islands. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we? Where is the policy for that. Why Spanish and not French, or German or Welsh? Polyamorph (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

[2] Link to naming convention. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the link! Polyamorph (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Claimed vs. stated

Guys, could we stop with the edit warring and discuss this here on talk, please? Pfainuk talk 11:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Vernet's description of the situation arose from a claim that he made against the US for damages, so the word "claimed" is the corrected word. Martinvl (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely why it is used, thank you Martin. I've made this point before and the edit warring to remove a word combined with the accusations of bias are irritating. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The use of the verb 'claimed' is clearly discouraged in WP guidelines, it astonish me how much resistance I find to this change. If there's no bias of your part (all of you) then why in God's name won't you let me change this??? Honestly, it looks like you're constantly looking for excuses. When I first came here it said "Argentina claimed that...". Then WCM wrote the current version. Then WCM applied a ref tag to the sentence, asking himself for sources. Then the tag was reverted but I committed myself to improve/correct the expression, so I found Brisbane and other islanders statements collected by Fitzroy and put that here. It was reverted, because WCM finally remembered what was the source for this. Ok, no problem, but the word 'claimed' is clearly problematic and needs to be corrected, as well as the Although structure (and I'm not the only one who had expressed these concerns). These are minor changes, yet it seems I need to find Jimmy Wales and bring him down here for you to accept them. What's the big issue with using another verb? What's the big problem of using a semicolon? I remind you I'm trying to achieve a NEUTRAL text, so if in doubt, you shouldn't deny those minor changes in the name of "good prose" or the alike, which is (according to WP) far less important. --Langus (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the Concise Oxford Disctionary, the most relevant meaning of the word "claim" is "demand recognition of the fact that; contend; assert". This definition probably explains why the WP guidelines discourages the use of the word "claimed". In this instance, it is entirely appropriate to use the word. Martinvl (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I remind you that only we talking here know about the claim that Vernet did against the US, but the casual reader only knows what we show to him. As that is the most relevant meaning, that is what they'll understand, if no clarification is made. --Langus (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a wikilink there to explain it, your "minor" changes are always to detract from the quality of the article. You remove terms that reflect what the source says, or introduce changes and they do not improve neutrailty. You are the only person to express this concern, you started an RFC and the comment you got was your edits and conduct were problematic, whilst my edits were well sourced (i think the correct phrase was impeccably sourced). Whether this is a language confusion or not I don't know. But there isn't a problem with the way its phrased and it is neutral. You're constantly alleging problems that do no exist and accusing other editors of misconduct. You are the one creating problems and conflict here and its completely unnecessary. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about "problematic behavior" take a look at your talk page history (since you revert every complaint about your behavior). I am not the only person that has expressed concern about this. This kind of false premises you state is one of the reasons why people gets so mad at you.

Getting back to the point, I repeat: it is just a minor edit and the article could become more neutral, by eliminating the possibility of misunderstandings about WP taking a stance on the version disagreement. --Langus (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To "claim" can easily imply that the author is doubts the accuracy of the claim. Contrasting "Vernet claimed" with "the Lexington... reports" would seem asymmetric, in that it uses a wording that could be taken to cast question on the accuracy Vernet's point but not the Lexington's. While I'm not arguing that the sentence is biased, I can see how others might come to that conclusion.

While I do not think that "stated" is necessarily a good word to use (it sounds clunky to me), I do not have any particular objection to a rewording of the sentence to remove the potential for bias that I can see being read into the existing sentence.

As to Martin's argument, I don't entirely agree. When we refer to Vernet's claim in the context you describe, it's a claim for compensation for the damage to his settlement. The point being made here relates to the arguments made by Vernet in support of this claim, not the claim itself. These arguments may separately be described as "claims" themselves, but the two kinds of claim are slightly different things. A fine distinction, maybe, but I think it's one that's worth drawing.

Finally, could I ask, without aiming this at any particular editor, that we all take care to avoid any kind of personal remarks and discussion of past conduct, except where it clearly relates to the current dispute and where such comments are in full compliance with behavioural guidelines such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 21:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Routinely house cleaning my talk page is not a problem. See WP:UP#CMT, if you infer otherwise, that is entirely YOUR problem Langus. Pfainuk I disagree, claim is used because it is related to Vernet's claim, report is used because the Captain of the Lexington reported. It isn't a minor edit when it changes the meaning compared with what the source says. I will listen to a reasoned argument but when the premise is to accuse anyone who disagrees as promoting a POV edit, when an RFC has stated the contrary, then no. WP:AGF does not sit well with accusations of POV editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

"The extent of damage is not clear: Vernet declared that the settlement was destroyed, while the Lexington only reported destruction of arms and a powder store."

Feel free to propose modifications. Thank you. --Langus (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree --Langus (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• AgreeAlex79818 (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree Wee Curry Monster talk 07:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Better to put into chronological order and not to give false testimony; Vernet made a claim as a result of this action.

"The extent of damage is not clear: the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, Vernet later claimed the settlement was destroyed."

• Agree Wee Curry Monster talk 07:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree. It uses again the verb 'to claim' which could be misunderstood. I also prefer to just connect the ideas with a 'while': it's 100% even. --Langus (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Did Vernet lodge a claim against the US? Do you dispute this fact? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. Read the talk above. --Langus (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In which case, claimed is appropriate is it not. QED Wee Curry Monster talk 12:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, because the reader doesn't know about such claim and may get a wrong message. Really, it's discussed above. --Langus (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You really don't have a sustainable objection here, it was a claim, claimed is appopriate and there is a wikilink anyway. You've wasted months over a word that does not have the meaning you attribute to it and diverted people away from creating content. Not only that but made a whole lot of unfounded accusations of bias that never existed and eroded good faith in your intentions. Walk away from the deceased equine and drop the stick. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You sure know how to put horses to death, don't you? Right now you are filibustering this decision. Lets take Pfainuk's advice and leave accusations and personal attacks aside, ok? --Langus (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Accusations and personal attacks? Do you mean like accusing anyone who disagrees with you as biased and any edit you don't like as POV? Like just now accusing me of filibustering? Yes please do stop the personal attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. WCM, you don't seem to understand the reason why WP frowns on the use of the word "claim" as a verb. When saying an historical figure "claimed" that such and such took place, the use of that verb inherently indicates the possibility that the statement is false. Further, when you connect the two ideas with a "while", and the second idea is contrary to what said individual "claimed" in the first idea, it gives the impression that the latter is a more accurate version of events - thus further discrediting the individual who "claimed" otherwise in the former.

The obejction here is therefore not a factual objection. The objection raised is that of an WP:NPOV violation, albeit a subtle one, in that the specific wording of a phrase gives the impression to the reader that Vernet's claims are false. The verb "claim" is not appropriate, WP believes it should not be used, and Vernet's statement could just as accurately be conveyed in saying he "declared" or "reported". I also favor the removal of "while" in favor of a more distinct grammatical separator, such as a period or semicolon.

However if none of my objections above carry weight, I certainly do agree with your comment about chronological accuracy, and to that end if there is no consensus to the objections raised here, I propose:

"The extent of damage is not clear: the Lexington claimed only the destruction of arms and a powder store, while Vernet later reported the settlement was destroyed."

I'm certain, since in your opinion there is nothing wrong with use of "claimed" as a verb or the use of "while" to separate ideas, that you will be in full agreement with the above.Alex79818 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I don't think that 'while' is problematic. 'Although' and 'but' are another matter... --Langus (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced Opinion Tags

MartinVL reverted my unbalanced opinion tags saying no explanation had been given for them. So here's my explanation for them, that each of the statements I tagged represent only one interpretation of historical events - the British interpretation - and does not give equal weight to the Argentine interpretation. The British POV is presented to the reader as fact without any counterbalance from Argentine POV, as follows:

-"Spanish name is offensive" tag: this is unbalanced because only the viewpoint of the islanders are represented. Argentines find the "Falkland" name offensive just as much as islanders find the name "Malvinas" offensive, yet this is not represented at all.

-The assertion that Buenos Aires learned of Jewett's declaration is only indicative of the British POV and ignores Argentine viewpoint that such a proclamation was pronounced and published in Buenos Aires prior to Jewett's departure. The characterization of Heroina as a privateer vessel is correct, but Jewett should be identified by his proper rank of Colonel. The text currently gives readers the impression that Jewett was also a privateer during the 1820 mission, and not a commissioned officer. Therefore the text is unbalanced.

-The assertion that Argentina's establishments were "abortive attempts" only represents the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The wording of the "Although Vernet.." sentence is already being discussed however I will restate this is unbalanced insofar as its wording is concerned, which seems to present Vernet as a liar.

-The sentence following asserts the senior members were arrested for piracy and mentions nothing about them being freed at Montevideo, this is supportive of the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The characterization of Mestevier being an "interim commander" represents only the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The characterization that Mestevier's only duty was to found a penal settlement represents only the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The characterization that British forces "requested" the Argentine garrison leave represents only the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The characterization that Rivero's actions were criminal and not resistive of British leadership represents only the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

Please leave the tags in place, or rewrite.

Also, regarding the opener:

Why was the sentence about the islands being on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories almost a paragraph behind the end of the first paragraph which states the islands are a self-govening BOT? That location makes no sense as that sentence becomes somewhat "orphaned" down there. It seems to me the subjects should be adjacent to each other given the close proximity of the subjects they address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.36.57.10 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alex. Let's not pretend that we don't know it's you.

Per my edit summary, neutrality does not mean and has never meant that we have to "counterbalance" neutral fact taken from reliable sources with the POV of either side in a modern dispute. We do not censor neutral fact if some people don't like them. That goes regardless of what the POVs are and how well they are sourced as being the POVs - but in this case I note a total lack of sourcing, and that in most of those cases where you actually bother to raise an objection, the position you say should be given directly contradicts reliable sources.

I would finally add that tagging things like this does nothing to aid the ongoing discussion above and are thus totally pointless. Pfainuk talk 17:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind your stating "neutral" facts taken from reliable sources. Of course, this is not what you are doing, because there are reliable academic and historical sources from both sides, and you ignore one side and only present the other. So you are not answering what I said.

What I said is that you are taking non-neutral facts and presenting them as if there was only one interpretation, the one you find in sources that you pick and choose that you think are "reliable". Your response above blows the whistle on you, because it seems you think there are no reliable sources from Argentine academics. Is this why you ignore them? Because if so, then the decision you make to include a source or not has nothing to do with them being reliable or not, is have to do with them having an Argentinian interpretation of events or not.

This shows you think the only reliable sources are the ones which support your POV, and that these sources are the only neutral ones. Why don't you for once put aside your bias and let's see if we can come up with sources we both agree with, and failing that, at least acknowledge the fact that there are reliable sources on both sides that come to different conclusions? But no, you're not interested in debate, or compromise, and anyone reading the talk history knows this. Because that history shows, if I or someone else present sources that go against the statements I cited above, wouldn't you dismiss them outright because you think they're not "neutral"? Or "reliable"? Of course you will.

So instead of honest discussion, you want to play the name game, once again. You know, a while back WCM accused me of being a number of possible users and it seems you're willing engage in similar accusations. Must be something at stake that makes you guys so paranoid, and for good reason.

So, tell me, are u talking about the "ongoing discussion" where you and other pro-British POV editors accuse any editor with an opposing viewpoint of the very things you are doing?

Or instead are you talking about the "ongoing discussion" in which you simply collude with other pro-British POV editors to shut down any dissenting voice, taking turns on your attacks and reverts to prevent a 3RR violation?

Guess what, I came here this time to discuss and not vandalize and you instead make accusations, fine. I don't say a position should be given, I say there are reliable sources that come to conclusion A and there are other reliable sources that come to conclusion B and you can't ignore one and always put the other, which we both know is what you do and always done. I don't know how long you think you can continue this little game you're playing, but I do know what the outcome will be. Case in point is the discussion above, you are well aware the use of the word "claim" as a verb is strongly discouraged yet you say nothing. You are not impartial and you don't care about WP guidelines.

Understand - every objection raised by us is raised about WP:NPOV violations, not only do ask for honest debate and reform, but also given your history, to specifically intended to document your side's unwillingess to play by the rules. We are documenting, everything you say, on every issue, and the more you break the rules, the more ammo you give us to eventually go back to arbcom. Based on your attitude this seems to be inevitable, and we're just going through the motions. I wish you'd change your mind, but it looks like you wont. Too bad for you when the hammer falls.

But for now the situation is this. If you want this match to play out let it play out. I've stated my reasons and you don't want to discuss because only the British and Islander sources are "neutral" and "reliable", and not the Argentinian ones. You say potatoe, I say potato. I put the tags back. Do not take them out again unless you're willing to cite and reference to other neutral and reliable sources that maybe don't jive with your POV. We get admins involved, they can read this talk page, and the whole shebang can start again.

Or, for once, you can discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.36.57.10 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's why I put the tags: the insinuation that any source, even if reputable, should automatically be considered "propaganda" simply because it doesn't agree with Pfainuk's understanding of how historical events should be interpreted, is against WP:NPOV. Any text based on excluding an entire set of reputable sources, because a user considers them "propaganda" when their conclusions contradict the editor's views, is text that denotes an unbalanced opinion, and merits the tag I put on. Without additional text that represents conclusions of all major reputable sources, instead of one particular conclusion, the tags are merited. I am posting this to comply with WP:BRD, per Chipmunkdavis, and I am still waiting for a response or objections to what I said. If none are posted then I'll revert and restore the tags, which should stay in place until changes to the text are agreed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.36.57.10 (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to say I concur with many of the points raised above, even tho I don't think they're done on purpose. I understand the feeling, specially seeing how the "ongoing discussion" about the verb 'claimed' has fallen into oblivion (Pfainuk and Martin seem to have moved on). It's not the first time this happens: an editor would understand my concerns about a particular word or expression, but then when it comes to voting or coming to a conclusion in any way, they'd remain silent. If you want to show you're committed to be neutral, you don't have to put so many force against changes, and you have to support any of them which could improve it in that way. Even if you're not 100% sure about it but you can see that the change is not detrimental the other way around. --Langus (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, why do you resort to personal accusations? So much for WP:AGF. I believe the best way to ensure people will not play games with you is to not play games yourself. You above all should know that I am not the only editor whom this anti-NPOV cabal of your has run afoul of. Now you and I might be free to post whatever personal opinions you want to in other discussion sites - but here, there most certainly are rules. If you will not abide by them or attempt to game the system then don't expect other editors to be silent about it. I fully support the placement of the tag in every single one of the stated text locations and I wholeheartedly agree with the reasons given for them. I am yet to see any objection to the tags. I am willing to wait a few more days, after which I encourage 209.36.57.10 to restore the changes if there are still no objections. If other users engage in EWing I will escalate the issue accordingly.Alex79818 (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Editors may wish to note that this discussion has been taken to WP:ANI here. Pfainuk talk 20:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

when in any doubt

Use "said" instead of "claimed" or "reported" or the like. When dealing with history, use the terminology found in the references cited when writing in the language of the reference used. When quoting, do not alter any words or spelling. [3] The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion, is least likely to be correct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, noting that in this particular case the reference refers to a "formal claim" against a Government. This is taken out of context here, and as Martinvl noted, the most usual meaning for the verb 'to claim' is "to assert in the face of possible contradiction"[4]. And since this is not a quote, it shouldn't be a problem to re-phrase it, just to be sure. Yet it seems impossible. Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, and note that the cited source (Tatham) is not a treatise nor a historical textbook but rather a collection of essays by various authors. Therefore, a more specific citation is required, one that discloses both the author of the essay used as well as the specific verbiage as stated in that source.Alex79818 (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal claim backed up by a wikilink to relevant text that explains it further. Claimed is perfectly neutral in this instance, since it refers to Vernet's claim against the US Government, a claim that is still extant. Changing to a different verb such as "stated" for example distorts what the original source is saying. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of "Claimed" with regard to destruction of something is not a formal "claim" against a government or "claim" of territory or the like - it refers to a statement, and it appears consensus is that "said" is quite sufficient. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Vernet did make a formal claim for damages against the US for this incident for which there is documented historical evidence. Hence, I consider claimed is more accurate since it reflects the source. As regards your claim of consensus, respectfully I disagree, if you look above the consensus was to stay with the existing wording, though that is hidden with reams of tendentious and argumentative text. I am quite prepared to listen to a reasoned argument but I refuse to submit to reams of personal abuse and personal accusations of POV editing. Further giving in to editors who resort to disruptive editing when they fail to get their own way will only encourage them to continue in the same vein. When this blew up there was a concerted effort to take this article to GA status, now that is forgotten. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is regard to him "claiming" the settlement was destroyed, and not to "Vernet filing a formal claim" against a government. Simple English - and the consensus here is that the simple English version works. If you added "Vernet filed a formal claim against the US governemnt" or the like, that would use a different meaning of "claim" than was present in the sentence which I emended. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC) As a result, I strongly suggest you re-revert yourself, and, if you wish, add a specific sentence using the correct usage of "claim." Else any other editor here is quite free to edit in accord with consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, Vernet claims the settlement was destroyed, which was expanded by wikilink for the curious. Can I ask which source you were basing your wording on? I am amenable to changing the wording, provided its accurate, reflects the source, results from consensus and is not imposed by disruptive editing. Please stop encouraging disruptive editing, your last comment is an invitation to impose new text by edit warring. Is that your intention? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And the usage you cite is a synonym for "said". I fear you conflate "Claim" as in "making a legal demand" with "Claim" meaning "say." The difference is substantial - and the way the sentence is phrased admits of no interpretation that it was a "legal calim" rather than a "statement" that the settlement was destroyed. As for accusing me of encouraging "disruptive editing" -- kindly apprise yourself of WP:NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Appending: I can not confirm any cite from Tatham - it is not available online in any form, and is not found in any local libraries at all. [5] shows copies in Cape Town and in Germany (total of 2). Nor can I find any use of it in Google Scholar (as in zero cites by others). In point of fact - the entire book is "self-published" and fails WP:RS to boot! Cheers - I think all of Tatham goes. Collect (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No the source from memory states that Vernet claimed the settlement was destroyed, my edit merely reflects the source. Again I ask you what sources you're basing your edit on? The relevant phrase in the guideline is when in doubt, I'm not in doubt as to any problems with the wording and your own edit seems based on a presumption of my understanding. Its a guideline not an absolute and in this case I feel it is not appropriate. With respect if your conduct either directly or inadvertently encourages disruptive editing, then to point this out is not a personal attack. As regards WP:NPA, I refer you to your own comments on your talk page and remind you of WP:DTTR.

Secondly Tatham is not self-published, I even include a google books link in the cite so your research is rather obviously not that thorough. It is a [WP:RS]] and it stays but quite brilliantly you've opened another avenue for further disruptive editing. Cheers for that. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not self-published?? Note: Publisher D. Tatham, 2008 Who is "D. Tatham" then if not both publisher and editor? Another "D. Tatham" is around to be a different person? Sorry -- the book is self-published, and all claims based on it should be deleted if others at WP:RSN agree with that "claim. Meanwhile note that I have not "templated" you at any point - I think a cup of tea is quite called for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh grow up, you're not being at all helpful the book is not self-published take it to WP:RSN, I would relish it and am not in the least bit intimidated by the empty threat. Tatham is the editor, the books has a myriad of contributors and resulted from a project to create a definitive biography of the Falkland Islands. So tell me what source do you use for your edit? You're trying to denigrate mine but won't reveal yours. Or is it the case you don't have a source? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It was published by the author http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6136120 So its not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, you're both wrong it does not meet the criteria by which it should be removed. I have commented already at WP:RSN and will revert your edit presently. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

David Tatham is the chair of the editorial board of that book not its author. The book is a reliable source, reviewed by the Polar Record Journal as linked above. Apcbg (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

He is the publisher and editor of the book, and the "board" only exists for the book. The review, in fact, makes it clear that most of the book is autobiographies not fact-checked otherwise, and "embellished" in some cases. Tatham has the credential of having been appointed by QE II as Governor - which does not make him an "historian" of great repute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No he is the chairman of the editing board, and I did list his credentials at the WP:RSN#Falkland Islands thread you started, which I will also note you didn't have the courtesy to inform other editors about. Tatham is an Oxford graduate who read history at Wadham College and has written a number of articles on Falklands History published by third party sources. He also holds positions on a number of bodies including being Chairman of the Shackleton Scholarship fund. As I understand it, your edit was based on Webster a dictionary and not on any reliable source for the history of the Falkland Islands. So thus far your days work seems to be a dedication to win a sematic argument on the use of the word claimed, backing two disruptive editors and trying to rubbish a source to win this semantic argument when you have no basis or reliable source for the edit you made. Have I got it about right? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but none of those(with the possible, can we have more information) establish him as RS. He needs to be a recognised and published expert on history. Can you actually provide some evidence (such as example of articles he has written. I have found one http://www.historytoday.com/author/david-tatham, one article would not be sufficient to my mind to establish any level of expertise.Slatersteven (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)}

That sole article is just about how he wrote the book <g>. Not much of a "history" article for sure, and gives zero notability to Tatham as an historian of any repute. Collect (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(od)(ec) Being an "Oxford graduate" does not confer notability as an historian. Being Chairman of a scholarship fund does not make one a recognized historian. Your accusation about me is absurdly off-base, and is not proper in any article talk page. Your desire to make this a claim that I am seeking disruption is also improper on an article talk page. My goal is that each article conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. One of which says we should not use self-published sources. [6] does not appear to show Tatham as much of an author as far as the historical community is concerned. The sole review you rely on states that people wrote their own entries and that where there was "undue modesty" he asked others to "embellish them." Tatham prepared fifty of the 476 entries (thus he is definitely an author and not just editor of the book). So we remain with a non-notable historian self-publishing a book. The Magic 8 ball says "try again." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No there is more to his qualifications than that, there are more reviews, there is a great deal more to the qualifications of the authors how contributed to the book than you allege. This is not a SPS in the accepted meaning of the term, Tatham is the simply the editor of an editing board - you just have to look at the list of the contributing authors to see that. A moderately different search [7] turns up a great deal more use of Tathams work than the search you crafted. And this is very much a niche topic so you would not expect huge numbers of hits. And that magic 8 ball and your unnecessary use of sarcasm clearly shows this is more about you winning an argument than improving the article. This is not about following wikipedia's policies, if it were your first action would have been to justify your edits from a reliable source. You've still failed to produce a reliable source and are expending prodigious efforts to rubbish a source in order to win a semantic argument.

So far you claimed the book was not readily available. Untrue, it is available on Amazon.

You claimed you had to go to Germany or South Africe to get it. Untrue, it is in the British Library and freely available from any public library on request.

You claimed it wasn't widely cited on the basis of an ill formed google scholar request. Anyone with an academic background would know not to use the first name in a search, as papers usually use initials in citations. A first year undergraduate knows better. A properly formed search provides much better results. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And the array you get shows not a single outside place using his work as a cite. Some simply state his title, or that he wrote a book, but nothing else. Almost all of them, however, have absolutely nothing to do with the author at hand. Such "cites" weaken the case for the book being RS enormously - they do your argument no favours at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What complete and utter nonsense, having the book cited as a reference by 3rd party publications is a cast iron case for WP:RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you two need more opinions or a third person to come in on this, as it currently stands a 1v1 discussion, which is bordering on an argument now, is not very productive. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Only one other person defended the self-published source while three here did not, and another two on RS/N found the source to be not usable. Seems to me the consensus on this is now five to two. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not true, you're over stating your case. One editor made a comment it appeared not to be usable based on the information you gave, information it has to be said that was misleading. Another commented that SPS did not always apply when it was an acknowledged expert. You're also claiming two disruptive editors as supporting you as well. And consensus is not a vote, its about strength of argument and as I've shown above, each and every one of your claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Who are these disruptive editors?Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect he's referring to me once again, or the number of other IP's I'm supposed to be. This is once again devolving into personal accusations. I agree with Slatersteven and Collect, Tatham fails WP:RS and should go. Proposal on both the use of "claim" and Tatham are forthcoming.Alex79818 (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And I'm the other one, of course.

(I hope you get to realize which behavior is really the disruptive one).

Regards. --Langus (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

1. Removal of Vernet's "claim" for plain English "said" and re-arrangement to correct chronological order of events (feel free to propose modifications).

"The extent of damage is not clear. The Lexington reported destruction of arms and a powder store, while Vernet said that the settlement was destroyed."

• AgreeAlex79818 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• MOOT Already removed genius. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree And note that the "Already removed genius" is a clear personal attack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No a sign of frustration, borne of seeing good work undermined by you backing a disruptive editor who has plagued this page for months. Thanks for that. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Change it if you wish, although "claimed" is better than "said" as far as my knowledge of English goes. He did make a claim before certain authorities. Otherwise, "said" to whom? To his nextdoor neighbour? At a public lecture? Apcbg (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment totally and the energy expended by some in having it changed and the lengths they have chosen to go to, including having trying to have a valuable reference work banned is beyond belief. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• The article does not currently say that Vernet "claimed" that the settlement was destroyed, so this is a moot point. Is there a cite for the specific point that the extent of the damage is not clear, or is this an original interpretation based on the fact that we have apparently (though not necessarily) contradictory evidence? Pfainuk talk 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the second point, there isn't a cite for that at all. It is essentially WP:OR, not an unreasonable conclusion but WP:OR nontheless and in a controversial subject area WP:OR is always to be avoided however trivial. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Very well, thank you. Nevertheless, WCM, the second point is YOURS, where in the first proposal above you stated:

"Better to put into chronological order and not to give false testimony; Vernet made a claim as a result of this action."

Are you saying your own suggestion was WP:OR?? Given that this is your claim the responsibility for sourcing it is on you - although if you no longer wish to, I'd be more than happy to oblige. Are you now disagreeing with your own previous position? If so, I see no impediment and will proceed to change the order of events forthwith.Alex79818 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The second point in this case being that it is OR to suggest that the extent of the damage is not clear unless there is a source to back that point up. Your comment does not appear to make sense in this context. Pfainuk talk 20:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Chronological order would be better but thats nothing to do with the discussion on OR. I'll change it myself if it bothers you that much. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Tatham to be removed altogether for failing to meet WP:RS. All content with this citation to be removed.

• AgreeAlex79818 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• No Despite Collect's lobbying the discussion at WP:RSN concluded that it was a reliable source. And if you remove that material you'll remove Argentina's claims. Didn't think that one through did you? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree The claim that RSN consensus was that it is RS is not true. The source is SPS and thus can, at best, only be used by citing it as the opinion of the author, not as fact. The author is not a recognized historian, and the claim that the Polar Review "republished:" the work is errant. As the review states that the material is deliberately "embellished" it is clear that it is not a proper source for anything remotely approaching a contentious claim. Cheers. Also note te PA of "Collect's lobbying" which is now apporaching WQA territory, abnd from which I expect you to desist forthwith. Ask Elen if you think such posts are proper on an article talk page. Again Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again I find you misrepresenting the conversation, as to why you have such a hard on for having such a valuable worked banned as the use of a source I have no idea. Backing an editor who has been disrupting this page for years tells me you have poor judgement on this matter. What you repeatedly and misleadingly describe as "embellishment" consisted of asking an expert to expand upon the information provided by an individual. After I have wasted my time explaining it to you, I have to ask are you calling me a liar? Why are you resorting to tactics such as providing misleading comment. And I will take this issue to WP:WQA if you continue to hound me I am getting very fed up with it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WCM, there is no need to take the issue to WP:WQA. Since you seem to think it's ok to continue your veiled references to my contributions as 'disruptive', I've already taken the issue there for you. I've also RFC'd on this point.Alex79818 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree, with reservations RSN seems to have made some points that this might be RS for invididaul authors vies, and not for any contovershal facts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note it is not used for any controversial points and in many cases it is the only source for a number of points. Individual articles most definitely are and I have taken those comments on board. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. Tatham is surely a RS. Apcbg (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose consensus at WP:RSN does not support such a position. Pfainuk talk 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that WP:RSN does not support such a position, the majority of editors at that discussion clearly oppose the use of this source, either conditionally or not.Alex79818 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A point that would not, of course, suggest that what I said is in any way inaccurate. Pfainuk talk 20:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is about strength of argument not a count of editors. The consensus leans toward it being a WP:RS but not for contentious issues that reflect the author's opinion. Something I wouldn't have a problem with as I long ago learned not to present an author's opinion as a fact. Something you clearly cannot separate. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Which author? I remind you this book is a collection of essays and autobiographies put together by the editor/author/publisher of the book. Who wrote the text you're referring to? Furthermore, given the discussion history on this page regarding how this source has been used to guide the article's text, it seems the issue is very much contentious and I certainly view it as such. I believe other editors do as well and would welcome their opinions on the subject.Alex79818 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I amended the cite to name the author more than 12 hours ago and no it isn't contentious in the least. WP:BEANS someone has given you another avenue to be disruptive that is all. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again you are failing to WP:AGF, I do not need your permission to agree with other editors who've made good points.Alex79818 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of Tatham as a source

RFC on whether use of this source, Tatham, violates WP:RS in and of itself and also as used in the Falkland Islands article and related articles.

The book is a self-published collection of biographical essays and editor-solicited autobiographies. The author of the essay used as reference is not given by proponents for this citation. The author of the book is also its publisher. It is not peer-reviewed, it is not referenced by outside citations, and it has never been reprinted (although it has been reviewed).

By itself that's bad enough, but it's being used to support a contentious characterization of a historical event in which two parties reported two different interpretations - highlighting the difference between the two versions, with a subtext of lending credibility to one source and discrediting the other within the framework of the ongoing Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.

Both the article's talk page [8] as well as in WP:RSN have devolved into personal accusations. This talk page comes fresh off WP:ANI in which this forum was suggested. Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Falkland Islands where this is being discussed and please note the comments above in the thread entitled "Claimed vs. stated" regarding the claim that it is being used to support anything contentious - it clearly isn't the facts are not disputed. Summary at WP:RSN, suitable as a source for non-contentious, individuals authors should be named and opinions attached. RFC is being used for disruptive purposes ie pursuing multiple forms of dipute resolution when in reality there is no dispute. There is nothing to see here folks. What was disputed and, it really was ridiculous, was whether the text "Vernet claimed the settlement was destroyed" was POV and instead the demand was to substitute "Vernet stated the settlement was destroyed". Wee Curry Monster talk 20:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818 checking the IP contributions here will be most illuminating. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Pfainuk talk 20:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is not the facts which are in dispute, but the characterization of the facts, which lends a subtext of credibility to one report and not to the other, which is what the citation is being used for. Not to mention all of the factors that cast doubt on the source's credibility irrespective of how it's used. As for the personal attacks, I've already referred the issue to WP:WQA.Alex79818 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that I should be informed of any WQA thread but you didn't, just commented there after I saw this. Surprised I am not. There is nothing wrong with the source either and the facts are neither contentious nor controversial and cited. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my late notice, I was temporarily distracted. If you check your talk page you'll find it there.Alex79818 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny that, you forgetting just as you forgot to inform Pfainuk of the thread at WP:ANI. Eating fish is good for improving memory. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right - unfortunately my taste is limited to blue whiting, and supply is rather on the decline unfortunately.Alex79818 (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe Tatham to be a WP:SPS and hence not utile for anything remotely contentious. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree.Alex79818 (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI to all that this discussion page has once again come up at WP:ANI given the tone of discussion on this page recently.Alex79818 (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

In making a change to improve poor flow in the lead section, I somehow completely overlooked the fact that there seems to be a fairly blatant contradiction here. On the one hand it says the islands are "a self-governing British Overseas Territory", on the other hand they are "currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories". There may be some way to reconcile these two things, but it's not clear how, so probably a few extra words of explanation are in order so that it doesn't just look like a mistake. 86.176.214.217 (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, my change was reverted by Wee Curry Monster "per notice at the top of the page regarding lede", but the relevant notice says:

"The first sentence has been established as a compromise consensus between many editors in a long and difficult discussion (see talk page). Trying to change the sentence will be reverted on sight without discussion by many of the editors part of the discussion."

I saw that notice, but my change did not affect the first sentence, so should not have been automatically reverted on that pretext. (As it happens, my change made the above-mentioned contradiction even more glaring, so was potentially problematic on other grounds anyway...) There may be some perception/misunderstanding that the notice is intended to apply to the first paragraph, or perhaps even the whole lead section, but that's not what it says. Also, note that the second sentence of the notice is broken. I am not going to try to fix it myself because I do not intend to make any further changes to the lead section, even cosmetic. 86.176.214.217 (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction, a large majority of the territories on the UN list are in actuality self-governing. The BOTs never left the list as the UK government has the power to intervent in domestic affairs, as they did in the Turks and Caicos. It's doubtful they'll get off now due to Argentina and Spain. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

QE II has the "power" to intervene in Australian affairs. That does not appear to make Australia not "self-governing" on any list I found. [9] seems clear enough. We should list Australia as not self-governing if that is the standard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

QE II has this power as the Queen of Australia, not the Queen of the United Kingdom. In addition, QE II is not synonymous with the UK government. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

While the Queen of Australia has the power to intervene in Australian affairs, the Monarchy of the United Kingdom relinquished that power with the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster 1931. The government of the Turks and Caicos Islands was suspended by order of the Queen-in-Council of the United Kingdom. Such an order would have no legal validity in Australia. TFD (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. The list maintained by the C24 has nothing to do with whether the Falklands are self-governing. The criteria for the C24 is whether a territory is:

• A sovereign state
• An integral part of a sovereign state
• A state in free association with a sovereign state

ie the nom-de-plume bears no relation to whether a territory is self-governing or not. The criteria for delisting is:

• Independence
• Integration with the parent state
• Free Association with devolved Government

Under its current constitution the FI are self-governing with the UK retaining responsibility for defence and foreign relations. Neither statement contradicts the other, both are accurate.

I trust that settles the matter?

Most commentators would note that under the Free Association criteria the Falklands should be delisted. It remains on the list as the C24 panel due to the political influence of Argentina and Spain.

Incidentally its an election year in Argentina, based on past experience you can expect a number of IP editors trying to remove BOT and replace it with colony. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless the article states both and doesn't explain the difference. To a reader who is not familiar with the background, this would appear to be a contradiction given that the two statements are devoid of explanation. A little while ago an editor proposed putting each status (UN and UK) in the same sentence, something to the effect that "they are a BOT and are listed as a NSGT by the UN" or something like that, which would be more clear in explaining that there's one status as relates to the UK and another status as relates to the UN. The elections in Argentina have nothing to do with it, the issue is not one of fact, but one of clarity.Alex79818 (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I do see the point here, the lead could do with some expansion anyway. How about changing the end of the first paragraph to "The archipelago consists of East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 lesser islands. The capital, Stanley, is on East Falkland. It is internally self-governing, with the United Kingdom responsible for defence and foreign affairs."? There's currently not much in the article that we can add to expand on the UN listing. I actually question whether the UN listing should be in the lead; every inhabited BOT is on that list, it's nothing special. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. That awkwardness results from the UN listing's inclusion in the lede, which is less than justified and should probably be removed. The last thing the article needs is an expanding of the lede with an explanation of the multiple semantics of "self-governance" in UN and common usage. Apcbg (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with removing it from the lede and would have no problem with the suggestion from Chipmunk. I'd suggest the correct place for dealing with the UN list is the politics section. Its better to explain the difference rather than have the endless POV warriors here trying to remove an objective description of the Government of the Falkland Islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a fair compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested text:

“ Since the 1960s and the decolonisation era, the policy of the British Government has been to devolve self-government onto its overseas territories to the maximum extent and to grant independence upon request. However, mindful of the sensitivities of the sovereignty dispute with Argentina the British Government had only provided limited self-government in the Falkland Islands before the Falklands War. Since the war, the British Government has increasingly devolved responsibility for governance of the Falkland Islands onto the islands themselves. Under the latest constitution the Falkland Islands Government is internally self-governing with the UK retaining responsibility for foreign relations and defence. The Falkland Islands Government represents itself at the UN Decolonisation Committee, as the UK Government does not usually attend. The Falkland Islands remain on the list of the UN None Self-Governing territories maintained by the C24. It was originally listed by the UK in 1947 as a colony and remains on the list as the UN criteria for listing is that the territory is not a sovereign state, nor an integral part of a sovereign state or a state in free association with a sovereign state. To be delisted the Falkland Islands must either become independent or integrate with another state or alternatively enter into free association with another state. It is been argued that the Falkland Islands should be delisted as with its devolved Government it meets the free association criteria, whilst the UK argues that the delisting criteria is outdated and does not recognise either its modernisation of its relationship with its overseas territories or the wishes of the people of the overseas territories. Argentina does not recognise the Falkland Islands Government and continues to describe the Falklands as a colony. ”

Needs some work but I think the basics are there. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that approach, the listing of both the UK and UN status should remain in the lead, which does not by definition entail entering into any semantics whatsoever. The purpose of this section was to address the apparent contradiction of the two statements being contained in the lead. Eliminating one of them altogether does not solve the issue; the text still fails WP:NPOV as it excludes all other interpretations except for the UK's. Insofar as the text above, "It is been argued" is inappropriate. WP is interested in verifiable facts, not conjecture.Alex79818 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The UN listing isn't an "interpretation", it's simply a list of territories that are a) not independent, b) not an integral part of a sovereign state, and c) not in a state of free association. Nowhere in that criteria does it say the Falklands are not self-governing, and if the title of the UN list is that misleading to you, then to me that's a strong indicator it doesn't belong anywhere without qualification. For what its worth, the designation of self-governing isn't an "interpretation" either, it's a description. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Plainly you have not understood the proposal as there is no intention to eliminate either, instead it is proposed to explain the apparent contradiction in a section and to simplify the lede. The position of the FIG in arguing the free association criteria should be included and this is a draft, the wording has not been finalised. Note also that it does meet NPOV in that it does include Argentina's opinion. That is not a sustainable objection, you're not even objecting to the current proposal. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead arguably serves to introduce the legal jurisdictional status of the territory being described. I believe it's helpful to mention the UN's description, such as it is. The particular wording being criticized is not a strong indicator that it should be removed from the lead per se. In this case it is oversimplification which was the cause of the possible confusion, in that the UK's status and the UN description are separated by four sentences that have nothing to do with a jurisdictional description of the territory. This fails WP:NPOV in that it seeks to eliminate all possible legal descriptions of the territory in the lead, except for its UK status. Eliminating the UN's description from the lead and relegating it to the subsequent text has the potential to give the reader a certain impression regarding the islands insofar as it homogenizes the legal description of the territory to that of the UK. I don't mind further text that qualifies this, but it's too important a fact to leave out of the lead altogether. Hence, I am very much objecting to the current proposal, which went from being a lack of clarity, to a relocation of a basic fact to a less prominent position in the article. And I still believe the phrase "It is been argued" is inappropriate.Alex79818 (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead does indeed introduce everything in the territory. The problem, which you pointed out, is that we haven't included the UN description, but the name of a UN list. The UN does not itself dispute the UK's sovereignty. Indeed, by placing it on the C24 list the UN declares the UK as the controlling power. The C24 isn't as you assert, a "legal description[s] of the territory", it's just a list. What exactly is the important fact that must be in the lead? I invite everyone to read the UN report on the latest C24 discussion on the Falklands, which is probably one of the best sources for all the different viewpoints. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To add to the above, the C24 is an advisory committee, it makes recommendations to the IV Committee, which has not accepted any recommendation from the C24 regarding the Falklands since the late 1980s. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the lead - as is - does introduce everything in the territory, including the name of the UN list. What you are proposing is to remove that information and relegate it to a less prominent position in the article. Who said anything about sovereignty? Who said anything about the C24? The islands being named on the list is a descriptor of the islands - as you said, this is a description by the UN. I therefore believe we are in agreement on that. What we are not in agreement over is that this is a minor fact, I believe it is a major fact which merits inclusion in the lead just as it does right now. And, in order to avoid confusion, the point I am making is that there shouldn't be a separation of four sentences between descriptors, as opposed to eliminating that fact from the lead altogether.

As for the latest C24 discussion, its function as an advisory committee, and whether or not the IV committee has accepted any recommendations, I can't see how any of that is relevant to this particular discussion.Alex79818 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I support Curry Monster's proposed change.

I see no reason in neutrality why the UN list has to be mentioned. Neutrality requires, it seems to me, that we give a proper balance between British and Argentine positions. Both are appropriately covered by the lede, and this proposal does not seek to change this. The UN position is not, as has been noted, a statement on the Falklands' level of self-governance, and the fact that it is misleadingly named suggests that it needs to be qualified. The best place to qualify it is not the lede but the article body.

I would note as a general point that the lede's role is to introduce the article topic, summarising the most important points in the article. We need to be aware that the article stands as a whole and thus avoid lede fixation. This point does not appear to be as useful in this role as the sorts of basic facts that make up the rest of the lede.

Finally, as a general point, I would note that the UN is a fundamentally political organisation and that as such, inclusion or exclusion in the list is a political decision. The criteria are worded sufficiently vaguely that they can be and are freely interpreted according to the whim of those governments making the decision, occasionally leading to results that appear to have more to do with politics than with a reasonable measure of an entity's integration into a sovereign state, free association status, or sovereignty. We ought to be careful about using it even as a measure of its stated criteria. Pfainuk talk 22:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Alex's comments are incorrect. The C24 is an advisory body, unless their recommendations pass through the IV Committee to be endorsed by the UN GA or the UN SC it does not reflect the UN position. This is why it is important to differentiate the difference between an advisory body and a body that formulates policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality also requires, in contentious cases such as these, that texts not present homogenous information that favor or give the impression to favor one party of the dispute over another or a third involved party, such as the UN.

Furthermore, the UN's inclusion on the list is very much a statement regarding the islands' level of self-governance - hence the name:

"non-self-govening",

which is the name of the list (and, Pfainuk, the reverse has not been noted by anyone, and if it has please point it out and the citation that would prevent it being WP:OR).

The reality is that simply excluding mention of the islands' inclusion in the UN list of non-self-governing territories by definition serves, in the mind of the uninformed reader, to homogenize the UK's governance position as the only position besides Argentina's. Establishing homogeneity of the UK's governance position is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Even if inclusion or exclusion is a political decision, this can have no bearing on the decision to either include or exclude, as all WP:NPOV requires an equal representation even on political viewpoints. WP is not concerned with the criteria, WP is concerned with the fact that the UN lists the islands as a non-self-governing territory. Again I point to the fact that I made no comments regarding the C24, this is the second time in which my post has been responded to as if I had made such a comment.

However if WCM and other editors believe this is the case with all the UN-listed non-self-governing territories, then I will be more than happy to bring up the point in other discussions as it relates to the NSGT article itself as well as every single WP article of every single territory so listed, such that the encyclopaedia community can reach a consensus on whether or not inclusion in the list constitutes the reflection of the UN position, or not. As it stands, no citation is being offered by anyone to support the viewpoint that inclusion on the list is not a reflection of the UN, and as such this is WP:OR.

Thus, removing the fact that the islands are so listed from the lead and relegating that most basic introductory fact to a less prominent position in the article constitutes a homogenous representation of the UK's governance position, and therefore fails WP:NPOV.Alex79818 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your insistence that the lists name implies some statement on how much a territory governs itself shows a great lack of understanding in what the list actually is. The list was basically created as a list of colonies, areas which were under the control of a country which they were not part of. By non self-governing, the UN really means not sovereign. As for the UN's actual position, it is (as noted in the link I posted above) that the issue of the Falklands is a bilateral issue that should be solved by negotiations between the UK and Argentina. They have no official position on the islands status. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, you are mixing in two distinct positions. There is a UN position insofar as whether or not the islands constitute a sovereign, or self-governing, territory. That is very much a statement, and you are indeed correct in that it is a statement that the islands are not self-governing, or as you say, "not sovereign". The second, and completely separate issue that has nothing to do with the first, or this discussion, is the UN's position on whether the UK or Argentina have the best territorial claim, on which you again are correct in that the UN states this is a bilateral issue that should be solved by negotiations. On both points we are in total agreement, but where you are incorrect is in mixing these two issues and treating them as one.

These are two, distinctly separate, issues, or determinations if you will, 1. whether or not the UN says the islands are non-self-governing, and 2. whether or not the UN says the islands belong to country A or country B.

In this particular discussion, we're only talking about the former, not the latter. Granted, they form part of a larger question, but the issue at hand here is whether or not it is appropriate to remove the UN's NSGT listing of the islands from the article's lead. I content that it is not, and that doing so constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV in that the remaining lead text will have only a homogenous representation of the islands' governance status, one that only reflects the UK's internal designation as a counterpoint to the Argentine claim, and is devoid of the designation given to the islands by the international community in its inclusion on that list. It is improper to relegate that fact to a more obscure part of the text, it is a fundamental jurisdictional description of the islands insofar as international bodies are concerned, it merits inclusion in the lead.Alex79818 (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You're conflating sovereign with self-governing, they're different. The UN's status and the UK's status actually agree with each other. All the UN status says is that the islands are not sovereign. The UK also agrees they are not sovereign, as no doubt do the Falkland Islanders. I don't see how two points of view which agree with each other somehow balance each other out. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I do believe that removing the UN list of NSGT from the lede weakens the Argentine POV. After all, as noted above, it indicates in some way that the UN recognizes the existence of a conflict regarding these islands, and that this dispute is not settled. If you feel that is too confusing to have it that short in the lede, I would agree to most of the proposed text by WCM above if the text "which is rejected by the islanders" (i.e. Argentina's claim) is also brought down to the body of the article (tho I think it's already addressed there). That way we would maintain a balance between both POVs. Regards. --Langus (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Both the Falkland Island Government and the Foreign Office use the phrase "a large degree of internal self government" rather than "internal self-government". In practice, the islands make their own rules, but in addition to looking after defence, security and foreign policy, the UK guarantees "good governance" and has control over the issuing of currency. I think that the phrase used by both the Falkland Island Government and by the Foreign Office should be used in the lede rather than the current phrase. We can then shorten the text by removing the bit about foreign affairs and defence.Martinvl (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

@Langus: I don't see the UN list as supporting or going against either the UK or the Argentinian POV about rightful sovereignty. In fact, it could be seen as going against the Argentinian POV, as being on that list means the territory is not an integral part of any state, which Argentina claims it is.

@Martinvl: I wouldn't mind adding in "a large degree" and the note of "good governance", even without shortening the text otherwise. The addition sounds like an improvement. Hopefully it'll also appear more neutral. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what I think at least, and that's how's seen from down here. Current president CFK's position is to solve the issue peacefully. To do so, in the face of how neither the UK or the Falkland Islanders think there's something to resolve, the support of the UN to enter negotiations becomes very important.

Another idea: since the problem is the potential confusion caused by name of the list ("Non-Self-Governing Territories"), why don't we replace the sentence which something like "Since then, the UN has called for negotiations between both countries on the sovereignty dispute". [10]

Regards. --Langus (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but then again we would be getting into another situation where two separate facts, which I think should be noted separarely, are presented as if they were one. Fact 1 is that the UN includes the islands on the list of non-self-governing territories. Fact 2 is that the UN also passed resolution 2065 (XX) calling for negotiations. Two separate facts, although in truth both of them merit being mentioned in the lead. Sovereign and self-government denote states of jurisdictional authority. I'm not conflating the two because no sovereign state is also not self-governing, while a self-governed territory may or may not be sovereign. I never said the two point balanced each other out. I only said the UN's NSGT listing should remain on the lede and be moved to immediately follow the statement about the UK's four sentences before it, for the sake of clarity. No good reason has been put forward to remove the UN's NSGT listing from the lead. And the four sentences between the UK's governance position and the UN's inclusion on the list, as is now, can create undue confusion in readers.Alex79818 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Langus, you raise a good idea in regards to the UN. That sounds like it may merit mention on the lead. As for Alex, you yourself brought forth the reason that having that information in the lead was confusing, due to its title. What good reason is there to mention it is on this list? Every inhabited BOT is on this list, it's nothing special. By mentioning the list, we say that "the UN believes that the Falklands are not sovereign, not an integral part of another state, and not an associated state". How does this help the reader exactly? Why don't we just tell the reader what it is, a BOT with a high degree of internal self-governance? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunk's point in the preceeding post and I would also agree that Martin and Langus' suggestions have merit. However, I would also venture to suggest that using either the British Governments preferred wording or the FIG's preferred wording is going to lead to accusations of POV that will tie discussion up for months. Hence, I used the BBC description [11] The islands are self-governing, although foreign affairs and defence matters are handled by the British government. A third party source I would suggest is better but I'm open to being persuaded as to another. Thoughts? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To add Langus is wrong when he claims "it indicates in some way that the UN recognizes the existence of a conflict regarding these islands". The list has nothing to do with Argentina's claim at all. It simply lists territories that were originally listed by European Empires and the US as colonies. There are other none self-governing territories, eg Tibet, that were never listed. It also has nothing to do with UN resolutions calling for negotiations and I would add the claim the UK and FIG refuse to negotiate is rather disingenuous. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

FIrst, I had originalyl said this change should be done, not to delete from the lead but to put it right next to the UK's statement, so to move it up. I never said the information in the lead was confusing, I said the WAY the information was structured in the lead was confusing. The "confusing" part was that the sentences weren't next to each other, which makes it look like the UK's view is presented, then some historical text, then the UN view is presented, and the two just look like the contradict each other so I put the sentences right next to each other to clarify that the UK had a view and the UN had a view and nothing in between to demonstrate they were different from each other:

"It is an internally self-governing British Overseas Territory, with the United Kingdom responsible for defence and foreign affairs. It is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories."

The confusion is becayuse there's text about history in between the two sentences. My edit clarifies this grouping together the views and then having that followed with the history part and Argentine claim (which should be in present tense, not past, another NPOV violation).209.36.57.10 (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Second using the british goverment's wording won't create a pov conflict, as long as the wording used to report their wording reflects it as being the british claim and not outright fact, and as long as Argentina's preferred wording is also used so as tyo balance it out. Third I think langus is right like he said "it indicates in some way that the UN recognizes the existence of a conflict regarding these islands" becauser there's no need for the UN to specifically say there's a conflict with argentina, just that there is a conflict, it says "this islands don't govern themselves" but aer governed by someone else, not a free associated state, and that by itself is conflict with self determination. So the UN, like langus says, "recognizes the existence of a conflict regarding these islands".209.36.57.10 (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The FIG and the Foreign Office, both of whom are closer to the scene than the BBC use the phrase "... have a large degree of internal self government" which is a watered down version of the BBC's text and which, in my view , more accurately describes the situation - the BBC ignores the facts that the British Government is the guarantor of "good governance" and that the Falkland Islands cannot establish their own central bank. On a more practical note, there is no "A" Level college in the Falklands, let alone a university. They rely on the outside world for most of their professional people (judges, administrators etc) - it is worth remembering that their population is little more than the population of a British village and certainly less than most English market towns.

IMO, the UN list of non self-governing territories is a red herring - it had a use when it was set up before decolonisation, but the Falklands are not viable as an independent state - the world's smallest independent state in terms of population (other than the Vatican) has a population three times as large as the Falklands. For that reason, I think that references to it should be removed from the lede, hinted at in the article and put into perspective in the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, taking care of course not to commit WP:SYN.Martinvl (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite, the Falklands do have their own judiciary system (fairly redundant as crime is virtually non-existent - apart from vegetable theft :-) some will get the joke), the only time it is imported as you put it is at the court of appeal but remember several Caribbean nations still use the House of Lords. You might also care to look at the professional people in the Falklands again, there is a move toward greater use of their own human resources.

I don't consider the BBC's text is watered down as you suggest, the BBC's text is a reasonable summary and as a WP:SECONDARY source would be preferred to a WP:PRIMARY source. IMHO

I would of course support the proposal you make but I doubt you'll see agreement for it elsewhere. IT is the better way to treat it IMHO. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) My view is that, including the UN list in the lede, it seems to me, is lede fixation, which should be avoided. Instead, it should go in its proper context in the article. This obviously does not exclude my looking at other proposals on their merits. I can see the point of your proposal, but feel that a mention in the politics section is not unwarranted.

I think at this stage it's worth reminding everyone that this is not an article on the dispute but an article on the Falklands. We ought to be careful to consider not relevance to the dispute but relevance to the Falklands. While the dispute is itself relevant to the Falklands, we should be careful not to let it take over the article.

My understanding is that BOTs do have the right to establish their own currencies, but that in practice all rely on an outside currency in some way. (The Cayman Islands peg their dollar to the USD; St Helena uses its own version of the GBP; Pitcairn uses the NZD and so on - this is not uncommon for small countries and territories). This may, however, depend on constitutional detail as plainly it does not extend to uninhabited (and therefore truly non-self-governing) BOTs. Pfainuk talk 18:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The right of the Falkland Islands to issue its own banknotes is controlled from the UK. Her is an extraxct from the Constitution:

The Governor shall not, without having previously obtained instructions through a Secretary of State, assent to any Bill within any of the following classes, unless such Bill contains a clause suspending its operation until the signification of Her Majesty’s pleasure on the Bill, that is to say—

(a) any Bill whereby any grant of land or money, or other donation or gratuity may be made to the Governor;

(b) any Bill affecting the currency of the Falkland Islands or relating to the issue of banknotes;

c) any Bill establishing any banking association or altering the constitution, rights or duties of any such association;

Elsewhere I have read that the Islands must deposit 110% of the face value of any coins or notes that they commission with a reputable bank. The FIG can make a bit of money out of this by striking a £1 coin, issuing it and then redeeming it say 20 years later and pocketing the interest from the bank concerned. In the case of commemorative coins which are never redeemed, the FIG gets the interest in perpeturity. However the FIG cannot establish its own central bank without auithority from the UK.

I stand by my assertion that the BBC watered down (or rather dumbed down) the level of autonomy that the FIG has.

I would also draw to attention that the Chief Justice is a part-time post and that if an appeal is to be heard, then the Governor assembles as appeal court as he sees fit. I understand that if he does this, he will nominate judges from the Commonwealth and/or Ireland.

These show that a number of important points relating to internal self-government are controlled by the UK Government, not the FIG. I therefore assert that the BBC dumbed things down when the wrote that the islands enjoy internal self-government. Martinvl (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

While I do see WCM's point that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, I think in this case it should be fine to use the official sources. The level of self-governance is an official issue, and if both the UK government and the Falklands government have an agreed wording then that it probably the best to use. It isn't like the secondary source contradicts the primary, such as secondary sources questioning China's autonomous regions. I would not mind the BBC being used to cite the official description as well as official sources. Currently the statement is cited to the actual constitution (the most primary of primary sources) and mercopress, which does not explicitly state it. Can we just add the sources in? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The lede should not have any references in it - everything stated in it should also be in the article proper. Martinvl (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, apologies for not being clear. I was saying we should better source the first line of the current politics section, "The islands are a British Overseas Territory which, under the 2009 Constitution, enjoys a large degree of internal self government with the United Kingdom guaranteeing good government and taking responsibility for defence and foreign affairs." Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No violent objection from me but I tend to go with the secondary source. You need to distinguish betwen how the islands are governed and the Government per se. The judiciary are independent of the FIG and police are run by the Police Authority for example. Overall the BBC description is quite apt. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, the three "great offices of state" are the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the case of the Falklands, the Foreign Secretary's role is handled by the UK, the UK has the final say in anything that the Chancellor does and the UK's influence in the Home Secretary's role is large - notably the appointment of the Chief Justice. Since the functions of the great offices of state are effectively controlled by the UK, one cannot say that the Islands have internal self-government, especially if they cannot establish their own central bank. I think that in this instance the BBC has dumbed things done to such an extent that they have introduced a serious inaccuracy into their summary. Martinvl (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's what your text says. You've not demonstrated that the islands are not able to pass a budget without UK say-so - only that they need permission to change the currency, which is a different affair entirely. Nor have you demonstrated any significant legal impediment on the FIG to govern the Falklands' internal affairs.

On the other hand, the UK government in practice bows to the wish of the islanders on most practical matters that affect the islands. You seem to be basing your argument at least in part on your interpretation of British legal theory, which may be WP:OR - but more to the point I find it difficult to see why British legal theory is that much more relevant than Argentine legal theory or Polish legal theory in this case. What goes on in practice is the most important thing here, and it seems to me that the BBC description gets that right.

I can see an issue with preferring UK or FI government sources because of the inevitable argument that they are biased. For long-term stability, I think a reliable secondary source is better for this kind of detail. Pfainuk talk 20:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Pfainuk is right here. While theoretically the UK no doubt holds the power to intervene in the domestic affairs of the Falklands, whether they actually do is another matter entirely. I very much doubt they would in the case of the Falklands; no doubt it would be seized upon by Argentina. I still don't see why we can't add both sources, would that satisfy everyone? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that Pfainuk is correct, the UK Government plays no part in the day-to-day running of the FIG. Your comments Martin are very much OR in nature. The only time the UK Government would intervene would be in the case of abject corruption as happened in the Turks and Caicos Islands - and even then it was very reluctant to act. The officially stated policy is to devolve Government onto local institutions to the greatest extent possible - and as Chipmunk notes any interference with the FIG would be seized upon by Argentina and I would add be protested vociferously by the Falkland Islanders mindful of past FO interference in their affairs. As noted above a secondary source is preferrable as it avoids the argument that the sources we're using are "biased". I'm intrigued to hear what Chipmunk has in mind by both sources - bear in mind I proposed a text above and would suggest we start working on an edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Break

So this conversation has led to a number of different issues. Can we clarify views on the following issues, and are there any others?

• Should the C24 list be included int he lead, and if so how?
• Are there any problems with WCM's proposed paragraph for politics? (assuming of course that it's sourced)
• What it the best way to describe the Falklands level of self-governance in the lead?

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

On these points, in my view:

• Including the C24: not in my view. It's a detail that we don't really need there and it requires a bit more clarification to be properly understood.
• Curry Monster's text: I think my answer to this depends on a few things. I think if added to the article without other bits being removed it is probably a bit much and there's a certain amount that's redundant. It could perhaps do with shortening even if other bits are removed.
• Description of self-governace I'm happy with the status quo, or to discuss further to find a more suitable description. Pfainuk talk 17:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

My views as requested:

• No. The lede should comprise fundamental, characteristic facts that are most important for the subject i.e. the Falkland Islands. Which the C24 list is not. The Islands’ C24 listing or non-listing is quite immaterial, with virtually (or absolutely) no impact on their government, economy, culture or way of life.
• That text is okay with me.
• The best way is that used in most other BOT articles; it is not common to have the degree of self-government described in the lede, and I believe that should better be left for the article's main body. In the Falklands case the lede would look like this:

The Falkland Islands (Template:Pron-en; Spanish: Islas Malvinas) is a British overseas territory and overseas territory of the European Union in the South Atlantic Ocean, located 250 nautical miles (290 mi; 460 km) from mainland South America, 719 nautical miles (827 mi; 1,332 km) from South Georgia Islands, and 615 nautical miles (708 mi; 1,139 km) from mainland Antarctica.

The territory is an archipelago extending 163 miles (262 km) in east-west direction and 120 miles (190 km) in north-south direction, and comprising East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 lesser islands. The capital, Stanley, is on East Falkland. The total land area of the islands is 12,173 km² (4,700 sq mi) with a population of approximately 3,140 (2009 estimate).

The islands are claimed by Argentina, which invaded and briefly occupied them in 1982. The ensuing Falklands War resulted in the defeat and withdrawal of the Argentine forces. Since the war, there has been strong economic growth in both fisheries and tourism.

Best, Apcbg (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would say the C24 list is the kind of detail that should not be in the lede. IMHO it belongs in the politics section. Apcbg's text would be a good start.
• That paragraph I wrote was intended as a starter for 10, with input from all sides. I think there could be redundancy with the existing text. It still needs work and it can all be sourced. We should mention the C24 in the politics section and provide an explanation to avoid the usual problems.
• Per WP:SECONDARY I would use the BBC's description rather than the UKG or FIG texts. Bear in mind that the BBC's description describes governance rather than the responsibilities of the FIG. The two are not quite the same. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Apcbg's suggestion seems good, but I'd add to the lede that the islands are "an internally self-governing British Overseas Territory, with the United Kingdom responsible for defence and foreign affairs." Given the dispute (and not every BOT is so disputed), this seems to be one of those fundamental, characteristic facts that are most important for the subject. The C24 list and all other argument on the point should definitely be left for a Politics section. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

While your suggested addition of "an internally self-governing etc." is not objectionable per se, I can see no special relevance of self-government in this case; indeed, the degree of internal self-government is equally important for all BOTs regardless of their being claimed or not. Apcbg (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Upon reading all the comments and doing a little research, I have to say that while I see the potential confusion between the NSGT list and the "internally self-governing BOT", I can't see the reason why to target only the C24 list and not the description used. The issue this contradiction has arisen seems to be "which is the best way to describe the relationship between FIG and UKG?" I feel there's an attachment for the "internally self-governing" expression but, to me, the UN list of NSGT is more authoritative. First, the UN and the Committee of 24 is more of an independent source than the FIG, the UK or the BBC. And "an expert" on the matter. Second, the meaning of that list, even if complicated, is clearly defined in the Resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960, while the "internally-self governing" is an expression open for interpretations. "A large degree of self-governing" looks less obscure, and I don't see it as an issue that it is an expression from primary sources (FIG and Foreign Office). Mostly because these primary sources have common AND opposing interests, yet they both agree on the description. The BBC, being a British news corp, is not a completely independent source on this matter, even if it isn't primarily involved.

So, after that preamble:

• I vote for keeping the list of NSGT, at least until a more clear description of the level of dependence/independence is used in the lede;
• WCM text looks fair if properly sourced, tho Martinvl's points on economy and other issues seem to be at odds with some of it. And again, "internally self-governing" seems problematic. The Falklands meeting the free association criteria also sounds problematic to me after reading it. "Argentina does not recognise the Falkland Islands Government" seems too harsh and at odds with latest approaches, but I could be wrong.
• Probably "a large degree of self-governing" is the simplest and correct way to put it. Using this description the C24 list could be lowered to the Politics section.

Please don't take my comments wrong, it is my honest view.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the C24 is not independent or "more authorative", it is packed with countries that are allied to Argentina or minded to side against the UK. Like all political bodies it is driven by political considerations; its remit is supposed to be to represent the people of NSGT, when did it ever act do so in recent meetings? Furthermore, what the C24 considers a NSGT bears no relation to whether a territory governs itself but a definition that is unrelated to actual governance. Furthermore, it is a WP:PRIMARY source.

The BBC is world renowned for independence and objectivity, just because it is British does not mean it is POV.

If you can point me to a source that says the Argentine Government recognises the FIG in any way, then fine we can soften it.

And I can provide sources for Free Association. Further, again its a draft ie needs work, it was never intended to be the definitive text. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand it is a draft and I think it's a good start, I just wanted to speak aloud these concerns to give an idea of what I think, because it's being proposed for inclusion by Chipmunkdavis.

Regarding the BBC, my reasoning is that a newspaper will depict reality in a way that is appealing for their customers, and, if it affects its own corporate interests, in the way that is more beneficial to them. This is true for the BBC, Al Jazeera, Fox, Clarin, etc. They are companies, they exist to make money, and bringing you the news is only their means to it. The UN, in theory, is another kind of institution. Although yes, I also think that politics do play a role. I'm not quite convinced that the C24 is what you describe, and to my view, after reading the Resolution 1541 (of 1960!), it clearly bears relation to the level of governance (it requires FULL self-governance to be removed). Furthermore the fact that the General Assembly has pronounced last year on the Falklands issue indicates that this is a view not only sustained by those (mostly poor?) countries but also by the UN as whole. This is what we'd drop from the lede if we just take out the reference to that list, and as I said, I think it would be detrimental to non-British POV. Regards. --Langus (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am of course quite happy for the draft to be discussed and refined, which is why I separated this issue. The associated status is indeed the most questionable assertion there. As for the BBC, it is renowned for its neutrality, and its readers expect that neutrality. It is not a company meant to make money, it is a publicly funded service (much to the disdain of the British politicians it has criticised). Historically, changes in the C24 list were brought on by legal changes, and as Martinvl has pointed out theoretically the Falklands could still be interfered with. This is different than whether it actually governs itself or not. The General Assembly called for peace and dialogue, which is the default no action and no war call the UN makes. How about replacing note on the C24 by stating that Argentina has taken the issue to the UN, which called for dialogue? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I was about to rewrite the lede as part of the effort to bring the article up to GA status. Now things are quieting down again I would think about restarting that effort. Any objections? At this stage there is a lot of contemplation but no writing is getting done. I find its better to work with a text proposal and refine it as a group. Thoughts? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's go for it. Pfainuk talk 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be welcome. The present lede seems less than well justified, and I for one would support a rewrite based on the more conventional approach exemplified by my lede draft proposed above. Apcbg (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Apcbg's approach could be a good way of avoiding conflict.

@Chipmunkdavis: I'd say that would be ok, but noting that 'internally self-governing' still looks misleading IMO. To me, saying that the FI are self-governing despite that the UK could interfere, is like saying that a prisoner is free within the walls of its prison. Using the word 'free' in this context is misleading, as using 'self-governing' in the Falklands case. I hope you see my point. Regards. --Langus (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It ia sbout as "self-governing" as Australia if that is your criterion -- note the ref [12]where the Australian Governor-General dismissed a Prime Minister. Australia is a prisoner? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the analogy Langus, that's very helpful. If I were to extend it however, I'd say the Falklands rather enjoys their cell, and stays even though the gate to the cell has been left unlocked. Official UK policy is to support whatever the wish of the Falkland islanders is. It's not equivalent to Australia, as in that case it was the Australian head of states representative interfering. In the case of the Falklands, it would be the UK interfering.

@WCM, I'd be happy to discuss the lead. Be nice if we could finish the body sometime too though! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting resumption of diplomacy dates

In the Aftermath section it gives 1992 as the date for the resumption of diplomatic relations between .uk and .ar, but in After the Falklands War, it's 1990. Should the latter have been "1990s"? Doubtful, since the latter has a citation (which is gone :(). AngusCA (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the link. It says 1990, so I guess we should use that. --Langus (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Calling it Malvinas alone is being Discrimitive

The article about the falkland islands calls, or refers to it as Malvinas (the argentinian name for the falkland islands).I live in the falkland islands and the falklanders find this name discriminitive and disguisting. This is not the atual name for the country and i believe you should consider changing this or you will be recieving messages from alot of people concerning this. Their problem with this is that you are saying that Argentina own the Falklands which isn't true it belongs to the British! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oli- -The right man (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the feelings of the anonymous editor who removed some references to “Malvinas” from the article. However in making the changes he:

1. Wrecked the redirection mechanism. Is he aware that there is a small group of islands in the Mediterranean called “Islas Malvinas”? Is he aware that had his changes stood, he would have deprived anybody trying to find a reference to those rocks from getting there. He also wrecked the “Falkland” redirection link. Is he aware that there are three places in Canada called “Falkland”, one in Scotland and one in England? Again, by his clumsy removal of the word “Malvinas”, he deprived anybody trying to locate those places from getting to those pages.
2. The title of the relevant article in the CIA factbook is “Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)”. This was replicated exactly. Wikipedia does not censor article titles – in fact it is desirable that they be replicated ‘’exactly’’ as they are found.

If the editor wishes to be more closely associated with Wikipedia, please first understand the norms under which Wikipedia operates before trampling in. Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There is or was a comment that the islanders found the Argentine toponymy offensive, the label merely notes there is an alternative Spanish name. It makes no comment on Argentina's claim. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Malvinas redirect

Dear Martinvl and Wee, while you are quite right indeed, from what you say it does not follow that an article on the Falkland Islands, and titled "Falkland Islands", should start with the remark "For other uses of Malvinas, see Malvinas (disambiguation)" and a link to the disambiguation article for "Malvinas". In my opinion, it shouldn't. Apcbg (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If someones types "Malvinas" at the seach box, he will be led to this article. In most cases, this is the article they would be seeking. But, as there are other uses for that word, the choices to find the other meanings are written at the very top, before everything else. That's the way Wikipedia is organized. Cambalachero (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes but this being the English wikipedia, then the English terms should talk precadence. I have made a bold edit to that effect. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cambalachero here. If Malvinas redirects here, and as per guidelines it should, then there it's only reasonable that there be hatnote pointing readers at Malvinas (disambiguation) in case they were looking for some other thing called Malvinas.

As to Curry Monster's change, I have no objection, and can see the argument for it. Another argument might be alphabetical order. The old order did not particularly bother me, though. Pfainuk talk 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Beg to disadree, sorry. I really cannot see why the article 'Falkland Islands' should be used to solve the problems of users who are searching for those 'Malvinas' that are not Falkland Islands. Best, Apcbg (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that 99% of people who are searching for "Malvinas" are corerctly directed to the article "Falkland Islands". The remaining 1% are then directed to the correct article. This happens with a number of articles. Martinvl (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

88.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The old order didn't bother me for the record, though I can see it bothered the OP and I can understand why. I'm not sure I would necessarily agree with Martinvl's point as outside of the UK and Argentina, the Falklands are not an issue of any great importance. And anyone searching in the English language would be looking for Falklands.

I also understand Apcbg's point and do sympathise with it. However, we have consistently adopted a policy here of giving NPOV treatement to Spanish names, and for the record Martin, something not reflected in es.wikipedia eg [13]. I'd say lets maintain the moral high ground on wikipedia's mission here chaps. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As Martinvl and Cambalachero said the overwhelming mayority of people typing malvinas would be seeking this article. To user Apcbg i would like to reply: redirect are for solving problems like this. With Apcbg logic Los Angeles would not redirect to city in California because there is other small cities like Los Ángeles, Chile and Los Ángeles, Nicaragua. Chiton magnificus (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Your logic has a flaw, this being the English wikipedia, the vast majority of people searching for information on the Falklands would use the English name. Those seeking to use Malvinas would be searching on es.wikipedia. I generally find those searching for Malvinas here do so for ideological reasons in order to raise frivolous complaints of bias rather than a genuine search for information. At the moment they're disappointed and I suggest we keep it that way. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's pretty obvious to me that this article is the primary topic for Malvinas. While the Falklands dispute may not be considered particularly significant outside the UK and Argentina, I wouldn't be surprised if the Spanish Malvinas aren't considered particularly significant even in Ibiza. All other entries on Malvinas (disambiguation) are in Argentina and named after the Falklands. As this is the primary topic for Malvinas, Malvinas must redirect here.

The reason for the hatnote is effective navigation. The fact that someone who types "Malvinas" into the search box gets this article - and as per guidelines that's what should happen - makes us responsible for helping them get to what they want if they want something else called "Malvinas". This is why the hatnote is necessary. So far as I'm concerned neutrality isn't really relevant: if there was some other major topic for "Malvinas" then the "Malvinas" redirect would go somewhere else and a "Malvinas" hatnote wouldn't be needed. Pfainuk talk 11:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Here's an interesting point, though. The articles linked through Malvinas (disambiguation) actually have a lot more hits per month combined than the dab page and Malvinas. In fact, Malvinas Argentinas Partido actually has more hits per month than the dab page on its own. This suggests to be that Malvinas really ought to redirect to the dab page, not the Falklands article. Which makes sense, if you think about it - users of en.wiki are unlikely to be typing "Malvinas" into the search box to find the article on the Falklands, as they will be quite aware that's not what it's likely to be called here. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Your logic has a flaw, this being the English wikipedia, the vast majority of people searching for information on the Falklands would use the English name. Wikipedia in English is not meant to be so solely for English native speakers. People seeking information in English about the islands from other countries (for example China) might know the islands under the Spanish name. Chiton magnificus (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite has a very interesting point. Guidelines would dictate that Malvinas redirect to the disambiguation rather than the Falklands, which surprises me immensely. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

They might, but the page hits suggest that the majority aren't - and we should be catering for the majority of those readers. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We should probably follow guidelines I agree. I would also point out that if you're seeking information in English you'd use the English name. I find the argument they "might" use the Spanish name unpersuasive as the two are used in tandem in all official publications (except in Argentina but even there I believe they know the name). Are we arriving at a proposal to modify the disambiguation per guidelines or shall we follow WP:IAR? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the situation with the hits numbers? Apcbg (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

When looking at hit numbers we must ask two questions:

• Which entry has the largest number of hits?
• Is this difference statistically significant?

I checked the figures and found the number of hits in the last 30 days to be (the uncertainty is the square root of the number concerned):

• Malvinas Argentinas Partido - 405±20
• Malvinas - 391±19
• Mavlinas (disambiguous) - 276±16

I added the uncertaintly range for each number as this is used to give a quick approximation to standard deviation of the number concerned.

We can see that the range of hits for Malvinas Argentinas Partido and Malvinas overlap (ie the value of 400 lies within the range for each of the two entries). We can therefore say "The difference in the number of hits that each artcile receives is statistically insignificant compared to the actual number of hits taken". However there is "clear water" between the number of hits taken by the article "Malvinas (disambiguous)" and the other two articles. My conclusion therefore is that in round figures, the disambiguous article receives 70% of the number of hits that the other two receive.Martinvl (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Does this mean, then, that it would be about 115 hits (391-276) which by typing 'Malvinas' are actually looking for the 'Falkland Islands' article? If so, then probably it might be appropriate to have 'Malvinas' directing to the disambiguation page; it has less hits than the 'Malvinas Argentinas Partido' article but the latter's title is not exactly 'Malvinas'. Best, Apcbg (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hitnumbers are to looked at with contention. Rediects and links from pages in Wikipedia does not the reflect the unique number of people actually seeking the disam, but the number of people that have arrived there. Chiton magnificus (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. And given that from all the English Wikipedia articles it is only the 'Falkland Islands' one that links to the 'Malvinas (disambiguation)' article, and it would be very rare for someone to type 'Malvinas (disambiguation)', it seems more than likely that most people arrive to the disambiguation page by way of the 'Falkland Islands' article. That's why I made the substraction above. Or am I wrong? Apcbg (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a google search of "Malvinas" (187,000,000 hits), googlebooks search of "Malvinas" (121,000 hits), and other notable organizations such as the CIA World Factbook ([14]), all relate to the Falklands Islans should be taken into account. And to avoid any loopholes on this case, an Enligsh-only search of "Malvinas" has 126,000,000 hits (circa 70% of the general analysis).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that 'Malvinas' may relate to the Falkland Islands we already knew, and that's been taken into account by giving the Spanish name in the lede. Apcbg (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources are English articles, that's the point.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually before people start climbing on their high horses bandying unfounded accusations of bias on en.wikipedia, lets review how this is treated on es.wikipedia [15]. I find that the treatment there does not sit well with the wiki foundation's policy of portraying a neutral point of view. The word Falklands gets mentioned once and there are certainly no disambiguation links. Rather surprising given Las Islas Falkland[16] is still a common Spanish term for the islands.

I wish to make it plain that the treatment already given here is in line with NPOV and in many ways goes beyond that. I also do not find accusations of bias to be compatible with WP:AGF. And accusations of bias seem intended to shut down discussion not facilitate it. So can we please put aside nationalist ideals and follow wiki guidelines.

The discussion here is how best to deal with the issue of disambiguation pages. Thanks to Argentina's habit of naming stadiums, airports etc after Las Malvinas, we now have a situation where the most common search is unrelated to this article. Per policy, this means that the disambiguation should go to the page with the most hits first - which would be the stadium. So the discussion is whether to modify the disambiguation or alternatively follow WP:IAR. I don't have a strong opinion either way but as a result of comments and logical argument in favour of modifying disambiguation I am leaning in that direction. I would need logical argument to sway me toward IAR not accusations of bias, which I and others should simply ignore. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster said "we now have a situation where the most common search is unrelated to this article". Solid proof of that statement would be of great help, if there is. Chiton magnificus (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a case where WP:IAR should be used. To the mainstream English encyclopedias, "Malvinas" is always going to be related to the Falkland Islands (To the point that the term "Malvinas War" is also used). It's not a matter of insult or bias, but that's just how it is. Argentina can name whatever it want "Malvinas", but the fact that the names are all a reference to the islands simply serves to further consolidate the term "Malvina's" (as island-related) importance.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The most hits on Malvinas stem from Malvinas Argentinas Partido, it isn't particularly helpful to demand "proof" when it it has already been provided above. I would appreciate it, if you were to begin to assume good faith. I noted above that I didn't have strong feelings but when people start to personalise the issue my attitude will tend to harden in the opposite direction.

And in response to MarshalN20, you seem to be missing the point. If you're looking to disambiguate "Malvinas" then you have a disambiguation page, we already include the Argentine toponymy. Whether we need to have "Malvinas" link directly to the Falkland Islands article or to the disambiguation page is the issue. Also given that Malvinas currently redirects here, do we need to have the disambiguation page link here given the links there are unrelated to the islands. Please comment on the issue, not raise tangential ones.

May I also ask you both a blunt question, whether you would be prepared to go to the es.wikipedia and argue for equal treatment of the English toponymy - something currently lacking? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The number of web page hits is only of interest with modern or popular-culture topics, such as recent movies. When we talk about topics that made it to the scholar books, that's what we should consider, and I really doubt we will find any results for Malvinas at Google books (not general Google) that is not about the islands. Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names advises to work with Google Books rather than mere Google whenever possible, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic? that educational value takes priority over recentism, specially when dealing with Vital Articles (and this one is listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded) Cambalachero (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the "redirect issue" should be keept as it is first by the conserns raised by Apcbg and me and second by the arguments put forward by Marshall. More hits on Friday (Rebecca Black song) than of Friday will not change the fact the Friday is the primary meaning. The same applies for Malvinas. Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Web page hits are irrelevant, it's English Wiki hits that matter when we consider redirects. Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names deals with article titles, and we are not discussing the title 'Falkland Islands' of this article either. As for Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?, it says "when a reader enters that term in the Search box" not in the Google books search. Apcbg (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This now has very little to do with the original comment about the name being offensive. Maybe you guys should make a new heading for clarity. Ciao!--Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added one. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

When I said "Web page hits", I precisely meant the hits of the pages within wikipedia (either articles, disambiguations or redirects; in a broader sense they are all web pages). The problem with our own internal page hits is that it is not a stable measure. There are many factors, both within and from outside wikipedia, that may raise or lower the number of views to any given page. For example, an article where a user or group of users is actively working on its expansion will be "viewed" far more times than an article written sometime and left abandoned Cambalachero (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that other entries on the dab page get more hits than Malvinas. But if I was searching for Malvinas Argentinas Partido or the town of Malvinas Argentinas in Córdoba Province, I would be inclined to look for Malvinas Argentinas, not for Malvinas. The raw number of people going to each place is useful but we have to be careful with it.

By way of example, Thom Yorke gets about 50% more hits every day than York city. Both are linked from York (disambiguation). But it's not really credible that the primary topic for "York" should be the Radiohead singer because you'd be unlikely to type in "York" when looking for him. We have it the right way round there, even though a user typing "York" looking for Thom Yorke has to go through the dab page to get there.

Thus my feeling is that, while the statistics are relevant, they do not persuade me that the redirect here isn't appropriate. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point, and for the reference of others, the above is an example of how to construct a persuasive argument rather than screaming about bias. I can also see Apcbg's point in that there are so many places named Malvinas in Argentina now, that the primary search is now less likely to be about the Falkland Islands; more likely a football stadium given the obession with the game. But as I've said on several occasions I have no strong feelings either way. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Pfainuk, perhaps we could leave aside for the moment possible proposals that have not actually been proposed ('Malvinas Argentinas Partido', 'Malvinas Argentinas' etc.), and consider the proposal that has been made, namely for ‘Malvinas’ to lead to the ‘Malvinas’ disambiguation page?

As far as I can see it, the guidelines say that:

(1) “A topic is primary for a term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box.”

and

(2) “If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page etc.”

The hits statistics provided here seems to demonstrate that there is no primary topic for the term ‘Malvinas’ in the sense of (1). ‘Falkland Islands’ is not more likely than all the others combined to be the subject being sought when a reader enters ‘Malvinas’ in the Search box, for the ratio is 115 : 276.

Therefore, according to (2) ‘Malvinas’ ought to lead to ‘Malvinas (disambiguation)’. Best, Apcbg (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Support Proposal to change the disambiguation. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

For info, I've just gone through statistics for the whole year 1 September 2010 through 31 August 2011. During that period Malvinas got 6364 hits, Malvinas (disambiguation) 4788. The largest monthly gap was June 2011 (881 vs. 473); the smallest was October 2010 (490 vs. 481). I am deliberately excluding September 2011 to avoid the figures being biased by this discussion. Full data collapsed here:

Full breakdown month by month
Month Malvinas Malvinas (disambiguation) September 2010 501 355 October 2010 490 481 November 2010 493 415 December 2010 516 406 January 2011 459 442 February 2011 492 391 March 2011 483 420 April 2011 651 455 May 2011 471 311 June 2011 881 473 July 2011 514 326 August 2011 413 313

But I'm not convinced that those raw numbers tell the whole story. On seven out of the 31 days in August 2011 (6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 24 and 26 August), Malvinas (disambiguation) actually got more hits than Malvinas did. Of those, 8 August saw the largest difference: 24 vs. 17. Taking October 2010 (the month with the smallest difference), I find twelve such days - the largest difference being 22 Ocotber which saw 27 visits to Malvinas (disambiguation) but only 18 to Malvinas.

Given this it seems to me that the assumption that all traffic to Malvinas (disambiguation) comes from people searching for "Malvinas", while apparently logical, does not seem necessarily to hold. The data is clearly relevant, of course, but I'm not sure it's quite as conclusive as the headline figure might suggest.

I am not hugely bothered by this. If it ends up going to the dab page, it ends up going to the dab page. But my preference is for the status quo. Pfainuk talk 20:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Like Pfainuk, I am not going to get excited one way or the other and like him, I support maintaining the status quo. Martinvl (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I somehow fail to see a greater number of 'Malvinas (disambiguation)' hits as an argument for not directing 'Malvinas' there. However, if the majority of people here are motivated by considerations other than facilitating user navigation (which ought to guide us in the matter of redirects, I believe), then so be it. Apcbg (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose As pointed, this article is the primary topic of the word "Malvinas". See the search in google books. I have checked up to the 10º page of results, and they are all about the islands, none of them is about some other place named Malvinas. Article view stadistics are not a stable measure. Besides, reliable sources take priority over wikipedia itself, and even if that wasn't the case, article view stadistics would still have the flaw of reporting the usage within a single source, the Wikipedia project, dismissing real world usage.

By the way, the search also points that, contrary to the original claims of this thread, the "Faklands (Malvinas)" or "Faklands / Malvinas" expressions are not discriminative, but a widespread usage. Perhaps not the majority one, but one spread enough, that was not made up here for NPOV concerns. Cambalachero (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And your BTW, its raising a red herring, the original claim of the preceding thread was debunked long ago. Please don't raise irrelevant issues. We're discussing disambiguation here not naming. In addition, the formulation of your Google search has the rather obvious flaw of the outcome being determined by your search terms. Pfainuk has analysed actual hits, which should guide how disambiguation should be implemented. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The terms are "Malvinas -wikipedia". Just the word "Malvinas", excluding wikipedia results. As we are considering wich is the primary topic associated to the mere word "Malvinas" (and, thus, where should that word point), that's exactly what we should search for. Cambalachero (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, Confirmation bias is all you see. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's just confirmation. Confirmation bias is based on a selective use of sources; but seaching in Google books search in several sources at once. The internal stadistics of wikipedia are, from an out-of-wikipedia perspective, just based on a single source. A source that is not a valid source for wikipedia, by the way. f you think Google books is umbalanced with pro-Argentine books, suggest another tool to search usage at multiple reliable sources. If you do not like the terms proposed for the search, suggest which ones would be better Cambalachero (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

---

It would be nice for everyone to present their stance directly. Wee Curry Monster is not a neutral editor and has an obvious preference in favor of the redirect, but keeps trying to pretend otherwise. To his question: "May I also ask you both a blunt question, whether you would be prepared to go to the es.wikipedia and argue for equal treatment of the English toponymy - something currently lacking?"

1. The Spanish WP is not of my interest. Its rules are far below the standard of the English WP.
2. What does the Spanish WP have to do with the discussion here? IMO, the question raised by Curry clearly demarcates his thoughts on the matter ("equal treatment"). The WP project doesn't run on revenge for whatever other websites do or don't do.

My stance: I am in favor of keeping the status quo.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose redirecting Malvinas into Malvinas (dismbiguation) due to 1) concerns on the validity of the wikipedia and google hit "methodology" to infer relevance and primary meaning (see mine, Cambalachero and Apcbg comments above), 2) "Equal treatment" and comparisons with the Spanish wikipedia are nonsence (see MarshalN20's comments). Chiton magnificus (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I will expect an apology for that remark forthwith, the comment has nothing whatsoever to do with "revenge" but the fact that both of you have come here alleging this proposal stems from bias - yet you're not prepared to use your language skills to redress bias in other areas of the wiki project. As to my neutrality, I've been accused on being pro-Argentine by the Brits and pro-Brit by the Argentines. My stance was actually nearly ambivalent but I am now firmly in Apcbg's camp. As to the opposes, one comes with no argument, the other other ignores policy. Consensus is about strength of argument not bloc voting to prevent change. Bad tempered bad faith accusations against other editors will not convince. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

1. You still keep pushing your vengeful attitude. "Because site A behaves badly, this site should show the same bad behavior". That's not an argument, it's a rant.
2. I don't care what the British or Argentineans may or may not call you. I haven't accused you of national bias.
3. Your stance has never been ambivalent, and your silly threats about "changing camps" scare no one.

You can keep showing your WP stats, but those become irrelevant in the face of what more relevant searches (GoogleBooks) demonstrate.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK you had a chance to apologise, I'll be taking this to WQA.

I changed my mind because I see logical argument in favour of one proposal and nothing but personal attacks and accusations of bias in the other. If I see someone taking that approach, then this leads me to conclude that person does not have a cogent counter argument. I approached this from a NPOV and have been swayed by the argument. We're basing disambiguation and redirects on the basis of the hits on various articles, guided by policy. If you have a decent logical argument bring it to the party but quite the pointless accusations. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal (withdrawn)

Withdrawn, collapsed for practical purposes. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Malvinas -> Malvinas (Disambiguation). Islas Malvinas -> Falkland Islands. Logical argument. I expect anyone opposing to present a counter argument 1. Most hits on Malvinas alone are not related to the Falklands but various other places in Argentina. This will take any visitor to the page they're looking for quicker. 2. Anyone searching for Islas Malvinas is obviously looking for the Falkland Islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose, as stated before. "Hits" are meaningless: Wikipedia is a single source, and even a source that can not be used by wikipedia itself. On the contrary, a search in Google Books, linked above (which searches in several sources, and can not be accused of having an umbalanced selection of books for either perspective in the sovereignty dispute) shows that "Malvinas" is universally used in refence to this article, not to any other. So far, WCM has avoided to adress the issue of what would be actually wrong with the Google Book search, or refute the critics I formulated against the page view stadistics as an indication of worldwide usage Cambalachero (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Hits are very much relevant - the purpose of tweaking the redirects and disambiguation is to get people to where they're searching for faster. Nothing is being suppressed, nothing is being hidden. As for Google Books searches, so what, see WP:GOOGLEHITS. You're approaching the whole thing as if we're trying to hide that Argentina has a bee in its collective bonnet about the name Malvinas. I see no criticism from you on the hit statistics that is either logical or relevant to the discussion. This proposal is about getting people to the article they want faster and only that. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC) GOOGLEHITS has nothing applicable to this discussion, as it talks about discussions on notability. In fact, that section makes it clear that the problems are with the basic google search, not with tools like Google Books (the one I used). By the way, I do not like comments suggesting that I may want to "hide" information", so please apologize and do not talk about me but about the things I said and nothing more Cambalachero (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC) I am discussing your attempt at a logical argument and nothing more. I have not made any such remark, so I will not apologise and I expect you to withdraw the accusation. You're approaching this as a discussion about notability, which is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Google book searches are just as flawed as any google search, since the results are predicated by search terms and all you'll see is Confirmation bias. Please address the arguments and stop claiming your Google Searches are inately superior to any logical argument. They're irrelevant to this discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose. As demonstrated by the GoogleBooks search, "Malvinas" is a term primarily relevant to the Falkland Islands. Just as "Falklands" redirects to the Falkland Islands, the term "Malvinas" should redirect to the Falkland Islands. "Islas Malvinas" already redirects to this article. It doesn't contribute anything in favor to your proposal. All other uses of the term "Malvinas" are derived from the islands. Point 1 has been repeated several times, and is by far the strongest point out of everything in this discussion.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC) WP:GOOGLEHITS. Point 1 is of no relevance. We're not talking about coverage of the topic, we're talking about tweaking the redirect to make searches more efficient. Why? We don't have a million places named after the Falklands. We have plenty in Argentina named after the "Malvinas". Not relevant, the point is about being efficient on people searching for information on a topic that includes the term "Malvinas". The fact that so many places now include the name, is the reason why Malvinas should go to the disambiguation page Your argument actually acts in favour of the proposal in this respect. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Support Simply put there is more then one place called Malvinas, so it seems to be you take them to a disambig page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC) There is more than one place, but the other (a group of islands and rocks of Ibiza) doesn't have an article. All of the others are subtly different (generally variations on the themes Islas Malvinas and Malvinas Argentinas), so I don't really buy this argument. Pfainuk talk 17:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry there appears top be a few places with malvinas in the title, some of which have wiki entries.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Sure, but as I noted in the discussion above, this doesn't mean that they are called Malvinas alone. Similarly, if you were looking up Cape York, you probably wouldn't search for York, and if you were looking for Virginia Beach, you probably wouldn't search for Virginia. Pfainuk talk 18:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Support The hit numbers seem to show that other uses are more prevalent by those searching on en.wikipedia.org. Our basis for primary topic is what users are likely to want when they type the phrase into the search box, not on google hits. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Support Seems perfectly logical based on all the evidence, it's not perfect but it's preferable. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Weak Oppose, essentially because I haven't been persuaded by the arguments in favour. This is the only article on Wikipedia that actually refers to something called Malvinas. All other usages with articles are named using Islas Malvinas (two stadia and an airport), Malvinas Argentinas (two localities, a stadium and an airport) or is March of the Malvinas (the name of a song). The statistics show that other uses are more prevalent, but do not demonstrate that people search for them by looking for Malvinas, as opposed to (for example) Malvinas Argentinas or Islas Malvinas Stadium. I think it is legitimate to suggest that most readers wanting those articles would use more appropriate search terms. I'd add that IMO, the conclusion drawn that most people who go to Malvinas click through to Malvinas (disambiguation) is not necessarily implied by the figures that we have seen - because this is based on the assumption (that I do not believe is valid) that all hits at Malvinas (disambiguation) come from editors who were redirected through Malvinas. I'd finally add that I also don't really buy the Google Books argument. We should be basing this on user convenience. But I am not persuaded that user convenience means pointing this at a dab page. I'm not saying no, nay, never, but I am unconvinced. Pfainuk talk 17:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC) They care called the Islas Malvinas are they not?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Great, now I'm thinking of changing my mind....*Twiddles her fingers*...man you guys...I mean ahem. All. Erm. Good yes. We need more voters! Who understand it of course.--Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) My point is that they are no more called just the Malvians then the Islas Malvinas Stadium is. That ther a a few pages and places called malvians, of which the Falkland Islands are just one.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC) They are. If you refer to Malvinas, you're referring either to the Falklands or a small set of islands and rocks off Ibiza (without an article). You aren't referring to a stadium in Mendoza or an airport in Rosario. Pfainuk talk 18:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Pfainuk, the logical flaw in your argument is that you presume a searcher is aware of the sovereignty issue and the Falkland Islands dispute. Outside of the UK and Argentina, knowledge of the conflict is patchy and many are ignorant of it. Someone from outside the UK and Argentina searching for Malvinas Argentinas Partido for example would likely simply search using Malvinas. The page hit statistics bear this out. Most people searching for Malvinas appear to go onto the disambiguation page to find the topic of interest. The proposal is to make that search more efficient for wikipedia's users. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC) So, there is people in the world who has not even heard about a dispute that caused an international war and keeps causing diplomatic discussions, but they do have heard about a tiny subdivision of the Buenos Aires province or about a local stadium? It does not make sense Cambalachero (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC) You do relaise the Falklands War was 30 years ago, most people in the world weren't even born. As regards diplomatic discussions, the fact that Argentina keeps raising it in international forums, the international symposium on venereal disease for example, may be good for the press in Argentina but doesn't make headlines anywhere else. This may be shocking to you but it isn't a topic of much interest elsewhere. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC) It is not shocking, I'm well aware of that. I know that's there even people who can not locate Buenos Aires in the map. That's not the point: the point is that a minor subdivision of a province, or the stadium of a team that never played international tournaments and hardly manages to stay in the main league, are even more obscure topics than that. To say that people who does not know about the Malvinas dispute would have interest in the article about the partido or the stadium, or even know about their existence, is patent nonsense. Cambalachero (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry to burst your bubble but you're wrong about that. It really is not that relevant to most of the world. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC) @Slater, In Spanish, the islands are commonly referred to as "Las Malvinas" (Passing in English lexicon as "Malvinas", dropping the "las"). Based on your argument, the term "Falklands" should not redirect to the "Falkland Islands". All other references to the term "Malvinas" are derived from the name used for the islands, which only serves to solidify the importance of the name "Malvinas" in reference to the islands. Based on this second argument, "London" should redirect to "London (disambiguation)" due to all of the different names derived from the English capital. As Pfainuk writes, "If you refer to Malvinas, you're referring either to the Falklands or a small set of islands and rocks off Ibiza". @Pfainuk, the GoogleBooks argument is meant to demonstrate that in Academia, "Malvinas" is primarily associated with the Falklands. The basic question here is whether Wikipedia will follow Academia or not. As open to the public as Wikipedia may be, it's primary purpose remains that of informing individuals seeking to learn (students, scholars).--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Falklands does not bring up any hits of a disambig page, falkland does, which (if you search for it) takes yo straight to the disambig page, not the falkdlands page. So its not the same, Malvinas is not a plural is it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Malvinas is plural. The singular term "Malvina" (without the s) is nonexistent.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC) We're discussing redirects and disambiguation not topic coverage. The academia argument is not relevant. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Yes, we do. The organization of redirects and DABS is precisely based on coverage. Use within academic works, in a topic that is not recentism, has more weight than the habits of users within a single web page Cambalachero (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry but have you actually read the policy, your comments demonstrate an ignorance of WP:Disambiguation. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Support — Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Apcbg (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Please, elaborate more than that. Discussions are not straw polls, and just pointing at a guideline does not really say anything. In fact, the example of the city of Danzig seems to apply to this case Cambalachero (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC) In reality, if this was a non-controversial page there wouldn't even be a straw poll. Policy would just be used. So I'm in agreement with that, elaborate more. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC) [17] Based on improved information I'm going to withdraw my proposal. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose, as contrary to reader traffic. The pageview stats show that about half, of 20-per-day Malvinas readers, stay at article "Falkland Islands" and the remainder, as 11-per-day, view "Malvinas (disambiguation)" so the reader-vote is "45%~50%" for the islands, to keep the redirect to them. I have reviewed pageview stats for 3 years. Meanwhile, "Malvinas Argentinas Partido" has been read an average of only 10x times per day, and already has redirect "Malvinas Argentinas" used 3x per day, so there is NOT an overwhelming mass of people trying to select the Partido article. When the pageviews, per day, are this low, it is impossible to rule out curiosity, of readers who really came to read "Malvinas" as the islands, but some were curious and viewed other articles when they really came just for the Falkland Islands. Anyway, the evidence shows that most readers just view the Falkland Islands. If fact, when comparing the stats, day by day, the more people who view "Malvinas" then the fewer who view "Malvinas (disambiguation)", on the same day, as if when most people state "Malvinas" they intend to read about the Islands only. By comparison, the direct pageviews of "Falkland Islands" average over 2,000 per day, so we know readers want that subject, and we cannot measure the count of people who entered "Malvinas" for the partido and were happy to read about the Islands on the way to the disambiguation page. Hence, all those factors indicate the Islands are the main interest for word "Malvinas" which should remain redirected to Falkland Islands. -Wikid77 21:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC) I'd withdrawn the proposal already, following your analysis. Thank you for your time, it was very helpful. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 21:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC) This really isn't just about "your proposal," but rather ending the whole discussion. Based on the information, the usage of "Malvinas" as a direct redirect to this article is correct. The status quo prevails.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC) My proposal was withdrawn based on improved information, presented logically as an argument. Contrast this with your attitude of personal attacks, unfounded accusations of bias and rather foolish accusations of acting out of "revenge". This lead not unreasonably to a presumption you had no cogent counter argument to the proposal. You can either learn the lesson or continue in the same manner, which will ultimately lead to your being blocked from editing wikipedia. This is a co-operative endeavour. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Your condescending attitude is somewhat amusing.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Just a couple of notes. “Anyway, the evidence shows that most readers just view the Falkland Islands” – well 45% is less than “most”. “In fact, when comparing the stats, day by day, the more people who view "Malvinas" then the fewer who view "Malvinas (disambiguation)", on the same day, as if when most people state "Malvinas" they intend to read about the Islands only” – this seems a little bit fallacious way of drawing a conclusion. Indeed, “the more people who view "Malvinas" then the fewer who view "Malvinas (disambiguation)"” is equivalent to “the more people who view "Malvinas (disambiguation)" then the fewer people who view "Malvinas"”. None of these implies that when most people state "Malvinas" they do or do not intend to read about the Islands only. As for stats, according to the numbers provided by Pfainuk, there have been 6364 hits for ‘Malvinas’ and 4788 for ‘Malvinas (disambiguation)’ during the last 12 months. According to the statistics provided by Wikid77, 45% of the ‘Malvinas’ hits are seeking the ‘Falkland Islands’ article. This makes it about 2864 ‘Malvinas’ hits seeking the ‘Falkland Islands’ article vs. 4788 ‘Malvinas (disambiguation)’ hits. It might be helpful if we could know what articles did those 4788 visitors of ‘Malvinas (disambiguation)’ view. Best, Apcbg (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC) [18]. This pretty much completely ends the discussion. No need for statistics. The naming convention for this article had already been established, and the term "Malvinas" properly identified. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 06:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose We curry Monster andother users are giving far to much weight to Google hits while and I would like to warn you all google is not an interface to reality, nor an oracle to consult on naming issues. It can yet be useful but common sence should prevail. Also as Cambalachero said: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic? [says] that educational value takes priority over recentism, specially when dealing with Vital Articles (and this one is listed) -Chiton magnificus (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC) I withdrew my proposal already, I did it yesterday more than 12 hrs ago. I did so based on the analysis and argument from Wikid77. Can I ask whether you actually read any of the discussion? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Lede sentence, Spanish name for the islands?

I'm placing this above the (very interesting!) kerfluffle below because it's a minor unrelated point and I don't want jump into anything, but the current lede says:

• "The Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) are an archipelago..."

But the Spanish phrase given is not a translation but an alternate name. Shouldn't it be something like:

• "The Falkland Islands (Spanish: Las Islas Falkland), also called the Malvina Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas), are an archipelago..."

(Or actually I'm not sure you even need the translations, giving perhaps '"The Falkland Islands, also called the Islas Malvinas, are an archipelago...".) Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's traditional to include the translation of the terms. I like your first proposal ("The Falkland Islands (Spanish: Las Islas Falkland), also called the Malvinas Islands..."). I'm not sure if the Spanish term "Islas Falkland" is an actual translation ("Falkland" doesn't mean anything in Spanish); and if not then that may be an issue to consider. However, based on the discussion below, the term "Malvinas Islands" does have usage in English. As a side note, the discussion below is over, as far as I'm concerned, so perhaps it would be best if you moved this section below it. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish name for the islands is usually Las Islas Malvinas, though Las Islas Falkland is also used, particularly in places like Southern Chile. The mayor of Puerto Williams has received unwelcome attention recently for using the name in common local use as it is against "official" Chilean policy. It was commonly used in Argentina till the 1930s. I would suggest you need to include Las Islas Falkland as an alternative Spanish name. Though I wouldn't follow the text you suggest. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish language translation of "Falkland Islands" is not "Las Islas Malvinas". This would be true if and only if the proper translation of the word "Falkland" generally was "Mavlinas", so that, for instance, Falkland Palace would be properly rendered as Palacio de Malvinas and so forth. You see what I'm saying? It's a subtle distinction. (And anyway, "Falkland" is a proper name, and proper names are usually not translated (there are some exceptions, but even if this was one, the translation of "Falkland" would not be "Malvinas" but something like "La Tierra del Halcón" (assuming falk=falcon which is possibly true)).

What is true (I guess) is that nearly all English speakers and publications call it the "Falkland Islands" and nearly all Spanish speakers and publications call it "Las Islas Malvinas". That's an entirely different thing. (And even then, I'm sure that there are some English speakers and publications -- people who feel the Argentine claim has precedence and so forth -- who call the islands the "Malvina Islands" (or maybe it's "Malvinas Islands" in English, not sure), and conversely surely some Spanish speakers and publications use "Las Islas Falkland", for whatever reasons -- tradition (as pointed out above) or to show political opposition to the Argentine claim, or whatever.

So I understand it's a political hobbyhorse, but the point I'm making is not a political point (I couldn't care less about the islands) but a pedantic linguistic point. It's just wrong to say that English-language word "falkland" is translated as the Spanish word "malvinas". Minor, but let's get it right. I'll give it a go. It seems sensible to include the Spanish term first when referring to the Malivinas. It also seems sensible to say "or" rather than "also called", as the "also called" gives a subtle inference that the first term is preferable and we don't want to say that, so how about:

• "The Falkland Islands (Spanish: Las Islas Falkland) or Islas Malvinas (English: Malvina Islands), are an archipelago..."

Is this sufficiently neutral to please everyone, I hope, while also being linguistically accurate? (Oops, hmm. I see here are bunch of dire warnings that I will be blocked if I make this change and so forth. What's the deal with that? This is not good. I don't want to step on anyone's toes but I think we ought to get it right.) Herostratus (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard or seen "Malvina Islands" used anywhere, although I suppose it may be. I don't think it's wrong the way it is, but if not something like "The Falkland Islands, known in Spanish as Las Islas Malvinas, etc." Islas Falkland can be included too if still relevant. A little bit on this in the name section would be helpful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Malvinas Islands has fringe use, as such per WP:FRINGE we should not give it WP:UNDUE coverage. Islas Falkland is actually in reasonably common use in Chile (it was also in Argentina till the late 1930s). The dire warnings stem from early disputes where you had various fringe groups bringing conflict here. Toponymy is a sensitive area; my suggestion is that the only thing currently missing is the Spanish use of Las Islas Falkland. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.librarything.com/work/2587201 http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/es-en/islas%20falkland.php http://www.laprensaaustral.cl/cronica/molestia-argentina-provocan-los-dichos-de-alcalde-de-cabo-de-hor-5246 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Islas+Falkland&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#q=%22Islas+Falkland%22&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=0U2&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=ivnsm&ei=YTl2ToE-hdGEB7qevLQO&sqi=2&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d16b25ea8fe9988c&biw=1440&bih=708 http://www.guiarte.com/destinos/america-del-sur/islas-falkland.html So Islas Malvinas does not appear to be the Spanish translation of the Falkland Islands, but the Argentine name for them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

[19] The article linked on the left is an example of the pain you're going to bring if you attempt to suggest its just an Argentine name. Islas Malvinas is the common Spanish name but Islas Falkland has sufficient use to be considered. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

South American then,Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

@Herostratus, I agree with your proposal. However, only one minor error exists in it: "Malvinas" needs the "s". Apparently "Malvina" (without the "s") does exist, but its mention is far less common (320 GoogleBooks hits), than the mention of "Malvinas" (with the "s", holding 10,300 hits). @Chipmunk, I agree that this should be mentioned in the etymology section.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

We have already been through this in the past. Malvinas Islands has nothing but fringe use in the English language. As such it should not be included in the article lede. I strongly oppose the introduction of fringe terms. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with your position if more than two names existed for the islands, but given that they are simply 2 and both are used, no good reason exists as to why they should not be mentioned in the opening sentence. Using both English names further allows the mention of both Spanish terms, "Islas Falkland" and "Islas Malvinas". I honestly don't see what could be the problem.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It does seem a fairly rare name. I've heard people say Malvinas or even Islas Malvinas in English, but never Malvinas Islands. I have seen Islas Falklands though. I don't think Malvinas Islands has enough weight to go into the lead either, this isn't about equating Spanish and English at every opportunity. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Reminding everyone that this is a dispute that was one step away from Arbcom a few years ago, I strongly oppose the proposal. It gives far too much weight to the WP:FRINGE term Malvina(s) Islands, which is essentially never used in English.

Islas Malvinas or Malvinas is the standard name used in Spanish for the islands. The status quo most accurately reflects the way the languages are used in practice, and significantly allows for both POVs on naming to be stated without giving undue weight to fringe terms. Pfainuk talk 19:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how a term that has been in steady use within the English language since the 1830s qualifies as a "Fringe" term. "Malvinas Islands" reflects a name of both historical and modern importance. Herostratus' proposal is an improvement, and at no points does it discredit the name "Falkland Islands" (which is the article's title).

I also don't agree with the "Undue Weight" claim, as mentioning "Malvinas Islands" once in the lead and, maybe, again in the etymology is not taking much space from "Falkland Islands".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This claim that Malvinas "has been in steady use within the English language since the 1830s" is only accurate inasmuch as it wasn't significantly used then and isn't significantly used now. In modern English, referring to the islands as the "Malvinas" alone makes a political point. You propose essentially that we make that political point, a clear and direct violation of WP:NPOV.

You dismiss the point about its being undue weight, but do not explain why. This is unhelpful. I would suggest that it is reasonably obvious that treating a tiny minority usage as though it as common as the primary usage is plainly giving the tiny minority usage undue weight. Pfainuk talk 20:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that WP:FRINGE applies to this case as it is not promoting an ideology or theory. The name is also used as a reference to the conflict in the English language as "Malvinas War". While the term "Falklands Island" is obviously the most used name (hence the article title), no reason exists as to why the name "Malvinas Islands" should be hidden from the article.

I certainly did explain why I think WP:UNDUE would not be broken in this case. For one, the article's title is not being changed, and, secondly, the usage of "Malvinas Islands" would only be necessary in the opening sentence and in the etymology section. In no way does that created undue weight on its favor. In fact, the etymology section is where the matter can be better explained for the readers.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you don't propose to change the article title does not mean that it is not undue weight. Changing the article title would be worse undue weight. Your point that "the usage of "Malvinas Islands" would only be necessary in the opening sentence and in the etymology section" also does not mean it is not undue weight. You make no point here that states or suggests that what you propose is not severe undue weight to what is a tiny majority usage.

We are not allowed, per WP:UNDUE, to pretend that a tiny minority usage is anything like as prevalent as the overwhelming majority usage in English. You are proposing that we do exactly that. Due weight for "Malvinas" is what we give it in the status quo: recognition of Spanish usage, given the Argentine claim, and appropriate mention in the Name section. It does not mean misleading our readers by suggesting that "Malvinas Islands" in English is far more prevalent than it is in actual English-language usage.

And I note that in proposing this, because the use of Malvinas as an English-language name for the islands makes a political point, your wording makes that political point, signalling our support for Argentina's POV in the sovereignty dispute in the first sentence of this article. This is a clear and direct violation of WP:NPOV. Pfainuk talk 21:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

1. "Malvinas" is used in English lexicon, therefore it is a name adopted by the English-language since at least the 1830s.
2. Including the term "Malvinas Islands" in the opening sentence is in no way meant to "mislead our readers". Hiding the term and pretending it doesn't exist is indeed a form of misleading the readers.
3. Including the term "Malvinas Islands" a couple of times within the article does not justify your claim of it being "severe undue weight".
4. This doesn't have anything to do with politics. In fact, Herostratus proposal mentions nothing about politics, and considering he's not from either side there is no reason as to why his proposal should be accused of making a "political point".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Noone is objecting to placing it in the name section. However, nothing you have said has given any indication that Malvinas Islands has any sort of widespread realworld usage. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

People, we're losing track of the point raised by Herostratus, which was that "Islas Malvinas" is not a translation for "Falkland Islands", but an alternate name. I think we all agree on that. Whether the article needs the translations or not, and if it needs the English and Spanish translations or only one of them, is another matter. Regards. --Langus (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't significantly an alternate name in English. As I say, you would only ever use Malvinas as though it were an English word if you were actively trying to make a political point by it (so, it tends to be used by fringe political groups). The mere fact of treating Malvinas as a standard English-language name for the islands implies a strong POV.

Neutral English-language commentators will use "Falkland Islands" (or "Falklands") - except that they tend to mention "Malvinas" once in passing when discussing the dispute (this is also consensus practice on Wikipedia: see WP:NCGN#Falkland Islands).

There is no particular reason why the translation of a name has to be etymologically related to the name itself. The classic example would be the Names of Germany but there are plenty of others. Islas Malvinas in Spanish covers much of the same semantic ground as Falkland Islands in English, and as such they can reasonably be described as translations of one another. They don't cover identical ground, sure - this is hardly unusual in translation - but they are each the neutral term in use in their respective languages. I would also note that the translation is cited in the article. Pfainuk talk 17:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Common Spanish name

In any case I think the proper Spanish name is Islas Malvinas without the article (Las) just like the most common ways of refering to Argentina and Peru are just Argentina and Perú and not la Argentina and el Perú. Can we agree on this? Adding unnecessary articles seeems to be a very typical South American thing even so that known people are refered by their names with and article before (eg. la Daniela). Chiton magnificus (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we put a las in there at present, do we? I count this as equivalent to the "the" that one would put in front of "Falkland Islands" in English. Pfainuk talk 17:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Islas Malvinas

I am a native Spanish speaker, and without prejudice to which side one takes on the controversy, "Islas Malvinas" is how the Falkland Islands are referred to in Spainish. Even Latin American and other Spanish language sources which are pro-UK position say this. ES-Wiki says this. It is uncontroversial for most Spanish speakers, like saying "America" in English to refer to the USA.

What I am trying to raise here is an issue of translation: there are many other places in the world whose place name in Spanish is not a direct translation of the English name, even where there is no political controversy. For example, "Germany" is called "Alemania" in Spanish, which are different names with different origins for the same country.

"Malvinas Islands", however, is indeed a politically controversial, and that is that. Don't pull me into this war please, I am just trying to say, "Islas Falklands" is not commonly used.--Cerejota (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually Islas Falkland is commonly used in Chile for example. Argentina has taken the trouble in Mercosur and Unasur to lobby for Islas Malvinas to be adopted and enforced as an official name; hence the furore in Puerto Williams recently. Islas Falkland was even in common use in Argentina till the late 1930s; including use in the officially sanctioned geography texts. "Malvinas Islands" is not used in English at all, except by fringe groups who adopt it for an anti-British position. As fringe usage, we're guided by WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE, the concensus has always been not to include it. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

To add, I've just been introduced to a Google Search term that enables Google Books to be investigated to measure the prevalence of certain terms.

[20] Looks at Falkland Islands, Malvinas Island and Malvina Island over the period 1800 - 2008. This clearly shows Falkland Islands to be the overwhleming term used in the English language. Malvina(s) Island has virtually no use. Narrowing the period to the last 30 years shows no difference [21]. Restricing to British English [22] negligible. American English [23] negligible. Conclusion Falkland Islands is the correct English term to use. Malvina(s) Island has negligible fringe use, hence, according to the guidelines of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE it should not be included.

Turning now to the Spanish language. [24] shows the use of Islas Malvinas and Islas Falkland over the period 1800-2008. Islas Malvinas is the predominant Spanish term but Islas Falkland is a significant minority term. [25] narrowing to the last 30 years it remains a significant minority term, there are significant step changes such as in 1995 when several South American nations agreed to adopt Islas Malvinas following Argentine pressure. Conclusion Islas Malvinas is the predominant term used in Spanish. However, there is a significant minority use of Islas Falkland and as such we may consider including it on the basis of editorial judgement. I am aware from personal experience that it is used regularly in Southern Chile.

Recommendations is we keep Falkland Islands and Islas Malvinas as per current lede. We should not be considering the addition of Malvina(s) Island as its use is negligible. We should consider the addition of Islas Falkland as a minority use in the Spanish language. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering that there is more than one island in question, surely your search of "Malvinas Island" is flawed. Indeed, it is flawed, as demonstrated by my search of all three terms with "Islands" at the end (uppercase and "s") [26], and "islands" at the end (lowercase and "s") [27]. Neat little device. It demonstrates that (A) the terms "Malvina Islands" and "Malvinas Islands" together hold a strong usage in the English language, (B) "Falklands Island" is the dominant term (supporting the article title), but that "Malvinas Islands" holds relevance and should be included in the opening sentence and the etymology section.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WCM, I suggest you redo the search on the same google server using Malvina Islands, although frankly I highly doubt there'll be much difference at all. In fact, use "Malvina* Island*" to cover all options. Anyway, the lead should not contain any names which are extremely fringe and barely ever used. I agree with WCM, we definitely include Islas Malvinas, we definitely include Falkland Islands, we definitely don't include Malvina Islands, and Islas Falklands is up to editorial judgement. Of course, feel free to add any of them to the Name section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

[28] Repeat of the same search using Islands rather than the singular. This demonstrates a brief use of the term following the Falklands War, dying away until 2008 when it is no longer used to any significant extent. This reflects its use by fringe groups with an anti-British agenda immediately following the Falklands War. It has no usage whatsoever before that time [29]. Comparing relative usage of the terms Falkland Islands and Malvina(s) Islands, Malvina(s) is only used in a tiny fraction of cases reflecting its fringe use (You have to look at the scale on the left). Further, if you look outside of fringe material the use in mainstream English tends to reflect a translation of the Spanish Islas Malvinas as "Malvinas Island", rather than actual reference to an English name. Including Islas Malvinas and Malvinas Islands would be giving undue prominence to the term by referring to it twice. If you compare relative usage of Islas Malvinas and Islas Falkland [30], Islas Falkland has always had a minority usage but still significant relative to Islas Malvinas. My conclusions would essentially be the same. Falkland Islands is the English term, Islas Malvinas is the predominant Spanish term. Malvina(s) Island(s) is only used by fringe groups or as a translation of Islas Malvinas. Islas Falkland has a minority usage in Spanish and whether to include it is a matter for editorial judgement. Having looked at its usage on Google, there is a significant use of Islas Falkland as a translation of the English name but its also in common use in places like Southern Chile. There is a link above to the Puerto Williams story where the Mayor has been censored for using the term Islas Falkland in a radio interview. [31] includes an analysis of Argentine school texts by Carlos Escude, out of 31 text books, 7 referred to the Falklands up to 1941. After 1941 it was expunged from official texts. 22% of Argentine text books referred to Islas Falkland up till 1941, demonstrating a persistent minoriy usage in Spanish. The fact that Mercosur and Unasur have had to officially adopt the name Islas Malvinas and ban the use of Islas Falklands shows there is a significant usage and it is not a fringe term. I'll leave whether Islas Falkland is added to editorial judgement but its clear Malvinas Islands is not an English term and should not be given prominence in the lede. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would love to see a reliable source which explicitly states that "Malvinas Islands" is used by "fringe groups with an anti-British agenda". So far is has only been WCM making this claim without providing anything reliable to actually back it up. "Malvinas Islands" is indeed an English term; it's incredible how easy it is to pretend that it is not. Nobody is claiming that the term "Malvinas Islands" holds more usage than "Falkland Islands," but it has enough relevance to be included at least twice in the article (once in lead, second in etymology).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you give examples of organisation/people/countries that use that term in English? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We have been through the ringer on this before, see Archive 3 and Archive 4. You'll find its the Socialist Workers Party and other fringe groups that use Malvinas Islands but this is not mainstream English usage. The onus is on the proposer to demonstrate its English etymology with reliable sources, rather than fringe use and a literal translation of Islas Malvinas as previous discussions have found. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Yearbook of the United Nations, 1985 (Pp. 1132-1136). Does the United Nations hold an "anti-British agenda"?
2. Wayne Smith, Toward resolution?, 1991, (Various Pages): "At this time, the United Kingdom included forty-three territories on its list, among them the Malvinas Islands [...]". Does Wayne Smith hold an "anti-British agenda"?
3. Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Barbara Kwiatkowska, Harm Dotinga, International Organizations and the Law of the Sea, 2001 (Pp. 153-154): "Argentina has made to promote dialogue and a peaceful and definitive solution to the question of the Malvinas Islands, its commitment to respect the way of life of the inhabitants of the Malvinas". Does the Netherlands Institute for the Law at Sea hold an "anti-British agenda"?

I really don't understand why such a big deal is made against a simple term with no political agenda. As Herostratus proposed it, the purpose was to include the appropiate translations for each of the terms. Just as "Malvinas Islands" is an English term with a relevant amount of usage, "Islas Falklands" is a Spanish term with similar amount of usage.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

@WCM, you are still not providing a reliable source which explicitly backs up your claim. So far you have been making personal conclusions (breaking WP:OR). If groups such as the SWP use the term, it does not make it a fringe term. Given that argument, any term that these people use would qualify as a fringe term; it's completely absurd! I repeat, please provide a reliable source which explicitly backs up your claim. Just one, and I promise to stop arguing this case.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The first source is quoting Argentina (and yeah, it probably does have an anti-British agenda!) and uses Falkland Islands in other areas. As for Wayne Smith, I think he probably does have a bias, evidenced by his statement "Great Britain sent a royal dispatch designating a governor of the Malvinas Islands (or Falkland Islands, as the British call them)" on page 55. As for the Netherlands book, it's quoting a letter written by Argentina for goodness sake. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Further to Chimpmunk's comment, further analysis shows all 3 sources quoted are in fact quoting Argentine Government sources. Whilst individual authors may not have an Anti-British agenda on the Falklands, I think most would agree that the Argentine Government Agenda is fundamentally at odds with the British and its translation represent a political rather than a neutral position.

The sources above do not demonstrate the Malvinas Islands are English etymology or a standard English term.

1. Yearbook of the United Nations, 1985 (Pp. 1132-1136). The source is quoting an Argentine text translated into English. Malvinas Island represents a literal translation of Islas Malvinas not an English language term. Clearly the translation is political here, representing an Argentine viewoint - hence my earlier comment that to include both is giving undue prominence to the Argentine claim.
2. Wayne Smith, Toward resolution?, 1991, (Various Pages) The pages refer to represent the Argentine political position, again a literal translation of the Argentine term into English.
3. Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Barbara Kwiatkowska, Harm Dotinga, International Organizations and the Law of the Sea, 2001 (Pp. 153-154). Again a literal transaltion into English of the Argentine political position.

None demonstrate that it is used in the English language. As I have previously pointed out, where we see Malvinas Islands it is a translation of the Spanish term not an English language term. The assertion the use of this term is not political I do not find persuasive; it clearly is used for political reasons as demonstrated by these sources. And again, the previous discussion concluded its use in the English language was by fringe groups. That is a pre-existing consenus position as demonstrated in the archives I have already referenced.

Analysis has demonstrated that Malvinas Islands is not a standard English term, it is either a fringe political use or alternatively a literal translation. The request was for a reliable source to demonstrate its use in English etymology, all that has been provided are examples with use as a translation, where the common English word is not used for entirely political reasons.

Analysis has also demonstrated Islas Falkland has a minority usage in Spanish, there is a difference between how the two are used - indeed at one point it was even used in Argentina. The only question I really see is whethere it is sufficiently often used to merit inclusion as minority usage. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I go back to WP:OR. Please provide just one reliable source which agrees with your personal conclusions, and that will be the end of this discussion.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

9,940 books exist which use the term in English ([32]). The assumption that approximately 9,940 books hold a political agenda against the United Kingdom is really quite interesting.--15:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

My earlier comment was "fringe political use or alternatively a literal translation of the Spanish language". I've made this point several times. It is not an English language term as shown by the analysis above. I've also pointed you to the previous discussion concerning fringe use. QED Wee Curry Monster talk 16:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why can you not provide a single source which can back up your position? Other editors would demand a long list of reliable sources, but I only ask for one. Why is this difficult?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't need to. Per WP:V, the onus is on the person wishing to add content to justify it, and in this case that would be you. You need to back up the claim that you wish to make (by implication) in the article that Malvinas or Malvinas Islands, taken alone, sees significant usage in English, and you haven't done that yet. Pfainuk talk 17:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated by the amount of books (in GoogleBooks) that the term does have a consistent usage in the English language as another way to name the islands. It is not a made-up term, it is not a political term (even if people with agenda use it), and it is not an insult. "Malvinas Islands" is nothing more than a second name for the islands (taking the Spanish name, which in turn took the French name of the islands). It's a historical name of relevant usage and deserves a mention of it in the article. In that sense, I agree with the editor who proposed including it in the opening sentence.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. Just looking at the first page, we have 7 sources using the diplomatic constructions such as Falklands (Malvinas) Islands (which are already mentioned in the article), two which quote official statements of the Argentine government and one that is an Argentine source outright setting out to "disprove" the British claim. This does not demonstrate any relevant usage of the name in English. Keep going through and you keep with the same story.

I note in passing that WP:NCGN gives a guideline of 10% of English-language sources for a name to be considered relevant. It is patently obvious that the area under the Falkland Islands curve here is far more than ten times larger than the area under the Malvinas Islands curve - and that applies even when you disregard the fact that the Malvinas Islands curve appears in fact to be mostly sources using the aforementioned diplomatic Falkland (Malvinas) Islands usage (which, as I say, is already mentioned in the article). Pfainuk talk 09:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Islas Falkland

Textual analysis has demonstrated Islas Falkland has minority use in the Spanish language. Can we start a discussion as to whether this merits reference to the term in the article or not. [33] is a recent reference to its use in Southern Chile and [34] shows it used in Argentina up to 1941. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It holds as much merit as "Malvinas Islands".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not true at all. It appears to actually be used sometimes, as was historically the actual common Spanish name. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Both graphs show similarities ([35], and [36]). Both terms show similar trends going back to the 1800 ([37], and [38]), and both terms show a similar rise since the 1800s ([39], and [40]). To disregard "Malvinas Islands" but accept "Islas Falklands" is contradictory.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you ignore the scale, then they show a similarity. Anyway, that doesn't change the fact it was the common name up to the last century. Can we focus on the merits of Islas Falkland by itself, rather than going on this pointless tangent? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No it was not. There are no sources that say so: there was usage, but the commonality of this usage is not what you say it is. It is exactly like "Malvinas Islands", a politically convenient translation. I though I made that clear above, in particular with the "Germany/Alemania" comparison: common name is not the same as usage.

Let me be conclusive: Spanish, unlike English but like French and other languages, has an Academy of Language, the Real Academia Española, which is responsible of regulating the Spanish language, and which has national chapters in nearly all of the Spanish-speaking countries of the world. Besides publishing a comprehensive dictionary and grammar book, it has a number of other official reference publicantions. Its paper editions are update in their website between publications. The RAE has published, and maintains updated in its website a "Diccionario panhispánico de dudas" (Panhispanic Doubts Reference Dictionary). The sole purpose of the authoritative dictionary is to provide authoritative answers on linguistic matters encountered by translators, interpreters, copy editors, and academics, and to provide clarity and resolution to linguistic controversy in the Spanish language. I have access to the hard copy book, but the same info is available online: here. It says in Spanish:

“ Malvinas. Forma tradicional española del nombre de estas islas situadas en el Atlántico sur, al este del estrecho de Magallanes: «Malaspina queda ciertamente impresionado por las islas Malvinas» (Astronomía [Esp.] 30.12.03). No debe usarse en español el nombre inglésFalkland (Islands). El gentilicio mayoritario y recomendado es malvinense: «Todas las mañanas iza la bandera sobre tierra malvinense» (Clarín [Arg.] 2.4.01). ”

My rough translation is :

“ Malvinas: the traditional Spanish [language] form of the islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, to the east of the Strait of Magellan. [omitting quote from usage source - cite is of the academic journal "Astronomia"]. One should never use in the Spanish language the English language name Falkland (Islands). The most commonly and recommended demonym is "malvinense" [ omitting quote from usage source - cite is from the Clarin newspaper] ”

A good English language source in terms of the official and accepted nature of "Islas Malvinas" in the Spanish language is the usage in the CIA World Factbook, Falkland Island (Islas Malvinas). They do so not because the US government supports the Argentinian claim, but because the official name in Spanish is "Islas Malvinas", and the CIA translators respect the RAE. Regional usage does influence the determination of official status in the RAE, specially in the last three or so editions (ie since the fall of Franco and the opening up of Spain to the rest of the world), but regional usage cannot be used to determine the name we give in Wikipedia. In any case, historic usage of the term "Islas Falkland" doesn't belong here, as this article is not about the topic in 1941, but the topic today, and even if we apply the Spanish equivalent of WP:ENGVAR, the applicable Spanish variation today would be Argentinian Spanish, which uses "Islas Malvinas" universally today (even on the part of those in Argentina which support the UK's position - which are not an insignificant number, mind you).

I really hope this resolves this controversy, because with such definitive evidence of usage, almost any objection is quixotic at best, disruptive at worse: this is how the Spanish language works, take it or leave it. A random wikipedia editor cannot be given more weight than the definitive and authoritative source on the Spanish language, the RAE, no matter how learned the scholarship is, and no matter the views of the editor on the subject.--Cerejota (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see this as a controversy. If there is a minority use of the term Islas Falkland in Spanish, then the fact this is not officially endorsed is not of itself reason to ignore its inclusion. I find this argument that the official version of Spanish is definitive and precludes any possibility of debate to be fundamentally at odds with wikipedia's policy of a WP:NPOV.

Similarly a Spanish equivalent to WP:ENGVAR does not hold sway, as we are not talking about spelling or language use differences but acknowledging there is more than one name used in Spanish. Reviewing the archive, I find several Argentine editors acknowledging its use in Chile but the reasons for not including it I have to say don't conform with wikipedia's policies.

Nor do I see its use as WP:SYN since it is based upon documented use of the term in both Chile and, admittedly in the past, Argentina. Etymology is about the use of language over time, so if the term has been used historically then it is very much relevant. Use in 22% of Argentine text books represents a significant minority usage. And I find it difficult to accept the claim its a convenient political usage even in a historic context in Argentina.

We are not seeking to claim Islas Malvinas is not the predominant term used in Spanish but discussing whether to mention the historic and minority use today. Whether it is appropriate for an overview or would perhaps be better used elsewhere.

Its not the case this is simply a translation, it is the use of a term in the Spanish language. What does cause me concern is the attempt to close the debate down. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wee, accepting easily that 45% is "most" (more than the others combined, as Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic? requires), one shouldn't be surprised to be confronted with other unreasonable demands. Best, Apcbg (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Comparing "Islas Falkland" to "Islas Malvinas" is an error. Primary English name is "Falkland Islands". If we are going to include another name (in Spanglish, English, Russian, or whatever) it must hold at least 10% of usage with respect to the primary name, OR it must be used by people which inhabited the place.

From WP:NCGN#General_guidelines: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted."

So the real picture we should be looking at is Falkland Islands vs Islas Falkland, as "Islas Falklands" is evidently not used in Argentina.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

[41] If you look at the Spanish language it is around 10% mark, hence my suggestion we included it as a Spanish language term. Its certainly been used historically at levels comparable with Islas Malvinas. Whether Islas Falkland is used in Argentina is irrelevant (it was banned officially in 1941). I'm talking etymology here not the lead and the reasons being put forward for not mentioning it I have to say don't stack well with wikipedia's policies.

...who's comment is that above?--Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

@ChipmunkDavis, what is important here is the ratio. Smooth out the curves to 50, in order to get a straight analysis, and you will find that the ratio of Falklands Islands to Malvinas/Malvina Islands is (5000 to 500). Similarly, the ratio of Islas Malvinas to Islas Falklands (1000 to 100). Both have the 1 to 10 ratio (10 being the dominant term in either language, and 1 being the "secondary" term). Given this, both "Malvinas Islands" and "Islas Falkland" have the same relevancy, and if you are going to argue in favor of one, then the other has the same weight. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Except there is a distinct difference. Islas Falkland is used as am alternative name in the Spanish language. Malvinas Islands is used as a translation of a Spanish term to avoid using the English language equivalent for political reasons. There is a distinct difference in usage. Malvinas Islands has no use prior to 1982. Islas Falkland has been used for some time. Not to mention there is a push by Argentina to stamp out its use. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In this case, Malvinas Islands actually appears to be mostly people using the sort of UN-style usage that we already mention in the article (i.e. Falkland (Malvinas) Islands or Falkland/Malvinas Islands). This happens with Islas Falkland as well, but to a slightly lesser extent. Pfainuk talk 10:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I like how the two of you have excuses for everything. "Appears to be" is a personal assumption, and the claim that "Malvinas Islands has no use prior to 1982" is false (Demonstrated by this 1842 source). That Chileans use "Islas Falkland" is no surprise since they like to bother Argentina whenever possible (and viceversa). The rest of South America has firmly stood in favor of Argentina's claim, and "Islas Malvinas" has been the de facto Spanish term even before Argentina began to "stamp out" the other term. Both terms have a 1:10 ratio, hence both terms have the 10% usage demanded by the rules, and it's completely illogical to demand the inclusion of one term and exclude the other.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert the revert - 22 September 2011

I have reverted the revert.

The Wikipedia article says "While it is possible that Patagonian Indians may have visited before this, the islands were uninhabited when they were discovered by Europeans."

The reference in the Wikipedia article quotes the source (which is available on the Internet) with the following text: "It is thought that Patagonian Indians may have reached the islands by canoe, but when the Europeans encountered the islands in the seventeenth century, they were uninhabited." The only things that the quote adds to the article are that the Europeans first arrived at the Falklands in the seventeenth century - the article already states that and that the Indians arrived by canoe - how else did they arrive? fly?

Martinvl (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. If it's already mentioned in the article, no need to have it a second time. But I'm a little confused, is there also misrepresentation of source here? /: --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No there isn't. Whether the islands were visited by Patagonians or simply a canoe drifted across the South Atlantic we simply don't know. There are no signs of human remains to give a definitive answer. Whilst I don't disagree with Martin's edit of my rewrite of this section, I would suggest that for future reference he follow WP:BRD to prevent edit wars where other editors do. We have enough discord on this article already. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

UN nomenclature and C24 resolution on Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

I have added some valid info on the nomenclature used by the UN when naming these islands, which is in Spanish "Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) or in English "Falkand Islands (Malvinas) and, also, the clarifying statement which reads "According to the UN Comitee of Decolonization it is a Non-Self-Governing territory administered by the United Kingdom, whose sovereignity is disputed by Argentina and the United Kingdom. The latter helps understanding that the sovereignity of the islands is in dispute between the two countries, which is indeed relevant information. Besides, it parallels with the Spanish article of Islas Malvinas in the information given, remember this is an article about the islands, not about the Falklands as a British Overseas Territory. I believe the measures taken here on my contribution be reviewed.

Every item of information you allege you "added" is already in the article but treated in manner that is entirely in line with the policy of a WP:NPOV. Your edit does not. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Pfainuk talk 22:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, we will not see the article here reduced to the POV dribble that the Spanish article is, with its cable of non-neutral editors staking it out 24/7. But hey, as that's there Wikipedia, let them have it that way. I'm sorry that was a little naughty of me, but WCM is right, it's already there, these edits where in clear violation of NPOV. (BRB, Cat is looting my trash can) Add- also, sign your posts pretty please, and don't edit war. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Spanish Wikipedia does not follow what here in the English WP is considered "NPOV", mainly because we have certain "ammendments" to several of the rules which they do not. Hence you have that website be a really biased version of Wikipedia (a great example of what the English WP should not become). Of course, that does not take out the fact that many of you tend to quickly politicize the suggestions made in this talk page. WP:GF is clearly not in the mind of the people "dominant" in this talk page, and claims of "NPOV" are used carelessly and to support claims of superiority ("I am an NPOV editor, bow before me" attitude). In other words, some of the editor's attitudes really need some work.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, if I feel that an edit or proposal fails WP:NPOV, I am not going to pretend that it does not. And if a proposal breaks WP:NPOV, that's a good reason to oppose it. I am disappointed that you fail to WP:AAGF here.

I note that much of the discussion since you arrived has been on naming of the islands. This is a topic that has been politicised by the parties to the RL dispute, not by us. All we can do is follow actual usage in English, which means "Falkland Islands", while respecting the Argentine POV on the subject (hence referring to Islas Malvinas in the lede). I would remind you that it was exactly this topic that nearly pushed the article to Arbcom a few years ago. This is why the request in the comment at the top of the article - that it be reopened only if there are overriding new arguments - is there. There are no such arguments here.

In this case, the point is pretty basic. The proposal massively overemphasises the UN, which has no role (either de jure or de facto) in governing the islands. No other entity on the C24 list mentions this in its infobox and it's POV to mention it here. It inappropriately overemphasises the name used by the UN at Argentina's insistence (which is neutrally mentioned in the article) over the conventional neutral name in the English-language. Pfainuk talk 10:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow MarshalN20, what a random and aggressive, AGF breaching post that was. Talking like you just have makes me wonder if a block is in order or a topic ban, because I'm frankly sick of your attitude. Your bottom accusations are pretty funny, thanks for cheering me up as I have a bad cold at the moment by the way. (Oh, really your first comment about how the Spanish version is non-Bias made me wee-wee myself laughing) --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

@Pfainuk, I have not proposed any changes to the article. My position has been that of supporting what I see as improvement proposals. The only responses I have received from the side against make little to no sense. I asked for a single source to prove that "Malvinas Islands" is a fringe term with an anti-British agenda, but that has not even been provided. But writing to you won't make a difference.

@Τασουλα, I feel you are throwing a hook for me to bite on, but I promised a good acquaintance that I would not. I honestly did not even notice your existence in this discussion, but considering your usage of the term "wee-wee", I find it as no surprise that I would have ignored you. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)