Talk:Falkland Islands

Capitalisation of M/monarch

@Wee Curry Monster: gf reverted my gf edit of Monarch to monarch. Per MOS:JOBTITLES, capitalisation should only be used for an official title, not just a role/office. Monarch here is just a description: there's no such title in any act of the UK parliament ([1]), and its occurrences in secondary/devolved legislation are just as an ordinary noun with a lower-case m (e.g. [2]). The equivalent generic title is Sovereign (e.g. [3], [4]) which does take a capital when used as a title. So I recommend either using monarch with a lower-case m or, if a title is preferred, Sovereign with a capital S. Charlie A. (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that in this example [5] capitalisation is correct in British English. There are number of odd capitalisations relating to the monarchy e.g. Her Majesty's Government and this is one of those idiosyncrasies of British English. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong but I'm almost certain that I'm not. WCM_email 09:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Cheers for the quick reply! Please do take a look at the links I posted – monarch isn't capitalised in law, but King, Queen, Sovereign, Majesty etc are, because "monarch" is an ordinary noun not a title. See [6] and [7] for the Telegraph (who like to capitalise anything they can) also using a lower-case m in "monarch of the United Kingdom". If you would like a capital letter, I recommend Sovereign, which is the non-specific title. Charlie A. (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It is worth noting here that the UK Parliament capitalises Monarch in its literature [1] [2] but the Royal Family prefers Sovereign [3]. I would therefore support a change to Sovereign per :@Charlie Awesome's suggestion. SamWilson989 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Since we are discussing words, I suppose semantics is also important to consider here. I think that "monarch" is a more suitable technical term than "sovereign", the latter implying supreme authority. If we have evidence that a reliable source capitalises "monarch", then capitalising it in this article should not be a problem either. The good faith concern by Charlie is noted and appreciated nonetheless.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LINKCLARITY The guideline for wikilinks suggest using a title reflecting the article you're linking to, in this case the [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom, which would tend to suggest monarch is appropriate, as it is referring directly to HM, it should be capitalised. Whilst I don't have a strong objection to the use of Sovereign, it may be better to change the link to Elizabeth II. Happy to everyone's thoughts on the change. WCM_email 15:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think "monarch" is usually capitalised, and Wikipedia doesn't particularly capitalise it either (e.g. it's not capitalised in the Monarchy of the United Kingdom article). "Sovereign" is less clear than "monarch". Hut 8.5 16:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

[8] it is when used as part of a title. WCM_email 17:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

"Monarch" isn't used as a title like that though. Rather it's a generic term for a category of titles (King, Queen, Emperor, Sultan etc). Just as "peer" or "noble" aren't titles, but "Earl", "Duke", "Baron" etc are. Your link doesn't say that "Monarch" should be capitalised, the only time it appears it's lowercase. Hut 8.5 18:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree. I don't even think this a borderline case. Monarch is an ordinary generic noun describing a solo ruler under a wide variety of titles, not a title in and of itself. Established mainstream and scholarly third-party sources use lower case m (including The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, The Independent, The Sun, The Mail, Britannica, Journal of Victorian Culture (OUP), CUP, Springer, and the overwhelming majority of results on Google Scholar). Monarch isn't a part of the Queen's official full style. The word isn't used in Acts of Parliament, and isn't capitalised when found in secondary or devolved legislation. The House of Commons library, reports from Commons committees, the parliamentary API and Hansard all use in modern times use lower-case m.

Even if monarch were part of an official title, MOS:JOBTITLES is clear that contexts like this would still call for a lower-case letter because it is in fact a reference to the office and not the title (e.g. "... was the king of France", but "... became King of France"), and it is not "used to refer to a single person in place of a name during their time in office" because the sentence would apply equally following a demise of the Crown. Charlie A. (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

We have to be informed by reliable sources. I think @Charlie Awesome has demonstrated sufficiently that we can follow MOS:JOBTITLES whilst also following reliable sources. The OED lists a variety of sources for the word monarch - some are capitalised and some are not, both when it's referred to as a title and as the office. I don't think it would be fair to say we weren't following British English therefore by not capitalising the word. I appreciate the argument, @Wee Curry Monster, but I don't think this *is* one of the "idiosyncracies of British English." SamWilson989 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Malvinas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to be clear, my comments did not justify adding "Islas Falkland", I in fact opposed it. [9] See various discussions and if anything new can be brought forward, I might be persuaded to change my mind. However, bitter experience suggest this is a can of worms best left unopened. WCM_email 08:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

new governor has been appointed since 23rd of July 2022. The name is Alison Mary Blake. details can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Blake Papathimas (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

We already say it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Already done 💜  melecie  talk - 13:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is updated, but the government section says "Governor Nigel Phillips was appointed in September 2017...". Isn't that the part we should update? Cambalachero (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I've changed that bit. Hut 8.5 11:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

About the oil

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

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

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

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

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

Plural or singular?

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

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