Jump to content

Talk:Falkland Islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 190.195.39.223 (talk) at 18:59, 29 September 2011 (→‎Section: Before the Falkland Wars). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

Template:Notice-nc-geo


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)[reply]

See [1], more in Archive 4. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And the ISO designation includes the Spanish name. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Malvinas redirect

Collapsed for practical purposes. --MarshalN20
Talk 16:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [3]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What exactly is the situation with the hits numbers? Apcbg (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ([4]), 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The sources are English articles, that's the point.--MarshalN20 | Talk 12:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 [5]. 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[6] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Proposal (withdrawn)

Withdrawn, collapsed for practical purposes. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Oppose.

  1. As demonstrated by the GoogleBooks search, "Malvinas" is a term primarily relevant to the Falkland Islands.
  2. Just as "Falklands" redirects to the Falkland Islands, the term "Malvinas" should redirect to the Falkland Islands.
  3. "Islas Malvinas" already redirects to this article. It doesn't contribute anything in favor to your proposal.
  4. 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)[reply]

  1. 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.
  2. Why? We don't have a million places named after the Falklands. We have plenty in Argentina named after the "Malvinas".
  3. Not relevant, the point is about being efficient on people searching for information on a topic that includes the term "Malvinas".
  4. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

They care called the Islas Malvinas are they not?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Malvinas is plural. The singular term "Malvina" (without the s) is nonexistent.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Support — Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Apcbg (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

[7] Based on improved information I'm going to withdraw my proposal. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Your condescending attitude is somewhat amusing.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

[8]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[9] 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)[reply]
South American then,Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.
[10] 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 [11]. Restricing to British English [12] negligible. American English [13] 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. [14] 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. [15] 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)[reply]
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") [16], and "islands" at the end (lowercase and "s") [17]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[18] 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 [19]. 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 [20], 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. [21] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
9,940 books exist which use the term in English ([22]). 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Could we not have Falkland Islands (Spanish name Islad Malvinas) making it clear its not a litural translation?Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good improvement.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you mean by a "literal translation", really. My view would be that because "Malvinas" has no meaning in Spanish beyond as a name, it doesn't really have a literal translation. The same could be said of "Falkland", or indeed "France" or "Peru". By contrast, countries such as the United States or the Netherlands, which do have literal meanings in English (although the second is archaic), have literal translations - but translate "nether lands" into Dutch literally and a Dutch speaker may not understand it as a reference to the Netherlands.
While it is clear that Islas Malvinas is not etymologically related to Falkland Islands, this is not uncommon in direct translation of place names. While it is unusual for names for the same place in different languages to cover slightly different semantic ground, this is more common among other direct translations, and I would imagine that it is less rare in other cases of disputed territory. It is fair to say that "Islas Malvinas" is the common term in Spanish speakers in cases where English speakers would use "Falkland Islands" - so the suggestion that it is a direct translation is not unreasonable. I also note that it is cited: this used to be in the lede precisely to forestall this argument. Pfainuk talk 16:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. [23] is a recent reference to its use in Southern Chile and [24] shows it used in Argentina up to 1941. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It holds as much merit as "Malvinas Islands".--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Both graphs show similarities ([25], and [26]). Both terms show similar trends going back to the 1800 ([27], and [28]), and both terms show a similar rise since the 1800s ([29], and [30]). To disregard "Malvinas Islands" but accept "Islas Falklands" is contradictory.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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:

My rough translation is :

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[31] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
To make this a bot easier, lets leave out South America for now, what does the rest of the Spanish language workd say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think somebody brought up a source from the Real Academia Española, which regulates the Spanish language, and that had the term "Islas Malvinas" as the official Spanish name for the territory. Aside from that, I do not know how it would be possible to know what the whole Spanish speaking world actually calls the islands without ending up in Original Research. That is, unless someone can find a source which has actually done an analysis on this matter?--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments on "excuses" are again disappointing. We should all try to keep personal observations out of this discussion, and that includes you.
You say, "[a]ppears to be" is a personal assumption. Yes, there is assumption involved there: that the first few pages are typical. But there's also an assumption involved in your citing those raw figures, whether you know it or not. You are assuming that all books that use the words "Malvinas" and "Islands" together are neutral sources that use "Malvinas Islands" exclusively.
The first few pages of your Google Books search make it obvious that this assumption is flawed. A large majority of those sources are using UN-style constructions such as "Falklands (Malvinas) Islands". Most of the remainder are Argentine government statements. This flaw in your assumption badly damages your argument that there is a 10:1 ratio in usage here.
Now, I'm not saying that this is not also the case of Islas Falkland. Several of these flaws are also present in that search. My own view is that Islas Falkland does not belong in the lede (which is not what Curry Monster is arguing), and I think we have to be careful with it in the etymology section. But arguing purely based on counts of sources when they're not saying what you think they say is not credible. Pfainuk talk 15:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor really OR, you could for example look at newspapers and books and present those that use the term. Thus we could determine its usage. All that needs to be shown its that its common enough usage.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All searches are bound to have some margin of error. That you found a few is no surprise, but the majority of them (in both cases) point towards a usage that justifies the 1:10 ratio (in both cases). Your assumption is similar to WCM's claim that just because some fringe groups use the term politically, then the term itself is fringe. It simply doesn't make sense. The term "Malvinas Islands" is mostly used simply as an alternate name to the territory, with no political intent. Most of the sources in GoogleBooks use the term freely with no "bad" intention.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even looked at your search results? This is not one or two references to "Falklands/Malvinas Islands" or "Falklands (Malvinas) Islands" or similar. Most - a clear majority - of your results are for this kind of formulation, which is already mentioned in the article. And of the rest, most are quoting the Argentine government in one form or another. Your dismissal of what must amount to 90% of your search results as a matter of "margin of error" is frankly ludicrous - that that figure doesn't count those results that are clearly Argentine-biased and those that use "Falkland Islands" primarily but refer to "Malvinas Islands" in the context of the Argentine side of the dispute, or in italics or quotes.
Your claim that the term "Malvinas Islands" is mostly used simply as an alternate name to the territory, with no political intent has no basis in any evidence that you have given us. Nor indeed, does your claimed 1:10 ratio. Pfainuk talk 16:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I mentioned the "margin of error", I meant it in reference to the Argentinean government's letters or statements. That is only a minority in the search results.
I find it interesting how you accept that {"Falklands/Malvinas Islands" or "Falklands (Malvinas) Islands" or similar} holds a majority in the searches. The usage of "/" and the parentheses in the sources only serve to demonstrate the existence of the alternate name. They are not writing the alternate name as "Islas Malvinas", but rather they are presenting the alternates as either "Falkland Islands" or "Malvinas Islands" (either one is accepted as demonstrated by the "/" and parentheses).
In other words, you are accepting that my position is indeed correct (whether you meant it or not). Thank you for that.
However, I disagree with your claim that the search is mostly "quoting the Argentine government in one form or another", because it's not true.
No evidence exists to support whether the term "Malvinas Islands" is political or not, because no source actually states this. Given that situation, it is not correct to assume that it is a political term simply because some fringe groups use it. Hence, at a neutral stance, it goes back to the concept that "Malvinas Islands" as a political term holds no real basis.
Regarding the ratio, I explained how I got the results quite recently. I'll let you have a scavenger hunt for it. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, because you've been arguing that we should refer to usage of "Malvinas Islands" alone, and suggest that it is commonplace. Which it is not, and your search does not imply that it is. If you were arguing that the article should mention formulations like "Falkland (Malvinas) Islands", then my pointing out that we already do should have been sufficient.
I note with interest that you have still not been able to cite a single neutral source that uses "Malvinas Islands" as though it were a politically neutral term - and certainly haven't demonstrated that it's in common use. We're not talking about "Falkland (Malvinas) Islands" or similar formulations here - they're already mentioned in the article. We're talking about the term "Malvinas Islands", taken alone. Given that you want the article to claim that it's commonly used and politically neutral, it's up to you to demonstrate this. Your failure to do so is glaringly obvious.
From your message above, it is clear that the 1:10 claim is based on the ludicrous assumption that everyone who writes "Falkland/Malvinas Islands" means "Malvinas Islands" really. That is not a persuasive argument. Pfainuk talk 18:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the main issue here is that I have (perhaps) been misinterpreted?
  1. I am not suggesting "Malvinas Islands" should be mentioned "alone" (I am not even sure what you mean to say by that). My position is in favor of including a mention of it in the lead as an alternate title in the English language. Similar to "Falkland Islands, also known as Malvinas Islands (es:Islas Malvinas), bla bla bla". That is all. The term "Falkland Islands" is going to be used throughout the rest of the article (except maybe for a mention of "Malvinas Islands" again in the etymology section).
  2. My search implies that there is approximately a 1:10 ratio between the terms. At no point am I using that to claim "Malvinas Islands" is the official or commonplace name for the islands. It's simply an alternate name with a degree of usage which merits a small mention (and nothing more than that).
  3. I don't know what article you may be reading, but the one I open up at point uses anything similar to "Falkland (Malvinas) Islands". Nothing related to the English term "Malvinas Islands" is actually mentioned. All that is mentioned is the Spanish term Islas Malvinas.
  4. I don't want the article to claim it as a "politically neutral term or commonly used" term. When did I ever write that I wanted to include this into the article?
  5. The usage of "/" is equivalent to the term "or". All the sources that use "/" are writing "Falkland or Malvinas" (Falkland/Malvinas). The same thing happens with the parenthesis usage.
I hope this clears up what seems to have been a misunderstanding. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In that case, you are suggesting that "Malvinas Islands" should be mentioned alone. That it be included as a standalone term without reference to the word "Falkland".
  2. Your search does not imply this. Your proposal is that we put "Malvinas Islands" (without reference to the word "Falkland") as a separate name in the lede. This is the same as treating it as an official or commonplace name for the islands. Your are not proposing a small mention, you're effectively proposing it go up in massive lights at the top of the article. Your search does not imply "that there is approximately a 1:10 ratio between the terms", for reasons that I have already provided you with. I'd also note that your methodology is not good, as it relies on a snapshot of sources written within an unknown time period, using a line that has had all relevant information smoothed out of it.
  3. The etymology (formerly titled "name", and this was more accurate) section of this article refers to the ISO naming. Your claim that "Malvinas Islands" (without reference to the word "Falkland") is an English language term to anyone but the Argentine government and a few of its supporters is unsupported by any source thus far.
  4. Your proposal is that we treat "Malvinas Islands" (without reference to the word "Falkland") as a politically neutral and commonly used term, by treating it as equal with "Falkland Islands" in the lede. This is inherent in the change you want to make. If you do not want the article to claim that it is a politically neutral term, and don't want it to claim that it is a commonly used term, stop telling us to put it in the lede.
  5. Not really, no. And in any case, use of "Falklands/Malvinas Islands" and similar fairly obviously does not imply that "Malvinas Islands" (without reference to the word "Falkland"), is commonly used in English. Such usage is used by international organisations primarily to appease the Argentine government.
We are required to give viewpoints their due weight, and not more than their due weight. Your proposal that we put "Malvinas Islands" in the lede gives that term massively undue weight. Even putting it in the name section probably does that. If you want this edit, then it is up to you to demonstrate that "Malvinas Islands" (without reference to the word "Falkland") has common currency in English. So far, you have fairly spectacularly failed to do this. Pfainuk talk 20:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Agree. Pfainuk talk 22:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
WP:V is very clear that the burden of evidence lies with the editor proposing that we add or restore material. That would be you. You're the one advocating that we imply that Malvinas Islands is commonly used in English. You are the one claiming that to be fact and you're the one who wants to put it in the article. That means that the onus is on you to prove it, and all we've seen from you is a Google Books search that doesn't back you up. Pfainuk talk 14:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That you found a few errors on the search does not justify your claim that GB does not back me up. As you mentioned in the other discussion, the "Islas Falklands" search also has its mistakes. However, for one you discredit my position, but for the other you give more leniency. What exactly is going on here?--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw similar things to Pfaink, particularly the fact your search picked up Falklands (Malvinas) Islands. On the other hand, WCM has provided articles which discuss a huge reaction to Islas Falklands being used, as well as the note that Argentina had to obtain a ruling in various bodies to make sure only Islas Malvinas was used as the name. That's fairly strong evidence Islas Falklands isn't that rare in Spanish. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claiming that "Islas Falklands" is a rare term (It meets the 10% rule per the 1:10 ratio), however my stance is that the term "Malvinas Islands" meets the same standards per the similar statistics ("Malvinas Islands" isn't that rare in English). WCM has provided an article which speaks of a controversy between Chile and Argentina...that's as surprising as Cain arguing with Abel, or Palestine fighting with Israel. It doesn't prove anything. Argentina trying to officialize the name "Islas Malvinas" is a matter that deserves mention, but it does not prove anything in favor to WCM's position either. No study exists as to which name is the "most used" in Spanish, or which country uses what term the most. If Argentina used the term in the past, that only proves its historical significance, but nothing more; just as my search found books from the 1800s hence also proving the historical usage of the term "Malvinas Islands". The actual invasion took place in the 20th century, so it's not fair to assume that the 19th century sources would be having a "political bias" of any sort.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I concur with MarshallN20 here. It's curious how a Google Books hit-count search is enough to demonstrate 'Islas Falkland' use in Spanish but not to investigate 'Malvinas Islands' in English. The observations of how are the results composed of are mostly a matter of personal interpretation. For example, "Islas Falklands" is used in a political way by that Chilean Major, yet it seems that most editors here don't get the feeling that it may be a fringe term used with political intentions. Moreover, the amount of media coverage it received, the official responses on the Argentine side, and the fact that an argument of 'fairly common usage' is never used to chill out the moods, is to me an indication that the term is rare in Spanish. Chipmunkdavis, the fact that Argentina banned the usage of 'Islas Falklands' says nothing about its use: it was a nationalistic political move, probably in the context of other laws about Falklands and Antarctica sovereignty. I mean, if C.Kirchner bans the flights to Falkland Islands it doesn't necessarily means that there's a fuel shortage, or that there are technical difficulties with that route.
Anyways, my personal view up to this point is that neither 'Islas Falklands' or 'Malvinas Islands' hold enough relevance to be included in the article. Both are scratching the 10% mark, and in a highly controversial article like this, that's just not good enough. Common sense.
Regards. --Langus (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually pointed this out above. The search for Islas Falkland does a bit better than Malvinas Islands in terms of apparently neutral usages, but that isn't saying much. While Marshal claims a minority of neutral English-speakers who use "Malvinas Islands" as a standard term for the islands without political intent, I did not find a single entry in his Google Books search that met this standard. I did find some for Islas Falkland, falling between three general categories: Chilean, old and translated. You say "[b]oth are scratching the 10% mark". I reject this. In terms of actual hits demonstrating minority usage, neither comes even close to 10%. Add the WP:COMMON argument to this and the history of this issue on Wikipedia, and I agree that it is better just not to go there. Pfainuk talk 20:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the consensus decision being reached that of neither "Islas Falkland" or "Malvinas Islands" should be mentioned in the article? Based on Langus' statement, I am willing to accept this compromise.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can agree that neither should be in the lead. I don't however see why we can't mention Islas Falkland in the name section due to its wide historical usage. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. I can agree to that as well as long as a small mention is also made of the term "Malvinas Islands" in the etymology section.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? You've produced no evidence so far that it gets used by anyone bar the Argentine government and the odd partisan. We have OTOH seen evidence of usage of Islas Falkland as a neutral term (historically, regionally and in translation). Not much, but some.
There is no argument for treating these two terms equally unless they actually get used equally in the real world - unless (as is my preference) we decide due weight requires including neither. The evidence we've seen so far suggests that Islas Falkland should be given greater weight as it receives more usage. Pfainuk talk 15:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep trying to hide the existence of the term "Malvinas Islands"? The Google Books search has demonstrated its existence, even with all your "ifs and buts" on the matter. You only pick those books which "support" your position and ignore the existence of those that actually support the existence of the term "Malvinas Islands". You go as far as to claim that the "/" does not stand for "or", when it is a basic concept of any language in the world that the "/" is equal to "or". No concrete evidence has been provided which suggests "Islas Falkland" should be given greater weight to "Malvinas Islands", or viceversa.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We acknowledge its existence. We however find nothing to show it is anything but a deliberate POV term used by the Argentinian government and supporters, rather than a term used in normal english. The terms should not be looked at together, but separately. Looking separately, one had widespread historical usage. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion keeps going around in circles. You acknowledge the existence of the English term, but disregard it under the assumption that it is solely an Argentinean government term (going back to the point where you only cherry pick those sources which are convenient to you and ignore the others). I, on the other hand, do not deny that "political groups" use the term, but that does not mean that only they use it. In fact, no source claims that "Malvinas Islands" is solely used by pro-Argentinean political groups. Why you want to assume this is beyond my understanding (it's not, but I'll just asume it is for the sake of GF).
Claiming that "Islas Falklands" has widespread historical usage is yet another strange assumption. Sometimes it seems universities should begin to hand out "Etymology" certificates so that people can actually do personal research on the historical usage of names. Otherwise we end up in situations such as this, where WP:OR becomes common law.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that states unequivocally that the use of Malvinas Islands is in fact an English term? As opposed to being used politically as a translation of Islas Malvinas in Argentine documents and comes up as a false positive because of Falkland (Malvinas) Island? We can source the UN designation and we can source that Argentina uses the term.
We can source that Islas Falkland was in use in Argentina till 1941, at which point it was banned. We can source that it is used in places like Chile and the Chilean Government has since adopted Islas Malvinas. We can source that Argentina has sought to have its use banned in Mercosur and Unasur. We can source that Argentina has sought to have it banned as a Spanish term.
At the end of the day its what you can source that counts. There has been several accusations of OR but not one single source has been put forward to verify the presumption that Malvinas Islands is an English language term. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If "Malvinas Islands" was not an English term, then it would not exist as such. The existence has been demonstrated and accepted. The term which is not English is "Islas Malvinas". Is this difficult to understand?
You base your assumption that "in places like Chile" the term is used because one mayor in a southern province of the longest country in the world said it?--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source? Yes/No. I can source my comments, that is not the only one I have. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No source is necessary to demonstrate that "Malvinas Islands" is an English term while "Islas Malvinas" is the Spanish term. Common knowledge does not require citation.--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't provide a source to sustain your claim. In which case it does not belong in the article. It is not an English language term. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to spend your life thinking that valid translations are not "English language terms" (it's a wonder what language you think it is), go ahead. If you want to counter the term by arguing that it's of minor usage, that's reasonable and subject to debate, but to have made an issue over a valid translation is astoundingly...Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wee, could you please source this?:

  1. "that Islas Falkland was in use in Argentina till 1941"
  2. "that it is used in places like Chile"

Also bear in mind that we need to know how much it was/is used. The bannings doesn't necessarily have a direct relation with usage, so there's no need to source those (although that material would be interesting).

Thank you. --Langus (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reference a paper above by Carlos Escude and it was used in 22% of Argentine text books at that time. Why are you asking again for a source already provided? I'll provide more sources regarding Chile when I'm ready. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must first present the sources before making the claims. I have read the Escude source and at no point does he mention anything about "22%". A mayor in Chile stating something does not support your claim that all of Chile uses the term. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@WCM: I'm asking because I've obviously missed it in the first time.
Carlos Escudé seems to have strong feelings towards Argentina.. he doesn't struck me as a neutral writer. Check out these titles:
  • "Argentina: A 'Parasite State' on the Verge of Disintegration", Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 15, October 2002;
  • "La Argentina, ¿Paria Internacional?" ("Argentina: international pariah?"), Ed. de Belgrano, 1984;
  • "The Falklands will never be Argentine", in The Future of the Falkland Islands and Its People, Manfred Wörner Foundation, 2003;
  • "From Captive to Failed State: Argentina under Systemic Populism, 1975-2006", in The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol. 30, 2006
The list goes on and on... I've only been able to read a few passages of his texts online, and I have to say he seems more interested in proving a point to the reader than to research history.
Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above by Marshall illustrate why I'm not going to go on supplying source after source. Escudes paper lists the number of publications that use the term Islas Falkland out of a total number. I simply converted it to a % to illustrate minority usage. Now he is quibbling that Escude doesn;t mention a %. This is simply filibustering.

Carlos Escude of the University of Buenos Aires, supporter of Christina and Nestor Kirchner, the same guy who wrote Argentina's online history for the Argentine Government. Winner of multiple awards for historical research. If you're claiming he is unreliable then we have to remove pretty much all Argentine claims from wikipedia, as they are mostly based on his work. Really take this to WP:RSN, because claiming Escude is anti-Argentine is frankly ridiculous.

In addition, it is fairly well known in Argentina, that the term Islas Falkland is used in Chile. Largely it has to be said due to the long term antagonism between the two nations. If you're interested in working collaboratively, perhaps you could do some research for a supporting cite in the Spanish language. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BURDEN of evidence falls upon you for your claim. The concept of collaboration is each bringing in their own material, not me bringing it for you. Trying to use my previous comment as an excuse not to provide sources is laughable at best. Considering the source you are providing is not a book (no division by page numbers), you should provide the actual part of the text (some copy-pasted quote) so that others may check your conclusion. So far, I have yet to find the information which supports what you are claiming. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a strange idea of collaboration, here you acknowledge my point that it is used in Chile but you're not prepared to use your language skills to help. I have found citations for people many times, I do so to be helpful even when I find the facts uncomfortable. No matter I have other cites, I choose not to list them until my proposed edit is ready. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith from your presentation, not "acknowledging" your position as a fact. If you cannot provide sourced evidence for your claim after being asked to do so, then I can no longer assume GF for your original claim. Please stop changing the subject and making a drama out of this discussion. Focus on the material at hand.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say Malvino, I say Falkino

I don't follow this page, but happened by and read some of this lengthy debate. The name issue is, of course, fraught with politics and controversy. The use of "Islas Malvinas" in English is, I think, usually related to the politics of controversies of the late 20th century. The use of "Malvinas Islands" in English is probably even more likely to be politically motivated. However, there are exceptions. Although dwarfed by the number of references to the Falklands War and controversy surrounding it, in the field of history there is English usage of "Malvinas", even "Malvinas Islands". Personally, I have never been all that interested in the Falklands War or the modern controversies and disputes. But I am very interested in the history of the Americas, the Spanish Empire, and the general history of European exploration, colonization, and imperialism. I'm particularly interested in the Spanish Empire's often overlooked role in the history of the Pacific Northwest. Since voyages from Europe to the Pacific Northwest almost always went by way of Cape Horn, the Falklands often come up in histories. There is a growing interest among English-speaking historians in lesser known or long overlooked Spanish expeditions such as the Malaspina Expedition, which stopped at the Falklands, and careers of people like Dionisio Alcalá Galiano, who spent time in the Falklands before later joining Malaspina's expedition. In short, there are a growing number of English history books that focus on Spanish Empire era expeditions, explorers, naval officers, etc. In these types of books it is not uncommon for the Falklands to be called the Malvinas. Why historians often use the word "Malvinas" is usually impossible to say, but it seems to me usually because for those people at that time the islands were called the Malvinas. The usage in history books of this type is not, I think, some kind of modern day political statement. It is more akin to using "La Florida" for Spanish Florida. Or like using "Núñez Gaona" to refer to Neah Bay and the short-lived Spanish outpost there, as you sometimes find in books about Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra. It is impossible to use Internet search tools to measure usage of terms in politically neutral ways in English language scholarly history books, but in my experience, for whatever that is worth, when such books use the word "Malvinas" it is most commonly in the form "Islas Malvinas" or simply "the Malvinas" ([32]). Sometimes you see "Las Malvinas" ([33]). And, yes, even "Malvinas Islands" ([34]). I think these three examples are basically neutral with regard to modern political conflicts. There are other examples, but they are hard to find without sifting through the majority of uses that do refer to the modern conflict. Also, many books on obscure bits of history are not previewable on Google Books.

None of this is to argue for any particular change to make or not make on this page. Having read all the debate here I just thought it worth pointing out a field in which these terms can and do occur outside the modern day political arena. I don't even see a place on this page, as it currently stands, where mention of this kind of detail would be warranted. Certainly not in the lead. Pfly (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been any intention to mention it in the lede. If the examples you give, the Spanish and English language versions are used, the example of Malvinas Islands is in a work by a Spanish language researcher Dr CARLOS MARICHAL of the University of Harvard and the University of Mexico. Its a direct translation of the Spanish term Islas Malvinas. We've already noted its use as a translation, there is nothing to support the claim it is used as genuine English term. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you are right, that book is not the best example, although the book is not translated from Spanish. It seems to have been written in English. Still, the author may have translated from Spanish in his head. I won't belabor the point, and I could be wrong about the term sometimes, very rarely, being used in English, but how about [35]? Or, less useful and less clear, [36]? In any case, even if the term is used it is extremely rare. And I don't much like it myself, as if feels like calling the Sierra Nevada "Nevada Mountains", or the Rio Grande "Grand River". Perhaps I'm making your point for you! Pfly (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The second article refers to and article that was eventually published as a book Dios y los Halcones, which is the Argentine Air Force (FAA) experience in the Falklands War. The first is referring to the Spanish name again. But yes you're making the point for me. Un abrazo. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of something I thought when reading Escudé's paper: he talks there about the usage of "Falklands" vs "Malvinas", but it isn't clear to me if they were actually written as "Islas Falkland" or "Falkland Islands", or even "Las Falkland". Regards. --Langus (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@WCM, language translations are indeed valid English terms. It's illogical to claim otherwise considering all of the terms the English language has adapted as translations from foreign languages. "Malvinas Islands" is obviously not a Spanish term, much less is it gibberish, and there is no such thing as a word with no language (otherwise it's not a word).--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim is it is an English name, it is not, it is merely a translation of Islas Malvinas. You cannot produce a cite to support your claim. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a valid English translation, thereby another acceptable form to call the islands in the English language, then it is indeed an English term. No citation is required for common knowledge (common sense!).--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make it an equivalent English language name or term and you are required to provide a cite for the claim you make. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If "Malvinas Islands" is not an English term, then what exactly is it?--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A direct translation. Languages often don't directly translate, especially in terms of names. We don't call China "Middle Country" in English, but that's what a direct translation yields. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, going on about whether it's technically an "English term" or not is not really relevant here. Nobody's arguing that the term Malvinas Islands has never been used in an English-language context - such a position is readily disprovable - and beyond that we're really getting into the semantics of "English term". Such discussion is off topic, as it is not related to this article.

The relevant question is whether the prevalence of Malvinas Islands (as opposed to constructions that mention both Falklands and Malvinas) is significant enough to warrant a mention in the article. Marshal now appears to be arguing that this is "common knowledge" that does not require a source. Naturally, I dispute this. I have not seen any evidence that its usage is in any sense widespread enough to merit a mention here.

There is a similar case being made for Islas Falkland, primarily by Curry Monster. Marshal argues - again, without reference to sources - that the usage of the two is inherently symmetrical and thus that inclusion of Islas Falkland must inherently mean inclusion of Malvinas Islands. In fact, based on the sources that I have seen, the prevalence of Islas Falkland in Spanish appears to be rather greater than the prevalence of Malvinas Islands in English - though both are rather small minority usages. According to WP:WEIGHT, Islas Falkland would thus be given more weight than Malvinas Islands (unless it is judged that neither belongs, which is my preference). Pfainuk talk 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was inclined to go along with the view that Islas Falkland was only worth mentioning in passing as a minor language term. This is where the discussion started. However, it is clear that the Argentine Government has expanded considerable energy getting the term banned in Mercosur and Unasur and refuses to use the English language equivalent. That is of itself an interesting fact. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to noticeboard

An example of drama which can be enjoyable, unlike the variety seen on Wikipedia.

[37] Sadly I have to report that Marshall has taken this dicussion to a noticeboard, without bringing this to the attention of the participants in the discussion here. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a question at the Language Reference Desk does not have to be "reported" here since (a) It's nothing more than a language question, (b) It won't affect the article in any significant way, and (c) LRD does not enforce any great policy on the organization. It is amusing how you're trying to make a WP:DRAMA out of this, but please do go on if it warms your heart. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree very much on that Wee Curry Monster is overly dramatizing things, and generally negative, and discouraging. I say this not to "attack Wee Curry" but so that he (and others) think on the attitude they have and how to create an constructive atmosphere of colaboration and good faith assumption. Chiton magnificus (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that making comments such as:
Overly dramatise things, and are generally likely to inflame discussion. They do little to benefit this discussion and are likely to make future collaboration more difficult. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all editors to remain civil and to assume good faith in other contributors. Pfainuk talk 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be or not to be...that's not the question. Please stop with this silly topic.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Before the Falkland Wars

Hi.

  • In this section we have this sentence: "In April 1982, four months after Leopoldo Galtieri became President of Argentina, Argentine military forces invaded the islands leading to the Falklands War".
  • I think it will be appropriate to specify that Leopoldo Galtieri became a de facto president, that is, he wasn't elected democratically, and that Argentina had benn under military-rule for several years when their forces invaded the Islands. It is a brief an accurate description of the relevant sociopolitical context in Argentina before and during the war, thus, I believe it is appropriate to include it.
  • The modified sentence could be: "In April 1982, a few months before the end of a seven-year period of military-rule in Argentina, and four months after Leopoldo Galtieri became the de facto President of that country, Argentine military forces invaded the islands leading to the Falklands War".
  • Perhaps the term "military-rule" could be changed for a more popular one, like "military junta", or even "dictatorship" (vastly documented and the most popular of the three, I think), though this last term might not be POV compliant. Nevertheless, I'm looking to refer in the article to the political situation by that time, not to use any specific vocabulary, provided it's accurate, of course.
A couple of points. This is an article about the Falkland Islands and isn't an opus on the socio-political context in Argentina. We're providing an overview of the Falkland Islands and extraneous facts will be pruned ruthlessly. The facts you're seeking to add fall into that category. They also have the effect of softening the responsibility upon Argentina, by claiming it was solely the actions on an unpopular military regime, when in fact the invasion was hugely popular - ie not representative of the socio-political context in Argentina. So for those reasons I would oppose such a change. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for coming. I'm glad we can finally discuss this really small, but I think important, topic. I'll answer your two arguments, they are: 1.This article isn't an opus 2. We shouldn't mention Argentina's dictatorial regime before and during the war, not to make Argentinian population look less responsible for it.
  • 1. No, this article isn't an opus, and it won't be an opus if we add 15 words or so, which is what I proposed, though here you have an alternative that will only have 6 more words than the present sentence: "In April 1982, during Leopoldo Galtieri's de facto presidency, shortly before the end of seven years of military-rule, Argentine military forces invaded the islands leading to the Falklands War". Your exaggerated comparison to an opus is unfair and, I think, refuted.
  • 2. Your second argument is close to be a biased one, let's see, if you say that showing this information will soften the responsability upon "Argentina" (I don't know what exactly are you refering to by "Argentina", but I deduce you are refering to the very complex, vague and delicate concept of Argentinian population), then you must agree that hiding this information will make them look more responsible. Should we try to make the Argentinian people look more or less responsible for this war? I believe you're asking yourself a wrong question and by answering it you are falling into a biased opinion in this discussion. From a perspective as neutral as posible, I say, the question to ask is: Is the military-ruled political context in Argentina relevant to the war? Simple as that, briefly mentioning (in 6 words, remember) the existance of a dictatorship (military junta, or whatever term you choose) during the war is relevant to the event, and that should be our concern, whether it makes or not the people of the country look less guilty (again, "Argentinians", "Argentinian people" or "Argentina", as well as any other nation's people, are concepts of very difficult definition, and I wouldn't advise you to treat them the same way you can refer to governments, institutions or individuals). Regards 190.195.39.223 (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just look at your counter argument. You allege my respone is "exaggerated", you don't address the argument you attack the person. Its just XXX more words has to be one of the arguments most often encountered on wikipdedia and the most bankrupt; its always XXX more words dedicated to a tangential topic to the argument and always XXX more words to soften and subtly shift the POV away from a genuine NPOV. No my comments were definitely not refuted, if anything your reference to guilt shows they were spot on. You wish to add more words on a tangential subject and I do not agree.
Is the military ruled context relevant to the war? Quite simply no. Adulant crowds in the Plaza de Mayo conclusively demonstrate it was a widely popular move with huge support. Trying to twist the argument claiming this is bias on my part, when you're trying to subtly shift the POV that there was no support from the Argentine people for the move is where bias is creeping in.
If you were writing from a NPOV, then you own views would not be apparent. I didn't mention the word guilt once; my exact comment was your edit didn't represent the socio-political context in Argentina. You might like to think about your reference to "guilt". Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You ask: [i]s the military-ruled political context in Argentina relevant to the war? This is the wrong question: the article on the war is at Falklands War, and it quite correctly gives detail of Argentina's political situation. The correct question is whether the domestic political circumstances in Argentina directly prior to the war are directly relevant to the history of the islands - and I don't see that they are. This applies both to the formal legality of Galtieri and the régime and its fall following the war.
I also think that the words de facto strongly imply that the régime was illegal, but is too short to explain this adequately. I'm not convinced that this is neutral. While it was certainly a thoroughly unpleasant régime, and many things that it did were certainly illegal (as per judgements of Argentine and foreign courts), Wikipedia policy is to describe events, to allow the reader to gain an informed judgement. I'm not convinced that putting a de facto in there does this, or that this is a relevant enough subject for us to get bogged down in here - it's too far into Argentine domestic politics, while this is an article on the Falklands. The important points here so far as the Falklands are concerned are that it was the Argentine government, that it was a military régime, that it invaded, and the reasons for the invasion. All are already mentioned.
On length, the issue is that if we added only six words to every point the article makes, we'd end up with a very long article. Better to pare the article down to the essentials and leave the detail for more detailed articles. Pfainuk talk 22:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wee:Let's calm down. I didn't attack you, I addressed your arguments when I said comparing the modified sentence I want to include to an opus was an exaggeration. Or will you deny you exaggerated? And, again, you have exaggerated by saying I attacked you.
  • This guilt thing was your argument in the first place, not mine, you just called it responsability, which is even a graver thing to say, and harder to mantain with arguments. My reply is that you should precisely understand that trying to make the Argentinian people look more guilty, or responsible if you want, is not a neutral point of view, and even less it resembles an argument, it is your point of view, in my opinion biased. But you insist with this idea of making the citizens look guilty and this time you do bring an argument, that is that "Adulant crowds in the Plaza de Mayo conclusively demonstrate it was a widely popular move".
  • The thing is, your point of view isn't neutral, even if your argument behind it is, instead of discussing whether we should be making Argentinian population look more guilty, or responsible, or in support of the war, if you like, the question I proposed to answer was: "Is the military-ruled context relevant to the war? You answered "Quite simply no." But you didn't brought any argument to hold this.
  • Hello Pfainuk. Wellcome to the discussion and thanks for your message. You said that "The important points [...] are that it was the Argentine government, that it was a military régime...". Fair enough! But that isn't included presently, I think, and is exactly what I'm trying to discuss with Wee. The present sentence doesn't mention it was a military régime.
  • Regarding the use of de facto, you say that strongly implies it was an illegal government. Look, before refering to that, let me say the term de facto is used to describe the three Argentinian presidents and the military régime of that era in many articles vastly documented, including: Leopoldo Galtieri (below his picture); Trial of the Juntas; President of Argentina; History of Argentina; Plaza de Mayo; Coups d'état in Argentina. I think it fits the situation of a de facto president, even if that implies an illegal government. Well, we're are talking about a coup and a military junta after all, I guess it is neutral to call it de facto if it is what it is, the goverment product of a military coup. Thanks, regards 190.195.39.223 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what wikilinks are? If people wish to know more they click on the links. This is handy as it means we don't add extraneous information to the article. Information on what was happening in Argentina is tangential to the main article - so we prune tangential information. You didn't address the argument and you haven't again. Its only XXX words is an argument we hear all the time, its not a valid argument as if everyone adds just a "few" extra words to every point the article becomes unmanageable. And I didn't mention guilt. My point was your edit wasn't representative of the socio-political context in Argentina, more to the point it misled by portraying it as an unpopular move by an unpopular Government. This is untrue, it was hugely popular and transformed an unpopular military Government into national heroes. I also addressed why I didn't think the imposed nature of the regime was important - the invasion had huge popular support. Your edit isn't neutral for what it omits, whilst the current article is. To make your edit neutral, we'd have to add a great deal more than just XXX words. You're trying to spin arguments to attack the integrity of other editors rather than addressing the argument - accusing someone of POV editing is a personal attack contrary to assume good faith and a good reason to raise a wikiquette alert against you. I remain opposed to this as you haven't provided a convincing argument and the direction you're taking is unconvincing and more inclined to harden attitudes against your edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Defacto means "by [the] fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." So was the regime Illegal?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlaterSteven! Welcome to the discussion. You've given a correct definition of the term de facto. I think the last military régime in Argentina, known as National Reorganisation Process fits that definition. Why? Well, let me briefly recap the facts here:
  • In 1976, president of Argentina Isabel Perón, whose term should according to her country's constitution have lasted one more year, was deposed by military personnel. Here's the recap we find in the article Isabel Perón:
    • "[...]Mrs. Perón [...] Alerted to suspicious military exercises [...] boarded the presidential helicopter [...] It did not fly her to the [...] presidential residence as she intended; but, instead to [...] Jorge Newbery International Airport, where she was formally deposed and arrested." (Lewis, Paul. The Crisis of Argentine Capitalism. University of North Carolina Press, 1990).
  • After these events, Jorge Rafael Videla became president. Here's a summary of the opening paragraphs from the homonymous article:
    • "Jorge Rafael Videla [...] was the de facto President of Argentina from 1976 to 1981. He came to power in a coup d'état that deposed Isabel Martínez de Perón". "On 22 December 2010, Videla was sentenced to life in a civilian prison for the deaths of 31 prisoners following his coup d'état". ("Former Argentine dictator Videla jailed for life". Reuters. Retrieved 23 December 2010)
  • In 1981, Videla relinquished power to Roberto Viola, here's an excerpt from the homonymous article:
    • "Roberto Eduardo Viola [...] was an Argentine military officer who briefly served as president of Argentina from March 29 to December 11, 1981 during a period of military rule."
  • In 1981, Viola was ousted by (yet another) military coup, led by Leopoldo Galtieri (president during the Falklands War). Here's another excerpt from the article Roberto Viola:
    • "Viola [...] was ousted by a military coup in December 1981, led by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri, who soon became President".
I hope this information helps. I think we can't argue this dictatorship was a de facto régime.
  • Wee. Once more, let me ask you to remain cool while discussing. Your last message contains many inaccuracies, lets' see:
  • You said: "accusing someone of POV editing is a personal attack contrary to assume good faith and a good reason to raise a wikiquette alert against you". Firstly, I didn't accuse you of anything. I adressed your point of view in this discussion, which are two very different things. Secondly, I never refered to your edits, as you say, but your opinions in this discussion, again, two very different things. Thirdly, when I said your point of view wasn't neutral, I was still assuming good faith from you (and I will remain assuming your good faith for the time being), it's just that I think your point of view is not neutral, that is addressing your argument, not you. You've also said: "You're trying to spin arguments to attack the integrity of other editors rather than addressing the argument". I've adressed the argument so far, and never attacked your integrity, or that of anyone else.
  • Now, regarding your points of view. To begin with, you've swaped, apparently without distinction, the concepts of "responsability" and "support of the war". To make the population of a country responsible for a war is a grave thing to say. Not to mention, very inaccurate. I don't think you can hold Argentinian citizens responsible for the war. How many citizens did Argentina have during the war? According to 1980's census, 27.947.446. Were all of them responsible? No, we can already answer that. How many of them were responsible for the war? To what extent? Did they vote for the war? How exactly you hold them responsible for it? What sources will you use to mantain those assertions? Well, I don't think you can find sources to hold the common citizens of that country responsible for the war. Responsability for and support of the war are two very different things.
  • Thus, what you had presented as two opposing ideas we should either include or exclude simultaneously -i.e. the military régime responsability vs. Argentinian citizens support of the war - are actually two very different things we should treat separately.
  • The importance and responsability of the military régime in planning and executing the Falklands War (remeber that's the name of the section: "Before the Falklands War) is clear, supported by many sources that analyse how the military régime planned and carried out the war.
  • The support the war had from Argentinian citizens after it began (because its planning wasn't publicly known) is not crucial to the context of the war, as it didn't have notable effects over its course, and is inexistant before the war (remember, that's the name of the section), because the military régime did not submit their agenda to public opinion. Regards 190.195.39.223 (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


(ec) You say that the fact that it was a military régime isn't mentioned. Let me quote you the relevant paragraph in the article, emphasis mine:


The military nature of the régime is relevant to explain the reasons for the invasion, but it is already mentioned in the article.

To answer Slatersteven's question whether the régime was illegal. The régime was diplomatically recognised internationally at the time as the legitimate government of Argentina, and I would assume that it considered itself to be the legal government of Argentina. The government came to power through a military coup (so, unconstitutionally); however, according to the de facto government doctrine (in force at the time), such governments were still recognised as legitimate even after their fall, regardless of their origins. The de facto government doctrine was removed from law in 1994, and according to the article Jorge Rafael Videla, the régime was retrospectively declared illegal in 2003.

It seems to me that the question of legality of the régime is a complex one, requiring a certain amount of discussion, which we do not really have space for here. Pfainuk talk 18:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution Pfainuk! Indeed, I had missed that paragraph, the context is already described and we don't need to describe it twice.
Still, within the section Before the War, I think we should specify it was a military régime. An option could be: "In April 1982, after a military coup established Leopoldo Galtieri as President of Argentina...", it has 14 words, 2 (two) more than the present sentence, which has 12.
Another option would be summarizing even more, by excluding the name of the president, which I consider less relevant than the fact that it was a military régime. Let's see: "In April 1982, four months after a military coup in Argentina...", this has 11 words, three less than the present sentence.
In both cases we avoid refering to the legality of the régime. Regards 190.195.39.223 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands&oldid=453093145"