Talk:Falkland Islands

Template:V0.5

Information on landmines: new information removed; outdated information left.

I noticed that one of my edits was deleted because of excessive detail. Fair enough, but the more recent information was cut and the older information was left unmodified. This is a pity because clearing of landmines reduced the affected area by more than 27%. Perhaps we could work out something that could be both short enough for a summary and up-to-date. I suggest summarising the older information and pointing out the extent of the clean-up (13km² to less than 10 km²) Michael Glass (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How about simply replacing the older information with the current situation? CMD (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If this began with a brief description of the demining operation over the last couple of years I think that would be fine. Michael Glass (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Michael, we need to update the info. And I agree with Chipmunkdavis' suggestion of simply replacing it. --Langus (t) 16:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Micheal that the information needs updating, but I don't think that it should just be replaced - there should be a sentence to show that things are not static and that minefields are actually being cleared. Martinvl (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that it can be made clear that the mines are being gradually removed with very few words. In the meantime, if there's any information that's not included at Falklands War#Minefields, it'd be useful to add it there. CMD (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I support Michael's edit which I find much more accurate than the previous one. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is my edit:

• In 2011 a Falkland Islands councillor stated, "The safe removal of 20,000 anti-personnel mines and 5,000 anti-tank mines spread over 13 sq km in 117 locations in highly variable terrain is an onerous task." land mines Information is available from the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Operation Centre in Stanley. In 2009 mine clearance began at Surf Bay, and clearances took place at Sapper Hill, Goose Green and Fox Bay. Further clearance work was due to begin in 2011. In December 2012, Landmine monitor claimed that land mines from the 1982 war remain spread across an area of more than 9 square kilometres.

The present wording says:

• It is believed that 19,000 Argentine land mines across an area of 13 square kilometres remain from the 1982 war dispersed in a number of minefields around Stanley, Port Howard, Fox Bay and Goose Green.

As my edit was criticised for being too long and detailed, and the present wording has been criticised for being out of date, perhaps the following would suffice:

• In 2011 a Falkland Islands councillor stated that safely removing 20,000 anti-personnel mines and 5,000 anti-tank mines spread over 13 sq km in 117 locations was "an onerous task." In 2009 mine clearance began, with further clearance work due to begin in 2011. In December 2012, Landmine Monitor stated that land mines from the 1982 war remain spread across an area of more than 9 square kilometres.

Any suggestions or revision? The information in [1] may also be useful. Michael Glass (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Any particular reason you don't wish to mention where they came from? Oh and I suggest you revise the proposed edit inline with WP:MOSNUM and WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, provided we can quote a reliable source in support of the fact that these are Argentinian or UK land mines. I suggest you put up your revisions, here. Michael Glass (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now found a citation used in the Falklands War article. It supports the fact that the minefields were laid by the Argentinians. Michael Glass (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement by a councillor expressing the view that removing mines is not easy does not belong on this article. How does something like "During the Falklands War over 20,000 anti-personnel mines and 5,000 anti-tank mines were laid by Argentina in 117 locations spread over 13 sq km. Clearance was begun in 2009, with over 9 square kilometres remaining mined." look? (with units adjusted and all that) CMD (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of the 2012 Falkland Islands Census

This analysis of the 2012 census results could be a useful resource. I wanted to share it with you. --Langus (t) 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

=== Official source? The Falkland Islands' governments' web site (http://www.falklands.gov.fk/) gives the population as 2,563. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.108.58 (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove Spanish Names

The Falkland Islands are British. There is nothing more to say about that. All residents on the island are and want to be British, the islands are owned by Britain, they have British taxes, laws, etc. Because the islands are British, their name shall be in English. The article for the United Kingdom does not have the name 'Royaume-Uni' in French or any other language. The same applies here, the islands are British and shall be named as such without any other foreign languages. I invite any arguments for or against this point, if you could write them directly below. Johnxsmith (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read ([2]).

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a stupid naming convention. Even if the islands became Argentinian, in the English language their name will still most likely be the Falklands Islands regardless. Such a naming convention has only one place and that is in the lede of the Falkland Islands article itself and the Falklands War one. Otherwise this is the English language Wikipedia and we shouldn't have to include other language varients of names when the islands are mentioned in an article due to them being disputed. Preposterous nonsense. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the convention. The rule we apply is that individual islands are only translated in the articles about those particular islands. Except where islands have both names in both ledes and infoboxes (the Spanish name has a special infobox field), or cases where there may be a single article for multiple separately-named islands, no article should have more than one translation. Any individual island mentioned in this article will be named using the English name only. Kahastok talk 23:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɒlklənd/ or /ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas)" is misleading, as it makes it look like a official name, or a native name used by a significant part (even a majority) of the population. As "Islas Malvinas" is only relevant here in the context of the sovereignty dispute, it would be better if moved to the second paragraph, maybe after "though the islands continue to be claimed by Argentina". Peter James (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with this. Firstly, it isn't a translation - it's a completely different name, which happens to be in Spanish. And secondly, using it gives the impression tht Argentina have some form of political ties or say over the Falkands, which isn't true. The name should be mentioned in the article, but I can't see why it's listed in the opening line.

Latest British ruido de sables

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9797902/Defence-chiefs-prepare-new-plans-to-defend-Falkland-Islands.html

Which section does this Saber noise go under? Hcobb (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't per WP:NOTNEWS. You might like also to refer to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV noting the numerous provocative moves made by Argentina lately, the article you refer to reflects that this is a response to Argentina escalating tension not the other way around. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Falklands' Spanish name pronunciation

Moved from Wee Curry Monster's talk page:

"I don't find it so unnecessary that it shouldn't be there in any hypothesis. English speakers may not know that Spanish b/v after ell is kind of an in-between of the two (unlike dee and wye, that are always a denti-alveolar stop [d̪] and a post-alveolar [dʒ] or palatal [ɟʝ ~ ɟj] affricate respectively after ell, but in other circunstances reminds one of an English voiced th or in-between English y and French g), or that Spanish ess assimilates the voice of the following phoneme, unlike the English one that assimilates the voice of the preceding one (so they won't know where to use whether [s] or [z], IF they know Spanish has [z]). Many users like this kind of information; I understand your point, so much that I purposefully reduced the "Spanish pronunciation" tag before the transcription, but still I think it would be good to have it there. Perhaps a footnote using the wikireference code will please both Greeks and Trojans? 177.65.49.210 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I seriously doubt the usefulness of the information as, in general, we don't have alternative language names in wikipedia articles. The English wikipedia does have an exception on Falkland's topics. The Spanish article equivalent is linked, so I would imagine its only one mouse click away anyhow and I don't see how that would be different from a footnote. Perhaps the discussion should have been at Talk:Falkland Islands. Un abrazo Wee Curry Monster talk 16:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)"

---

Just as you know, I know that much of information because my native language is over much of the world thoroughly confused with Spanish (and it reminds one of it in the aspect of lenition of voiced stops b, d, g - that people say to not exist in Brazil, what is bullshit as the d of anyone I know is almost always a "voiced th" because Brazilian tongues speak in a kinda "relaxed" way, in a way different to that of Spanish-speaking ones, that is why we have denti-alveolar l and n, alveolo-palatal ti, di, x and j, and AFAIK don't have apical pronunciations, the reason the English apical ths, especially the voiceless one, seem a bit awkward to copy for us), it was my second language, and some aspects of Linguistics, especially Iberian languages' phonology, are really very easy to learn for me.

You appear to be very learned in the matter but I would venture to suggest this is too much detail for this article. This isn't information many readers would be able to use and as I said, the Spanish article is a mouse click away. Lets see what other editors think. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, it is the very same IPA used for English. And as Iberian languages have fewer phonemes than English, and our orthographies are many times more phonetic in nature (Standard Portuguese is essentially still "Mediaeval", and dialects of it scattered throughout the world and of minor languages, such as Mirandese, even more, unlike English that by a span of about 300-400 years or so gets to be mutually unintelligible in comparison to its older "version" but conservates orthography AFAIK because of tradition and the lack of a governing Linguistic body that would apply spelling reforms), we don't use IPA in articles of Wikipedias in them for our own native languages (I actually saw this a few times only for English and German names' pronunciation there). It is likely that your average user will search this kind of information in Google, and that is not the purpose of the project (BTW, Wiktionary's phonetic transcription of Spanish and Portuguese is about 5 times poorer than Wikipedia's – e.g. Anglophones can separate syllables of our words in highly unusual, and actually inaccurate, ways, such as creating unexisting codas e.g. at-l[á ~ â]n-ti-co –, I should also be working this on there). 177.65.49.210 (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sovereignty dates to 1690???

A letter in to the Financial Times gives a summary of the sovereignty dispute which is consistent with everything else that I have read. It states quite clearly that the earliest claim to sovereignty was made by the French in 1764 - in 1690 Strong merely named the islands. Martinvl (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What? Are you serious, you challenge a long standing and sourced text on a WP:SPS. Strong not only landed and named but claimed the islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the issue here (Martinvl please correct me if I'm wrong) is of whether there are sources that attest he actually claimed it, not just landed there. I also point out that www.falklands.info is down (has been for a while) and its reliability is questionable (WP:SPS). Why not find a better reliable source for the statement the he in fact claimed it? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The FCO wrote "In 1690 John Strong, a British Naval captain, took part in the first recorded landing of the then uninhabited Falkland Islands. He named the Islands after Viscount Falkland, who shortly afterwards became the First Lord of the Admiralty." - Note, no mention of claiming the islands. I found similar postings from FIG, and from the North Dakota State University.

Other sources such as The Guardian, Fabian Society, July 1977 mention John Strong in the same vein and then go on to mention the 1765 settlement. The Merco Press goes on to state "In January 1765 Admiral Byron landed at Saunders Island north of West Falkland and claimed the isles for the crown of Great Britain."

What reliable sources do you have stating that Strong claimed the islands for Britain and that once Strong got back to England that the English Government acknowledged his claim - all the references that I have given, including the FCO and the FIG merely state that he landed there.

Martinvl (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the above, this source states "In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766.[20] Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III." I trust that User:Wee Curry Monster will now revert his last change and bring the lede back into alignment with the body of the artcile. Martinvl (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what controversial fact is claimed by one or the other party, you have to agree there's no need to start including claims in the lede... it will easily get out of hands. --Langus (t) 00:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Strong claimed the islands in 1690 for the English crown, Byron later did so for the United Kingdom. That said, I agree with Langus that a tit for tat exchange of claims in the lede is unwarranted. The point remains though that we don't change things on the basis of an WP:SPS in this case a letter just because its published. The only exception would an acknoweldged expert commenting on his area of expertise. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral, not a puppet of the British or a puppet of the Argentines

It should be mentioned that the Falkland Islands is under the legal jurisdiction of the Tierra del Fuego province of Argentina. Otherwise, people will not know whether it is an Argentine territory, Argentina province, non-provincial city (like Buenos Aries), or what. Afghandeaths (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I would not oppose a brief (one or two sentence) mention of this in the "Politics and Government" section (primarily to avoid changing anything from the consensus-attained "Sovereignty Dispute" section), including it in the lead seems like a provocation for Wikiconflict rather than an improvement. And, even then, I think my proposal may be considered too friendly. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 11:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that Argentine law carries no weight on the Falklands. So Certainly the article should say that Argentina lists the Falklands as part of the Tierra del Fuego province.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to mentioning that Argentina lists the Falklands as part of the Tierra del Fuego province in the sovereignty dispute section. However, to present this as an equivalent to the Falkland Islands Government is not a neutral change per WP:WEIGHT. Mentioning it in the lede is not appropriate for that reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, a brief mention in the Sovereignty dispute section would be appropriate. Perhaps something like this?:

• Argentina lists the islands, along with South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, as part of its province Tierra del Fuego.[3]

What do you think? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems perfect.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gaba p's version. Gets the point across. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added the sentence to the mentioned section. I added "From that year on" at the beginning of the sentence so that it would match the ending of the sentence before it. If this is not acceptable for some reason, it can be rearranged. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that the positioning proposed implies that there is some connection between the re-establishment of relations between Britain and Argentina on one hand, and the establishment of Tierra del Fuego province on the other - I don't believe the events are linked. As such, I have moved the point to the end of the paragraph that details Argentina's position, since that point directly deals with Argentina's view of the status of the islands, and I have changed the word "lists" to "considers". Kahastok talk 21:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Very good, I only added the sentence above because that way I could link it with that date but I agree about the implied connection. I just removed a comma that I felt was unnecessary (just a silly style edit, feel free to undue it if you feel otherwise) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic Group

Is 'Falkland Islander' a ethnic group? Mtpaley (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say no. Ethnically, most (if not all) Falkland Islanders can be classified as White British (from British people).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Spanish name?

I think the English Wikipedia articles are making a fundemental error of logic in regards to the naming convention. We are posting this: (/ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas) in our article introductions, But this presupposes that everyone who speaks Spanish recognizes Argentina's claims.

However, if you go to Babylon.com, and you translate "Falkland Islands" you get this: Falkland Islands, Human Translation: Islas Falkland (Islas Malvinas, archipiélago en el Océano Atlántico al Este de Argentina) The literal English to Spanish translation is: "Islas Falkland" And this is similar to how the literal English to Spanish of "Hawaii Island" is "isla de Hawaii" takes place

But, if you got to Google Translate, you get a biased result. For example, at Google translate, "British Islands" translates to "Islas británicas" But at Google Translate "Falkland Islands" translates to "islas Malvinas"

This is is NOT an accurate language to language translation. Google has clearly interjected the poltical Agentinian claim into the the translation process. This is the same as if Google were to translater "Southwestern United States" as "Aztlán" instead of "Sudoeste de los Estados Unidos" And indeed, there are many out there who see the SW USA as "Aztlán" http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html

In the case of the Falklands, it is an error of logic to presuppose that ALL Spanish speaking people also transpose meaning instead of merely translating the term. "islas Malvinas" has an entirely different meaning than "Islas Falkland" and Wikipedia is pepetuating a misomer if we continue using it this way.

The correct Spanish translation is "Islas Falkland" The poltically-tinged Agentinian translation is "islas Malvinas"

But Argentina does not speak for Spain - Spain is part of the EU and the EU recognizes the name as "Falkland Islands", therefore, for us to say that the "Spanish" translation must also transpose the political intent (not merely translate the words) is wrong.

Read this: http://www.definitions.net/definition/falkland%20islands "The Spanish name for the islands, Malvinas, is from the French Malouins, inhabitants of St. Malo who attempted to colonize the islands in 1764. (From Webster's New Geographical Dictionary, 1988, p389 & Room, Brewer's Dictionary of Names, 1992, p182)

Wikipedia is perpetuating a misomer

98.118.62.140 (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting comment but the alternate language names are not just a simple translation but the common name in the other language. Lots of places have a different names in different languages that are not just a straight translation, have you a reliable source that Islas Malvinas is not the common name in Spanish? MilborneOne (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Spanish language is regulated, the officially endorsed Spanish translation is Islas Malvinas. Islas Falkland was commonly used in Chile until comparatively recently and is still commonly used there; officially the Chilean government encourages the use of Islas Malvinas. And interestingly right up to the 1930s, Islas Falkland was used in Argentina - even in 30% of textbooks issued by the education ministry. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Regulated by whom? I've provided more than one reliable source which says that Islas Falkland is correct. The controlling legal authority in terms of naming The Falklands Islands, so far as Spain goes, is the EU. And the EU recognizes The Falklands name as "Falkland Islands". And clearly, the points I am making do back up what I am saying: The term Islas Malvinas is not a translation of the term Falkland Islands. Rather, Islas Malvinas is a entirely different term with totally distinct lingistic roots. No actual translation occurs. What we are posting is blatantly false - as false as saying 1+1=3. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Even the NYT backs me on this point. As NYT makes clear "Argentines call [the Falkland Islands] Las Malvinas". It's only an Argentinian usage, not a global Spanish usage. It's wrong for Wikipedia to inject itself in favor of Agentina's pet name for the islands, unless we denote it as such. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands were called Islas Malvinas even before Argentina was a country. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not only an Argentinian term, it's the correct name of the islands in the Spanish language. The official regulatory entity of the Spanish language is the "Real Academia Española" (based in Spain, not Argentina). If you go to their dictionary "DICCIONARIO PANHISPÁNICO DE DUDAS" and search for "malvinas" you'll see it says:

• Malvinas. Forma tradicional española del nombre de estas islas... No debe usarse en español el nombre inglés Falkland (Islands).

which translates to:

• Malvinas. Traditional Spanish form of the name of these islands...The English name Falkland (Islands) must not be used in Spanish.

(emphasis added). I hope this clears your doubts. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Islas Falkland is used, as evidenced by the edict from Mercosur to stop the practise. As Carlos Escude notes here (Published Working Paper of the Duke-UNC Program in Latin America Studies. Durham N.C., N4, Octubre de 1992):

“ Regarding the treatment of the Falkland Islands, the survey shed interesting results. These islands were present in almost every text throughout the century under study. Nonetheless, before 1940 there were six significative exceptions (out of a total of 31 texts) in which sovereignty was not attributed to Argentina, whereas after that date there was not a single case in which such an attribution was not made (in a total of 46 texts). Another indicator pointing in the same direction is that the use of the British name of the islands was registered seven times up to 1941; after this date, the term Falkland is replaced by Malvinas without exception. By and large, the language used to refer to the British occupation of the islands was considerably more moderate before 1945. This is not to say that there were no cases of a passionate attack on Britain in the early years, which there were. Nonetheless, before 1945 there were several cases of a surprisingly mild treatment, whereas afterwards the treatment became standardized and more homogeneously severe. The paradox is thus that indoctrination became more intense well after a century had lapsed since the British takeover of 1833. ”

It was also used in Argentina before 1941. I have said it before that the official translation is Islas Malvinas but there is significant minority usage of Islas Falkland. The same does not apply to use of Malvinas Islands, which is mainly restricted to fringe use or English language publications by Argentina. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent poll result

Does anyone plan on adding mention of this to the Sovereignty dispute section? I feel it's notable. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's already mentioned. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 11:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Right you are. Thanks for the quick response ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've copy edited the sentence on Argentina to simply state that Argentina rejected the referendum. To state in Wikipedia's voice that Kirchner stated the referendum was illegal under international law does not comply with WP:NPOV. If that were the case, and it isn't, a neutral commentator's comment would be needed and we would need to reflect the range of opinions in the literature. This was a classic example of abusing the use of quotes to make a political POV statement in a wikipedia article. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)