Talk:Falkland Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleFalkland Islands is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 6, 2015.
Article milestones
March 28, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
November 6, 2013Good article nomineeListed
April 12, 2014Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
July 19, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team  
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Note icon
This article was included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Falkland Islands at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q: Why does the article include the name in Spanish at the top?
A: Because as this article talks about a sovereignty dispute, and the name is part of that dispute, both ones are referenced in the lead. The rule is to name the islands as Falklands, with a reference to the Malvinas name on first use in the article, and from then on call them simply Falklands. This rule is detailed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands. This rule only apply to articles that deal with geography or the dispute itself.
Q: The newspapers are talking about the dispute! Shouldn't the article include that info?
A: In most cases, the likely answer is no. This article tries to keep a summary of the dispute from a historical point of view, and avoid recentism. Most of the times that the press talks about this, it is either the anniversary of some old event, or something that can be shortened as "A British politician said that the Falklands must remain British" or "An Argentine politician said that the Falklands must be Argentine". Those things rarely have an actual significance for the dispute, as they are just a confirmation that both sides are simply staying at their regular positions. Sometimes, a modern event may have the required historical significance (such as the Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013), but those are few, and do not take place on a regular basis.

Wow, whoa...[edit]

Ah, the Falks (may I call you Falks?), the Falks are always a peaceful spot on the globe, caressed by the gentlest of warm breezes...

Dear Roger 8 Roger, you say "Take to talk if you want to. Be careful about casually accusing other editors of vandalism". Well, hey, the unilateral, undiscussed edits by Thunderbelch (talk · contribs) sure look like WP:ENGVAR mistakes to me. Ah, look at their talk page: "looks like vandalism "- Falkland_Islands, and "you're confused about whose English" UK English versus US_English

So far from being Inateadaze (talk · contribs)'s unique viewpoint, the user that jammed in "changes that violate English grammar rules" was Thunderbelch. However, you templated a new user with a loud "you're not cooperating!!" while reverting text to that from an editor which has been blocked recently for non-cooperation. Sure looks like the wrong end of the stick to me.

Now I'm no expert on British English, which I have to assume applies doubly here, but I've had drilled into me the interesting take on the thing vs. the things that populate the thing. That is, where a murikan would say "Facebook has facepalmed", the English would say "Facebook have facepalmed". When referring to the entity composed of people, you give due respect to that composition by referring to those people - 'have' not 'has'.

For years (at least June 2014 until December's belchageddon) the text in the lede read:

As a British overseas territory, the Falklands have internal self-governance, and the United Kingdom takes responsibility for their defence and foreign affairs.

From scanning the various 'discussions' hereabouts there seems to be controversy over 'thing' vs. 'things', with an assertion that the Falkland Islands are "a thing". Mm-kay. Thus must be "has internal self-governance". Mm-no.

Since when does a geographic entity - them rocks - have "self-governance"? It is a people or the people's representatives that have or exert 'governance'. An island does not bang gavels at court nor debate bills. Since when does an island have "foreign affairs"?

In focusing unilaterally on dirt and rock, both you and User:Wee Curry Monster are quite forgetting the people. It is they and their status as agents that require "have internal self-governance" and "their defence and foreign affairs."

Please go back and examine all of Thunderbelch (talk · contribs)'s edits here. Some may be legitimately addressing the fragrant isles as a geographical unit. Others of them were disrespectful to the population, whether from confusion, ignorance of WP:ENGVAR (as shown by others'complaints), or whatever reasons.

And the "too ready" friction evidenced in the recent history is what drew my attention. It was unwarranted and unbecoming to these elysiastic havens. Shenme (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The Falklands is both a geographic and political entity, in the same was as say Essex or the Hawaiian Islands.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I will add, for the record, that in the US English dialect, plurals still "have" and singulars still "had". Also, the word "Falklands" is clearly a plural, so any point of trying to make it a singular noun are misguided at best. Furthermore, most of these grammar differences between the dialects of modern English are closer together than they're made out to be in recent additions to this talk page. Also for the record, as a US English speaker and US resident, I find it odd that US English would be applied to this article and that US rules would be enforced. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Shenme, as I said before, the problem was first with his confrontational language, not the grammar, lest we forget that. Second, the grammar - This UK-US divide is invention. I'll assume good faith and not an intentional distraction. The grammar point is the same for both countries, and both counties have people who will use plural or singular at different times for different reasons. OrangeJacketGuy, "Falklands' is not clearly a plural just because it ends in -s. Plural or singular will depend on the context. This article is about the singular territory, and the singular archipelago, so it seems better to me to treat it as singular, but I am quite happy to hear an alternative opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If your problem was with "confrontational language", and not the edits, then why did you undo the edits? The fact that you are repeatedly adding scare quotes to the word "Falklands" tells me that either you do not care what you are reverting and simply want to get your own way, or you're an Argentine nationalist. Which is it? Either way, there is no excuse for your behaviour. It really is disgraceful.
The article correctly used the plural until the disruptive user "thunderbelch" changed it on 8 December last year. There was no reason for the change, no discussion of it, no consensus, note any justification to be found in any guidelines or policies. So what has motivated people to do aggressively defend them?Inateadaze (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

We have the East Falkland and West Falkland islands, collectively known as Falkland Islands. Seems clear as water that the name is plural. Also, this article became a featured one using British english (which is also, as far as I know, the variety of English used in the islands), so we should stick to that. Cambalachero (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW: in British English either singular or plural is possible. There is a semantic difference between the two. If you are talking about the islands as individuals, they you use the plural. If you are talking about the islands as a unit, you would use the singular. It's a fine distinction, and it doesn't matter that much if you just use the plural across the board, but the singular is perfectly grammatical when discussing the Falkland Islands as a single political entity or archipelago.
Americans may be familiar with the change in usage with "United States" following the US Civil War. "United States" is treated a singular noun in all forms of English, even though the word "States" is ostensibly plural. This is similar, except that it would be unusual to use "United States" as plural because you wouldn't use it to refer to multiple individual states as opposed to the federal government. Kahastok talk 17:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

A request came in to full-protect this page to stop you all edit-warring with each other. I'm not going to just yet, as the reverting has died down a bit, but I will reserve the right to do so if anyone else reverts some trivial naming. In particular, Inateadaze, this revert, falsely accusing a fellow editor of vandalism and responding with a nationalistic slur is unacceptable and if I see more of this, you may be blocked from editing. I am well aware of The Sun saying "Gotcha!" - there is no need to stoop to their level. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

In situations like this, the correct procedure is to follow WP:BRD. I would commend Inateadaze to read this essay as it will help him avoid conflict in future. His comments here have only inflamed matters and caused other editors to lose patience with him. He can call me an Argentine nationalist if he likes, it won't be the first time and it won't be the last I imagine. But its intensely amusing given that the names I've been called by Argentines that are none too pleasant.
Interestingly, I went back and looked at this editing back in December and both Slatersteven and Roger8Roger reverted most of Thunderbelch's edits. It appears they checked all and only left this one. As Kahastok notes the use of "Falkland Islands" can be both singular and plural. In this case referring to the archipelago, the singular is grammatically correct. I happen to think Roger8Roger is correct and Inatedaze is both wrong grammatically and in his conduct. But to be honest I can't really be bothered to engage in an interminable discussion on the matter. Life's too short folks. WCMemail 19:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
PS only replying because I was pinged by Shenme can I politely ask you don't ping me please. Thanks WCMemail 19:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It was me who requested page protection here. I have to say there's an irony in an editor saying that the correct process to follow is BRD - but then completing the paragraph with the statement that they have no interest in discussing the topic any further. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Well I'm glad that amused you. Cheers, WCMemail 21:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, turns out Inateadaze was a sock of WP:BKFIP. An editor known for edit warring and aggressive comments when their edits are disputed. The sock is now blocked, I don't know if editors wish to reconsider whether they want to reverse the changes introduced here by his edit warring and the subsequent locking of this page. WCMemail 15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

paragraph about origins[edit]

It is clearly sourced and linked data that the islands were settled with a mixed population under British government, justifying the term "mostly Scottish and Welsh descent". The fact the population is described as homogenous, and some people are of non-British origin means that "most people are of Welsh and Scottish origin" is wrong, the population is of mixed origins, with the British element the largest. Also the linked census says 43% of islanders are locally born.

There is also tonnes of evidence that the Argentine population of 20 continued to live on the island after the gaucho murder period of 1833-1834 period, given Carmelita Simon and family, Santiago Lopez and Antonina Roxha are documented on the islands in the 1850s.

Boynamedsue (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The islands weren't settled by the British Government, it wasn't organised like that. But you are right the islands are not and have never been ethnically homogenous. In addition, you are correct the population brought by Vernet continued to live on the islands after the Gaucho murders of August 1833. There was no expulsion event as currently claimed by Argentina. WCMemail 21:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The evidence for the origins of the Falklanders is

The quote showing continuity is this "No shots were red; there was no violence of any kind. Four civilians chose to leave with the mutinous garrison in the schooner but the majority of Vernet’s two dozen settlers, mostly gauchos, remained under the British flag."

Anyway, I would advise you to re-read the Laver text, if you have access, and see if it actually says that "a majority of the settlers are descended from Scottish and English settlers" or whether it claims that the English and Scottish settles were the main body of original settlers. Because the two things are different, and the first is non-sensical given the amount of intermarriage occurring in a 9 generation society. BTW, objectively speaking, Laver is wrong, the census data from 1843 shows that the early colony was principally English, with 11 Scots, less than there were from Montevideo, it also includes 5 of the original Argentine colonists. There were no Welsh people on the island. I suppose this is a primary source, but it is published with notes by the historians working for the Falklands government, so could perhaps be valid as a Wiki source. I am using De Stefani merely to indicate that the British population DID NOT arrive IN 1833 as the article currently says. I'm only using De Stefani because it's the only book currently linked to Falkland Articles that I can honestly say I've read. I know he's controversial, but there really shouldn't be any controversy about the fact that the British didn't just dump a load of Scots and Welshmen in the South Atlantic in 1833. This is not a political edit, it is a nonsense removing edit.

Boynamedsue (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In 1843, the main agricultural activity was still the exploitation of the large herds of feral cattle on the islands. In the 1850s, the agriculture switched to sheep farming as over exploitation wiped out the cattle. This was then associated with an influx of Scottish shepherds. You don't need to cite Destefani, Mary Cawkell's work has the same information, even Gustafson whose work is sympathetic to Argentina describes the expulsion claim by Argentina as myth. It may have escaped your notice but I am in fact agreeing with what you're saying. I would suggest working up an edit in talk before putting in the main article. WCMemail 22:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What I wrote about De Stefani was mainly for the attention of the other user, we cross posted so it looks like I'm answering you in disagreement. What do you think about removing the reference to Scottish and Welsh and simply putting "British"? Boynamedsue (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

On the balance I think I'd prefer to keep the reference to the Scottish and Welsh, there is a majority of islanders descended from that wave of immigration - although some might be better described as from the borders eg Watson. WCMemail 22:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, how about:

–The Falkland Islands population is homogeneous, with locally-born inhabitants mostly descended from Scottish and Welsh immigrants who settled in the territory after 1833. Roberto Laver argues this is likely the result of government policies which successfully reduced the number of non-British populations that at one point also inhabited the archipelago. Laver states that "naturalization ordinances" in the first decades of the British colony "show a wide variety of settlers from places in Europe, Northern, and Central America, and a couple from Argentina". The Falkland-born population are also descended from English & French people, Gibraltarians and Scandinavians. That census indicated that 43% of residents were born on the archipelago, with foreign-born residents assimilated into local culture.[133] The legal term for the right of residence is "belonging to the islands.

Citing the 2016 census rather than the older one, what reference would you put for the population origins? as the census does not actually include ancestry details.

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm tempted to remove reference to Laver:

The Laver reference is one opinion without a balancing counterpoint per WP:NPOV and I would suggest that other references contradict his claim. Actions to influence immigration were pretty ineffective, eg Lafone was supposed to bring in British settlers, instead he imported mainly gauchos from Uruguay. WCMemail 06:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've changed it to a slightly edited version of what you wrote, the only difference in substance is the addition of "South Americans" to the list of contributors to the population.

Boynamedsue (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

43% of census[edit]

It's a big document that censusReport 2006.pdf - a quick scan through it, or rather a search for "43" bring back a fair few examples, but can you clarify where it is stated that "that 43% of residents were born on the archipelago"? It may be there, but I can't see it.

Also, can you offer up more detail on your supplied source of Destéfani? No page numbers, no quote, nothing to support the claim. Is it a reliable source, given the history between the Falklands and Argentina - and the publication date of 1982, when the conflict also took place. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Destéfani is a source to be used with great caution and only for uncontested facts. The book is effectively a sponsored WP:SPI, 127,000 copies were printed during the Falklands War in 1982 and distributed free to academic institutions around the world. It is very much a propaganda piece. WCMemail 21:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
[1] According to Table 6.2 of the 2012 census 47.1% of the population was born in the islands. WCMemail 21:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The 2016 census is 43%

page 7.

Boynamedsue (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


"Most Falklanders favour the archipelago remaining a UK overseas territory, but its sovereignty status is part of an ongoing dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom."

There is no dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands, the above section is misleading in that it may encourage the reader to believe there is validity in the Argentinian claims. There isn't, full stop. I propose the following instead:

"All Falklanders, with a tiny minority excepted, favour the archipelago remaining a UK overseas territory. Argentina currently disputes the sovereignty status of the islands, a claim entirely without merit." (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the quoted sentence needs to change: it is grammatical incorrect bacause there is no direct link between the two phrases to justify the 'but' conjunction. A simply edit should solve the problem. Your proposed replacement has problems of its own though, including a glaring, and wrong, point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talkcontribs) 07:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes there is a dispute, it may not be valid (or have a legal basis) but it is still a dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I think both comments are valid. Yes the dispute should be mentioned, but I also think that the dubious status of the dispute itself also merits attention. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
We do.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I know. I'm supporting the status quo - which to be honest is somewhat unlike me, I admit. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, we should not suggest that the basis for Argentina's case is dubious; we should report the facts and allow readers to determine for themselves whether they think the two sides' positions have merit or not. In fairness, I believe that this is what we do already. Kahastok talk 15:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The proposed text wants to present one of the opinions of an ongoing dispute in wikipedia's voice, which goes against the neutral point of view policy. We have to describe the existence of a dispute and who says what, but without trying to settle ourselves who is right and who is wrong.

This is a featured article about a controversial topic. Let's try to keep its quality. Cambalachero (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Where exactly is the "controversy"?!? How is there anything even remotely close to a "valid" dispute going on here?!? If I suddenly decided to dispute the sovereignty of the USA and claimed that you are all still rightful subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in spite of your insolent rebellion a few centuries ago, you'd laugh me out of here in an instant. You certainly wouldn't add a clause to the USA article here suggesting that there was "controversy" and "dispute" surrounding US sovereignty just because I kicked up a fuss. Yet frankly, the claim I've invented there has in truth far more validity than the those made by the Argentine government regarding the Falklands. There is simply no moral, legal or historical backing for such nonsense and I think it's ridiculous that it should be included in this article under the guise of "NPOV" when it in actuality it demonstrates a bias you simply wouldn't accept anywhere else. (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Do not sopabox.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The dispute is explained in full detail at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. I said that this is a controversial article because, as a result of its topic, it is frequently the magnet of editors (from both sides of the dispute) who try to use wikipedia to right great wrongs, which is not accepted. Good or bad, the dispute exists, we are merely reporting that it exists and what is it about. Cambalachero (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree. The IP's argument is clearly strongly POV. Whatever our own views on the validity or otherwise of Argentina's case, the dispute is clearly significant to the islands and to this article and merits its current weight. Kahastok talk 15:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. Everything I just said is the POLAR OPPOSITE of strong POV. (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Declaring something to be "the POLAR OPPOSITE of strong POV" - in CAPS no less - is a pretty strong point of view to hold isn't it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it POV to state there is a controversy? Ridiculous. In much of the world the islands are synonymous with conflict, this is something we cannot escape from. Sietecolores (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

UK held secret talks to cede sovereignty[edit]

Can this section and background be added into the profile on the Falklands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? The source is already cited in the article.--MarshalN20 🕊 16:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Replace "Falklands" for "Malvinas/Falklands". "Malvinas" is not the spanish translation. It is the name of the islands.[edit]

Both this and the one about de armed conflict articles say that there is a name for the islands (Falklands) and its spanish translation. This is wrong, because Malvinas is the name of the islands. Is there an endless discussion about wich one is the true name? Yes, but meanwhile, BOTH NAMES MUST BE INDICATED. It should say "Falklands/Malvinas" in replacement of "Falklands". This is the way in which the article has been written in wikipedia in Spanish, determined after a discussion that here seems not to have existed.

The way in which this article was written is absolutely impartial. And the fact that someone have blocked the possibilities of editing it, disgraceful and repudiable. --Kambus (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Falkland_Islands. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Kambus has a point. Malvinas is not a translation of Falklands, it is an alternative name that is used in English by a not negligable number of sources. This means the lead should not use the translation insert but rather use 'also known as'. The naming convention link is also incorrect in referring to Malvinas as a Spanish translation. The UN decision to demand the use of Falklands (except for Spanish speaking countries) does not change the way we should treat the place name here. Should we start tweaking this, and many other, articles? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, look back over the talk page history and this is opening a can of worms. We've had endless bad tempered discussions that ultimately lead to the current guidance WP:NCFALKLAND. In English, the predominant name is Falkland Islands, Malvinas is included because of the connection to Argentina's sovereignty claim. There is clearly a POV motive at play here in this suggestion and the situation on the Spanish language version is not as the OP claims but reflects the usage here. As such I don't believe the OP has a point, so much as is making one. WCMemail 10:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Two minds over this, technically it is not a translation, it is an alternative name. But I am also sure that matters.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
My view of how the lead should read is: The FI, also known as the Malvinas (Spanish" Las Malvinas )There would be citations backing this 'also known as'. I am not sure where his possible POV motive fits here because it is a fact that Malvinas is an alternative English language name and not a translation of FI. Las Malvins is a translation, of the French name that predates The Falkland Isles Malouinesnot of 'The FI' A very quick look at a google search count gave a 10-1 count for FI over The Malvinas. This is not ideal because of the many variations possible of the different names eg The Falklands/Falkland Islands. However, there are clearly quality English language sources that do use The (not Las) Malvinas. Here's one [2]. I do confesss though that I have not seen the earlier discussions about this. I am also aware of the can of worms that might be opened if we started to give anything resembling equality to the Spanish name. But that does not mean we should not do it anyway.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I oppose that suggestion, there are English sources that use the name for minority POV reasons. You're talking about violating policies of WP:UNDUE and also ignoring that to do as you suggest would require changing WP:NCFALKLAND. The lead already mentions the Spanish equivalent so I don't see what value your proposal is adding, other than kicking a sleeping dog for no benefit. WCMemail 13:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
A minor point but the article linked to is a Spanish publisher writing in english, most of the english language hits are for example the Argentine Government writing in English but using the Spanish name due to enmity for it's English language name. WCMemail 13:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that the word "translation" here seems to be being used here to mean something other than "translation".
For instnace, if "Malvinas" is a translation of "Malouines", then it is also translation of "Falklands". By definition. The fact that "Falklands" and "Malvinas" are not etymologically related to one another is irrelevant. The Spanish islas is not etymologically related to the English islands, but that doesn't mean that they aren't translations of one another. Neither is etymologically related to the Hungarian szigetek, but that doesn't mean that szigetek isn't a valid translation of islands or of islas. And it doesn't matter which came first either.
Insofar as "Malvinas" sees any usage as an English word, it is WP:FRINGE usage by a small minority of writers who use it with the deliberate intention of makimh a political point. Doing as Roger 8 Roger proposes would thus be a major problem in terms of WP:WEIGHT.
And finally - and unsurprisingly - this debate has been had many times, and at one stage brought this page to the brink of Arbcom (yes, a long time ago, but even so). We've seen nothing at all new in this discussion so far. I suggest you go back and read the previous discussion and consider whether continuing this adds anything useful. Kahastok talk 17:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

What is exactly under discussion here? There is a name for the island in English language, and there is another in Spanish. Translation, two standalone names... which is the difference, other than a semantic one? What does it propose to change in the way the article is actually written? Cambalachero (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Precisely mate, it's not adding anything. WCMemail 15:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The guideline says: The predominant usage in English is Falkland Islands, but the name Malvinas is encyclopedic information, of particular importance with respect to the disputed Argentine territorial claim. It then goes off track by saying Malvinas is a translation of Falklands. Sticking with the first sentence which is probably the intent of the guidelines, it confirms what I am suggesting - that the name Malvinas is sometimes used in English and is encyclopedic enough to be mentioned here. Are we misinterpreting the intent of the guidelines. Trying to keep this on track, the nub of my suggestion is simply that we do not treat Malvinas as a translation of Falklands. That is not a fringe idea at all, it is simply correct and backed by sources. How we incorporate that into this and other articles is open for debate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The guideline uses the current text of this specific article as an example of what to do.
I must admit, I would have thought that would have made it blindingly obvious, to even the most inexperienced editor, that it's endorsing the current text of this article. Kahastok talk 21:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to add, both names are of British origin. "Malvinas" comes from Saint Malo, a town in France named after a Welsh saint, and "Falkland" comes from the Scottish nobleman Viscount Falkland. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0C:5BC0:40:109E:6C4F:7968:F789:DDCD (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)