The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America 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.
Falkland Islands is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Falkland Islands at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
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.
Some news pages (like Merco Press) have recently announced that a new island has emerged near the Falklands, which may have been confirmed by Lithuanian geologist Professor "Loof Lirpa". If you find one of those sources, don't use it. It's an April Fools' Day prank, and many otherwise reliable sources fell for it (just read "Loof Lirpa" backwards). --Cambalachero (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The Spanish for "The Falklands" isn't "Los Malvinas", its "Los Falklands". Just because the Argentinians and their allies call it "Los Malvinas" doesn't mean that's how you say "Falklands" in Spanish. Its as ridiculous and partisan a claim, as claiming that "Novo-Russija" is the Russian language translation for the words "The Crimea". 220.127.116.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
No. "Falklands" is still currently an English term, not accepted as a Spanish name for the archipelago.--MarshalN20✉🕊 14:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
One way to determine it is to look at a Spanish encyclopedia or geography book. In one respect he is correct, there is no direct trsnslation.Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Why does the article even list the Spanish name? The Falkland Islands are a legal and de-facto British Overseas Territory. The natural islanders all have British nationality, and (where possessed) British Passport. The official language spoken, written and taught in their schools is British English. Spanish is categorically NOT an official, nor unofficial language of the Falkland Islands nor the natural islanders - and therefore the Spanish translation has NO place in this British English language article.
Wikipedia has a clearly established official Spanish language version, and so that, and ONLY that should be the place to detail a Spanish language translation of their official legal British English title. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
First, that link refers ONLY to the actual naming of the article, rather than the prose. So that is NOT valid. Under INTERNATIONAL LAW, the Falkland Islands are BRITISH, and they wish to remain British.
Secondly, please refrain from your BLATANT VANDALISM of this talk page. Do NOT try to re-add WikiProject Argentina, and then hide it within the banner shell template - as you previously did. You have been warned on your personal talk page that should you continue to VANDALISE with your biased point of view, you WILL be reported to the Administrators Noticeboard. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Being associated with Wikiproject Argentina doesn't convey meaning that the Islands are Argentinian, only that the article is of relevance to that project. Knee jerk reactions are not helpful to wikipedia. (Hohum@) 17:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The article was already tagged with the Wikiproject Argentina template when it became a Featured Article - and has been a stable part of the page for many years, so I have restored it. (Hohum@) 17:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Forgive my frankness, but that is a very feeble reply. First, to address your comment that WP Argentina was included when the article was promoted to FA is a red herring - on many levels. The FA was awarded in 2007 (IIRC). Your claim of 'stability' is void - a/ because the article is locked from editing, and b/ is adamantly disputed, and so needs independent reliable source citations to support the INCLUSION of such a vehemently disputed point of view!. The FA assessment refers ONLY to the actual article page, not the talk page contents (though I accept that talk page discussions are viewed). The WP Argentina was sneakily hidden in the banner shell template, and so may not have even been noticed. There are also highly valid talk page comments which have repeatedly disputed the Argentinian issue - yet these have conveniently been hidden in the talk page archives.
As to your comment about the WP Argentina having no relevance to being owned by Argentina is deeply offensive. International law has repeatedly dismissed Argentinas claim of sovereignty. Wikipedia has clear guidelines about WikiProjects. By having the Falkland Islands covered by WP Argentina categorically DOES imply that Argentina does have a lawful and valid claim to the Falkland Islands - when international law has robustly dismissed their illegal claim. WikiProject South America is perfectly adequate to cover the scope of the Falkland Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
User 188.8.131.52, please login. It is clear that you already know a lot about wikipedia to be just a new user passing by. As for your comments, let's see. First: the link refers to both the article name and the name used in prose. The article name is indeed just "Falkland Islands", not "Islas Malvinas", "Falkland/Malvinas" or any such thing. The name is mentioned in the first usage of the term because there is a sovereignty dispute over them, and the name is part of that dispute. This is not a minor academic dispute between writers, but an actual and ongoing diplomatic dispute. Third: do not overestimate the significance of a wikiproject. That this article is within the scope of Wikiproject Argentina means that there are wikipedia users interested in topics related to Argentina who worked or may be interested to work with this article, and nothing more (and nothing less). Fourth: it was not me who included the article in that project. I started working in Wikipedia many years ago, and this page was already there. Wikiprojects are not collapsed in an attempt to "hide" them, it is simply a custom when a given page belongs to several projects, so that the top of the talk page does not become too convoluted. Fifth: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You are welcome to make bold changes, such as removing a page from wikiprojects. If nobody contests your edit, fine. But if someone does contest it and reverts things to the previous state of things, things will have to be discussed. Cambalachero (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I endorse that. I suggest the IP may wish to review WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, because they are not coming across in a way that's likely to persuade people to act on their proposals. Kahastoktalk 18:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
And yet another clarification. Older discussions are not "hidden in archives" because of some undesired opinion held in them, but simply when people cease to say things in them after a time. All discussions are eventually archived, and the process is automatic. This is done because if discussions were not archived, talk pages about articles with a related real-world controversy (such as this one) would become incredibly long. Cambalachero (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It's been a while since this article had a peculiar discussion. The IP is inherently unpersuasive because their proposal is inherently unacceptable. Such a proposal should not be entertained, even if it was presented by a civil, NPOV editor. We have all gone through these issues in the past; all that must be done is cite the conventions and move on.--MarshalN20✉🕊 03:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I never understood why the Spanish was included either. Why is it exactly? Just because Argentina claims the islands does not mean we must add in their name for the islands. The Falklands are an British territory and the official name is the Falkland Islands. Stating the Spanish only implies that that is an official alternative name for the islands when it is not. Mabuska(talk) 12:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The fundamental reason is the dispute.
This is an article on a set of islands, including details of their administration. (We have not gone down es.wiki's route of splitting the two concepts up). There is dispute internationally as to whether they are British or Argentina. We might say, they are a British Overseas Territory - and clearly they are. UK law is what defines a British Overseas Territory and the Falklands are included. But they are also, at least on a paper, an integral part of the Department of Islas del Atlántico Sur, part of Tierra del Fuego Province. If we're going on legal designation, we have no reason to assume the British designation over the Argentine. The point is disputed. We describe the dispute.
Now, are the two claims strictly equal in status and position? Of course not - Britain holds actual control and Argentina does not. Hence the infobox. But Argentina's claim is nonetheless highly relevant to the islands and to the article. This is not that unusual. On articles on disputed territory we do often give names in all disputants' languages, particularly when they are etymologically different. Liancourt Rocks, for example, includes the Japanese name even though the rocks are controlled by Korea.
I note that this pattern - using the English name as primary but acknowledging the Spanish name at first mention - is also a standard formula in neutral English-language sources on the subject. We aren't doing anything novel here, either based on precedents both on and off Wikipedia.
I would note that even if we accept that it is neutral to leave out Islas Malvinas, it doesn't look neutral to many a lay reader. Acknowledgement of the naming dispute - as we do by listing Islas Malvinas in the lede - is a well-known litmus test for neutrality on this topic. Wikipedia attempts neutrality, but frankly often falls short. On this article, I believe we have neutrality, but an international dispute between an English-speaking country and a non-English-speaking country is precisely where you would expect not to. There are plenty of readers who will assume that the article as a whole is non-neutral if it doesn't pass the litmus test.
And finally? This is a compromise reached by consensus in a dispute that was one step short of Arbcom. Yes, that was a long time ago, but even so. The reasons for the consensus remain the same. I see no reason to change it. Kahastoktalk 22:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll give a fuller response soon, however your reasoning seems to rely quite a lot claims I see little or no evidence of and appears to give more credence to Argentina's claims, which is itself non-neutral. I can understand the geographical argument but even then Falklands is a political state like Liancourt Rocks. And whatabout Rockall, it's disputed between the UK (de jure), Ireland, Denmark and Iceland. I don't see the Irish name Rocail being used or the Nordic name whatever that may be. Mabuska(talk) 22:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Mabuska, according to the articles on those places, none of the listed countries have formally claimed control of Rockall. Please cease from turning this talk page into a discussion forum. Regards.--MarshalN20✉🕊 00:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The Spanish name was las Islas Malvinas, from the French name les Îles Malouines.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
MarshalN20 your prejudice in regards to this issue is well known on Wikipedia. The discussion and questions are to do with article content so your complaint is neither here nor there. Regardless those countries still claim them especially the Republic of Ireland. Mabuska(talk) 16:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Mabuska, are you asking a question, proposing a change, or just complaining? The question has already been answered. If you have a proposal, have in mind that there is a guideline that specifically instructs this, and you would need a big and broad consensus to change it. This is also a featured article, which means that several unrelated users have reviewed it and agree on its quality. We have explained the reasons for the consensus because we are polite, but if you start accusing people of bias for not agreeing with you, we may simply ignore you and let things stay they way they are. Cambalachero (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Please don't confuse "Spanish Language" with "What they call things in Spain" (or parts of Latin America). The phrase "Spanish name" means "the name according to the Spanish Language", not "the name they use in Spain". What name do they use in Belize? Belize is in Latin America, but its part of the Commonwealth, so they call it something like Falklands, even when they are speaking in Spanish. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the official language of Belize is English. --Cambalachero (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This morning, the Today Programme (the main political-news programme) on BBC Radio 4 (the largest spoken-word/news broadcaster in UK radio, by a country mile) quoted Jeremy Corbyn (leader of the UK Labour Party; the second biggest political party in the UK) as saying that The Falklands War was a Tory plot to keep their money-making friends in business.
This is probably significant enough to be worth mentioning in the article - both for making the Falklands War a current election issue in the UK, and as an opinion on the war by a significant national figure.
Oppose mentioning it - Just a sound bite and not really noteworthy at all, and an opinion on what may or may not have happened in the past is certainly not a British election issue. MilborneOne (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Also oppose. Apart from the above not a reliable secondary source. It’s either a primary source with Corbyn the source, unless someone were to write about it and the Falkland Islands – even if they did the topic is more likely the Falklands War. Or it’s thoroughly unreliable, a political soundbite, one of the left’s crazy conspiracy theories. Either way it does not belong here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
And what if he said that? What else happened? Did other politicians criticize him? Did other politicians support him? Did it shift popular support to the candidates in some noticeable way? Was some bill or actual policy proposed because of it? Or did it just passed unnoticed as just one of the many things said before some election? Note that, even if some small discussion surfaces, X being an important topic of Y does not mean that Y is also important for X. See Wikipedia:But for Napoleon, it was Tuesday --Cambalachero (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Also do not consider it relevant to this article. I also highly doubt it to be relevant in the Falklands War article. In any case, any further discussion on this particular quote should be taken to the aforementioned war article. Regards.--MarshalN20✉🕊 14:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree, with both (to a degree) Mr Corbyn's comments and the reasons stated as to why this should not be included. This is just a throw away election comment no more.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.