Talk:Falklands War/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Military : Harriers

There is half a sentance in the Military section, "whilst it proved the small but manoeuvrable jump jet as a true fighter aircraft". I took this out originally, it was reverted back in. I've taken it out again.

The reason for this is that the engagments Harrier fought were simply a case of staying on station and firing Sidewinders at incoming or departing strike aircraft. There was very little engagement; Harrier was operating as a deployable missile platform - and even then, against much older, cheaper and less capable aircraft, which were not even fighters, but strike aircraft, and which were not trying to engage the Harriers at all, but avoid them.

Concluding from these sorts of engagements that the Harrier is a "true fighter aircraft" is ENTIRELY improper.

Toby Douglass 13:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

well your analogy is a bit close minded to the reality of the 1980s, by which i mean that you assumes that the harriers ability to function as a deployable missile platform was not that of a 'true fighter aircraft'. Cannon fire was used to attack argentine planes so some dogfighting did occur. Equally, although facing obselete technology the sea harrier was outnumbered. I believe there were approximately 30 providing air cover for the task force. The main thing to remember is the history of the harrier. It's been designed and built, this amazing aircraft which can hover... and the only people who buy it are the US marine corps who then don't use them, so hardly anyone else will buy them. It was designed in Britian and even the British won't buy it! Then Britain buys a few to boost sales and likes it, and then in 1982 uses them for the first time in a combat role (bear in mind, no one up till then had used one in real combat). Being realistic, there was never any way the poorly trained, ill equipt, low morale argentine army was ever going to defeat a battle hardened professional and high tech British army.... the only really percievable way the argentines could have won the conflict (and nearly did) was to use their air power to destroy the british shipping. Sandy Woodward said that if any of the mission critical ships (i.e. the two carriers) had been destroyed it would have been game over for britain. So the fact the sea harrier could gain air supremacy was incredibly important. Just because its not a spitfire vs' zero style dogfight doesn't mean the harrier wasn't and isn't a true fighter aircraft.WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Few (bar possibly Sharky Ward and 801sqn ) seriously considered the SHAR as able to act in an air superiority role prior to 1982. Despite some of the restrictions of the Argentinian Air Force in engaging over the Falklands from Tierra Del Fuego, the Mirage (and hence Dagger) were considered genuine front-line air superiority fighter/interceptors in 1982. They failed to down a single Harrier and, despite their egress speed, still lost a number of aircraft.

Even fewer, post-82, would write off the Sea Harrier in an air superiority role again. Hence, I contend it proved itself, and I maintain the line is valid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BadWolf42 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

No Harrier was lost in ait-to-air combat but a number were show down on bombing missions and a significant number was lost when the Atlantic Conveyor was hit. Confused coyote 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic Conveyor did transport six RAF Harriers to the South Atlantic Ocean, but they were transfered to HMS Hermes prior to the attack on Atlantic Conveyor. Necessary Evil 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a good idea to mention that this is the first time that the Sidewinder (AIM-9L) was first used in combat? Confused coyote 12:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Malvinas question (part 94)

I can't help but notice we (the English wikipedia) include a Spanish name in the opening paragraph of the article, but in the Spanish entry, the English translation is not given.

I therefore propose removing (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas) on the basis of this precedent. I know this is contraversial, so I invite discussion. --BadWolf42 17:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree- the Spanish name for the war is only ever used by Spanish speakers- it is not used in English- and should be removed. We don't give the German translation for World War II in that article for example. Astrotrain 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree- The reason the Spanish name is given is because if you consider the Argentine claim legitimate, that would be what the island would be called. Fephisto 01:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Argentinian claim, legitimate or otherwise, is speculative. The UK claim is absolute. The Spanish article does not include it, therefore there is exact parallel precident to not include the (internationally rejected) Argentinian claimed title. --BadWolf42 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

internationally rejected ? sorry, but the last time I check the UN refer to the islands as Falklands/Malvinas and the ISO Standard is also Falklands/Malvinas. Jor70 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Internationally rejected, yes: Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ; Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which seems to suggest the claim is moot. Of course none of that detracts from the fact that Guerre de las Malvinas is not English.--BadWolf42 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The claim had nothing to do here. UN called them Falklands/Malvinas, that is what are we talking here . --Jor70 12:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we're talking about a spanish translation for the conflict name, not an alternative spanish pronoun. Since the name in English is the Falklands War, this should not be translated (the translation is not used in English). Mention the alternative Island name by all means, but not a translation of a phrase. --BadWolf42 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont see that what they say in the Spanish wikipedia has any relevance here, and given the poor quality of the Spanish wikipedia opverall we shopulkd noty set a precedent like this (ie if they want to behave badly that doesnt entitle us to do so). I would recommend editing the Spanish wikipedia to add the Falklands not removing the Malvinas name from here, SqueakBox 16:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I contend the Spanish version is behaving correctly as in Spanish the conflict has a different name. In English it's only called the Falklands War. This is the English Language Wikipedia and its content should be to that end. We don't see (known in French as Londres) in the London article or (known in German as Zweiter Weltkrieg) in the WW2 article, do we?--BadWolf42 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

According Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names both names are allowed. This conflict is known as Guerras de las Malvinas by at least 400 millions , not seen that is simply NPOV --Jor70 12:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No English speaker calls it Guerras de las Malvinas as only one of those words is a pronoun, the others are spanish. Mention the alternative pronoun for the islands, sure. Don't translate an article title into a foreign tongue. --BadWolf42 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the es version here and will be ionterested to see if I get reverted but if I do it has niothing to do witht the en wikipedia or this page, SqueakBox 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree - the Spanish name should be added, especially as in many countries that is the name that the islands are known by --Vintagekits 15:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's the islands, not the war. The Falklands War is not known as Guerra de las Malvinas in any English-speaking nations. --BadWolf42 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  - If someone says 'la guerra de las malvinas' then they are blatently speaking in spanish, and so should refer to the spanish wiki. In the English language, not the ENGLISH POINT OF VIEW, the war is called 'the falklands war'.

Role of the media

It would be intresting to see a section on the role of the media in the Falklands, with an outline of the UK government's intervention and effect on the news media output. - CELaycock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.251.0.8 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

So flaklanders dislike Argentina?

(moved by BadWolf42)

I don't deny that most falklanders dislike us, but there are some that don't.

Now i quote http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/L/2003/A/un030636.html (United nations Decolonization Comittee:

JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, petitioner, said he was a Falklands Islander who had lived on the Argentine mainland for several generations. Since the turn of the nineteenth century, Argentina had welcomed immigrants from around the world. Argentina had just elected a new president and Argentine democracy was slowly maturing. Record crops, herds and the increase in the wool industry made him optimistic about Argentina’s economy, despite its foreign debt. In southern Patagonia, where most Falkland Islanders had settled, there was a promising future in tourism. Many farms in Patagonia had had a good season, and the possibility of working and sharing experience with farms on the Islands would be interesting.

He said Argentina’s legitimate claim to sovereignty could not be denied. An agreement must be reached. The rights of Argentina’s claim to sovereignty would not be dropped. He requested the United Kingdom to respect resolutions on the matter to find a just and lasting solution to the controversy.

ALEJANDRO JACOBO BETTS, a petitioner from the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said the issue was one of sovereignty, and the only parties involved in the dispute were Argentina and the United Kingdom. The cause of the problem was the illegal occupation of a territory by an occupying Power and the resulting claim by the prejudiced State for the full recognition of its pre-existing legitimate sovereignty. The only acceptable basis on which to find a just and definitive solution to the Falkland Islands/Malvinas question was through the application of the principle of territorial integrity. The dispute began in 1833, when British military forces invaded and occupied the Islands by force, expelling the original Argentine authorities and inhabitants, he said. Since then, Argentina had never consented to that violation of her territorial integrity. The principle of self-determination could not be utilized to transform an illegitimate occupation into full sovereignty, under the protective shield of the United Nations. He wondered why, in an age when colonialism was being eliminated and mutual respect between nations was being consolidated, did the United Kingdom persist in maintaining its occupation of the Falklands/Malvinas in detriment to its relations with a friendly State.

Quote: "The Argentinian claim, legitimate or otherwise, is speculative."

Alexander Jacob Betts is the first of many falklanders who recognize the argentine right to own the islands. He researched the Falklands' history and found out that the brits told a lot of lies . After the war he movet to the argentine mainland so everything he had on the islands was stolen by the government. Do you think he'd have risked everything he had for some argentine speculations?

—Argentino (talk/cont.) 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Argentino, there is little point in trying to shoehorn Argentina's claim into a territory that has consistently declared that it wants to keep its British status. Manhunting for someone who disagrees does not change that. Luis Dantas 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What does this article have to do with the question of the English name for the conflict, Argentino?--BadWolf42 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the talk page (or history) of Falkland Islands you can find this same issue, and the name Malvinas was added to the opening paragraph because may english speaking people use that name too. Now two Falklanders, Betts and Lewis, recognize the argentine claim.

The spanish name is included in the argentine claim so there are at least 2 falklanders who use that name, or at least recognize it a the true name.

If there are falklanders that use it, then it should be on the article. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're really clutching at straws here, digging up the opinions of two pariahs isn't going to impress anyone, is it?NJW494 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No English speaking Falklanders call it La guerre de las Malvinas. They may recognise their country is referred to by a different name in some regions, but that doesn't mean translating English phrases to spanish.--BadWolf42 02:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"No English speaking Falklanders call it La guerre de las Malvinas" - did you really actually say that? Of course they dont because it is British running - because this is "English wiki" doesnt mean that it is wiki from Englands POV it means that it is English language wiki--Vintagekits 20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you note, this was in response to Argentino's If there are falklanders that use it, then it should be on the article. There are no English speaking Falklanders who say La Guerre de las Malvinas. It therefore does not meet Argentino's criterion to be included. I've nothign against bracketing the first use of Falkland Islands with Malvinas, but the whole phrase is never used in English.--BadWolf42 12:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Malvinas War

"The Malvinas War" is an alternative name for the Falklands War, I supplied SIX references to back this claim up, ALL references were from BRITISH websites including a Cambridge Universtity paper and the BBC additionally there are also 22,000 hits for Malvinas War on yahoo and 37,000 for Malvinas War on Google. Other editors stated that the term was POV - my opinion is that by stating that the term "the Malvinas War" is POV then they are ignoring facts and simply showing their own POV. However I do not appriciate referenced material being deleted.--Vintagekits 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It may exist but it isnt notable enough to be included in the opening, I have never heard of it and it sounds thoroughly obscure given most people either call it The Falklands War or use spanish and call it "La guerra de las malvinas" which we do include in the opening. I am not the only one who thinks this, and the problem with Malvinas war is it gives credibility to the nname Malvinas in English, which I dont believe it has. Please dont threaten to report me for vandalsim as you will be considered acting in very por faith making what you know to be a false claim, edits need to be notable and not merely referenced, and anyway the article is protected, so much for alleged vandalism (lol), SqueakBox 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We might as well call it La guerra de los Falklands, SqueakBox 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not notable? 37,000 hits on Google!--Vintagekits 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(a) that isnt many, (b) we cant use google research here as it is original research, and (c) in the opinion of myself and at least one other editor it isnt notable, no. On the other hand it does sound like pOV pushing, as would La Guerra de Los Falklands be either here or in the es wikipedia, SqueakBox 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How many is "many" then? I tend to stick to facts, I will leave the POV pushing to you. If it is POV can you explain these (more to come if you have a problem with these -

Infact I consider the article page title POV and it should be changed to The Falklands/Malvinas War--Vintagekits 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Falklands War" is how it is most widely known in English, so that should be the title, but "Malvinas War" is also used sometimes in English (as Google shows), so this should be noted somewhere in the article and bolded as an alternate name. Jonathunder 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It should only be bolded if in the oepning and I for one strongly oppose its mention int he opening, SqueakBox 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it clearly is used as an alternate name, and alternate names are conventionally bolded here. We must present both points of view. Jonathunder 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it is used enough to be considered in the opening, we already have La guerra de las malvinas and to also put in this obscure The Malvinas Watr looks like POV pushing and would even more with 2 refs to Malvinas in the openiong. SDuch a contentious edit will never last because of its extreme anti-Brit sentiments, SqueakBox 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not "anti-Brit" to plainly report the fact "Malvinas War" is used, as it clearly is, especially by those who avoid the term "Falklands". In doing that, Wikipedia is not taking any side, it is just reporting what terms partisans take or avoid. Jonathunder 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your points are only showing your POV. Over 30,000 hits on google shows it is not obscure and the page name should be altered to The Falklands/Malvinas War. To highlight this point I should point out that an article called Malvinas War was already set up back in July 2004 and is infact an automatic redirect to this page!!!! --Vintagekits 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oi oi! look what I found - Falklands/Malvinas War was also set up in August last year by PaulHanson and is again an automatic redirect to this page!!!!--Vintagekits 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's fine as a redirect. The war is known as The Falklands War and you simply wont get support for changing it to a name that it was never called and never will be called. Its called The Falklands war or La Guerra de Las Malvinas and we have to use common usage and as this is the En edition. Google is just finding documents with both the word war and the word Malvinas in them and even were there 30,000 documents its nowhere near enought o change the page. This is clearly politically motivated POV pushing, SqueakBox 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"the war is known as The Falklands War" - yes, it is known as the The Falklands War BUT it is ALSO known as The Malvinas War.
"it was never called and never will be called" - that is plainly wrong and you are just ignoring ALL the references that I shown you and the 30,000 hits for it on Google.co.uk - additional I and many other people I know solely call it the Malvinas War and never use the term Falklands War.
There are two English terms for the war and one Spain - all should be incorporated.
If you search for Malvinas War with inverted commas around it then it will search that exact term only so again you are wrong.
The only person pushing a POV is you - I am not saying that the article name should be changed to The Malvinas War what I am saying is that both English names should be incorporated into the title in order to be fair and balanced.
Finally, I only highlight the redirects to highlight that these terms are already out there and can not be whitewashed--Vintagekits 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Which I have now put in the article along with your 6 references, SqueakBox 23:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you've just now put it on (on line 339!!!!) at least now you accept its legitimacy - however, it should be Incorporated into the title - ie. either Malvinas/Falklands War, Falklands/Malvinas War,The Malvinas/Falklands War or The Falklands/Malvinas War--Vintagekits 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I strongly oppose that, as did 2 other editors this morning. From what I know of the history of this article and its contributors its likely that you'll have a hard tiime getting a consensus. We already say Malvinas in the opening and now mention this alternative, what more do you want? esp remebering NPOV, SqueakBox 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are serious about moving the article, you can list this at Requested Moves, but I doubt from experience and knowlege of the naming conventions that the article will be moved. Jonathunder 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt all kinds of redirects exist. Even redirects from common misspellings are helpful to readers. The article should be at the most common English name for the thing, however, with alternate names used given in the text. Jonathunder 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The only point of contention is where in the text. certainly not in the opening where we already give the Spanish version, SqueakBox 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

When you say "the only pov pushing is you" do you refer to me alone or the 3 editors who reverted you this morning (lol)? to say calling it The Falklands War is POV pushing is plain ridiculous and not really worth the effort to debate over. Only pro-Argentinians would claim otherwise and this article must not and clearly will not become an Argentinian nationalist propaganda tool, SqueakBox 00:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Again you are showing your POV - what I am saying is that we should be reporting the facts - FACTS not POV - you are ignoring the fact that in the English language the war is not only called The Falklands War but is also called The Malvinas War. Facts not POV, try it! --Vintagekits 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not really true, Vintagekits. The name "Malvinas" is not recognized at all by the established government of the Islands. It is not an "alternate" name for them, but rather a part of the (IMNSHO illegitimate) claim from Argentina for sovereignity over them. Using that name in Spanish to refer to the Islands is already somewhat improper if not altogether delirious; using it in English is simply pointless. The article should recognize that some countries (especially in South America) call them "Malvinas", but not treat that name as if it were legitimate - it is not. I would much rather recognize "Bharata" as a legitimate English language name for India; that, at least, is a name that some of the actual people living there want to use, as opposed to what happens in the Falklands. Luis Dantas 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Luis, I am not saying the Malvinas is the official name for the islands - the arguement is that "The Malvinas War" is the alternate English name for the War along with the Falklands War.--Vintagekits 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes but its not equally called those names, ie 99% of people say Falklands and the other 1% of politically motivated Brit haters say Malvinas, so that is why it should be on line 339 and not on line 2, SqueakBox 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, totally POV and its getting boring - try being a little balanced--Vintagekits 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets wait and see what some other editors think in the morning, eh? I suspect there are those who will agree with me if not go further, SqueakBox 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told, SqueakBox, nearly all Brazilians (and, I figure, Argentinians too) name the Islands "Malvinas", weird as that is. That is due to the strong rejection of the English language that exists in these countries, I am afraid. Luis Dantas 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose we mention the spanish name for the Falkland Islands in parentheses, but not La guere de la Malvinas, as that's not a spanish pronoun, but a simple spanish translation, which has no place in an English article. --BadWolf42 02:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So then, you agreed to use Falklands (Malvinas) War instead of Falklands/Malvinas War ? I can live with that. --Jor70 14:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Malvinas War" seems to be a common term in Marxist/left leaning circles skimming through those many google found links. And a lot of the links are to "Falklands/Malvinas War" not purely "Malvinas War" - presumably the writer is trying to be even-handed.GraemeLeggett 15:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd propse the following: --BadWolf42 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Falklands War was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands (Spanish: las Malvinas), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Falklands consist of two large and many small islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina, whose ownership had long been disputed. (See Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands for the background to that dispute.)

The only problem with that is that 1. It doesnt give the alternative English name and 2. nor does it give the Spanish name for the war, which which are both fundamental flaws imo, and could look like an attempt to whitewash--Vintagekits 15:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The alternative English names would be Falklands Crisis or Falklands Conflict, both of which are in more use than Malvinas War, so I think we can rule all out as an unimportant minority (NPOV does not require equal prominence for extreme minority views). There is no need to give a spanish translation of the name of the war, as this is the English Wikipedia, and offering alternative pronouns used by Argentinians speaking English is one thing, translating a phrase into spanish is another. No-one would use the full phrase in spanish when speaking in English.--BadWolf42 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect and google and yahoo both bare that out - we could also say that Malvinas Crisis or Malvinas Conflict!! Undue prominence is given the term Falklands over Malvinas which is POV. Also it is standard wiki policy to give a translation for interlingual affairs. It just seems to me that some British editors have a serious negative almost allergic reaction as soon as the word Malvinas is mentioned which is clearly POV - we should try and be objective and not just put one side forward.--Vintagekits 16:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This isnt so as Malvinas is a Spanish name and Falklands an English name and this is an English wikipedia so of course we must give precedence to the name Falklands. I would argue giving too much prominence to the Spanish name on the English wikipedia would indicate that wikipedia is taking the Argentine side of this conflict whereas using Falklands only indicates that we are the English wikipedia. I dont believe anyone is opposed to the insertion of the word Malvinas, it just needs to be done in an NPOV waty and I tend to agree this means saying Falklands (Malvinas) but not La Guerra de Las Malvinas, which is a bit of a mouthful for English speakers, SqueakBox 16:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Because its a "mouthful for English speakers" is not a reason not to include it. To assume that I am taking the Argentinian side because I want to report facts is acting in bad faith. Malvinas is not just the Spamish name and as seen from the references provided it is widely accepted term in English also, as I already highlight many English speakers ONLY refer to the Malvinas Islands and dont use the term Falklands at all - granted these are not British people but as they were engaged in a War over these island I think it would be fair to assume that they would have a dipole attitude.--Vintagekits 16:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say I thought you were taking sides, but it would appear that wikipedia is, regardless of your own intentions. Its a mouthful for English speakers because it is Spanish not for any other reason, yet this is the English wikipedia. You havent shown that any English speakers only use the word Malvinas nor would it be possible for you to do so, SqueakBox 16:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I don't agree that Google is best practice for establishing the predominance of a term, let's have a quick look at pages written in English:

Malvinas war: 11,600 English

Falklands Crisis: 11,800 English

Fallands Conflict: 168,000 English

Falklands War: 469,000 English

Now can we assume this is not a significant alternative term? Can you cite where it's standard Wikipedia policy to translate to a foreign language? The Second World War is not translated to German, but Third Reich is used: this is fair. Malvinas is a pronoun so dissimilar from The Falkland Islands and used by Argentinians even when speaking in English, so it deserves subordinate inclusion (as I propose). The full phrase for the war translated is not used when speaking in English, so it's not appropriate. Malvinas War is just bizzarely minor.--BadWolf42 16:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we getting crazy? The English name for the islands is "Falklands". I am an Argentine editor, call them Malvinas when speaking spanish but never in English. This is not the place for Political Correctness. Call them Malvinas in a little teeny-weeny paragraph far-from-the-intro if you want but don't change the name of article or the intro. NPOV is not "all points of view", is "neutral points of view". If it's not common in the english language (and Malvinas War is used, but very far from common) then it is my contention that it should only have a place in the fringes, but not preponderant. Using the word Malvinas in the article Falkland Islands makes sense, but not so much here. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree with Sebastian. I think we are not crazy enough to recognize that the islands are called Malvinas in Spanish and by non-spanish pro-argentinians. Not mention the world Malvinas in the intro is therefore a NPOV violation and as I shown before in the wikipedia help this is acceptable due is a controversial name. Therefore I'd propse the following: The Falklands War (or Malvinas War) was a ... --Jor70 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We can say Malvinas is the Es translation for Falklands but by saying Malvinas war we imply the term Malvinas war has equal weight to the term Falklands War which is clearly not true and in this case equally clearly would be pro Argentinian POV as nobody without a pro Argentine POV would call it the Malvinas War whereas most neutral people like me would call it the Falklands War in English and only use Malvinas when speaking Spanish, SqueakBox 19:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also strongly diagree and refer the gentleman to my previous proposal. There is no significant alternative name for the article in the English Language. There is an argument for an alternative name for the islands, later. However. --BadWolf42 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sebastian I believe your searches are inaccurate because in your searches you have done them on the basis that the term "Malvinas" is also not used in the article which completely disfigures the result--Vintagekits 17:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have shown many times where people refer to both Falklands and Malvinas in English and thats is the kind of proof that is need, also I am a native English speaker and I do not use the term Falklands and as you can see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here in these English language articles that Malvinas is used SOLELY or in preferance to the term Falklands.

Therefore I'd propse the following:

The article name is changed to Falklands/Malvinas War

This still show the promenance of the term Falklands over the term Malvinas, and

We use the opening paragraph of - The Falklands War or Malvinas War(Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas) was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands (Spanish: las Malvinas), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Falkland Islands consist of two large and many small islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina, whose ownership had long been disputed. (See Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands for the background to that dispute.)

This is the only solution if the article is to conform to WP:NPOV--Vintagekits 17:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The content is the worst of all worlds mentioning an extreme minority view and a totally different language. Your logic about this being the only solution is extremely flawed. --BadWolf42 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your personal experience is not relevant, that would be original research. I oppose your proposal and support Bad Wolf's proposal. We already mention the Malvinas War lower down and given this is a minority POV, as made perfectly clear form the websites you have given links to, line 300 and something seems about right, SqueakBox 17:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I only highlight my personal experiences because others have - I have also given references to back up my claims--Vintagekits 17:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend something like

The Falklands War', also known as Guerra de los Malvinas in Spanish...

etc. Squeakbox, your first comment in this section said how in your personal experience you had never heard of the war being called this, but know you said that someone elses personal experience is not relevant? Its not a case of translation, or of being POV. RHB 18:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree in my opinion he seems to have a hypocritical POV on this subject--Vintagekits 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I wasnt suggesting using my POV in the article whereas Vintage was, SqueakBox 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Guerra de los Malvinas is a Spanish name for a conflict, not an English name. An alternative pronoun for the islands used in English-speaking Latin American countries is fair enough to describe the Islands, it does not describe the war.--BadWolf42 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

BadWolf42: This is about the fourth time you've used the word "pronoun" on this page. Please could you read Pronoun? The phrase you mean is "proper noun". The Wednesday Island 13:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Given there is absolutely no consensus for the socialist term malvinas War ion the opening I have reverted it. Please try to gain consensus for such a controversial opening before editing it or it will just be reverted. it seems to me the consensus is to have one translation inc Malvinas and to put the bit about the Malvinas war where it deserves top go as an extreme minority POV, ie at the bottom, SqueakBox 22:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no concensus to keep it the way it was also - and stating that it is a "socialist term" may be the truth in ENgland but not elsewhere - remember this is not an "English POV" site just because it is an English language site.--Vintagekits 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but it's a site that uses the terms English speakers use. Your phase is used by a few radical anti-Britons and Marxists and is not worthy of equal consideration (which WP:NPOV emphasises). It's worth mentioning in some Spanish-speaking countries when translating to English use the hybrid term, which is why the Name section was added at the foot. The status quo doesn't make sense either, IMO, as it's not an English language term. --BadWolf42 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)