| Revision as of 00:41, 18 April 2006 edit7265 (talk | contribs)2,690 edits →Oxford English Dictionary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:52, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,342 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 28) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
''This page was later moved from ] to ]. -- ]'' |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|page=Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|action1=PR|action1date=28 March 2011|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Falkland Islands/archive1|action1result=reviewed|action1oldid= |maindate=6 January 2015 |
|
|
|action2=GAN|action2date=02:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)|action2link=Talk:Falkland Islands/GA1|action2result=listed|action2oldid=580396518 |
|
|
|action3=WPR|action3date=12 April 2014|action3link= |action3result=copyedited|action3oldid= |
|
|
|action4=FAC|action4date=07:29, 19 July 2014|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Falkland Islands/archive1|action4result=promoted|action4oldid=617411746 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FA|topic=Places |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islands}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject British Overseas Territories|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Argentina|importance=Top |topic=Polit }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject South America|importance=high|Falkland Islands=yes|Falkland Islands-importance=top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press|author=Fernández de Castro, Rafael|date=12 October 2012|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rafael-fernandez-de-castro/wikipedia-seeks-historic-_b_1955336.html|title=Misplaced Pages Seeks Historic Truth in Falkland Islands Controversy|org='']''}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config|archiveheader={{aan}}|maxarchivesize=100K|counter=28|minthreadsleft=4|minthreadstoarchive=1|algo=old(60d)|archive=Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive %(counter)d}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=/Archive index|mask=/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Origin of the name Îles Malouines == |
|
* '''Archive of discussion prior to March 11, 2006 Straw Poll is ]''' |
|
|
* '''Archive of Straw Poll & Falklands vs. Malvinas naming debate (March 11-30, 2006) is ]''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article currently claims the '<nowiki/>''Îles Malouines''' were first named by Bougainville in 1764. I doubt this can be true, as the islands are marked under the same name in Guillaume Delisle's 1722 map of the Americas. This was pointed out by somebody called Lewis Bettany in a letter published in the Times Literary Supplement on the 13th of February 1930; he credits the naming only to the 'men of St Malo' some time after 1698. ] (]) 19:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:We need an RS for this, a letter in the Times will not pass muster, ] (]) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::An unsourced letter (let alone one from 1930) is not good enough for a positive confirmation but copies of the 1722 map, including digital scans, show the name in use earlier than 1764. Could we have something like: 'the term "''Îles Malouines"'' is first recorded in 1722...?' ] (]) 02:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Looks a bit like ], if an RS says otherwise we need another RS contesting it. One issue may be maps are reissued as this was and often updated (this may have been) without acknowledgment, so we do not know if this is a 1722 1st edition or a much later (and modified) reprint. Which is why we need an RS's assessment. ] (]) 11:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Question on vandalism == |
|
== Discovery of the island == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am from Portugal and although I am not very sure because the article I saw was not in Portuguese, a mission by Amerigo Vespucci in 1502 for Portugal sighted the islands, let me know if I am wrong, thanks. ] (]) 19:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
Is there anyway the page could be protected against '''unsigned''' edits? These amount for over 95% of the vandalism acts! Regards, ] 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, this is called ]. You can request it here: ]. However, I suspect the admins will say that the vandalism rate is too low for protection, and that we should just revert when it happens. You may wish to try. -- ] 23:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Seems unlikely given that our article ] suggests he didn't get much south of modern ]. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
I think theres a good case for everything to be semi protected, but this is not the place for that level of policy change. In any event guess the real vandals would just register new names.--] 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Malvinas boldface? == |
|
I will wait and see how it goes. If this sort of actions continues, I shall be requesting semi-protection. Regards, ] 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent activity on the talk page doesn't seem to suggest consensus on the lack of boldface on Islas Malvinas in the lede - ] implies it should be, and there's nothing specific in ]. I'm inclined to boldly edit (so to speak) but given the topic thought I'd make sure I'm not stepping on a settled issue. ] (]) 03:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:It seems to have quietened down. I note that simple vandalism on the Gibraltar pages is reverted in a minute or so, so someone is watching closely. --] 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:It does, how? ] (]) 11:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Forget semi-protection, it needs around 10 vandalistic acts a day. So, just keep it on your watchlist and revert when you see it.] 15:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Because ] is a redirect, presumably. (] ]) 13:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ahh fair enough. ] (]) 13:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Irrespective of what ] says, it is not common or standard practice to boldface non-English renderings of place names in the leads of articles, even in cases where there is a redirect from the non-English rendering. ''Islas Malvinas'' is included because of its use in Spanish, not because of any ] usage in English. I would oppose bolding it in this case. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 17:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Not sure this is true - compare this with the convention shown in ], ], and ] - though these are transliterated for the benefit of English readers (this being English Misplaced Pages), all competing names one could be redirected from are rendered in boldface. ] (]) 10:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::We do not boldface ''Corse'' at ]. We do not boldface ''Caerdydd'' at ]. We do not boldface ''Helsingfors'' at ]. We do not boldface ''Açores'' on ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::::The cases you raise are very clearly different cases from this one, where what is being highlighted is English-language usage of these terms, outside the English-speaking world. Use of ''Islas Malvinas'' as an English term is ], and it would be strongly ] for us to imply that it isn't, as you propose. If anything we should be pushing toward the more common solution which is to put the foreign-language names in a footnote (as at ], ], ] and the like). ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 18:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Malvinas Day today == |
|
|
|
:::::::@] - You cite the fact that ''Islas Malvinas'' is not an English name as a reason against it being in boldface. How do you justify the bolding of both competing names in: |
|
|
:::::::*] |
|
|
:::::::*] |
|
|
:::::::*] |
|
|
:::::::*] |
|
|
:::::::*]? |
|
|
:::::::The fact that one name is English and the other is Spanish only appears relevant because this is Enlgish Misplaced Pages - in every other case of a territorial dispute with two nations using different names we boldface both. I'm also not convinced that Islas Malvinas is fringe to the degree you maintain - its very existence as a redirect suggests it relevant enough to address. ] (]) 19:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Being in dispute is not what guides us - we look at what is used by reliable secondary sources. ] (]) 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:It seems quite straightforward. A redirect from an alternative name is mentioned next to the name, and the manual of style instructs to bold the redirected name. I see no reason why this article should be treated differently from any other article. ] (]) 16:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:@] ] ''Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold: Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. (Mumbai)'' It is obvious, don't use it. First, pls see the majic word, 'significant', which Las Malvinas is not. Second, Las Malvinas is a foreign name that should only be inserted in the lead (without bolding) if it occurs in a significant number of English sources which the term, once again, does not. Also, please don't change the lead once a discussion is happening. Wait for consensus. This is a case of editors trying to squeeze as many additions into an article as their keyboard and wp rules allow. Please use common sense, the term is in a foreign language, so treat it as such ] (]) 18:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::All the cases proposed as examples are merely cases of uncontroversial name translations. That's not the case here. And I doubt that just bolding the word has any effect on neutrality anyway. "Malvinas" is included because of ], and ] says that those redirects should be bolded. Straightforward. This is a featured article and it should follow all relevant policies, guidelines and MOS. And I haven't changed anything in the article in either way, anyway. ] (]) 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Today, 2nd April, is ] in Argentina: Day of the War Veterans and the Fallen in the Falkland Islands. May the fallen from both sides rest in peace. ] 16:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
According to sources cited in this article, the U.N. refers to it in English as '''Falkland Islands (Malvinas)'''. That should be bolded. ] (]) 19:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:"" ] (]) 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:What the UN does, by itself, is not relevant - look at many secondary sources, not just one. Anyway, the UN reference is using English plus Spanish, not English plus English. The term 'The Malvinas' is English and has always used in some English sources, not necessarily to do with the sovereignty dispute. But this discussion is about the foreign term 'Las Malvinas'. By way of comparison, see ]. That foreign term for the River Plate has become well entrenched in English, to the point where it is now the commonly used term in English, but River Plate is still significantly used by sources, which allows River Plate to be bolded. ] (]) 19:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Bias== |
|
|
|
:::@] Replying to your points above as well so as to streamline this discussion: |
|
I've been looking at this quite carefully, and I'm afraid that I detect a rather significant bias. Look at these two sentences from the first paragraph: |
|
|
|
::1. "''Being in dispute is not what guides us - we look at what is used by reliable secondary sources''" - I've just scanned a few recent news articles on the Falklands, and the majority mention the term IM at least once, albeit in the context "termed Islas Malvinas by Argentina". I admit this is a brief look, but I'm certainly not convinced the term is uncommon to the degree necessary to call it a mere foreign toponym. |
|
|
::2. "''Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold: Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. (Mumbai)''" - From ]: "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not." - The signicance of the name is established - IM redirects to the article. Also, Bombay is just as foreign as Mumbai as a name and is still bolded - it's a Gallician-Portuguese phrase likely meaning "good bay" |
|
|
::3. "''That foreign term for the River Plate has become well entrenched in English, to the point where it is now the commonly used term in English, but River Plate is still significantly used by sources, which allows River Plate to be bolded''" - Given "Rio de La Plata", "River Plate", and "La Plata River" are all recognised and boldface in ], I'm not sure you can object to "Las Malvinas" rather than "The Malvinas" being boldface. ] (]) 19:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Among the things that redirect here are ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. By the argument {{tq|The signicance of the name is established - IM redirects to the article}}, all of these should be in bold in the first line of the article, because their significance is established by the existence of the redirect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::The fact that ''Islas Malvinas'' is included in the lead at all is to some degree an exercise of ]. It's difficult to see how it is supported by ], but we have traditionally included it anyway as a demonstration of neutrality. Note that ] also does not suggest that translated names should be bolded. |
|
''In 1982 the islands were the site of the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Their name continues to be a matter of dispute.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::The trend around foreign languages in article leads has moved since the current consensus was reached. It has moved against including them in the first sentence and in favour of discussing them in more detail in a name section. It may be a good idea to do that here. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 20:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
This statement appears to give the impression that both sides in this dispute were equally at fault. It gives no hint whatsoever that the aggressors were the Argentines. Let us change it. ] 23:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::I think your first point isn't a particularly fair interpretation of my point - there's a very clear difference between typos and a distinct name, and Malouine Isles is simply the French term Islas Malvinas originates from. I do agree that Hawkins' maidenland and the Sebaldines could very well be integrated into the Etymology section, but I'm sure you'll agree neither is used remotely as much as Las Malvinas. |
|
|
::::The fact that one name is English and the other Spanish is fundamentally not that relevant - this is a region involved in a territorial dispute, in which each side describes it by a different name, both of which are well attested by reputable sources. '''The convention in this situation is to have both names boldface'''. ] (]) 20:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::By chance I am involved simultaneously with this article (Māori: Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi) ]. The foreign name was unbolded by me which I expect will be re-bolded soon. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that most of these attempts to use foreign language terms in WP articles has a lot to do with pushing a political opinion. WP is neutral and apolitical. IMO. the inclusion of a foreign language name in the lead to articles is grossly misunderstood and misused throughout WP. Incidently, the Spanish for 'The Falkland Islands, as far as I know, is Islas Falklands. with the/las Malvinas being an alternative name not a translation, which would add another factor to consider. ] (]) 20:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::(ec) On the contrary. You cannot just ignore the fact that ''Malvinas'' is Spanish when it is only included because it is Spanish. The tiny minority English-language use of ''Malvinas'' would no more warrant a mention than tiny minority use of ''Hawkins' Maidenland'' or ''Sebaldines'', or indeed the small minority Spanish-language use of ''Falklands''. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::And when your argument is that the redirect makes it important, then you cannot say that it is important in this case but not in all the other cases. |
|
I don't think we should be in the business of apportioning blame, however what is there currently is not a good decription of what actually happened. The phrase I previously proposed does that, and explains the context of the conflict; '''Argentina invaded the Falklands''' that is a fact, thats what they said they did and that what I saw on Spanish television. '''The British sent a task force and recaptured the territory''' thats also a fact which was grudglingly admitted on TVE and announced more enthusiastically by the BBC. It asserts no POV in relation to the reasons for the invasion or the subsequent recapture. We all know what happened, so why not state it instead of trying to be 'politically correct' and waffle that it was 'the site of the war' - it was not technically a war anyway, although it may be convenient to refer to it using that term. The invasion/recapture explains what happened in words everyone can understand. I don't know why it was taken out.--] 10:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think it is easily fixed with: |
|
|
:::''In 1982 the islands were the site of the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom after Argentina invaded the Islands. Because of that, their name continues to be a matter of dispute.'' |
|
|
::Clear, factual. ] 15:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::And to be clear, the convention in this situation - where we have an English-speaking territory, where one name is preferred by the overwhelming majority of English-language sources from all parts of the English-speaking world - would be to use that one English name exclusively and not mention any other language at all, except possibly as an aside in a name section. As I noted before, the only thing that suggests that ''Malvinas'' should be included in the lead in any form is ]. ''''']''''' <small>'']''</small> 20:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
I would support Kim's version, but (with respect) I don't think ] and ] represent an unbiased position, any more than those who support the Argentine position. The tone of the article, including references to the "Britishness" of the residence, conveys (IMO) a much more accurately nuanced position than the use of various "war words" in the intro. -- ] 16:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Units of Measurement == |
|
::There should be no dispute on the name of the isles here: it can only be ''the Falkland Islands''. That is the English language term, and this is the English language Misplaced Pages. Now, as a matter of additional information, and for obvious reasons, the article also states the Spanish name: ''Malvinas''. If possible, that statement should be made without prejudice or bias. If the article needs to add that the word ''Malvinas'' is offensive, it should simply point out clearly who is offended by the word and why. Regards - ] 17:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please can we have international standard metric units before parochial imperial units in the text. ] (]) 17:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::: Havn't got time to talk. I think you should add a link somewhere to the ] ] 18:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Why? ] (]) 17:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
::::If so we also need a link to ]--] 16:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Gibnews, did you see ]? --''Nihil aliud scit necessitas quam vincere'' 04:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I Raise you ] --] 17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I make no pretense of being neutral, my sympathies are with the Falkland islanders. However the words chosen were neutral, made no judgement, and described the important facts concisely. |
|
|
|
|
|
Health warning: ''living somewhere harassed by Spanish speaking nations who have no respect for peoples rights may damage your bias.''--] 08:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::My simpathies are with neither of the parties involved, but as I said, there's room for improvement. I'll give it a try. ] 12:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::There are actually three parties involved, and the people of the Falkland Islands deserve your sympathy; they have had the peacful occupation of their homes dissrupted.--] 17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Excuse me, but I do not see the relevance of that opinion on this Talk Page. Were I to respond in kind, we'd soon be arguing about everybody's sympathies for the Irish people, the Boer families, the Iraqi civilians, the Dervish tribes, the inhabitants of Dresden in 1945 or of Washington D.C. in 1812, and who knows what else. That wouldn't add much to the discussion, would it? ] 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::If you do not see the point, then you are missing something; The Falkland Islanders are alive today and its their views that are important, they live there. There are no Malvinians.--] 23:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::We're way off-topic now, but yes, I'm missing something here, like for example: what has sympathy to the Falklanders to do with an international encyclopædia at all? Having said that, and considering that the islanders were not mistreated on purpose by the Argentinians, I'd guess my sympathies would be with the kids who were left there to their own luck, to face in combat a much better trained professional army. I'd say this has to do with some intrinsic ethnic/geographical bias (I'm also from SouthAm). No disrespect towards the islanders, of course, who where as innocent as the Argentinian youngsters. Regards. ] 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It is '''not true''' that the name "Malvinas" has ''always'' been the Spanish name. It only dates from the late 18th century French occupation, as it was the French who coined the word. "Falkland" is almost a hundred years older, and older still is the Dutch "Sebald", which was also used in Spanish. ] 18:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I believe you Tharkuncoll, but it so happens that the modern Spanish name is ''Malvinas''. I don't quite follow you on this one. ] 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Do you guys actually think it is useful to restart this argument from the top? I don't care if you call the place ''Jelly Doughnutland'', we have argued and (I thought) come to a consensus compromise about how to refer to the Islands, taking into account the various names given them by various countries at various times. ], ], and others, can't we leave this settled, and get together on something more interesting like (e.g.) how awful we Americans are? -- ] 19:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Well, I was just trying to give you guys a couple of suggestions re the ''Malvinas as an offensive name'' matter, from the perspective of a non-Argentinian Spanish speaker contributor. Turns out emotions run high on this Talk Page, so I'd better go now. That should teach me a thing or two about following the wrong RfC :) Cheers everybody. ] 20:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Christ, are they still arguing about this? I wish I had that much time to spare! ] 18:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Reason for invasion== |
|
|
I seem to recall someone wanting a source for the claim that the junta began the invasion to distract attention from unrest at home: The Guardian quotes a recent speech in which President Kirchner blamed ''"cowardly aggression" by the then military dictatorship. The junta, said the centre-left president, wanted to shore up its position at home by embarking on a nationalist adventure abroad'', while he also reasserted Argentina's claim. The story is also covered . ..], ] 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reordering material in intro == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have tried to reorder the material in the intro into a more logical sequence (while doing my best not to upset the fine balance of sensibilities over other things!) The islands should be ''described'' first, before we get into any stuff about sovereignty, wars etc. After that, it makes no sense to talk about the war without first stating the islands' present status and the Argentine claim. The stuff about the name certainly belongs in the intro, but is ''logically'' subsidiary to physical description and sovereignty issues. (This is not meant to be controversial!) ] 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think it was a good edit. I hope it survives. -- ] 19:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Second that. ] 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If we are going to have to put up with alternative foreign names, at least lets not give them the same prominence. Given the way this has been changed in steps from the consensus we arrived at - in a few more moves it could become Las Malvinas (falkland islands)--] 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, that seems to me the nearest we are likely to get to the Holy Grail of NPOV on this matter: Put it in the first sentence (even though it is, in English-language usage, ''very'' much a minority term, as any Google search will verify), but distinguish it visually from the official name by different styling. Maybe it'll make no-one ''completely'' happy, but at least if everyone's equally (and oppositely) unhappy ...! ] 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::First of all, this ussage of only Malvinas was a very hard negotiated compromise, and if you would look at the straw poll above, most were in favour of much clearer language. Malvinas is a english term, so italic is unlogical as that is used for foreign words. If people want that, use than the Spanish version, ''Islas Malvinas'' and put in parenthesis like (]: ''Islas Malvinas''). This slowly eroding of the compromise is not acceptable. ] 09:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Name discussion again == |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that we have to start the name discussion again. The long negotiated compromise is actively violated. What are the NEW arguments to change this conpromise? ] 09:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Italicising Malvinas has to be one of the lamest pieces of edit-wearring I've ever seen. We have now been through this so many times that I have it in mind to block anyone who italicises instead of bolding that word, for ]. It's gone well past a joke. ] 09:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''It seems perfectly reasonable to me, perhaps you need to consider why it is so important to you to demand that an inapporpriate foreign name is given prominence. As for blocking people for simply disagreeing with you, if you do that, you are not acting responsibly.'''--] 11:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::It is indeed a fine candidate for WP:LAME. (I changed it once in the obviously forlorn hope that it might be an acceptable compromise—some hope!) But why would you block for italicising and not for bolding? That seems unduly partisan—aren't both disruptive? Kim seems to be claiming that the ''style'', not just the wording, was the subject of a consensus. I can't see ''any'' evidence of that on the talk page—or in the edit history, if it comes to that. (If anything, italicisation seems to have been the unstated norm in all the discussions.) I'm hardly going to pursue an edit war over two apostrophes, but I'm bothered by the assertion that this is violating a "long negotiated compromise"—and also by a sysop's threat to unilaterally impose one version rather than another. ] 10:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I would also dispute the assertion that "Malvinas" - even without the "Islas" - is actually an English word. When is the word ever used in English, except in edit wars on Misplaced Pages? True, foreign words can indeed become naturalised, but has this ''really'' happened to the word "Malvinas"? Does any English speaker actually call the islands that, without making a conscious decision to do so? I doubt it. ] 10:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It is either a English word, or you have to indicate which language it is. ] 10:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Or not use it at all. ] 10:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Wich has been decided already long time ago. ] 10:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I have a new suggestion: The '''Falkland Islands''', also called the '''Malvinas''' (though ''not'' by the inhabitants), are an ]... ] 10:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::No. A compromise solution has been arrived at. One or two people who dislike the compromise solution (which was in any case largely a response to the fact that - you - they don't like the way Britannica, ISO and the CIA World Factbook name the islands) have taken it upon themselves to try to override or subvert that consensus. It is tendentious and disruptive, and that is not on: they ''know'' perfectly well that their preferred format is contentious, they ''know'' that if they come back here with it they will get the same result as last time, so they are edit warring. And I'm not disposed to sit back and let them do it. ] 10:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
We did indeed reach a consensus, but its been erroded. |
|
|
As for sources The FCO calls the territory the Falkland islands, |
|
|
so do the people living there, its only foreigners that use any other name and this is the ENGLISH wikipedia, but you know this.--] 11:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If we reached a consensus, why break it? Eroded? by what? You continue to go around the same subject without giving any valid reasoning considering the nature of the Misplaced Pages. And if a user decides to systematically go against a consensus that we reached so difficulty, then how is that not vandalism? ]<small>(]/])</small> 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The argument that this is english wikipedia is a bullshit argument, see ]. ] 14:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Why is it wrong to point out at the outset that the islanders don't use the term? Why is an extra fact unwelcome here? ] 10:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Read the talk page. You are now just disruptive. If you can not deal with how wikipedia works, I suggest you leave it. ] 11:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::''Read'' the talk page? They ''wrote'' most of it! The point TharkunColl wants made in the first para is already covered in detail in the third para, complete with context. Nobody who reads that will be left in any doubt whatsoever as to the islanders' views on the matter. What we have now is a compromise between the "No Malvinas" editors' initial demands and the original text; they now apparently want to go back for a second round and come up wth a "compromise" between the compromise and their original demands - a process which will, presumably, continue until such time as the article says what they wanted it to say in the first place. Well bollocks to that. As written, it is neutral and satisfactory to moat of us here, as evidence the discussions above. Not everyone agrees? Welcome to the real world. ] 13:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Is the dispute here ''still'' over the issue of italics ''vs'' bold? If so, no consensus was ever reached on the matter (if I am wrong, please point out ''where'' it was reached). It appears to have been mainly Kim who has consistently been insisting that bold must be used, and misleadingly putting "per consensus" or similar in the edit summary. Though it's a desperately lame thing to edit-war on, please don't claim that consensus was reached where AFAICS it doesn't even seem to have been discussed. ] 14:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::Since that's how the foreign names first appeared when someone added them (i.e. in italics), that's what I assumed the current version would be like. ] 14:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::That holds true only for the (]: ''Islas Malvinas'') format. ]<small>(]/])</small> 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Precisely. TharkunColl is being disingenuous, and he knows it. ] 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::'''''Wrong'''''. The to use the current version of the opening wording gave Malvinas in ''italics''. (Really, JzG, there's no excuse for making accusations like that against TharkunColl, when the facts are easily discovered from the edit history.) It was not until 49 edits and over 12 days later that it was changed to bold. That was by an anon, but Kim has been stubbornly reinstating it ever since—and now calls it "consensus"!! ] 15:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::The most recent version that I have been watching several times and reverted to because of vandalism was with '''Malvinas'''. So, a sudden change to ''Malvinas'' is wierd. I checked the talk page, and the compromise discussed most of the timne contained '''Malvinas'''. At the last version, it became ''Malvinas'' and that one was inserted. Then I was gone from wikipedia for a long week, and when I came back, it was '''Malvinas'''. But I agree, the original inserted version was ''Malvinas'', and I will respect that. ] 16:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::I wonder who changed that? No matter: bold works best. End edit warring works worst, by a ''very'' long way. ] 17:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Thank you Kim, I trust that can now be changed back. However, in the last couple of days the point that "The formal name of the islands is a matter of dispute" which was an essential part of the first paragraph in the agreed compromise has been lost. I would consider it acceptable to have that as added as the last sentence of the current first paragraph, but if that is not agreed we can revert to the wording as as of 16:45, 9 April 2006. ...], ] 17:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:That edit claims that Malvinas "has always been the geographical name for the islands in Spanish". But TharkunColl wrote above: ''It is not true that the name "Malvinas" has always been the Spanish name. It only dates from the late 18th century French occupation, as it was the French who coined the word. "Falkland" is almost a hundred years older, and older still is the Dutch "Sebald", which was also used in Spanish.'' Better, therefore, to add your sentence at the end of the first para. (One would hope it could not be regarded as controversial—even those who think the name "Falkland(s)" ''should'' be used by everyone, everywhere, can hardly deny that the name ''is'', in practice, a matter of dispute.) ] 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Name = Falkland Islands, NOTHING ELSE == |
|
|
|
|
|
The name of a territory can ONLY be decided by the sovereign power, and as such the territory in question is The Falkland Islands. We do not state on the United Kingdom page that in other languages it is known as Royaume Uni, Reino Unido, etc, therefore there is no reason for this to be called anything other than the name decided by the sovereign power. In any case a translation would be "Isle Falklands" "Islas Falkland" and so on. |
|
|
|
|
|
It may be OK to mention on the text that others know it as "Malvinas" but NOT at the beginning of the article as if this had official status. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is not for a group of people on the internet to reach a "consensus" on whether a territory should have a diferent name, this is the sole prerogative of the sovereign power, i.e. UK. |
|
|
:the beginning of the text os for commonly used names, not official stuff. That can be done at government websites. ] 17:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is how you include it, I'm happy to have it there but not with equal billing, as it does not have any official standing, with the sovereign state. see . |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Full Country Name: Falkland Islands''' |
|
|
|
|
|
Now, that is a definitive source for the name - Bill Gates encyclopedia is full of shit. For example the Encarta article says of Gibraltar "major factors of the economy are the processing of food products" - news to me. I thought we were trying to describe the truth not bend it to appease irredentism. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Italics were strong enough.--] 18:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Stop the nationalistic stuff. Government sides are by definition NOT reliable to resolve encyclopedic issues. ] 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's not nationalistic to speak the truth. According to your ideas, the whole world and his wife should have a say in the naming of the place, ''apart from the people that actually live there.'' ] 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It is, however, nationalistic to ignore the alternative name used by a substantial proportion of the world's population, including ISO, Britannica and the CIA. But we have been here before. The FACT is that the British Government, your preferred source, cannot be considered neutral, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. ] 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The British Government's opinion is DEFINITIVE.--] 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, are we ready for that Mediation/ArbCom case that I thought we dodged before? ] and ], are you rescinding your agreement to the previously-reached compromise? I have no wish to reprise the argument carried on at length only a few weeks ago, so if we've lost consensus I suggest we go straight to mediation. -- ] 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Second that. ] 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Not opposed, bu actually there does seem to be broad agreement from all but a couple of editors. ] 22:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I think we should just leave the first line the way it is at the moment. Although I still think the entire intro is poorly written. ] 23:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: How dare you suggest that it is I, and Gibnews, that are the cause of this latest outbreak. There have been dozens of sneaky attempts to subvert the consensus, not least the attempts to put "Malvinas" in bold, rather than italics. ] 23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::My apologies if I have misrepresented your opinion. It would appear that in the comment at the top of this very section, ] has taken a position that ''Malvinas'' does not belong in the lead, and your previous statement ''"This statement appears to give the impression that both sides in this dispute were equally at fault"'' concerning another part of the lead contributed to my belief that you also were rejecting the previous compromise. If it's not so, please say so. Vis the italics vs. bold issue, I support the previous agreement, which was to use italics. -- ] 23:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::On the contrary, I am happy to leave the M word in, but in italics as it is not an alternative legal name - so we are actually in agreement. That was the only change I apart from trying to describe the war correctly which also you were substantially in agreement. I'm not trying to score any political points, or for that matter blame Argentina - just state FACTS like is it.--] 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The compromise never held. People kept on placing increasingly anti-Falkland islander statements in it, based on their own political stance. Why are we treating this territory any different from any other? No one has yet satisfactorily answered why a non-native foreign language term should be included at all, and have most certainly provided no Misplaced Pages articles where this is the case. Their stance in this issue is clearly political. ] 23:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::''"Their stance in this issue is clearly political."'' -- as is yours, of course. However, I take it that you are using the random vandals as the excuse to abandon the compromise? There is no point in further arguing with the partisans on either side, hence my belief that we need to bring this into the Misplaced Pages mediation process. -- ] 23:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::No! My stance is ''linguistic'' - as with all my Misplaced Pages edits. ] 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I can't see any reason for an ArbCom case. Though it's only been a few hours, the present text appears to be stable, and AFAICS <s>neither ], ] nor anyone else</s> no-one from either side (with the exception of a single anonymous intervention from a possible sockpuppet of ]) seems to be actively trying to subvert it. There are still outstanding issues, but no evidence at present that they can't be dealt with rationally without going to mediation. ''Is'' anyone out there objecting to the original compromise text, which I think we have now restored? ] 23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I'm content with the current lead. '''Let it stand'''--] 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Yes, seems okay to me as well. ] 07:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: The next time calm down, why do you need to fight like that? You have been discussing for weeks, and arrived to an agreement, or something that looked like one. Why do you have to carry on? and why do you need to be so agressive? (Personaly I dont care much about a ''name'' but this isn't the way we are supposed to work here); and Tharkun, you have to understand ''our'' puint of view, the "non native foreign language" is the language of the people you expelled. You won't understand why after 180 years we still claim the islands, it is in our blood,it is part of of our argentinity and you won't change that. See, I'm 16, and don't like you very much. (But I'm happy; I know you don't hate us, as many of our connationals hate you, and as an argentine-italian I am not able to complaint, because I will be lucky eough to be allowed to visit if I want, after the EU's constitution.) Excuse me if I offended you - ] <span style="font-size: 70%">(] ])</span> 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: The Falkland Islands are not part of the EU, and like the other British overseas territories, maintains its own immigration controls. Even British citizens need the permission of the territory's government if they wish to reside in the Islands (with the exception of the British military on active service). ] 14:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::After 180 years any people who lived in the Falkland Islands are dead and history. '''We''' the people (here) did not expell anyone and the '''Only''' people who have the right to determine the future of the territory and indeed its name are those people who live there today. Many countries are the result of successive invasions, for instance Britain and Argentina - there is no turning back the moving finger of time. --] 22:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Thank you for your frankness, Argentino. I don't hate you - I've never met you - and I don't hate the Argentine people. But what I ''do'' hate is military aggression, especially by fascistic governments against a much smaller neighbour unable to defend itself. Galtieri was banking on the British not getting involved. It was a gamble, and he lost - big time. Why is it in your blood after 180 years? 180 years ago the British controlled a quarter of the world, but do I get upset that we don't any more? Hell no! I'm glad that we have created so many new countries all over the place - our legacy in history is secure. But I must point out that Argentina ''never'' controlled the Falklands. Spain did, but you Aregentines rebelled against your colonial masters. You cannot claim a territory that you never controlled, it makes no sense whatsoever. It is all propaganda by your government. ] 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::As I recall it, Galtieri based his opinion that the Brits wouldn't care on the fact that the FCO was at that time already in negotiation about a handover (whether that was just an urban myth I don't know). He forgot, of course, that the old adage "when in trouble at home declare war overseas" applies to British Prime Ministers every bit as much as any other political leader, and there is no doubt that the Falklands conflict was ''exactly'' what Maggie needed at the time. But all that is an aside. ] 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Yes, and I was never a supporter of Thatcher. If the Argentines had never invaded then who knows, perhaps a negotiated settlement would have happened. Thatcher destroyed the British economy and I can only think of two good things that she ever did - stand up to Argentine military aggression, and allow pubs to open in the afternoon. ] 16:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
------ |
|
|
The sovereign power, i.e. UK has decided that the name of the territory is "The Falkland Islands". Who are we to reach "consensus" otherwise? Certainly the other name used by some can be mentioned in the text, but NOT as a header. |
|
|
---- |
|
|
:As stated multiple times above, what the UK decides is irrelevant to what other countries call it. The UK cannot wish away the territorial claim. It is, in any case, simply a case of squatter's rights. ] 19:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''That phrase is most offensive;''' The people living in the Falklands are not 'squatters' - it is their home - they have built their houses and community and deserve respect. --] 20:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:At least four countries have claimed the islands as their own over time. Which one happened to end up there is an accident of history. ] 21:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::No its not an 'accident of history' people have fought and died to make things the way they are. Count yourself lucky to have avoided that - read and be nice to the guys in .fk they have enough problems already without being insulted. --] 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Going on that view of "squatter's rights", then JzG must also imply that the people form Argentina who are not native are squatters as well. And if you really want to pick at the bone, then you could say that everyone is a squatter, since we are descended form same place in Africa. It centenary is offensive, and is inappropriate coming form an administrator, not just some arrogant user trying to cause trouble. ] 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pledge == |
|
|
|
|
|
I pledge to swiftly revert non-consensus edits and vandalism to the ] from ''any'' point of view, British, Argentine, or other. -- ] 15:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As it would seem that the version I have been supporting, fair and reasonable after all, is currently in place I will agree with you and act likewise, but I'm not signing the pledge--] 22:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree an am goingt to revert a non-consensused, and unsigned edit by ] in wich he/she deleted the name "Malvinas". He/she has contributed 3 times with something related with Gibraltar, 1 to request a page for protection and 2 for the islands (one is this talk). That makes 6 contributions in all, 50% of wich have something to do with Gibraltar. That sounds fammiliar to me. -] 18:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems our old friend ] is back... ] 18:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think that too |
|
|
PS: Maybe RVERTING is a bit too much so i re-writted those 4 words and let the vandal to stay in the article's history. ] 18:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it is, although there are at least two thousand ADSL users in Gibraltar, and 99% have no sympathy for other peoples territorial claims. However, we did finally reach a consensus on this issue and I'm now supporting ] as above.--] 19:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The best solution would be to use the ISO denomination, as this is an encyclopedia and needs to stick to standards. ] 23:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
We have been there and its not acceptable. The current formula as supported by ] myself and others will solve the problem. We basically have a consensus and although extremists may want to go further, lets leave it there and move on.--] 08:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the only correct way is to have (] ''Islas Malvinas'']]) in the first sentence..... But I am not alone here, but if people want to start this discussion again by going back to original positions, I can and will do so also..... ] 08:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This is we originally agreed indeed. Gibnews and others, remember the straw poll? --] 11:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You have been promoting that all along, however you know very well that giving foreign names equal prominence is not going to work - what we have now is a compromise which stands a chance. The Argentinians have been very reasonable over the whole thing - however let me remind you that the Spanish Netherlands were stolen from their rightful owners under the Treaty of Utrecht and the .nl wikipedia should be re-written in Spanish... --] 08:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I sincerely have no idea what you are on about now. Stick to the subject of the article, please--] 11:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Perhaps because its in reply to ] who seems to want to shift the goalposts on the agreed position because of a lack of understanding of territorial disputes.--] 14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::No one is talking about territorial disputes or Spain or whatever but wikipedia guidelines and policy on naming conventions. Any revert of the status quo will need to be taken care of swiftly. We have previously agreed on keeping the Malvinas name there and I want a guarantee you will stick to this. Regards, --] 17:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Lets be plain, the ONLY reason the name exists is to give credibility to a territorial claim. --] 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I do not want to change anything, but if people are going to push again for removal of the term, I equally could start pushing for the inclusion of the wider term in line with wikipedia policies on naming. ] 16:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
So if we can't have peace, we at least have ''detente''. :-) -- ] 19:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
P.s. -- To summarize, ], ], and others believe that the only correct name for the islands is '''Falklands''', and others should be minimized; ], possibly ] and others think that the Spanish-language name (''Islas Malvinas'') should be more prominent; and ] and I (]) think the ISO name ('''Falklands (Malvinas)''') should be used in the ]. We have implemented a fourth alternative that no one specifically supports but we're all (somewhat) comfortable with. Various parties continue to militate for their positions, and others speak of escalation in the event the compromise is breached, a sort of Mutual Assured Destruction scenario. Hence the pledge: think of it as nuclear non-first use treaty -- if we keep the compromise, we avoid an edit war. Best! -- ] 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, as promised I am keeping to that (see my last rv)--] 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I did see that -- it was great to see. If we stop fighting over the lead, we can move on to improving the article as a whole (which is already pretty good, I'd say). -- ] 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, we MUST avoid an edit war, but you are wrong, i dont think "Islas Malvinas" should be more prominent ''and nothing else''; but '''In this encyclopedia''' we cal leave it like the ISO if you want (if it was as I want, we could start a real war)... maybe not so much... anyway, it is OK like this and we must leve it and forget it. I am not a mad ultranationalist after all. Oh, and I propose to vote: Do you want semiprotection to avoid this gibralarian guy? ] 21:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am sorry, and didn't mean to misrepresent your position, I was just quickly scanning the various sides. No offense intended! You have been eminently reasonable here. I have requested semi-prot to deal with Gilbraltarian, but don't know if it will be given. -- ] 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The situation seems under control, and as I have pointed out there are at least 2000 Gibraltarian ADSL users, you may have problems with one called ] for historical reasons - and although none of us have any sympathy for certain territorial claims, we understand the issues better than most. Indeed we nearly --] 08:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Consensus"?????? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The naming of a territory is the SOLE prerogative of the sovereign power, i.e. UK. If others wish to call it something else, then of course this can and indeed should be reflected in the text, but NOT by giving it equal status to the one and only official name of the territory, i.e. The Falkland Islands. |
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing to reach consensus on, it is for the sovereign power UK to decide alone. If Wikipedians reach "consensus" on who should be the next UN Secretary General, do you really think that anyone should take notice? It is not possible to reach "consensus" to alter a fact. This is after all an encyclopedia and must deal in FACT. If we reach "consensus" here that the moon is actually made of cheese after all, nothing will alter the reality of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
I repeat it is the SOLE prerogative of the UK as sovereign power to decide the name of the territory, and they have done so. It is "The Falkland Islands", nothing else. I am not suggesting eliminating any mention of alternatives, but none can be given quasi official status, no matter how many Wikipedians think so. {{unsigned|212.120.236.223|(sockpuppet of banned user ])}} |
|
|
|
|
|
::Remember, ], best answer to this sort of remarks is to ignore them. --] 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Oxford English Dictionary== |
|
|
Without wishing to re-start the edit war, I have just discovered that the word "Malvinas" does not occur anywhere in the OED. If we consider the OED authorititive, then the word "Malvinas" cannot be considered part of the English language. Personally speaking, I think this overstates the case. "Malvinas" does exist in English (though is very rare), and means something like "The name that the Argentines tried, unsuccessfully, to impose on the Falkland Islands by military force in 1982". It is ''never'', as far as I can tell, used in any other normal context. ] 11:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Stop the British nationalism. This encyclopedia is NOT biased towards ] facts. ] 15:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Give it a rest some of us are trying to sleep;'''--] 16:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If we are going to talk about names, we can say thet "Falkland Islands" is the name imposed by the British Empire by military force in 1833. <BR> |
|
|
I know I am not going to change your mind (and you are definitively '''not''' going to change ''mine'') but I thought you had finished arguing, so I am not going to start arguing again but the matter was, or seemed to be, solved.<BR> |
|
|
Accidentally: if the name "Malvinas" doesn't exist, it shouldn't mean anything, because, if a word ''has'' a meaning, it exists. So we decide, do we beelive an english dicctionary or the common speak? |
|
|
Another thing: I think I'm going to write down something like "the argentine point of view about..." in my userpage, because I found out in iternet that there are many people that think we are some kind of uncivilizated barbarians. |
|
|
Gnetwerker: don't apologyze, it was my fault if I semmend offended, I wasn't, and I find wonderfull theese news. |
|
|
] <span style="font-size: 70%">(] ])</span> 13:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: I'm not going to try and edit the page, but since the Oxford English Dictionary is currently offering a one-week free subscription, I thought I'd take the opportunity to check it out. |
|
|
|
|
|
: The name "Falkland Islands" was not imposed by military force in 1833 - it had already existed since 1690, long before "Malvinas". But the doings of long-dead generations has never been what I base my argument on. The land of your country, Argentina, was stolen from the Indians - should you give it back? |
|
|
|
|
|
: As for "Malvinas" not existing as an English word, if you had read my post you would have discovered that I think it actually does, albeit a very rare one. And its meaning is wholly negative. |
|
|
|
|
|
: And in case I get accused of nationalism yet again, I would like to state that my motivation is primarily ''linguistic''. Here at Misplaced Pages foreign names for countries are given in the native language(s) of that country. Spanish is not native to the Falklands, therefore to include the Spanish name is to give undue credence to a foreign territorial claim. ] 16:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::And on the last point, linguistic is not the criterion, but what is commonly used is. Besides that, if your argument was not nationalistic but linguistic, you would not make this argument: ''to include the Spanish name is to give undue credence to a foreign territorial claim''. ] 17:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::This is an English encyclopedia, and "Malvinas" is hardly ever used in English. Furthermore, it is rejected by the islanders. Foreign territorial claims should be mentioned in the body of the article, not in the header. If you keep on accusing me of nationalism, I might as well accuse you of anti-English language sentiment. ] 17:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In international relations the name Malvinas is used often enough that we should include a mention of it so that people understand that they refer to the Falklands. ] 17:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
About recent disputes: |
|
|
"Malvinas" existed, as far as '''I''' know, since at least 1816, so it is probably ''not'' invented by a militar government. And about the non-existence of that name, I wrote that we had to choose between the dictionary or the common speek (with this I ment: Should we choose a dictionery wich says nothing about it or is the true existence of the name, let's say, "colloquialy" more important?). Anyway, i dont want to speak about this again. I won't pull the article on my side, and please dont try to pull it to your side. the NPOV can be slighty POVed, and i think that putting "Malvinas" bolded or normal is clearly pro-argentinian and not putting it is clearly pro-british. As we are supposed to be neutral I'd leve it just as it is now but please, bear this in mind: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox (]). I dont publish my ideas in the articles, and hope other people dont publish their own. I know, it is realy unfair to put Malvinas bold or anything, but, even in forums, you can not try to win everything and make everyone think the same you think. So, because this is '''NOT''' a forum (and if it was i'd loose trribly because i dont have that level of english nessesary) and we have to respect all the points of view, and the article is OK to me just as it is now, I AM AGAINST ANY OTHER CHANGES IN THE HEADER. This represents my point of view now if someone has a really good reason, maybe i change my mind, in the meantime, i'm against. I hope i dont have to write anything more here.<BR> |
|
|
''Ad astra per aspera; Ad augusta per angusta''<BR> |
|
|
](] ] ) 17:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You, and all who support your cause, are making the fundamental error of assuming that both sides in this territorial dispute have equal claims. The reason why they don't is because the islanders themselves are not divided on the issue. This makes the Argentine claim ''frivolous''. ] 23:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The Argentine claim is irrelevant to this discussion, so its relative weight vis-a-vis the British claim and occupancy is also irrelevant. What the British government calls the place is similarly irrelevant, except insofar as it represents wide usage. The discussion '''should''' be about what the world calls the place, and as the extensive citations to other reference works, news media, and other sources indicate, the majority of the English-speaking world calls the place "The Falkland Islands", while a substantial minority call it by a variety of other phrases that include the word "Malvinas", and many in the Spanish-speaking world call it ''"Islas Malvinas"''. '''The why, who, and whether-appropriate of this are absolutely beside the point.''' This Misplaced Pages page does not support any position, but simply reports on the state of the world. If you wish to keep arguing about various national claims, please do so somewhere else. -- ] 00:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
I am from Portugal and although I am not very sure because the article I saw was not in Portuguese, a mission by Amerigo Vespucci in 1502 for Portugal sighted the islands, let me know if I am wrong, thanks. HateSans (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Recent activity on the talk page doesn't seem to suggest consensus on the lack of boldface on Islas Malvinas in the lede - MOS:BOLDREDIRECT implies it should be, and there's nothing specific in WP:NCFALKLAND. I'm inclined to boldly edit (so to speak) but given the topic thought I'd make sure I'm not stepping on a settled issue. Epsilon.Prota (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
