Talk:Falkland Islands

Malvinas

An islander has requested here that he Spanish translation of the Falklands be used (Islas Falkland) in the lead, not the alternative name, Malvinas. This has come up before but perhaps it is worth raising again. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

As I saw in that thread, the government of the islands rejects the term "Malvinas" because it's a POV term that they do not endorse. Neutral point of view is in fact the whole reason we use both names the way we do. Cambalachero (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Would it not be neutral to acknowledge the alternative Spanish name? Having both Spanish names introduced e.g:

> The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːklənd, ˈfɔːl-, ˈfɒl-/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas, also known as Islas Falkland) are an archipelago...

seems like a fair compromise. I don't think it would be wise to continue to completely omit the alternative Spanish name, strictly from a utilitarian and informational standpoint, as there are early signs that some Spanish-language media are using the term.

Links to instances to back this up (because I couldn't figure out how to cite in Talk pages, sorry):

(https://es.mercopress.com/falklands-malvinas, https://elpais.com/internacional/2021-11-06/tras-el-rastro-de-la-huella-indigena-en-las-islas-malvinas.html, https://news.un.org/es/story/2016/06/1359521, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfqK2j9dOBM, https://elcomercio.pe/mundo/actualidad/fotos-habitantes-islas-malvinas-sacan-luz-su-patriotismo-referendo-noticia-1548182/), (The BBC, which of course as a British institution has a certain perspective, chooses to use both terms in Spanish media)

I can appreciate that this small selection of cherry-picked, curated links is inadequate to demonstrate widespread usage. However, I think the more important conclusion to draw from this, is the current extent to which Islas Falkland is used is remarkable. Since it is being used, it would follow that it ought to be described, or at least mentioned.

I also think it's potentially worth considering the Spanish version of this article. While it doesn't introduce the alternate name in the opening preamble as I'm suggesting, it does actually use the term Islas Falkland multiple times throughout. If both Spanish and English Wikipedia are aiming for a neutral perspective, parity with the Spanish version in regards to the alternate term seems sensible.

---

This is off-topic but in the interest of transparency and disclosure, I am the account that started the thread that @Roger 8 Roger linked. I was advocating for both names to be used in the preamble, and I am not an islander. I do, however, have relatives there. I don't think these details affect my request in any way, just felt like clearing that up lmao. Titfortat-skag (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The usage of "Islas Falkland" in Spanish is rare and not worth mentioning in this article. Perhaps a note at best at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Also, "Malvinas" is not a pov term. Scotland is called "Escocia" in Spanish; that's not a pov term either.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 01:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem IMO is the misuse of the translation term. Malvinas is an alternative name for the islands, not a translation. There are English sources that use Malvinas just as there are Spanish sources using Falklands. Each language has a heavy preference for one which gives the impression that one is the translation of the other, which it isn't. I think the lead should say something like: "The Falkland Islands, also sometimes know as the Malvinas, (Sp=Las Malvinas), are..." Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Spanish is a regulated language by Real Academia Espanola and the translation is officially Islas Malvinas. Islas Falkland is also used and used extensively in South America especially Chile, so much so that Argentina has pressed its Mercosur partners to stamp out the use of the term. It also used to be regularly used in Argentina until the 1930s. For those interested, there is a paper by the Argentine academic Carlos Escude who looked at the use of the Argentine education system by it's government to reinforce certain national myths and stereotypes. In that he notes before Alfredo Palacios had Isles Malouines by Paul Groussac translated into Spanish and integrated into the curriculum 30% of Argentine text books used the term Islas Falkland. This reflects the close ties between the islands and sheep farming in Patagonia going back to the 19th Century, when islanders were enticed to assist in the establishment of farming in Patagonia. Summarising Islas Malvinas is the official Spanish translation, whereas Islas Falkland is used in the Spanish vernacular particularly from South America and those countries with ties to the Falklands, principally Chile and Uruguay.

Malvinas is not an English language term, its principally used in minority groups such as Irish nationalism or certain extreme left wing circles with an anti-UK agenda. Per WP:FRINGE it would not be appropriate to use it. The use of Malvinas in English has definite POV connotations, which often reflects an Argentine attitude of intolerance and refusal to recognise the existence of the islanders. So I do understand why the islanders may have made such a request.

I am not going to advocate adding Islas Falkland. Although you can show the English use of Malvinas is definitively WP:FRINGE, whereas Islas Falkland has both historic and modern usage in vernacular Spanish, I am nontheless mindful that any discussion to look at this objectively has failed with a poisonous discussion in which advocates of Argentine claim push loudly that neutral POV means we have to give equal value to the English usage of Malvinas. As such I am suggesting we let sleeping dogs lie and take no action with this request.

PS The original Spanish name for the islands was Islas Maluinas, reflecting the French name of Isles Malouines, I understand this was corrupted to Malvinas. #WCM_email

"Malvinas" does not receive an equal treatment to that of "Falklands". It is only used once in the lead of specific articles, to get it out of the way, and then the articles use just "Falklands" from then on, unless the article discusses the naming itself or it's talking about some other Argentine thing that uses the name (such as the Malvinas Argentinas Partido). And it is fine that way, and I don't see a need to make changes. In any case, "Islas Falklands" is not really a translation, it's just the same name and the only thing that is translated is the type of geographic feature, so it is pointless to mention it. Any place with "Island" in the name gets that part translated in Spanish, such as "Manhattan Island" = "Isla de Manhattan". Cambalachero (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The Escude information is interesting, nonetheless. Perhaps we could include a line about it in the etymology section?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Islas Malvinas is a translation of Falkland Islands, if we use the word "translation" according to its ordinary plain English meaning. People overcomplicate this massively. It's really pretty simple.

If I translate a word from English into Spanish, I do not assert that the two words are used in precisely the same way. If I translate a word from English into Spanish, I do not assert that the two words are etymologically related. If the word "translation" implied either of those things, the concept would be useless because the result would be that a huge number of really basic words would be entirely untranslatable.

As per WCM, the use of Malvinas as an English word is WP:FRINGE and so your proposal would give it vastly too much weight. I would strongly suspect that using Islas Falkland as a Spanish term in the first sentence would also give that term significantly too much weight. I would note that the current text is the conclusion of a dispute that nearly ended up at Arbcom. I would note that, since then, the text has been remarkably stable - with little significant dispute for probably 15 years. I see value in retaining a tried and tested solution and little benefit to the encyclopedia in litigating it further. 21:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

• I would suggest the text should read "Spanish: Islas Malvinas or less frequently Islas Falkland." It might be difficult to source a pronunciation though. Neutral as to whether Malvinas should appear as an alternative English name, with some qualification. It would depend what the sources say on the matter.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

If anything, I consider that titling this article by the island's British name and adding only as a side-note, it's Spanish alternative, is already biased towards the a British perspective. The Spanish name should be included in the title of the article. Please amend!IqbalHamid (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is an unbiased fact: it is the British who held the effective sovereignty right now (they live there and use the land and sea as they see fit). Right or wrong, that's just the way things are. It makes sense that the article uses the name they use for it. Or should we rename the article Argentina as "Argentina/Wallmapu", too? Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

IqbalHamid, it isn't a matter of bias. The title should be the name commonly used by English speakers. That will be Falklands not Malvinas, as sources will verify. There is a not insignificant percentage of English sources that use Malvinas or Falklands/Malvinas, and that is what this debate is about - how great that number is. Another angle on which name to use is around the local variant of English, and should that take precedence. Personally. For a title I do not think so. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, I consider your logic to be non-sequitur (it does not follow). Your stated reasoning does not justify your conclusion: While Falklands may indeed be the name commonly used by English speakers, you need to consider that English is accepted as de-facto universal language of our world. As such, this article will be read by people around the globe, not just the Anglophone nations, UK and USA. Language itself is irrelevant because there are political sensitivities involved here. Therefore, for the sake of true neutrality, the title of this page should include the 'Malvinas' identity recognised by Argentina. Argentina still makes a claim to the islands. Also, in light of the announcement made by China recently where they are supporting Argentina's claim, so as not to alienate half the people of the world (the Chinese, Argentinians and I imagine also including the Russians, Indians, Africans and Portuguese (that's most of the international community if you think about it)), the title of this page should be, for the sake of peace and neutrality: 'Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)'. IqbalHamid (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the number of English speakers in the world or the popularity of the language; it's about the relevant language edition of Wikipedia. In this case, we're talking about en.wikipedia.org. For the this edition, WP:COMMONNAME is understood in the context of spoken English (i.e., "...as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources"). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:COMMONNAME is very clear on the matter. While another name may be more common in other languages, we are supposed to use the native English name. I don't think we are at the point yet where non-native usage is considered to be as correct as native usage.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

IqbalHamid, the question to consider is how great a usage Malvinas gets in English sources. It does get some (the UN uses a form of dual name, and several academic texts also use a dual name. A few PC people will also use it. IMO that is enough to warrant mention in the first sentence as an alternative name or as the Spanish name because the Falklands are very much relevant to Argentina, but not in the title. BTW, I know what non sequitur means, even without a hyphen. :) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I don't understand why this topic was revived two months after discussion finished.

It's not so much "a few PC people". Most English-language sources that use Malvinas as an English word are from the Argentine government. The rest are people actively trying to signal support for the Argentine claim. When these are from English-speaking countries, they are near exclusively on the outer fringes of the far left trying to make a point. This is nowhere even close to our standard for a significant English-language name.

However, as a Spanish-language name, Islas Malvinas probably does meet the standard, and it's generally beneficial to include it.

I'll reiterate my previous point. It is more common for Spanish speakers to refer to Falklands than for English-speakers to refer to Malvinas. But neither is common enough to be worth mentioning in the lead. The current text is the long-term stable solution to a dispute that nearly ended up at Arbcom. I see no reason to change it. Kahastok talk 17:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Re why the topic was "revived", a discussion on a talkpage has no time limit. Users can give their input at any time, and two months is not an unreasonable amount of time to consider a question to be open. The above discussion actually seemed to lean towards consensus that inclusion of "Islas Falkland" might be justified, but the fear that it might lead to "Malvinas" appearing as an English term should stop this from happening. My suggestion here would be to possibly leave the lead as it is and add a naming section after etymology, based on sources discussing the various English and Spanish names used for the islands. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my comments did not justify adding "Islas Falkland", I in fact opposed it. [1] See various discussions and if anything new can be brought forward, I might be persuaded to change my mind. However, bitter experience suggest this is a can of worms best left unopened. WCM_email 08:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The 'UN' does not use a dual term at all, instead it refers to the Islands as Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Using the name in that way as a leading globally recognised body will be indeed draw many followers in masses. The name 'Malvinas' is made up, also a non-political term, used politically by some. It is offensive in its connotations to those who recognise the islands as being 'British' and being mutual should recognise that. I would also like it known that the term 'Malvinas' regardless of its origins should be respected as

such, and used accordingly in a non-political way by any Spanish' speaking country. In terms of the 'UN' given the minor dispute over sovereignty, for me personally they should lead by recognising all points of view and mutually/neutralise the matter by amending what they show to the rest of the world to reflect both terms as follows 'Falkland Islands/Malvinas until such times that other matters arise from this discussion. All said and done, respecting the human rights of the Islanders is key to making any harmonious progress, and as things currently stand they, and the islands are first and foremost British, and we the rest of the world should be led to accept that without malice, anger, upset and pettiness. 2A02:C7F:687A:DB00:75C4:A72A:8B88:6D0B (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually it does, the UN uses Islas Malvinas (Falkland) in Spanish, Falkland Islands (Malvinas) in English. I see no compelling reason to change the status quo noting that the malice, anger, upset and pettiness is very much one sided. WCM_email 15:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing petty about inventing a name whose sole purpose is to claim illegal ownership over the islands. 78.148.151.43 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This is true, but we let the Argentines do it as it makes them feel better about themselves, even when the rest of the world knows differently. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

When and where was "Malvinas" first used? Anyone know? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Early 19th Century, around 1767 when the Spanish took over Port St Louis, renaming it Puerto Soledad, the Spanish used the name Islas Maluinas, a more or less direct transliteration of Isles Malouines the French name. Due to the difficulty of pronouncing that by Spanish speakers, it was corrupted to Islas Malvinas at the turn of the 19th Century and that is the name recognised by the Real Academia Espanola who regulates the Spanish language. You will find the names Maluinas and Malvinas used interchangeably, with the earlier Spanish name being Sansón y de los Patos although strictly speaking whether that was the Falklands is debatable. Islas Falkland was also in common use in South America right up to the 1930s even in Argentina. In the 1930s, the Argentines expunged Islas Falkland from their textbooks and ensured the curriculum only used Islas Malvinas, they've since put pressure on Mercosur partners to stop using Islas Falkland, though if you go to the South of Chile they continue to use it. WCM_email 13:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

September 2022

Can someone explain WP policy on endonyms vs. exonyms? The endonym in Spanish is Islas Falkland. Inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, and official documents, refer to themselves as Falkland Islands, or Islas Falkland in Spanish. Per Taiwan, Sami people, Romani people, this seems to be the end of the discussion. It doesn't seem relevant what usage the PRC attempts to enforce, nor does it seem relevant what usage Argentina attempts to enforce. In each of these articles, claims by outside groups are noted later on in the lede, but the official and self-name is the determining factor.

If it is common in Chile to refer to the Islands as Islas Falkland, then shouldn't we include that? 19:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please sign you comments. I questioned this a long time ago but it stays as is and on reflection I think that is best even if not quite right. A [rime consideration is the name used in a sizable number of sources. Islas Malvinas is very often used so to omit it would be wrong to be making a point to give an opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the corresponding articles note that the term is offensive and rejected by the people. We should do the same here. DenverCoder9 (talk) DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's offensive, or even if it's wrong. It matters what it secondary sources use. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous people

The discussion at Talk:Indigenous peoples got me thinking. Are the current residents the indigenous people? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

UNESCO would classify the islanders as indigenous, having existed for 9-10 generations in the islands. Bit off-topic and violating WP:FORUM to discuss though and since I'm not aware of any source making such a claim it would be WP:OR to put in the article. Plus I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from here in Scotland. WCM_email 11:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In everyday usage, when talking about indigenous people" in the Americas we usually mean those who lived in the continent before the Europeans came, and that's it. Indigenous groups that displaced other indigenous groups before that (such as the Mapuches) are still called indigenous, for that matter. Cambalachero (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The relevance would be I did think of adding it to the article, but I too could see the likely result. I had thought if the UN definition is clearlt met that would be source enough. I had wondered if 200 years was long enough. And I wondered about the earlier settlements that preceded 1833 that were ended in differing circumstances. Could they be described as the indigenous people? Anyway, if I did add something, certainly without a good RSS I would testing the ground, ie giving an opinion, so I will let it be. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the divisiveness of that highly derivative definition, if China invaded USA tomorrow, displaced and deported everyone who was not of native American (1st nation) descent, then no indigenous people would have been displaced. Even if 98% of the population of the USA (including African Americans) would have been displaced. Maybe we can move away from the European bashing. Did the Argentinians not come from Spain? They would therefore not be indigenous to Argentina 82.71.8.175 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

New line in subject "History": President-elect Milei of Argentina stating that Argentina has a "Non Negotiable" claim on the Falkland Islands (stated "Malvines")

The title says it all. Sources from about 24 hours ago or earlier have stated that Milei had stated this claim on the campaign trail, with one of the sources saying that he said if I recall correctly: "military conflict is not an option."

He also supposedly compared it to British Hong Kong to China. [2]

Perhaps this is worthy of a small reference in this article? If this is Milei's position on the issue, it could be subject to some notable change in the future.

Thanks for reading and Thank you in advance for adding. 2601:601:A400:D4A0:1005:5852:C084:2ACC (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Not really of any relevance to the Falkland Islands, so I would suggest not. If it makes a material change then maybe, till then, no. WCM_email 14:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

So far it's just things said to the press. Milei has not taken office yet and does not manage Argentina's international relations yet. We should wait and see, first for him to become president, and then what things does he actually do. Have in mind that he will receive a country with a devastated economy (inflation is over 100%, and that's not a typo!), so don't be surprised if he has other priorities than the Falklands conflict for a time. Cambalachero (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It might be worth a sentence in Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, which mentions quite a few statements from the leaders of Argentina and the UK about the dispute, but I don't think it belongs in this article. Hut 8.5 18:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend caution there, too. Keep in mind that Milei is in the minority in both houses of Congress, has no governors from his party, and his party is almost deprived of a political structure. His only strength is his popularity, but popularity may be fleeting, especially when the country is in an economic crisis of this scale. The claim over the Falklands remains popular among Argentine people, and even if Milei does not agree with it he may opt not making changes to the current international policy, to avoid the decline in his popularity that it may cause. Cambalachero (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

hey its the same anon guy that posted this here.

thank you all again for your suggestions and answers, I'll be sure to keep them in mind regarding Argentina, their new president, and the Falklands. :)

Indeed the whole subject in the future may be subject to change (as well as concern if; if the conflict possibly grows), but we shall soon see. 2601:601:A400:D4A0:E45D:217A:579:5260 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Dispute status

It is deeply inappropriate to plaster a country's Wikipedia page with a dispute raised by one country. At most it should be a historical footnote. For Lithuania, Ukraine or Poland, you have not allowed Russian editors to claim dispute that these countries are claimed by Russia. For Taiwan, you have not allowed PRC editors to claim dispute all over that page. The list goes on. So why would you disrespect the people of the Falklands, and the people of the UK by allowing Argentinian editors to plater their claim over this page? Its discovery is not disputed. It was discovered by Europeans. Just as Argentina, or the USA or Puerto Rico was. Subsequently some populations adopted these countries more than others. 82.71.8.175 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't, we (in the UK) are just not that bothered by it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)