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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I think this phrase is a bit dodgy - "Argentina reasserted its right to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands" - for me this (unintentionally, I presume) says that Argentina has a right to sovereignty which it chose to reassert. "Argentina reasserted its claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands" instead? Khendon ( talk) 21:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Although "reasserted its claim of sovereignty" is acceptable, it is unacceptable that we remove the expression "right to sovereignty" on the grounds that we would be expressing that Argentina has a right, while leaving in place the expression "the UK increased its focus on the Islanders' right to self-determination" a paragraph later. We would be then effectively saying (under Khendon's view, which I find understandable) that the islanders have a right to self-determination, something that some secondary sources cast doubts on.
We should leave both as they are, or change both of them. Otherwise we are standing away from NPOV, effectively backing British claim (again, under Khendon's view). -- Langus ( t) 18:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted the article to the state that it was when Marshall implemented it from the sandbox, maintaining the typo fixing and uncontested copy editing. You can check this in this version comparison. Regards. -- Langus ( t)
I agree that both sides have their claims. The issue was not that I believe, but the fact that a couple of lines below we were presenting the UK claim of the islanders right to self-determination as a fact. I've edited the article to reflect this, I think its more balanced now. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 19:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
As you demanded an explanation, even though I gave you an informative edit summary. You were reverted because your edit bastardised the grammar of the sentence, it was the incorrect use of the English language and rather than seeking to improve the article you were indulging in a rather silly tit for tat exchange over a none existent neutrality issue. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that we refer to an Argentinian position as a claim and we never do so with the UK's similar claim to the islanders self-determination. Four times we mention the Argentinian position as a claim:
and not once do we refer to the UK's position as a claim. This is not balanced, we should make it clear that the UK's position is also based on claims, much like the Argentinian position is. I believe the best place to do so (at least one time in the entire section) is in the third paragraph. This is what I propose:
This way we can bring at least a bit more balance to the section. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 23:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Wee is now edit warring and trying to get me to break the 3RR by removing the word claim Marshal proposed and I accepted. Since he refuses to give a valid reason as to why that word should not be used when it is actually used a couple of paragraphs below regarding the Argentinian position, I'll remove it from the Argentinian position as well. We either use it for both parties or we use it for none. You are shamefully pushing the British POV here Wee, I'd advice you to stop. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 19:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
An observation rather than particularly agreeing or disagreeing with any person or argument: as far as I can see, everybody agrees that the "right to self-determination" exists; Argentina disputes that the right applies to the islanders (on the grounds that (they claim) they took the territory by force). Is that correct? Khendon ( talk) 19:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I shall add: it is not an "Argentine claim" that the right to self-determination doesn't apply to every human being. The contradiction with the principle of territorial integrity is explored by many secondary, reliable sources: just google self determination vs territorial integrity. Sorry if I'm offending any Falklander reading this, but that's the situation in the scholar world right now. -- Langus ( t) 02:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Can someone add in a balanced view of existing information on Wikipedia - regarding the discussions that took place between Nicholas Ridley and the Argentine Government?
This is already documented in the profile of Nicholas Ridley - re: 99 Year Lease back ideas. It is something that Michael Heseltine has also alluded to in previous comments, which are in the UK Public domain.
Can some comparisons also be drawn from the negotiations over Hong Kong as well, re 99 Year lease back ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.158.148 ( talk) 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Today I added this link [3], in support of a claim that the remaining mines in the Falklands were those laid by Argentine forces. Gaba p claims this does not support that claim. I request an independent opinion of whether this is the case or not. If an independent editor finds I am correct I request that the tag be removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Currently the statement reads:
No they didn't five Spanish ships arrived and the British capitulated to a superior force. There as no attack. As the inline link ( Capture of Port Egmont) has never been added to the line to the actual article about the event, no wonder this page is blocked to people with a brain because the statement is frankly ridiculous.
The British at best retreated from Port Egmont through a show of force by a Spanish fleet there was no attack! If any of you so-called "editors" actually did your jobs instead bickering over whether it was "a gourd or a shoe" these errors would not be so glaring. 86.157.50.41 ( talk) 13:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that one of my edits was deleted because of excessive detail. Fair enough, but the more recent information was cut and the older information was left unmodified. This is a pity because clearing of landmines reduced the affected area by more than 27%. Perhaps we could work out something that could be both short enough for a summary and up-to-date. I suggest summarising the older information and pointing out the extent of the clean-up (13km2 to less than 10 km2) Michael Glass ( talk) 08:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
If this began with a brief description of the demining operation over the last couple of years I think that would be fine. Michael Glass ( talk) 10:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is my edit:
The present wording says:
As my edit was criticised for being too long and detailed, and the present wording has been criticised for being out of date, perhaps the following would suffice:
Any suggestions or revision? The information in [5] may also be useful. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem, provided we can quote a reliable source in support of the fact that these are Argentinian or UK land mines. I suggest you put up your revisions, here. Michael Glass ( talk) 20:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I have now found a citation used in the Falklands War article. It supports the fact that the minefields were laid by the Argentinians. Michael Glass ( talk) 22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Which section does this Saber noise go under? Hcobb ( talk) 12:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
This analysis of the 2012 census results could be a useful resource. I wanted to share it with you. -- Langus ( t) 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
=== Official source? The Falkland Islands' governments' web site ( http://www.falklands.gov.fk/) gives the population as 2,563. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.108.58 ( talk) 09:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Moved from Wee Curry Monster's talk page:
"I don't find it so unnecessary that it shouldn't be there in any hypothesis. English speakers may not know that Spanish b/v after ell is kind of an in-between of the two (unlike dee and wye, that are always a denti-alveolar stop [d̪] and a post-alveolar [dʒ] or palatal [ɟʝ ~ ɟj] affricate respectively after ell, but in other circunstances reminds one of an English voiced th or in-between English y and French g), or that Spanish ess assimilates the voice of the following phoneme, unlike the English one that assimilates the voice of the preceding one (so they won't know where to use whether [s] or [z], IF they know Spanish has [z]). Many users like this kind of information; I understand your point, so much that I purposefully reduced the "Spanish pronunciation" tag before the transcription, but still I think it would be good to have it there. Perhaps a footnote using the wikireference code will please both Greeks and Trojans? 177.65.49.210 ( talk) 15:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Just as you know, I know that much of information because my native language is over much of the world thoroughly confused with Spanish (and it reminds one of it in the aspect of lenition of voiced stops b, d, g - that people say to not exist in Brazil, what is bullshit as the d of anyone I know is almost always a "voiced th" because Brazilian tongues speak in a kinda "relaxed" way, in a way different to that of Spanish-speaking ones, that is why we have denti-alveolar l and n, alveolo-palatal ti, di, x and j, and AFAIK don't have apical pronunciations, the reason the English apical ths, especially the voiceless one, seem a bit awkward to copy for us), it was my second language, and some aspects of Linguistics, especially Iberian languages' phonology, are really very easy to learn for me.
The Falkland Islands are British. There is nothing more to say about that. All residents on the island are and want to be British, the islands are owned by Britain, they have British taxes, laws, etc. Because the islands are British, their name shall be in English. The article for the United Kingdom does not have the name 'Royaume-Uni' in French or any other language. The same applies here, the islands are British and shall be named as such without any other foreign languages. I invite any arguments for or against this point, if you could write them directly below. Johnxsmith ( talk) 17:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I do agree with this. Firstly, it isn't a translation - it's a completely different name, which happens to be in Spanish. And secondly, using it gives the impression tht Argentina have some form of political ties or say over the Falkands, which isn't true. The name should be mentioned in the article, but I can't see why it's listed in the opening line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.193.5 ( talk) 13:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that the Falkland Islands is under the legal jurisdiction of the Tierra del Fuego province of Argentina. Otherwise, people will not know whether it is an Argentine territory, Argentina province, non-provincial city (like Buenos Aries), or what. Afghandeaths ( talk) 05:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
A letter in to the Financial Times gives a summary of the sovereignty dispute which is consistent with everything else that I have read. It states quite clearly that the earliest claim to sovereignty was made by the French in 1764 - in 1690 Strong merely named the islands. Martinvl ( talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of what controversial fact is claimed by one or the other party, you have to agree there's no need to start including claims in the lede... it will easily get out of hands. -- Langus ( t) 00:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone plan on adding mention of this to the Sovereignty dispute section? I feel it's notable. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 11:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've copy edited the sentence on Argentina to simply state that Argentina rejected the referendum. To state in Wikipedia's voice that Kirchner stated the referendum was illegal under international law does not comply with WP:NPOV. If that were the case, and it isn't, a neutral commentator's comment would be needed and we would need to reflect the range of opinions in the literature. This was a classic example of abusing the use of quotes to make a political POV statement in a wikipedia article. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The Sovereignty Dispute agreement was that each paragraph would tell its story without interruption from the other points of view (to avoid these kind of problems). I removed the Argentine dismissal of the referendum from the Falklander's paragraph and placed it into the paragraph about Argentina's position. Remember that this structure helps present all points of view without any "ifs or buts". Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 20:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of the tag was to draw attention to an overtly political opinion inserted into the article as fact. This had been edit warred into the article contrary to WP:BRD. I simply note no attempt was made to address my reason for removing it.
Marshall makes a not too unreasonable argument, which I believe supports my point. The reason Argentina rejects the referendum is that it doesn't recognise the people to have any say in the matter. Asserting is "illegal" is actually denying pertinent information and contrary to a NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Stop addressing me as "Wee", no one is fooled by your attempt to wind me up, I've asked you to stop previously, now is the time to do it.
The reason why Argentina rejects the referendum is that it refuses to recognise the islanders have any say.
I and Marshall propose that we simply state that and do not obscure it by selecting phrases for their political overtures. It is very much a disputable fact that it is "illegal", the British Government states it is a legitimate expression of self-determination.
Again I am not arguing to put that statement in, simply to state the facts and not overtly political statements of opinion. Please do try and address the point. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The word "illegal" (and a series of other phrases) could be included in several parts of the section, but (up to now) any such terms have been rightfully avoided. It is further worth noting that, aside from illegal, the referendum has also been called a parody, political maneuver, and publicity stunt. While they are good for selling newspaper stories, none of those terms are appropriate for the article. The reason for Argentina's actions all boil down to the same points mentioned in the opening sentence of the paragraph (and the last sentence as well).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 23:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Gaba, perhaps it would be a good idea if you added a "criticism" section to the referendum article ( Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013). That would be the best place where all of your sources should be used. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry Wee but your arguments are ridiculously fallacious. You are comparing the addition of 5 words that would explain beyond any doubt the reason for Argentina's dismissal of the referendum (an addition of encyclopedic value) with random comments by random people (?). Please see
strawman Wee. And sorry again but yes, you did breach 3RR reverting 4 times 4 different editors in less than 24 hours.
I believe the news media Deutsche Welle explains it beyond any doubt so here it goes again:
Given this (plus the endless amount of sources presented) the edit proposed is:
I note you oppose. Let's see what other editors say, shall we? Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the English Wikipedia articles are making a fundemental error of logic in regards to the naming convention. We are posting this: (/ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas) in our article introductions, But this presupposes that everyone who speaks Spanish recognizes Argentina's claims.
However, if you go to Babylon.com, and you translate "Falkland Islands" you get this: Falkland Islands, Human Translation: Islas Falkland (Islas Malvinas, archipiélago en el Océano Atlántico al Este de Argentina) The literal English to Spanish translation is: "Islas Falkland" And this is similar to how the literal English to Spanish of "Hawaii Island" is "isla de Hawaii" takes place
But, if you got to Google Translate, you get a biased result. For example, at Google translate, "British Islands" translates to "Islas británicas" But at Google Translate "Falkland Islands" translates to "islas Malvinas"
This is is NOT an accurate language to language translation. Google has clearly interjected the poltical Agentinian claim into the the translation process. This is the same as if Google were to translater "Southwestern United States" as "Aztlán" instead of "Sudoeste de los Estados Unidos" And indeed, there are many out there who see the SW USA as "Aztlán" http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html
In the case of the Falklands, it is an error of logic to presuppose that ALL Spanish speaking people also transpose meaning instead of merely translating the term. "islas Malvinas" has an entirely different meaning than "Islas Falkland" and Wikipedia is pepetuating a misomer if we continue using it this way.
The correct Spanish translation is "Islas Falkland" The poltically-tinged Agentinian translation is "islas Malvinas"
But Argentina does not speak for Spain - Spain is part of the EU and the EU recognizes the name as "Falkland Islands", therefore, for us to say that the "Spanish" translation must also transpose the political intent (not merely translate the words) is wrong.
Read this: http://www.definitions.net/definition/falkland%20islands "The Spanish name for the islands, Malvinas, is from the French Malouins, inhabitants of St. Malo who attempted to colonize the islands in 1764. (From Webster's New Geographical Dictionary, 1988, p389 & Room, Brewer's Dictionary of Names, 1992, p182)
Wikipedia is perpetuating a misomer
98.118.62.140 ( talk) 05:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The Falkland Islands were called Islas Malvinas even before Argentina was a country. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
“ | Regarding the treatment of the Falkland Islands, the survey shed interesting results. These islands were present in almost every text throughout the century under study. Nonetheless, before 1940 there were six significative exceptions (out of a total of 31 texts) in which sovereignty was not attributed to Argentina, whereas after that date there was not a single case in which such an attribution was not made (in a total of 46 texts). Another indicator pointing in the same direction is that the use of the British name of the islands was registered seven times up to 1941; after this date, the term Falkland is replaced by Malvinas without exception. By and large, the language used to refer to the British occupation of the islands was considerably more moderate before 1945. This is not to say that there were no cases of a passionate attack on Britain in the early years, which there were. Nonetheless, before 1945 there were several cases of a surprisingly mild treatment, whereas afterwards the treatment became standardized and more homogeneously severe. The paradox is thus that indoctrination became more intense well after a century had lapsed since the British takeover of 1833. | ” |
What I meant is that "Falklands" is not the English name and "Malvinas" the Spanish one. But I realize I may be wrong afer reading Gaba's observation about RAE accepted usage, considering that the RAE is the utmost authority for the Spanish language. I was suggesting to use "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" on en.wikipedia and "Islas Malvinas (Falkland)" on es.wikipedia imitating UN policy, though I agree that reduction of tendentiousness would be small at best. Regarding neutrality, I can confidently say that there is bias in both en.wikipedia and es.wikipedia. When I mentioned the issue, I was thinking of this (sub)site. -- Andrés Djordjalian ( talk) 05:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
If this is true "The Spanish name for the islands, Malvinas, is from the French Malouins, inhabitants of St. Malo who attempted to colonize the islands in 1764. (From Webster's New Geographical Dictionary, 1988, p389 & Room, Brewer's Dictionary of Names, 1992, p182), then the term Islas Malvinas is NOT a translation of the term "Falkland Islands". Do you not understand the point I am making? The naming convention you are using does not represent a translation, but wiki is presenting it as one. While the underlying usage might be valid, presenting that usage as a translation is a misnomer. It is simply not factually accurate the represent the term Islas Malvinas as a translation from the English Falkland Islands. In truth, its etymology is that it comes from the French Malouins. This is indisputable and we are perpetuating a misnomer. 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 04:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I think this phrase is a bit dodgy - "Argentina reasserted its right to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands" - for me this (unintentionally, I presume) says that Argentina has a right to sovereignty which it chose to reassert. "Argentina reasserted its claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands" instead? Khendon ( talk) 21:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Although "reasserted its claim of sovereignty" is acceptable, it is unacceptable that we remove the expression "right to sovereignty" on the grounds that we would be expressing that Argentina has a right, while leaving in place the expression "the UK increased its focus on the Islanders' right to self-determination" a paragraph later. We would be then effectively saying (under Khendon's view, which I find understandable) that the islanders have a right to self-determination, something that some secondary sources cast doubts on.
We should leave both as they are, or change both of them. Otherwise we are standing away from NPOV, effectively backing British claim (again, under Khendon's view). -- Langus ( t) 18:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted the article to the state that it was when Marshall implemented it from the sandbox, maintaining the typo fixing and uncontested copy editing. You can check this in this version comparison. Regards. -- Langus ( t)
I agree that both sides have their claims. The issue was not that I believe, but the fact that a couple of lines below we were presenting the UK claim of the islanders right to self-determination as a fact. I've edited the article to reflect this, I think its more balanced now. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 19:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
As you demanded an explanation, even though I gave you an informative edit summary. You were reverted because your edit bastardised the grammar of the sentence, it was the incorrect use of the English language and rather than seeking to improve the article you were indulging in a rather silly tit for tat exchange over a none existent neutrality issue. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that we refer to an Argentinian position as a claim and we never do so with the UK's similar claim to the islanders self-determination. Four times we mention the Argentinian position as a claim:
and not once do we refer to the UK's position as a claim. This is not balanced, we should make it clear that the UK's position is also based on claims, much like the Argentinian position is. I believe the best place to do so (at least one time in the entire section) is in the third paragraph. This is what I propose:
This way we can bring at least a bit more balance to the section. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 23:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Wee is now edit warring and trying to get me to break the 3RR by removing the word claim Marshal proposed and I accepted. Since he refuses to give a valid reason as to why that word should not be used when it is actually used a couple of paragraphs below regarding the Argentinian position, I'll remove it from the Argentinian position as well. We either use it for both parties or we use it for none. You are shamefully pushing the British POV here Wee, I'd advice you to stop. Regards. Gaba p ( talk) 19:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
An observation rather than particularly agreeing or disagreeing with any person or argument: as far as I can see, everybody agrees that the "right to self-determination" exists; Argentina disputes that the right applies to the islanders (on the grounds that (they claim) they took the territory by force). Is that correct? Khendon ( talk) 19:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I shall add: it is not an "Argentine claim" that the right to self-determination doesn't apply to every human being. The contradiction with the principle of territorial integrity is explored by many secondary, reliable sources: just google self determination vs territorial integrity. Sorry if I'm offending any Falklander reading this, but that's the situation in the scholar world right now. -- Langus ( t) 02:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Can someone add in a balanced view of existing information on Wikipedia - regarding the discussions that took place between Nicholas Ridley and the Argentine Government?
This is already documented in the profile of Nicholas Ridley - re: 99 Year Lease back ideas. It is something that Michael Heseltine has also alluded to in previous comments, which are in the UK Public domain.
Can some comparisons also be drawn from the negotiations over Hong Kong as well, re 99 Year lease back ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.158.148 ( talk) 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Today I added this link [3], in support of a claim that the remaining mines in the Falklands were those laid by Argentine forces. Gaba p claims this does not support that claim. I request an independent opinion of whether this is the case or not. If an independent editor finds I am correct I request that the tag be removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Currently the statement reads:
No they didn't five Spanish ships arrived and the British capitulated to a superior force. There as no attack. As the inline link ( Capture of Port Egmont) has never been added to the line to the actual article about the event, no wonder this page is blocked to people with a brain because the statement is frankly ridiculous.
The British at best retreated from Port Egmont through a show of force by a Spanish fleet there was no attack! If any of you so-called "editors" actually did your jobs instead bickering over whether it was "a gourd or a shoe" these errors would not be so glaring. 86.157.50.41 ( talk) 13:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that one of my edits was deleted because of excessive detail. Fair enough, but the more recent information was cut and the older information was left unmodified. This is a pity because clearing of landmines reduced the affected area by more than 27%. Perhaps we could work out something that could be both short enough for a summary and up-to-date. I suggest summarising the older information and pointing out the extent of the clean-up (13km2 to less than 10 km2) Michael Glass ( talk) 08:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
If this began with a brief description of the demining operation over the last couple of years I think that would be fine. Michael Glass ( talk) 10:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is my edit:
The present wording says:
As my edit was criticised for being too long and detailed, and the present wording has been criticised for being out of date, perhaps the following would suffice:
Any suggestions or revision? The information in [5] may also be useful. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem, provided we can quote a reliable source in support of the fact that these are Argentinian or UK land mines. I suggest you put up your revisions, here. Michael Glass ( talk) 20:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I have now found a citation used in the Falklands War article. It supports the fact that the minefields were laid by the Argentinians. Michael Glass ( talk) 22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Which section does this Saber noise go under? Hcobb ( talk) 12:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
This analysis of the 2012 census results could be a useful resource. I wanted to share it with you. -- Langus ( t) 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
=== Official source? The Falkland Islands' governments' web site ( http://www.falklands.gov.fk/) gives the population as 2,563. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.108.58 ( talk) 09:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Moved from Wee Curry Monster's talk page:
"I don't find it so unnecessary that it shouldn't be there in any hypothesis. English speakers may not know that Spanish b/v after ell is kind of an in-between of the two (unlike dee and wye, that are always a denti-alveolar stop [d̪] and a post-alveolar [dʒ] or palatal [ɟʝ ~ ɟj] affricate respectively after ell, but in other circunstances reminds one of an English voiced th or in-between English y and French g), or that Spanish ess assimilates the voice of the following phoneme, unlike the English one that assimilates the voice of the preceding one (so they won't know where to use whether [s] or [z], IF they know Spanish has [z]). Many users like this kind of information; I understand your point, so much that I purposefully reduced the "Spanish pronunciation" tag before the transcription, but still I think it would be good to have it there. Perhaps a footnote using the wikireference code will please both Greeks and Trojans? 177.65.49.210 ( talk) 15:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Just as you know, I know that much of information because my native language is over much of the world thoroughly confused with Spanish (and it reminds one of it in the aspect of lenition of voiced stops b, d, g - that people say to not exist in Brazil, what is bullshit as the d of anyone I know is almost always a "voiced th" because Brazilian tongues speak in a kinda "relaxed" way, in a way different to that of Spanish-speaking ones, that is why we have denti-alveolar l and n, alveolo-palatal ti, di, x and j, and AFAIK don't have apical pronunciations, the reason the English apical ths, especially the voiceless one, seem a bit awkward to copy for us), it was my second language, and some aspects of Linguistics, especially Iberian languages' phonology, are really very easy to learn for me.
The Falkland Islands are British. There is nothing more to say about that. All residents on the island are and want to be British, the islands are owned by Britain, they have British taxes, laws, etc. Because the islands are British, their name shall be in English. The article for the United Kingdom does not have the name 'Royaume-Uni' in French or any other language. The same applies here, the islands are British and shall be named as such without any other foreign languages. I invite any arguments for or against this point, if you could write them directly below. Johnxsmith ( talk) 17:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I do agree with this. Firstly, it isn't a translation - it's a completely different name, which happens to be in Spanish. And secondly, using it gives the impression tht Argentina have some form of political ties or say over the Falkands, which isn't true. The name should be mentioned in the article, but I can't see why it's listed in the opening line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.193.5 ( talk) 13:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that the Falkland Islands is under the legal jurisdiction of the Tierra del Fuego province of Argentina. Otherwise, people will not know whether it is an Argentine territory, Argentina province, non-provincial city (like Buenos Aries), or what. Afghandeaths ( talk) 05:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
A letter in to the Financial Times gives a summary of the sovereignty dispute which is consistent with everything else that I have read. It states quite clearly that the earliest claim to sovereignty was made by the French in 1764 - in 1690 Strong merely named the islands. Martinvl ( talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of what controversial fact is claimed by one or the other party, you have to agree there's no need to start including claims in the lede... it will easily get out of hands. -- Langus ( t) 00:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone plan on adding mention of this to the Sovereignty dispute section? I feel it's notable. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 11:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've copy edited the sentence on Argentina to simply state that Argentina rejected the referendum. To state in Wikipedia's voice that Kirchner stated the referendum was illegal under international law does not comply with WP:NPOV. If that were the case, and it isn't, a neutral commentator's comment would be needed and we would need to reflect the range of opinions in the literature. This was a classic example of abusing the use of quotes to make a political POV statement in a wikipedia article. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The Sovereignty Dispute agreement was that each paragraph would tell its story without interruption from the other points of view (to avoid these kind of problems). I removed the Argentine dismissal of the referendum from the Falklander's paragraph and placed it into the paragraph about Argentina's position. Remember that this structure helps present all points of view without any "ifs or buts". Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 20:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of the tag was to draw attention to an overtly political opinion inserted into the article as fact. This had been edit warred into the article contrary to WP:BRD. I simply note no attempt was made to address my reason for removing it.
Marshall makes a not too unreasonable argument, which I believe supports my point. The reason Argentina rejects the referendum is that it doesn't recognise the people to have any say in the matter. Asserting is "illegal" is actually denying pertinent information and contrary to a NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Stop addressing me as "Wee", no one is fooled by your attempt to wind me up, I've asked you to stop previously, now is the time to do it.
The reason why Argentina rejects the referendum is that it refuses to recognise the islanders have any say.
I and Marshall propose that we simply state that and do not obscure it by selecting phrases for their political overtures. It is very much a disputable fact that it is "illegal", the British Government states it is a legitimate expression of self-determination.
Again I am not arguing to put that statement in, simply to state the facts and not overtly political statements of opinion. Please do try and address the point. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The word "illegal" (and a series of other phrases) could be included in several parts of the section, but (up to now) any such terms have been rightfully avoided. It is further worth noting that, aside from illegal, the referendum has also been called a parody, political maneuver, and publicity stunt. While they are good for selling newspaper stories, none of those terms are appropriate for the article. The reason for Argentina's actions all boil down to the same points mentioned in the opening sentence of the paragraph (and the last sentence as well).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 23:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Gaba, perhaps it would be a good idea if you added a "criticism" section to the referendum article ( Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013). That would be the best place where all of your sources should be used. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry Wee but your arguments are ridiculously fallacious. You are comparing the addition of 5 words that would explain beyond any doubt the reason for Argentina's dismissal of the referendum (an addition of encyclopedic value) with random comments by random people (?). Please see
strawman Wee. And sorry again but yes, you did breach 3RR reverting 4 times 4 different editors in less than 24 hours.
I believe the news media Deutsche Welle explains it beyond any doubt so here it goes again:
Given this (plus the endless amount of sources presented) the edit proposed is:
I note you oppose. Let's see what other editors say, shall we? Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the English Wikipedia articles are making a fundemental error of logic in regards to the naming convention. We are posting this: (/ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas) in our article introductions, But this presupposes that everyone who speaks Spanish recognizes Argentina's claims.
However, if you go to Babylon.com, and you translate "Falkland Islands" you get this: Falkland Islands, Human Translation: Islas Falkland (Islas Malvinas, archipiélago en el Océano Atlántico al Este de Argentina) The literal English to Spanish translation is: "Islas Falkland" And this is similar to how the literal English to Spanish of "Hawaii Island" is "isla de Hawaii" takes place
But, if you got to Google Translate, you get a biased result. For example, at Google translate, "British Islands" translates to "Islas británicas" But at Google Translate "Falkland Islands" translates to "islas Malvinas"
This is is NOT an accurate language to language translation. Google has clearly interjected the poltical Agentinian claim into the the translation process. This is the same as if Google were to translater "Southwestern United States" as "Aztlán" instead of "Sudoeste de los Estados Unidos" And indeed, there are many out there who see the SW USA as "Aztlán" http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html
In the case of the Falklands, it is an error of logic to presuppose that ALL Spanish speaking people also transpose meaning instead of merely translating the term. "islas Malvinas" has an entirely different meaning than "Islas Falkland" and Wikipedia is pepetuating a misomer if we continue using it this way.
The correct Spanish translation is "Islas Falkland" The poltically-tinged Agentinian translation is "islas Malvinas"
But Argentina does not speak for Spain - Spain is part of the EU and the EU recognizes the name as "Falkland Islands", therefore, for us to say that the "Spanish" translation must also transpose the political intent (not merely translate the words) is wrong.
Read this: http://www.definitions.net/definition/falkland%20islands "The Spanish name for the islands, Malvinas, is from the French Malouins, inhabitants of St. Malo who attempted to colonize the islands in 1764. (From Webster's New Geographical Dictionary, 1988, p389 & Room, Brewer's Dictionary of Names, 1992, p182)
Wikipedia is perpetuating a misomer
98.118.62.140 ( talk) 05:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The Falkland Islands were called Islas Malvinas even before Argentina was a country. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
“ | Regarding the treatment of the Falkland Islands, the survey shed interesting results. These islands were present in almost every text throughout the century under study. Nonetheless, before 1940 there were six significative exceptions (out of a total of 31 texts) in which sovereignty was not attributed to Argentina, whereas after that date there was not a single case in which such an attribution was not made (in a total of 46 texts). Another indicator pointing in the same direction is that the use of the British name of the islands was registered seven times up to 1941; after this date, the term Falkland is replaced by Malvinas without exception. By and large, the language used to refer to the British occupation of the islands was considerably more moderate before 1945. This is not to say that there were no cases of a passionate attack on Britain in the early years, which there were. Nonetheless, before 1945 there were several cases of a surprisingly mild treatment, whereas afterwards the treatment became standardized and more homogeneously severe. The paradox is thus that indoctrination became more intense well after a century had lapsed since the British takeover of 1833. | ” |
What I meant is that "Falklands" is not the English name and "Malvinas" the Spanish one. But I realize I may be wrong afer reading Gaba's observation about RAE accepted usage, considering that the RAE is the utmost authority for the Spanish language. I was suggesting to use "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" on en.wikipedia and "Islas Malvinas (Falkland)" on es.wikipedia imitating UN policy, though I agree that reduction of tendentiousness would be small at best. Regarding neutrality, I can confidently say that there is bias in both en.wikipedia and es.wikipedia. When I mentioned the issue, I was thinking of this (sub)site. -- Andrés Djordjalian ( talk) 05:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
If this is true "The Spanish name for the islands, Malvinas, is from the French Malouins, inhabitants of St. Malo who attempted to colonize the islands in 1764. (From Webster's New Geographical Dictionary, 1988, p389 & Room, Brewer's Dictionary of Names, 1992, p182), then the term Islas Malvinas is NOT a translation of the term "Falkland Islands". Do you not understand the point I am making? The naming convention you are using does not represent a translation, but wiki is presenting it as one. While the underlying usage might be valid, presenting that usage as a translation is a misnomer. It is simply not factually accurate the represent the term Islas Malvinas as a translation from the English Falkland Islands. In truth, its etymology is that it comes from the French Malouins. This is indisputable and we are perpetuating a misnomer. 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 04:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)