Jump to content

Talk:Falkland Islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleFalkland Islands is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 6, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 28, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
November 6, 2013Good article nomineeListed
April 12, 2014Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
July 19, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article


Indigenous people

[edit]

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)[reply]

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. WCMemail 11:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Dispute status

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

[edit]
2800:2131:5441:654D:3036:E6DD:80E1:F5 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "The first and totally undisputed landing in the Falklands is awarded to the Portuguese Ferdinand Magellan, who discovered the islands and left them some time later."[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name Îles Malouines

[edit]

This article currently claims the '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. Thgomas (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need an RS for this, a letter in the Times will not pass muster, Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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...?' Thgomas (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a bit like wp:or, 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. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery of the island

[edit]

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)[reply]

Seems unlikely given that our article Amerigo Vespucci suggests he didn't get much south of modern Curitiba. Kahastok talk 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]