Talk:Kelpers

2007-11-6 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 13:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of term Kelpers by argentinians

What proof do you have that the argentinians use this term "in a derogatory manner by Argentines". There aren't any references to back that up and seems to be WP:OR. I for one, in the two years I spent there, certainly never heard the argentinians use the term in a derogatory way but to specifically refer to those persons born on the Falklands since the word 'islander' in Spanish is just a generic term which can refer to anyone born on any island.

And this article in NYTimes could imply that it was actually the British who used the term 'Kelper' re: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/world/americas/01falklands.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=kelpers&st=cse ; but isn't it just the same way that the British will say: Aussie, argies, yanks, kiwi's, etc

I'm my view this sentence should be deleted since the argentinians do not use it in a derogatory way at all. Some people will angrily talk about other people in derogatory ways, just like one may be abusive about kiwis for example, but the term 'kiwi' itself is not derogatory nor is the term 'kelper'. This sentence if anything is derogatory against argentinias by giving the impression that they are either racists or just bad people who use 'derogatory' terms to describe a full group of people.

But if the residents of the Falklands want to call themselves anything other than kelper they of course are entitled to do so; i for one think this it should be in the article if correctly reference, off course. Chuckarg33 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Also Reference 1 goes to a page that returns this: "Your Query of: Kelper Found No Matching Entries" so this reference shouldn't be here, I believe? Chuckarg33 (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Internet references do disappear, which is why we usually add a date accessed field to the reference of a URL enabling it to be accessed through the wayback machine (sometimes). It doesn't nmean the reference should be removed. And it is a fact that Kelpers is used by the Argentines in a derogatory sense. Please do not remove for POV reasons. Justin talk 07:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on Internet reference disappearing, no need to delete it then. But on that sentence accusing the argentines of derogatory statements, it is Not my POV and where is the consensus?; there is no proof to back up this accusation of Argentines using K term in a derogatory way. You should delete that sentence until and if it can be backed up with a clear external reference. The way it stands now, you are pushing your own POV about what the argentines think and do therefore this wikipedia article expresses a falsehood. But I'll leave it for you to fix if you wish too after considering it, since me editing it when you undo it constantly is now pointless Chuckarg33 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I created the article and the reference was good at that time. But the Internet does change and in this case perhaps the argentines wanted to cover up their abusive behaviour towards the Falkland Islanders. Because someone has not heard it used in a derogatory manner does not mean it has not been the case. --Gibnews (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Derogatory term by Argentines

There is still no evidence at all that Argentinians use the term "Kelper" in a derogatory way; insisting that they do is pushing a POV, I believe. Plus there is no reference provided. This should probably go to mediation now.

I repeat here what I said in the 'talk' page Falklands article: in the time I've spent in Argentina I never heard the term phrased in a derogatory way at all. The Argentinians believe that the English actually refer to the islanders as Kelpers just as one would call Scottish people Scots and so on. They are today probably unaware that the term is disliked by the islanders. And if they will call the people a name its either 'isleno' or 'malvinenses' since they still claim sovereignty.

But, again, this should probably now go to some sort of mediation.Chuckarg33 (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Again you need to provide a reference otherwise you are only pushing a POV some hold which is pernicious to an ethnic group! Chuckarg33 (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not pushing a POV but expunging such material is not conducive to improving the encyclopedia. OK it might be difficult to find a veriable source that makes that point, you can add a fact tag if you like but don't keep removing. That article was written by Bennytec who is a Falklander - he might have some perspective on the matter. Justin talk 10:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If the lack of a qualifier is your chief concern, why not add one. e.g. "by some Argentines" Does that alleviate the concern? Justin talk 10:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It would if it where true, but I don't think it true. My concern is that something which is false is shared with the world as factual, and it says to the world that some Argentine's use an insulting word when there is simply no evidence for that. All the evidence actually points to them not even being aware that the islanders dislike the term, as we discussed over at Falkland Islands article. Plus its missing any source so we can't even argue about the value of the source since it doesn't exist! Improving the encyclopedia would surely mean removing what isn't correctly sourced or referenced? I think we would need some mediation here and I tried to lodge an informal one but can't because the page is under admin control, so I'll edit this once more to hopefully have a third party look into this problem. Chuckarg33 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No that is not acceptable, the information is not false. I have personally seen it used as a term of abuse repeatedly by Argentines. You have not presented any evidence whatsoever that Argentines use the term out of ignorance. If you wish to dispute the edit the correct response is to add a fact tag as I've already suggested. Please do not continue to edit war over this again. Justin talk 11:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"You have not presented any evidence.." I gave you the links to newspaper articles in the Falkland Islands article which clearly show that the term is not used in a derogatory way, two are repeated here: http://www.clarin.com/diario/2009/03/29/elpais/p-01886831.htm (from a respectable newspaper) or http://www.nuestromar.org/noticias/politica_y_economia102006_islas_malvinas_un_estado_kelper (again not used in a derogatory way) both point towards people not even knowing that the islanders dislike the term; Its pushing a falsehood which is only damaging to both Wikipedia and to Argentinians accusing them of deliberately using it in a derogatory way but without any references or proof. And you keep arbitrarily undoing any edit here; that should stop while we discuss it here. Chuckarg33 (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus this NYT article certainly does not support your POV, Justin: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/world/americas/01falklands.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=kelpers&st=cse ; Chuckarg33 (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you dispute this because you have 'never heard the term' is most certainly original research. There were references to support this when the article was created. There probably are references now unless some PC person has had them removed. --Gibnews (talk)

I say 'never heard the term' to describe a reality, that is that is isn't used that way by argentines. I've given you several references here that show that they don't. In fairness you should leave that accusation out unless a source can be found. Also a quick google/uk check shows that it was actually the English who came up with the term and used it to differentiate them for other British persons, so if anyone did use it in a derogatory way, it would have been the English -but this is beyond what this article is all about. The islanders dislike the term so Wikipedia should say that, ie "the islanders dislike the term and consider it derogatory", there is no reason to blame the Argentinians for it. Also if the original person who wrote this article was an islander is irrelevant, he should still have a source before assigning blame to the Argentinians or before trying to make them look bad, or make them look racists or abusive. If there was a clear source, from Argentina, then the sentence would be justified Chuckarg33 (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a source, and that is what is important, not your opinion based on a small number of people you have met. I was the person who started the article. Probably some apologist for Argentina has deleted it. There are plenty of deluded editors who keep trying to rename Stanley 'Puerto Argentina' etc. --Gibnews (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The references are all still in the article, they haven't been deleted, although some don't work anymore but they weren't for that offensive statement. Plus "my opinion", as you call it here, is based on the sources provided above, but you express a view and opinion which isn't backed by any source? so its therefore against the most basic wikipedia ideals. What more do you need to change that xenophobic sentence; why this blame Argentinians for everything and why do you bring up Stanley? that has nothing to do with this issue here.Chuckarg33 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Where your sources come from

I started going back over edits and found this:

 From User_talk:BennyTec 

Origin of the Term "Benny"

The origin of the irreverent nick name given by UK servicemen to the Islanders is a common misconception. Its origin stems from the woollen hats commonly worn by the Islanders in 1982, these were reminiscent of the hat that was habitually by the character Benny in the UK soap Cross Roads. Unfortunately the character was a bit dim-witted and over time it came to be thought of as an abusive nickname. That led to an edict from the CO in the Islands that the use of the term was to be dropped forthwith. It was replaced by the term "Stills", short for "Still Bennies". Trouble is, as with a lot of folklore, I don't think this is written down anywhere so how do you point to a verifiable source. Justin A Kuntz 12:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good question, I know the origin because I live in the Falklands and have been a "Benny" since 14 June 1982 ( or more acurrately I guess a few months after!) :). In reality the use of "Stills" was for a very short period in the late eighties and Benny is in common useage these days. There are people here who object to it but personally I rather like it, it gives us "Benny Fishery", "Benny Dorm" etc and at the end of the day it is in jest. As for verifiable source, I can vouch for the origin does that count!! --BennyTec 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I can cite sources who were members of 3 Para in 1982. I just find it interesting how what was originally a term largely of affection came to be viewed as a term of abuse. Justin A Kuntz 20:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I did not know it actually originated during the war, I always assumed it came about shortly after. I think unfortunately there are some civilians here who took offence and some members of the military who used it abusively. As always though it is the actions of the minority which bugger things like this up! Most Bennies are perfectly happy with the term. --BennyTec 21:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be that it may have originated slightly later, the guy I'm thinking of has done several tours of the Islands. What do the Islanders think of the term "Kelpers", my understanding was that they considered it something of an insult. Justin A Kuntz 07:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

hmm, are you sure he was 3 Para then, not many 3 Para lads have done tours here since 82? The term Kelpers is thought of in similar terms as Benny, those that dislike Benny tend to like Kelper and vice versa. Personally I am not overly keen on the term Kelper because Argentines refer to us as Kelpers and it is frequently used by them in a derogatory manner. I would rather have a nickname given by British troops who liberated us, but there are plenty who disagree with me!! :) --BennyTec 15:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

All your edits undo are based on one man's opinion of what another ethnic group does!

In case you missed it your source said this:

The term Kelpers is thought of in similar terms as Benny, those that dislike Benny tend to like Kelper and vice versa. Personally I am not overly keen on the term Kelper because Argentines refer to us as Kelpers and it is frequently used by them in a derogatory manner Chuckarg33 (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh so as well as speaking for all Argentina, you threaten me with exclusion from Australia. Please read WP:NPA and WP:FAITH - there does not seem to be a wikipedia policy about throwing toys out of prams. --Gibnews (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, But since this is now becoming pathetic I leave it as it is Chuckarg33 (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've requested mediation now as a second step; hopefully you will join in over there without the pettiness. Chuckarg33 (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remove your threats and implied accusations or I will instigate a RFC --Gibnews (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, lets see if it works then. I've removed anything which you could mistake for a threat (although I don't believe it is as I was expressing my frustrations here that two editors can insist on adding a false statement without sources/references, so pushing a POV, in my opinion off course). What exactly do you see as a threat or implied accusation? Now then will you first discuss the issue here before 'undo' that false statement in the article?

By the way a) I don't speak for all Argentinians as you say (why? I provided real sources?? and I want truth in wikipedia) and b) I can't exclude you from australia although honestly I wouldn't want to see you here off course. Chuckarg33 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I like Australia - nice country but I wasn't looking for or needing an invitation, stop trying to be offensive it is not productive. You seem to have a lot of time and energy to waste. The bottom line is that many of the Argentines do not respect the Falkland Islanders and consider them enemies and British ex-pats living on stolen land, depsite them being therr for many generations. I doubt that much can be done to change that prejudice. --Gibnews (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mate, I was responding to your words here not 'trying to be offensive'; Re:"You seem to have a lot of time and energy to waste". Really? RE:"The bottom line is that many of the Argentines do not respect the Falkland Islanders and consider them enemies and British ex-pats living on stolen land" This claim of your is, in my view, false and offensive. Argentines consider the islanders as 'Malvineses' who live under a colonial power (which isn't necessarily right). No where is it a 'fact' that they don't respect them. Re: "to change that prejudice" again, to me, your words are offensive. Chuckarg33 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've requested first informal mediation over that sentence, now informal at Mediation Cabal just an hour ago approx, so there isn't any real need for a third request, your RFC, but if you do request one, please include the dispute over this article that we are currently having, maybe it speeds things up a bit since the informal ones haven't answered as yet. Chuckarg33 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Chuck - I've said this to you before, but you may find this process a lot more efficient and pleasant if you are less confrontational about it. We're supposed to be working together here to improve the encyclopædia in a civil manner through consensus. If there are personal attacks and uncivil comments it makes consensus nigh-on impossible to achieve. Your repeated accusation of xenophobia on the part of those that disagree with you is a prime example of a personal attack that is very likely to make it very difficult for consensus to be achieved.

I would suggest as evidence for this the fact that you feel the need to go to dispute resolution so early: you appear to either have burnt your bridges or to be in the process of burning them - and this isn't helpful to anyone, including you. Note that Justin and Gibnews are both perfectly entitled to decline dispute resolution. There is no reason why they should accept it if they do not feel that it will help the discussion. Personally, I do not see that mediation would be particularly helpful in this case: don't think that the mediator will provide an easy answer or force either side to back down. Given that there appears to be a civility issue here, I would suggest that it is not unlikely that mediation would just become another forum for argument rather than a vehicle for resolution. The only people who can achieve consensus on this are the editors in this discussion.

You should not be surprised if other editors at least take your personal attacks into account when making their responses and you would be well advised to apologise for them. Note that admins can block users if they do not follow behavioural policies such as WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in order to prevent the disruption that is caused. Pfainuk talk 20:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad you joined in here. The issue is the unsourced information added to wikipedia and that any disagreement is quickly removed. Even the tag I added twice for 'citation needed' was deleted! Only a mediation process could stop the undo and help reach some consensus, one that isn't offensive to one ethnic group. I see your point here but have you read the first paragraph above? I don't think it was confrontational language back then at the start, now...well....maybe a bit.

Biggest problem is that there was consensus, but consensus to what is damaging to the image of Argentines ("derogatory way" etc), which although unsourced can't be deleted at all and discussed here first because of this 'consensus' belief. And, Pfainuk, you may be correct to disapprove of my 'xenophobia' claims but what about what others claim (unnamed!) like "I have personally seen it used as a term of abuse repeatedly by Argentines" when later the talk page at BennyTec shows that the story was very different?

Well, I'm blabbing on again so maybe I should stop. How about you express a view on changing that sentence to say only "considered insulting by some islanders"? (even though the only source for this view is user BennyTec! so a 'citation needed' tag is necessary). Note I haven't changed it yet until others express a view on that issue, but really such an offensive statement (to Argentinians) shouldn't stay for long, especially since its not referenced....but we have been over that extensively now. Chuckarg33 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Note that admins can block users if they do not follow behavioural policies" That's a matter for the admins, I know what they can do. Others here were also quick to start the 'edit war' accusations. Both aren't necessary since it has little to do with the main issues. I've added an opinion there, now its others turn to do so, Charlie Chuckarg33 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-05-25/Kelpers

Please take part openly and in good faith. Chuckarg33 (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The way the mediation request is formulated I would decline to participate, the mediation request is formulated to pre-determine the outcome, the request and the conduct of the originator is unnecessarily argumentative and confrontational. Were the request to be reformulated in a manner as outlined by the wiki process I would reconsider. Justin talk 23:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Response

Its impolite to imply anything otherwise, as is purporting to exclude me from an entire continent because you don't like a sentence in a wikipedia article I created some time ago. At that time the quote was, I recall, supported by a Falkland source and if the term is used in a derogatory sense then what is important is the perception of the recipient of the term. Given pervasive political correctness one can be accused of being a racist for calling a Scottish person, jock.

By direct comparison I see the Wikipedia article on nigger does not give any cite regarding why that term is widely considered to be grossly offensive in mainstream English usage.

Your argument is only that you have never heard kelper used in that way, but you are not being described as such, and anyway your opinion is WP:OR

What we have seen evidence in a talk page is that an editor from the Falklands does indeed consider this a pejorative term, and that is good enough for me.

The call for mediation is a waste of everyone's time. --Gibnews (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Gibnews. My argument is that you have not provided a source to back up that rather offensive claim, hence its pushing your own POV. The talk page at user:BennyTec proves that you never had a source as well but repeated another editor's POV (which said that "some" consider Kelper offensive while others prefer it and consider "bennies" offensive! so even the 'Bennies' bit in the article is not entirely true).

Plus I've provided three sources, two from Argentina in Spanish and one New York Times (in English) which all show that the term is simply not used in any derogatory way. The call for mediation is the next logical step; I've already requested a third opinion and yesterday added an informal mediation requests due to what I see as your intransigence. Hopefully you will take part in that process. Chuckarg33 (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, re Australian entry, any citizen here has the right to formally request this but anyway, this is now petty and beyond the issue of the term "kelper" Chuckarg33 (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion response

After reading the article and the discussion here, I believe that the article should say that the term is "considered insulting by some islanders". This is more neutral than to say that the Argentines actively use the term in a derogatory manner.

However, while this puts me largely in agreement with Chuckarg33, I do not support his approach to dispute resolution. Chuck, many steps you have taken have needlessly inflamed the dispute, especially the section entitled "WHAT HYPOCRISY!" in which you accuse editors of lying and purport to ban them from the continent of Australia. You also seem to have been pushing this dispute toward more formal processes of dispute resolution, instead of working to resolve the dispute yourself. Of the available forms of DR, I think Third Opinion is the most appropriate, which is why I'm responding to it.

Gibnews, you too should do more to de-escalate the dispute, and try to find a more neutral tone when writing article content.

My advice to all involved:

• Do not accuse other Wikipedia editors of malice ("lying" or "hypocrisy").
• Recognize that this arises from a simple difference of opinion. Do not assume that those who disagree with you do so because they are evil or xenophobic.
• When text in an article is disputed, strive to make the text more neutral, not more correct according to your worldview.
• If anyone plans to take this 3O response as evidence that you "won" the dispute, don't. Wikipedia disputes are to be resolved, not won.

rspεεr (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Third Opinion response

I missed this before adding last answer. Re: "I do not support his approach to dispute resolution.." my brain-snap was due to discovering how misleading other editors here were after reading the talk page BennyTec. But I now regret and apologize for that, for adding the 'hypocrisy' heading, which was done after requesting this Third Opinion by the way.

I, though, still can't see why the "argentine's etc' since nothing or no source apart from editor BennyTec's talk page claims this. Even 'Infoplease' doesn't see this, ie www.infoplease.com/search?q=kelpers&in=all&x=0&y=0&fr=iptn

kelp•er

Pronunciation: (kel'pur), [key] —n. Informal. a native or inhabitant of the Falkland Islands.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.

Now isn't Random House Dictionary British? (since its home is US?); although Random house is not a good reference surely there are enough sources given here to delete that last undo by Gibnews and stop this blaming it on Argentines? and change that sentence to the one suggested by Rspeer: "considered insulting by some islanders"

Chuckarg33 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Random House is an American dictionary and Britain certainly is not part of the United States. The general rule is to use British spellings and definitions in articles about British things. The references I turned up from Argentina seem very hostile towards the Falkland Islanders. It seems to me you are trying very hard to be nice to your friends or family there. --Gibnews (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Again Gibnews needless bad faith. I don't have any friends/family there. I only lived there for two years (should be obvious why) just after the war and found the Argentine's very friendly and welcoming to foreigners in general. They are generally good decent people who've had a hard time with many bad governments over the years. Also Wikipedia's Random House entry clearly states that they publish a lot in Britain -and owned by Germans. But if the definition given is the US view, again, shows what a large non-Argentine dictionary tells the world. Going through the edits though, history list, I don't see any reference from you only BennyTec's page, so why not reverse it now, after all that has been discussed here? Actually I'll do it now. Chuckarg33 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any willingness to achieve a consensus or to take in the points raised by others and conclude further discussion with Chuckarg33 to be pointless. However that does not imply a concession to your tactics. --Gibnews (talk)

Well, but what is your point of view on the third opinion, of changing the phrase to a neutral non-accusatory phrase, ie "some islanders find it offensive" ? Plus the tag? Only you and I are talking about this anymore. And the points raised by others is what was discussed here throughout, firstly BennyTec's view that argentines use it in a derogatory way, then the 'consensus' issue etc. Again, I ask, what was your reference since the history doesn't have any mention of one, only BennyTec's original research. Plus I've explained the why of my brain snap and apologized above, ie "But I now regret and apologize for that, or rather for adding the 'hypocrisy' heading,"...so why not stick to the issue now? My tactics were condemned by all who opined here, so why not just stick to the issue now of the wording in the article? Chuckarg33 (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I should correct my statement that I don't have friends there. I probably still do but haven't seen them in some 24 odd years. Chuckarg33 (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To add to this discussion, note that the Falkland Islands News Network reports that there are still a Darts team who call themselves 'Kelpers'. Obviously then the term is not so disliked by some of the native people in the Falklands. Wombat 07:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference for above: http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=1035&source=7 Wombat 07:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the word itself, rather how its used or the perception of its use by another nationality as derogative. For example in the US it is common for Black Americans to address one another as N****r, it would be completely inappropriate for a White American to use it. Justin talk 08:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

[1][2], though I'm sure you'll play the WP:RS card Chuck. Justin talk 08:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've missed this because of the 'Chuck' (mistaken id?} but I see where you're coming from. However talking to workmates here who are Argentine they claim that it isn't derogatory nor used in a derogatory way but just what they think the english call people from the falklands. And the perception of the other nationality here, that is the falklanders, doesn't seem to show that they see it used in a derogatory way by argentines, as would be the case with the US african american population and the N-word by whites, as the links show. That's why I edit it however if you do find a WP:RS then please change it, no objections if done within the rules Wombat24 (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Term Are/Were

Now here is something worth discussing. You changed 'were' to 'are'. I agree that the term is still in use, especially by Argentines as references show, also by US sources too (NYT, Random House). So we agree on that point. Then shouldn't the correct way to say this is that they 'were' nicknamed this by the english sometime during the 20th centry, instead of 'are' since some apparently dislike it? -although we don't have a source to show that-

Would it not be better to say that they 'were' nicknamed this, and then add a separate sentence somewhere saying that the term is still used extensively outside the islands, or they 'are' still called this by some (with NYT as source)? Chuckarg33 (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be more productive for both of us to spend out time on something productive instead of this trivial nonsense. --Gibnews (talk)

WOW I have been away for a while and had no idea this could stir up so much excitment!! I doubt that it will be that easy to find a source to support either view as outside wikipedia it is not a subject which gets much discussion. IMHO (and it is only my opinion) the wording now is about right, opinions on the use of either nickname will almost certainly vary and be nothing but opinions.. You are dead right Gib, certainly much more worthwhile causes out there!! Cheers! BennyTec (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

ok then, we'll leave it as is; its more about semantics anyway Chuckarg33 (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to Falkland Islander?

Given the small size of this article, which serves mostly as a definition (covered already by Wiktionary), I think it would be best if the information here was added as a section to the Falkland Islander article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Goo

Good idea. Articles this size about what a term means probably do belong in WiktionaryWombat24 (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Added merge tag, there is absolutely no reason why this two sentence article should be separate. FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Last paragraph

The last paragraph of the article currently states:

“ This term is no longer used as commonly as it once was (largely because it is considered racist and insulting by some islanders when used by Argentines). Instead most prefer "Falkland Islanders" or even "Bennies". ”

Let's go by parts:

1. "This term is no longer used as commonly as it once was", this is incorrect: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] etc...
2. "largely because it is considered racist and insulting by some islanders when used by Argentines", this needs a reference badly. According to this statement pretty much every news outlet in Argentina (and even Latin America) is racist. Update: I've removed the addition of the word "racist" by an IP editor since it is definitely inappropriate. Still, a source for the "insulting" statement is in dire need.
3. "Instead most prefer "Falkland Islanders" or even "Bennies"", this is not controversial but also needs a source.

I'll await comments. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The term is not so common in the islands as Falkland Islanders consider its use by Argentines to be derogatory and racist in nature. One of those things you may know having lived in the islands but is difficult to source. I did turn up [11],[12] but neither would be considered reliable per WP:RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Very well, then 1- needs to be at least re-written and sourced and 2- removed until (if) a reliable source can be produced (also, neither of the links you provided works). 3- still needs sourcing. I'll edit the article accordingly. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Source now provided. WCM_email 23:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

1. It seems disproportionate to have an entire article on a word (a nickname); this would be more suitable at Wiktionary. I disagree with this resurrection after 2 years of being a redirect,
2. Even if we are to include this information at the Falkland Islanders article, you must note that the source doesn't say that Islanders consider it racist or insulting (the first one being a really big claim);
3. I find it difficult to believe that Falklanders would prefer Bennies, a term that was coined specifically to mock at them;
4. Every major newspaper in Argentina uses the word Kelper or Malvinero/Malvinense interchangeably when referring to the Islanders. Does this means that mainstream media scorns Falklanders every time they get a chance to?

For all I know, this source may be an outlier, therefore breaking WP:NPOV by presenting it as the only viewpoint on the matter. --Langus (t) 02:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We had this article untouched for nearly 6 years, I changed it to a redirect because 2 years ago one editor set out to remove any reference to this and it was one of those items you might know of and being an everyday thing extremely difficult to find a source to say so. A small article on it seems quite reasonable, it persisted for a very long time.

As for what the source says:

“ A TERM OF ARGENTINE CONTEMPT

The idea of Falkland Islanders as second class citizens is now firmly established in Argentina. They are imagined as ignorant elderly serfs of the Falkland Islands Company. The word Kelper is now part of Argentine Spanish too - as a term of contempt. Interestingly though, it doesn't just apply to Falkland Islanders now, but to any group considered to be inferior, without rights, or unimportant. In May 1991 pensioners were complaining about their low pensions and actually called themselves 'Kelpers to get attention! In October, the school assistants were getting a raw deal, and did this too. So Pagina 12 referred to them as "the Kelpers of the education system".

RACIST

Denigrating Kelpers in this almost racist way is routine now in Argentina: it rationalises the idea of taking their 'interests' into account, but not their wishes, in a settlement of the dispute. This implies that the islanders either can't decide what their interests are for themselves, or don't have the right to do this. This makes sense only if the islanders are ignorant or unimportant. So kidding themselves that the British think like this too, and to actually express it in a derogatory name, strengthening Argentine resolve. Then Argentines, hostile British politicians, or Anglo-Argentine businessmen can decide what these interests should be - and substitute their own. Of course, Argentine politicians publicly say how respectful they would be to the islanders, if they were in control of the Falklands. This is just a lie.

They couldn't respect people whose name they have turned into a term of contempt. They would treat them as what they believe them to be -second class citizens - without rights, and unimportant.

”

Its fairly clear that the islands consider the way the word is used in Argentina is as a term of abuse and is racist in nature, exactly as the article says. As to your reference to the term "Bennies", I'm afraid you're exhibiting an example of how a myth is projected in Argentina that the British also consider Falklanders as 2nd class citizens. The article makes a comment on this.

“ Most despised of all though in Argentina now are 'Kelpers'. This is, of course, the name in the Falklands for native born islanders, a fact which is hardly known in Britain even now. However, thanks to dozens of false reports during the war, any Argentine will tell you that "it's the derogatory name in Britain for Falkland Islanders, whom the British consider second class citizens"! This is why Argentines often ask visiting Britons what they think of Falkland Islanders. Argentines hope to hear this nonsense confirmed. British people seldom understand the reason behind the question, but it's all an obvious projection of Argentine opinion. ”

Bennies isn't derogatory, as Whennies isn't either. You may believe it was coined as mockery but it wasn't and plainly you don't understand the British use of banter.

The fact that every major newspaper in Argentina refers to the islanders in a manner they consider derogatory is neither here or there, it is merely symptomatic of the view widely held and often repeated of the Falklanders as 2nd class citizens whose interests do not matter. I was reminded of this quite recently when I went to reach out to an editor there and saw that a couple of editors had decamped to es.wikipedia to exchange insults about me es:Usuario Discusión:Gastón Cuello#Perlita, the discussion then descends into the usual derogatory references to the islanders and their government. Someone needs to take a long hard look at themselves. WCM_email 10:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the source quoted above is written by no other than your friend Pepper,[13], a well-know British advocate who is hardly a reliable source. Moreover it was published in 1992, i.e. 10 years after the war and 23 years from now. That may explain why the term has no negative connotation on present day.

Re. Bennies, if nicknaming someone after the village idiot isn't derogatory, then I'm not understanding human relationships at all. Moreover, British officers who advised the troops not to use it anymore, weren't able to grasp British bunter either:

After the British Army secured the Falkland Islands in the Falklands War of 1982, the honeymoon with the locals was short-lived. The troops nicknamed their reluctant hosts "Bennies" after the simple-minded character Benny in the British soap opera Crossroads. When the community relations officers opined that this was hardly conductive to harmony, the troops used "Bubs", "bloody ungrateful bastards", instead. A flurry of memos followed, demanding that this term alse be abandoned, so the squaddies altered position to "Stills", "still bloody ungrateful bastards". Not to be outdone, the islanders called the troops "Whennies", as most of the old soldiers' tales to which they were treated began with "When I was in Belize..." or some other far-flung locale.

From Graeme Donald (2008). Fighting Talk. Osprey Publishing. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-84603-455-8.

Re. racist, I believe you use the term far too lightly. Argentina believes (and so do I) that Falklanders are hardly a distinct race, being almost half of them born elsewhere, and almost all of them British descendants. By definition, there's no way one can be racist towards a group of people that (in the eyes of that person) does not constitute a distinguishable race, unless your argument is that we use the word Kelper to "denigrate" the whole English people, which by context you can conclude is not the case.

Re. your stalking on Spanish WP, I suggest you either don't fully understand the conversation or you are being excessively sensitive on the issue. The only thing I said about Falklanders and the FI Government is that they don't have final saying over their currency, as being one example of the lack of sovereignty. I did use the word kelper but as I said (and this is easily corroborated by Spanish media and scholarship), kelper and malvinense are used interchangeably in my language, without connotations. Criticizing a foreign government or its position doesn't automatically make one a racist... as I said, I believe you're abusing that word.

To recap, all we have is accusations/a perception of racism and insults in that word from an unreliable source emitted 23 years ago, contrasted with current usage in Spanish media and scholarship that, objectively speaking, points in the other direction. --Langus (t) 12:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Link

OK I'll be the bigger guy and start the talk page discussion. Suggest you read WP:BRD Reedsrecap.

Check the link to Paul Henry (actor) where it explains:

“ British Forces in the Falklands Island called the local islanders Benny, after the character Benny. This was due to the fact that many Falkland Islanders wear Benny style woolly hats. ”

It explains the origin of the nickname. Hence, the link. WCM_email 17:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not a sufficient explanation. See MOS:LINKCLARITY and MOS:EGG. "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link". Text like "...after a character from a TV programme who they were said to resemble" with a link from the name of the TV programme to the article about it would be intuitive and useful. A link from an exonym to an actor with no explanation is obviously not. Reedsrecap (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy is flawed:

“ The link target and the link label do not have to correspond to each other, but the link must be as intuitive as possible. Thus, one may have a piped link of "second-longest European river" with the target article Danube. ”

The link is intuitive ie "Bennies", which is then explained in the article. I would appreciate you self-reverting per WP:BRD. WCM_email 17:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, your understanding of the word "intuitive" is flawed. It means if you click on a link, the article you arrive at is one you could have expected, given the text you clicked on. No-one clicks on a link about a nickname used by a people and expects to arrive at an article about an obscure actor. 146.198.193.22 (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It just happens this obscure actor as you call him was one of the main characters in a UK soap opera, who is even now well known for playing that character. And its from that character the nick name derives. All of which is explained. What you arrive at is a link that explains where the nick name originates. And as shown in the policy I quoted - the link doesn't have to fall into the narrow definition you are applying. It seems clear at this point you're not prepared to listen are you? WCM_email 21:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

I accidentally rolled back an edit by mistake, I intended to revert with a note that comment was originally written by an islander and I would imagine he'd be aware whether it was offensive or not. WCM_email 00:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)