Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

RESTART

Abenyosef has been blocked for sock puppetry and disruptive editing. Shall we adopt Marshall's suggested text? Please indicate your thoughts below. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposals, only proposals

I have noted with concerns that the discussion is still going on without new contributions. It doesn't make sense to write again what we have read a lot of times in this page. I invite anyone with a proposal to write it in this subsection and to hope for support. For discussions, use please the subsection "End". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose WCM and MarshallN20's attempt:

“ After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain. In 1829, after asking for assistance, he was proclaimed Military and Civil Commander of the islands by Buenos Aires instead. Additionally, Vernet asked the British for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement. ”

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think its a bit too much detail, but will go with it if we get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Additionally, Vernet asked the British for a permanent garrison to protect his settlement" --> the source supplied above says that "On his side Vernet expressed the wish that, in the event of the British returning to the islands, HMG would take his settlement under their protection." It is not the same as asking for a straight change of flags. --Langus (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone else tiring of wasting discussion on a pointless dispute that is not about improving the article but by the sponsors own admission favouting Argentina's sovereignty claim? I'm tired of people playing semantic games, Langus that is exactly what Vernet is proposing - by his own writings he professes a preference for a British flag. I'm happy to go with the proposal but if the intention is to filibuster the discussion further - no thanks. Its not even as if we're trying to put that message in the article, an overly neutral comment is proposed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As I have pointed out several times, my proposal is about introducing scholarly standards to the article. Scholarly summaries of the events cite the Argentinian nationality of Vernet's enterprise; therefore, we should also cite it. On the other hand, scholarly summaries do not accord the same importance to Vernet's overtures to the British. These are very much important to WCM, but the consensus is that they're not important: otherwise, they would always be mentioned in chronologies, which they are not.

WCM proposes a wording that includes a lot of references to the scarcely relevant Vernet-British correspondence while still not specifying the Argentinian nationality of Vernet's settlement. I wouldn't call that a will to compromise.

Once again, therefore:

Why is a change of wording needed: Because the current wording is misleading about whether the settlement had a nationality.

:::::What do I propose: To introduce one word, "Argentinian", that would clarify that the settlement did have a nationality, as confirmed by the numerous reliable sources cited.--Abenyosef (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)(PS: Striking out comments from a BLOCKED/BANNED editor or better explained as someone unwelcomed, that usually happens after SPI and can be done by anyone with regards to the total well-being of an article page. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

I think it's perfectly clear from the last 128kB of discussion that that isn't going to get consensus, for reasons that I feel no need to repeat. On the other hand, I believe we do have a consensus for explaining the situation more fully in order to give the reader a more accurate picture of events, by adding another sentence or so. May I suggest therefore that we restrict ourselves to proposals along those lines? Pfainuk talk 18:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with Marshall's text but if there is going to be more filibustering from an editor refusing to compromise, well then I say we'll go with no consensus to change. I see no point in continuing to argue with someone who refuses to budge from what is effectively a demand. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There wont be consensus in a million gazillion years. I think you need a break, all of you. Hugs and kisses~ --Nutthida (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I can live with the susgested text.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I can go with this. Pfainuk talk 21:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but you can safely ignore me. If someone feels like, please drop me a reliable secondary source for the statement that Vernet "asked the British for a permanent garrison". I'm truly interested in knowing about this. But as I said, I won't oppose to its inclusion, I'm frankly tired. --Langus (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I find the proposed text acceptable too. Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Langus, once again you're claiming the text is unsourced. This is quite obviously untrue when there are plenty of sources presented above. I wouldn't care but its on the same page, its not as if you have to look hard. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you re-present a source that we would us inline?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

“ After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain. In 1829, after asking for assistance, he was proclaimed Military and Civil Commander of the islands by Buenos Aires instead. Additionally, Vernet asked the British to protect his settlement if they returned. ”

Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

References added. 17:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

With all due sincerity of the case, I appreciate that most of you attribute the text as mine, but in reality it's a mixture of the ideas from several editors (including the now-banned Abenyosef). Ultimately, the result is a text which effectively presents the dynamic character of Vernet, the actions of Buenos Aires, and the involvement of Britain (and all in just two sentences!). Such is the purpose of the encyclopedia: to present, as best as humanly possible, a complete picture of the situation without forcing the information to agree with one side or the other. When someone reads this text, they'll end up knowing more about the Vernet problem than us telling them what to think and how to interpret it (and, if they want to know even more, they can go to the appropriate article for it). Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Malvinas" is not a literal translation of "Falklands"

It is an alternative name. FactController (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The use of "Falklands"/"Malvinas" is contraversial. As a result, the MOS has, in conjunction with the Falkland Islands Team, laid out exactly how to present the Spanish/alternative names. The article follows the MOS convention. If you feel that this is incorrect, then by all means lobby to have the MOS changed, but I don't think that you will get much support. Martinvl (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the "MOS" and who are the "Falkland Islands Team"? FactController (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NCGN is relevant.

Your argument based on "literal translations" is meaningless, unless you define exactly what you mean by a "literal translation". Would, for example, you consider "Deutschland" a literal translation of "Germany"?

You propose that we treat Malvinas as though it was used by a significant number of sources as a standard English-language word without partisan connotation, in preference to "Falkland Islands" or "Falklands". Please provide evidence for this contention. Kahastok talk 19:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Malvinas" is an alternative name, not a Spanish translation of "Falkland Islands". The Spanish translation of that is "las Islas Falkland", as seen in Spanish language press and literature[1]. "Malvinas" or "Malvinas Islands" is used in the Encyclopædia Britannica[2] and by the US Department of State[3] and even in the UK's Independent newspaper[4]. FactController (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you say that the name is the same one in both English and Spanish? No. There is a name in English, and a name in Spanish. The thing is that there's not a single convention, at either the English or Spanish languages, about wat to do with foreign names: in some cases they are translated, in others they are kept in their original form. I have seen Brazilian cities mentioned in Spanish texts under their portuguese names, and that does not change anything. Cambalachero (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The name used isn't determined by the language used, but by the political sympathies of the author. It is disingenuous to suggest that all Spanish speakers use "Malvinas" or all English speakers use "Falkland". See the web pages referenced above and here[5][6]. FactController (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really, no. English-language usage has "Falkland Islands" as the standard neutral term while Spanish-language usage has "Islas Malvinas" as the standard neutral term. We have provided evidence that these may be considered translations of one another in form of a reference in the article.

On your sources, so far we've had a wiki, diplomatic usage (which is patently not the same as common usage), the Daily Mail as "Spanish language press and literature" and a source from 1773 as evidence of current usage. Suffice to say, they are not exactly persuasive. And in any case none of them support the claim you wish to make, that "Malvinas" is used by a significant proportion non-partisan English-language sources in preference to "Falklands". Kahastok talk 20:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the language, the neutral form includes both "Falkland" and "Malvinas", those sympathising with the Argentinian view tend to use just "Malvinas" (both in English and Spanish literature) and those with the British just "Falkland" (both in English and Spanish literature). Here are some more examples[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. There is not a clear Enlish/Spanish divide - no matter what one dictionary reference says, but there is a clear political divide. FactController (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The article in MercoPress is translated from an article in the English Daily Mail and keeps the term "Falklands". EB says "Falkland Islands, also called Malvinas Islands, Spanish Islas Malvinas". The U.S. State Department source says, "U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands". While the phrasing "Falklands/Malvinas" does appear in the Independent, it is in an opinion piece by an Argentinian journalist discussing the war from the perspective of her country. Can FactController find a neutral English source where the writer uses the term Malvinas instead of Falklands? TFD (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, he did just cite the Argentine Embassy in Australia for that purpose. Because that's clearly neutral, right... </sarcasm> Kahastok talk 20:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the neutral form, in either language, is to use both "Falkland" and "Malvinas" side by side. As in Derry/Londonderry. Either single word use betrays an implicit political sympathy with one side or the other. And that is supported by all the web sites I cited. FactController (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands. There is clear guidance in place as to how to use this. Could you stick to it please rather than creating unnecessary conflict. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC) (aka Fucking Argie Loving Wanker aka hardcore falklander aka british agent) - also with a streak of pro-Argentine bias and an abusive, british POV pushing wiki stalker)

Is that convention set in stone, as it currently misrepresents the usage of the terms as being a language rather than a political split. As we see in the web sites referenced above, Spanish literature uses "Islas Falkland" if pro-UK, "Islas Malvinas" if pro-Argentina and "Islas Falkland/Islas Malvinas" if neutral. Similarly English literature uses "Falkland Islands", "Malvinas Islands" or "Falklands/Malvinas". To say that "Malvinas" is the Spanish equivalent for "Falklands" is not only incorrect, but inflammatory. FactController (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but if you resort to ridiculous hyperbole like that, then I'm afraid people are simply going to ignore you. It isn't inflammatory in the least. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

To suggest that "Malvinas" is simply the Spanish equivalent of "Falkland", rather than the pro-Argentina term for the Islands is misleading and has the potential to be inflammatory if naively used that way rather than using the neutral form "Falkland/Malvinas" combination in either language. As with Derry/Londonderry. FactController (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The terms "Islas Falkland" (Spanish) and "Malvinas Islands" (English) are valid terms used for the islands. However, after learning more about this topic, now I have to conclude that these terms do have some kind of political-bias purpose. Although I still think that they should at least be mentioned somewhere in the article, I can understand why the editors do not want to include them (However, by including them, they could explain the problem with those terms and save themselves these kind of discussions).

However, the original terms "Falkland Islands (English) and "Islas Malvinas" (Spanish) are non politically-biased terms. These have been the names of the places in their respective languages, regardless of their support for either the Argentine or British position. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment. This whole topic is a moot point, as there is no such thing as a "literal translation" of a proper noun. The islands are called the Falklands in English and Malvinas in Spanish (or at least in Argentina; the Spanish-speaking country that is most relevant to this article). It is perfectly acceptable to describe "Malvinas" as a Spanish translation of "Falklands". Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Malvinas is not a translation of Falklands. It is a different name, and both names are used in many different languages. The "translation" would be something as "Tierra de Falk" (kinda like Tierra de la Reina Maud and Queen Maud Land). Just like the "Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf" issue, this is about different parties calling a certain geographical feature by different names, as even when speaking English the Argentinians call the islands "the Malvinas islands" and when speaking Spanish the British call the "las islas Falkland". So it has nothing to do with language. Uirauna (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So, what exactly is the purpose of this discussion? If this is not meant to improve the article in any form or way, then per WP:NOTAFORUM this discussion is irrelevant. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The purpose is to decide whether we remove the impression, currently (incorrectly in my opinion) given in the article, that "Malvinas" is Spanish for "Falklands". Also we could decide whether we add the fact that the choice of term isn't based on language but on political sympathies and that the neutral way to refer to the islands is to use both names equally, "the Falkland/Malvinas Islands (Spanish: las Islas Falklands/Malvinas)", for example. FactController (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not the correct function of a wikipedia article to define what the "neutral way to refer" to the islands is. Regardless of whether we describe "Malvinas" as the Spanish word for "Falklands" or as just what the Argentines call them, it is up for the reader to assess the facts and decide for themselves what the correct way to refer to them is. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where the article is stating that "Malvinas" is Spanish for "Falklands". There is no "neutral" way to refer to the islands. In English they are called Falklands, and in Spanish they are called Malvinas. Just like in Spanish the country to the north of Italy is called "Suiza" and in English that same country is called "Switzerland". A literal translation from English to Spanish would be, "Switzerterra" or "Tierra de los Switzers". Just like in the case with the Falklands, the choice of the term used depends on language (not only "political sympathies"). In fact, as I wrote in one of my previous posts, the only terms which can be deemed as political POV are "Islas Falkland" and "Malvinas Islands". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Malvinas Islands is always political POV in nature, it is usually used as either a translation of the Argentine name, in Argentine documents they refuse to use Falklands or its used by groups with an anti-British agenda. Islas Falkland is not so clear cut. Yes its used by groups who refuse to use Malvinas but it was also in relatively common use in Argentina and other Latin American states until the 1930s and the resumption of Argnetina's sovereignty claim by Palacios and the new conquistadores. Until relatively recently it was still common in Chile but now Argentina has successfully lobbied Mercosur to ban the term.

However, I don't see the name squabble as meriting a major discourse in this article. As it stands we have a perfectly neutral compromise of referring to both favouring neither and this is the best approach in my opinion. What is proposed to change that existing consensus I don't accept. The choice of name depends on the language, except as I note above where there is a political agenda. Well wikipedia presents a WP:NPOV and rises above that crap. We should continue to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the use of "Islas Falkland", one does have to be aware that Chile had extremely close diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom during the 19th century (and even the 20th century, if we consider Pinochet). So, using Chile as an example in support for the term "Islas Falkland" is like trying to use an outlier to explain a statistical analysis. Other than that, I agree with your view.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It was also in common use in Argentina, even in official text books, right up to the 1930s. See [13]. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any of that, "Islas Falkland" or "Malvinas Islands", mentioned in the article and what about the false impression given in the article that one is the English and the other the Spanish term? FactController (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We have already explained that "Malvinas" is the Spanish name of the islands, while "Falklands" is the English name. At no point are they stated to be translations of each other. No reason exists to use your suggestions.

The "Islas Falklands" usage may also have to do with the Atlantic side of the Americas (particularly Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina; maybe also Venezuela). The Western Latin American countries (including Mexico), I'd imagine would have kept using the same Spanish name ("Islas Malvinas") given that they did not have to really deal with the situation in the Falklands (it was not an "item of business" at least until Argentina made it a regional topic). Are there any other studies on this subject, or is Escude the only one so far to have done them? I think such information would be good in a separate "Etymology of the Falkland Islands" article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And we have already explained that "Malvinas" isn't the Spanish language name of the islands, it is merely an alternative name used by, amongst others, some Spanish speaking countries. Oxford Dictionaries give an even narrower definition, they define it as "the name by which the Falkland Islands are known in Argentina".[14] FactController (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, Spanish, unlike English but like French and other languages, has an Academy of Language, the Real Academia Española, which is responsible of regulating the Spanish language. "Officially" Islas Malvinas is Spanish - though Islas Falklands has minority usage it is officially discouraged.

In reply to Marshall, as far as I'm aware Escude is the only person to have looked at it, though there may be other Spanish language papers. Although I'm half-Spanish my Spanish language skills are not good enough to find them. You will often find usage in older works in Chile, Argentina and Brazil (can't remember the exact Portuguese phrase). Wee Curry Monster talk 15:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We need to balance the views of the available reliable sources. Oxford Dictionaries say Malvinas is just the Argentinian (it doesn't say Spanish) word for the Falklands. What other references do we have? FactController (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information WCM. To be honest, I have never read Spanish papers even remotely touching on this subject (although that probably has more to do with the fact that most Spanish-speaking countries feel they have lost territory; some with historical truth, and others simply out of nationalist rethoric).

FactController, no need exists to "balance the views" of sources. Oxford Dictionaries in this case is wrong. Argentina is not the only country that uses the name "Malvinas". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries is a reliable source, so although it may offer an alternative view, it isn't "wrong", so its view needs to be included in any NPOV mix. BTW, it doesn't say Argentina is the "only" place that uses that word, it says it is the word that Argentina uses. We also need reliable sources for any other views inclued, do we have any? FactController (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of sources varies depending on the subject that they are being used on. "Alternative views" are only valid when the matter in question is actually something for which a definitive answer does not exist. The Real Academia Española, which holds a greater reliablity on this topic, clearly defines "Malvinas" as the "traditional Spanish form for the name of the islands situated in the South Atlantic [...]." (source: [15]). What you are quite obviously trying to do is pass the term "Malvinas" as an Argentine POV, and I am sure consensus in this page will not support your request. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kelpers

I see that User:MarshalN20 added a "Citation needed" tag to the term "Kelper". This term is WIkilinked and leads to a reference that is in Spanish. Since MarshalN20 can translatr Spanish into English, would he please check the source suppled and create a proper WIkipedia citation. Martinvl (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What needs citation is the bit on why the term is no longer used. I took that from the Kelper article, but that is not sourced. The information seems reliable, but it needs verification (hence the cn tag). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

History to 1982 / "Controversy exists as to who first discovered the Falkland/Malvinas Islands"

After a brief introduction the article expresses: "The first reliable sighting is usually attributed to the Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600, who named the archipelago the Sebald Islands, a name they bore on Dutch maps into the 19th century", someone can explain to me then Pedro Reinel map (1522-1523), Diego Rivera (1526-1527 and 1529), Islario of Santa Cruz (1541), Sebastian Cabot (1544); Diego Gutierrez (1561), Bartholomew Olivos (1562), and so on? Then the article refers to captain John Strong of the Welfare in 1690. Really there are many doubts on which he had trodden on the islands, nevertheless this one sufficiently checked that I navigate the strait, but...Again someone can explain or recommend to me some book on it, for which up to what I have read in 1748, the British government sent an expedition to "discover" (sic) and populate the Falklands/Malvinas Islands and Pepys (Up to the 18th century England was ignoring to certain science the existence of the Falklands/Malvinas, confusing them with a few hypothetical islands Pepys.),nevertheless, before the resistance of Spain, finally it will desist. The expedition did not have "intention of doing any seat in any of the above mentioned islands". Do they know wherefrom it extracts the latter phrase? from the English Instructions!!. Really I consider a re-writing to be necessary in many aspects of the article, leaving of sides the personal considerations and in search of an as objective as possible article.--Hernan1483 (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentences before your quote deal with that - though admitedly it could explain perhaps what a reiable sighting is. The rest is cited and if you have some specific edit in mind, please do propose it - I must admit I'm a tad confused as to what it is you are trying to communicate, and I feel somewhat compelled to point you towards WP:NOTFORUM. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship on lede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Contrary to OP's statement, no such law exists in Argentina. Nothing to be done here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Hi I am suggestioning for the change of the article lede, where it say "Under the British Nationality Act of 1983, Falkland Islanders are British citizens." There is also a law on Argentina's books that say the islanders have Argentine citizenship but you do not include this. So my question is if you are to be neutral why should not the lede say that both the Britain and Argentina has laws that make them citizens. I'm sorry but to me it's clear look if you make mentioning of only one citizen ship of the islanders but not the other then the article is written from the perspective that only one law is valid, or that the law of the country not mentioned is not worth noting because it is not considered a fact? Or what is it? Becayse if you truly are neutral you have to put both, thank you.174.48.242.45 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands fall under British jurisdiction, not Argentinian, and so in fact only one law is "valid". Since Argentinian law does not apply in the Falklands I don't think it makes sense to mention it in the lede, especially seeing as only one native-born Islander has ever taken up Argentinian citizenship.

Perhaps we could include the fact that Argentina offers citizenship to all Islanders in the section on the dispute below. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 05:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your bottom proposal sounds good Basalisk. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like something worth including in the body somewhere. CMD (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The tone of the question is highly aggressive. That this information was not included in the article is simply because (at least from my part and under my perspective) it was unknown to the editors.

This subject of citizenship is actually worthy enough to be mentioned in the body and the lead. In the lead, it would be something along the liens of: "Under the British Nationality Act of 1983, Falkland Islanders are British citizens; and under the (bla bla law), Argentina offers citizenship to Falkland Islanders (then mention requirements, if any)." In the body, it would be included in the Demographics section.

Of course, first I'd like to see a reference to this claim. After all, citing it to "Argentina's books" doesn't really explain much. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better off in the dispute section than demographics. I think it's more relevant to that section (especially seeing as Argentina's offer of citizenship actually has no de facto effect on the island's demographics - the only person to have taken up the offer relocated to Argentina). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The subject of citizenship generally applies to demographics, and is not necessarily an important part of the dispute (although, surely, we could make an internal wikilink of it back to the dispute section). Before we discuss this (in more detail), I really would like to know if the IP editor (or anyone) has a way for the rest of us to read the law (a quick summary or mention of it would do plenty). Basalisk, you mention that one person has taken the "offer of citizenship"; might you have the source for it? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless you're arguing that all the people living in the Falklands are Argentines by virtue of the Argentinian law on the matter, then it doesn't really affect demographics at all, does it? See this news article for the story of the guy who accepted citizenship. I understand your point that this kind of info would normally be relevant to the demographics section, but I think in this particular case it would be better off illustrated as a feature of the sovereignty dispute. Placing it under the demographics section gives the reader the impression than the Argentinian policy of offering all Falklands-born people Argentine citizenship automatically makes all Falklanders Argentines. This is not the case. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The position with Argentina is a touch complicated, but I think previous discussions on this topic (possibly at a different article) were hampered by different cultural notions on what citizenship is. To the British - and, I would expect, most other Anglo-Saxon peoples - citizenship is inherent. You might have documents such as a passport demonstrating your citizenship, but if you don't have any documents that does not make you any less a citizen. My impression from Argentine contributors (which may be completely wrong) is that in there, citizenship is far more tied up with having an identity card, a DNI, and that drawing a distinction between a "citizen" without a DNI and a foreigner is not meaningful.

In recent years, Argentina has given Argentine citizenship to any Falkland Islander who wants it, based on the principle of birthright citizenship and Argentina's legal definition of her own borders. Only a couple of islanders have actually done this. At the same time, Argentina's case against self-determination is that the islanders' presence is not legal - a position that would generally seem to prevent them from having birthright citizenship. Further, declassified Argentine documents from the second half of the last century demonstrate that at that time, had they gained control of the islands, Argentina would have deported the population - again, inconsistent with the notion that they are Argentine citizens. Kahastok talk 18:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've found this news article, from the Telegraph ([16]), which goes into more detail of the reason the man took the Argentine citizenship. However, other than that, no other information appears to exist about the law.

In Spanish, here is this (arguably better) article about the situation ([17]); the man actually is given a chance to speak in this case.

In any case, we cannot include this information by itself into the article (per WP:RECENT), but rather it would only be a good example to use if (and only if) we find more concrete information on the law itself (in particular to know when it was passed and its restrictions). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the point isn't that it's a particular law per se. Rather, it's the application of the same law that applies to people born in Rosario or Bariloche to a part of the world that Argentina considers to be as much part of her territory as Rosario and Bariloche. The reason for the difference in how it's done seems to be that, for obvious reasons, you don't get Argentine identity documents if you're born on the FI unless you actually ask for them. That said, as I noted before, Argentine governments have not always been consistent on this point and the current policy does not seem consistent with other arguments made by the Argentine government (though I'll accept that this is OR at present).

All that said, I agree that we need more information than has been presented in this thread to comment in the article. Kahastok talk 19:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all there is no law in Argentina to confer citizenship on Falkland Islanders, there was an attempt to put a law onto the statute books to deny them citizenship but it failed. The actual stated position of the Argentine Government is that the population and Government of the islands is there illegally. Indeed as noted above there was an intention to deport the entire population from the islands. Equally the Argentine Government has grasped several opportunities granting citizenship to islanders in order to make noise about its claim If you actually delve into the case of Mr Peck he took citizenship because he was treated like he was not and discriminated against in relation to access to his children i.e. even in that case it was counter to the proposed edit. Much of this got lost in the fanfare of Christina milking it for all its worth on Liberation Day (he was by no means the first - poor Mr Betts must have felt gutted). We periodically have demands based on the WP:OR of editors linking the Argentine adoption of jus soli to define citizenship linked with Argentina's sovereignty claim, then synthesising a claim that they must therefore be Argentine citizens. WP:OR exists to stop this sort of synthesis being put into wikipedia's articles.

I conclude by pointing out the premise of the OP is fallacious, there is no such law and what statutes have been prepared would contradict it. Nor is neutrality achieved by giving credence to WP:OR. I see no need for such an edit and might I suggest that if you feel the need to put in details of Argentina's position it is full of contradictions. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The articles about Peck indicate he had no right to Argentinian citizenship based on birthright, but was granted citizenship at the discretion of the Argentinian government. TFD (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• So basically, we all just got trolled by some POV IP with hot under the collar about some utter bollocks about a law which doesn't exist, and I took the bait. Great. Close this thread? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Nonetheless, I wouldn't use the term "trolled" (assuming the IP had good intentions). When you close this, I recommend you write somewhere in the closing box the outcome of the discussion (to prevent future confusions). Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm closing this again, wikipedia doesn't exist as a forum for navel gazing discussions on legal theory. If you have a source present it but this is clearly not the place for it and no consensus is going to emerge based on past discussions. To summarise, 1. There is no law as OP claims conferring citizenship on the islanders, 2. whilst poster is interpreting statutes this is WP:OR and not suitable for an edit, 3. no source is provided to support the proposed edit and 4. No new argument that hasn't been presented before emerged. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• The summary provided above is incorrect: current Argentine law grants citizenship by jus soli to every islander, and sources for this are available. --Langus (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

---

If I may take mild issue with the closing statement, this is open to debate - it depends on whether you interpret Argentina's jus soli law to include or exclude the FI. Trouble is, Argentina's own actions have been contradictory in this matter and there's no clear outside conclusion that it applies. FWIW we discussed the Peck case either here or at the dispute page in this context at the time, and at that time it was argued that there was a difference in Argentine law between birthright citizenship and naturalised citizenship, and that Peck was given the former.

I note that I see no reason not to take the IP's contribution as being in good faith - particularly given that, as of a few years ago, the article said pretty much exactly what s/he proposes for pretty much exactly the reasons s/he gives. It was removed for the reasons discussed here. Kahastok talk 19:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I did not realize such responses, this blow out of proportion I think. But reading some now, I take issue for more than mild on my part, first I would say my question was 100% bona fide not for making a troll as some would say. So, for those that "AGF" on me thank you, and for those that did not - well it seem the comments say something for them selves, no?

For example: "The tone of the question is highly aggressive" how? Did I make insult? Maybe my English not so good but even with the google translate I am assured I did not insult or make offense, so it's that. And also the comment one before ""The Falkland Islands fall under British jurisdiction, not Argentinian, and so in fact only one law is "valid". Since Argentinian law does not apply in the Falklands I don't think it makes sense to mention it in the lede" ok may things with this and I try to say as politely as I can.

Who decides what is made a "valid" or what is not, exactly? I want and think we all want to AGF but putting you in my shoes, you read that and find sincerely questionable motives of the editor who is, when given chance to present two sides of a issue, choosed to say only the one which is the "valid" in his or her personal esteem - so, then, what happen to "neutral"?

And in a same manner, I would expect that one british editor be critical of me if I were doing same thing, it would be equally wrong.

What I had mean to say, from beggining: Britain has laws. Argentina has laws. A neutral article means is requiring the mention of existence of the both country laws be in the lede toghether, and let the reader make up his / her mind about which is "valid". Which means self control perhaps for the editor that does not like, instead just deciding for them by editors who maybe like to obfuscate facts that not conducive to an own personal interpretation. Isn't the encyclopaedia supposed to say what is the facts? That is all I ask, and I think in neutral way that wikipedia demands of all the editors for all of the articles not just this.

So, Facts are facts, and a fact is Argentina has laws, which under the Argentine law system apply to islands and islanders (which Britain does not recognize as "valid") are on the books, but can't be enforced. But is mean the don't exist? I don't think so. And, in same manner then the Britain has laws that apply to the islands and the islanders under a British legal system (which Argentina does not recognize as "valid" but this does not mean they don't exist, right?). I would indicate for the editor to give "valid" to one and not the other, or exclude one and not the other, based only on virtue of de facto British administration only serves to legitimize such British administration on behalf of the reader's mind. This is an editor saying he or she will not mention a fact to promote ignoring another fact, that a sovereignty dispute even exists. Again, where is neutral??

There are two sets of facts - both should be mentioned.

1. On the British side, the fact, mentioned, the British Overseas Territorries Act of 2002 (before, the Nationality Acts of '83 and '81) serve to grant automatic British Citizenship to persons born on the islands.

2. On the Argentine side, the fact not mentioned, the Argentine Law 23.775 reorganizes a political subdivision of the islands under Argentine law, making it to use a legal language to describe the territory, to bring in line that language which allows under Article 8 of the constitution grants automatic Argentine Citizenship to persons born on the islands.

These are the facts. If you think any of the two are not "valid", for whatever a reason, or one want to exclude them (one or the other, either way) I should think this position merits to be explanation beyond "I don't think it makes sense". So, my point, we now both fact and both the laws from both the sides - it's neutral to mention both on the lede, or mention none, but the main thing to let a reader know both countries have laws on their books and let a reader make up their mind, thank yuo.174.48.246.221 (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to explain my view. I said that Argentinian law is not valid in the Falkland Islands because it isn't - it doesn't matter what the Argentinian legislature says or whether Argentines consider British law to be "valid" because Argentine law doesn't apply in the Falklands any more than it does in France. It makes no sense to mention the laws of a foreign country since they have no bearing on life in the country in question. For example, it's law in Saudi Arabia that women do not drive, but mentioning that in this article would be bizarre because Saudi law does not apply in the Falklands either.

Secondly, if what you're saying about such an Argentinian law being genuine is true, could we please have a reliable source to back it up? Thanks. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 05:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

IP Editor, by claiming that editors are purposely trying to be non-neutral, you are being aggressive in your tone. Your last statement further shows aggressiveness by continuing to accuse editors of being non-neutral. Such behavior is unlikely to win you any supporters.

That being said, I do not agree with Basalisk's first point. The granting of citizenship rights is important, and this is particular relevant to the Falklands (which Argentina disputes with Britain). Nonetheless, given the discussion in this section, I now no longer think it is relevant to be mentioned in the lead of the article (assuming a source even exists) because Argentina has tended to show contradictory actions towards the Fakland Islanders (and this unnecessary contradiction should not be in the lead).

Yet, I still think that this information should go in the Demographics section. This leads me to Basalisk's second point, which is correct and necessary. Information to this article cannot be added unless a reliable source (or sources) demonstrate (and possibly even explain) this matter. Wikipedia does not create information (we are not a primary source or conduct WP:OR).

If you can please provide us with a source, then we shall be able to continue this discussion. Please only bother to reply if you have a source, otherwise you shall be ignored (there is no need to boil blood over a non-existent issue). Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been extensively discussed almost a year ago, in the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute (I believe that this information really belongs to that article, not this one). We ended up removing the whole section about Argentina's position on Falklanders' citizenship, because some editors refused to include in the article that "under Argentine law, people born on the islands are considered Argentine", on the grounds of WP:NPOV and because they found it offensive, if I recall correctly. Others just refused to get the point. You can read that section here, just a few days before the case of James Peck went to the news.

Leaving aside what was written about he and the previous cases of islanders getting an Argentine ID card, we got to discuss the accuracy of the section referenced above. See:

• Section: "the Argentine nationality legislation is inconclusive with respect to the Islanders" dubious?
• Section: Step by step
• And the MedCab case: 2011-06-24 Falkland Islands Sovereignty Dispute and its talk page

If you want to quickly get some insight from a reliable source, all you have to do is read the summary of this proposed bill, which was never voted in the chambers and finally expired.

More reliable info here: [18] on page 52.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank all for the response, I am sorry if appeared aggresive is was not the intention to make accusation only to ask the question and how all the editors think for making a change. I read through the history discussion and medcab and it looks like they had a similar or same sources as I would have made citation of to you. I want to clear maybe one thing that is there is a difference between a government giving citizenship papers to a person, from as I understand the different legal standing of the event of a living birth with inside a jurisdiction and the civilian getting (or eligibility for) citizen status rights automatically.

In other words to say a person maybe is a citizen as of a qualifying legal event (birth) but may not have been given documents. So I just want to make sure clear that I was always talking about the former not the latter.

Now about the history and the source. To read what happen, it's a very sad to see a mediator just seems to give up for mediation the case at all, is maybe too complex for the people to understand? I don't know. I think from what I read some editors do not favor the inclusion of mentioning of the Argentina law for the reasons they said in the case and some say to state just the Argentine position, or just the British position, that is I don't agree with personally - BUT looking through it I think both sides agreed that the respective country laws, Britain's and Argentina's, actually existed. Would you all say they agreed on those two facts?

So there is what I ask: does Britain's law exist? Does Argentina's law exist? What argument merits one mentioning of a side but not the mentioning of the other? And in the cases where a national law of one country conflicts with a national law of another country, such as a border or sovereignty dispute (of course this is not the only one in the world) then how does the Wikipedia policy say, like only the country that has the actual control merits its laws be mention on the article about the place in dispute, or no?

Also, the last thing, I really have hard time in understanding this medcab history, in specific the "inconclusive" of the Argentine law - why? Or, what part of it they think so inconclusive they would not have an idea on how to word it. I think the article 8 on the constitution seems really plain and short even, so I don't know. And, do you still from me want the sources even if they were listed in the history before by the others? Thanks!174.48.246.221 (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Religion in the Fakland Islands

I'm still in the process of improving the Demographics section (since there really is little to improve there other than including sources). Regarding the religion of the islands, I have found two sources which provide statistics:

• Joshua Project ([19]), which uses a nice pie chart.
• Operation World ([20]), which serves as the reference for the above charts.

Are either of these sources reliable? (If yes, then feel free to update/improve the section with these sources). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

They are both evangelical organizations meaning their first priority is evangelism rather than research, so they cannot be considered unbiased. They might still be reliable despite being biased, but they don't disclose their research methodologies on their websites (at least I couldn't find anything), so I tentatively consider them unreliable. Mcarling (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Joshuaproject is probably reliable, as they're specifically made to find out what areas need evangelical targetting. They want accuracy, and they'd be doing themselves a disservice by skewing the data in any way. CMD (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, Mcarling is right in that these sources are biased, but we are not using their bias in the article, but rather their statistics. In that sense is where CMD's argument makes more sense, for they need to be reliable in order to help their objectives. If a more reliable source is found, then it should be used to replace this one, but for the time being this Joshua Project is all we have for use. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I recently unpdated the section on religion using the census figures. The Joshua project figures in the first pie chart correlate well with the census, so I would be happy to quote their figures for the Christian denomination break-down, at any rate between the three major denominations. GIven the small population of the islands, figures for the smaller denominations are probably statistically insignificant, unless lumped together. Martinvl (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus to Correct a False Statement

There are factual inaccuracies and nhe;pful / misleading language on both this page and in the wikipedia article on Islas malvinas.Surely an english and spanish version of the same article needs to be presented which sets out the facts as accurately as possible and would leave just one entry to discuss and edit. The problem is that even the discussions like the entry below compound rather than clarify the errors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.228.25 (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The third sentence of the second paragraph currently reads: "Britain re-established its rule in 1833, yet the islands continue to be claimed by Argentina."

Argentina's claim has been far from continuous. Argentina first claimed the Falklands on 10 June 1829. Argentina rescinded the claim later that same year following a change in government. Argentina revived their claim in September 1832 and sent a military invasion force. On 3 January 1833, British forces defeated the Argentine forces, liberated the civilian population (all but four of whom stayed following the British invitation to stay), and expelled the Argentine military. Argentina maintained their claim until a peace treaty was signed with Britain in 1849 (ratified in 1850) which gave up Argentina's claim to the Falklands. Then, for nearly a century, Argentina acknowledged that the Falklands were British until Argentina tried to rekindle their claim in 1941. The claim has been continuous since 1941, not since 1833, as suggested by the current sentence quoted above. I suggest the following, but am open to suggestions: "Britain re-established its rule in 1833, yet the islands continued to be claimed by Argentina until 1850 and again from 1941 to the present time." Mcarling (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well rather than false the sentence is deliberately vague for a reason, I wrote it that way. I have no problem with the suggestion as it is factually accurate but let me put some popcorn on for the howls of protest in certain quarters. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe it's a false statement, rather a bit vague as Wee stated. There's a discussion about this topic currently taken place here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Sovereignty_discussions. I oppose the rephrasing of that sentence since it implies a gap of 91 years between protests, which is not factually accurate. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a gap of 91 years between protests. The nearest thing to a protest by Argentina during those 91 years was a casual statement on 30 May 1884 by Argentine Foreign Minister Francisco Ortiz during conversation with British Ambassador Edmund Monson that Argentina was considering reviving their claim to the Falklands, but that revival did not come until 1941. Also, Argentina published a map in 1884 showing the Falklands colored as part of Argentina (contrary to the 1882 map which clearly showed the Falklands colored as not a part of Argentina), but a map is far from an official diplomatic protest. "Continued" means there was continuity, which there was not, so the statement is strictly false. Continued is not a synonym for resumed. Mcarling (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say it was more ambiguous than false. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It says "yet the islands continue to be claimed by Argentina". Now, they are being claimed now. It doesn't imply continuity. --Langus (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Mcarling if you read P&P's pamphlet (I reference it because I doubt there is another one as biased towards Britain's position than this one) you'll see it states:

Tower reported on 20 March 1915 that "I have been personally assured by Dr. Murature, and as he authorised the Argentine consul-general in Panamá on the 20th February to state officially, the last Argentine protest in regard to the Falkland Islands was dated 1888..." (quotes from Sir Reginald Tower’s despatches to British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey, 23 December 1914, in British Documents on Foreign Affairs Part II, D...

The last protest was in 1888 as stated in the most biased sources (such as this one). If you know spanish, you can read more about this formal protest (and another one made in 1885) here Gaba p (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me some editors may not be entirely familiar with Argentina's history of protests. The dates, that I am aware of during the 19th century, are:

-17 June 1833 (Palmerston responded)

-29 December 1833 (Palmerston did not respond)

-1838 (not sure the date) Moreno offers cession in exchange for Baring Bros. loan forgiveness (Britain rejected)

-18 December 1841 (Palmerston did not respond)

-19 February 1842 (Palmerston did not respond)

-31 July 1849 (Palmerston responded)

-30 May 1884 (Granville did not respond)

If my math is correct, the gap is 35 years, far short of the 91 alleged above. I can, of course, give provide citations documenting these protests, if anyone requests.65.213.180.253 (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources are everything here :) --Τασουλα (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

1. It does not appear to be in dispute that Argentina protested British sovereignty over the Falklands continuously (i.e. every year) from 1833 until Argentina formally gave up their claim in 1850 by signing a peace treaty with Britain that stipulated that there were no unresolved issues remaining between them. So, it seems, citations about protests between 1833 and 1850 are irrelevant to the present discussion.

2. The citation above does not show that Argentina protested in 1888. What it shows is a) that Argentina claimed in 1914 (this claim is disputed) that they had protested in 1888 and b) that Argentina formally admitted that they had not protested between 1888 and 1914.

3. Even if there were a formal diplomatic protest in 1888, that would leave a gap of approximately 53 years between the alleged 1888 protest and the well-documented resumption of protests in 1941.

4. It is clear that the protests (if there were any) between 1850 and 1941 were not continuous, therefore it is false (in a sentence where the antecedent is 1833) to write that the protests continued. The protested did not continue; they were resumed.

5. Even if the alleged 1888 protest actually occurred, the language I proposed is strictly true, unlike the present language. I would not oppose mentioning the alleged 1888 protest in a following sentence, but I think that level of detail is more appropriate for the article on the sovereignty dispute. Mcarling (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if the alleged 1888 protest actually occurred, the language I proposed is strictly true, unlike the present language., well I could say exactly the same about my proposed change here, but you opposed it anyway didn't you? Gaba p (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I oppose that proposed change because in that case the current language is, I believe, strictly true. In the case under discussion here, if we may return to the topic at hand, does anyone suggest that my proposed language is not both accurate and more accurate than the current language? Mcarling (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest your proposed language is not both accurate and more accurate than the current language. Your sentence disregards the 1885, 1888 and subsequent less formal protests between 1888 and 1940 made primarily by Argentina's Postal Office officially backed by the government. Please refer to the reference I cited earlier for this facts. Gaba p (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The current sentence is fine the way it was written by WCM, and no need exists to change it. I am sure that is the current consensus (with most of the editors), and it shall remain that way. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Latitude

The claim being made here is that the Falklands are unusually cold for their latitude. Fine, if we allow the OR assumption that London is representative of areas at this latitude.

But we're not allowed to make OR assumptions, and this is a good moment to illustrate why not by listing some of the places at a similar latitude to that of the Falklands (I've gone for 52°N for the sake of argument):

• Southern James Bay
• Northern Sakhalin
• Ulan-Ude, Siberia
• Belle Isle
• Saskatoon
• Southern Kamchatka
• Sea of Okhotsk

Replace "London" with "Siberia" or "Labrador" in the sentence at hand - which we can do without any loss of accuracy - and we get a totally different conclusion. Fact is, London is very warm for its latitude thanks to the Gulf Stream - one of the many other factors at play here. This sentence says far more about the climate of London, than the climate of the Falklands. But this should be an article about the Falklands, not an article about London. Kahastok talk 21:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't believe there was/is a near edit war over this! No wait, scrap that: There is an edit war going on. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Britain and the Falklands are islands in the Atlantic. Most of your supposed counter-examples are in or around Siberia. Mcarling (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I object to the edits by FactController. There is a relationship between the Falkland Islands and London. There is a relationship between the Shetland Islands and London. Such relationships do not exist with the other cities FactController listed. Mcarling (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The British Isles are much bigger than the Falklands/Malvinas and their climate is heavily influenced by the Gulf Stream, which does not reach the Falklands/Malvinas. Newfoundland is also an island in the Atlantic. What point is being made? FactController (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Shetlands are well north of London (which is much more obvious than their latitude relative to other cities you listed). The point which had been made before your changes was that the Falklands have weather comparable to a more extreme latitude, despite having rainfall and sunshine similar to London which is at the corresponding latitude. The Gulfstream is the reason why. The contrast between the Shetlands and London is easy to visualize. Adding a bunch of other cities obfuscates the contrast. Mcarling (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make the point that the Falklands have weather comparable to a more extreme latitude, you need a source for that.

Bear in mind that other cities at the latitude of Shetland include Helsinki, Magadan and Whitehorse. The largest settlements in the north-west Atlantic at the appropriate latitude are probably Nanortalik and Puvirnituq. In winter, the polar ice cap extends to the latitude of London, let alone the latitude of Shetland (and yes, that's in the Atlantic). Given all of this, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to contend that the Falklands do not have a climate that would be typical of the latitude of Shetland.

It's unsurprising that the sources don't make the claim you want to make because it's a faulty comparison. You're either making a totally irrelevant point about London and Shetland or you're misleading readers by suggesting that London and Shetland have climates typical of their latitude. Neither is a useful thing to be doing.

The point about islands in the Atlantic I feel I can safely discard because the text you want doesn't make it. Not that it becomes a sensible comparison when you compare to islands in the Atlantic - as can be amply illustrated if you consider what the sentence would mean if you replaced "London" with "Newfoundland" and "the Shetlands Shetland" with "Greenland" in your preferred version. The latitudes would be accurate.

On the current version, I think the cities chosen are more European than is necessarily desirable, and I remain far from convinced that the point is in any way useful, but it's better than Mcarling's alternative. Kahastok talk 09:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to figure out what you're on about here. It seems like you're making straw-man arguments, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- even though you kept deleting text after objections without trying to get a consensus on the talk page. It is certainly _not_ the case that any of the Falkland Islands, the Shetland Islands, or London have a climate typical for their respective latitudes, which is another reason why adding other locations is inappropriate. I'm reverting this to the last consensus text until a new consensus develops. Mcarling (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The original statement that the climate of the Falklands is similar to that of Shetland carries with it an implication that both at at the same latitiude which is not the case. We should therefore either remove the Falklands/Shetland comparison or qualify it so that readers are not misled. The statement can be qualified in a number of different ways including:

• Quote the Shetland and Falkland latitudes
• Use London as has been done - the advantage of using London is that any reader who knows where Shetland is also knows where London is and, more importantly, knows that London is a long way [directly] south of Shetland.

Finally, if we are going to make this comparison, maybe we should mention the cold Patagonian current somewhere in the text. (Can we assume that readers know about the warm North Atlantic Drift - UK readers should know about it, but what about US readers or Australians etc). Martinvl (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

To remind everyone, the original text and standing consensus on this article is:

"The climate is similar to that of Shetland in the UK, but with less rainfall and longer and slightly more severe winters"

Quite how you came to the conclusion that it implies that "that both at at the same latitiude" (sic) I have no idea. There is no mention of latitude and it would take some pretty creative interpretation to infer that from the text.

I note that the source makes this comparison perfectly happily. They do not feel the need to deal with the discrepancy in latitudes. They just don't mention it. And they don't need to. The fact that two places have similar climates does not mean that they have similar latitudes.

A discussion of ocean currents on the other side of the world is pretty obviously well beyond the scope of this article. If you can find a mention of the Patagonian current then I have no problem with its getting a suitable mention. But that doesn't mean we need to go into detail about latitude here. Kahastok talk 10:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

To Mcarling: above you say: "I'm reverting this to the last consensus text..." Where is the evidence of consensus for that text, especially as you didn't revert to any "previous text", but to your combination of some of Martinvl's text and some of my text. FactController (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets just leave this out and move on.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

People kind of a dumb thing to edit war over, calm down, take a deep breath and remember this is supposed to be fun. Work it out in talk space. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I think it's an interesting snippet of information slipped harmlessly into the prose. I don't see how omitting it improves the content and reckon we should leave it in. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with what it says now. It could do with style improvements (for example, I see that despite my efforts, we're still referring to Shetland as "the Shetlands Shetland"), but it's basically fine. But the point about latitude is, as Mcarling noted earlier, that "the Falklands have weather comparable to a more extreme latitude". Which is inaccurate unless we're taking the climate of Britain as representative of its latitude (which is not a viable assumption). We shouldn't include information that misleads our readers in this way. Kahastok talk 15:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded things and added some references. I have tried to keep the text as short as possible. Martinvl (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You're still trying to treat the latitudes as though they are the only significant factor. It is entirely inappropriate to mislead our readers in this way, given that we all know (but they may not) that other factors are much more significant. The sources don't consider latitude significant enough to be brought out when drawing comparisons, so there's no reason why we should.

None of these three sources do anything in the way of comparison between these three locations, so trying to use them to source such comparison is disallowed original research. They do not belong in the article at all.

And that's before we get to keeping the text "as short as possible". Compare:

• The climate has been likened to that of the Shetlands Shetland (north of the Scottish mainland),
• The climate is similar to that of Shetland in the UK,
• A comparison of climatic conditions in the Falklands (51°S) with those in the United Kingdom indicates that the Falklands has a climate comparable to that found in the Hebrides or in Shetland (60°N).

The one that you're claiming is "as short as possible" is the third of these.

And overall we should reinstate the stable consensus version of this text (which is as in this edit) and thrash this out on talk. There is too much edit warring going on here and it should stop. Kahastok talk 16:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we leave it as it is now, long enough for tempers to cool (someone actually left a threat on my talk page!), and then revisit this on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. Mcarling (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR warnings aren't threats. WP:3RR says that if you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, you can be blocked because of it. It is normally expected that you will warn an editor that they have reached the line (3 reverts in 24 hours), so that they can avoid reverting the fourth time and hence avoid a block. When leaving that message, I took you to be a regular and hence left a non-templated message pointing out the position. Most people find such warnings useful; however, if you would prefer that I not warn you when you reach 3RR in the future (i.e. that I or someone else just take you straight to WP:ANEW without prior warning), let me know and I will avoid warning you in future. Kahastok talk 17:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the personal conclusions drawn by comparing different references and the latitudes which imply a relationship which is not supported by references, and left the only conclusion supported by any of the references. Thus I was also able to remove redundant references. FactController (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What conclusions can be drawn from WP:Real world knowledge (or is Wikipedia the font of all knowledge?). Children learn that it is cold at the North Pole at a very young age (after all Santa Claus lives there). Shortly after they learn that Santa is a myth, they learn about the equator and that it is hot there. Then they are introduced to words such as "temperate". By the time they are in secondary school they are (or should be) aware that there is a loose correlation between latitude and temperature - Scotland gets more snow than England. Unless they engage brain and realise that the Patagonian current is different to the North Atlantic Drift, they are likely to assume from the statements we have presented that the Falklands are at the same latitude south that the Hebrides are north. For this reason I think that something should be done to dispel this misconception. At things stand, the simplest way is to add the latitudes of both the Falklands and the Hebrides in brackets. Not only will this point out the latitude difference, but some readers will ask themselves "why?" Martinvl (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably because it is in no way as simple as that. The climate in the UK is warmer than you might expect for this latitude as we are warmed by the Gulf Stream. Similarly the climate in the Falkland Islands can on occasions be totally dominated by a passing iceberg resulting in snow in the middle of summer. There is a good description of climate and comparison with the UK in The Falkland Islands by Ian Strange, I would suggest that people start bringing in what secondary sources say and work on an edit, as at the moment you're all talking past each other. Really guys is it worth the stress? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The removal of the "hours of sunlight" simplified things considerably. I have wikilinked "Shetland" (not Shetland Islands) and "Hebrides" and also added the latitudes as these are enough to make people look and ask "is this right?" We don't need to go any further in this article - more detailed descriptions should be reserved for Geography of the Falkland Islands and Climate of the Falkland Islands. Martinvl (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And I removed them again. I remain opposed to their inclusion. I do not accept your reasoning above. If we don't include any latitudes, readers are not likely to think about the latitudes. There's no reason why they would. It's an odd conclusion to come to that they are at the same latitude, given that we're not even mentioning latitude. Readers are going to read that the Falklands have a similar climate to the Hebrides and Shetland, and will conclude that the Falklands have a similar climate to the Hebrides and Shetland. They are not likely to come to any significant conclusion about the islands' latitude, any more than about the size of their horses or their fondness for Viking festivals.

On the other hand, including them suddenly makes it a big deal. Suddenly we seem to be making a point about the significance of latitude, and particularly the difference in latitude between Shetland and the Falklands. Our source doesn't make any such point. Our source doesn't even mention the islands' latitude except in the most general terms. We've got no basis on which to make any point here. There's no benefit to the encyclopædia in making any point here. So we shouldn't be making one. Kahastok talk 20:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I've removed the entire sentence. The whole comparison relies on your knowing what the weather's like in Shetland or the Hebrides. And most people outside the UK won't. Kahastok talk 20:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

After considering this overnight I happen to think Kahastok is correct. Wikipedia is supposed to be about writing an English language encyclopedia and writing about narrow national perspectives does not make the subject more accessible for an International audience. I very much doubt many of our readers find the analogies helpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I withdraw my opposition. Let's move on. Mcarling (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I beg to disagree too, and believe Basalisk above is right; unfortunately don't have the time to elaborate though. Apcbg (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now reworded this in more detail and put it into an international context in the artcile Climate of the Falkland Islands. Martinvl (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

ABC Islands

Just to explain in more detail, as I fear my edit summary wasn't quite enough. The edit concerned says:

“ The islands are one of three major territories of a European nation left in South America, with French Guiana and the ABC islands of the Netherlands being the other two. ”

Curry Monster removed it from the lede on the basis that it wasn't mentioned in the rest of the article. It was then added to the top of the Geography section, which I don't think is a good place because that section deals with physical geography.

But my main concern is accuracy.

The ABC islands are, for those unaware, three Dutch islands just off the north coast of Venezuela: Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao. Aruba and Curaçao are independent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and each is equivalent in status to the Netherlands. Bonaire is a special municipality of the Netherlands (as opposed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands). The ABC islands do not in any political sense form a single territory below the level of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

In the case of French Guiana it's rather simpler. French Guiana is as much part of France as Paris, Marseille or Strasbourg - but it just happens to be in South America instead of Europe. It is not a "territory", it's a department, and the French are keen to distinguish the two.

So, I don't believe the "three major territories" line is accurate - and if it is, it isn't these three. Kahastok talk 19:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Is your suggestion to remove this information? Yes, that seems to be the case. I agree with the removal.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

FTR I've removed similar points from the ledes of related articles (Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, ABC islands, French Guiana) and pointed people here for the detailed explanation in edit summaries. Saves spamming the same points to lots of places. Kahastok talk 20:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I don't think French Guiana or the ABC islands should be mentioned in the Falkland Islands article. Mcarling (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I disagree. They are obviously related to the topic and, to be honest, I believe it was a good addition, the kind of info that sparks curiosity and makes you follow a wikilink.

I don't understand the problem with the word "territories". Why are we extracting a political status out of that word? See Territory in Cambridge Dictionaries Online: "land or sometimes sea, which is considered as belonging to or connected with a particular country or person."

What I would do object (in a "writing for the enemy" kind of way) is the use of the word "left", as it implies some kind of anachronism or "thing left to do" that France, the Netherlands and the UK obviously do not share. I'd remove that word and go with it. --Langus (t) 05:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't want to be an obstacle to consensus, but now that Langus has expressed his doubts, I rather agree with him and find the above arguments in favour of removal unconvincing. Apcbg (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't report the point under any circumstances, but rather, it should be in an appropriate place and it has to be accurate. If we accept Langus' definition, there are five such territories, not three. And I don't believe that it's a suitable point to insert at the beginning of the Geography section or in the lede (given that it's not mentioned in the rest of the article). Kahastok talk 08:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To me it feels like Trivia. There's nothing that really connects these places except for being under a country with a capital in Europe. Their political status in their countries are all very different, their status in the eyes of the international community is similarly different, and their fates are in no way interconnected. (Then there's the annoying point that the ABC islands are often included in North America rather than South America.) CMD (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the trivia aspect of it is also what guided my position on this subject. Kahastok's argument simply added to what I already had in mind. Should it also be relevant to include all other islands in the Atlantic Ocean? Perhaps we should also mention all the islands with English-speaking residents in the world? Nonetheless, don't get me wrong; trivia is interesting, but not in an encyclopedia. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

How can it be trivia to point out to what group of "territories" the Falklands belong to? Is it trivia to point out that Jamaica is the only English speaking country in the Greater Antilles? As in the examples I just shown more than trivia it is vital context. Chiton magnificus (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's trivia when the group has no actual relevance or real life effects. CMD (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's trivia, if it even rises to trivia, because the "group" to which you claim it belongs is arbitrary. Mcarling (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

On wikipedia sometimes it is needed to make the choise on which things to highlight in articles. The Falklands really stands out in SA as being among one of the three major non-independent "territories" there. Its just as much "trivia" as stating a country is landlocked (what is its real life effects on Swiss people?).—Chiton magnificus (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely it is an important aspect of the Falklands, French Guiana, Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao that these are outlying territories of European countries, and their joint sovereignty with EU member countries and special status with respect to EU itself does have an actual relevance and real life effects; to allege otherwise is not serious. Apcbg (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The list of the EU's OCTs is much longer than just these five (see Annex II of the TFEU). Trying to say these five are a defined group which is interesting in some way is arbitrary. I'm not convinced it even rises to the level of trivia. Mcarling (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

These five are situated in one and the same world region, South America. Nothing arbitrary about that. Apcbg (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Taking the union of two arbitrarily chosen sets is both arbitrary and, by the letter if not the spirit, also OR. Mcarling (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Falklands are not in South America; they are in the South Atlantic. They detached long ago from Africa and are slowly moving toward South America. Mcarling (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, their position in the EU isn't the same. French Guiana is actually in the EU, it just has some special exemptions. The Falklands and the ABC islands aren't (although Bonaire is scheduled to be). CMD (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I see but a single set being considered here, European territories in South America.

The South Atlantic is no world region by any classification, the Falklands are considered part of the South American region, while the Saint Helena group is in the African region.

Yes their position in the EU is not the same so what? The other South American nations have no such position at all. The sovereignty of the five territories is European, and their citizenship is EU citizens. Apcbg (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The ABC islands are not in South America either. They are in the Caribbean. Mcarling (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If thats true, then the Falklands position is even more remarkable. I would be one of only two... — Chiton magnificus (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

French Guiana is the only one of these five that is actually in South America. This "list" doesn't belong in the Falkland Islands article. Mcarling (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That the Falkland Islands are not part of South America is: a) contrary to most and the most widespread and accepted continental classifications. b) Not worth much more discussion, its really a minority point of view just like the Flat Earth.—Chiton magnificus (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of claims being thrown around here by a lot of users that are not using reliable sources to back up said-claims. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A few points

• If this statement has a place in the article, then it should be in a politically-oriented section, possibly the sovereignty discussion, though I am not totally convinced.
• There is an argument that since the Falklands economic zone borders the Argentine economic zone, then the Falklands are part of South America.
• If I were to demarcate the boundary between the North and the South Atlantic Oceans, I would use the shortest line between Africa and South America.

Martinvl (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If EEZs bordering each other had the significance claimed above, then Russia would be in North America and Alaska would be in Asia.

The commonly accepted demarcation between the North Atlantic and the South Atlantic is the equator. Mcarling (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The NHS, a UK Government organisation says that they are in South America.(http://www.fitfortravel.nhs.uk/destinations/south-america/falkland-islands.aspx) --92.14.183.23 (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship

I changed the lead to say that Falkland Isanders became British citizens under the1983 Act. An editor changed back the lead saying, "it's a bit more complicated than that - they were only not full British citizens for a period of about two years from 1981-83."[21] I suppose that is a reference to the British Nationality Act 1981, which only came into effect in 1983. Before, they were "Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies" under the 1948 Act, but subsequent acts deprived them of the right to enter the UK. However we phrase it, we need to be clear that Falkland Islanders did not enjoy the same status under previous nationality laws. TFD (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'm not convinced that saying that they became British citizens in 1983 is quite right in implication because of their status before the 1981 Act. I also don't quite see that the current wording is wrong: they are British citizens under the 1983 act. We don't make any comment about what their status was before. British nationality law is complicated and I don't think we ought to go into it in the article. Kahastok talk 20:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

To add to the complication, the 1981 Act came into force on 1 Janaury 1983 and the 1983 Act, which made specific mention of the Falkland Islands, was made retrospective to 1 January 1983, so the 1981 Act did not affect the Falkland Islands. Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Piri Reis

The Piri Reis map is widely regarded as a forgery. Thus it's a fringe thoery.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please point to a reference for it being regarding as a forgery? As far as I understand it the map is genuine but whether it shows Antartica or the Falkland Islands is debatable. There are fringe theories based on the fact it can be interpreted to infer the early discovery of Antartica. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I share your doubts but if it considered as forgery, what is the reference point about this.There is a word in legal language.Claimant is obliged to prove the own claim.Piri Reis' maps can be considered to be counterfeit by anyone.I do not find right, it to be seen as a fringe theory.There are many sources about whether the right!! Maurice talk 19:30 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the Piri Reis map ghas a place in this article - the islands shown coudl be the Falklands, they could be part of Tierra del Fuego or maybe even part of Antarctica. However the map has a place in the artcile History of the Falkland Islands together with a discussion regarding where the islands actually are (with references or disclaimers). Martinvl (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I totally agree but for info its been removed from History of the Falkland Islands as "fringe". Wee Curry Monster talk 20:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)