Jump to content

Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28

Recent changes to history section

[1] I reverted two recent changes to the history section as after reviewing them I did not feel they improved the article. Prior to the changes the article flowed in a logical chronological order, whereas after the changes it flipped from mid-80s back to the 1970s. Reading before and after, admittedly a subjective opinion, the changed text did not seem to be as well written as before. As this took a lot of effort to get to GA status bringing here to discuss. WCMemail 09:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the thing I noticed most was that the new text implied that RAF Mount Pleasant was built in the 1970s (i.e. before the war) when in fact it was built in the 1980s - critically, after the war. This is an error of fact and contradicted the previous paragraph.
I also noted that the first Shackleton report in the new text was not introduced as well as the second, which potentially was unclear: it was possible to - incorrectly - read between the lines that Wikipedia editors had got confused and found two reports where only one existed. Kahastok talk 10:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sovereignty Referendum in the Introduction

As I pointed out in the revert of Rob's good faith contribution, the poll is disputed by Argentina and it would be against NPOV to have it in the introduction. I know that what immediately comes to mind is: "Why then are we following the Argentine's position? That's not NPOV either!" My response to that is that the information already appears in the article in an NPOV manner, presenting both perspectives and not lending favoritism to one side or the other. Moreover, the information is easy to spot within a short section on the sovereignty dispute. Therefore, it is not necessary to have the same point brought into the introduction in a manner that does not keep the proper balance. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There's also something to think about whether or not the magnitude of recent events is being handled correctly. Three years have passed since the referendum and it has yet to be determined if it actually was significant.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the restoration of Rob's edit, the Falklander attitude is worth including in the lede indeed; it is not just the referendum but goes well into the past, and that is not disputed so there is no NPOV issue here. Best, Apcbg (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
What "past" is this that we are evoking? Albeit inconsistent, Argentina has certainly disputed the opinions of the Falklanders and their role in sovereignty discussions. The UK has also not until recently exhibited consistent care for the Falklanders' opinions. Let's not even bring up what "the vast majority" of the rest of the world thinks about this matter (unless I recall wrongly, I think the opinion was unfavorable to the Falklanders). Hence, the sentence being discussed ([2]) is not necessary in the introduction. It also does not hold equal weight with the brief history presented in the paragraph it is being attached to. Please reconsider your decision.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It is correct that Argentina regards the view the Falklanders' as irreverent. So by not mentioning it at all in the introduction, how is that NPOV? That is precisely in accordance with the Argentine POV. Whether the UK cares or not is irrelevant (the British public certainly do, but anyway...). What the vast majority of the rest of the world thinks is also irrelevant. The point is solely about the islanders. And the question is to the relevance of the islanders' view on the sovereignty dispute over the islands. In my opinion, it is paramount as it is a major factor giving legitimacy to the UK's claim. Rob984 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the first comment, the information already appears in the body of the article in a highly visible place in the section focused on the Sovereignty Dispute. It is not being hidden in any way. All opinions are made clear on the matter, including the statement made by former PM Gordon Brown. That is the point of NPOV, equal weight placed on all statements.
As it stands, the sentence being inserted into the introduction lacks balance. I can add it, and I will, but ultimately it only ends up in a circular logic of "he said-she said". There's no need to have any of it in the introduction. This article is not about the sovereignty dispute.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the balanced statement in the introduction ([3]). I prefer it to an RfC, but I consider that ideally the sentence should not be in there as this article is not about the sovereignty dispute. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether the original edit belonged in the lede, I have my doubts, which I expressed by removing the edit. The Falklands are IMHO more than just the Argentine sovereignty claim, hence why I would prefer the detail to remain in its own subsection. However, I have less of an issue with Rob's abbreviated reference to the desire of the islanders to remain a BOT, its of a level of detail appropriate for the lede.
I have to be blunt Marshall that I consider your recent edit to be WP:POINT. If you feel there is need for more balance, we express it in a neutral manner and do not lend Wikipedia's voice to Argentine opinion. You have allowed yourself to add details of the Argentine claim in the wikipedia voice, which I consider inappropriate. I fear your edit was done as a kneejerk reaction to editors disagreeing with you.
As I am subject to a voluntary restriction I cannot take any action but do request that editors stop this and as a gesture of good faith people revert back to the edit before this started. This is what I would be doing otherwise. WCMemail 00:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi WCM. I understand what you mean and I apologize if it was too bold a move from my part. That said, I do not see the details of Argentina's position as being in the encyclopedia's voice (I made sure to start it with "Argentina considers"). If they are, it was not my intention and improvements are always welcome.
I fear that stirring this pot too much might have unintentional consequences, so I agree with WCM that reverting this to the version last edited by him ([4]) is the best option. To quote WCM, "The Falklands are IMHO more than just the Argentine sovereignty claim."
The user who first added this sentence (User:Cynulliad) seems to have just been a passing WikiGnome. Their opinion is welcome too if they want to explain the reason for their edit.
Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The sovereignty dispute is important. It has profound implications on international relations, the internal politics of the islands, and the islanders' lives. Both claims are based on history, which is explained earlier in the paragraph. Another equally important factor in my opinion is the view of the inhabitants. We could also even mention the proximity to Argentina which I think is another key factor? Only one short paragraph covers the sovereignty dispute, so I don't think we are giving the issue too much weight by adding a sentence or two. Rob984 (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I should be clear, I accept if we cannot establish consensus then reverting to the prior revision will be necessary. Rob984 (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd just like to make the observation that this discussion is not an NPOV issue, but a straight out content dispute. The addition to the lede about the referendum is supported - and sourced and balanced by the Argentinian rejection - in the rest of the article. The lede is to summarise the article, and you cannot shout NPOV when you're doing exactly that in an almost word-for-word paraphrase. Given that the vote went 99.8% in favour of retaining English rule, such a huge majority (regardless of Argentinian recognition) makes it a worthy addition to the lede to show the inhabitants stance. I am not only in favour of the insertion, but think that it ought to mention the "99.8%" rather than the more vague and woolly "vast majority" Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning the position of the Falklander's on the sovereignty dispute without also presenting the position of Argentina is an NPOV issue. The content is already in the article and it's not being disputed, therefore this is most certainly not a content dispute. The suggestion that a voting percentage should be mentioned in the introduction is, bluntly put, wrong. Let's keep in mind that we are writing an encyclopedia entry! This isn't a news tabloid...--MarshalN20 Talk 15:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, Apcbg, Rob's improvement to the added text established a position in favor of maintaining the balanced sentence. WCM and I would prefer for it to be removed, but I also am not against the sentence as long as it presents a balanced perspective. Therefore, it would be best to avoid reverting to a sentence that was neither the original text nor hold any support ([5]). Regardless, I honestly do not understand what is going on that is making this sovereignty dispute matter again flare up; maybe I need to catch up on recent events. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hang on, there! Mentioning something in the article is not an NPOV issue, but mentioning exactly the same thing in the lede is an NPOV issue? And you think that disagreement over the inclusion of said (sourced and balanced) information isn't a content dispute? You'll really have to explain your logic in a bit more detail there... Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a case of lead fixation. The lead is a summary of the topic, the most basic and important things to understand what is it all about. The existence of a sovereignty dispute over the islands is clearly worth mention (as it is a dispute from centuries ago, and still unresolved), but this or that event related to that dispute may not be so. In particular, the referendum proved a point but did not have a lasting consequence, as the positions of both countries in relation to the dispute remain exactly the same. It is important to be mentioned in the body of the article, yes, but not so much as to be mentioned in the compact summary of the lead. Cambalachero (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: It's not exactly the same thing. This is the text from the SD section in the article:
What is being proposed is to only include the second sentence into the lead. Not only that, but we also want to add the exact percentage? That is totally unbalanced POV! If further explanation is required, consider a thought experiment where exactly the same action is made for the Argentine perspective without mentioning the Falklander's position—that would also be unbalanced POV.
This is why both WCM and I consider none of this should be on the lead. The sovereignty dispute is a part of the article but not the focus of it.--MarshalN20 Talk 17:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The lede is to summarise the contents of the article. This is what we're doing. You don't think that a 99.8% vote is worthy of mention? Seems to me that's POV from the Argentinian side. If the vote were less extreme I'd accede, but it isn't. The initial statement was even balance by the mention that the Argentinians discount the islanders status - although that has been removed now, something I disagree with. It's my opinion that the statement should read "In 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, with 99.8 percent of voters favoured remaining under British rule. However, Argentina does not recognise the Falkland Islands as a partner in negotiations and dismisses the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum." You will note that this is almost verbatim of the main text, and is balance for both viewpoints - it shows the islanders massive majority to stay British, but also the Argentinian dismissal of their right to the claim in the first place. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it would help to step back and read carefully at what is being suggested. While we all agree that the introduction is to follow the summary guidelines, it seems our definitions are not the same. As far as I know, a summary is not an "almost verbatim" reproduction of what appears in the article's body.
Cambalachero has also made a wise statement on lead fixation as related to recent events. So, while writing "in 2013" creates a fictitious sense of historic importance, the fact is that 2013 was a mere three years ago. This is not something that can be placed on equal weight as with the archipelago's hundred or so years of history.
Rob's argument is that there is a history to this perspective from the Falklanders, and indeed we can find one dating to the 1970s (when the Falklanders protested to the UK's sovereignty negotiations with Argentina). However, a problem with this is that we are assuming a connection to exist from then until now. This is a risky assumption because, as the history demonstrates, the position of all 3 participants in the dispute (Argentina, the UK, and the Falklands) has been more inconsistent than straightforward.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Complete balderdash from MarshalN20. No credible reason why not to state the results of the referendum considering it was by the people who actually matter, the Falkland islanders themselves. Marshal's argument seems to simply be a way of glossing over mentioning the strength of the pro-UK sentiment in the Falkland Islands from the lede. Mabuska (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mabuska. I don't recall ever indicating that the Falklanders don't matter. Mentioning the referendum in the lead won't make the results any more or less valid. The guideline on recent material is very clear. Anyhow, the current text in the lead seems to have cemented itself already, so I don't understand what you're trying to get at with the comment (aside from insulting me). I hope your day gets better. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Mabuska, let me remind you that the lead already says that "Most Falklanders are in favour of the archipelago remaining an overseas territory of the UK". Cambalachero (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please Clarify or Remove Parenthetical Remark under "Sovereignty Dispute"

In the paragraph under "Sovereignty Dispute," the parenthetical remark in this sentence should be clarified or removed:

"...continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except for 1982)..."

As worded, it looks like the UK did not bother to administer the islands at any point in time in 1982. In fact, Argentina only occupied the islands for three months in 1982; the rest of the year the UK was in charge of them; and the Argentine MILITARY occupation was an unlawful invasion and act of war.

I suggest the following correction:

"...continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except a brief military occupation by Argentina, 2 April - 14 June 1982)..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not pedantic enough; why not also add hours and minutes? In all seriousness, it's just a brief mention. There's no need to be that specific about the date if it is just a summary. The history section also elaborates on this matter, so it is not as if it isn't already explained in this article.--MarshalN20 Talk 06:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

UNCLOS

Slow rural broadband whilst on holiday means its very slow to pull the links off. There has been wildly inaccurate reporting all weekend on the UNCLOS story. The CLSC commission has awarded Argentina an extension on its continental shelf only in those areas that are undisputed. It has not as widely reported given Argentina control around the Falkland Islands. Documents from the hearing is here, you will note that the commission specifically excludes the area around the Falkland Islands as that is subject to a sovereignty dispute. In addition, UNCLOS has no bearing on sovereignty. Please don't add inaccurate material to the article. Even the Argentine Government announcement hasn't claimed this [6]. WCMemail 10:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


[7] WCMemail 11:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

[8] Paper by the South Atlantic Council, generally sympathetic to Argentina, they blow this out of the water. WCMemail 08:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Pope Francis

There is a discussion at Talk:Pope Francis#Falkland Islands, which may be of interest to the users editing this article. It is about the position of Pope Francis on the sovereignty dispute, or lack thereof. Cambalachero (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong information

In the introduction is stated:

"The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012)[A] primarily consists of native-born Falkland Islanders"

The number is correct, but if you check de censous 2012, only 47% of the population are native-born Falkland Islanders. So it should be stated just the opposite:

"The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012)[A] primarily consists of non native-born Falkland Islanders"

Interesting error. Interesting also how so much English people missed it... Should we correct it? or just keep it the confort way?

(interesting also how i stated this a few years ago and nobody cares...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.194.210.210 (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Most inhabitants self-identify as Falkland Islanders. Nearly half of them are native-born (47%, I think). Both are now mentioned. Have a good day.--MarshalN20 Talk 06:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
That quote from the census stats is selective, it includes civilian workers at the British base. If you exclude that the population is over 50% native born. I really do object to this change for that reason - its playing into a national agenda that seeks to deny the identity of the islanders. Wikiepedia should just report the facts and not spin it according to the desires of national agendas. WCMemail 07:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The census is indeed very confusing to read due to its many exceptions and specifications. I thought that mentioning the self-identification was a nice addition; then again, I don't consider that a person's birth location is most important...what matters most, I think, are the way a person defines their own identity.
Restoring the deadlink was most certainly not good, nonetheless.--MarshalN20 Talk 07:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Show me a census that's easy to follow... Apologies if I restored a dead link but as I noted above responding to edit requests such as this is certainly not good, nonetheless. WCMemail 07:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Censous are difficult to read, but this one states very clear that it doesnt include military personal.
I quote: "It should be noted that none of the figures referred to within this report include any military personnel serving in the Falkland Islands or their dependents (such individuals are not required to participate in the Census). Hence, references to ‘MPA’ (Mount Pleasant Airport) mean civilian contractors based at MPA, not serving military personnel."
why should anyone exclude civilians from a censous just because they work on a military base??? they form part of the population. Anyway you should not include such an asseveration without a relieable source (the best source at the moment is the 2012 censous). I still think it should be stated just the opposite: "The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012)[A] primarily consists of non native-born Falkland Islanders" . To put it any other way, would not be attending to anyones agenda, it would be just lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.194.210.210 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
We have this thing on wikipedia, its called WP:AGF or assume good faith; calling people liars simply puts their backs up and only reveals your own motivation even more. Many of the civilian contractors are on temporary fixed term contracts, thats why I suggested the other figure was a more reliable indicator of the overall make up of the population. And a population that has doubled since 1982 will have a large percentage of people who were not born there, as Marshal indicated it is not important. What is important is that we continue to follow wikipedia's policy of presenting a WP:NPOV, which doesn't include edits suggested by nationalist agendas. You have a nice day now. WCMemail 19:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

First, decide what you mean by population. People who happen to be there during a census, or permanent residents. Re: Civilian contractors - some could be permanent residents, while others could be there temporarily, but live elsewhere. If the census is too complicated for a layman to interpret (which seems likely here), don't use it, as it's straying into OR / synthesis to do so. Find a reliable source (historian, geographer) who makes the interpretation (don't use a news source). (Hohum @) 20:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I still dont get it. The censous may present a challange for some of us, but its not THAT difficult. I quote what they take for population (wich seems a correct take) :
"2.1 The Census recorded a total number of persons present on the Islands on Census night of 3,135. However, this figure includes 295 persons classed as temporary visitors to the Islands (i.e. persons who normally live outside of the Falkland Islands visiting temporarily for a period of less than three months).
2.2 Excluding temporary visitors, the total resident population on Census night was 2,840.
2.3 However, there were also 91 persons who usually reside in the Islands who wereabsent on Census night. Hence, the total usual resident population in 2012 was 2,931."
So we have a population of 2931, and then the censous states that only 48% of them were born in the islands... So the sentence "The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012)[A] primarily consists of native-born Falkland Islanders" its just not true. Then we have 2 options, the first one (what i thought in the first place) its that is wrong information in the article. The second option is that it is a plain lie. I like to thing that its just a mistake, and thats why i named this section "wrong information". But in the last days i started doubting it... (for example the first day someone simple erased my comment here...)
If the censous is too complicated to be understanded, then perhaps it should be stated that as it is too complicated to understand we dont know how the population is composed. I think thats not true either, as it is not THAT difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.194.210.210 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I think MarshalN20 has made an improvement here. The data in this report is more complete than the previous "Headline results".

The facts are clear:

  • People born in the islands: 1339 (47,1%) inc MPA (Mount Pleasant Airport) and 1322 (53,5%) exc MPA.
  • 18% of MPA residents were living for 10 years or more.

This facts, even taking into account the arbitrary division between MPA and everything else, shows that 53,5% of the stable population was born in the islands and therefore the sentence "The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012) primarily consists of native-born Falkland Islanders" it's incorrect. This fact is irrefutable.

This is a Featured Article, every sentence must be verifiable and must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.--ProfesorFavalli (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I do not approve of the side-comments made about information in the article being a lie. As WCM indicates, WP:AGF is an important element of participating in Wikipedia; comments on neutrality should be made at the appropriate noticeboard (WP:NPOVN).
The reason behind my edit was mainly to fix the dead link. In the process, I read two of the suggestions made on the talk page and addressed both ([9]).
I also considered the addition of the self-identification of the inhabitants as an improvement.--MarshalN20 Talk 03:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, there is an elephant in the room. In Argentina, the Malvinista seek to find a means of justifying to themselves that the people living in the islands don't count. One of the means they do this is to claim that the people don't exist as they're "imported".
So taking the figures above. 17 people living at Mount Pleasant of which 18%, or in reality to put into context 3 people, have lived in the islands more than 10 years. So taking the figures from the census of the people who actually live in the islands long term the statement is perfectly valid, if we wish to define "predominant" as percentage of the total population but including 3 people on contract at MP can distort the figure. Quoting Darrel Huff from How to lie with statistics the proposal is a classic example of abusing statistics to distort reality.
However, if you wish to play with statistics objectively to promote a neutral edit, if you look at demographic groups by far the largest group is the people who were native born, so the statement they are primarily native born is accurate and supported by the cite. Similarly the census indicates that the majority of the islanders identify themselves as native. Further if you read the census, immigration/emigration is slowing and the permanent population is stable. However you want to look at it, those looking at it neutrally would agree that the current edit is accurate and supported by a cite, those wishing to argue the opposite do so on the base of distorting the statistics to favour their POV. WCMemail 07:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
This is not a forum, so if you want to write an essay about those you call malvinistas, please use a blog or other forums outside wikipedia. Comments containing unnecessary ethnic or national references concerning editors are inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette.
Now, back to the matter at hand, the cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article and clearly this is not the case. Census data is crystal clear: 53.5% of the stable population was born in the islands, that's half of the population. The main point is that you are doing original research, speculation and projections of population progress.
Can you provide a citation to support your claim "The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012) primarily consists of native-born Falkland Islanders" with those exact words?. --· Favalli ⟡ 01:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
53.5% is a majority (i.e., more than half).--MarshalN20 Talk 02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Cited source does support the edit, your comment acknowledges it supports the edit, the largest group on the islands is native born Falkland Islanders. Your edits were disruptive and were done to make a WP:POINT. As such you've been reverted. If you self-identify with malvinistas thats your problem, my comment was factual not about any individual editors. WCMemail 06:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Falkland etymology

I'm trying to correct the etymology of the place 'Falkland',[10] which is erroneous and based on folk etymology, and I used the most up-to-date academic work on Fife place-names as a reference to verify the information, the relevant volume in Simon Taylor's Place-Names of Fife; despite this, user:MarshalN20 has some unknown issue with it and is reverting without specifying any issues with the edit. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

An explanation is required as to why renown toponymist Adrian Room was wrong in his work on the term "Falkland". Throwing around the term "folk etymology" without an explanation is akin to making baseless claims. Taylor and Markus seem credible enough to have their research included, but outright dismissing Room's work is a serious position that requires you to provide evidence. The burden of proof is on you. Also, please stop your combative attitude and keep matters academic; thanks!--MarshalN20 Talk 19:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Marshal, thanks for the advice. You'd do well to follow it yourself, though you do not understand the purpose of WP:BRD or WP:BURDEN! No matter, after three reverts and multiple requests from myself here and on your talk page, you've finally supplied a reason for reverting, so I should at least be grateful for this. You have supplied a reason now, and the reason is that you think Adrian Room is an impeccable source. OK, please tell me what expertise he has on Fife place-names that exceeds Simon Taylor's; and please indicate why you think Room would reject Simon Taylor's work if he had been aware of it (Taylor's work here is later than Room's). Room's work is a tertiary source, Taylor's in an academic research source; Room is not an expert on Scottish, Celtic or Anglo-Saxon place-names, and Taylor is. Room's claim about Falkland does not derive from reliable work. If the suggestion is that Falkland comes from an Old English 'Folk Land', it would be interesting since the 12th century forms run clearly against that etymology, but it would be especially interesting since Old English wasn't spoken in Fife and English didn't establish itself in this region until after the first recorded forms of the name. I guess you would need to be an expert on Scottish place-names to know that. Good job I came along and supplied Taylor then, though given your behaviour so far, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a thank you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I really don't care much for any of your interpretations. Your behavior and attitude provide reasonable concern for the veracity of the claims you are trying to include. To be clear, I do not dispute the findings by Taylor and Markus. However, to impose their research over other academic work requires far greater proof than the one you present here—I suppose you are acquainted with historiography, considering your claim to be a professional historian. Please provide the exact quote from Taylor and Markus' text that supports the claim that: based on historical context and on early forms, the later English / Scots folk etymologies "falcon land" and "folkland" are implausible. Thanks.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, regarding your request/demand: he only mentions 'falcon land' as a folk etymology. Discussing this (and by implication other etymologies based on 'land') he says 'for the reasons discussed above, this can be safely rejected'.
Marshal, your response is not satisfactory. You removed Taylor as a reference, you have not provided any legitimate reason for doing this. Again, please tell me what expertise Room has on Fife place-names that exceeds Simon Taylor's; and please indicate why you think Room would reject Simon Taylor's work if he had been aware of it (Taylor's work here is later than Room's). Room's work is a tertiary source, Taylor's is an academic research source; Room is not an expert on Scottish, Celtic or Anglo-Saxon place-names, and Taylor is. Room's suggestion is nonsensical; if you really want to keep Room's claim, there's nothing wrong with that per se, but he is not an authority on Fife place-names and I don't see why it is worth retaining the claim that Taylor's forms debunk (if I were to guess, Room probably wouldn't either).
You are not the proprietor of this article, this matter is not going to come down to your judgment alone, and you definitely should care about my interpretations because I am a long-serving editor in good standing. I'm also, as you noticed, an expert on early medieval Britain. However, no-one can force you to use that information wisely.
And for your information, it's Taylor with Markus not and Markus. The work is based on Taylor's Phd, but Markus has helped in the expanded book form. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Further to the above, please provide the exact quote from Room along with the sources he cites that supports his 'folk land' etymology and the further suggestion that it is linked to (what in Fife was exotic) Anglo-Saxon legal tenure. Since there seem to be serious judgment issues here, it is important to establish what Room actually says and where his sources stand vis-a-vis WP:RS. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Gents, for fucks sake, it's only Wikipedia and there is no need for such antagonism at all. If there are competing theories, then MarshalN is quite correct removing one in preference to another is not acceptable. The best solution is to suggest an edit that reflects all of the scholarly works on the subject. A dick waving contest over whose source is best will likely to lead to both of you being blocked.WCMemail 21:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me, I've got better things to do than to 'dick wave'. I randomly read this article today and spotted the problem, and I am just trying to improve this article and expect to be able to do so without being trolled and blank reverted for no reason (he only came up with any reason after 3 reverts!). To your other point, they are not competing theories. One is from the major scholarly work on Fife place-names, the other is a passing and implausible suggestion in a tertiary source. Marshal did not simply 'restore' the suggestion from the weaker source, he removed the etymology from the reliable scholarly source, and he removed this source w/out even claiming to believe there were any problems with this source. Anyway, it's a relatively straightforward judgment call that shouldn't cause any problems for reasonable editors: the Taylor info has to stay, the Room claim is optional but has limited encyclopedic value. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
How has arguing from authority been working for you? I suggest you add in a spot of sarcasm, as that always gets people on side really quickly. Alternatively try a really radical approach of discussion and consensus building. Crazy I know but it might just work. WCMemail 21:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you trying to 'build consensus' with that post, or discourage sarcasm? Perhaps you are trying to promote irony? Listen, I'll give you and your friend time to get over this type of silliness and get back to addressing this issue and improving the article. If nothing of substance transpires, I will assume I am free to fix this problem. As I said above, the matter is reasonably straightfoward and doesn't need any of this nonsense, and I'm sure wider review would affirm this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Credit to Marshal, he has made a good-faithed attempt to fix this here. I think this edit still gives Room's suggestion undue weight (per WP:UNDUE), but this does substantially fix the problem. Thanks Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

HAARP facility on the Falkland Islands since 2010 - where is it?

Since October 22, 2010 a HAARP facility is working on the Falkland Island with Nicolas Tesla's technique. There is a location indicated like Prado Goose which cannot be found on the maps.

see: Nuove antenne HAARP alle isole Falkland già operative:

https://www.conoscenzealconfine.it/nuove-antenne-haarp-alle-isole-falkland-gia-operative/


So, HAARP should be mentioned in the main article - and the precise location should be found out. And better stop it so the maneuvers againnst world wide population with rain, earthquake and hurricane manipulations etc. will stop.

Michael Palomino, Lima, history, sociology, natural medicine

--Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, conspiracy theory. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
[11],it's at Goose Green. People need to try a little harder.Slatersteven (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Not part of HAARP, does not appear to be an Ionospheric heater, and no evidence it is being used for the alleged conspiracies. Thanks for finding info though. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Never said it was.Slatersteven (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on the article

This article is well written. I enjoyed reading it. I make a couple of comments.

1. "Problems began when Spain discovered and captured Port Egmont in 1770. War was narrowly avoided by its restitution to Britain in 1771."

It would be nice to add a little more information to explain how the restitution of Port Egmont from the Spaniards to the Brits happened.

2. "In the 2012 census, a majority of residents listed their nationality as Falkland Islander (59 percent), followed by British (29 percent), Saint Helenian (9.8 percent), and Chilean (5.4 percent)."

The total is more than 100%. Something is wrong.

ICE77 (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ICE77! Thank you for the praise and comments. More information on the restitution of Port Egmont can be read at: Capture of Port Egmont. As this article follows the Manual of Style's summary guideline, these type of events are simply presented in a straightforward manner (with the appropriate wikilink to the main topic). To answer your second point, it seems to me that some of the residents have a dual nationality. Thanks again!--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 08:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

MarshalN20, thank you for the feedback! ICE77 (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No new island

Some news pages (like Merco Press) have recently announced that a new island has emerged near the Falklands, which may have been confirmed by Lithuanian geologist Professor "Loof Lirpa". If you find one of those sources, don't use it. It's an April Fools' Day prank, and many otherwise reliable sources fell for it (just read "Loof Lirpa" backwards). --Cambalachero (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Mention in the UK General Election 2017

This morning, the Today Programme (the main political-news programme) on BBC Radio 4 (the largest spoken-word/news broadcaster in UK radio, by a country mile) quoted Jeremy Corbyn (leader of the UK Labour Party; the second biggest political party in the UK) as saying that The Falklands War was a Tory plot to keep their money-making friends in business.

This is probably significant enough to be worth mentioning in the article - both for making the Falklands War a current election issue in the UK, and as an opinion on the war by a significant national figure.

82.9.164.31 (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose mentioning it - Just a sound bite and not really noteworthy at all, and an opinion on what may or may not have happened in the past is certainly not a British election issue. MilborneOne (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Also oppose. Apart from the above not a reliable secondary source. It’s either a primary source with Corbyn the source, unless someone were to write about it and the Falkland Islands – even if they did the topic is more likely the Falklands War. Or it’s thoroughly unreliable, a political soundbite, one of the left’s crazy conspiracy theories. Either way it does not belong here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
And what if he said that? What else happened? Did other politicians criticize him? Did other politicians support him? Did it shift popular support to the candidates in some noticeable way? Was some bill or actual policy proposed because of it? Or did it just passed unnoticed as just one of the many things said before some election? Note that, even if some small discussion surfaces, X being an important topic of Y does not mean that Y is also important for X. See Wikipedia:But for Napoleon, it was Tuesday --Cambalachero (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Also do not consider it relevant to this article. I also highly doubt it to be relevant in the Falklands War article. In any case, any further discussion on this particular quote should be taken to the aforementioned war article. Regards.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 14:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree, with both (to a degree) Mr Corbyn's comments and the reasons stated as to why this should not be included. This is just a throw away election comment no more.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Spanish" name

The Spanish for "The Falklands" isn't "Los Malvinas", its "Los Falklands". Just because the Argentinians and their allies call it "Los Malvinas" doesn't mean that's how you say "Falklands" in Spanish. Its as ridiculous and partisan a claim, as claiming that "Novo-Russija" is the Russian language translation for the words "The Crimea". 82.9.164.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No. "Falklands" is still currently an English term, not accepted as a Spanish name for the archipelago.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 14:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
One way to determine it is to look at a Spanish encyclopedia or geography book. In one respect he is correct, there is no direct trsnslation.Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Why does the article even list the Spanish name? The Falkland Islands are a legal and de-facto British Overseas Territory. The natural islanders all have British nationality, and (where possessed) British Passport. The official language spoken, written and taught in their schools is British English. Spanish is categorically NOT an official, nor unofficial language of the Falkland Islands nor the natural islanders - and therefore the Spanish translation has NO place in this British English language article.
Wikipedia has a clearly established official Spanish language version, and so that, and ONLY that should be the place to detail a Spanish language translation of their official legal British English title. 82.132.241.153 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands Cambalachero (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
First, that link refers ONLY to the actual naming of the article, rather than the prose. So that is NOT valid. Under INTERNATIONAL LAW, the Falkland Islands are BRITISH, and they wish to remain British.
Secondly, please refrain from your BLATANT VANDALISM of this talk page. Do NOT try to re-add WikiProject Argentina, and then hide it within the banner shell template - as you previously did. You have been warned on your personal talk page that should you continue to VANDALISE with your biased point of view, you WILL be reported to the Administrators Noticeboard. 82.132.241.153 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Being associated with Wikiproject Argentina doesn't convey meaning that the Islands are Argentinian, only that the article is of relevance to that project. Knee jerk reactions are not helpful to wikipedia. (Hohum @) 17:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The article was already tagged with the Wikiproject Argentina template when it became a Featured Article - and has been a stable part of the page for many years, so I have restored it. (Hohum @) 17:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Forgive my frankness, but that is a very feeble reply. First, to address your comment that WP Argentina was included when the article was promoted to FA is a red herring - on many levels. The FA was awarded in 2007 (IIRC). Your claim of 'stability' is void - a/ because the article is locked from editing, and b/ is adamantly disputed, and so needs independent reliable source citations to support the INCLUSION of such a vehemently disputed point of view!. The FA assessment refers ONLY to the actual article page, not the talk page contents (though I accept that talk page discussions are viewed). The WP Argentina was sneakily hidden in the banner shell template, and so may not have even been noticed. There are also highly valid talk page comments which have repeatedly disputed the Argentinian issue - yet these have conveniently been hidden in the talk page archives.
As to your comment about the WP Argentina having no relevance to being owned by Argentina is deeply offensive. International law has repeatedly dismissed Argentinas claim of sovereignty. Wikipedia has clear guidelines about WikiProjects. By having the Falkland Islands covered by WP Argentina categorically DOES imply that Argentina does have a lawful and valid claim to the Falkland Islands - when international law has robustly dismissed their illegal claim. WikiProject South America is perfectly adequate to cover the scope of the Falkland Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.241.153 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
User 82.132.241.153, please login. It is clear that you already know a lot about wikipedia to be just a new user passing by. As for your comments, let's see. First: the link refers to both the article name and the name used in prose. The article name is indeed just "Falkland Islands", not "Islas Malvinas", "Falkland/Malvinas" or any such thing. The name is mentioned in the first usage of the term because there is a sovereignty dispute over them, and the name is part of that dispute. This is not a minor academic dispute between writers, but an actual and ongoing diplomatic dispute. Third: do not overestimate the significance of a wikiproject. That this article is within the scope of Wikiproject Argentina means that there are wikipedia users interested in topics related to Argentina who worked or may be interested to work with this article, and nothing more (and nothing less). Fourth: it was not me who included the article in that project. I started working in Wikipedia many years ago, and this page was already there. Wikiprojects are not collapsed in an attempt to "hide" them, it is simply a custom when a given page belongs to several projects, so that the top of the talk page does not become too convoluted. Fifth: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You are welcome to make bold changes, such as removing a page from wikiprojects. If nobody contests your edit, fine. But if someone does contest it and reverts things to the previous state of things, things will have to be discussed. Cambalachero (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I endorse that. I suggest the IP may wish to review WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, because they are not coming across in a way that's likely to persuade people to act on their proposals. Kahastok talk 18:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
And yet another clarification. Older discussions are not "hidden in archives" because of some undesired opinion held in them, but simply when people cease to say things in them after a time. All discussions are eventually archived, and the process is automatic. This is done because if discussions were not archived, talk pages about articles with a related real-world controversy (such as this one) would become incredibly long. Cambalachero (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It's been a while since this article had a peculiar discussion. The IP is inherently unpersuasive because their proposal is inherently unacceptable. Such a proposal should not be entertained, even if it was presented by a civil, NPOV editor. We have all gone through these issues in the past; all that must be done is cite the conventions and move on.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 03:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I never understood why the Spanish was included either. Why is it exactly? Just because Argentina claims the islands does not mean we must add in their name for the islands. The Falklands are an British territory and the official name is the Falkland Islands. Stating the Spanish only implies that that is an official alternative name for the islands when it is not. Mabuska (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The fundamental reason is the dispute.
This is an article on a set of islands, including details of their administration. (We have not gone down es.wiki's route of splitting the two concepts up). There is dispute internationally as to whether they are British or Argentina. We might say, they are a British Overseas Territory - and clearly they are. UK law is what defines a British Overseas Territory and the Falklands are included. But they are also, at least on a paper, an integral part of the Department of Islas del Atlántico Sur, part of Tierra del Fuego Province. If we're going on legal designation, we have no reason to assume the British designation over the Argentine. The point is disputed. We describe the dispute.
Now, are the two claims strictly equal in status and position? Of course not - Britain holds actual control and Argentina does not. Hence the infobox. But Argentina's claim is nonetheless highly relevant to the islands and to the article. This is not that unusual. On articles on disputed territory we do often give names in all disputants' languages, particularly when they are etymologically different. Liancourt Rocks, for example, includes the Japanese name even though the rocks are controlled by Korea.
I note that this pattern - using the English name as primary but acknowledging the Spanish name at first mention - is also a standard formula in neutral English-language sources on the subject. We aren't doing anything novel here, either based on precedents both on and off Wikipedia.
I would note that even if we accept that it is neutral to leave out Islas Malvinas, it doesn't look neutral to many a lay reader. Acknowledgement of the naming dispute - as we do by listing Islas Malvinas in the lede - is a well-known litmus test for neutrality on this topic. Wikipedia attempts neutrality, but frankly often falls short. On this article, I believe we have neutrality, but an international dispute between an English-speaking country and a non-English-speaking country is precisely where you would expect not to. There are plenty of readers who will assume that the article as a whole is non-neutral if it doesn't pass the litmus test.
And finally? This is a compromise reached by consensus in a dispute that was one step short of Arbcom. Yes, that was a long time ago, but even so. The reasons for the consensus remain the same. I see no reason to change it. Kahastok talk 22:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll give a fuller response soon, however your reasoning seems to rely quite a lot claims I see little or no evidence of and appears to give more credence to Argentina's claims, which is itself non-neutral. I can understand the geographical argument but even then Falklands is a political state like Liancourt Rocks. And whatabout Rockall, it's disputed between the UK (de jure), Ireland, Denmark and Iceland. I don't see the Irish name Rocail being used or the Nordic name whatever that may be. Mabuska (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Mabuska, according to the articles on those places, none of the listed countries have formally claimed control of Rockall. Please cease from turning this talk page into a discussion forum. Regards.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 00:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The Spanish name was las Islas Malvinas, from the French name les Îles Malouines.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
MarshalN20 your prejudice in regards to this issue is well known on Wikipedia. The discussion and questions are to do with article content so your complaint is neither here nor there. Regardless those countries still claim them especially the Republic of Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Mabuska, are you asking a question, proposing a change, or just complaining? The question has already been answered. If you have a proposal, have in mind that there is a guideline that specifically instructs this, and you would need a big and broad consensus to change it. This is also a featured article, which means that several unrelated users have reviewed it and agree on its quality. We have explained the reasons for the consensus because we are polite, but if you start accusing people of bias for not agreeing with you, we may simply ignore you and let things stay they way they are. Cambalachero (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Please don't confuse "Spanish Language" with "What they call things in Spain" (or parts of Latin America). The phrase "Spanish name" means "the name according to the Spanish Language", not "the name they use in Spain". What name do they use in Belize? Belize is in Latin America, but its part of the Commonwealth, so they call it something like Falklands, even when they are speaking in Spanish. 80.5.30.32 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the official language of Belize is English. --Cambalachero (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Mount Simon

Hi. Mount Simon has not been edited since almost a decade now. All it has is one line. Would somebody please work on it? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Former Flags

  • Flag used 1876–1925
    Flag used 1876–1925
  • Flag used 1925–1948
    Flag used 1925–1948

Can we please have a more up to date svg versions of these former colonial flags of the Falkland Islands please (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:4523:B00B:9EF:F101 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)) I have put this on here as I could see after over a year of asking I was getting no where, please can these flags be made more up to date. (151.231.185.63 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC))

You will likely find more help at WP:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop (Hohum @) 18:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you I have put a request in. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:293E:1FB9:94E5:1725 (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC))

Undoing vandalism

I undid some edits that were obviously vandalism. The edits had been made in November and largely cleaned up by other people - including User:Roger 8 Roger. I cleaned up the rest. Now that very same user is leaving me obnoxious talk pages, defending the vandal, restoring their vandalism and claiming that I need consensus on the talk page to remove vandalism. I have never seen anything quite so bizarre.

Well OK. Why not waste some time discussing why vandalism needs to be fixed. Firstly, there's no reason whatsoever to write 'Falklands' instead of Falklands. Why would you want to do that? Only if you were a bored Argentinian teenager can I conceive that you'd think there was a reason to.

And secondly, Falkland Islands is not a collective noun. It's a simple plural. "The archipelago" would be a collective noun. "The island group" would be. Falkland Islands should take a plural verb, as it does in all serious writing that I have looked and, and as it consistently did in this article before the vandalism. Inateadaze (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

it may not be great grammar, but how is it vandalism?Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
First, the quote marks around 'Falklands' clearly do not belong.
On the second, this is a point open to debate. The original edits changing this were not "vandalism" because vandalism is editing done deliberately to make the encyclopaedia worse. A bad edit done in good faith is not vandalism. And if it is not obvious that the edit was done was in bad faith, our rules hold that we assume that it was done in good faith. Possibly a good faith mistake, but still in good faith.
In terms of the linguistic point, I do not find your contention that Falkland Islands or Falklands is not a collective noun to be obvious when discussing the islands as a territory (as opposed to a group of islands), and if we do treat it as a collective noun then the singular forms are correct. Kahastok talk 09:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The point here is your aggressive language. On your talk page, and above, you accused me of leaving an 'obnoxious message', when that message (about assuming good faith) was a standard, polite, template [12]. I can see you are fairly new to WP. If you keep throwing around confrontational language like you are doing then you won't have as enjoyable a time here as you should have. The Falklands here is likely to be assumed as a collective noun, referring to the archipelago or the BOT. Treating it as singular or plural will depend on the context. In most cases singular seems better, but that is open to debate, which is what the talk page is for, especially if an edit is challenged. This was raised a few months ago but I do not think a detailed discussion took place. Also, I think you should revert your deletion of the comments on your talk page. Just because you don't like them does not mean they should be removed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

43% of census

It's a big document that censusReport 2006.pdf - a quick scan through it, or rather a search for "43" bring back a fair few examples, but can you clarify where it is stated that "that 43% of residents were born on the archipelago"? It may be there, but I can't see it.

Also, can you offer up more detail on your supplied source of Destéfani? No page numbers, no quote, nothing to support the claim. Is it a reliable source, given the history between the Falklands and Argentina - and the publication date of 1982, when the conflict also took place. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Destéfani is a source to be used with great caution and only for uncontested facts. The book is effectively a sponsored WP:SPI, 127,000 copies were printed during the Falklands War in 1982 and distributed free to academic institutions around the world. It is very much a propaganda piece. WCMemail 21:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
[13] According to Table 6.2 of the 2012 census 47.1% of the population was born in the islands. WCMemail 21:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


The 2016 census is 43% http://www.fig.gov.fk/archives/jdownloads/People/Census%20Information%20Early%20Settlers/Falkland%20Islands%20Census%202016%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf

page 7.

Boynamedsue (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

paragraph about origins

It is clearly sourced and linked data that the islands were settled with a mixed population under British government, justifying the term "mostly Scottish and Welsh descent". The fact the population is described as homogenous, and some people are of non-British origin means that "most people are of Welsh and Scottish origin" is wrong, the population is of mixed origins, with the British element the largest. Also the linked census says 43% of islanders are locally born.

There is also tonnes of evidence that the Argentine population of 20 continued to live on the island after the gaucho murder period of 1833-1834 period, given Carmelita Simon and family, Santiago Lopez and Antonina Roxha are documented on the islands in the 1850s.

Boynamedsue (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The islands weren't settled by the British Government, it wasn't organised like that. But you are right the islands are not and have never been ethnically homogenous. In addition, you are correct the population brought by Vernet continued to live on the islands after the Gaucho murders of August 1833. There was no expulsion event as currently claimed by Argentina. WCMemail 21:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


The evidence for the origins of the Falklanders is https://www.falklands.gov.fk/assets/OurIslandsOurHistory1.pdf

The quote showing continuity is this "No shots were red; there was no violence of any kind. Four civilians chose to leave with the mutinous garrison in the schooner but the majority of Vernet’s two dozen settlers, mostly gauchos, remained under the British flag."

Anyway, I would advise you to re-read the Laver text, if you have access, and see if it actually says that "a majority of the settlers are descended from Scottish and English settlers" or whether it claims that the English and Scottish settles were the main body of original settlers. Because the two things are different, and the first is non-sensical given the amount of intermarriage occurring in a 9 generation society. BTW, objectively speaking, Laver is wrong, the census data from 1843 shows that the early colony was principally English, with 11 Scots, less than there were from Montevideo, it also includes 5 of the original Argentine colonists. There were no Welsh people on the island. I suppose this is a primary source, but it is published with notes by the historians working for the Falklands government, so could perhaps be valid as a Wiki source. I am using De Stefani merely to indicate that the British population DID NOT arrive IN 1833 as the article currently says. I'm only using De Stefani because it's the only book currently linked to Falkland Articles that I can honestly say I've read. I know he's controversial, but there really shouldn't be any controversy about the fact that the British didn't just dump a load of Scots and Welshmen in the South Atlantic in 1833. This is not a political edit, it is a nonsense removing edit.

Boynamedsue (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In 1843, the main agricultural activity was still the exploitation of the large herds of feral cattle on the islands. In the 1850s, the agriculture switched to sheep farming as over exploitation wiped out the cattle. This was then associated with an influx of Scottish shepherds. You don't need to cite Destefani, Mary Cawkell's work has the same information, even Gustafson whose work is sympathetic to Argentina describes the expulsion claim by Argentina as myth. It may have escaped your notice but I am in fact agreeing with what you're saying. I would suggest working up an edit in talk before putting in the main article. WCMemail 22:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What I wrote about De Stefani was mainly for the attention of the other user, we cross posted so it looks like I'm answering you in disagreement. What do you think about removing the reference to Scottish and Welsh and simply putting "British"? Boynamedsue (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

On the balance I think I'd prefer to keep the reference to the Scottish and Welsh, there is a majority of islanders descended from that wave of immigration - although some might be better described as from the borders eg Watson. WCMemail 22:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, how about:

–The Falkland Islands population is homogeneous, with locally-born inhabitants mostly descended from Scottish and Welsh immigrants who settled in the territory after 1833. Roberto Laver argues this is likely the result of government policies which successfully reduced the number of non-British populations that at one point also inhabited the archipelago. Laver states that "naturalization ordinances" in the first decades of the British colony "show a wide variety of settlers from places in Europe, Northern, and Central America, and a couple from Argentina". The Falkland-born population are also descended from English & French people, Gibraltarians and Scandinavians. That census indicated that 43% of residents were born on the archipelago, with foreign-born residents assimilated into local culture.[133] The legal term for the right of residence is "belonging to the islands.

Citing the 2016 census rather than the older one, what reference would you put for the population origins? as the census does not actually include ancestry details.


Boynamedsue (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm tempted to remove reference to Laver:


The Laver reference is one opinion without a balancing counterpoint per WP:NPOV and I would suggest that other references contradict his claim. Actions to influence immigration were pretty ineffective, eg Lafone was supposed to bring in British settlers, instead he imported mainly gauchos from Uruguay. WCMemail 06:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've changed it to a slightly edited version of what you wrote, the only difference in substance is the addition of "South Americans" to the list of contributors to the population.

Boynamedsue (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, whoa...

Ah, the Falks (may I call you Falks?), the Falks are always a peaceful spot on the globe, caressed by the gentlest of warm breezes...

Dear Roger 8 Roger, you say "Take to talk if you want to. Be careful about casually accusing other editors of vandalism". Well, hey, the unilateral, undiscussed edits by Thunderbelch (talk · contribs) sure look like WP:ENGVAR mistakes to me. Ah, look at their talk page: "looks like vandalism "- Falkland_Islands, and "you're confused about whose English" UK English versus US_English

So far from being Inateadaze (talk · contribs)'s unique viewpoint, the user that jammed in "changes that violate English grammar rules" was Thunderbelch. However, you templated a new user with a loud "you're not cooperating!!" while reverting text to that from an editor which has been blocked recently for non-cooperation. Sure looks like the wrong end of the stick to me.

Now I'm no expert on British English, which I have to assume applies doubly here, but I've had drilled into me the interesting take on the thing vs. the things that populate the thing. That is, where a murikan would say "Facebook has facepalmed", the English would say "Facebook have facepalmed". When referring to the entity composed of people, you give due respect to that composition by referring to those people - 'have' not 'has'.

For years (at least June 2014 until December's belchageddon) the text in the lede read:

As a British overseas territory, the Falklands have internal self-governance, and the United Kingdom takes responsibility for their defence and foreign affairs.

From scanning the various 'discussions' hereabouts there seems to be controversy over 'thing' vs. 'things', with an assertion that the Falkland Islands are "a thing". Mm-kay. Thus must be "has internal self-governance". Mm-no.

Since when does a geographic entity - them rocks - have "self-governance"? It is a people or the people's representatives that have or exert 'governance'. An island does not bang gavels at court nor debate bills. Since when does an island have "foreign affairs"?

In focusing unilaterally on dirt and rock, both you and User:Wee Curry Monster are quite forgetting the people. It is they and their status as agents that require "have internal self-governance" and "their defence and foreign affairs."

Please go back and examine all of Thunderbelch (talk · contribs)'s edits here. Some may be legitimately addressing the fragrant isles as a geographical unit. Others of them were disrespectful to the population, whether from confusion, ignorance of WP:ENGVAR (as shown by others'complaints), or whatever reasons.

And the "too ready" friction evidenced in the recent history is what drew my attention. It was unwarranted and unbecoming to these elysiastic havens. Shenme (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The Falklands is both a geographic and political entity, in the same was as say Essex or the Hawaiian Islands.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I will add, for the record, that in the US English dialect, plurals still "have" and singulars still "had". Also, the word "Falklands" is clearly a plural, so any point of trying to make it a singular noun are misguided at best. Furthermore, most of these grammar differences between the dialects of modern English are closer together than they're made out to be in recent additions to this talk page. Also for the record, as a US English speaker and US resident, I find it odd that US English would be applied to this article and that US rules would be enforced. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


Shenme, as I said before, the problem was first with his confrontational language, not the grammar, lest we forget that. Second, the grammar - This UK-US divide is invention. I'll assume good faith and not an intentional distraction. The grammar point is the same for both countries, and both counties have people who will use plural or singular at different times for different reasons. OrangeJacketGuy, "Falklands' is not clearly a plural just because it ends in -s. Plural or singular will depend on the context. This article is about the singular territory, and the singular archipelago, so it seems better to me to treat it as singular, but I am quite happy to hear an alternative opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If your problem was with "confrontational language", and not the edits, then why did you undo the edits? The fact that you are repeatedly adding scare quotes to the word "Falklands" tells me that either you do not care what you are reverting and simply want to get your own way, or you're an Argentine nationalist. Which is it? Either way, there is no excuse for your behaviour. It really is disgraceful.
The article correctly used the plural until the disruptive user "thunderbelch" changed it on 8 December last year. There was no reason for the change, no discussion of it, no consensus, note any justification to be found in any guidelines or policies. So what has motivated people to do aggressively defend them?Inateadaze (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

We have the East Falkland and West Falkland islands, collectively known as Falkland Islands. Seems clear as water that the name is plural. Also, this article became a featured one using British english (which is also, as far as I know, the variety of English used in the islands), so we should stick to that. Cambalachero (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW: in British English either singular or plural is possible. There is a semantic difference between the two. If you are talking about the islands as individuals, they you use the plural. If you are talking about the islands as a unit, you would use the singular. It's a fine distinction, and it doesn't matter that much if you just use the plural across the board, but the singular is perfectly grammatical when discussing the Falkland Islands as a single political entity or archipelago.
Americans may be familiar with the change in usage with "United States" following the US Civil War. "United States" is treated a singular noun in all forms of English, even though the word "States" is ostensibly plural. This is similar, except that it would be unusual to use "United States" as plural because you wouldn't use it to refer to multiple individual states as opposed to the federal government. Kahastok talk 17:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

A request came in to full-protect this page to stop you all edit-warring with each other. I'm not going to just yet, as the reverting has died down a bit, but I will reserve the right to do so if anyone else reverts some trivial naming. In particular, Inateadaze, this revert, falsely accusing a fellow editor of vandalism and responding with a nationalistic slur is unacceptable and if I see more of this, you may be blocked from editing. I am well aware of The Sun saying "Gotcha!" - there is no need to stoop to their level. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

In situations like this, the correct procedure is to follow WP:BRD. I would commend Inateadaze to read this essay as it will help him avoid conflict in future. His comments here have only inflamed matters and caused other editors to lose patience with him. He can call me an Argentine nationalist if he likes, it won't be the first time and it won't be the last I imagine. But its intensely amusing given that the names I've been called by Argentines that are none too pleasant.
Interestingly, I went back and looked at this editing back in December and both Slatersteven and Roger8Roger reverted most of Thunderbelch's edits. It appears they checked all and only left this one. As Kahastok notes the use of "Falkland Islands" can be both singular and plural. In this case referring to the archipelago, the singular is grammatically correct. I happen to think Roger8Roger is correct and Inatedaze is both wrong grammatically and in his conduct. But to be honest I can't really be bothered to engage in an interminable discussion on the matter. Life's too short folks. WCMemail 19:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
PS only replying because I was pinged by Shenme can I politely ask you don't ping me please. Thanks WCMemail 19:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It was me who requested page protection here. I have to say there's an irony in an editor saying that the correct process to follow is BRD - but then completing the paragraph with the statement that they have no interest in discussing the topic any further. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Well I'm glad that amused you. Cheers, WCMemail 21:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, turns out Inateadaze was a sock of WP:BKFIP. An editor known for edit warring and aggressive comments when their edits are disputed. The sock is now blocked, I don't know if editors wish to reconsider whether they want to reverse the changes introduced here by his edit warring and the subsequent locking of this page. WCMemail 15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_26&oldid=1136279511"