Talk:Falkland Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Falkland Islands is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 6, 2015.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Falkland Islands is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Falkland Islands at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
Version 0.5      (Rated FA-Class)
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Introduced Species[edit]

Could someone else please have a look at this edit [1], "Introduced Species" generally refers to wildlife not domesticated animals as the new edit now infers. Why is that people can never ever follow WP:BRD? WCMemail 17:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Pigs and horses are also listed as introduced species. Does it mean that there are issues on the islands with wild horses and pigs? I'm asking honestly. --Langus (t) 01:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
They were feral, ie not domesticated. WCMemail 10:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Feral refers to formerly domesticated animals that have returned to the wild. They would have introduced domesticated pigs, which then escaped into the wild. TFD (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend the deletion of the first half of the first sentence under history, and its accompanying footnote (15); the source is merely old speculation about humans possibly having brought the Falklands fox, aka the Falkland Islands Wolf, from South America; according to the wikipedia article on the latter [2] recent genetic research shows that this animal diverged from its South American cousins millions of years ago and cannot have been brought by humans recently. (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The information from the article on the Falkland Islands fox is also presented as a possibility. It doesn't affect the possibility that Fuegians may have been the first humans in the islands.—MarshalN20 Talk 03:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Native Falkland Islanders[edit]

This term would seem a little less than neutral to me, so I have removed "native". By analogy the term Native Americans is reserved for people that have inhabited the Americas for millennia whereas the term "American" is used for all types of people that inhabit the continent, including those that have emigrated in the past few hundred years. There does not appear to be a need to use any such adjective to distinguish between different types of Falkland Islanders, since the Falkland Islands were uninhabited until a few hundred years ago. I understand that Falkland Islanders may consider themselves "natives" and respect that viewpoint, but Wikipedia must maintain a neutral perspective on the issue.Levelledout (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I will be restoring that presently. This article uses British English primarily and your imposition of American political correctness is of no relevance. Thats nothing to do with neutrality at all. WCMemail 12:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are assuming that I am attempting to do that. I am British myself and live in the UK. The variant of English being used is irrelevant (not sure why you've brought that up) and it's not a political correctness issue either. This is an issue of whether it is controversial to consider that a people that emigrated to an island a couple of hundred years ago should be considered as natives. I would say that it is at least controversial, given examples such as Native Americans (or whatever you choose to call them), Aboriginal Australians and should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact. It's also unsourced although that isn't really the point.Levelledout (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The definition of native is as follows:
  • a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.
The use of the word "native" in the article is correct per standard English. Sources for this are not required.
The term "Native American" is a proper noun.
For further information about grammar, please ask questions at: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language.—MarshalN20 Talk 14:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
"native" has several definitions which naturally vary slightly between different dictionaries. One of the Oxford dictionary's definitions for instance is:
  • "Of the indigenous inhabitants of a place"
  • Indigenous being defined as "Originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native:"
By using the term "native", it is not clear which of the several definitions we are inferring. By simply using "Falkland Islander" we could avoid this. It would be less controversial but still obviously refer to somebody born in the Falkland Islands.
Native American is certainly a proper noun but the etymology patently lies in a simple contraction of the adjective "native" and the noun "American".
Trying to move away from semantics, I note that it is very difficult to find a reliable source that uses the term "native Falkland Islander". It would appear that most major news organisations and such avoid doing so, even though they don't necessarily have the same NPOV requirements that we do.Levelledout (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The word "native" has its own definition separate from "indigenous" or "aboriginal" (which, albeit synonyms, are only related words with distinct meanings). Moreover, the context under which the word "native" is being used is to contrast with the Falkland Islanders that are not native to the islands (immigrants that acquired Falkland Islander status). Standard usage of proper English does not require sourcing; also, Wikipedians should avoid synthesizing sources.—MarshalN20 Talk 15:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Words that are synonyms are interchangeable with each other although I think I see what you are trying to say. I note that we do qualify "native Falkland Islanders" by saying "of British descent" and that we also discuss recent immigration from the UK and other countries. So I accept your point that when we say "native" we mean born in the Falkland Islands although I'm still not sure that native is the ideal word to use here because of it's connotations.Levelledout (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there another way of expressing the idea? (born there, non-immigrants) I think Levelledout has a point here. --Langus (t) 17:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
And our resident fighter of "British POV warriors" steps into the fray, thanks Levelledout may I suggest WP:BEANS. WCMemail 20:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Langus. The only other way I have ever seen this written in academic texts is native-born, but that still doesn't take away the term "native". The term in question has standard usage; it's also the root of the ethnocentric political belief of "Nativism" (even in countries where the "Nativists" are not aboriginal).—MarshalN20 Talk 22:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
In the article the word native is used four times. Three of the four concern native flora and fauna, that were indigenous to the island when Europeans arrived there. The other incidence is in this sentence: "The population ...... primarily consists of native Falkland Islanders, the majority of British descent." Because the word 'native' does carry some connotations of being indigenous (as with its other usages in the article) it would be better to change it to native-born. Michael Glass (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, "native-born" would be a good compromise.Levelledout (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The argument for consistency is good. I hope everyone finds "native-born" an acceptable term.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I reverted the edit as there is no consensus for it in this discussion yet. WCM has yet to respond to the compromise. Thus the editor who opposed it hasn't yet being able to give their response/acceptance/refusal, meaning there is no consensus and Id suggest editors carry out this discussion process properly and await consensus rather than jumping in and making the edit regardless of what WCM may say about it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY and this discussion must be given time for due process and proper resolution.

Obviously it is a matter of perspective, but just when exactly does a population grouping become "native". The term as far as I understand it as a British English speaker, which the Falkland Islanders also speak, means someone who is native to a place, i.e. from there. I am a native of the island of Ireland, and a native of Northern Ireland in the UK, many of my ancestors migrated here from other lands. The descendants of my ancestors who moved here as soon as they where born on this island became natives by virtue of birth.

The Falkland Islanders are the natives of the Falkland Islands. The Americans (north and south) who descend from Europeans who settled centuries ago are also natives of the Americas by virtue of being born there. Someone born in Glasgow, whose parents come from London, can be classified as a native of Glasgow, a native of Scotland, or whatever. Thus I see no problem with simply stating "native" seeing as by being born there, they are native regardless of time-span.

Mabuska (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this adds to the issue. WP:NOTADEMOCRACY but consensus is achieved through compromise. I understand that you may consider yourself a "native" of a particular country but the word has several definitions as already discussed and the proposed change was a compromise that maintained the word "native" and added a pre-fix. Just as you personally consider "native" alone to be perfectly OK, I personally see little reason for any adjective to be used at all since there was/is no indigenous population and is therefore only one type of Falkland Islander in that sense. Hence the compromise.Levelledout (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The change I made was not the result of a "democratic vote". Michael made a good case to add "-born" to "native" based on the overall usage of the word "native" in the article. Despite Levelledout considers it a compromise, I explained in my edit that I do not consider it a "compromise" since the word "native" is still there (the proposed alternative was to remove the word in favor of something else; a something else that was never found). Adding "-born" to the word "native" does not make any substantial change, and in fact helps distinguish human Faklanders (who are born in the Falklands) from the archipelago's flora and fauna. Anyhow, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.—MarshalN20 Talk 01:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that "native" in English has two meanings. One is a person who was born in a particular place; the other is an original or indigenous inhabitant. The phrase "native-born" makes it clear that the former meaning is intended and not the latter. If "native-born" is not acceptable, then another way to express the same idea might be to recast the sentence like this: Most of the population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012) were born there, the majority being of British descent. This is shorter that what is there at the moment and avoids the word "native" altogether.Michael Glass (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The phrase has been there for years without controversy, including the disruption caused by various POV editors of all persuasions that prevented this article from achieving FA status for 7 years. It went through intense scrutiny during the FA and GA process with no comment. I am unconvinced that an editors' personal opinion on the use of language merits any change due to an entirely imaginary problem. Per WP:BEANS all its done is give an excuse for the same disruptive element from the past. I see no good reason to change, however, I'm not going to oppose Marshal's change at this time. I am, however, firmly opposed to the WP:WEASEL words suggested by Michael. WCMemail 12:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Levelledout: "WP:NOTADEMOCRACY but consensus is achieved through compromise." - moving on ahead without the prime objectors consent, or even giving them time to respond to the proposal, isn't consensus. Claiming consensus when there isn't one also doesn't equal consensus.

@ MarshalN20: "Adding "-born" to the word "native" does not make any substantial change, and in fact helps distinguish human Faklanders (who are born in the Falklands) from the archipelago's flora and fauna." - Fauna native to the islands are also "native-born" by being native and by being born there so it doesn't really distinguish between them at all.

"Native-born" changes nothing in effect as what difference is there to it from "native"? If your born somewhere you are a native of it. If your a "native-born" of somewhere you are a native of it. If your native of somewhere you are a from there. What is the difference? The word "native" is still there so the same problem must still exist with "native-born" due to meaning the same thing but with an odd and ridiculous hyphenation. Claims of being "less neutral" are also unfounded and unsubstantiated. On that basis I don't agree with "native-born" as there is no difference to it in meaning or neutrality from "native".

In regards to Levelledout's argument: "There does not appear to be a need to use any such adjective to distinguish between different types of Falkland Islanders, since the Falkland Islands were uninhabited until a few hundred years ago." - I understand and agree with this statement. Stating "primarily consists of Falkland Islanders" removes the problem altogether yet still by virtue of wording implies that they are natives by not using an adjective to say otherwise.

I can accept stating "native" or nothing at all, but reject "native-born" due to the sillyness of it. Mabuska (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska, I honestly cannot understand why you think that the word "native-born" is silly, particularly when it has approximately 1,190,000 results in Google Books ([3]) and dates back to the turn of the 16th century ([4]). Moreover, I have repeatedly also stated that there is no significant difference between using "native-born" and "native" when it comes to definition. The only reason I agree to the change is because it helps distinguish between animals/plants and human beings, which is what I understood from Michael's comment (and, yes, I am aware that fauna is also born in the islands). However, an additional benefit to using the word is that it makes other editors happy with the change without affecting the position held by WCM, you, and me. By avoiding the change, the other editors are inadvertently encouraged to propose new text altogether, which is something that I wanted to avoid because the present text holds a much more standard academic tone.—MarshalN20 Talk 15:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure why you think that there is no significant difference between the two words. "Native" has several definitions in most dictionaries, "native-born" has only one specific one, in the Oxford dictionary this is "Belonging to a particular place or country by birth". Therefore native-born is the most accurate between the two for what we are describing. I'm not sure why it's being described as "silly" either. I would prefer no adjective at all, 2nd choice I'd also accept "were born there" but if the word being used must contain "native" (there doesn't seem to be any logical reason why it should) then "native-born" would also be acceptable.Levelledout (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Native and native-born both seem acceptable, with the latter being less ambiguous per Levelledout's comment above. (Hohum @) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Mabuska, I'm inclined to reject native-born for the simple reason this is all so silly. We've enough to deal with maintaining an FA class article from silly nationalist vandalism without red herrings being raised by editors inventing imaginary neutrality concerns. The claims of being "less neutral" are unfounded and unsubstantiated. However, I'm also disinclined to fight about it for the very same reason, its all too silly that grown ups are fighting about it. WP:DGAF. WCMemail 20:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Rejecting something on the basis that it is "silly" is not a valid argument since it lacks substance. Please stop throwing around false accusations and explain civilly what your issues with the proposals being made are.Levelledout (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Well then I reject it on the basis that the claim it was "less neutral" is unfounded, unsubstantiated and the figment of the imagination of a single editor. Its been demonstrated quite clearly that its acceptable and common use in the English language. I withdraw my comment that I wouldn't object to Marshal's edit and substitute it with the comment that I do object. Happy now? WCMemail 00:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course how silly of me. It was perfectly fine for you to accuse a previously completely uninvolved editor just trying to improve the article of (falsely) attempting "imposition of American political correctness", WP:BEANS, "unfounded and unsubstantiated" claims, "red herrings being raised by editors inventing imaginary neutrality concerns", "the figment of the imagination of a single editor", etc, etc, none of that was in breach of WP:CIVIL was it? By the way WP:CONSENSUS does not equal unanimity and no single editor has a veto on it.Levelledout (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Where did I claim any one editor had a veto? As to the rest, I invite you to address the comment in my response noting that your arguments so far have moved me from a WP:DGAF position to oppose on the basis its been demonstrated quite clearly that its acceptable and common use in the English language. See I bolded it to give you a clue. Regards, WCMemail 01:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
WCM is quite right in saying that "native" is a word that is in common use in the English language. However, it is clear that the word has two meanings, one being indigenous and the other being born at that place. I think it is quite legitimate for editors to wish to clarify the wording, especially at the beginning of the article. People have objected to native-born because it is silly but several online dictionaries list this wording, so they have just expressed their personal preference. The change of a word or a phrase to make the article less ambiguous strikes me as an improvement. It has nothing to do with battles of the present or the past. I think the strongest wording would be, Most of the population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012) were born there, the majority being of British descent. The use of the plain English, Most...were born there.. states the connection of the Falkland Islanders to their land in a way that all can understand. Michael Glass (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I object to Michael's latest offering. I think its quite legitimate to comment that I don't see it as an improvement, its not plain English, its poor use of vocabulary and poor grammar. As this is now getting too silly, I'm going to simply state my position and leave you to fight it out:
  1. I see nothing wrong with Marshal's original wording. The reasons stated to suggest changing it are an invented concern and its been quite clearly demonstrated that its acceptable and common use in the English language.
  2. I don't see the need for Marshal's revised wording, however, as this argument is continuing to get even sillier I'm going to adopt a WP:DGAF position and I won't object to it.
  3. I object to Michael's offering as weasel wording to remove a phrase that is perfectly acceptable to use. WCMemail 07:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
As WCM has apparently withdrawn his active opposition to Marshal's wording, that is probably the best way to go. Unlike the present version, Marshal's wording (which accepts the use of native-born) has the virtue of being unambiguous. Michael Glass (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
When the bear has stopped growling, its best to back away slowly rather than poke it again. Mabuska still objects to both alternatives and I agree with their premise this is a silly argument. WCMemail 10:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Using Google to back-up usage of "native-born" means nothing considering the many flaws of using Google as a stat counter to provide backup for a specific argument. In my opinion, and it is just that, an opinion that I am entitled to, "native-born" is silly. Some of you may not think so and that is your opinion to which you are also entitled too, but to me it is silly and absolutely unrequired. I just don't see the need for alternatives. Native or nothing at all works for me. Mabuska (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to at least provide some substance to that and explain why you think it is silly. The word is in dictionaries such as Oxford, so I don't see why we can't use it. It's all very well saying "native or nothing" but clearly editors do not agree on either of these and WP:CONSENSUS encourages us to work towards a compromise. Saying that is of course likely to mean keeping native as of WP:NOCONSENSUS.Levelledout (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't make an opinion correct. Ultimately, I agree with WCM that this discussion has headed towards a pointless direction. Using either "native" or "native-born" is standard in academic literature, and I really don't care which of the two options are chosen. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum, so please let's try to keep opinion-based discussions to a minimum. This is an academic setting (even if somewhat informal), and discussions should be primarily based on sourced evidence (and not in passionate [mis]interpretations). Regards.—MarshalN20 Talk 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this discussion needs to end. The version in the text at the moment is about as good as it will get. Let's leave it be. Michael Glass (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that the discussion is clearly not going anywhere, although I don't agree that WP:NOTAFORUM has any relevance here. WP:NPOV discussions naturally involve the opinions and judgements of individual editors.Levelledout (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The term "native" is almost exclusively used to refer to indigneous peoples, animals and plants. That would appear to be the only reason to use it here, to imply that Falkland Islanders are indigenous to the islands rather than to the UK., and therefore have a right of abode there. TFD (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"Native-born" is quite reasonable and not at all silly if it resolves the concerns expressed above. Jonathunder (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Part of the UK"[edit]

An editor added an edit summary, "The FI's is a British overseas territory, in other words it's part of the UK. This Article is about the UK's claim."[5] In fact, no sources claim it is part of the UK. TFD (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands are most definitely not a part of the UK, nor or they likely a sovereign state (as seems to also be indicated by that edit). See the first sentence of British_Overseas_Territories and sources for more info.Levelledout (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Not a part of the UK per se, but jurisdiction and sovereignty of them does belong to the UK, so British Overseas Territory is correct but the editor trying to insert "part of the UK" is wrong. Situation is just like Puerto Rico and the United States. Mabuska (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is a major discussion at Talk:United States about whether Puerto Rico is part of the US. TFD (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Which has nothing to do with this article. It is only the legal status of the Falklands that counts, not how another nation administers it's territory.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
So Basicly other entities like Greenland or Hong Kong legally aren't part of the People's Republic of China nor the Danish Realm, even though most countries recognize them as part of the country of which they are part of. As well as many of the inhabitants of the territories, and various sources would say that they are. Seqqis (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a constitutional difference. Greenland is a constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark and Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. The constitutions of those territories designate them as part of their respective sovereign state. Whereas the Falkland Islands Constitution and UK legislation clearly define British Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies as dependent territories of the United Kingdom but not part of the sovereign state itself. --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Mr Steven's comments are right on the money, dependent territories are not part of the parent state. WCMemail 11:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Right. It is always dangerous to try to map the constitutional arrangements of special/overseas territories of one country on to another because the situations are almost never the same. Kahastok talk 12:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hong Kong, like the Falklands, was once a British overseas territory, but not a part of the UK, it was part of China. And America, Canada, Australia, India and numerous other countries were once subject ot the UK, but were never part of the UK. When Iraq was governed by Paul Bremer, it did not become part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. There are different arrangements regarding the relations between mother countries and their overseas possessions. In some cases, such as the French overseas territories, they are formally part of the the French Republic itself, even if they are geographically far away from France. In the case of the British overseas terrtories, however, they are independent entities, not part of the United Kingdom. Probably every country, which has such terrtories, has its own system. Perhaps the French one is smartest. French Guiana is not on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories, because it is administered in the same way as regions in Metropolitan France. --Muniswede (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User Viet-hoian1 is trying to insert politics and personal opinion into the article.[edit]

User Viet-hoian1 is trying to insert politics and personal opinion into the article by adding "Islas Malvinas" to all mentions of the islands. Can't the article be protected from this sort of Vandalism? 23:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeJacketGuy (talkcontribs)

Yes. The name in English is the Falkland Islands. The name they are know by in the islands is the Falkland Islands. They have many other names in other languages, and those will be used on other language Wikipedias. Argentina's claim has no status in international law, and so is not part of the formal name, or a name used internationally by countries other than Spanish speaking ones.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The correct use of the Falklands/Malvinas naming is described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands. The article is fine as it is, Viet-hoian1 is breaking the rule with his edits. Cambalachero (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
We already mention in the first sentence that the Spanish name is Malvinas and later explain how they had originally named it and that Argentina claims the islands. There is no need to repeat Malvinas every time Falklands is used in the article. TFD (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


I suggest changing "The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas [malˈβinas]) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean on the Patagonian Shelf." by "The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas [malˈβinas]) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean on the Patagonian Shelf annexed by the United Kingdom."

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Dream on. Mabuska (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean to sound rude in my last comment, but seriously there is no chance. Mabuska (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)