Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Philology discussion

[1] For the record, it was the content I described as crap not the editor, get over yourself.

I have removed a small amount of text sourced to the opinion of one author. My reasons for doing so is that if you subject to scrutiny the opinion expressed by this author, it is clear what is alleged is utter nonsense. The word "Malvinas" is not rejected in English language sources, as even a cursory google search will demonstrate [2], most English language sources make an extra effort to indicate what the Spanish name is.

As such this is very much a case of a WP:FRINGE theory, given WP:UNDUE prominence. And I make no apology for describing crap as crap.

He cites a discussion on my talk page with Marshal, where we both agree that it would detrimental to the FA review. I invite User:Langus-TxT to self-revert, if that isn't forthcoming I would urge another editor to remove it as it is detrimental to any potential FA review. WCM_email 14:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Do not use the word to describe anything, period, I find it WP:UNCIVIL. Specifically and for the record, please don't use it when interacting with me, or even when talking about me anywhere in Wikipedia. It increases tension, there's absolutely no need whatsoever for its use. There are plenty of less rude synonyms you can use.

My intention when restoring content was to see what other editors thought. I already knew you want to remove it, there no need to remove again and in that sense WP:EDITWARRING applies more to you than to me. After all, you did removed it twice.

I got one such opinion in your talk page, and as you don't WP:OWN the article, you should really try to understand what other people are saying:

"There may be some validity to the Spanish name study in the sense that it gives a good idea to the readers as to why using Spanish names (especially those used Argentina) are frowned upon in the English-speaking world when concerning the dispute."

Anyhow, as I said, my intention is to hear others so this is a good start.

You allege that Rodriguez Gonzalez conclusions in "Stylistic Aspects of Spanish Borrowings in the Political Press: Lexical an Morphological Variations" are "utterly nonsense" and back this claim with a Google search. But Google results are to be treated with caution. We must first start this discussion by presenting a reliable source that contends what seems to me a common-sense fact: if you use the word "Malvinas" to refer to these islands in English (not Falklands but Malvinas), you are advancing a political position (i.e. it is a sign (semiotics)). --Langus (t) 14:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Mouton de Gruyter seems to be a respectable publisher of academic literature. However, undue weight may still be a problem since it's a single, rather niche source. Also, should we check what the islands are called in every other language and find an obscure source suggesting what undertones they suggest? It's not something we do in other articles as far as I know. I'm for removing it. (Hohum ^@) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The full discussion is on my talk page at User talk:Wee Curry Monster#Falkland Islands copyedit, that discussion ended amicably with both of us agreeing to removal.

If you'd read the British papers this weekend, they are replete with examples of articles that prove this to be wrong. Each and every one refers to the Spanish name, so I'm unsure as to what exactly the political position you think the likes of the Mail, the Express or the Telegraph are advancing (but I can assure you its the opposite of what you're implying). Its a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny and furthermore the demand to prove a negative is unhelpful in any discussion.

In a similar vein, we don't see this as a prevailing view in the literature, in fact its always struck me as odd that something so obscure was given quite the prominence its had for some time. If this was a prevailing view in the literature, it would be relatively simple to source; ie not sourced to an oblique reference as it is.

It is a demonstrable fact that the name "Falklands" is suppressed in the Spanish language. It can be show that Argentina has lobbied to have any mention of "Falklands" removed from the literature in Mercosur or Unasur and reacts with great annoyance when Chileans continue to refer to Las Islas Falkland. Argentina also produces literature that uses the Spanish name exclusively. Hence, I wonder if this is an example of Projection bias on the part of the original author. Now this is not to say we should per WP:NPOV cite this suppression of the English language name in Spanish as I would also question its relevance in a summary. It does nonetheless show that this article is currently promoting an idea most reasonable people reading the British press this weekend would question whilst at the same time ignoring a very real prejudice against the English language toponymy in the Spanish language.

That would be a problem in an FA review. WCM_email 16:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If removal has been agreed, why hasn't it been removed? (Hohum ^@) 16:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Langus has edit warred it back. WCM_email 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

WCM, STOP adding fuel to the fire. It would be advisable for you to start criticizing yourself with the same passion you comment on other editors...

@Hohum: it hasn't been agreed yet...

Even if you try to deny it, it is exactly the same the other way around: the British indeed have a feeling of rejection toward the term Malvinas:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/389599/British-embassy-gaffe-as-it-calls-Falklands-the-Malvinas-on-Twitter

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/the-clinton---falklands-k_b_484095.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/15/falkland-islands-issue-ma_n_499573.html

Is so evident that even the news don't have to explain how the term is offensive. On the other hand, this could be a valid reason for not including it, but the information remains valid.

A paper examining this question: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3723605 --Langus (t) 16:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Langus, perhaps you could address the points I made. (Hohum ^@) 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Langus, this may disappoint but I have no passion for you whatsoever and it was agreed to remove this but you weighed in and edit warred it back. There is only one person getting hot about this topic. Do you think you could stop the WP:DRAMA please?

Lets look at those links:

[3] Doesn't prove the point just that someone made a gaffe, which delighted the usual idiots. I could point to the Argentine gaffe about the atlas of the Falkland islands.....

[4] The Huffington Post [5]? An American suggesting that Brits find it offensive, doesn't prove the point.

[6] I'm not sure what you believe this proves but it certainly doesn't prove the point.

And can you access that paper or are just quoting the abstract?

It seems you stongly believe that the term Malvinas is offensive in the English language, in the same manner that Falkland elicits an Anglophobic reaction in the Spanish speaking world. Pointedly most British newspapers will make a point of using it. Your strong beliefs are not suitable reasons for content, you've produced some decidedly lame examples, some from a none too reliable source, that pointedly don't provide a convincing proof of what you claim.

Now the strong argument for removing it as Hohum points out is one of undue weight, I also made the same point and its painfully obvious its a comment you don't wish to address. So can we cut the WP:DRAMA and address the point? WCM_email 17:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Langus, I understand the points you raise, but please consider that the philology explanation in the article is indeed a tad too long (and perhaps, as WCM points out, unnecessary).

It's also worth noting that, as also WCM points out, there was nothing mentioned about the semiotics of the English toponyms in the Spanish-speaking world. I remember trying to find a reliable source for it, but was unable to do it. Nevertheless, this creates an imbalance in the narrative.

Being the one who included the text in the first place, my intention was to explain why (for example) the article does not mention the name "Malvinas Islands" anywhere despite the term does have usage in the English language, albeit for political purposes. It's exactly those political purposes that I sought to explain to the reader.

I apologize if my intention was misunderstood. Is it not at all possible to maybe find a better way to include this explanation?

Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The lack of necessity is something I concluded, certainly not WCM, who insists that this explanation is incorrect, or a fringe theory at most. Sure, why not, let's remove it, after all Wee Curry Monster WP:OWNs the article, right? There he went, putting a badge of shame on the section;[7] he just can't help himself. We always end up surrendering to his caprice. Don't you think that is a real detriment towards a FA?

For the record, the full paper can be accessed here, it was linked right in the abstract. --Langus (t) 02:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Marshal,

The use of Malvinas Islands in the English language falls into two camps:

1. Official Argentine publications in English and some Spanish language publications in English.
2. Left wing groups with an anti-Thatcher agenda.

The latter is a WP:FRINGE use and we have a long standing agreement there is no real need to include reference to it. The former rather differs from the premise you suggested and stems from a reluctance in the Spanish language to use the English term. It is more linked to the attempt to extinguish Islas Falkland from the Spanish lexicon. We can revisit if you wish but the last time it was discussed, it resulted in a very unhealthy exchange that didn't really address the subject. WCM_email 13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

WCM, we certainly do not need to revive the "Malvinas Islands" discussion, but I think it would help to use the etymology section in order to explain what you point out above.

It's a remarkable subject for the name of the islands (in both English and Spanish).

Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If I'm honest I'm a bit loathe to reprise the whole saga, as the last time I raised it (Archive 13/14) for sensible discussion there was a general lack of it. Islas Falkland has/had a minority usage in Spanish but there has been a concerted effort to eliminate it. The corrollary of Malvinas Islands has no equivalent, a few people used it with an Anti-Thatcher agenda around the period of the Falklands War but since then it died out. However, unlike Spanish there is no regulation of the English language, in general publications in English make an effort to report the Spanish name. So we see publications in English, largely it has to be said of Argentine origin, that use the term Malvinas Islands but that is more reflective of the Spanish language dislike of the accepted English name than any phobic reaction in English. I did look at the paper above but was largely unimpressed, its a classic example of making the evidence fit the premise not looking at evidence to draw conclusions. I'm inclined to let sleeping dogs lie, as to be honest I don't need the stress of the accusations of WP:OR and WP:SYN that would accompany it, which ironically would be accompanied by original research to prove the English language suppresses the Spanish equivalent. WCM_email 18:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Most articles on en-wp about countries and other territories start with the name in English and then the name in the local/national language(s). For instance: Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Greenland &c. This article, however, starts "The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːlklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas) are an archipelago...". This gives the impression that Spanish is the largest or official language of the island, which of course is not the case. I certainly know the the neigbouring republic of Argentina claims the islands as theirs. But as Argentina de facto does not administer the territory and as the Spanish language is only used there by some guest workers the Spanish name should really not be in the very first sentence of the article. It could be placed further down under "Sovereignty dispute". --Muniswede (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The first line is not for local and national languages, it is for languages where readers are more likely to see the name then others. Often this is official, but not always. It is the infobox that shows official languages. CMD (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been in for many years, and has - as you would expect - been repeatedly discussed. In general, neutral sources in English that deal with the dispute will use "Falkland" as primary, but will acknowledge "Malvinas" once (generally at the first prose mention). This convention has gone into guidelines at WP:NCGN#Falkland Islands. On a topic such as this, I think there is benefit in including it, and I think it would be noticed and taken as evidence of bias if it were excluded. Kahastok talk 18:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that sources which attempt to be "neutral" use some kind of compound name (like in UN Resolution 502, where is they are called "The Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)"). No-one is proposing that the name be changed from the common name in the English language for the islands ("The Falkland Islands") to such a compound name, because nowhere in the English-speaking world is this "neutral" compound-name in common use - and especially not in the Falkland Islands!

Saying that something would be taken as "evidence of bias" if it were not included in the opening section is not good reason for including it in the opening section. We all know that not giving high enough billing to the pet names and facts of certain editors will cause them to scream "bias" where none exists. I think a good example of how exactly this kind of phenomenon may be dealt with is seen in the Wrocław article - you may note that despite the city being a German city as recently as 1945, and despite the city still being known as "Breslau" in Germany, no-one sees a need to include "Breslau" in the opening section (other than the disambiguation link for other things called "Breslau" such as the SMS Breslau).

Put simply: "Islas Malvinas" is, at best, a non-English-language exonym which for political reasons editors insist on including in the opening section. FOARP (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sovereignty Dispute image

After the removal of the blue sign, I searched for another image that could go on the section. I found these two neat maps, but I'm not sure which is most accurate:

    

I think either of them would be a good addition, but I feel they may be a tad outdated (South Sudan's not even in the map); I'm sure Rob or another one of our map experts could do great improvements.

Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe there's a general feeling of rejection towards such an effort. See Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute's Archive 20. --Langus (t) 20:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No colour key for China on the first map. Although these are allowed on commons, I think their inclusion here would count as original research, particularly in the absence of reliable sources. --Mirokado (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think these maps are a good idea. They gloss over a lot of nuance, and it is not necessarily clear how it was decided which countries supported which side in the dispute. They are OR.

I can see the source of the two maps. The one of the left was the one that used to be at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, but which was abandoned because of the OR problem. The one on the right appears to have been created for Crisis diplomática por la soberanía de las Islas Malvinas de 2010-2014, which (in common with much of the Spanish Wikipedia's coverage of Falklands issues) rarely rises much above the level of outright political propaganda. Kahastok talk 21:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We may use File:CFK en las NU.jpg, a photo of Critina Kirchner in the UN when she made a speech about the dispute. I know that several Argentine politicians in history have refenced the dispute, but the image is A) modern, and B) taken specifically in a related circumstance. Or we can also make a new composite image, with both this one and some British politician opposing the Argentine claim, so it gets more balanced. Cambalachero (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You can also have in mind those goods news I gave some days ago, for more ideas on images that may be useful. Cambalachero (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Got to agree with Kahastok, the production of both "maps" involves a considerable amount of WP:OR, anyone who genuinely desires to see this article at FA would avoid them like the plague. I can readily see any FA being derailed by the needless "controversy" over whom supports whom. Not a good idea IMHO. WCM_email 22:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

To add, why do you consider an image is required, if anything two politicians exchanging platitudes would suffice. WCM_email 22:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The OR concerns are what get to me most. I'm surprised that Commons has the image considering such a problem exists.

I would prefer to avoid including any political person in the article.

The idea was to include a visual assistance for the reader. A chart or map would have been neat. If no options are available, then it may be best to just not have an image at all.

Thanks for the comments friends!---MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, the image of CFK and Prime Minster Brown would suffice. [8] FYI WCM_email 22:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Do we not have images of Argentine protesters holding signs or something? That would have the same sort of message as the road sign. CMD (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I hav only found File:PancartasPlazade MayoMalvinas.jpg, but it's a protest of war veterans who do not receive pensions, and not a protest over the sovereignty dispute itself. Cambalachero (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that the one, where the "veterans" served on the mainland? We could consider using some of the images of Galtieri doing his balcony scene on 2 April but I can understand whey editor on both sides of the fence may find that obnoxious. I did wonder about the UN [9] but that seems a non-starter [10]. Am I right? WCM_email 08:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No - their copyright statement here is not compatible with Wikipedia since we presumably won't meet WP:NFCC here.

I thought of the war memorial at Ushuaia, but a President & PM picture might be better if we have an appropriate one. Kahastok talk 08:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

According to commons, there is no Freedom of Panorama in Argentina for sculptures, so I don't think we can use the war memorial (and don't think the war memorial photo should be licensed as it is if that's the case). CMD (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, I meant that the picture on the right I created for this article in Spanish Wikipedia. The references are there. If anyone wants to add South Sudan and change the color of any country (with references) is invited. I would like the map is in the English Wikipedia. Regards. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

undeclared war?

There is some disagreement over whether the term "undeclared war" should be used. One editor notes that it is misleading and that a tertiary source isn't good enough, while another says that it is, and points to the definition in undeclared war.

I think we need to use the best reliable sources available, i.e. a military historians work on this specific conflict. A tertiary source like an encyclopaedia is way down the list. undeclared war is a completely unreferenced stub, so it is of no help at all. While we wait for an acceptable source, the "undeclared" part should be removed. (Hohum ^@) 17:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you and am about to remove it. I consider this an unsuitable detail for a summary article This is something more suited for the article Falklands War rather than here and its a detail that could easily be left for the dedicated article. Google ngrams would seem to suggest the term "undeclared Falklands War" doesn't have the widespread use outside of Britannica. It also seems rather unhelpful to revert war with an experienced editor who has volunteered to help with an FA driver. WCM_email 18:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion either way, but I do get 319 results in a Google Books search for "Falklands War" and "undeclared" (please see [11]). Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

At least half the results on the first page aren't relating the word undeclared to the Falklands. (Hohum ^@) 20:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In a focused Google search "undeclared Falklands War" gets 45 hits [12], "Falklands War" [13] 116,000 hits. That neatly explains the ngram hits "undeclared Falklands War" is very much a minority description. WCM_email 22:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Big oops! Thanks for the corrections WCM and Hohum. [:)]

Nonetheless, my view is the same as before. I don't find either option problematic.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well to get to FA standard requires us to pay attention to details like this, though fundamentally I have no problem with it, we need to edit to a high standard. I have seen FA derailed by ignoring details like this. WCM_email 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for removal so far seem pretty weak. Let me recap all the arguments that have been presented:

a) That the Falklands War was not an undeclared war because both parties recognized each other as formal belligerents, and fought a high intensity conflict;

b) That the Falklands War was not an undeclared war because "an undeclared war is a covert war with few rules"

c) That we don't know what "undeclared war" means

d) That reliable sources don't refer to the Falklands War as an undeclared war

Points a), b) and c) are actually the same, i.e. the nature of what the term means. In that sense, let me remind you which is the "tertiary source" you're raising doubts about:

"The Encyclopædia Britannica, published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., is a general knowledge English-language encyclopaedia written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, including 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents. It is regarded as one of the most scholarly English-language encyclopaedias."

Turning down this RELIABLE, tertiary source because of YOUR OWN DOUBTS/REASONING is not how Wikipedia works. Not to mention that there are plenty of similar sources.[14][15][16] Allow me to explain myself:

• Homum says that "at least half the results on the first page [of Marshall's search] aren't relating the word undeclared to the Falklands"; which is to say that up to half the results on the first page are saying that the Falklands War was an undeclared war between Argentina & the UK. If you go through the second, third, fourth page, positive uses by reliable sources keep coming up. Am I missing something here?? This is the single piece of data that should disperse any doubts about the expression.

• WCM: do you really believe that searching for "undeclared Falklands War" is helpful? I mean, a book doesn't need to use the exact phrase "undeclared Falklands War" (which sounds rather clumsy) to express that the FW was an undeclared war, as Marshall's search proves. Also, advising that I shouldn't revert "experienced editors" who have "volunteered to help with an FA driver" seems rather gerontocratic and inconsistent with your recent behavior.[17][18][19][20]

Honestly, you may say that I'm being too sensitive about this, but then neither of you are actually putting forward a valid argument for removal. This smells like the Talk:Falkland_Islands#Philology_discussion all over again... --Langus (t) 02:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No, your comments are utterly disconnected with the preceding comments and arguments:

• Hohum commented that the source for the term "undeclared Falklands War" was from a tertiary source and that we needed to use the "best reliable sources available, i.e. a military historians work on this specific conflict."
• I commented that I agreed with him, pointing out that the term is not used via Google ngrams and that "undeclared Falklands War" gets 45 hits [21] in google books, whilst "Falklands War" [22] 116,000 hits. On that basis I conclude its not a common term being used only in 0.04% of cases.
• I further commented it was an unsuitable detail (ie the absence of a declaration of war) for a summary article but suitable for the article Falklands War.

Your comments are in fact nothing more than a classic Straw man argument. No one at any time disputed the absence of a declaration of war. WCM_email 12:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"Undeclared war" is tendentious. All wars since the Second World War have been undeclared. TFD (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record, that was the only good argument, although I fail to see how exactly it would be tendentious. --Langus (t) 10:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Falkland Islands English

There is no mention to the local accent and dialect (Falkland Islands English) of English spoken on the isles. Surely this can fit under the culture section somewhere? IJA (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, however it would need a source. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Above we discussed the language matter and ended up agreeing to include "British English" as the language. I'm not really sure how to address what you are suggesting.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting? I speak the "Yorkshire dialect" which is a form of "British English". The people in the Falklands have their own dialect/ accent too but the Falkland Islands Dialect is still British English. I suggest we mention the local dialect/ accent of English in this article, which is a sub group of British English the same way Yorkshire English is a sub group of British English. IJA (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Listing any more than what is currently there seems overly pedantic and a bit excessive. Also, there is sufficient mention on the Falkland Islands English dialect already in the article. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Deterioration of Relations

I'm not certain the current text sets the balance correctly.

Under Menem's government, Guido de Tella followed a policy of attempting to (in his words) seduce the Falkland Islands. They established the sovereignty umbrella where the issue of sovereignty was put to one side to concentrate on mutually beneficial agreements. To some extent it worked as there was at one time a schism between the generations in the Falklands, whereby the younger generation did not view Argentina in the same way as the older generation who lived through the war and its aftermath. Since Nestor Kirchner's government, the policy switched back to the old hard line, the agreements on oil and fishery torn up and a policy of confrontation pursued.

Currently the article states:

“ However, relations again deteriorated because of air-travel disagreements and the UK's refusal to resume sovereignty negotiations "in the absence of evidence that the islanders themselves sought a change".[64][K] Disputes between the governments have led "some analysts [to] predict a growing conflict of interest between Argentina and Great Britain ... because of the recent expansion of the fishing industry in the waters surrounding the Falklands".[65] ”

The air travel disagreement stems from the hard line political policy but isn't a cause for the deterioration in relations as the text implies. Similarly the UK hasn't refused to resume sovereignty negotiations, it would be more accurate to note that the UK has not and will not enter into negotiations under terms dictated by Argentina. Pointedly the only nation to have refused talks is Argentina, A) Timmerman refused to meet the UK Foreign Secretary for talks when he found out that the Falkland Islanders would be represented and B) the Falkland Islands Government have offered talks to the Argentine Government and been rebuffed. WCM_email 10:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

My suggestions:

A)

“ Argentina and the UK re-established diplomatic relations in 1990. Under the presidency of Carlos Menem, Argentina pursued a "seduction" policy trying to improve relations with the islanders. Relations improved but have deteriorated since more recent Argentine Governments repudiated agreements on oil exploration and fisheries cooperation and now refuse to talk directly with the Falkland Islands Government. The current position of the UK Government is that sovereignty negotiations will only take place if the islanders request it but Argentina insists on talks only between the British and Argentine Governments. ”

or

B)

“ Argentina and the UK re-established diplomatic relations in 1990. ”

Sometimes less is more. WCM_email 10:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your point of view: current text seems more balanced than the proposal. The UK is in fact refusing to negotiate, for whatever the reason. There is no need to avoid the concept of refusal and instead applying it to Argentina, necessarily (and non-neutrally) switching "UK" for "the FI Government" as the partner in negotiations. Doing so it's actually embellishment or a lifting in prominence of the UK position over Argentina's.

However, the point about air travel disagreement being a consequence more than the cause does seem fair. --Langus (t) 00:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase the words of Mandy Rice-Davies "you would, wouldn't you?" Britain doesn't refuse to negotiate, it indicates the terms under which it is prepared to negotiate. Argentina claims to want to negotiate but only as to how Britain will capitulate and hand over the islands to meet Argentina's demands. Argentina is not prepared to negotiate sovereignty, only how it is granted sovereignty. So no it isn't a neutral wording but, hey, Langus you have consistently demanded we paraphrase the Argentine position; at least you're consistently biased to support one nationalist POV. Adios amigo. WCM_email 17:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Last year it was Argentina who refused to attend talks, not the UK. [23] The UK is more than willing to have talks with Argentina, just as long as the Falkland Islanders are present, as it is their future which is been discussed. IJA (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What's fair and accurate to write is that both sides cannot agree on the terms of future sovereignty discussions.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Lol, Marshal that was my point, the text suggested only the British as responsible. WCM_email 22:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! I forgot to dent the message (it was meant for IJA). But, yes, the point was that both perspectives are, well, distinct. I won't judge which one is more valid than the other, and I respect the differing views, but (as WCM points out) less can sometimes be more; very wise words. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

My comment was actually directed at Langus who was implying that it is only the UK which refuses to negotiate which is of course a fallacy. Any attempt to present this as fact to our readers/ audience would be contrary to a NPOV and intentionally misleading. IJA (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If we are talking about resuming negotiations, then it is the UK who is refusing, since it won't negotiate under previous terms, i.e. it won't sit at the table one on one without the presence of the FI Government (or something along those lines; I'm not sure about the exact official British invitation).

If you ignore those negotiations of the decades before the War, then it falls to a matter of perspective (point of view):

• the UK refuses to negotiate without the presence of the FI Government (or refuses to negotiate and redirects negotiations to the FI Government; again I'm not sure); or
• Argentina refuses to negotiate with UK if the FI Government is involved in any way, or refuses to negotiate with the FI Government as the sole negotiation partner.

In this last case, who is "refusing" to negotiate is a matter of where the editor is standing. --Langus (t) 02:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2014

Original info: The United Kingdom and Argentina claim the Falkland Islands. The UK's position is that the Falklanders have not indicated a desire for change, and that there are no pending issues to resolve concerning the islands.[84][85] The UK bases its position on its continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except for 1982) and the islanders' "right to self-determination as set out in the UN Charter".[86] Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands.[87][88] Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833.[87] In 2009, British prime minister Gordon Brown met with Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and said that there would be no further talks over the sovereignty of the Falklands.[89] In March 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, and 99.8 percent of voters favoured remaining under British rule.[90][91] Argentina does not recognize the Falkland Islands as a partner in negotiations;[92] consequently, it dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum.[93]

Edition: I not propose to replace the information, just fill out and add information, as is incomplete and has only one position, on the issue. Here I propose to add the following item:

The Falkland Islands belong to the South American continental shelf, within the oversea Argentine territory, belonging to the Argentine Sea. Relying on the fact that most of the countries of Latin America, and the majority of countries worldwide, reaffirm the argentine sovereignty over the islands, opposing the ambiguous concepts of colonialism. Frederik1991 (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam ^Sing! 08:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Source problem

footnote 123 & 130, all link to "Royle 2006", but, there's two "Royle 2006" books at "Bibliography" section below:

• Royle, Stephen (2006). Godfrey Baldacchino (ed.). The Falkland Islands. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-08-044656-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |encyclopedia= ignored (help)
• Royle, Stephen (2006). The Falkland Islands. Oxford, England: Elsevier Ltd. ISBN 978-0-08-044656-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Two books by a same author, published at same year, and both had "ref = harv", so basically there's no way to tell the differences, but there will be first and second one, so both footnotes link to the first book.

I'm worried, is this book correct?--Jarodalien (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch! Professor Royle wrote "The Falkland Islands" book section in 2006 (He did not author a book in that year; also, Elsevier is a Dutch publisher). I was formatting the source and must have inadvertently created a duplicate (and forgot to remove it in the process). Kind regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Very impressive for your speed to fix this. I can found this only because I'm translating this article to Chinese, so I need to check the source one by one, thanks.--Jarodalien (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you for translating the article. Let me know if you have any further questions.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate your concern, is already done about 24 hours ago, already send to review.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

Hey guys, I'm co-writing the daily TFA column for the Main Page, and User:Brianboulton has just picked 6 January as this article's TFA day. The problem is, we're limited to 1200 characters for the paragraph, so I had to do some trimming ... and I can't read minds, so it's possible I trimmed something that you guys really don't want to trim. Please see my work at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 6, 2015, and feel free to suggest any changes here, I'll be watching. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you've done an excellent job personally, too often there is a tendency to simply talk about the sovereignty dispute. Your focus on the islands themselves is a refreshing change. I have to say two thumbs up, don't change it and well done! WCM_email 23:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, that's not bad for my first review, thanks WCM :) - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the TFA note. The sentence on the Falklands War has a strange construction ("In 1982, after Argentina's invasion of the islands, the Falklands War resulted in the surrender of Argentine forces and the return of the islands to British administration."); the part on Argentina's invasion of the island seems out of place, and it would read better without it or rephrased (as in: "In 1982, the Falklands War resulted in the surrender of Argentine forces that had occupied the archipelago, and the return of the islands to British administration."). Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 06:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marshal, I'm copying the existing text there, and that wasn't my favorite sentence. Your suggestion flows better than what's there, I think, but it also changes the meaning slightly, so I want to make sure we have consensus for a change. Any other suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Also see the discussion at WT:TFA#Do we have consensus for this change to the Falkland Islands text? - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What that sentence is essentially saying is that "In the 1982 Falklands War the Argentine forces invaded and briefly occupied the islands, were defeated, and the islands returned to British administration." Apcbg (talk)

We seem to have consensus for the moment over at WT:TFA, so I made the change. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations for all those who have contributed, over a number of years, to this particularly challenging article to the effect of eventually bringing it to its deserved FA status. Well done, and setting a good example of fruitful collaboration between editors of different, sometimes conflicting views too. Wish you all a happy and successful new year! Apcbg (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Spanish name

I understand that Argentina claim the Islands as their own, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to use the Spanish name in the English Language Wikipedia article, for a British Overseas Territory, where the primary (and only widely spoken) language is English.

Use of another name tends to be relevant where it is locally referred to in a non-English language, or where the article uses a common English Language name despite the official name being in a different language. I know Wikipedia attempts to be neutral, but there seems to be no reason to include the Spanish name which precludes also including French, German, Mandarin, Estonian and Swedish versions of the name.... Are we being "excessively neutral"? Audigex (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands gives the guidance we use. Whether we are being "excessively neutral" is a matter of personal opinion. WCM_email 13:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Introduced Species

Could someone else please have a look at this edit [24], "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? WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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 [25] 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.104.159.151.38 (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

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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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 ([26]) and dates back to the turn of the 16th century ([27]). 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. WCM_email 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? WCM_email 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, WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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"

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."[28] 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. WCM_email 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.

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 (talk • contribs)

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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 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)

Introduction

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 90.244.9.16 (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)

Status?

Every single disputed territory article as Ireland let the main article deals with the island itself, instead of the political entity. What's the difference here? Guidaw (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The dispute is only mentioned in the "History" and "Sovereignty dispute" sections. There are plenty of other sections that deal with with island-specific topics, with no relation to the dispute. Have in mind that Ireland is a centuries old important country, and the Falklands are a small country subdivision (of whichever country they were a part of; they have never been an independent nation) with a low population. It should be no surprise that the article on Ireland will be longer and with much more information that this one. Cambalachero (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue may be a misunderstanding of Ireland. Ireland (the island) is split into two completely different jurisdictions and neither is disputed (the Republic used to claim the North, but gave up that claim under the Good Friday Agreement). So the situation there is quite different. This article follows the normal rule in terms of covering disputed territory on Wikipedia. Kahastok talk 22:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2015

The Falklands are one of the world's most important penguin breeding sites, and yet penguins are barely mentioned at all in this article. There is no penguin population data. Suggest adding peer-reviewed scientific publications quoting reliable popluation data and population changes: Rockhopper penguins: 1984 - 2,500,000 breeding pairs (Croxall, J.P., McInnes, S.J. and Prince P.A. - (1984) The status and conservation of seabirds at the Falkland Islands. In Status and conservation of the world's seabirds, ICBP Technical Publication No.2, (ed. J.P. Croxall, P.G.H. Evans and R.W. Schreiber), 271-291, ICBP, Cambridge.) 1995 - 300,000 breeding pairs (Bingham, M. (2002) The decline of Falkland Islands penguins in the presence of a commercial fishing industry. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 75: 805-818.) 2015 - 189,503 breeding pairs (Mercopress online, July 15th 2015 - http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/21/falklands-penguin-population-rising-gentoo-doubled-and-rockhopper-remains-stable) This rapid and on-going decline in penguins is due to the reduction of food availability caused by the removal of large quantities of fish and squid by the Falklands commercial fishing industry, causing lack of food and longer foraging trips during chick rearing, leading to low reproductive success. These same species in nearby Chile and Argentina are protected from commercial fishing by no-fishing zones and are increasing in population. Peer-reviewed scientific publications stating this are: 1. (Bingham, M. (2002) The decline of Falkland Islands penguins in the presence of a commercial fishing industry. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 75: 805-818.) 2. (Bingham, M and Herrmann, T (2008) Magellanic Penguin Monitoring Results for Magdalena Island 2000-08. Anales Instituto Patagonia (Chile) 36(2): 19-32.) 3. (Luna G, Hennicke J, Wallace R, Simeone A, Wolfaardt A, Whittington P, Ellis S and McGovern M (2002) Spheniscus Penguin Conservation Workshop Final Report, IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, USA. 83pp. 4. Patterson KR (1987) Fishy events in the Falkland Islands. New Scientist 1562: 44-48. 5. Putz K, Ingham RJ, Smith JG & Croxhall JP (2001) Population trends, breeding success and diet composition of gentoo, magellanic and rockhopper penguins in the Falkland Islands. Polar Biology 24: 793-807. Please can you add this population data. Pinguin Man (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Pinguin Man (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Rejected Mr Bingham, you need to declare your WP:COI in promoting exposure of your research. [29] Which also appears to be significantly out of date, since the population has recovered and now is at levels last seen in 1933. WCM_email 10:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2015

they are called islas malvinas and they were stolded by british goberment on 1982 now they are occupying the islands so please change on the introduction this part thanks "Britain reasserted its rule in 1833, although Argentina maintains its claim to the islands. In April 1982, Argentine forces temporarily occupied the islands. British administration was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War." dont lied anymore

181.169.140.118 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear exactly what changes you want to be made, but I think it is clear that there is unlikely to be consensus for an edit as described. Please propose specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and attain consensus for them before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Kahastok talk 19:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"Approximately at" vs "at about"

While it's only a small point, I really do think that "approximately at" is rather clumsy wording. It would be better expressed as "at about" or "at approximately" if you go for the longer word. What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Mmm, no, your proposed wording is even clumsier. WCM_email 16:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Rreally? Since when were three syllables deemed clumsier than six? You've got to be joking! Let's hear from other editors. Michael Glass (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Err yeah, it does read a lot better Michael, writing interesting prose has never been a strong point of yours. Pity you couldn't just allow other people to comment without having a pop at other editors either. WCM_email 16:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"writing interesting prose has never been a strong point of yours. Pity you couldn't just allow other people to comment without having a pop at other editors either." Just a bit of irony there, in that juxtaposition. Making fun of other editors' prose is unlikely to be constructive.

I'd say there typically isn't much difference between "about" and "approximately", except that the former sounds more normal in spoken English. I'd lean towards using expressions that sound less stilted and clumsy, as a rule, but in this case "are situated approximately at latitude..." seems acceptable to me.

On the other hand, MOSNUM does say one thing which might be relevant here: "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way, unless the reader might otherwise be misled." Since you'd normally assume such a range of coordinates to be approximate, we might more simply phrase it as "are situated at ..." Archon 2488 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Would "nearly" do? Jonathunder (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attack. It's offensive and unnecessary. Michael Glass (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Is your intervention necessary Michael? You can hardly be surprised, given quite how extreme your history of disruption of this topic area is, that regulars here might not welcome you with open arms.

Putting "at about" here is clumsier than "approximately at", because it doesn't work with the words that follow. The fact that the latter is more syllables does not make it automatically clumsier regardless of context. Kahastok talk 19:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a personal attack Mr Glass [30]. It has to be said that Mr Glass has a great talent for writing content that is dull and uninteresting. That is intended as constructive feedback. Another bit of constructive feedback, making personal attacks and acting all hurt when you get a robust response is typical behaviour that is disruptive and has inflamed many discussions. Please stop it. WCM_email 20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

WCM: I don't take kindly to offensive language.Nor do I take kindly to obvious misrepresentations. Michael Glass (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:MarshalN20, User:Wee Curry Monster and many other editors for their effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know Jarodalien and congratulations on the FA. WCM_email 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Jarodalien! This article is the result of a beautiful collaboration between opposing perspectives. I'm glad that you have been able to translate it! Translating is a difficult (and separate) task in and of itself, so make sure to give yourself strong credit as translator of the article in Chinese!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016

Malvinas/Falkland Islands are under the status of "Non Autonomous Disputed Territory" according UN resolution 2065. Links: http://www.un.org/es/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml - http://www.dipublico.org/5886/resolucion-2065-xx-de-la-asamblea-general-de-las-naciones-unidas-cuestion-de-las-islas-malvinas-falkland-islands/ Please, make this clear. 61.186.153.105 (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

2065 is included in the article and "Non Autonomous Disputed Territory" is not a suitable moniker. UN refers to Falklands as a "None Self-Governing Territory", a designation reflecting the fact they were named as a colony by the UK in 1947 not because of 2065. In addition, the article already includes a section on the sovereignty dispute. As the request is based on incorrect information and no actual edit is suggested this request will not be actioned. WCM_email 12:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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