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.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
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)
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Geography.

Sovereignty Referendum in the Introduction[edit]

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

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

As I pointed out in the restoration of Rob's edit, the Falklander attitude is worth including in the lede indeed; it is not just the referendum but goes well into the past, and that is not disputed so there is no NPOV issue here. Best, Apcbg (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
What "past" is this that we are evoking? Albeit inconsistent, Argentina has certainly disputed the opinions of the Falklanders and their role in sovereignty discussions. The UK has also not until recently exhibited consistent care for the Falklanders' opinions. Let's not even bring up what "the vast majority" of the rest of the world thinks about this matter (unless I recall wrongly, I think the opinion was unfavorable to the Falklanders). Hence, the sentence being discussed ([1]) is not necessary in the introduction. It also does not hold equal weight with the brief history presented in the paragraph it is being attached to. Please reconsider your decision.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It is correct that Argentina regards the view the Falklanders' as irreverent. So by not mentioning it at all in the introduction, how is that NPOV? That is precisely in accordance with the Argentine POV. Whether the UK cares or not is irrelevant (the British public certainly do, but anyway...). What the vast majority of the rest of the world thinks is also irrelevant. The point is solely about the islanders. And the question is to the relevance of the islanders' view on the sovereignty dispute over the islands. In my opinion, it is paramount as it is a major factor giving legitimacy to the UK's claim. Rob984 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the first comment, the information already appears in the body of the article in a highly visible place in the section focused on the Sovereignty Dispute. It is not being hidden in any way. All opinions are made clear on the matter, including the statement made by former PM Gordon Brown. That is the point of NPOV, equal weight placed on all statements.
As it stands, the sentence being inserted into the introduction lacks balance. I can add it, and I will, but ultimately it only ends up in a circular logic of "he said-she said". There's no need to have any of it in the introduction. This article is not about the sovereignty dispute.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here's the balanced statement in the introduction ([2]). I prefer it to an RfC, but I consider that ideally the sentence should not be in there as this article is not about the sovereignty dispute. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether the original edit belonged in the lede, I have my doubts, which I expressed by removing the edit. The Falklands are IMHO more than just the Argentine sovereignty claim, hence why I would prefer the detail to remain in its own subsection. However, I have less of an issue with Rob's abbreviated reference to the desire of the islanders to remain a BOT, its of a level of detail appropriate for the lede.
I have to be blunt Marshall that I consider your recent edit to be WP:POINT. If you feel there is need for more balance, we express it in a neutral manner and do not lend Wikipedia's voice to Argentine opinion. You have allowed yourself to add details of the Argentine claim in the wikipedia voice, which I consider inappropriate. I fear your edit was done as a kneejerk reaction to editors disagreeing with you.
As I am subject to a voluntary restriction I cannot take any action but do request that editors stop this and as a gesture of good faith people revert back to the edit before this started. This is what I would be doing otherwise. WCMemail 00:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi WCM. I understand what you mean and I apologize if it was too bold a move from my part. That said, I do not see the details of Argentina's position as being in the encyclopedia's voice (I made sure to start it with "Argentina considers"). If they are, it was not my intention and improvements are always welcome.
I fear that stirring this pot too much might have unintentional consequences, so I agree with WCM that reverting this to the version last edited by him ([3]) is the best option. To quote WCM, "The Falklands are IMHO more than just the Argentine sovereignty claim."
The user who first added this sentence (User:Cynulliad) seems to have just been a passing WikiGnome. Their opinion is welcome too if they want to explain the reason for their edit.
Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The sovereignty dispute is important. It has profound implications on international relations, the internal politics of the islands, and the islanders' lives. Both claims are based on history, which is explained earlier in the paragraph. Another equally important factor in my opinion is the view of the inhabitants. We could also even mention the proximity to Argentina which I think is another key factor? Only one short paragraph covers the sovereignty dispute, so I don't think we are giving the issue too much weight by adding a sentence or two. Rob984 (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I should be clear, I accept if we cannot establish consensus then reverting to the prior revision will be necessary. Rob984 (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd just like to make the observation that this discussion is not an NPOV issue, but a straight out content dispute. The addition to the lede about the referendum is supported - and sourced and balanced by the Argentinian rejection - in the rest of the article. The lede is to summarise the article, and you cannot shout NPOV when you're doing exactly that in an almost word-for-word paraphrase. Given that the vote went 99.8% in favour of retaining English rule, such a huge majority (regardless of Argentinian recognition) makes it a worthy addition to the lede to show the inhabitants stance. I am not only in favour of the insertion, but think that it ought to mention the "99.8%" rather than the more vague and woolly "vast majority" Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Also, Apcbg, Rob's improvement to the added text established a position in favor of maintaining the balanced sentence. WCM and I would prefer for it to be removed, but I also am not against the sentence as long as it presents a balanced perspective. Therefore, it would be best to avoid reverting to a sentence that was neither the original text nor hold any support ([4]). Regardless, I honestly do not understand what is going on that is making this sovereignty dispute matter again flare up; maybe I need to catch up on recent events. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


Slow rural broadband whilst on holiday means its very slow to pull the links off. There has been wildly inaccurate reporting all weekend on the UNCLOS story. The CLSC commission has awarded Argentina an extension on its continental shelf only in those areas that are undisputed. It has not as widely reported given Argentina control around the Falkland Islands. Documents from the hearing is here, you will note that the commission specifically excludes the area around the Falkland Islands as that is subject to a sovereignty dispute. In addition, UNCLOS has no bearing on sovereignty. Please don't add inaccurate material to the article. Even the Argentine Government announcement hasn't claimed this [5]. WCMemail 10:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Please Clarify or Remove Parenthetical Remark under "Sovereignty Dispute"[edit]

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

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

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

I suggest the following correction:

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

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

Wrong information.[edit]

In the introduction is stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The facts are clear:

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

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

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

Just to clarify, I do not approve of the side-comments made about information in the article being a lie. As WCM indicates, WP:AGF is an important element of participating in Wikipedia; comments on neutrality should be made at the appropriate noticeboard (WP:NPOVN).
The reason behind my edit was mainly to fix the dead link. In the process, I read two of the suggestions made on the talk page and addressed both ([8]).
I also considered the addition of the self-identification of the inhabitants as an improvement.--MarshalN20 Talk 03:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, there is an elephant in the room. In Argentina, the Malvinista seek to find a means of justifying to themselves that the people living in the islands don't count. One of the means they do this is to claim that the people don't exist as they're "imported".
So taking the figures above. 17 people living at Mount Pleasant of which 18%, or in reality to put into context 3 people, have lived in the islands more than 10 years. So taking the figures from the census of the people who actually live in the islands long term the statement is perfectly valid, if we wish to define "predominant" as percentage of the total population but including 3 people on contract at MP can distort the figure. Quoting Darrel Huff from How to lie with statistics the proposal is a classic example of abusing statistics to distort reality.
However, if you wish to play with statistics objectively to promote a neutral edit, if you look at demographic groups by far the largest group is the people who were native born, so the statement they are primarily native born is accurate and supported by the cite. Similarly the census indicates that the majority of the islanders identify themselves as native. Further if you read the census, immigration/emigration is slowing and the permanent population is stable. However you want to look at it, those looking at it neutrally would agree that the current edit is accurate and supported by a cite, those wishing to argue the opposite do so on the base of distorting the statistics to favour their POV. WCMemail 07:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
This is not a forum, so if you want to write an essay about those you call malvinistas, please use a blog or other forums outside wikipedia. Comments containing unnecessary ethnic or national references concerning editors are inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette.
Now, back to the matter at hand, the cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article and clearly this is not the case. Census data is crystal clear: 53.5% of the stable population was born in the islands, that's half of the population. The main point is that you are doing original research, speculation and projections of population progress.
Can you provide a citation to support your claim "The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012) primarily consists of native-born Falkland Islanders" with those exact words?. --· Favalli ⟡ 01:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
53.5% is a majority (i.e., more than half).--MarshalN20 Talk 02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Cited source does support the edit, your comment acknowledges it supports the edit, the largest group on the islands is native born Falkland Islanders. Your edits were disruptive and were done to make a WP:POINT. As such you've been reverted. If you self-identify with malvinistas thats your problem, my comment was factual not about any individual editors. WCMemail 06:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

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

Pope Francis[edit]

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