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.


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 190.194.210.210 (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The facts are clear:

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

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

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

Just to clarify, I do not approve of the side-comments made about information in the article being a lie. As WCM indicates, WP:AGF is an important element of participating in Wikipedia; comments on neutrality should be made at the appropriate noticeboard (WP:NPOVN).
The reason behind my edit was mainly to fix the dead link. In the process, I read two of the suggestions made on the talk page and addressed both ([1]).
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)

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)

Falkland etymology[edit]

I'm trying to correct the etymology of the place 'Falkland',[2] which is erroneous and based on folk etymology, and I used the most up-to-date academic work on Fife place-names as a reference to verify the information, the relevant volume in Simon Taylor's Place-Names of Fife; despite this, user:MarshalN20 has some unknown issue with it and is reverting without specifying any issues with the edit. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Comments on the article[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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