Talk:Falkland Islanders/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

My 2c worth, I wouldn't merge the two articles. I can see them developing further, for instance the origins article currently misses certain waves of immigration. Justin talk 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's standard practice to have long articles on each ethnic group, and the origins article includes stuff which should be in the main article. As for me, I am sceptical as to whether the Falklanders constitute an ethnic group or not. For a start, they consider themselves "British" above all else (English maybe as well - not sure about that), with the Falkland aspect being more regional than ethnic. A huge proportion of the islands' residents are not native born, and that increases when you go back one or two generations. Couple this with high OUTmigration, and you end up with a tiny permanent population. --MacRusgail 11:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. A substantial proportion of the population is of recent immigration but this reflects the booming economy of the islands. With full employment, immigration has been necessary to sustain economic growth. The proportion of recent immigrants reflects the recent history not the lack of a permanent population. Justin talk 12:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum. They consider themselves British most definitely not English. Justin talk 15:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In some parts of the world, the two are near synonyms. However there does seem to be some political docility, as far as I can tell, due to the low population, and quasi-feudal social structure (similar to some parts of Scotland!). --MacRusgail 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree, the assumption of British = English is generally laziness. Some English do it and that annoys the Welsh and Scots. Justin talk 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, Scots, and Welsh, are increasingly realising that contemporary "Britishness" has essentially been an expansion of Englishness. Good riddance too. It's good to see them grow out of it, but the position of England itself is a confused one.

By the way, can we really say there was no consensus to merge/not to, when there's only two of us discussing it? The tag should have been left up for longer, as they normally are. --MacRusgail 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You put a merge discussion on a page that was less than a week old, it was up for three weeks and if you read my comments I'd suggested allowing the article to develop first. Pardon me but Britishness is not simply an extension of Englishness, never has been, never will be. The fact that foreigners can't tell the difference is neither here nor there. BTW I am actually Scottish, I also have Welsh, Irish, English and French blood in me, but I am also most definitely British. Justin talk 20:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As a Scotsman, I can assure you that it nearly always is - that is why the Queen is always referred to by her English title, and numeral, why the only language the Brits use everywhere is English, and why the capital is the English capital. I am Scottish not British, and have no wish to be. The main aim of Britishness was to assure the Scots that they would have an equal role in the English empire when they were annexed. The Welsh took to it too, because they conflated the ancient meaning of "British" with the modern one. I too am a mix of various different peoples... but that's by the by, I'm not French, English, Irish or Norwegian (although my Norwegian ancestry would be probably a thousand years back). Britishness is going the way of all the other bogus identities like Sovietness (expansionist Russian-ness) etc. Good riddance. It's never been an ethnicity. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Accent? Dialect?

I wonder if it would be possible to touch upon the accent or dialect of the Falkland Islanders without getting too deeply into detail involved dense linguistic jargon. Are there many words used in the Falklands not used commonly by other English-speakers, or used with a different meaning or connotation? Are there many loanwords from Spanish?

If a Falklander were in another English-speaking country, would people be able to identify his origins by his accent? Would he sound more like someone from Wales? from Scotland? from Cornwall? from north England? from London? from NZ? Surely, after however long in isolation the islanders must have developed a different accent, just like people's accents differ across every other English-speaking country, and across regions within countries.

I would be most interested to learn more about this, and so would our hypothetical average reader. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nationality, see CIA factbook section

The page says that the nationality of the Islanders is "Falkland islander", but that is incorrect, it's their Demonym. As per the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, they're British citizens. Since it's a British overseas territory, British law is correct in any contest regarding the Falkland islands with CIA factbook. I propse the removal of nationality section. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 11:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, being British is a duality of identity. I'm Scottish but also British, they are Falkland Islanders (or Falklanders) and British. The article is correct. Apologies for the vandalism warning, I see now it was a good faith edit albeit incorrect. Justin talk 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I draw reference from [1] which says "1 the status of belonging to a particular nation", and the page Nationality which says "By custom, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are. Such determinations are part of nationality law.", and as far as I see, there is no Falkland law on Nationality. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 14:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your OED quote has it pretty closely. But per the OED again [2], a "nation" is a large body of people united by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory. This is clearly distinct from an independent sovereign state: peoples such as the Basques, the Navajo, or the Kurds can be - and are - regarded as nations even though they do not have their own states and their nationality may not be defined by any nationality law.

Your Wikipedia quote ignores the section that says Alternatively, nationality can refer to membership in a nations (collective of people sharing a national identity, usually based on ethnic and cultural ties and self-determination) even if that nation has no state - recognising this fact.

A given nationality is thus not necessarily definitively tied to an independent sovereign state, and as such I see little need to deviate from the CIA World Factbook in this matter. Pfainuk talk 17:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

British Overseas Territory "editing war"

I have already set my position concerning the "British Overseas Territory" characterization as not neutral in my first edit. The 3RR does not apply as I have not reverted the article: Firstly I proposed to erase that characterization, then I added the "de facto" label before the aforementioned, and in the last case I deleted the characterization again as no explanation was made by the user who indeed performed a third revert (without any explanatory comment).

Anyway, the term "Falkland Islander" may be applied even if the territory under dispute is transferred to Argentine jurisdiction, so the kelpers are not "the people of the British overseas territory of the Falkland Islands", but "the people of the Falkland Islands". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utyman (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean "Not Neutral to me and my fellow Argentine neo-imperialist chums". Also, quack quack. --85.210.98.30 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand this article is not open to serious debate. It's monopolized by British ruled Falklands supporters, and not even a slightly divergence from their opinion would be tolerated. It's not the wikipedia way. I daresay it is not even the British way. It's sad but I think I can live with it. Have a nice day 186.22.58.137 (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is the Spanish term given?

Is there a valid reason (Wiki policy, for example) why is the Argentinian view of what the inhabitants should be known as is included, and why is it portrayed as being Spanish when the Spanish translation would be something like "Los isleños de las Falkland"? FactController (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not getting you point. Can you explain with examples from the article how the Argentinian view of what the inhabitants should be known as is included, and why is it portrayed as being Spanish when the Spanish translation would be something like "Los isleños de las Falkland"?

Your last point is wrong acording to the RAE malvineros an acepted (if not the predominant) Spanish name for the islanders. Los isleños de las Falkland is no more than your own invention. Chiton (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am asking: a) if there is a Wiki policy reason (or any other reason) why the designation for Falklanders favoured by the Argentinians is given such prominence and legitimacy, and b) why it is portrayed as the Spanish phrase for "Falkland Islanders". The Spanish I gave is the literal translation of "Falkland Islanders" and if you do a Google search on it, you'll see that it is used in Spanish publications which are not pushing the Argentinian line. FactController (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

See also the discussion at talk:Falkland Islands (which should be here really, my fault). — JonC^ॐ 08:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No answer apparently. An editor restored it, mentioning "MOS" (presumably meaning WP:MOS) but I can't see which part there could be constued to require the Argentian preferred "Spanish" term. So I have removed it again. FactController (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"No answer"? As it has been told, the discussion took place somewhere else. If you checked the link to that discussion, you would see that the link is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands Cambalachero (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you remember the title of the discussion that "took place somewhere else" (or give a link) so we can see the reasoning? It isn't too helpful to discuss and decide one article content in another, as future editors won't necessarily know about it. We need, at least, a summary of it, and a link to it, here. I'll have a search too. FactController (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands/Archive_18 here. I don't agree with the MOS either, for what it's worth. — Jon C.^ॐ 11:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And what we see there is that, although this article was mentioned, there was a clear overall view that the cited guidelines (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands) did not apply to this article (with just 2 dissenters), with this not being a geographical article or one directly related to the dispute. FactController (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, when I pointed the guideline, there were 3 supports to keep (me, MarshalN20 and Wee Curry Monster) and only 1 dissent (Apcbg). And yes, the scope of the guideline is detailed in it and mentioned in the discussion: it applies to any article related to the dispute, and the people is related to it, it's the core of the British claim. Cambalachero (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I make it 5:2, possibly 6:2 against, from the here discussion there + me here. We need to discuss it again here then, and get a feel for the consensus here. FactController (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am against the Argentinian Spanish term being used in this article, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands, as this article is neither geographical nor directly related to the dispute. FactController (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There's hardly a need to seek a "new" consensus if the previous one is just one month old. In fact, you began the discussion here and it was moved there, right, but you were informed back then, so don't try to make a point on where was it discussed. As for the numbers, the answers "I don't know why it's here" given before I pointed the guideline do not count. Cambalachero (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If, as you say, the previous "consensus" was established elsewhere, and before the guidelines were made known to everyone, then, of course, we do need a new discussion, on this talkpage, and the chance to arrive at a current consensus based on that new information. FactController (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In that discussion they made a question (where's the guideline?), I replied, and a single user opposed after the guideline was pointed. It seems clear that, for the others, the guideline was clear and the topic did not warrant any further discussion, so they drop it. The answer did not came a month later. Cambalachero (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

To put forward some (but not or all) arguments for inclusions the Spanish names of the Falkland Islanders are 1) relevant from a historical point of view 2) Relevant in regards to the current Spanish-speaking minorities living there 3) relevant in regards to the important connections the islands have to the mainlad.

Omition of the term is omition to the current non-anglo elements (and history) of the Falkland Islanders. —Chiton (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed elsewhere, but should have been discussed here. This article is outside the scope of that guideline, so, even if the Argentinian term is deemed necessary from a historical perspective, as Chiton magnificus is suggesting, it should be described in an appropriate section lower down in the prose, and not given undue weight, as it currently is, right at the start of the lead. FactController (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The guideline says it very clear: "Articles that directly relate to the dispute", not only geographic articles. And if you are so worried that the discussion took place elsewhere, we can easily cut and paste it here for what it's worth. The important thing about a discussion is what the users said, not the venue where they did it, so don't try to wikilawyer the discussion on that meaningless detail. Cambalachero (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What argument is being advanced for its removal? For there to be a discussion there has to be an argument advanced for its removal. Spanish is a regulated language and Islas Malvinas is the official translation, Islas Falkland has minority use in Chile but there is no such phrase as "Los isleños de las Falkland". Per MOS there is a clear guideline to include the Spanish translation. Unless you come up with a compelling reason, I oppose its removal. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The argument for its removal from the start of lead is that it should not be there. There is no problem with it being placed, in context, further down the article, but it is not significant enough to be put in the lead, especially not in prime position. Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands, and you will see that putting it at the start is only recommended for geographical articles or articles directly related to the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, and this is neither of those, it is about the people of the Falklands/Malvinas. Those people are commonly referred to as "Los isleños de las Falkland" in Spanish-language publications which are not pushing the official Argentinian position on the islands. FactController (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. As I pointed in the previous discussion, the islanders's right to self determination (in short, their nationality) is the core of the British claim in the islands, and the majority of the British claims involve the islanders and their desires. So, they are part of the dispute. In fact, this very article has a bit of it at the "Nationality" section. To say that they are not part of the dispute is basically to say that they just don't care if the islands are part of Argentina or Britain, the dispute would be somebody else's problem and either government would be fine for them (which I really doubt is the case) Cambalachero (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the islanders, but not their right to self determination or their part in the dispute. So with the article not being directly related to the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, the advice given in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands clearly does not apply here. But with no other support for what seems clear and obvious to me, I won't be arguing it any further, for now. I am however, still interested to know why it is the Argentinian preferred term, rather than the literal Spanish translation, as used in non-Argentinian-leaning Spanish language publications, that has been inserted. FactController (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I for one agree with FactController, that's been my point made at talk:Falkland Islands too. The indiscriminate 'Malvinization' of all Falklands-related Wikipedia articles has gone too far, I reckon. Apcbg (talk)

See Wikipedia:Content forking. The existence of the dispute must be acknowledged at all the articles related to it. The only difference is the level of detail, but the NPOV can nor be evaded simply because the topic is dealt with somewhere else. Of course, the dispute does not apply to all the articles related to the Malvinas, articles about the climate or the wild life are beyond the scope and can stay without the clarification. Cambalachero (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Citing one of the five pillars? And the lede of each Falklands-related Wiki article should start with a brief summary of the Argentine claim. This is becoming more and more ridiculous. Apcbg (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW it is a Spanish term not an Argentine term. Spanish is a regulated language. The naming convention clearly does apply here but that aside the attempt to portray this an an exclusively Argentine term is not helpful. The term in the article is the official Spanish translation. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In which English speaking countries is Spanish regulated? And if it is regulated, why do Spanish language publications use "Los isleños de las Falkland" as the Spanish for Falkland Islanders? And if Spanish language publications, such as Spain's El Mundo newspaper [3], can, and do, use one term, why do we have to use another? FactController (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Very funny, not. Being facetious is hardly condusive to reasonable discussion. The Real Academia Española is responsible for regulating the Spanish language. It has national chapters in nearly all of the Spanish-speaking countries of the world. Besides publishing a comprehensive dictionary and grammar book, it has a number of other official reference publicantions. Its paper editions are update in their website between publications. The RAE has published, and maintains updated in its website a "Diccionario panhispánico de dudas" (Panhispanic Doubts Reference Dictionary). The sole purpose of the authoritative dictionary is to provide authoritative answers on linguistic matters encountered by translators, interpreters, copy editors, and academics, and to provide clarity and resolution to linguistic controversy in the Spanish language. Yes you'll find references to Las Islas Falkland, including Argentine ones up to about 1937, but the official translation is Malvinas. And again this is a Spanish not an Argentine word. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Spanish language is regulated by the Real Academia Española, o RAE (which, I migth add, is located in Spain, not Argentina). Unlike English, which has no such institution, the RAE is the ultimate autorithy in Spanish language topics: if the RAE says something, then that's the way it is. In Spain, in Argentina, in Chile, in Uruguay, in the US; the country does not matter. The use of the term can be checked at here, the term in Spanish (in Argentina and everywhere) to denote the people from the islands is "Malvinense". You found a newspaper that used another term? That newspaper made a mistake and used an incorrect term. Cambalachero (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh, why should people in Argentina listen to an authority in Spain? Why not go ahead and make up their own rules for their dialect of Spanish? They're an independent country. So what if they want to spell a word differently or use "tu" or "usted" in a different manner? 198.151.130.41 (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Regions with significant populations"

Given that there are only 3,015 on the Islands, I find it hard to believe that there is a significant population of them elsewhere. I am going to remove those places where it is claimed there are significant populations of Falkland Islanders, and would request that they are not added without sources.5.28.101.56 (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

( United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Namibia were claimed to have significant populations of Falkland Islanders)5.28.101.56 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Related peoples

Just to clarify the origins and identity of the Falklanders, most consider themselves British, Falkland Islander or St.Helenian (all British citizens). There is no mention of any native Falklanders or permanent residents as identifying with Argentina whatsoever [4]:

"For the first time, the 2012 Census asked people to state their National Identity. This was included to ascertain the cultural group that people most closely identify with (and need not be related to the person’s place of birth or citizenship). The results show that 57% of residents consider their national identity to be ‘Falkland Islander’; 24.6% consider themselves British; 9.8% St. Helenian and 5.3% Chilean. There were only 89 respondents who described their national identity as “Other”. The full responses are listed in the appendices (see table 8ii)."

Much of the "other" population consists of temporary residents and those residing there on work permits: "Over a fifth of the population are residing in the Falkland Islands with a Work Permit(21%) and 4.3% of the population are Permanent Residence Permit (PRP) holders. The rest of the population consists of visitors, people exempt by reason of employment, dependents and temporary residence permit holders. Including the population at RAF Mount Pleasant Airbase, 47% of the overall population were born in the Falkland Islands, 28% born in the UK, 10% in St. Helena, 6% in Chile and 8% born elsewhere. If the figures are analysed excluding MPA the proportion of the population born in the Falkland Islands increases to over 53% and the proportion born in St. Helena reduces to less than 5%. The 8% of the population who were born elsewhere originated from 57 other countries, with the largest concentrations from Argentina (1.3% of the total population), Philippines (0.8%), Germany (0.6%), Russia (0.5%), New Zealand (0.4%) and Ascension Island (0.4%)." 173.238.79.44 (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Falkland Islanders. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.horizon.co.fk/bahai_falklands/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228061743/http://www.falklands.info/factfile/clubs.html to http://www.falklands.info/factfile/clubs.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nationality

The claim of Argentine nationality for the Falkland Islanders is not clear either way.

On the one hand, when people born on the Falkland Islands have asked, they have generally been given Argentine citizenship. This has happened no more than once or twice, and as a rule the president has been there to hand over the documents personally. On the other hand, the Argentine government has repeatedly dismissed the notion that Falkland Islanders might have any such rights - a major part of the premise of the sovereignty claim is that they do not - and has repeatedly denounces them as "squatters" and notably in 2013 stated that "[t]he Falklands islanders do not exist".

In this context it is clearly insufficient to source a statement such as "persons born on the Falkland Islands are also eligible for Argentinian citizenship" either to Wikipedia or to primary sources that do not even mention the islands. Kahastok talk 08:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Argentine nationality law declares anyone born on [what Argentina regards as being] Argentine territory as being an Argentine citizen from birth (Article 1 Argentine nationality law https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/ley_346_ley_de_ciudadania.pdf). Argentina regards the Falklands as their territory and human beings are indeed born on the Falkland Islands. Therefore, these people are, under Argentinian law, citizens ex iure soli. Whether such persons are freely able to exercise any rights that they may have as Argentine citizens doesn’t matter. The fact of the matter is, that such persons are, objectively speaking, Argentine nationals in the same way that Borris Johnson is a US national (in addition to being a UK national) due to his birth in New York. I recommend perhaps rewriting this section, perhaps observing first the principe of jus soli in Argentine law and then by rementioning the Argentine territorial claim. I can well understand that people from the Falkland Islands would not be too keen on being regarded as Argentinians, but to remove this is, in my opinion, a bad and a dishonest syllogism. Île flottante (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in that answer either provides evidence of your case. This primary source doesn't mention the Falklands either, so your conclusions are still OR.

You say "[w]hether such persons are freely able to exercise any rights that they may have as Argentine citizens doesn’t matter". They have no more rights "as Argentine citizens" than Boris Johnson does because the Argentine government does not regard or treat them as Argentine citizens. Kahastok talk 10:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I realise that not everybody has the benefit of a legal education, so I’ll briefly explain a few general points. Nationality laws do not, in principle, make direct references to the specific parts of the territorial claims to which they are applicable. Let’s consider the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment to the United States’ constitution (this is a very good example because of the simplicity of its wording, but the use of generalising language is common to most countries’ nationality laws) “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” No mention is made to, for example, New York as in Johnson’s case, but the use of ‘United States’ means the reader must understand the disposition as applying, for purposes of US law, to any place that the US claims is part of its territory. Likewise, Argentina has a formal and legal (formal in the sense that it is written, and legal in the sense that Argentina has passed a law to that effect) claim on the Falkland Islands. It follows therefore, that for the purposes of Argentine law, legal dispositions applicable to the entirety of Argentine territory are ipso facto applicable to the Falkland Islands. There are few examples, as you have noted, of people actually exercising these rights, but in the few examples documented, the individuals have been regarded as Argentine nationals. This last point, however, is not relevant as this section deals solely with the legal implications of Argentine nationality law with regards to the Falkland Islanders and not as how they identify (which is, of course, as UK nationals). I would strongly disagree with someone including Argentinian in the nationality section of the infobox, but I think discussing the nationality question in more depth inside the article’s main body is appropriate. So to summarise, the Argentinian nationality law doesn’t mention the Falkland Islands but it also doesn’t mention Buenos Aires; it doesn’t need to mention specific localities because it refers to any territories formally claimed by Argentina. Île flottante (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And none of that is relevant to this discussion because all of it is your original research. Kahastok talk 10:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I’m very sorry but there’s no way to put this less bluntly, but you either don’t understand what’s meant by original research or you’re purposefully using the term incorrectly. I made a standard syllogism: major, minor, conclusion. I didn’t add any new information, I just repeated the relevant legal disposition. Île flottante (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:PSTS is very clear: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself" (emphasis original).

You use the text of a law and apply it. The text of a law is a primary source. Your text takes the text of this source and applies it to a specific case, drawing an interpretation that is not present in the original primary source. That is textbook original research.

WP:NOR is crystal clear. You are not allowed to "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize" Argentine nationality law by applying it to the specific case of the Falkland Islands. The fact that the conclusion you draw is inaccurate (persons born in the Falkland Islands are not regarded by Argentina to be Argentine nationals) compounds the problem. Kahastok talk 10:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No I’m afraid again you’re misunderstanding this wikipolicy. I’ve not analysed anything, I’ve just copied it. This disposition is meant to stop people analysing complicated primary sources (in the historical sense, e.g. an written order given on a battlefield). The law makes direct reference to Argentine territory as claimed by Argentina. Moreover, where is a source arresting to your claim that Argentina de jure does not recognise the Argentine nationality of the Falkland Islanders? Anecdotal comments made in passing by officials are not sufficient; you’ll need to provide a court ruling or an administrative decision issued by a relevant Argentine government body. The way you’re trying to use these wiki policies violates the policy against wiki lawyering, is erroneous, and in bad faith. Île flottante (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If you've not analysed anything, just copied it, please cite the section of the law that explicitly mentions the Falkland Islands.

If you cannot do that - and I contend that such mention does not exist - then yes you have analysed the law and hence your text violates WP:NOR. Kahastok talk 11:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Kahastok is correct, your edit was based upon your own interpretation of Argentine nationality law, which you have then applied to a territory Argentine claims. This is clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN - the claim you assert is not in the source, you have interpreted what you think the source means applied to a theoretical example. Further to what Kahastok pointed out above, Argentine officials have described islanders variously as "illegal squatters", "usurpers", denied their existence or pointed to the British citizenship. So the claim made is not tenable by reliable secondary sources. WCM_email 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we just dismiss this as bad-faith editing and be done with the matter? It's clear by now that both sources and Wikipedia policy have disposed of the matter before it started. If this were a Robert's Rules meeting, I would have moved to call the question ages ago. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Nationality (November 2018)

Ile Flottante is absolutely correct here, there are copious Spanish language sources specifically stating that Falklanders have the right to Argentine citizenship, one of which I've linked, with the specific names of the 3 Falklanders who have taken up this offer. As a supporter of falklands self determination, I'd say to my comrades: let's not be divvies here.

--Boynamedsue (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you can't state definitively in wikipedia's voice that is the case. Whilst it is true certain individuals have achieved Argentine citizenship, and I can probably name them all, and the Argentine government will milk each case with great gusto. Nonetheless the Argentine government frequently denounces the population of the islands as illegal, usurpers etc; people entitled to citizenship are not illegal. So the situation is not as clear cut as you would imply.

Of the three examples you gave, let me pick one in particular Soledad Rende who had to fight for Argentine citizenship in the courts precisely because she was born in the Falklands.

The James Peck case is not clear as you implied. He applied for a residents DNI, since having a British passport gave him great difficulties navigating Argentine bureaucracy. Going through a difficult divorce not having a DNI made life difficult; its almost impossible to live in Argentina without one. Instead they insisted he have an ordinary DNI and used it for a propaganda stunt, whereas all he had wanted to do was be near his children - he did not wish to be an Argentine citizen.

Look at your sources:

• [5] is an editorial and hardly reliable for legal matters.
• Your second source [6] confirms exactly what I said above, it wasn't citizenship he was after but residency (yes I admit its badly written and mentions citizenship but that wasn't what he was after.

What you need is a definitive reliable source stating what you claim is the case, not synthesising an edit from a couple of dodgy sources. Yes, lets not be divvies eh? WCM_email 23:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm finding it hard to accept your good faith in this, you have just posted a lot of opinion and OR in answer to a good secondary source. Where is your source that states Argentina does not recognise people born in the islands as citizens of Argentina? Where are your examples of Falklanders refused citizenship? The Argentine courts, as demonstrated in the news article I linked, specifically declared that native born Falklanders must register for nationality in Tierra del Fuego, using their Falkland birth certificate. I quite agree that the Argentine government is unreasonable with the Falklanders and aggressive in their rhetoric, however, Argentine law is clear on the matter, and former Senator Menem declared as much, stating Falklanders di not need any document to travel to Argentina as they were Argentines.

I will repost with more sources.

--Boynamedsue (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)+

So you'll just repost without discussing it in talk first? Ever heard of WP:BRD?

As I've already pointed out, the two sources you originally provided were not suitable, one being an opinion piece, the other one confirming he didn't apply for citizenship but was stuck in a political limbo. To explain all the nuances of that case would end up becoming WP:UNDUE coverage in an article of this nature.

[7] This source from 1999, was part of Guido de Tella's charm offensive. Again its expressing an opinion not a legal judgement.

[8] Is simply a statement of Argentine law, this requires WP:OR to use to affirm the claim you're making.

As for sources [9],[10], [11], [12]. Government sources dismissing the fact that islanders even exist and asserting they are British citizens.

[13] And the Argentine Government describes the population as implanted.

So we have numerous official Argentine statements the islanders are British citizens not Argentine citizens, you have a few opinion pieces and are proposing to edit war a misleading statement into an article. As a wikipedian I find that outrageous.

If you're finding it hard to accept my good faith, that's because you're starting off with that presumption. You could start by self-reverting and discussing the matter reasonably. WCM_email 08:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The source you link does not state that Falkland born individuals do not have the right of Argentinian citizenship. It states that in the opinion of the former Argentine foreign secretary, current Falklanders are British citizens, which nobody disputes, living in Argentina, which many dispute. The text I have added says that Falklanders born on what is considered Argentine territory may acquire Argentine citizenship, and that this offer has been taken up on three occasions. This is a sourced claim, once again, please find a source which disagrees.

And please don't use wiki-lawyering to introduce your POV in the article in order to delete sourced material. The position of Argentina on the citizenship of the islanders is clearly relevant and noteworthy. If you can think of a more nuanced way of phrasing the valid information that Falkland born individuals can and do obtain Argentinian citizenship, please edit and I'll have a look and see if I agree, rather than engaging in obstructionism to avoid information appearing in the article.

Boynamedsue (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of wiki-lawyering or POV editing, I'll just conclude that's what you're doing and revert you. So far I've tried in good faith to discuss content with you and twice you have resorted to ad hominem accusations of wrong doing. Please stop - now. I've not reciprocated but I am getting irritated by it.

The source I pointed to makes it clear that the islanders are considered British citizens as the position of the Argentine Government and NOT Argentine citizens. The sources you've used express the opinion of individuals, they're not reliable sources for legal matters. And you're completely ignoring the fact the Argentine government asserts the islanders are illegal.

The point I'm making is that its not clear cut as you state. 2 individuals not 3 as you suggest. Soledad Rende was born of Argentine parents who had her in the islands as a political stunt - she is Argentine and it had nothing to do with being born in the Falklands. Alex Betts went to Argentina to follow his lover; he was given citizenship as a useful idiot for Argentine propaganda. James Peck didn't want Argentine citizenship, he was blackmailed into a political stunt by the Kirchner regime. It is wrong to simply state he "acquired" Argentine citizenship, when it was essentially a propaganda exercise.

You've taken three examples and an opinion piece to cobble together some original research, which I don't believe belongs in the article. WCM_email 12:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As you didn't have the courtesy to respond I've removed it. If I may point out, I don't believe this belongs in this article. As an example of two cases relevant to the sovereignty dispute it would be better placed in Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. I would be happy to discuss an edit there. WCM_email 20:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Nationality (June 2019)

Ok, this is a quote from the Argentine consulate in London stating that individuals born in the Falklands must apply for Argentine citizenship in Tierra del Fuego, as they are considered to be born in Argentine territory.

“[Person X] tramitó y obtuvo su DNI en el consulado en Londres porque nació en la Argentina y reside en Gales. Los trámites de documentación de la hija de su pareja, que habría nacido en Malvinas, están siendo realizados en la Argentina porque la chica nació y reside en territorio argentino donde el consulado en Londres no tiene competencia", señaló una fuente consular en la sede diplomática en Londres, que conduce el embajador Renato Carlos Sersale. Fuentes del Gobierno afirmaron que el caso de la niña lo sigue el Ministerio del Interior, pero que debería salir desde la provincia de Tierra del Fuego Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur, a la que le fue conferida la "hipotética" jurisdicción de Malvinas si el continente las administrara verdaderamente.

This is incontrovertible evidence that Falklanders have the right to apply for Argentine nationality, it will remain in the article as sourced content.

Boynamedsue (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That quote describes a single case and can't sensibly be used to make a case for a general situation. I don't see it as incontrovertable evidence of the point as you claim.

And I'd also add that being sourced is necessary but not sufficient - we have plenty of requirements above being sourced, otherwise every article could contain everything. Even if I accepted it as technically accurate, I find your text's failure to give any form of caveat or suggestion that this might be a controversial suggestion makes the current text POV, and I am removing it on this basis as it lacks consensus.

I do hope that "it will remain in the article as sourced content" is not intending to suggest that you will edit war, as opposed to applying WP:BRD and having a proper discussion on this talk page. Kahastok talk 20:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am somewhat depressed at the highly politicised editing of this page.

The links I added clearly state that two people born in the Falklands were "born in Argentina". There is copious sourced documentation in English and Spanish which states that Falkland-born individuals are considered Argentine citizens upon application, but it is simply rejected because certain pro-British users really don't want the information displayed.

I will include the quotes here:

Five years ago, Falklands-born artist James Peck began making discreet enquiries in Buenos Aires about taking out Argentinian citizenship. Argentina considers anyone born on the disputed islands as legally Argentinian, but no islander had requested citizenship since the country’s failed invasion in 1982.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/17/falklands-argentina-britain-james-peck-artist-citizenship

Por la ley argentina, los nacidos en las islas Malvinas son argentinos. Sin embargo, la Argentina no puede privarlos de la nacionalidad británica a aquellos que la ostentan.

https://www.infobae.com/politica/2018/03/22/un-academico-argentino-presento-ante-los-kelpers-una-propuesta-para-solucionar-el-conflicto-de-malvinas/

Cuando dice que la chica es argentina, es claramente una alusión a que toda persona nacida en las Malvinas tiene por ley el derecho a obtener su documento nacional de identidad. 

https://www.clarin.com/politica/kelper-quiso-dni-argentino-dice-malvinas-violaron-derechos-humanos_0_SJ3F9KmyM.html

El 17 de febrero de 1933, el subsecretario de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, Carlos A. Alcorta, dirigió una circular a todas las embajadas, legaciones y consulados argentinos, advirtiendo que las personas nacidas en las islas Malvinas eran “de nacionalidad argentina” y, por lo tanto, no podía visárseles el pasaporte británico sino que debía serles extendido un pasaporte argentino.

La Constitución Nacional establece que las islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur y los espacios marítimos e insulares correspondientes “son parte integrante del territorio nacional”. A la vez, las leyes sobre nacionalidad consideran argentinos a todos los que “nazcan en el territorio de la República”. Por lo tanto, para nuestra ley, los nativos de esas islas son argentinos.

El hecho de que ellos acepten la nacionalidad británica no altera su nacionalidad natural. En efecto, desde la sanción de la ley 23.059 (1984), los argentinos nativos no pierden su nacionalidad por el hecho de aceptar la de un Estado extranjero. La legislación vigente omite considerar la especial condición de aquellos que han nacido en una porción ilegalmente ocupada del territorio nacional, y que se consideran súbditos del poder ocupante.

http://www1.hcdn.gov.ar/folio-cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=1461893663&advquery=1640-S-03&infobase=dae.nfo&record={1DF9}&recordswithhits=on&softpage=Document42

 Hoy, si un nativo de las islas quisiera obtener documentación argentina, no tendría impedimento. Pero, de hecho, serían muy pocos los que harían uso de ese derecho.

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/opinion/en-malvinas-estan-agradecidos-a-galtieri-nid209081

"There are very few inhabitants of the Islas Malvinas who were born in the Islas Malvinas. But for us, they are Argentinian citizens," (Argentina's Foreign Minister) said.

https://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-02-06/falkland-islanders-are-argentine-citizens/

 Que yo sepa, los kelpers son argentinos.La frase del canciller tendría su ratificación algo más tarde en boca del presidente Carlos Menem, quien la repitió literalmente en la reunión de Gabinete. 

https://www.clarin.com/politica/sepa-kelpers-argentinos_0_Byzl0zTeAFe.html

Es la constitución argentina la que primero expresa que las Malvinas son argentinas, por lo tanto también lo son sus habitantes.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-RvmAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Natasha+Niebieskikwiat&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU9enzlPHiAhX8VBUIHUhRCNMQ6AEIPTAD#v=snippet&q=james%20peck&f=false

I mean there are hundreds of these, and we know of at least four cases of Falklanders requesting and receiving Argentine citizenship on this basis, Peck, Betts, X, and his step-daughter. It's time for the Falklands Islands Work Group to stop policing this article to remove anything at all that could possibly connect the Falklanders to Argentina and allow the completely uncontroversial fact that Argentina considers (Falkland-born) Falklanders to be Argentines and that they can receive that nationality upon request.

Boynamedsue (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so, let's simplify this into parts.

1. I consider the claim fully sourced now, Argentine law states Falkland-born individuals are Argentines. There are 10 quotes sustaining this above, there are none which dispute it except the OR posted by User:Wee Curry Monster. Do you dispute this, and if so on what grounds?

2. You say that the claim being true is not sufficient to add it to the article. Why do you believe it lacks relevance? For me, the fact that a population is entitled to a second nationality is clearly relevant to a "nationality" section.

3. You say that the article requires a "caveat" to show it is "controversial". I am not aware of any controversy on this topic, outside of this talk page. I have yet to be shown any source which states that Falklanders are not entitled to Argentinian nationality. What do you mean by this, and what type of caveat would you want to see?

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

May I suggest that this discussion might be easier with less invective and fewer personal attacks on your part? Believe it or not, not everyone is on Wikipedia every day. Sometimes patience is necessary.

When you made your edit, you relied on a source - quoted it even - that did not back up your edit. If you expected people to take other sources into account when deciding whether to support an edit, you needed to provide those other sources. Most editors haven't got the grips of basic, short distance telepathy yet. Expecting them to read your mind at an unknown distance is probably a non-starter. I haven't had a chance to have a look through your wall of text yet so I will need to reserve judgement on it.

You seem to wonder what other considerations might come to mind here. As well as accuracy, these would include the question of WP:WEIGHT and the question of WP:NPOV.

In terms of accuracy, previous notes about the Argentine government's dismissal of Falkland Islanders are relevant here, whether you like them or not.

In terms of WP:WEIGHT, your assertion that something "is clearly relevant" is inadequate without evidence. The question is thrown back to the sources - but this time, to sources about Falkland Islanders more generally. How much weight do they give to this point?

In terms of WP:NPOV, we do have to look at this in light of the sovereignty dispute (which is not otherwise mentioned on this page). This is not a parallel to Northern Ireland, where people routinely choose different citizenships depending on their different national identities. You can count the number of people born on the islands who have claimed Argentine citizenship on the fingers of one hand, and none of those people live on the islands. It seems to me that, even if we accepted that a mention was both accurate and met the standard of WP:WEIGHT, any text would need to at least acknowledge this. Kahastok talk 19:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I would humbly suggest the WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT are not relevant here, as they are meant to deal with views rather than fact.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

"Falklanders are Argentines" is a viewpoint. "Argentina's government considers all Falkands-born individuals to be Argentinians, and Falklanders may claim Argentine nationality on that basis" is not a viewpoint, it is a statement of fact supported by evidence unless there is a source stating the contrary. To me the complaints by WCM and yourself are actually preserving an existing POV by omission rather than stopping it from entering the article.

::In terms of accuracy, previous notes about the Argentine government's dismissal of Falkland Islanders are relevant here, whether you like them or not.

They are the very definition of a point of view. "The Argentine government speaks in hostile way towards the Falklanders" is an opinion, it is one I share, but still an opinion. "James Peck only wanted residency" is an opinion. "Only a small number of of Falklanders have accepted this offer" is perhaps relevant, but still an opinion. If you look at the edit history I actually included this in an earlier edit which was reverted. However, I would argue that a minimum of 4 is not actually insignificant when we talk about an ethnic group (Falklands-born people) whose population is 1371 in the Falklands (census 2016) and, if we exclude the children of military/diplomatic personnel as we should, is probably less than 300 elsewhere.

Please get back to me when you have waded through the wall of text which I provided, apologies for that. If you find it difficult to read I will try to resend by telepathy.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

TBH I nearly stopped reading at the comment, "I am somewhat depressed at the highly politicised editing of this page." But I didn't, I kept on ploughing through. I agree with Kahastok, the discussion would be easier with less invective and personal attacks. But the clincher for me was when I saw you stated "The Argentine government speaks in hostile way towards the Falklanders" is an opinion, it is one I share, but still an opinion." Emphasis added So for all your protestations about NPOV you are clearly editing a POV by your own admission.

Several things you claim to be opinion eg "James Peck only wanted residency" are facts not opinions. This is a matter of public record. What you claim to be fact is a disparate collection of opinions.

For every newspaper quote you can find saying islanders are eligible for Argentine citizenship, I can find you 10 saying the opposite - ie that they're illegal squatters etc. So you can't say in Wikipedia's voice that the islanders are also Argentine citizens. The problem I see here is a determination to impose a POV based edit. I would oppose wikipedia being used as a platform to prosletise your biased opinion. WCM_email 07:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, especially the interesting implication that wikipedia editors must have no point of view at all on any issue in order to apply NPOV, even when they are arguing that their own point of view should not be included in the article. But, not a forum etc. so I'll address your single substantive point related to the content of the article.

For every newspaper quote you can find saying islanders are eligible for Argentine citizenship, I can find you 10 saying the opposite - ie that they're illegal squatters etc.

A source stating the opinion that the Falklanders are illegal squatters does not contradict the proposition that Falkland-born individuals can become Argentine citizens. You might infer that, but that would be WP:OR. To contradict that proposition it would have to say "Falkland-born Islanders can not become Argentine citizens" or some variant thereof. However, even your OR in this case is incorrect. Argentine law is very clear that anybody born on Argentine soil, whether they are there legally or not, can become an Argentine citizen, with the exception of the children of diplomats. The law is both clear and consistently applied in the case of Falkland-born people.

Now it may be that I am wrong, and there is some quote which explicitly says native-born islanders are not Argentine citizens, and if so that could probably be added to the article as context. But NPOV would require it to be less prominent than the majority opinion which is that Falklanders can claim Argentine nationality.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to argue semantics. If an Argentine official states that Islanders are illegal squatters, then it is clear that official in his capacity does not consider them to be citizens; that is not OR. What is OR is to describe Argentine nationality law, state that the Falklands are considered Argentine territory and then synthesise the two into the POV edit you are trying to force into the article. That Argentina has also sought for propaganda purposes to impose citizenship on James Peck is not sufficient evidence to state in wikipedia's voice your personal opinion. If the law was so clear and consistent you would have no problem in finding a neutral academic source to say as I pointed out months ago. The fact you don't produce one speaks volumes. Now I am rapidly tiring of your constant circular argument. WCM_email 11:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

To add re: the claim "I would humbly suggest the WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT are not relevant here, as they are meant to deal with views rather than fact.". This is not correct. There is no loophole in WP:NPOV that allows you to bias an article by unbalancing the WP:WEIGHT given to different facts compared with the reliable sources. Kahastok talk 21:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You'll be unsurprised to hear I disagree with your interpretations here, but in order to progress this matter, I'd like to suggest a change to the way we are discussing this. It seems there are two principal disagreements, first is the statement "Argentine law allows Falkland-born individuals nationality on application" factual and supported by reliable sources, and secondly, if this is factually correct, is including this information introducing a POV into the article by giving undue weight to a minor fact, or, conversely, is excluding it prioritising a British or Islander POV?

Would you two be amenable to me starting two separate discussions, one for each substantive issue, which begin with a brief neutral summary of the positions argued at length above, and which allow us and others to focus more clearly on the concrete points of disagreement? Obviously, if you feel the summaries I write to be non-neutral they can be edited collaboratively to ensure the starting point is satisfactory to all? Boynamedsue (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No I'm not surprised. No I'm not amenable to your dictating the manner of discussion.

Simple question that deals with your first discussion. Do you have a single neutral academic source? A yes/no answer is appropriate. If you find yourself tempting to quibble and argue, then the answer is no.

If the answer is no, all you have is a disparate collection of opinions where people have conflated Argentine law and it's sovereignty claim to synthesise an answer. So all you wish to do is repeat their synthesis as it agrees with your own. WP:OR and WP:SYN so it doesn't belong in the article.

The elephant in the room you refuse to acknowledge, is the numerous Argentine sources asserting the people are there illegally. You could also start a discussion why you're ignoring it, bearing in mind confirmation bias. WCM_email 10:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I have provided 10 valid sources that state Argentine citizenship is available to Falkland islanders. Myself and others have linked examples of citizenship being granted to Islanders. You have failed to provide a single source that contradicts this, you simply state "Some senior Argentines have stated that the Falklanders are in the Islands illegally". To extrapolate from "are there illegally" to "can not claim Argentine citizenship" is a textbook case of WP:OR. I find it hard to understand your inability to see this. You can not use OR either to source claims or keep sourced claims out of an article.

Re my suggestion to keep the discussion on track, I will await Kahastok's response and see how to progress from there.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No you haven't, I have asked you multiple times for a neutral academic source to support your edit. You can't supply one and instead waffle on about some quotes from opinion pieces in a number of newspaper articles. An opinion piece is not a reliable source for a fact, it is only a reliable source for the author's opinion. I find it hard to understand your inability to see this.

You can't use your own WP:OR and WP:SYN to source an edit, using opinion pieces as a cite. I find it hard to understand your inability to see this.

Equally I have provided sources and instead you find excuses to dismiss them. You still can't address comments from Argentine officials that the people are there illegally. I find it hard to understand your inability to see this.

To be honest, parroting your own words, you're behaving like a divvie. WCM_email 18:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you probably need to calm down here. I am seriously concerned about the lack of NPOV in this article. I have linked 10 sources, all of them come from sources which are considered verifiable according to wikipedia's policy. I will quote you the policy.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:University-level textbooks,Books published by respected publishing houses,Magazines,Journals, Mainstream newspapers

I do not need to provide an Academic source, the sources I have linked are all covered by the above paragraph. I have not at any point used OR, I have simply quoted verifiable sources acceptable to wikipedia such as News articles from the Guardian, The Clarin and La Nacion, information from The Argentine Government (primary source defining its own position) and other respected publishers or publications. You have not got a leg to stand on here, unless you can source your claims. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The person who needs to calm down is the person spamming this talk page with their own opinion. Actually you seem to have a serious problem in your inability to separate fact from opinion. You're only partially quoting policy WP:NEWSBLOG for example which I've repeatedly pointed out to you indicates that you can only attribute those sources as the opinion of the writer. Equally you quote one aspect of a source, eg the Argentine embassy, then myopically ignore the fact that with the next breath the same source is dismissing islanders as illegal squatters. Justifying your tortured leaps of logic to yourself by accusing everyone else of OR and SYN. And you have used WP:OR, you've conflated Argentine nationality law and sovereignty claims to synthesise an edit, then looked for sources to support it. All you'll get from that effort is confirmation bias. The only person without a leg to stand on is you.

You have the onus of proof completely arse about face, the onus is on you to prove your extraordinary claim with a neutral academic source. The huge elephant in the room is that if your proposed edit is such a mainstream opinion, you'd have no problem in producing a neutral academic source. Yet having been challenged to do so, your reply is to pretend you don't need to do so. After trying to reasonably discuss this matter with you I am rapidly tiring of your POV accusations. I am reminded of WP:OWB rule 1, When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good.

What wikipedia requires is to consider the range of opinions in the neutral academic literature and to report the mainstream opinions. This doesn't mean, as you seem to think, we give undue promininence to fringe opinion in blogs and newspaper opinion columns. WCM_email 00:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Not one of the 10 sources I quote is from a blog therefore WP:NEWSBLOG is not relevant. All of the articles come from actual published newspaper articles or published books. Most of the sources linked are not even comment, but news stories, but the one that are is (Clarin 16/7/99) is reporting the words of Argentine government officials rather than the opinion of the writer. You are now not just wikilawyering, but bad wikilawyering.

I do not feel I have anything left to prove. I have 10 valid sources explicitly stating that "Argentina believes people born on the Falklands are Argentinian." There are another half dozen further up showing 4 people (about 0.12% of native Falklanders) have obtained nationality due to this fact. You have yet to produce a SINGLE source to contradict this.

In any case, I suspect the best way to deal with this is to take it to the WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as no agreement appears possible here,and then if the sources are accepted to WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

First thing to say is that this and this clearly and obviously break WP:CANVASS. If in doubt, see the rules on campaigning (the messages are biased) and votestacking (the messages specifically target Spanish speakers).

I see no value in splitting this discussion into bits or forum shopping it to multiple other pages. Better that the discussion be had in one place, here.

I think it's worth bearing in mind that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Even if a consensus of editors were persuaded that a text on this subject were accurate, it would not follow that it would necessarily go into the article. In particular, it seems to me the question of accuracy is irrelevant if the standard of due weight is not met. That's a question that has to go down to reliable sources on the subject of Falkland Islanders, and I see no attempt here to establish that it is due weight. In the circumstances, I would suspect that it is not met.

And that's also a useful point on academic sources. Not only would an academic source establish verifiability, an academic source discussion of Falkland Islanders that mentioned this point would go a long way to establishing WP:WEIGHT. Kahastok talk 08:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

[14] One of the sources claimed to be in support of this edit is titled "Kelpers. Ni ingleses ni argentinos" by Natasha Niebieskikwiat. The title translates as Kelpers: Neither English nor Argentine. Kelpers is often used in a somewhat racist way by Argentines to refer to Falkland Islanders. The source actually states they are not Argentine.

I do wonder if you've been so focused in finding sources to support the edit you wished to make, you've ended up with a self-fulfilling prophecy. Kahastok's point about WP:WEIGHT is a good one in this regard, if sources focusing on islander nationality and citizenship, if many mention this it would be easy to source. You're struggling to find quality sources, which is indicative this isn't mainstream.

[15] A point not considered so far, is that official statements by the Argentine Government state that the islanders are British Citizens. The UN website is perhaps a good source, since annually the Argentine delegation assert the islanders are British Citizens.

BTW I understand from previous interaction with WCM he is actually half-Spanish and is fairly fluent in the language. BedsBookworm (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bookworm, thank you for your reasonable tone. I think you misunderstand my argument, I absolutely agree that the Argentine government considers the Falkland Islanders to be British, and I have never argued otherwise. What I am arguing is that, as their government has stated on various occasions, they also consider those Falkland Islanders born on the islands to be eligible for Argentine citizenship.

Boynamedsue (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you aware that under the current Argentine constitution (which dates from 1869), anyone is eligible for Argentine citizenship? Do you propose to go round every ethnic article and add the same information? WCM_email 07:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)