Jump to content

Talk:Falkland Islanders/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Request for comment

There is no consensus for the proposed change, and the proposer recognises that a more nuanced presentation would be needed for any hope of consensus to emerge, so this is effectively withdrawn. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Should the article include the sentence: "As Argentina lays claim to the Falkland Islands, Falkland-born individuals have the right to claim Argentine citizenship."? RfC relisted by Boynamedsue (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC), originally started by Boynamedsue (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A request for comments has been posted at the NPOV and OR noticeboards.

Sources

Supporting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(relevant quotes are in boxes in the June 2019 section above)

https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4a5b40202.pdf (quote supporting below)

https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/33839/EUDO-CIT_2014_01_UK.pdf

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/45687615.pdf

https://boe.es/publicaciones/biblioteca_juridica/anuarios_derecho/articulo.php?lang=gl&id=ANU-C-1979-40080100826 

https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/refade/article/view/6013

https://www.unhcr.org/43f43fba11.pdf (p.191-193)

--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


Opposing

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-committee-backs-argentina-over-falkland-islands-9566894.html

https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/gacol3334.doc.html

Arguments above summarised (from Nov 18).

This summary is an indicator of the discussions above. It is intended to neutrally summarise the discussion, and can be consulted on at my talk page. I will edit it if any user feels it is not neutral

The supporting sources all explicitly state that Falklanders can claim Argentine nationality by virtue of birth on the islands. Those opposing state that Argentina or important Argentine figures consider the Falklanders to be British, present illegally or squatters. There are only two sources linked, but those supporting inclusion accept many more exist, probably running to hundreds. Those who oppose inclusion of the claim suggest that these statements contradict it, whereas those who support inclusion argue that the fact Argentines consider Falklanders to be British and are hostile to them does not contradict the central claim.

It is also suggested that using the sources above to state Falklanders can claim Argentine nationality constitute synthesis and WP:OR and WP:SYN, as they indicate searching for sources that support the claim and including only them.

Supporters of inclusion have previously used the Argentine constitution as a source, the constitution both defines Argentina's limits (including the Falklands) and states that all people born in Argentina are citizens. Opponents of inclusion do not dispute this text, but argue that it is WP:OR to use a Primary source to justify a claim, as it is not explicitly stated that Falklanders are citizens.

Those who oppose inclusion suggest that as none of the sources are Academic, the claim can not be valid, those who support say that academic sources are not required if verifiable sources of other types are present. Opponents suggest this violates WP:Newsblog as items in comment sections can only be attributed to the writer, supporters state only one source is from a comment section and that is used to report events.

It is suggested by opponents of inclusion that, if the claim is verifiable, inclusion would give undue weight to a minor viewpoint, in violation of WP:UNDUE. Supporters argue this is not applicable, as the situation is not opinion but a factual matter of law and relevant to a "nationality" section. There is a further argument based on WP:UNDUE, which is that as Falklanders rarely claim citizenship, including the claim would give it undue weight. Supporters argue that 4-6 people from an ethnic group of less than two thousand is not a small number. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

New comments

Please prefix your contribution with include or exclude to indicate your position on the claim "As Argentina claims the Falkland Islands, Falkland-born individuals have the right to claim Argentine nationality."

  • Nationality is a question of objective fact and not of one's viewpoint because it is a question of law. Whether or not one chooses to exercise a particular right is one's prerogative, i.e. a citizen may choose whether or not to avail himself of a passport, to vote, etc. That being said, whether one acquires nationality ex jure is not a matter of prerogative, rather it is by the automatic application of the law. In so much as the nationality law of the Argentine Republic declares those born on what it claims to be its territory, does not explicitly exclude those whose birth occurred there irregularly from that legal system's perspective, and given that sources attest to the Argentine nationality (in addition of course to British nationality) of the residents of the Falkland Islands, it seems to me that to mention their additional Argentine nationality does not contravene WP:OR since this this is attested in sources, nor WP:UNDUE since this is a matter of legitimate interest to an encyclopaedia. Consequently, as I have suggested before, I believe the article should mention the largely unexercised Argentine nationality of the islanders for the three reasons I mentioned above. Île flottante (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
To take the actual text of a law and apply it to a given situation clearly and obviously breaks WP:PSTS. The fact that you do not like that it is OR does not make it not OR. Kahastok talk 11:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
[1] The originator of this comment made a comment, this was then edited to make it a support vote by the proponent of this RFC. This violates WP:TPG by modifying another users comments. I have removed the additional comment. WCMemail 13:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Include There are several valid sources which support the statement, and none which contradict it. The hostile statements of Argentines do not explicitly contradict the sourced claim that Falklanders can claim Argentine nationality, and leaving out the claim amounts to a pro-British POV. I actually personally hold a strong pro-British POV on the question of the Falklands, and I can still see no valid reason to exclude the claim.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am going to assume that this is not a proper RFC. Partly because there is no banner at the top. Partly because, procedurally speaking, starting an RFC at this point and in this way would be so egregiously counter to WP:RFC that it would probably be grounds for speedy close anyway.

The first question is, what is being proposed? What is the precise text you want, and where do you propose to put it? For purposes of, I'm going to assume it's something like this from last June.

There are some general points to be raised here.

  • Successive Argentine governments have consistently referred to islanders as illegal British "squatters" with no right to a say on the future of the islands. This point is actually pretty critical to Argentina's position on the sovereignty dispute and is rather wrecked if the islanders are actually Argentine. The proposal does not mention this.
  • The number of Falkland Islanders who have ever actually been given Argentine citizenship is in low single digits, and none live on the Falkland Islands.  Neither the proposal, insofar as it exists, nor the previous text mentions this.
  • Neutrality would require that there be some explanation that the notion of islanders claiming Argentine citizenship is controversial.  The previous text does not do this, and note that the article does not mention the dispute at present.
  • Even if we accept this point as factual, WP:WEIGHT still applies. And that means going back to reliable sources. Bland statements like "this is a matter of legitimate interest to an encyclopaedia" are irrelevant given reliable sources don't treat it as relevant. And the argument that implies that we are allowed to bias articles through selective presentation of facts is so obviously incorrect that the fact that it is made raises WP:CIR questions.
Kahastok talk 11:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
With regards to the number of citizens who have accepted citizenship, nobody has ever opposed including this information, but it is separate information to the main claim. In fact I edited the article to include this, and it was reverted without comment. The only place there seems to be controversy about the claim is here, nobody has ever posted a link suggesting Falklanders can't claim citizenship. I would suggest that the argument that the right to Argentine citizenship is so insignificant that mentioning it violates WP:WEIGHT is very weak, to the point of POV pushing. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No, it is not POV pushing to suggest that we follow WP:NPOV.
WP:WEIGHT is not based on a single editor's judgement of what's important. It's based on the weight given by reliable sources on the topic (i.e. Falkland Islanders). At no stage in the past two years have you even tried to demonstrate that this theory deserves equal weight with the islanders' British citizenship according to the weight given in reliable sources. British citizenship being the citizenship that the islanders actually hold and use, as acknowledged by all sides including Argentina. Kahastok talk 16:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Some notes. The RFC banner was added after I posted that comment, and I note that at time the proposed RFC question was this behemoth.
I remain of the view that this RFC is flawed from the start. I believe this section header was biased and misleading. The opening summary (the long bit) misrepresents others' positions and presents a biased view of the question. There was no recent prior discussion as required by WP:RFC. And there was biased canvassing.
I remain opposed to including text as described, for the reasons I give in my comment of 11:05, 16 August 2020, and I generally agree with the points raised by WCM. Kahastok talk 21:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
(You missed the bit where you're only allowed to vote include/exclude, missing the obvious subtext there). WCMemail 22:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


Oh look. Canvassing with non-neutral messages. I wish I were surprised, but this isn't exactly the first time is it. Kahastok talk 11:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

All involved editors have been given a similar notice, 4 who are in favor of exclude, 1 who is in favor of include. My talk page edit was a response to IF's message on here, which preceded it. The proposed text is above, please read the summary. I was hoping not to start the rfc yet, as indicated in the message above, but given it seems to have started already I will post the rfc in the relevant noticeboards. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
In fact you will notice I have copy/pasted the same spelling mistake in the messages I sent to 2 users who support the exclusion of the text. Please could you cross out your accusation of canvassing as a sign of good faith. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
If you don't like being called on your canvassing, I would suggest you pay far greater attention to WP:CANVASS than you have done. I see no reason why I should feel the need to pretend that you have not broken WP:CANVASS. Kahastok talk 12:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I have now re-read WP:CANVASS, in good faith as per your comments. I can see no violation of those rules. Could you please point out the section you refer to? If I am breaking a rule, I would like not to do it again.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I refer you to my previous comment. Kahastok talk 16:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see, it's because you say so! Oh well, bang to rights. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude This RFC is flawed from the outset, it doesn't present a neutral question, it doesn't reflect the previous discussion, it makes no attempt to present a neutral summary of the discussion and the originator has canvassed editors who agree with them to bolster their position. I usually try to avoid commenting on editors and focus on content but the previous discussion was poisoned by numerous personal attacks and unwarranted comments about other editors motives. The discussion could have been quite civilised were it not for the invective introduced by the OP. I also feel anyone contributing to this RFC should be aware the OP has just spent nearly a month paralysing another article from improvement on other areas of Falklands history. This included forum shopping to multiple noticeboards and it's curious that failure seems to have compelled them to resurrect a long dormant discussion to inflate it into an RFC. I logged in today with the intention of improving another article, instead I find my editing time wasted yet again to oppose a flawed RFC being presented to the community on this topic. I note that already the OP is badgering anyone who makes a comment
Regarding the official Argentine position as regards Falkland Islanders citizenship. The official Argentine position actually is that the islanders are British citizens (and they are implanted population illegally occupying Argentina, usurpers, illegal etc ad nauseum). Official statements include:
[2] Argentina says Falkland Islanders ‘do not exist’
[3] There is no such thing as Falkland Islanders: they are British citizens in disputed islands
[4] Argentina describing the islands as an implanted population. Quoting Timmerman the Argentine foreign minister: "islanders are an “implanted” population, kept stagnant with strict immigration policies for the purpose of occupying territory that does not belong to them."
[5] more of the same.
It's depressing, the OP does not even dispute this is the official position and acknowledges that there is an overwhelming number of sources to back this. Nontheless they persists with presenting a synthesised position as adding "balance and NPOV". It is no such thing, in fact it could be a poster child example of WP:FALSEBALANCE.
What is also interesting is the way the OP has claimed that this source supports this position [6]. It's quite plain the OP hasn't read it and has been using a google books search to find sources he thinks supports his claim. The clue is in the book title "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 (more later). The source actually states they are not Argentine.
As regards Argentine nationality and the law:
  1. Argentine nationality is awarded on the jus soli principle, if you are born on Argentine territory then you are Argentine. This results in some farcical situations where Argentina will transport a pregnant woman to some remote antarctic peninusula to give birth to reinforce, as they see it, a territorial sovereignty claim.
  2. Anyone can just turn up and under the current Argentine constitution (which dates from 1869), they are eligible for Argentine citizenship.
Over the years this areas Wikipedia has been plagued with editors who are more concerned with advancing various nationalist agendas. They synthesise the argument that since Argentina claims the Falklands, under the jus soli principle they must be Argentine citizens. This is a classic example of WP:PSTS, which is very clear: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself" It is original research to conflate the jus soli principle in the Argentine constitution with the Argentine sovereignty claim and synthesis to impose Argentine citizenship on the islanders.
You occasionally get the same opinion expressed in opinion pieces (emphasis added) in the Argentine tabloid press, indeed the tabloids Clarin, InfoBAE and La Nacion are well known for pushing Argentine nationalist claims. InfoBAE for example is well known for it's Saturday hero special, concerning the exploits of Argentine forces in the Falklands War. As tabloids we do not in general consider them reliable sources. All of the sources presented above are such examples. They are not reliable for the extraordinary claim the OP is making.
Those same tabloids will in the next breath be denouncing the islands as an illegal implanted population, usurpers, pirates (yes they do call them pirates) and will usually refer to the as Kelpers, which is considered a racist pejorative by islanders when used by Argentines. The word is used colloquially to infer a second class citizen and as a term of contempt. When pensioners were complaining about getting a raw delay they called themselves Kelpers to get attention. When school assistants were complaining of low wages they did this too. Pagina 12 (another Argentine tabloid) referred to them as "the Kelpers of the education system".
What is required for the proposed edit to stand, is for a neutral academic source to make such a claim. In over 13 years I've seen this argument being trotted out by editors, they simply repeat the same WP:OR and WP:SYN argument conflating jus soli with the sovereignty claims ad nauseum unable to grasp WP:PSTS does not permit such an analysis. I have never once seen such a neutral academic source being offered, indeed I challenged the OP to produce one and they declined. The huge elephant in the room is that if the 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, their reply was to pretend they didn't need to do so.
As regards actual examples, there are very few (1 an Argentine woman, 2 Falkland Islanders).
  • Soledad Rende is an Argentine woman who was born in the Falkland Islands. Her parents flew to the islands when her mother was due to give birth as a stunt to advance Argentine sovereignty claims. This has caused real difficulties for her and for years she couldn't get an Argentine passport because the courts didn't consider her to have been born in Argentina.
  • James Peck is a Falkland Islander who was formerly married to an Argentine woman; he has two children in Argentina. During his divorce as his documents were a British FI passport and as he didn't have a DNI, Argentine officials were deliberately obstructive. He applied for a residents DNI but was instead forced to accept an ordinary DNI in a stunt organised by then president Cristina Kirchner. The award of the DNI was delayed and given on Liberation Day in the Falklands - June 14; in other words a political stunt. Pointedly he did not want Argentine citizenship, has since renounced it and returned to the Falkland Islands.
  • Alex Betts Alex Betts left the Falklands in 1982 to continue an extra-marital affair with an Argentine woman. He acquired Argentine citizenship and proved to be useful for Argentine propaganda appearing at the united nations. Interestingly, when James Peck was given his DNI card they made a great fuss that James was the first islander to "gain citizenship" totally ignoring Betts. This illustrates this topic being used for what is essentially a propaganda exercise. One of the reasons James Peck continued to have difficulty in Argentina was that he refused to take part in further stunts.
To summarise:
  1. . The official position of the Argentine government is that islanders are British citizens
  2. . Tabloids are not reliable sources, they reflect certain views when convenient for nationalist reasons and will happily turn around and reflect the exact opposite the very next day.
  3. . To conflate Argentine nationality law and sovereignty claims is WP:OR and WP:SYN and WP:PSTS.
  4. . In any case Argentine nationality law allows anyone to claim citizenship, are we to add this to any people related article on wikipedia?
This is a very sensitive topic and as such an extraordinary claim such as this would require extraordinary proof. Wikipedia should be written to present the facts from a neutral point of view, not to present claims made to advance a nationalist agenda as of equal weight creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. WCMemail 15:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Just a few points regarding your position:
1: No canvassing has occurred on this article. 5 users have been contacted, the 5 who have previously commented here. 4 of them support your position, rather than mine.
2. To classify Clarin and La Nacion as tabloids is simply false, they are equivalent to British sources such as the Guardian or Telegraph, or American papers like the NYT. They are reliable sources.
3. You were offered an opportunity to contribute to a neutral summary, if you feel it is not neutral, please specify how and amendments can be made. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
4. Argentine law allows anyone to claim citizenship, after two years resident in Argentina, and this request can be denied. The Ius Solis clause is different in that it can not be denied. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
To claim Clarin and La Nacion are the equivalent of the Guardian or Telegraph is ludicrous, Daily Mail maybe. They do not have anywhere the standards of editorial oversight or fact checking like those papers. Nor do they retract when they get the facts completely wrong and I have experience of this.
To claim I could have had the opportunity to edit a neutrally worded statement is BS, [7] you informed me after you'd already posted it [8].
I would suggest you stop badgering people, you do yourself no favours and are quite likely to deter outside comment with your conduct. WCMemail 15:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
To add, your comments on Argentine nationality law are misleading see Argentine nationality law, it can only be denied in case of criminal conduct. WCMemail 15:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I requested a view on this from respected expert in international law, Stephen Potts, [9]. In his opinion, Argentina cannot impose citizenship as it would violate human rights law, he cited [10] from the OHCHR and pointed out that the right of states to impose citizenship is limited and he considers that Argentina has violated the human rights of James Peck in imposing citizenship. So at least one example in the list is from an illegal act by the Argentine state. (And before someone posts a comment stating this is WP:OR, I am not proposing content, merely offering a legal opinion supplied by an acknowledged expert). WCMemail 09:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I am deeply concerned. Could you describe the qualifications of this "Stephen Potts?" Why do you believe he is an "acknowledged expert?" Before you contacted him, were you aware if he had already expressed strong opinions on this topic? Hipocrite (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I am quoting directly from this article, [11], I know of him because I am involved with an NGO that campaigns for the Chagossians, which is a WP:COI that I have openly declared. I am vaguely acquainted with him via Facebook. That's the extent of my knowledge. This is starting to feel very uncomfortable, why didn't you contact me via my talk page? WCMemail 08:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


  • Here from the RFC centralized page. Hi. To try to get to the heart of the matter, it would help me to understand the dispute more clearly. This is an article from a source I consider to be clearly reliable: [12]. It includes the following: "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." For people who believe this is not true, please provide the following - if you believe it was once true but is no longer, please provide a source that says that. If you believe it was never true, please provide a source that says that. Those sources should be at least as clear as the source I provided, and should not be primary sources, unless those primary sources are so shockingly clear as to be dispositive. Note that I am far from fluent in Spanish. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian article isn't entirely accurate, on the few occasions when Falkland Islanders have applied for Argentine citizenship then the opportunity to proclaim them as Argentine from birth has been readily grasped by the Argentine government. This is done for propaganda reasons not necessarily for reasons of law. In this case, Peck did not make enquiries on acquiring Argentine citizenship, he instead applied for a residents DNI Documento Nacional de Identidad (Argentina). Because he was born in the Falkland Islands they instead forced him to have the normal DNI reserved for citizens, they further delayed giving it to him until June 14 co-inciding with the Liberation Day commemoration in the Falkland Islands. See [13] (sorry Spanish source ) and [14] (English). Normally the Argentine government describes islander as British citizens or variously as "illegal", "squatters" and "illegally implanted population"[15], [16] see page 152. So when convenient for propadanda reasons they become Argentine citizens, the rest of the time they are squatters. So there is no clear view on this, in any case it is such an extrordinary claim it would require a neutral academic source. The islanders are British citizens, to proclaim them as also Argentine citizens based on notions of NPOV is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. WCMemail 16:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
In evaluating your statement, I looked to what you said about the very specific claim I made - "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." You claimed this "isn't entirely accurate," because "when Falkland Islanders have applied for Argentine citizenship then the opportunity to proclaim them as Argentine from birth has been readily grasped by the Argentine government," which appears to state it is, in fact, entirely accurate. However, you also claim "This is done for propaganda reasons not necessarily for reasons of law" which is an irrelevant aside, and as such, I have completely ignored it. Then you discuss how Peck was naturalized, which is irrelevant to the question at issue. The method by which the government describes English citizens on the Falklands is additionally an irrelevant aside, and as such, I have completely ignored it also. In summary, you agree that the claim "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," to be accurate, but you consider it very important to note that the reason they do this is for propaganda purposes. Is that correct? Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
[17] I was going to add this.
No I do not agree with that statement but a good attempt to lead the witness. I do dispute what you've dismissed as irrelevant asides, they are indeed very relevant to considering the matter. One cannot simultaneously be both an illegal squatter and an Argentine citizen; the two are mutually exclusive. The difference in attitude appears to be related as to how the situation can be exploited for political reasons and in the circumstances where mutually incompatible statements exist, then the situation regarding citizenship is far from clear. It is also a WP:FALSEBALANCE to add a comment on a theoretical right to Argentine citizenship, particularly when the official stated position of the Argentine government is the islanders are British citizens. WCMemail 18:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure the squatter bits apply to people born on the islands - also, anyone who rejects their Argentinan Citizenship could be an illegal squatter. I'm attempting to lead you to a point of agreement - that Argentina uses the statement that "you're all Argentinan Citizens" as a propaganda move, but hasn't taken strong steps to do anything to secure those citizenships. You know, including all the information, not just excluding the parts we don't like. But, you appear to be focused on browbeating only one side in, so for the time being, I'm going Include referencing the Guardian article but also note the propaganda argument as soon as reliable secondary sources are found. Hipocrite (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I would just say that I have no problem with properly sourced content regarding Argentine propaganda use of citizenship claims appearing in the article, I also have no problem with noting that very few Falklanders have taken up their potential Argentine citizenship. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Hipocrite: It's unfortunate that I can't outdent this conversation as it is becoming rather confined. In answer to your comment, Argentina consistently dismisses the islanders as illegal squatters. All of them, whether native born or recent immigrant; frequently the terms they use are no more than racist abuse. I have to say you seem to speculating reasons to simply ignore the mutually incompatible positions expressed by Argentina. I also take issue with your brow beating comment, it's uncalled for and I would appreciate you removing it. This is an article about Falkland Islanders not an article about the sovereignty dispute. I rather suspect if we took your suggestion then we'd end up yet another Falklands article with a disproportionate section dedicated to the sovereignty dispute ignoring WP:WEIGHT. I also dispute whether the Guardian article is a suitable cite for the opinion stated, what is really required for such an extraordinary statement would be a neutral academic work. If this is such a mainstream and widely accepted opinion, why has it proven so difficult to find one? WCMemail 11:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
That's a somewhat elaborate personal interpretation, but we have to base the article on what can be proven with direct quotations from reliable sources. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
There in a nutshell we have the issue with your edit, you ignore anything that shows the Argentine position is ambiguous. Indeed what goes into the article is what can be proven with direct quotations from reliable sources, so I look forward to you providing a neutral academic source. Oh wait, you think you don't need to. 06:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
When you link a single source that shows ambiguity, without necessity for you to make a two paragraph explanation of why it is so, WP:OR in effect, then I will be happy to consider the ambiguity. There is no contradiction between the well-sourced phrase "Argentina considers the Falklands to be part of its territory, and therefore Falklanders have the right to Argentine citizenship on that basis" and anything you have provided. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
An example of WP:OR is conflating the primary source which is the Argentine constitution, with the Argentine claim to the sovereignty islands to WP:SYN the conclusion that that Falklanders have the right to Argentine citizenship and a WP:FALSEBALANCE to insist this be included in the article on the grounds of neutrality. Islanders are British citizens a fact that even the Argentine government acknowledges. It is not WP:OR to point out that there are two mutually incompatible positions taken by Argentina on this point, demonstrating quite clearly that this edit you propose is overly simplistic even when we ignore the fact it is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Also let me give you a piece of advice, stop badgering anyone who comments, you are likely to poison your own flawed RFC. WCMemail 07:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude While it is entirely possible that the material could be reworded to not be so attached to a political viewpoint, I'd lean more towards total exclusion not only for reasons that have already been stated by others, but also it seems to be another in a long line of attempts at manipulation to give credence and legitimacy towards a particular side of a land dispute. By all rights we should not be this far down the rabbit hole. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude per OrangeJacketGuy and discussion raised above. Idealigic (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Include: The reliable sources pretty overwhelmingly agree that it's true that Falkland Islanders have the right to claim Argentinian citizenship. That this is for propaganda reasons is true but irrelevant. That they consider the current residents of the island to be British squatters on their territory as of right now is true but is also consistent with the true statement that those "British squatters" have the right to Argentinian citizenship should they want to claim it (assuming they were born on the islands). According to the reliable sources, it's both the official position of the Argentinian government that anyone born on the islands has the right to Argentinian citizenship, and every time of the very few this has actually been attempted, the Argentinian government has granted the citizenship, even pushing someone who didn't want it (James Peck) into claiming citizenship. Loki (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude as giving undue weight to the views of the Argentine government. It isn't as if there is a real uptake to this offer, the islanders consider this offer as irrelevant.--Hippeus (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Hippeus, thanks for contributing. Don't you feel that excluding the Argentine position is actually violating NPOV in a controversial area? Boynamedsue (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Same as excluding any other government that doesn't govern the isles.--Hippeus (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I would dispute that in terms of WP:NPOV, speaking as someone who works hard to remove pro-Argentine bias from Falklands articles on the Spanish wikipedia. The fact that sovereignty is officially disputed makes the opinion of the entity claiming the territory relevant, omitting it is a clear POV. This is standard practice throughout wikipedia for articles dealing with disputed regions. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
No you are wrong in that regard, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. WCMemail 16:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
When a territory is disputed, the positions of all countries involved are noted, with that which is more widely accepted, or that which is de facto, placed first. I can't think of a single article in which this does not occur. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
But it isn't an article about the territorial dispute, it's an article about the people but you seem to want to turn into the former by forcing it into the article. If this is so common, please give us an example, that would be so stylish. WCMemail 16:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Articles not directly about a dispute can still be biased by omission of facts that are inconvenient to one side or another, as you well know. Potential citizenship is often mentioned in articles about ethnic groups, for example Jews, Transylvanian Saxons, Hungarians in Romania and Volga Germans.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The only one of those where disputed territory is potentially a factor is Jews. Insofar as we can get a parallel, could you perhaps point out where in the article Jews it discusses the citizenship policy of the State of Palestine with respect to Jewish residents of Israeli-controlled territories claimed by the State of Palestine?
And I thought you said that WP:WEIGHT didn't apply to factual material? Kahastok talk 18:44, 19August 2020 (UTC)
No two situations are ever exactly analogous, but you've picked a particularly bad one there. I don't think WP:WEIGHT can possibly be applied until two viewpoints have been explained. Nobody has yet linked anything that suggests Falklanders can't claim Argentine citizenship, so there is only one sourced viewpoint. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree the situations are very different, but that was your choice, not mine. You were the one who claimed Jews as an analogy for this article, not me, not anyone else.
The claim I don't think WP:WEIGHT can possibly be applied until two viewpoints have been explained is actually the precise opposite of what WP:WEIGHT says. If that were true, Earth would have to detail the claims of modern flat Earthers, Apollo Program would have to detail the views of the conspiracy theorists and astronomy would need to give an explanation of astrology. Kahastok talk 19:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
You misunderstand me, there are not two viewpoints on the claim "As Argentina claims the Falkland Islands, Falkland-born individuals have the right to Argentine citizenship." Nobody has presented any sources that contradict this, so there aren't two viewpoints to balance. The other bit was an answer to WCM. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure there are. You just ignored them. Which isn't the same thing.
And even if we accepted that claim as factual, the fact remains that you are still not allowed to create biased articles by giving significantly greater WP:WEIGHT to particular points than is given by reliable sources. You intend that this article should give this claimed Argentine citizenship equal or greater weight than is given to the islanders' British citizenship (i.e. the one that they actually use). It is up to you, as the person seeking to add material, to demonstrate using reliable sources that this weight is appropriate. And you haven't. This isn't a close call. You haven't even tried. Kahastok talk 21:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised at your capability for mental gymnastics when protecting bias. Not every fact mentioned in an article must be equally important, or else each article would consist of a single fact. All it needs to be is sourced and relevant. You have yet to produce a source which contradicts the claim, all you and WCM have done is point to Argentine hostility towards the Falklanders and extrapolated that this "must mean" they can't claim Argentine citizenship. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Your badgering is becoming unbearable as is your continuous misrepresentation of people's position. I have never made any such claim. I keep pointing out that the Argentine position is inconsistent, when convenient for a propaganda opportunity they become Argentine citizens, the majority of the time they're illegal squatters. Also the official Argentine position is that they're British citizens. I also point out it's a WP:FALSEBALANCE to include the simplistic edit you want. This discussion would be a lot more civilised if you just dial back on the invective and constant personal attacks on other editors; "I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem" Christopher Hitchens. WCMemail 08:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude I only read the first two sources listed above, and then read the discussion. Source 1 - ITV, has an Argentinian politician saying "the South American country considers inhabitants of the Falkland Islands as its own citizens". That is a piece of political rhetoric as explicit as Ich bin ein Berliner. I'm sure that R of Ireland has always looked on N.Irelanders as Irish, but not until the Good Friday agreement, was there any explicit right to Irish citizenship. The second source (Clarin), implies that any Falklander has a right to an Argentinian ID document, an ID document is not citizenship and confers few rights or privileges. The discussion above at several points muddles the right to citizenship, with the right to apply for citizenship. Practically anyone from any country has the right to apply for citizenship almost anywhere, getting it is another matter, and having a right to it even more so. I'm sure that Argentina would look favourably on any Falklander applying for citizenship, since it would be good PR probably, but nothing above suggests that Falklanders have an explicit right to citizenship. Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Pincrete. Thanks for your contribution, have you read this source? The DNI is the document that confers citizenship, DNI Extranjero is the one for non-Argentines living in Argentina.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Nowhere in the Guardian article is there any claim that Falklanders have a right to citizenship. In fact in the Peck instance, the "Falklanders are Argentinian" premise effectively robbed Peck of the possibility of applying for residency in Argentina as a foreigner - which I or anyone from any place on the planet would be entitled to ask for. In his instance, even applying for residency was effectively conditional on him acknowledging Argentinian sovereignty over his place of birth. There is no right to citizenship for any islander, except in the limited sense that when/if the Falklands' sovereignty transfers to Argentina, native born Falklanders will be allowed to be Argentinian - they won't become stateless! No mention, of course of what will happen to those who have adopted the islands as their home for XX years, nor whether any of them want to be Argentinian.
You know what, when the American colonists decide to come to their senses and reverse that foolish declaration of independence from Britain - we will allow some of those living there to have British citizenship, conditional of course on them denying their US heritage, culture, and citizenship - we're very generous in Britain!
There is no mention in any reliable source of an explicit, unequivocal right to Argentinian citizenship for islanders, which answers the RfC question, but presenting the "Falklanders are Argentinian" 'poisoned chalice', as some kind of right bestowed on islanders insults people's intelligence.Pincrete (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"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." I'd say that is pretty unequivocal. The other sources illustrate that this offer applies to any Falklander, whether resident in Argentina or abroad, as is the case with [x] and his daughter.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
From WP:RS "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news)." (emphasis added) People keep pointing out the Guardian story is not a reliable source for matters of fact, we keep pointing out that you need a neutral academic source for such an extraordinary claim and you're still obtusely ignoring it. Badgering everyone who disagrees with you is disruptive and you should stop. WCMemail 13:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
[18] and you're still claiming this supports your claim, "Kelpers. Ni ingleses ni argentinos" by Natasha Niebieskikwiat. The title translates as "Kelpers: Neither English nor Argentine." The source is actually contradicting you. WCMemail 13:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The book is acting as a source for the Argentine state position, it is the authors personal view that they are neither "English nor Argentine. The relevant quote translated into English is "It is the Argentine constitution which first states that the Falklands are Argentine, and so, therefore, are their inhabitants." Again, pretty clear. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment — Much of the information produced in this discussion is very interesting and would be an excellent addition to the article. I think the whole "inclusion/exclusion" matter is a false dichotomy. The fundamental purpose of Wikipedia is to educate the readers. There is a valuable story here concerning Falkland Islanders that has encyclopedic value. I'd also like to add that I find the main cause of the present debate the over-simplistic approach of the "pro-inclusion" group. The "pro-exclusion" group has effectively demonstrated the matter is far more complex than simply stating that "Argentina considers anyone born on the dispute islands as legally Argentine" (even if it seems "neutral" in its simplicity, it's actually a very biased statement). There's also a lot of "going around in circles" in this discussion. It's alright to ask for clarifications, but please don't pester folk that don't agree with you.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 03:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude. BUT Include: "As Argentina lays claim to the Falkland Islands, Argentine citizenship has been offered to a few Falklands-born individuals who have sought it." Another source might be: Hector Timerman, who said: "There are very few inhabitants of the Islas Malvinas who were born in the Islas Malvinas. But for us, they are Argentinian citizens" on a 2013 visit to Britain. GPinkerton (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd like to echo what MarshalN20 and GPinkerton have said. If Argentina gives people born in the disputed territory Argentine citizenship, and reliable sources have reported that, it is relevant to include. It seems like the situation may be more complex than presented above, so perhaps the text which is included should be different from what is proposed, and perhaps wording like GPinkerton proposes is better. -sche (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton,-sche and MarshalN20 I would like to say I find your proposals constructive and useful. I would happily collaborate on finding acceptable wording, but there has tended to be a blanket refusal to consider any mention of Argentina in the citizenship section. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue: Thanks, but what's the point of writing "but there has tended to be a blanket refusal to consider any mention of Argentina in the citizenship section"? If we know that this is a sensitive topic, let's stop rattling the cage to provoke others. I think we can all read what's been happening above and draw our own conclusions. Let's move forward. I don't think anybody here is physically preventing you from writing wording proposals. The "pro-exclusion" group has provided plenty of reliable source material to work with that merits appraisal beyond simply describing them as obstructionists.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand how horrible the discussion above looks. The RfC is a result of several years in which any attempt to include neutrally worded mention of the Argentina situation has met reversion, there has been no desire to compromise. An edit which mirrored GPinkerton's was reverted out of hand as well. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Something is very apparent on this page, Kahastok and I haven't felt the need to harangue everyone who disagrees with us on this topic. We're perfectly happy to allow other people to comment and listen to what they have to say. Three editors now have come in and said the edit you proposed is overly simplistic and isn't neutral. Instead of listening, you respond with the classic reply, "they're the bad guys not me, look at this edit". And if you look at that edit you're convinced is neutral and shouldn't be reverted, well it has everything wrong with it that these editors are telling you. Further, it's clear from your comments that you are assuming a bad faith motivation in anyone who disagrees with you. You really need to stop this bad faith presumption. WCMemail 18:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, cool. In that case we may have some progress. Would you be happy to contribute to a paragraph mentioning Argentine nationality that you felt was neutrally-worded? Boynamedsue (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
If you go back and read the talk page, I indicated a willingness to discuss an edit years ago. However, I reserve judgement that per weight it belongs here and as I suggested years ago, the appropriate place may well be another article such as the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. WCMemail 18:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I think we may be very near to a resolution. If you could agree to the slight compromise of having the paragraph here rather than at sovereignty dispute, I am more than happy to see qualifications to the statement along the lines of the 3 comments above.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
For my part I could not endorse an addition here that gave this point significantly greater weight than it receives in reliable sources on the subject of Falkland Islanders. I find it difficult to believe that adding a whole extra paragraph on the subject - given that the British citizenship that the islanders actually use is only given a sentence - could meet this standard. But that depends on the sources.
Obviously, at a different article, the standard is different because the subject of the sources is different. A given point may well receive greater weight in sources on the subject of the dispute than it does in sources on the subject of the islanders. Kahastok talk 19:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out who "rattled my cage", HOW I responded, the political realities at hand, and that we are still far too deep in the rabbit hole. In my view, there has not been any substantive reason to change what is currently there and we are still arguing about citizenship claims. If this were a Robert's Rules meeting, I would have called for an end of debate years ago. Are we going to see any more new evidence, compromise on the proposal, or are just screaming into the void? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Kahastok Sorry, yes, bad wording on my part. I meant a paragraph including both the British and Argentine citizenship information. I fully agree a single sentence on the Argentine position would be more appropriate. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Can we demonstrate that the single sentence is justified per WP:WEIGHT? Part of my objection to the single sentence proposed at the start of this RFC is that I don't think it is. If sources were available on the subject of the islanders that demonstrated that more than zero weight is justified then this would likely resolve this issue. Kahastok talk 19:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd say yes. Various valid sources mention the Argentine position, and others have described it as of interest. Though I fully accept that qualifying language would help in terms of WP:WEIGHT Boynamedsue (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Instances of routine news coverage of particular events around particular people are not particularly useful in making a judgement of WP:WEIGHT, because they're not on the same topic. Judgement of WP:WEIGHT requires a different kind of source. What we really need is sources on the topic of Falkland Islanders. And bear in mind, if we're discussing books, that this article is much shorter than most books. Something that is mentioned in passing by a decent-length book probably doesn't belong here. Kahastok talk 19:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude Anyone can apply for Argentinian citizenship. No sources have been provided that Argentinian law recognizes Falkland Islanders have a right to Argentinian citizenship. In fact it goes against their ongoing claim that the islands are Argentinian territory illegally occupied by the UK and that its inhabitants are British citizens or subjects illegally residing there. In order to consider mentioning this, we would need an academic source. News media and statements by politicians are frequently wrong when it comes to nationality law in general. TFD (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • New Source Here the Argentine Electoral Court define Argentine nationality:
...la nacionalidad argentina se basa predominantemente en el hecho del nacimiento de la persona dentro del territorio nacional, ius soli (art. 75, inc. 12, Constitución Nacional, art. 1o inc. 1o, ley 346). Esta previsión alcanza a las personas nacidas en las Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur, y a las personas nacidas en la Antártida en el sector reivindicado por nuestro país con anterioridad a 1959.

...Argentine nationality is based primarily in the fact of the birth of the person within the national territory, ius soli ([constitutional references]). This provision includes persons born on the Falkland, South Georgia and South Sandwich islands, as well as persons born in the sector of Antarctica claimed by our country prior to 1959.

The source is a legal judgement hosted on the UNHCR's legal resource website. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)



Apparently applies to those born before 1959, which would seem to contradict your current premise. I suggest you find a different was of quoting, as you can accidentally hide information that may well be crucial. WCMemail 16:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I would, in good faith urge you to re-read, the text clearly states "people born in the Falklands,South Georgia and South Sandwich, AND people born in the area of Antarctica claimed by our country prior to 1959". 1959 is the date of the Antarctic treaty, which meant countries claims there were frozen. The language is very clear, it refers to two separate groups of people, hence the repetition of the word. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The Antarctic Treaty came into force in 1961, and it did not freeze claims to Antarctica in the sense that you imply.
I don't think the language is as clear as you suggest. For example, another interpretation would be that it is repeating the words a las personas nacidas as a means of introducing the rather long phrase la Antártida en el sector reivindicado por nuestro país, which is clearly not part of the list of islands las Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur, which may be intended to be a list of islas.
And as it's a primary source, we have no business in interpreting it. Kahastok talk 19:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
To add, part of the difficulty here is that Argentina's statements are inconsistent. I think the fact that there are examples in one direction and texts that could be taken to imply one side of this, does not invalidate the fact that there are also texts that point in the precise opposite direction. I don't view this as a significant addition to the debate.
The major problem really is the lack of sources on the subject of the islanders that give any weight to this point. If we had some, we could take our lead from them. But we don't, so we have to scrabble about trying to draw inferences from primary sources like this one - in a way that goes directly against policy. Kahastok talk 19:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
As to whether it is a Primary Source, that is unclear. It is the sentence of a jurist on the Argentine constitution, the constitution itself is the Primary Source which began this discussion with Île flottante's comments years ago. A primary source is valid for stating the position of a government on an issue. The US constitution is considered a valid source in the article on the US constitution, for example. In terms of the language, it is much clearer in Spanish. The double use of the preposition "a" clearly separates the two complements of the verb, if the "con anterioridad a 1959" was meant to apply to both, it would have been placed after the first "personas nacidas". It is not a reasonable assumption that a competent user of Spanish meant for the qualifier "con anterioridad a 1959" to apply to both complements. If you still have doubts, perhaps the feedback of an uninvolved native Spanish speaker would be useful. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
It's the text of a court decision. Yes, of course it's a primary source. No, we are not allowed to analyse or interpret the US constitution in an article on the US constitution, except where that analysis is backed by a secondary source.
But focussing on what the source says ignores the elephant in the room, which will still be there however much you ignore it. Kahastok talk 20:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I would disagree with your interpretation of the utility of Primary Sources. There is no rule that they must not be used. The article United States Constitution actually does cite the amendments to the United States Constitution as a source, and this is valid if no interpretation is made. For my money, a decision of the Argentine electoral court is valid to establish Argentine law. It would, perhaps, be dubious if it were the only source, but we both know it isn't. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I won't comment on the validity of the source or whether or not it belongs in the article. However, I can assert that "prior to 1959" to my understanding also only applies to "persons born in the sector of Antarctica."--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 15:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Since the court case does not involve a person born in the Falklands/Malvinas, any reference to their citizenship status is obiter dictum. It is merely an opinion and no one is required to follow it. The judges conclude that because the constitution guarantees citizenship by birth and elsewhere says that the Malvinas are part of Argentina, that people born there are citizens. The judges ignore the issue that jus soli requires effective control of a territory as well. It doesn't set a precedent because their comments about the Malvinas are wholly irrelevant to their decision. Opinions in judgments are only binding if they are crucial to the court's decision. TFD (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
P. 197: Any person born in Argentine territory acquires Argentine citizenship at birth, excepting children of persons in the service of foreign governments (e.g. foreign diplomats). This can also be applied to people born in the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands), a British Overseas Territory claimed by Argentina.
This would seem to be pretty clear, especially as support for the nuanced compromise position advocated above, and seems a reliable tertiary source.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


FFS learn to provide quotes in a manner that doesn't hide details (emphasis added). Note the qualifier. WCMemail 19:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

CAN auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person can, 2nd can or (Archaic) canst, 3rd can,present plural can;past singular 1st person could, 2nd could or (Archaic) couldst, 3rd could,past plural could.

  1. to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to: She can solve the problem easily, I'm sure.
  2. to know how to: He can play chess, although he's not particularly good at it.
  3. to have the power or means to: A dictator can impose his will on the people.
  4. to have the right or qualifications to: He can change whatever he wishes in the script.
  5. may; have permission to: Can I speak to you for a moment?
I noted this as well. Go back to the RFC question, this source simply does not back the text proposed. Kahastok talk 20:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The text I proposed includes the word "can" > "Falklands-born individuals CAN claim citizenship on this basis", but if you prefer the text "Any person born in Argentine territory acquires Argentine citizenship at birth. As Argentina lays claim to the Falklands, this can be applied to Falklands-born individuals." I would have no problem. As I stated, I am happy to work to include a compromise version which includes the well-sourced information, with qualifiers, along the lines of that proposed by other users. I would also ask WCM to refrain from accusing me of hiding information (which is actually in plain view) and to assume good faith. This is especially true given the last time you did this it was based on your misunderstanding of the original text. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The RFC question is:
Please show me where that includes the word "can". I can't find it.
On WP:AGF, I think you should practice what you preach. The way you are quoting things is effectively by messing up the Wiki syntax. That may well mean that it does not show up in full on some systems. Wikipedia has templates and markup for quotes, and it would make life easier for everyone if you used them. Kahastok talk 21:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry yes, I absolutely agree that my last comment was incorrect in respect to the word "can", that was an old edit that stuck in my mind. However, I am happy to use the word "can" instead of "has a right to", and I do not feel this has significant impact on the meaning in terms of this RCF. Like I have said various times, I am not wedded to one version, as long as the question is discussed in the article. In terms of the templates, markups and wikisyntax, I honestly don't know what that is. If you or WCM feel I am doing something wrong in terms of quotes, a better strategy than being snarky and swearing at me (not you, I hasten to add) might be to tell me exactly what you want me to do. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You've been on Wikipedia 14 years and you've never noticed <blockquote></blockquote> at the bottom of your screen? Not only that, you're saying you haven't spotted the templates that WCM and I have both used, on this page, in direct responses to you, including in the comment that you directly replied to there? Really? Kahastok talk 10:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:CIV Boynamedsue (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • New Source I would say this is an academic reference.
"The inhabitants of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, which are claimed by Argentina, were British Dependent Territories Citizens until the armed conflict of 1983, after which by the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983 they became British citizens (they are also entitled to Argentinean nationality but the white-European settler population does not generally claim this)."

--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

By the looks of things you're just going to keep going New Source New Source New Source over and over again.
But it's a complete waste of your time. Because nothing so far has come close to suggesting that the correct weight to be given to this point on this article is not zero. Even if everyone were to accept that what you say is true, it makes no difference if the standard of WP:WEIGHT is not met. Kahastok talk 10:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I have given you two undisputed academic sources which give weight to the fact that Argentina offers citizenship to the Falklanders, using slightly different language. Now, I'm not sure which part of WP:WEIGHT do you feel to be applicable here, but I feel that providing this source may have a bearing on other users' opinions, even if you disagree. So I would humbly suggest that I am not wasting my time, even if, in the long run the consensus emerges that there should be no mention of Argentine citizenship in the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
New source. I just found this biography of Marilyn Monroe. It mentions lots of details of her life. Therefore per your apparent interpretation of WP:WEIGHT all of those details must now go into this article. Kahastok talk 12:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious, do you consider the phrase "white-European settler population", inaccurate by the way, to be the hallmark of a neutral academic text? WCMemail 13:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is largely a neutral statement when referring to Falkland Islanders. I would consider islanders settlers similar to the white population of New Zealand or Australia, more so given the absence of an indigenous population. It is written by respectable academics who are experts in the relevant field and published by a respectable organisation. Do you have some reason to consider that not to be the case? --Boynamedsue (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
There's a distinction between being a citizen, having a right to claim citizenship and having the privilege of applying for citizenship. Whatever we say must match sources.
I don't think we can use court judgments or government documents. We need a reliable secondary source, such as a legal textbook on nationality law. Jus soli incidentally requires that people be born in the state's territory under its control. Per Calvin's Case 1608: "though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England." It could be for example while Argentina extends citizenship to everyone born within its territory, it makes an exception when it is not in control of that territory.
I don't think for example that an article on British nationality law that makes passing reference to Argentinian law without citing any sources is an academic source for the topic.
TFD (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I appreciate your commentary, but this passage is explicitly about Argentines law. It says that Falklnads born indivuals can claim Argentine citizenship. If you think it is wrong, fair enough, but it seems pretty clear to me. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I would also add that the question is not whether Argentine Law is "correct" it's what that law is. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Your source says, "Any person born in Argentianian territory acquires Argentine citizenship at birth, excepting children of persons in the service of a foreign government (e.g. foreign diplomats.) This can be also applied to people born in the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands), a British Overseas Territory claimed by Argentina." (p.197)

Note it does not say "can claim citizenship" but that they acquired citizenship at birth. This is a major distinction because people who acquire citizenship acquire the related rights and obligations without any further action on their part. People who have a right to claim citizenship only acquire those rights and responsibilities when they acquire citizenship.

The second sentence presents a problem too. When can this be applied to the Falklands? Under the principles of jus soli, it can be applied when the Falklands is under the control of Argentina. So if the Falklands are ceded to Argentina, anyone born there from that time on will be a citizen of Argentina without any additional legislation required.

Furthermore International Business Publications is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. And note that Google books says permission to show the book comes from Lulu.com, which is a self-publishing platform. Note too the disclaimer on accuracy on p. 2 and the lack of named authors or editors. The material in the book appears to be copied from public domain sources, including Wikipedia.

Even if it was a reliable source, a handbook for Americans doing business in Argentina is insufficient for this type of claim.

TFD (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Synthesis Having read the above, just a brief suggestion here in favour of compromise. Would editors agree with something to effect of 'As the Falkland Islands (referred to by Argentina as Las Malvinas) are claimed by Argentina as their sovereign territory, islanders can theoretically apply for Argentine citizenship. However, this is called into question by a variety of statements by the Argentine government which define Falkland Islanders as 'British Citizens,' and a prevailing view in some sections of Argentine society and government (need source) that this is a 'colonist' population with no legitimate claim to the islands in question, which precludes their naturalisation under Argentine law, as they are not truly native residents.'
Naturally, this is rough and needs a bit of work, but in principle, would the editors above agree with something along these lines?VeritasVox (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd be ok with something like that, but the last part "which precludes their naturalisation under Argentine law, as they are not truly native residents" is OR, I don't think there are sources for that.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Anyone can complete an Argentinian citizenship application and mail it in. It would only be significant if Argentina gave preference to applications from people born in the Falklands/Malvinas, which they don't. TFD (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that's false, various people have been given Argentine citizenship on the basis of Falklands birth, and various sources state that all people who are born there can claim on this basis, including people who would not be eligible by any other means. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I have some issues with this point, but the biggest obstacle remains. There is still no evidence from reliable sources that we should give any weight to this point. Let alone, as per this proposal, much more weight than we give to the islanders' British citizenship. Kahastok talk 15:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree, we would have a whole paragraph concerning an entirely theoretical legal construct that has no practical value and one which reliable sources simply don't attach any degree of weight to. That would become a classic example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. WCMemail 06:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Since this pretty much seems to be deadlocked, with roughly the same number of number of people supporting some mention of the Argentine citizenship offer as opposing any mention, would anybody have any problem with me linking this question to all the relevant wikiprojects listed at the top of the page plus wikiproject Argentina? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion this is "deadlocked" is somewhat optimistic. You've tried very hard to garner support with a very biased RFC and have failed to do so. You've badgered anyone who commented and far from deadlocked, it's very clear that the consensus is against you. I oppose your suggestion to spinning this out further by forum shopping to other projects you think might support you. It's time we put an end to this and got a closer for this RFC, though I do not envy them the job. But to summarise:
  1. You've found a single primary source that appears to support your edit; depending on how you intepret it. It's far from clear and there are two differing intepretations.
  2. You've found self-published sources, one obtaining it's content from wikipedia, which can't be used.
  3. You've quoted a number of newspaper articles, in the main human interest type stories that WP:RS suggests should not be used as fact checking is less rigorous in such stories.
  4. WP:WEIGHT would tend to go against inclusion since reliable sources do not attach any degree of weight to the subject, WP:FALSEBALANCE would also suggest it isn't including as giving too much weight to minority opinion
Again, can we just cut the drama and put an end to this. WCMemail 06:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
4 users state "include", 4 have suggested compromise wording, 7 want to "exclude". I don't see any consensus there. And do us a favour and don't make it personal. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I too think this RFC has been forum shopped far more than is useful already. Also, I rather agree with WCM's characterisation of the discussion, and I think you're hardly in a position to object to the discussion becoming personalised. Kahastok talk 07:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Could you please give an example of forum shopping on this rfc or withdraw the mistaken allegation of bad faith? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

So to clarify, Kahastok and WCM object to reposting this rfc to the wikiprojects that have included this page in their scope, plus wikiproject:Argentina on the grounds they feel it would be forum-shopping. I will check with a few admins to see if this is reasonable on their part, then follow their advice. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, can you provide any sources from legal textbooks or articles on Argentinian nationality, immigration or constitutional law that support your claim? If not there is no basis for inclusion of this apparent misinformation. Incidentally, there was a case of a child of refugees born on a U.S. coast guard cutter and U.S. Immigration confirmed that he was a U.S. citizen by birth. It was reported across major media. But it turned out that Immigration was wrong. These things happen. We can't use newspaper articles for nationality law. TFD (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes: "Persons born in the Islas Malvinas, Gergias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur, which Argentina claims as parts of its territory could in principle claim Argentinian nationality. However the Argentinian nationality of these persons would most likely fail to be successfully invoked against the United Kingdom or against those states who do not recognise Argentina's rights over the 􏰁above-mentioned islands. For the same reasons persons born in the Antarctic territories that Argentina claims for itself would be Argentinian as well, even if recognition of this status by other states may be uncertain. It is important to notice that the fact of being born in Argentinian territory guarantees Argentinian nationality even if the birth took place during an ephemeral presence of the mother or due to some urgency. In addition, any child that was found in Argentinian territory and whose circumstances of birth are unknown can be deemed Argentinian." This goes alongside the article on British citizenship which states the same, two academic references plus many other statements in books and articles. In any other article this would be accepted. It seems that for this page an extra level of proof is necessary for some reason. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That is better than the other sources. I note the author cites "La nacionalidad en el derecho internacional"(1986) by Juan Antonio Travieso. My concern is Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. We have extensive sources on the status of people born in British Overseas Territories (of which the Falklands is one) under British nationality laws. We have legislation that explains the relationship. The UK routinely issues passports to Falkland Islanders and the Home Office advises immigration officers under what terms they are admitted into the UK. But we don't have any of that for their status under Argentinian law. All we have is a 1986 expert opinion reported as fact in one source.
I am concerned too about the qualification "could in principle claim Argentinian nationality." In principle means other conditions need apply, such as Argentina gaining possession of the Falklands/Malvinas. What are those conditions?
TFD (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't class this as an exceptional claim, there are primary, secondary and tertiary sources agogo. The Argentine constitution clearly defines its territory (including FI), then clearly defines that anyone born there is Argentine. There is also the primary source above in which the Argentine electoral court explicitly states that this applies to FI born individuals, plus two scholarly sources and around a dozen mentions in other sources that support this. I feel we are stepping close to WP:NOTBURO here if we are rejecting so many sources that support inclusion. The statement "in principle" relates to the limitations on recognition by other states mentioned afterwards. However, doubts on this score can be resolved with careful wording. I am quite happy to move away from the wording in the RFC question in order to find consensus. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
As I and other editors have pointed out to you, your other sources didn't meet rs. One of them is specifically banned as a source for Wikipedia articles because it plagiarizes Wikipedia. Your second sentence is clearly synthesis. Anyway your approach is wrong. Instead of identifying the main literature about the topic and making sure the article reflects it, you are looking for sources for something you believe is true. And you can't even say if people born in the Falklands are citizens or have a right to citizenship or why your sources qualify the right. TFD (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I now agree with you the US business book, is not RS btw. My synthesis above is not meant as an argument for inclusion, but as an illustration of why I don't feel you could say that "Falkland born individuals can claim Argentine nationality on the basis of being born in territory claimed by Argentina" is an extraordinary claim. This is especially so given there are many reliable sources which make this claim, and state it has occurred on several occasions. The extra standard of proof, above WP:RS, you and others are requiring here puzzles me.
I have always wanted to include the wording "can claim" or "have the right to" or "have the right to claim" as I feel the semantic difference is minimal, it refers to an automatic right of citizenship UPON APPLICATION for those born in the Falklands not available to those born elsewhere in the world. It's what around 15 sources support. The Argentine constitution defines people as Argentine, but the theoretical citizenship is irrelevant for an individual who has no contact with the Argentine state. Boynamedsue (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Can you cite the legislation that says Falkland Islanders CAN CLAIM citizenship? And note that CAN CLAIM citizenship and ARE BORN citizens are two different things. You seem to confuse the two. In the UK, people who can claim citizenship do so through registration as citizens. But people who are born citizens do not apply for citizenship. TFD (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Parallels between completely different legal systems are not particularly useful, I would say. Especially given the UK no longer uses Ius Soli as a criteria. But in any case, the original constitution (and the supporting electoral court ruling) states that people born in Argentina "are citizens" the secondary/tertiary sources state that Argentina "considers people born in the Falklands to be Argentinian" or "falklands-born individuals can/could claim citizenship" on the basis of ius soli. This recognises that although the right exists, Argentina has no control over the Falklands so bureaucratic formalities must take place.
The closest similarity with the British system might be citizenship by descent, the right of citizenship exists to children born abroad of British-born parents who are citizens, but that must be applied for. The language used in the 1981 citizenship act is "A person born outside the United Kingdom shall be a citizen if (conditions)" and yet these people have to "apply" for British citizenship.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
In other words you cannot point to any Argentinian legislation, executive orders or binding court decisions that support your conclusions. A straight forward reading of the Argentinian constitution says that nationality is based on jus soli, which excludes areas not under the state's control. Incidentally, U.S. law, which served as a model for Argentina's constitution, also exludes people born in territory not under their control from jus soli. (See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830)) If Argentina interprets it differently, you need to provide evidence. A good starting point would be to get Travieso's article. What does he actually say?

You misread the link you provided. People born to citizens who were born in the UK are themselves citizens. But their children must register to become citizens. You have never been clear as to whether Falkland Islanders are Argentinian citizens or have a right to register as citizens. And if they are citizens, then we need to mention per your source and Stephen Potts, that it would a violation of international law and their citizenship would only be recognized in Argentina. That would be good to know, because it would mean they could not be extradited to Argentina for treason for supporting the UK in the Falklands War.

TFD (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that your interpretations of the sources are correct, but they are certainly OR. The Argentine constitution is very clear, and the court ruling is too: "la nacionalidad argentina se basa predominantemente en el hecho del nacimiento de la persona dentro del territorio nacional, ius soli (art. 75, inc. 12, Constitución Nacional, art. 1o inc. 1o, ley 346). Esta previsión alcanza a las personas nacidas en las Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur". In any case, for the purposes of the article, "As Argentina lays claim to the Falklands, individuals born on the islands can claim citizenship on this basis" is now very well-sourced, though I'm happy to see qualifications. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Again you are conflating the idea that someone can claim citizenship with the idea that they are a citizen. If you are an Argentinian citizen, you can vote. If you have a right to be a citizen but are not, you cannot vote. Very different things. And jus soli requires birth withing the dominions and under the control of the state. If Argentina defines it differently from its original meaning, you need to provide a source. Incidentally, Cuba also has jus soli and people born in Guantanamo Bay which they see as illegally occupied by the United States are not recognized as citizens. People born in parts of the U.S. that were occupied by Britain were not considered U.S. citizens. People born in British colonies under control of the U.S. were not considered British nationals. Why Argentina is an exception is something you need to show. TFD (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, this is all your own WP:OR, and I'm not sure it's particularly relevant to the case at hand. The idea that someone can be a citizen without having any documentation or even them or the state in question being aware of it is pretty well established, but we don't need to go into it at all for this RFC. Ius Soli, as interpreted by Argentina government is explicitly stated to apply to the Falklands, as quoted above, and that's all that need concern us.Boynamedsue (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:OR says, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Before citing policies, you should take the time to read them. In this case it is perfectly acceptable for me to rebut your OR by showing that other conclusions are possible. TFD (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but isn't the point that we are trying to decide the text of an article? In that case your personal interpretation of citizenship law is not especially relevant. As it goes, I have looked into it a little and found another academic source, which is quite interesting if you can read Spanish (https://boe.es/publicaciones/biblioteca_juridica/anuarios_derecho/articulo.php?lang=gl&id=ANU-C-1979-40080100826). The quote that supports the claim is: "Los argentinos nativos son, sobre todo, los que han nacido en el territorio de la republica argentina. (...) El concepto de territorio debe ser entendido en forma amplia, incluyendo las Islas Malvinas y la Antartida". The part that might interest you is that the author draws a distinction between "nationality" and "citizenship" in Argentine law, "nationality" being a property of the individual whereas "citizenship" being the ability to participate fully in the rights of a citizen. It is my understanding from the text that in Argentine law the Falklanders all have Argentine nationality, but very few have ever acquired the rights of "citizenship". In any case, the phrase "Argentina considers Falkland born individuals to be Argentinean" is now exceptionally well-sourced. Boynamedsue (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
A further new source, from an academic journal on Argentine law: https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/refade/article/view/6013

"También desde el punto de vista del derecho interno argentino la población de Malvinas no constituye un “pueblo”, con existencia propia, ya que los habitantes de Malvinas son parte del pueblo argentino. En efecto la ley 346 de ciudadanía y naturalización (reformada por las leyes, 16.801, 20.835, 23.059, 24.533 y 24.951) establece que son argentinos “todos los individuos nacidos, o que nazcan en el territorio de la República, sea cual fuere la nacionalidad de sus padres”. Sin importar la ascendencia, la ley 346 consagra el principio del ius soli y declara argentinos a todos los nacidos en territorio nacional. Si bien todo el territorio de Malvinas se encuentra bajo ocupación extranjera, el mismo es parte integrante del territorio argentino, tal como lo manifiesta la primera disposición transitoria de la Constitución de la Nación Argentina, luego de la reforma del año 1994, y por ende también lo es a los efectos de la legislación de ciudadanía."

Also from the point of view domestic Argentine law, the population of the Falklands do not constitute a "people" with a discrete existence, given the fact the inhabitants of the Falklands form part of the Argentine people. In effect Citizenship and Naturalization Law 346 (modified by laws 16.801, 20.835, 23.059, 24.533 y 24.951) establishes that "all individuals already born, or to be born, in the territory of the Republic, whatever the nationality of their parents" are Argentinean. Regardless of ancestry, law 346 consecrates the principle of ius soli and declares all people born in the national territory to be Argentinean. Even though the territory of the Falkland Islands is under foreign occupation, it is an integral part of Argentina's territory, as it is manifested in the first transitory disposition of the Constitution of the Argentine Nation, following the reform of 1994, and therefore it is also such for the purposes of Argentinean citizenship legislation."

Boynamedsue (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
That is one person's interpretation of the law. People disagree on the interpretation of the law, which is why we have courts of appeal and supreme courts. Your source doesn't cite any Argentinian laws, order or regulation or court decision to support their claim. Instead they argue that because Argentina claims the Malvinas and has jus soli citizenship, that people born in the Malvinas are Argentinian citizens. And as I mentioned, jus soli as a concept requires birth under the allegiance of the state. That's why for example the children of foreign diplomats are not citizens, even in Argentina. Some academics in the U.S. argued that American Samoans are U.S. citizens. (See Tuaua v. United States.) In fact there have been numerous disputes about who is or who is not a citizen/subject over the past 400 years. TFD (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
US Law is irrelevant to Argentine law. If you feel that the 4 Academic sources and one primary legal judgment form the Argentine electoral court are incorrect, it is up to you to provide sources that say something different. A section on Argentine law with relation to the Falkland Islanders written in an Argentine law journal is not merely an interpretation, it is the very definition of WP:VS. I would thank you for this, because there are now 4 academic secondary sources that support the text (plus the one in Jurisprudencia Argentina that we haven't read) rather than 1. This is pretty good when we consider that there are less than two thousand "Falklands-born individuals" on the planet, and texts on Argentine citizenship law are very hard to obtain on-line, perhaps given it is so simple. In any case, do you agree these 4 sources support the text "As Argentina both claims the Falkland Islands and offers nationality on the basis of Jus Soli, it considers Falklands-born individuals to be Argentine nationals."? Bearing in mind, statements in wikipedia must be based only on sources rather than your personal interpretation of primary legislation. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

New source (the 5th academic source supporting the wording).

And conflicting claims over territory can yield anomalous results, through compromise as in the case of the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement, allowing almost all persons born and living in Northern Ireland to present themselves as British nationals, as Irish nationals, or both; or unilaterally as in the case of persons born in the Falkland Islands, normally British Dependent Territories citizens under the British Nationality Act 1981, but always accepted by Argentina as its own nationals by jus soli through birth in the territory it claims as las Malvinas.

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I used a U.S. case as an example that there can be differences of opinion on legal issues. That is not unique to the U.S. Anyway, as I said you need to show specific legislation, an executive order, a decisive court case case or a legal textbook which refers to them, not an opinion by a lawyer. Some readers (wrongly) rely on Wikipedia for legal advice. I am not certain that anyone born in the UK can enter Argentina, work, vote and remain there based on birth in the Malvinas. I am certain they can do so in the UK, because all those sources (except a court decision) are available. So unless you can find those sources, I don't think we will get any further in this discussion. TFD (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, we will leave it at that, but for the record I don't think your interpretation of WP:RS is correct here. The fact you suspect a reliable source might be wrong does not count as a valid argument unless it is backed by sources which contradict the first source. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem is actually fairly simple: you would probably get consensus to add the sentence if you expanded iut to include ...though no islander has done so since the country’s failed invasion in 1982 or words tot hat effect. Without the qualifier, it implies validity of a territorial claim. With the qualifier, it is correctly contextualised as a unilateral offer that gets a pretty resounding "thanks but no thanks". Guy (help! - typo?) 10:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I have already agreed to that. I can't blame you for not locating it on this though! There are a couple of users with strongly held views who feel including the text with the qualification you propose would violate WP:WEIGHT Boynamedsue (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Boynamedsue, there's nothing stopping us from having a second RfC based on the revised text. I'd suggest a three-option question, in fact: your original option, the qualified option, and exclude. See what has the greater sup[port and in what order.Guy (help! - typo?) 12:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islanders/Archive_2&oldid=1001077319"