Talk:Falkland Islanders

Untitled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accent? Dialect?

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

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

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

Nationality, see CIA factbook section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is the Spanish term given?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British Overseas Territory "editing war"

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

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

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

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

"Regions with significant populations"

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

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