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)

Related peoples

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nationality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 2018

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

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

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

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

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

Look at your sources:

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

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

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

I will repost with more sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will include the quotes here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for comment

Should the article include the sentence: "As Argentina lays claim to the Falkland Islands, Falkland-born individuals have the right to claim Argentine citizenship."? 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://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s7efBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=citizenship+law+argentina+falklands+malvinas&source=bl&ots=SNSiQWrAd7&sig=ACfU3U1lnbdxlSPRDg3FZjjOjUuBsoB5Ag&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjo9bTHzb7rAhWNiFwKHdrABb44UBDoATAPegQIARAB#v=onepage&q=citizenship%20law%20argentina%20falklands%20malvinas&f=false

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

--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)

[16] 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. WCM_email 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). WCM_email 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:

[17] Argentina says Falkland Islanders ‘do not exist’

[18] There is no such thing as Falkland Islanders: they are British citizens in disputed islands

[19] 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."

[20] 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 [21]. 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. WCM_email 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, [22] you informed me after you'd already posted it [23].

I would suggest you stop badgering people, you do yourself no favours and are quite likely to deter outside comment with your conduct. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 15:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I requested a view on this from respected expert in international law, Stephen Potts, [24]. In his opinion, Argentina cannot impose citizenship as it would violate human rights law, he cited [25] 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). WCM_email 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, [26], 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? WCM_email 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: [27]. 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 [28] (sorry Spanish source ) and [29] (English). Normally the Argentine government describes islander as British citizens or variously as "illegal", "squatters" and "illegally implanted population"[30], [31] 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. WCM_email 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)

[32] 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. WCM_email 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? WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 13:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

[33] 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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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)

“ 7th) That, for the sake of completeness and in order to resolve The sub examine the Argentine nationality is based predominantly in the fact of the person's birth within the national territory, ius soli (art. 75, inc. 12, National Constitution, art. 1st inc. 1, law 346). Is foresight reaches people born in the Falkland Islands,South Georgia and South Sandwich, and the people born in Antarctica in the sector claimed by our country with prior to 1959. ”

“ 7º) Que, a mayor abundamiento y a efectos de resolver el sub examine 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. ”

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. WCM_email 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)

• New source Argentina Constitution and Citizenship Laws Handbook: Strategic Information and Basic Laws.

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)

“ 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. ”

FFS learn to provide quotes in a manner that doesn't hide details (emphasis added). Note the qualifier. WCM_email 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:

“ Should the article include the sentence: "As Argentina lays claim to the Falkland Islands, Falkland-born individuals have the right to claim Argentine citizenship."? ”

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? WCM_email 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)