Talk:2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

why is this an article?

it's just part of the Falklands article as far as I can see 68.19.26.169 (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on all significant elections (including by elections for individual seats) and referendums. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How come there's no "Criticism" section

I've read for example opinions saying that referendum is not a moral way to determine to whom Malvines belong because for years of British occupation citizens of Argentine became misrepresented in islands' demography. These voices should be reflected in the article. Likewise, in 50 years time Han Chinese settlers will decide in referendum that Tibet is Chinese. (excuse my English. BTW no I'm not from Argentine :))83.7.163.61 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina's criticism is included in the Announcement and responses section. A criticism section might be a good idea, but I think it's worth waiting until the result is announced so that the Argentine reaction to the result can be included. Philip Stevens (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism section is badly needed not just for this article, but for other articles related to the referendum. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum

Should this article title be Falkland Islands political status referendum, 2013 which is how the question is put and described in the article, the sovereignty question is surely the second part when/if the islanders vote no to remaining an overseas territory. MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer Falkland Islands status referendum, 2013, as "status referendum" is a common tag for such articles (see here). Number 57 21:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have a problem with that certainly better than the present title. MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Year in title

Has there been another referendum on this topic? Isn't "Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum" a better name? Cambalachero (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (an unofficial one in in 1986). And no - all election and referendum articles have the year as part of the title (see Category:Independence referendums as an example). Number 57 09:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

99.8% or 98.8% vote 'Yes'. Which is it?

There seems to be some confusion over the exact percentage that voted yes. Is the 98.8% of the total electorate and 99.8% of those who voted? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

99.8% of those who cast valid votes. This is the general way of presenting results (i.e. not including invalid votes or abstentions in the % of yes or no). The intro specifically says 99.8% on a turnout of 91%. Number 57 11:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The following was copied from my talk page;

Hello Nuiop739. Welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit to the Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013, you are correct that in normal situations, a reference to "illegally occupying" the islands would not be neutral. However, this is not a statement of fact, but rather what the Argentine government claims ("Argentina has long disputed the British presence on the islands, claiming... that the Royal Navy... has been illegally occupying the islands ever since"). As a result, I have reverted your change to the article. Cheers, Number 57 11:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I understand what it means now, just a bit unclear. Perhaps dividing or shortening the sentence would help. See how it says 'Argentina has long disputed ... claiming ...' and then goes on to say that the Royal Navy evicted the Argentines from the island; it is a fact that the British evicted the Argentines from the islands in 1833, so seems odd for this fact to be included in sentence detailing the Argentinian claim, a more appropriate statement would be something like: Argentina has long disputed the British presence on the islands, claiming to have inherited sovereignty from Spain in 1816, and that the British eviction of Argentinian authorities was illegal. Nuiop739 (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This changes the meaning of the sentence from being that the "occupation since 1833 is illegal" to the "ejection was illegal". I'm not sure whether this is still correct (although oddly the source this statement is cited to doesn't back up the claim). Number 57 13:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout figure

The turnout figure is being reported as 92% by some sources. However, this doesn't seem to be correct. The number of registered voters is being reported as 1,672. The number of votes cast was either 1,518 (including the lost vote) or 1,517. Using these figures, turnout is either 90.79% or 90.73%. Even if we use the figure for ballot papers issued (1,522), this still only gives a turnout figure of 91.03.

At least one source, the IFES, is reporting turnout as 90.79, which matches the figures above. Number 57 09:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official figures released by the Chief Referendum Officer are on the Falkand Islands' government's website here, and it states that there was a 92% turnout. I'd be guessing that those figures should be considered definitive. This is the official page for the referendum, but a breakdown of the figures hasn't been posted there yet. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but in that case something else must be wrong (possibly the number of registered voters). I have e-mailed the Chief Referendum Officer to ask. Number 57 10:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. I'd be guessing that the issue is that some of the figures are preliminary. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very impressively, I've already had a response from Keith Padgett. Apparently the number of registered voters reported by the BBC is wrong - in fact it was 1,650. The voting figure used was 1,518, which gives exactly 92%. I will amend the article accordingly. Number 57 11:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for chasing this down - I also agree that it's great that Mr Padgett replied so quickly given that I'm sure he's very busy at the moment! Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic background

The following is being proposed:

I see mainly two problems with this:

  1. "The British claim to sovereignty of the Falkland Islands dates to 1690" is a classic British-POV assertion. It hides the fact that the British left the islands for 57 years in 1776, and that the Spanish "exercised de facto sovereignty" over them from 1776 to 1811.
  2. The critical date for uti possidetis iuris in Latin America is 1810, not 1816. The May Revolution marks the beginning of Latin America's independence.

I'd propose the following modified, more balanced version:

Regards. --Langus (t) 05:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


You say,' "The British claim to sovereignty of the Falkland Islands dates to 1690" is a classic British-POV assertion'. Of course it is; it is the British claim. The 'British claim' must, by its very nature be from a British POV.
Of course, the Argentine claim must be expressed from an Argentine POV because that is exactly what it is. If you think that the statement of the Argentine claim does not properly reflect the Argentine POV then I would support changing it. Martin Hogbin (talk)
Then we would be asserting the British claim without properly identifying it as a claim... Wikipedia would be, therefore, backing it. --Langus (t) 02:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Falklands referendum: Islanders vote on British status". BBC News. 10 March 2013. Retrieved 10 March 2013.

Infobox

Can we switch to an infobox without a map? The map is not being used, and given the results, it wouldn't show anything meaningful anyway even if it was being used. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have done. Number 57 12:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of the no voters

Is it worth mentioning the somewhat unusual discussion that has taken place in the media (British media at least) over the identities of the 3 no voters? Telegraph, Guardian. --wintonian talk 15:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion of Celina Andreassi

An IP added a paragraph quoting the opinions of Argentine journalist Celina Andreassi on the referendum. I removed it for two reasons; firstly that it uses the incorrect tense in the phrase "this week’s referendum", and secondly questioning why the opinion of one journalist is noteworthy.

Unfortunately it was blindly reinstated by the IP and Langus-TxT (blindly as they neglected to fix the clear error in the language). Per WP:BRD, please get consensus to have this in the article. Thanks, Number 57 15:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply apologize for those reverts, to be honest I got confused about the facts and I hadn't noticed that the content had been added recently.
The bit about that opinion that I think it is noteworthy to include in the article is the fact that, to some journalists at least (and not just the Argentine government) the impact of the Referendum on the sovereignty dispute could be limited.
Some more sources on that idea:
http://www.voxxi.com/predictable-outcome-falkland-islands/
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/americas/2013/03/11/372695/Falklands-referendum.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/09/meaningless-falklands-referendum-uk-sovereignty
http://theconversation.com/falklands-referendum-will-change-little-12653
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-03-11/falklands-referendum-changes-nothing-for-argentina/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/03/falkland-islands-referendum
I believe that this opinion is worth inclusion, even tho I know that it is not what Falkland Islanders want to hear... --Langus (t) 00:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Journalist opinions on what may or may not happen don't seem to be that useful. On the other hand, articles such as this economist one, directly noting the failure of the referendum to affect a specific case, in this case the UN meetings, are likely worth including. CMD (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So how about a suggested paragraph of text to be inserted? Number 57 10:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For those in the know, the C24's position is not particularly significant. No Falklands-watcher will have been shocked to see the C24 reach exactly the same conclusion as they have done every year for decades. And their proposals have been roundly ignored by the General Assembly every year for decades. That's not to say it can't be mentioned, only that if so, it should be in its proper context.
I note that the Economist blog post seems to get a large number of things quite wrong. The positions expressed differ markedly from minutes of the meeting. If you look at the countries that spoke, 11 were Latin American and one more was Caribbean. There was one speaker from the Arab world, from a country whose government the British have said they would like to see overthrown (Syria). The speaker from Africa was Sierra Leone, who supported the British position. The blog post claims that the European Parliament came out in favour of Argentina at the committee, even though no EU or EU member representation appears to have even been present (including from the UK) and the European Parliament has never taken such a position.
There's enough there that I would suggest that the entire post is probably suspect reliability-wise. Kahastok talk 19:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"For those in the know", that is an unhappy remark. I politely disagree with your opinion that "the C24's position is not particularly significant", as surely the people at French Polynesia do.[1][2]
I also fail to see the "large number of things quite wrong". First, you're looking at the list of countries that have spoken, not the actual votes (the article even notes that Sierra Leone was a dissenter). It also covers only the 8th Meeting (AM). Secondly, your claim that the position of the European Parliament is an error, is based on the assumption that "no EU or EU member representation appears to have even been present". That is just a supposition, and a mistaken one judging by this article.
That same article would even explain what The Economist meant by "won support from [...] the European Parliament"
In sum, I do not see reliability issues regarding The Economist. --Langus (t) 01:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Economist is a pretty good source, as far as sources go. As Langus notes, they were not discussing speakers. That the C24 is becoming rather repetitive and outdated is a separate issue, not for this page. A reaction section should be created in the long run, and I'm sure everything can be placed in its proper context. CMD (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When any source is so repeatedly getting its basic facts wrong, we do need to ask whether it is reliable, particularly when it is a blog post (given that blog posts are not normally considered reliable).
I did make it clear that I did not feel that we should necessarily exclude the C24 meeting, only that we should put it in its proper context based on reliable and accurate sources.
I'm afraid I must reject Langus' comment pretty much in full.
The presence of a few MEPs in Buenos Aires does not imply, by any stretch of the imagination, that there was any EU presence, or any presence of any EU member, at a meeting in a city over 5000 miles away on a different continent.
The claim made that the European Parliament has not "as such" accepted British sovereignty does not imply, by any stretch of the imagination, that the European Parliament actively supports Argentina, or has ever expressed such an opinion, as the Economist blog post claimed. Even if those MEPs support Argentina (and you have provided no evidence that they do), there is no reason to suppose that a few MEPs are representative of anyone other than themselves.
The statements about French Polynesia are of precisely the sort that the British and Falklands governments have been making regularly for years. The C24 makes statements. Has done for decades. They are routinely ignored. This is what happens. Nobody should be surprised. Kahastok talk 19:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These "blog" posts may be reliable or may be not: WP:SPS#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs; WP:USERGENERATED. In particular, The Economist refers to these posts as "Our blog on Latin America, the Caribbean and Canada",[3] so I would expect some kind of editorial control.
As such, you're trying to prove it wrong with an invalid argument, because you have failed to prove that "speakers = votes" (wrong, by common sense), and particularly, that "speakers on the 8th meeting = speakers concerning the FI statement" (may or may not be true). Your whole stance now bases itself on the fact that I cannot prove that the EU was present at the meetings. That is not how it works: you are the one that has to prove The Economist wrong, not me proving it right. Or are you arguing that The Economist is not a reliable source? --Langus (t) 18:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When a source is posting such massive red flags as this one, you ought to be sceptical about it. If the European Parliament had really supported Argentina over the Falklands at the UN, you wouldn't have to rely on a blog in the Economist to find out about it. There's more than one newspaper in the UK that would have put it on their front page in 144-point font. Because it would be a massive shot in the arm for the "out" side of the debate over Britain's future membership of the EU.
There would of course be a European Parliament document endorsing such a position, backed by vote of MEPs. The European Parliament couldn't have taken such a position without a vote and that vote would have made headlines in both the UK and Argentina. Can you cite such stories? Not a couple of MEPs saying that they haven't taken a position (which is what you cited before). Can you cite actual evidence of an actual formal vote of the European Parliament, with vote counts on each side and suchlike? I know I haven't seen any such story and I very much doubt that you have.
We can either assume, as you seem to be, that for no apparent reason there has been some vast conspiracy to suppress all evidence of the European Parliament formally taking a side in favour of Argentina over the Falklands - a story that if true would make front page news in both the UK and Argentina - only to see it leaked by a passing reference in the Economist and not picked up by anyone else. Or we can say that the Economist fouled up and printed something that was wrong. I know which seems more likely to me.
And the fact remains, you go through the list and see where the support came from. The decision was taken without a vote, so we don't know what positions each country took except by looking through what they said. What they said was as I described. The Economist blog got it wrong. That's fine. People get things wrong sometimes. But there is no excuse for us to repeat their mistake. Kahastok talk 22:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Were they required to speak? No. Your speech is again pretty skilled, but you're presenting conjectures, you haven't proven The Economist wrong. There are no red flags to me, just the shadow of doubt in regard to the European Parliament.
Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that you're determined to not accept the inclusion of this opinion. This discussion, therefore, has become irrelevant. --Langus (t) 01:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When it's possible to drive a coach and horses through what a source says, it should be raising red flags.
They weren't required to speak. But given the lack of a vote, there's no way we can determine their views on the matter if they didn't. We cannot assume that every country present approved the Argentine position because we have counterexamples. Given that the European Parliament is not a member of the UN, given that the European Parliament is not a representative of a member of the UN, given that we have no evidence that either the EU or any EU member state was present at the meeting, given that no EU member state is represented on the Committee and given that the two EU member states that have territories on the committee's list boycott the committee's hearings, you will need a hell of a lot more than a single blog post - even from the Economist - if you want to demonstrate your conspiracy theory.
It is not up to me to prove my point. It's up to you to demonstrate that what you want to put in the article is accurate and you're about a thousand miles away here. And if you're looking for truth, I suggest you go and find a philosophy textbook. This is an encyclopædia, that deals not in truth but in fact. Kahastok talk 21:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was talking about proof as in mathematical proof: "we have no evidence of X" does not equal "X doesn't exist / X is false". The only pony I see passing through that source is the issue about the European Parliament at the UN (we know about the MEPs at Buenos Aires), and in that sense, the only one theorizing here is you. --Langus (t) 10:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for me to disprove any points that you wish to put into the article. It is for you to prove them. This source does not prove anything much. Kahastok talk 21:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that The Economist is a reliable source, and you (forgive me for being so blunt) are not. --Langus (t) 03:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even a reliable source can get it wrong - even if it is not (as in this case) a blog. We do not blindly follow any source we have to find, even when we can demonstrate that its claims are unlikely, clearly not sensible, or do not tally with existing evidence, as in this case. If any source, no matter how reliable, said that the capital of Argentina was called "Buenas Aires", or said that the US declared independence in 1745, you wouldn't use that to change any article on Wikipedia to echo their mistake. Kahastok talk 21:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a SECTION explaining the reasons for failure of past and present referendums

As I (and many other wikipedia users who aren't British, Argentine, or Falklanders/Malvineros) don't know why, I hope someone includes a section here (and in the other articles concerning past Falkland Islands sovereignty referenda) explaining why these referenda seem to keep failing.

I have placed the title of the section and tagged it "this section requires expansion" for the benefit of would-be explainers. Maybe the ff. sources could be a good place to start:

Pcbyed (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the current empty section in the article because it is not clear what you are getting at. What do you mean by, 'failure of...referendums'. What do you say is the objective of a referendum and how have the Falkland ones failed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indpendence edit

Rederding this edit, the source says "Down at the West Store shopping centre, the manager of the electricals shop, Liam Short [...] [said] "I did speak to one person and they were saying they were going to vote no," he says, "more for a reason of independence." This is exciting news. Could he ask that person if they would talk to me about it? He could, but he isn't optimistic. "I'm pretty sure that they won't broadcast it," he says. And yes, moments later Short calls back to confirm that the person did indeed vote no, but will not talk""

That doesn't necessarily mean that "At least one of the three people that voted 'No' did so out of a desire for full independence.". First of all The Guardian isn't saying that "a reason of independence" is why this guy voted no, The Guardian is saying that Liam Short stated "a reason of independence" is why guy voted no. While The Guardian is (I presume) a reliable source, Liam Short is not.

Secondly "more for a reason of independence" doesn't necessarily mean full independence, it's a pretty vague statement. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit seems fair enough to me. I am not sure that speculation about the three 'no' votes belongs here at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I am for just simply removing the reference entirely. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of foreign commentary

As I failed to understand why a vote in a foreign country has any relevance to the results section I removed it but it has been challenged "as recongnition of the result". As far as I know there is no requirement for foreign non-related countries to recognise the result otherwise we could list every other countries opinion on the result to keep it neutral. Certainly nothing to do with the "result" so if nobody agrees with me about removing it then it should be moved to a seperate section on "foreign commentary". MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is often a section on election and referendum articles with the heading "Reactions" (e.g. here) that includes things like this. I think it's relevant for inclusion, but should possibly be moved to a Reactions section. Number 57 12:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a reactions section and moved the paragraph mentioned above there as well as Cameron's comments. I've also added Argentina's reaction which wasn't mentioned on the page previously. Philip Stevens (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MilborneOne. Comparison with Zimbabwe is inapprpriate. The issue is notability. The response to Zimbabwe's election was relevant and notable for many reasons. The response to the FI referendum, whose result is not contested, unlike in Zimbabwe, is not notable, except in relation to the UK and Argentina.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why is there no mention of the actual question which was asked?

Many people seem to think that it was either UK or ARG while the actual question was "Do you want the Falkland Island to retain its current political status as an overseas territory of the United Kingdom"?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.171.13.224 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its clearly mentioned in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum"