Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 9

Units

I'm adding this here since noone responded above. I don't really want to start or get into an argument over units; however, having read through the discussion above, I'd like to set out my opinion of the units debate regarding the temperatures.

Noting that:

1. The source of the information given is Celcius;

2. The government of the Falklands uses metric units almost everywhere;

3. Other Falklands sources use either mostly metric or a roughly even mixture;

4. None of the references in this article use Farenheit at all

Why is the temperature table in Farenheit? I apologise if I'm stepping on anyone's toes here, as it seems to be a very sensitive topic; but the debate above seems to have been characterised by a lot of agression and not much rational debate (that's not intended as a slight at any particular editor). It seems clear to me that the temperatures ought to be in Celcius; can anyone explain why they ought to be in Farenheit? CheesyBiscuit (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply the preference for a consistent approach to units, starting with Imperial first as it reflected a lot of sources at the time. It isn't really sensitive at all. Oh and from memory, unless some has switched sources again the original source was in Fahrenheit. Justin talk 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The source is currently the BBC site, in Celcius. Judging by the manual of style, I think the relevant bits are this

For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, US articles generally put United States customary units first. UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts. These include

Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy

Feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements

Imperial pints for draught beer/cider

See also Metrication in the United Kingdom and the Times Online style guide under "Metric"

and this

'Avoid inconsistent usage. Write a 600-metre (2000 ft) hill with a 650-metre (2,100 ft) hill, not a 2,000-foot (610 m) hill with a 650-metre (2,100 ft) hill.'

I don't think that indicates that the whole article has to use consistently Imperial or metric; just that this table, for example, ought not to switch between the two. I think we can all agree that that would be silly! It seems that the original source was a US website, hence the Farenheit, but the BBC site has a stronger link to the Falklands I think. The first quote I copied would seem to mean - to me - that in this case, Celcius should be used. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok I give up - could someone please make my comment above appear without that box?? CheesyBiscuit (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, the MOS actually leaves it to editors to agree on an article by article basis. The original source was an American site, which someone switched to the BBC. You have that nailed. My preference is to stick with the policy of being consisetnt in the article. Justin talk 18:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Where there are strong ties to a person, time or place, WP:MOSNUM basically leaves the choice of units to the editors. There are rules we need to follow - the rule against inconsistent usage is one of them - but it's our choice which units we use. The consensus of editors here is that it is best to be consistent to one system - the imperial system - within the article. Pfainuk talk 18:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this consensus consists of three people who wanted Imperial, two who said they wanted a source based approach and one who said he favoured SI but believed that the consensus was Imperial on British articles. That's what passes for consensus round here. Michael Glass (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pfainuk for fixing my comment! While it does seem like it would perhaps be more logical to have metric units throughout if we were starting the article now (based on what most of the sources say), I'm not sure as it's worth the effort of changing it, even if we do agree that it's desirable. However, is there really much benefit in having the temperatures in Farenheit just because the rest of the article uses other Imperial units? It's not like there's anything really to be gained from doing so, though I see the argument for keeping say measurements of area in acres or sq miles if distances are in miles (and obviously I think it makes sense to keep all of the measurements of one type in the same unit system - i.e all distances in miles, or whatever). But Celcius units are by far and away the most used temperature measurements worldwide, and Farenheit is hardly used outside the USA. I think it would be much clearer for most readers if we change the temperatures. My personal preference would be for SI units, but I don't think anyone else would be keen to put climate temperatures in Kelvin! CheesyBiscuit (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to favour consistency in having a consistent policy on order of units and also tend to favour Fahrenheit as I grew up with it and for me it conveys a meaning that Celsius doesn't. Recognising thats a personal preference so I'm willing to listen to what others think. It might be different as you say if the article was written today but as the Falkland Islands project has also expressed a preference for imperial first it may be worthwhile raising this there. Justin talk 11:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My own preference is imperial-with-exceptions (though I also support the current all-imperial consensus). Fahrenheit would be the most obvious start. But a decent discussion is on how exactly it might be changed is nigh-on impossible when certain editors spend the entire discussion trying the Wikilawyer their own preferences in (even when those preferences are not in line with WP:MOSNUM) and refuse to discuss anything else.

As Justin says, any change really needs to go through the Falkland Islands Work Group at WikiProject:South America, since it's a wider consensus we're dealing with. Pfainuk talk 18:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Falkland Islands Work Group. [4] The task force proposal is to make all Falkland Islands articles Imperial first, including the ones that have been metric first for years.

At the moment there are three votes for Imperial, two votes for a more source based approach and one other has stated that he favours metrics but he believes that UK articles are Imperial first (there's no such policy, of course). If people express their opinion on the work page it could help resolve an acrimonious dispute about the choice of units. The alternative is the kind of dispute that can be seen on the West Falkland talk page: [5] Michael Glass (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for heads-up. I'll head over. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How does one go about changing the units displayed in the table? I note they're actually entered in Celcius and then some template thing is converting them. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You could do people the courtesy of waiting for a consensus, don't see it is that far off. Its doesn't have to be done now. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd still like to know how it's done :-) Do you know when it was last in Celcius? Can you point me to the right diffs? CheesyBiscuit (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Its never been done in Celsius in that form, this is how to do it [6], you have to force that template to be metric first. OK? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! CheesyBiscuit (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Phainuk's changes for two reasons:

• He converted 39°F as 39°C. This has since been corrected.
• He stated the rainfall as being a specific number of inches, but by not using the convert utility he has removed the audit trail and has thereby debased the article. This has yet to be corrected. I stand by what I said - if you are going to revert what somebody else has written, do not debase the article in the process.

Martinvl (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure people can check whether it's right. Get a calculator and multiply the inches by 25.4. Or divide the millimetres by 25.4. It's not like the conversion factor is some great secret known only to the authors of {{convert}}, and it's not OR to expect people to be able to do basic maths in order to verify the accuracy of a conversion. Pfainuk talk 23:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what your background is (outside Wikipedia). I have been writing computer programs for more years than I care to remember. Preparing a Wikipedia script embodies a number of computer programming techniques such as the use of the convert template rather than hard-coding lots of numbers. Yes, you can use a calculator, but what happens if I find an inconsistency in somebody else's conversion? Which figure do you correct? What if the source document was not available on-line (because it had been deleted or moved, or because it was a paper document), then you have a problem.

BTW, you will notice that when I have been sorting out reference, I lay my {{cite web}} statements out in an ordered manner - another habit from years of writing computer programs. Martinvl (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I am a 61 year old Brit who was educated in Fahrenheit and have lived through metrication. I have no difficulty switching between the two but generally find that I think in celcius when it is cold (zero degrees being the freezing point and minus 10 is pretty nippy) and, along with most of the population, still tend to think in fahrenheit when it is hot (sixty degrees F is quite comfortable and eighty degrees makes me sweaty) but 35 degrees C is just as understandably hot. I would concur that with regard to temperature and precipitation the article should reflect metric first with imperial conversions. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 11:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Would user Greenstuff please read WP:MOS and WP:NPOV. These are the standards that we should be following, not an individual WP:POV. Martinvl (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Martin, very amusing 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 20:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Metric units for all weather-related data (Celsius for temperature, millimetres for rainfall and so on)

"Metric units for all weather-related data (Celsius for temperature, millimetres for rainfall and so on)" Pfainuk,

These are Pfainuk's very words. I made an edit doing exactly this but Pfainuk reverted this edit. Metric units for all weather-related data (Celsius for temperature, millimetres for rainfall and so on) have the support of a clear majority. Why hasn't Pfainuk been true to his word? Michael Glass (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What Pfain did was revert because the discussion was not yet over and implimenting consensus before that consensus is decided is bad form. Rather than bad faith accusations and smears, you could try to be a bit more patient and you'd find you put fewer peoples backs up. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What else is needed? A clear majority are in favour of the change. Michael Glass (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You have appear to misunderstood consensus. People with majorities fail RfA etc for example. I'd suggest you go and get, on a measure by measure basis, consensus for changes rather than going for whole systems. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I do understand consensus decision making. I also understand the problems of this form of decision-making [7]. I think we have enough agreement for a change in the weather data. Many people have spoken in favour of this change; I don't think anyone has spoken against it as such. The only argument against it is that consensus has not been reached to make this change.

• The change is in accordance to modern British practice.
• The change is in accordance with the source that has been cited.
• The change is in accordance with Falkland Islands practice.

Now let's look at the support and opposition to the change. (Please correct me if I have misrepresented any opinion.)

• 4 people have spoken for metrics first in the articles: Pmt7ar, Eraserhead, Tony1, Michael Glass,
• 2 people have spoken for metrics first in the weather: Martinvl and Chase me Ladies I'm the Cavalry
• 1 person apparently in favour of metrics on balance: MacRusgail
• 1 person agreed to metrics first in the weather but deleted it in the text: Pfainuk
• 2 people supported Pfainuk's action in deleting the change to the text: Justin and Narson
• 1 person has expressed strong support for Imperial but so far has not commented specifically on the weather: Ryan4314

7 out of 11 spoke in favour of metric temperatures (8 if you count Pfainuk). Significantly, the only argument against putting it in the text was that it had not gained "consensus". My question is quite simple: what would it take to demonstrate consensus? Michael Glass (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

3 for metric first for weather data CheesyBiscuit (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely this debate should be taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group. That is where the debate originated. Martinvl (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What about following the manual of style?

"If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses." Argentino (talk/cont.) 23:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the weather data is going to go for metric anyway. But the discussion is about units more generally, and that particular part of the MOS is less appropriate when dealing with a whole projectful of units - the general rule is to use the units used locally. As I noted on my previous revert, and as Narson noted above, it's not appropriate to start changing units until we've got a consensus on exactly how all the units are to be changed. Once we've done that, these units will almost certainly get changed - though if we don't get a consensus then obviously they will remain as they are (as per the previous consensus). Pfainuk talk 23:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Argentino that the weather information should be metric first, and urge him to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group and put his case there. I see no good reason for delaying a move on these units until we reach agreement on all the other changes that have been discussed. The argument that there is no consensus for change is, in my opinion, quite specious. 8 people out of 12 have spoken for this change (9/12, if you count Pfainuk). How many more people does it take to demonstrate consensus for this change? Michael Glass (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple. Once we have a clear consensus to replace the current imperial-first rule - and on what to replace it with - then we can start switching things. But if we don't get a consensus on that, then the imperial-first rule will remain. Trying to pre-empt a consensus that has not yet formed is unhelpful - it's not like we're working to a deadline here. Pfainuk talk 18:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I still don't agree on this use of consensus. Say whatever the consensus is reached, then I gather some 50 fellow supporting my idea and impose a new consensus. Then comes another with 80 and imposes a stronger consensus. I don't think it ends anywhere, and certainly a consensus by 20 editors is far away from how the wikipedia, made for millions of readers, should be. If there is going to be a votation, I can bring a few dozen to support metric first as I do. IMO a stronger consensus should be on the guidelines, and not only on the Falklands or UK group. The MOS is already clear and should not be much to editors to discuss on this except the interpretation of local use. I agree that Falkland articles should follow the same criteria as UK as there is no specific evidence of local use. But AFAIK, UK uses metrics. If the official units or the traditional imperial units should be first, is the unclear matter. I accept both, but metrics first. By analogy, in Argentina we use "mangos" and "lucas" as well as "pesos" for currency, but on wikipedia only "pesos" is used. If on every article we use the local uses, this will turn in the most messy encyclopedia ever. Point for standards (metrics). pmt7ar ^(t|c) 19:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The system of units in common use in the UK is complex. Certainly, metric units are not used in the UK in the same way as in Argentina. This is why the UK gets special mention at WP:UNITS.

In some contexts, imperial units are overwhelmingly more common than metric units among all age groups. These include distances and speeds, people's weights, people's heights, and quantities of beer and cider. Speed limits on British roads are set in miles per hour. Distances on roads and footpaths are marked in miles and yards. Beer is sold in imperial pints. And as I said at WT:MOSNUM, very few people in Britain would know whether a person who was 1.70m tall and 50kg was thin, fat, or well-proportioned. What I didn't say, and perhaps should have done, is that if you said that that same person was 5 ft 9 ins and weighed 8 stone, they'd have a pretty good idea that he's quite thin.

In some other contexts, usage is split between metric and imperial - for example, it's common to hear the heights of mountains expressed in feet only, but younger people tend to prefer to measure them in metres. Rainfall on weather forecasts tends to be given both in millimetres and in inches. At the supermarket it is very common to see goods being labelled in such as a way as to get around the regulations: things are 454g instead of 450g - because 454g is one pound. At the deli counter, things are priced in kilograms but people still often ask for stuff in pounds. Recipes tend to be marked up in both sets of units.

And then there are some contexts where metric has taken over. Industry tends to be metric-only, as do (obviously) most scientific and engineering contexts. The tonne has almost entirely replaced the old imperial ton (they weigh about the same in any case). Temperature is a curious example of a case where metric is significantly more common (though it is often remarked that the British prefer Celsius for cold temperatures and Fahrenheit for warm ones).

Now, my position in this dispute is that we should accept British usage. We should use imperial units first where they are overwhelmingly more common, and discuss the in-between contexts to determine which system would be the most appropriate given the articles that we have. In metric-first contexts, my view is that we should accept metric-first units.

But we don't have consensus for that yet. Unless we can get a new consensus, the rule is that the old one - imperial-first for everything - remains. The objection you raise to the consensus model is a valid criticism of it, but it's not really for us here to change it. I will note that consensus is not majority opinion and that Michael has been muddying the waters a bit by counting people. We should be aiming to bring as many people into the consensus as possible. This is what I am trying to do. Pfainuk talk 20:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the traditional de facto usage of imperial units in UK. As I said before, I accept in this case imperial conversion as ad hoc . I don't think a de facto usage makes it the correct or "the first" use. I was taught Pluto was a planet, and most people I know still call it that way, only current generation is being taught it's a dwarf planet. On it's article, everybody may agree the official is more adequate. By local usage I understand official usage, I don't have own sources, so I rely on the wikipedia article. It says UK adopted metrics except e.g. beer in pints, road sign in miles and speeds in mph, as they drag legal issues. This complies with guidelines, so general information should me metrics (weather, locations, speeds) except you're touching those points before. e.g. the wind speed should be in kmh first, but if you mention "the max. speed on routes" there you can use mph. Not because transport speeds are by law in mph all kind of speeds should be the same.

Pfainuk, in that I agree with you and the guidelines. The local usage is metrics for UK with explicit exceptions. As for de facto usage, imperial can be accepted but as conversion, not first. The Imperial units article doesn't say explicitly, but at my understanding weight and height are officially in m and kg, despite most current people uses feet and stones.pmt7ar ^(t|c) 20:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I support all uses of standards and official uses. They have criteria, with just reason, to be considered correct. Thus should be used always as first unit. Any other conversion is welcome if it helps understanding. But using imperials where international and even UK official usage is metric distorts the idea. One should encourage to adapt to standards or officials (imagine the UK law says speeds goes in km/h, then you should adapt ASAP from mp/h to km/h or you will get in trouble). Using officials and standards have benefit. Sticking to traditionals which are not on paper nor on consensus restricts you to that particular usage; it can be considered a disadvantage.

For an example, I strongly disagree on describing the geography on miles first. This have nothing to do with usages and should be in metric just like most articles. There has been an apparent agreement of using °C on weather, what about the distances? (it seems this will go case by case, either way there isn't much units on this article). pmt7ar ^(t|c) 21:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk said "We should use imperial units first where they are overwhelmingly more common" . That I disagree, per what I said above. Being the most "overwhelmingly" used doesn't make it more valid than official usage. (for reference only, what units are used for drugs in UK -officially and colloquially- ? e.f. mg or %m/m ?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmt7ar (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Local usage is not the same thing as official usage. It might look that way to someone from a country where the two largely coincide, but it isn't.

The most obvious example of that is the one I've repeatedly cited on the work group. UK and European law as it stands does not recognise the year and the month as official units. There are very good reasons for that - being of variable length they are very difficult to precisely define - but if we were to adopt official units only, we would have to delete months and years from our articles. If we allow months and years through unofficial usage, why not other units that are overwhelmingly more commonly used?

What about when there is no official unit in a given context? There are plenty of contexts where it isn't necessary to define official units - unless you're actually selling something or setting some kind of law there's really no need. You say that weight and height are officially in metres and kilograms - but there is no law on the subject of how people should measure themselves because there's no need for one.

Then there's the pragmatic problem. Do we really want to have to describe a crow's-flight distance and a road distance in different units? We're not going to ever get an article to FA if we have to use such inconsistencies as saying that RAF Mount Pleasant and Stanley are 43 kilometres (27 mi) apart as the crow flies, or 37 miles (60 km) by road.

I'd also point out that, except on a few specific contexts, all units on Wikipedia should be converted between imperial, US and metric units - as we noted at WT:MOSNUM, a majority of readers of en.wiki live in the US, which officially retains the US customary system (which resembles the imperial system in many respects), and a large proportion also live in the UK (where local usage is mixed).

With Pluto being a planet it's a bit different - not least because that's not a matter of style but of accuracy. It is perfectly possible to remain accurate while using imperial units. Pfainuk talk 21:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk has pointed out the difficulties of applying current British standards to the articles in general. However, that is not the question at issue here. The idea that we are locked into sticking with the old units for weather until we reach agreement on every other contentious point is not rational. There is general agreement that the weather details should be brought into line with current British practice, current Falklands practice, the desires of the great majority of editors of this article and the source quoted. There is no good reason for further delay or foot-dragging on this issue.

Let's stop wasting time debating a point on which there is general agreement. Let's make the change to the weather data and be done with it! Michael Glass (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Easy, there is no rush. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 03:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also no valid reason for delay. Is there any point that still has to be made about this question? If not, is there any objection to the change being made? Michael Glass (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I would rather suggest giving this issue a break, let's leave it alone for a time. After that we might have a more consensual mood to get done with this time and effort wasting campaign. Apcbg (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's looking increasingly likely that we'll end up with no consensus again in the discussion, which means that the Fahrenheit measures will remain based on the existing imperial-first rule. It may be worth leaving it and coming back later. Pfainuk talk 09:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, at least on weathers we do have a general agreement. The only reason I didn't edit it myself is because I know you'll revert it; I have no problem waiting until you're happy, but this isn't funny. Would you need a certified printed document with the apostille of the Hague to prove consensus?. Have you real willingness to allow changes? pmt7ar ^(t|c) 11:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The existing consensus is that all units on Falklands articles should be imperial-first. We are currently discussing a change to that principle, but existing consensus will remain for imperial-first units until a new consensus is reached. This is important because if no new consensus is reached, the current imperial-first consensus will remain.

Bear in mind that, if the discussion at WP:FALKLAND fails, the existing imperial-first consensus will still apply. This would mean that there would be no basis to change to units used for weather data, or indeed any of the other units involved. It is bad form to try and implement a consensus before it is reached for exactly this reason.

We're not working to a deadline here. There's no rush. If the discussion at WP:FALKLAND results in a new consensus (as I hope it will), then we can make whatever changes are agreed by that consensus. But until a new consensus is reached, the old consensus is maintained. Pfainuk talk 11:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the following facts should be tabled:

• The claim of a consensus for Imperial first is questionable because there was never unanimity for such a ruling, and a number of articles were metric-first. These included the article for West Falkland which was metric first until Pfainuk overturned this, and East Falkland which was almost completely metric first when this was overturned by Justin Kuntz. The factual basis of this sentence may be verified by examining the editing history of both articles. Check out [8] for East Falkland and [9] for West Falkland and the discussion at [10]
• Any possible claim for a consensus on Imperial first has been blown out of the water by the latest expression of opinion, which clearly shows more support for metric first than for Imperial first. Furthermore, the support for metric first weather data has overwhelming support. See [11] where the opinions have been tabulated [12], and above for the latest tabulation of the opinions for metric first weather data.
• Use of the word "consensus" should be treated with caution, bearing in mind the problems of consensus decision-making. [13] Consensus decision-making is open to the following abuse:

• Preservation of the Status quo: In decision-making bodies that use formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small minorities to block agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing state of affairs. This can mean that a specific state of affairs can continue to exist in an organization long after a majority of members would like it to change.

I think we should ask ourselves why there is such a determined refusal to move on a change that has the overwhelming support of editors. The question was first raised on 2 March. On 5 March I converted the figures to metric first and Pfainuk reversed this change almost immediately. Martinvl reverted the botched job he did in his revert and Justin Kuntz reversed this. On 9 March, 11 days ago, it was clear that opinions were clearly in favour of putting metrics first in the weather section and since that time another editor has added his voice for the change. Still, however, we are facing obstruction and foot-dragging on this minor issue that should have been settled beyond question eleven days ago. How much more time and effort must be wasted before the will of the overwhelming majority of editors is put into practice? Michael Glass (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that consensus for imperial-first has to be unanimous but consensus for metric-first can be carried by a majority? The sheer hypocrisy of that suggestion is astounding.

The charge of obstructionism is also deeply hypocritical. You spent the last year demanding the same thing over and over again, and refused to make any kind of compromise. Several of the pro-imperial editors have moved a great distance to accommodate your views, from their preference for imperial-first to accepting a rule that would lead us to prefer metric units in general. You have barely compromised at all, only accepting imperial units in one single narrowly-defined context, and continuing in other contexts to insist that black is white. There are people being obstructionist here, but Justin, Narson and myself are not among them.

The apparent consensus, as it turned out, was illusory. Illusory because it became clear that your idea of UK units did not match the actual units in use in the UK. The fact is, the old consensus can only be overturned by a new consensus. I certainly don't deny that there is a general agreement that some kind of change would be a good idea, but that hasn't translated to a consensus on what the change should be. Unless there is a consensus on what to replace the existing consensus with, nothing can change. The existing consensus remains until a new consensus is reached. And it hasn't been yet. Pfainuk talk 13:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, this is not a general argument about metrics versus Imperial. It is confined to just one thing, the weather units. There is an overwhelming majority in favour of bringing the weather units in line with modern British practice. The other points you raise here are red herrings as far as the weather units are concerned. There is no existing consensus for the weather units. Your so-called consensus has all the reality of the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland for the weather units. That consensus as dead as the dead parrot in Monty Python. Your disagreement here is not just with me, but with every other editor who has spoken in favour of changing the weather units.

I cannot understand why you are digging in your heels about a change that has such overwhelming support, and why you are conflating it with other changes. You have already said you agree to this change. Why have you backtracked? Why aren't you agreeing to a change that you have already agreed to? Michael Glass (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No backtrack. If there is consensus for a new system of units on Falklands articles, I am perfectly happy for this change to be part of it. But piecemeal changing of units in defiance of the existing wider consensus (which remains imperial-first unless a new consensus is agreed) is not appropriate. Once we have consensus for a change to the rules on units on Falklands articles, we can and should make this change. But not before.

As I've said three or four times now, what's the rush? It's not like the world is going to end if this change isn't made right now. Far better that we take the time to discuss this and get that consensus. Pfainuk talk 14:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said it too, there is no rush. There is an apparent consensus over a minor issue (weather units) of metrics first, and it replaces that aspect over any previous consensus, and Pfainuk should agree, it will be valid to do the edit. I would be glad to do it myself, but I know Pfainuk would revert it. Pfainuk seems to not accept splitting the areas and get separate consensuses, he may agree with the change but he's waiting for a new consensus of the same magnitude. I don't agree that, if the issue is big, is better to go by parts. Michael proposal is hasty, but valid. I propose to continue this on WP:FALKLAND and get the "consensus" Pfainuk is waiting. If its worth splitting the weather change, propose it there, else it's already defined and included on the main debate. (personally I don't agree with the "consensus" process per what I said previously). I'm not in a rush, but also don't like the idea of halting this indefinitely. Let's all give arguments on the project discussion (most of us have already written KBs of reasons), call for interested and reach a count in a determinated timeframe. Is this ok?. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 15:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind doing the discussion by parts - it's probably a good idea. At the end of that process, we'll have a whole package of measures that we can then use as the new consensus. But we shouldn't prejudge the consensus. I don't want to have to wait indefinitely either. I want to see a consensus. But I'm not willing to accept changes until we actually have one. So let's get us this consensus and I'll drop my objection at that time. Pfainuk talk 21:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching this endless discussion from a distance. I am dismayed that it is still going around in circles. Now, for heaven's sake, let's get moving and accept the inevitable: there is overwhelming support for weather data to be in metrics (main) and imperial (conversion). Can we at least get the ball rolling on that, please? Then we'll all have a better chance of putting our energies into article improvement. Tony (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem, Tony, is that I don't trust Michael not to use it as a thin end of a wedge. While that may appear to be a violation of AGF, it is in fact based on his track record. He said he accepted imperial first consensus before (in February) and that he would drop the matter....the second he saw an opportunity, back he was prodding at the same issue for the...what...3rd or 4th time in the past few months. So, with the caveat that Michael understands this is a solely weather issue, I'm happy with the change. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I reckon it's closer to the seventh or eighth time in the last year. He's brought this up a lot. And I share your concern - if I hadn't had quite as much experience of Michael as I have had, I would be less bothered about this. But one of the problems in this dispute is that one feels that every little detail of every usage of every unit in the project, is going to have to be agreed and drafted in legalese. Because anything less will be used as an opening to push metrication against the spirit of the consensus.

That said, I fear the chances of our actually reaching consensus are slipping away. I've done what I can, but unless there's some compromise on the substance of the issue from Michael and others, no consensus will be possible. In that case, obviously, the imperial-first rule will remain. Pfainuk talk 13:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk might be right that the possibility of consensus seems to be slipping away. There does appear to be intractable differences between our two positions at the moment. However, this does not apply to the weather data, where there is general agreement that the presentation of the units should be brought in line with modern British practice. Of course there is also considerable support for the metric system. This is inevitable and it will keep growing. However, there are two things that need to be stated.

1. This "imperial first rule" is a self-serving fiction. It is based on the fantasy that Falklands articles are Imperial first. In fact, some have always been metric first and others are Imperial first. When I pointed this out, one editor took the East Falkland article and made it Imperial first. Then, earlier this year, Pfainuk took the West Falkland articles and make it Imperial first, against its history and against its sources. When I protested against the most recent piece of aggressive POV pushing, other editors began to speak up. And what happened? This so-called Imperial consensus collapsed like a pack of cards.

1. Yes, I did say I would drop this matter. That was when it appeared that I was almost a lone voice protesting against this so-called consensus. Then two things happened: Pfainuk made his move on the West Falkland article. Of course I protested, and this time, my protests gained traction, and other voices began to speak up. The second thing that changed was that another editor began to ask some questions about the weather data, and once again out came the lie about the consensus for Imperial measures. However, the diffeence this time was that other people were speaking up and they made it clear that there was strong support for making the articles metric first.

So let's have no more of the big lie that there is a consensus for Imperial. There is no such thing. If there ever was such a thing, it doesn't exist any more. The supposed consensus for Imperial is more dead than Monty Python's dead parrot. What we have instead is strong support for the metric system generally and overwhelming support for metricating the weather data. As the support is overwhelming for this particular change, there should be no problem with bringing it into practice. After that it may be time to consider whether any further changes should be made, such as restoring the East Falkland and West Falkland articles to their previous status, or perhaps declaring a moratorium on further changes in either direction for a fixed period, or in working out some other arrangement that might be more suitable.

However, the question at issue here is about the weather data. The opponents of this move have come clean about their fears. They worry that it might be the thin edge of the wedge and other changes will follow. Possibly. It is also possible that when the weather data is changed, people will breathe a sigh of relief and lose interest in the whole question. We don't know. However, what we do know is that there is overwhelming support for changing the weather data, and that's the change that we should make. Michael Glass (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

More Wikilawyering, apparently. Because, as you well know (you've been told enough times), unless we have a new consensus the old consensus will remain. If there's nobody outright arguing for imperial-only units, that does not mean that it was not the last position to have consensus. That consensus stands until it is replaced. And it has not been replaced.

The fact of consensus is quite clear, except to those who take the bizarre and unfounded position that consensus has to be unanimous. Or rather, in your case, the entertainingly hypocritical position that consensus for imperial units has to be unanimous but consensus for metric units does not. This is obviously just more Wikilawyering.

There is a user POV pushing here, but it's the editor who's refusing to make any form of compromise who's POV pushing, the editor who's brought up exactly the same position with exactly the same arguments 7-8 times in the last year. We've demonstrated our willingness to discuss and to compromise on this issue in the spirit of consensus. But you seem to think that consensus building can occur without any compromise from your side. The process of consensus building does not mean trying to wait until everyone else accepts your POV, because eventually you'll get to the point we've now got to. We've done our best, but this is a process of give-and-take, not a process of take-and-take.

Narson gave you an suggestion as to how you might assuage the concerns, but I note with interest that you have not taken up his suggestion. There being no consensus on a replacement to the imperial-first rule, weather units should remain in Fahrenheit and inches. Pfainuk talk 07:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Narson's point was coated in invective. Not an effective way to communicate. Yes, I understand that this is only a weather issue, and whether there are other changes would depend on further negotiation. This is the point I have been making all along here, that the weather data is an issue that can be dealt with separately.

Now about your so-called consensus. The fact that I have been told there is a consensus umpteen times doesn't prove that there is a consensus. The fact that I was told umpteen times that there was a consensus does not prove that the consensus still remains. Nonsense repeated umpteen times remains nonsense. When an overwhelming majority of people express their opinion for a change in the weather data, any previous consensus to the contrary, if there ever was one, has collapsed. To claim the contrary is not rational. The all Imperial consensus is dead. That is reality. Face it and move on. Michael Glass (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No Michael it hasn't, you're derailing a sensible mature compromise with your metric crusade and being needlessly confrontational in the process. And again there is no need for multiple discussions on multiple pages. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe we now have consensus for a new set of units, as detailed at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. As such I have made edits to this article so that it conforms to that standard. This includes metricating the climate section. Pfainuk talk 19:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I'll have to revert to imperial first for all units after all. People decided to wait until after I implemented before objecting to my proposal. Never mind, if they insist on our remaining at the previous consensus, we'll just have to remain at the previous consensus. Pfainuk talk 21:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When people expressed their concerns it was that the revised "consensus" was not metric enough for them. Now that Pfainuk has returned the articles to Imperial first, the articles are further away from the opinions that people expressed here and elsewhere about the order of units. Michael Glass (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You know the response to this. You've had it fifty times or so already and I don't see we need to go through the entire thing on this page as well. Your continued insistence on ignoring basic elements of the consensus process has long since become disruptive, and in no way benefits the encyclopædia. Unless users are willing to make a reasonable compromise to reach consensus, I consider this matter closed. Pfainuk talk 13:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The matter is not resolved. There is something seriously amiss with putting the label consensus on an Imperial-first position that clearly does not have majority support. This is an abuse of process. It disregards the stated opinions of the majority of editors. Please reconsider your position. Michael Glass (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And you know the response to this as well. I see little need nor benefit in going through this same argument on this page either. Your continued insistence on ignoring basic elements of the consensus process is still disruptive, and still in no way benefits the encyclopædia. Unless users are willing to make a reasonable compromise to reach consensus, I intend to stop responding to this thread. Please feel free to have the last word. Pfainuk talk 06:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, thank you for your invitation. You have asked users to make a reasonable compromise to reach consensus. It would be helpful for you to explain what you mean by a "reasonable compromise". I cannot speak for others but I have already stated that I would not contest your proposal for partial metrication. Another way for you to demonstrate your good faith would be for you change the weather data, as this has overwhelming support. If you are not prepared to do that, it would be helpful for you to explain clearly why you are not prepared to make this change. If you are not prepared to do any one of these things, it would be helpful for you to explain why. Over to you. Michael Glass (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable compromise would mean something like my proposal. You've said you won't contest it, but it does not currently have consensus as other users continue to insist on 100% metrication in practice. On the rest, I and others have explained this perfectly clearly to you so many dozens of times that it is utterly inconceivable that you do not already know the answer to your question. I see no reason to continue repeating myself indefinitely. Pfainuk talk 16:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, I would like you to read and consider the following [14]:

"Critics of consensus decision-making often observe that the process, while potentially effective for small groups of motivated or trained individuals with a sufficiently high degree of affinity, has a number of possible shortcomings, notably

• Preservation of the Status quo: In decision-making bodies that use formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small minorities to block agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing state of affairs. This can mean that a specific state of affairs can continue to exist in an organization long after a majority of members would like it to change. [Is this a fair description of your behaviour?]
• Susceptibility to disruption: Giving the right to block proposals to all group members may result in the group becoming hostage to an inflexible minority or individual. Furthermore, "opposing such obstructive behavior [can be] construed as an attack on freedom of speech and in turn [harden] resolve on the part of the individual to defend his or her position." As a result, consensus decision-making has the potential to reward the least accommodating group members while punishing the most accommodating. [Could this be applicable to what you are doing?]"

You have stated very clearly what you expect of others: that they either accept your proposed compromise or no deal at all. Now I would like you to consider what other steps you could take to reach some agreement with other editors. For example, would you be prepared to consider a step-by-step approach to change? Michael Glass (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael, this is not Pfainuk as the sole voice opposing you, I fully support what Pfainuk has said, as do others. The proposal he put forward was pragmatic and sensible, it was objected to and so we are back to where we started - the existing consensus. You seem to proceeding on a bad faith presumption that he is wikilawyering to get his way. Don't judge others by your own standards, you've raised this so many times now and have resorted to some fairly underhand techniques to get your own way. Get the message, people are fed up with you pushing this. The next step will be an RFCU. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I think that you meant WP:RFC, not WP:RFCU. Martinvl (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant WP:RFC. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 13:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The WP:RFC policy says:

• Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions.
• Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.

Quite a contrast with Justin's bully-boy tactics, I think. Like for instance the "Big Lie" accusation that I have used underhand techniques. This accusation is false and malicious. Justin has made it repeatedly and has never once provided a shred of evidence to back it up. Or using the mediation processes to threaten me.

I have tried my best to put across my point of view and accommodate the views of others. Hence my agreement not to contest Pfainuk's proposed compromise. However, it is clear that this has come to nothing. Other editors also favour some of the changes I have been suggesting. They might gain more traction than I have been able to achieve. Indeed it would be better for others to take the lead from now on. Just one piece of advice, however: "[C]onsensus decision-making has the potential to reward the least accommodating group members while punishing the most accommodating." Michael Glass (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A) You can't try and take the moral highground on accusations by bandying around your own ('Bully-Boy').

B) You have moved not once cm in the past, what, year of these debates? Pfain, Justin and others have moved inches. Don't pretend that now they have reached the limit of how much they are willing to accomodate your obstinance that they are suddenly the ones who are refusing to accomodate.

C) Constantly bringing something up every month until you finally get a temporary majority is not considered good behaviour, which is what Justin was stating (It is infact as much of an abuse of consensus/flaw in consensus as anything you try and accuse Pfain of). As for what Justin refers to as lying, well, you said you were going to give up on the matter and accept things as they were in February. Now, you can call it a re-evaluation or a u-turn or a normalisation or whatever other Labservative euphamism you like; but it comes across, in the world of brass tacks, as dishonest. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Narson, Justin accused me of using underhand techniques to get my own way. Previously he accused me of editing by stealth. On neither occasion did he substantiate his accusation.Therefore I strand by what I wrote above.

• Secondly, the idea of a consensus for Imperial was never well based. Before the latest check of numbers, two editors spoke for a source-based approach, Another favoured metrics but believed that the majority favoured Imperial. Therefore it was hardly a consensus for Imperial first even then.
• Thirdly, it's not quite accurate to say that I was always fighting for the same thing. One major change was to suggest a source-based approach, as I felt that this was a more objective standard than simply relying on the opinion of individual editors. At other times I objected to the demetrication of the East Falkland and West Falkland articles, against their own histories and against the sources they relied on. More recently it was to protest about claims about consensus, or to tally numbers who had spoken about which units to use in the weather data. However, I can see that from your point of view it would seem like all of the one piece.
• Fourthly, I did speak up after I had stopped. I thought I could walk away from the controversy. However, several things happened that I had not anticipated. Pfainuk changed the West Falkland article from Metric to Imperial against its sources and against its edit history, and Justin proposed to make all the articles Imperial first. At the same time, another edit questioned the weather data being in Fahrenheit when the information from the BBC was metric and in response, people began talking about the consensus for Imperial measures. I did stop for a short while but, yes, I changed my mind. I'm sorry if this strikes you as dishonest.
• Finally, you might think the majority in favour of metrics is temporary, but only time will tell if this is so. I think we can safely say that there is strong majority support for the weather data being metric first. Also, there are several new and quite active editors who have also spoken in favour of metric measurements. They haven't been chased away, yet! Michael Glass (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is the history of the Falkland Islands in Spanish so different to that in English? It appears very biased towards Argentine beliefs. Is there a reason for this?

Why is the history of the Falkland Islands in Spanish so different to that in English? It appears very biased towards Argentine beliefs. Is there a reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilfri (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm falling back to my stock answer that the spanish wikipedia, like all wikipedias, sucks sometimes. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, please say you have taken this to the Spanish wikipedia too! --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you do, please provide more specific concerns. MBelgrano (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I should say that the spanish article has, I believe, improved towards NPOV. Part of the issue will be that, and this is no slight on the spanish, but English has a wider 'net' if you will of people who know enough to contribute at some level, which will always help. Though there are many articles where the spanish will beat the English. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The History can be told in many ways, depending on point of view. Sure Argentina relies on their point, but Falkland Islands is a conquested territory as people like it our not, for the good or for the bad, property of the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.229.240 (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Argentine Citizenship

The Falkland Islanders are not Argentine citizens, they have overwhelmingly rejected Argentine citizenship and to edit the article to state they are citizens is grossly misleading. Argentine law may grant them citizenship if they want it, that makes them eligible for it, not citizens. The article as written is neutral, the changes being made are for POV reasons. Cease and desist please. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I ask Justin to stop reverting my edit on this section.

The line in question is "Under Argentine Law they are full for Argentine citizens, but due to the Falkland Islands' rejection of the Argentine claim to sovereignty this is dismissed by practically all Islanders. ".

Reasons in the revert "rv clearly POV edit, you can't force citizenship onto someone". Three points:

• You misinterpreted it as "clearly POV", but it's NPOV. I can't force citizenship, but they are full Argentine citizens, deal with it. They have the same full civil and politics rights as me.
• Its in concordance with the article, as in Relations with Argentina section its says exactly the same.
• I request for verification on the last quote. It came from an edit from "most" to "practically all". I understand "most" with an 60%, and "practically all" with a 99.99%. Please clarify it with a sources, I don't have information about that. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The change is neutral, and not misleading. Keeping the "they are eligible for citizenship" is misleading and false. And it's clearly stated that it is under Argentine Law, and that this is not accepted by the islanders (FYI, it's also unrejectable, native citizens cannot deny or resign citizenship). Where is the misleading? I'm not imposing citizenship, I just edited in good faith as per the same article and facts. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 16:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship rules vary from country to country. May I put forward a fictitous case - a group of Falkland Islanders establishe an export business to Argentina and one of their number sets up home there to run the Argentine end of the business. Would he, under Argentine law, be liable to military service as an Argentine citizen (assuming that military service is mandatory for all Argentine citizens), or could he, under Argentine law, be able to claim the status of a foreign national who is temporarily resident in the country? The answer to this question would settle the dispute. Martinvl (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking something similar. If an islanders commit a crime and is caught on Argentina, he will go through Argentine penal system, as per the law he is a native Argentine citizen. But as British citizen he can request for UK consulate. I'm not a lawyer nor diplomat, and it has never happened before (and unlikely to ever do), but my humble perception make me think that the same rule as those holding double nationality apply. If an islander travels around the world, he would be treated as British same as the actual government of the island. Internationally, the double nationality of the islanders is discussed just as the sovereignty. But if we talk the facts "under Argentine law", they are full national citizens.

But if an islanders goes abroad and want to say he is argentine, he is able to do it. They can even vote in any kind of elections and are eligible even to presidency (e.g. if a pro-recover candidate postulates, islanders are in their right to travel to Tierra del Fuego and vote against him). pmt7ar ^(t|c) 16:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly POV to argue they are Argentine citizens, it is also deliberately provocative to edit the article to state that they are when islanders have overwhelmingly rejected it. Argentine law may make them eligible for Argentine citizenship but they have to make a conscious decision to exercise any such right. The neutral statement is that Argentine law makes them eligible, if they wish to exercise that option, as your own statement makes clear, they have to take action to do so. You have been disrupting the article to make a point, please stop it. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 16:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to insist on that, please support it with sources. Else you're only exposing your POV. The edit in question has nothing to do with international law. It's "under Argentine law", and under Argentine law they're not eligible for, they're natives. Argentines' children born abroad are eligible to citizenship, they have to explicitly opt to have citizenship. The islanders are not, they're full citizens since birth and native citizenship cannot be rejected, denied or resigned (naturalized citizens can). If you mention the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, you have to mention the situation in Argentina if being neutral. And if so, nothing but that they are full native citizens will be accurate. Saying they're eligible is misleading and false. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 17:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No the article is accurate and its neutral, which is not what your edit suggests. Citizenship can be and is renounced. Persist with this disruption and I will take this to WP:ANI. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I always act with good faith. I respect you as you have more knowledge and history in Wikipedia. But I feel offended and disrespected as you reverted my edits without reason (I asked you to discuss it on talk page), then you warn me with 3RR, "cease and desist". I'm not exposing my POV, my edit was NPOV and I'm not vandalizing it. It may be disruptive with you, so that's what this talk page is for. Now I think that the problem is you. Please make me the honors and take this to WP:ANI. I have clear the meaning of the words citizenship and eligible and have sources of the Argentine law to source my edit. Any person with NPOV would agree with me. So please, be my guest. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 17:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So presumably, as Argentine citizens, they would be arrested for treason if ever they set foot in Argentina? ðarkuncoll 17:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Treason? What are you talking about? I think the concept of treason is different from your location. Denying citizenship is not treason here. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 17:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is aiding and abetting a "foreign occupation" force treason? ðarkuncoll 17:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What is your point? "Treason" is not an usual concept in Argentina. The only definition is on art 119 of the constitution where the only traitors are the ones who arm in weapons against the Nation or aids its enemies; and in (edited) if the congress gives exceptional powers to the executive power (art 29). But it's not a "status", doesn't pass to descendants, and doesn't revoke them the native citizenship, so the islanders wanting being British or aiding UK on 1982 war has nothing to do with its citizen status. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 18:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely, by agreeing to the British garrison on the Falklands, the islanders are doing precisely that? ðarkuncoll 18:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Only the 1982 population (not its descendants, and not the current, UK is not an enemy) may be qualified as traitors. Despite that, they are still citizens (don't know exactly the punishment of that, I think they only looses political rights, but all others remain). Once again, what is your point?. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 18:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So the punishment in Argentina for treason is "loss of political rights"? Is that what you're claiming? My point is simple - if the Argentines were serious about regarding the Falkland Islanders as citizens, they would prosecute all those who support the British "occupation" - including those today who do, for surely it is treason to support the "occupation" of part of one's country by a "foreign" power. They would also allow islanders (those they haven't prosecuted) to vote in Argentine elections, and they would be eligible for whatever sicial services, if any, Argentina gives its citizens. ðarkuncoll 18:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that is what counties like UK or USA do. Argentine legislation has agreed to several international codes that have supra-constitutional status. Argentina doesn't prosecute anyone. The dispute issue is being held as international law demands and according to UN procedures (unlike UK and USA who aren't very respectful of those). And yes, islanders are allowed to vote in all elections and are eligible even to presidency (please read the entire thread, it was already said). They have all the rights Argentine citizens have. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to note that Argentina has given them the right to citizenship, but until they take them up on that, then we shouldn't be going any further. If Switzerland gave citizenship rights to everyone in India, we wouldn't declare that the Indian President was an Indo-Swiss Political Leader or that all people in India were swiss. We might however note that they have the option, by dint of law, of taking up that citizenship if they so choose to. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I don't really know. Maybe you should call him Indo-Swiss (unlikely to happen, will Switzerland respond to give rights to all India?). That would be interesting to investigate, but it's not the issue here. Most countries on the world are jealous of giving citizenship, as it implies the state must respond for them. But you can say Argentina was made of immigrants, it's much more flexible. Citizen is a a person legally recognized as a member of the state. And that is what Argentine legislation does. It doesn't imply any kind of loyalty or respect to the state. Please do not illustrate with other fictional suppositions. The issue is the correct situation "under Argentine law". Argentina recognizes them as native citizens and grants them all the rights. Islanders could not accept them or spit on Argentine constitution, but that wouldn't change how Argentine law sees them. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(Multiple ec) Regarding the polling. This poll was conducted in 1986, and found that a total of three islanders would vote for Argentine rule at that time. In 1994, 4% of those polled wanted negotiations on sovereignty. This is also mentioned in this non-British source, which states that only 7% of islanders would accept talks on sovereignty even if they were paid for it. There is no evidence to suggest that this has changed: the position of successive elected Falklands governments has remained the same, and there has been no substantial political debate on the subject on the islands.

Regarding citizenship, I'm afraid that the notion that you cannot force a citizenship on someone is an error of fact. It is the right of sovereign states to enact laws determining who exactly is a citizen. The only limit under international law is that no country may render any person stateless.

The most obvious historical example of this was the lead-up to the War of 1812, when the British started pressing sailors who had emigrated to the US and taken up American citizenship out of American naval and merchant shipping. At the time it was impossible under UK law to renounce British citizenship.

Anyone born anywhere on Argentine-claimed territory is an Argentine citizen according to Argentine law. Those born on the Falklands are eligible for all the rights and duties of Argentine citizenship in the same way as if they were born in Mar del Plata or Puerto Madryn. The only difference is, that Argentine law cannot, in practice, be applied outside Argentine-held territory. If a Falkland Islander was to be called for military service, there's no way the Argentine military could force him/her to actually do it unless he travelled to Argentine-held territory. A person born in Neuquén and living in Valparaíso would be in a similar position in practice.

In theory, if they wanted to, Argentina could declare that all British citizens are also Argentine citizens - even without claiming the UK as part of Argentina. There's nothing in law to stop them.

In practice, the islanders refuse to acknowledge this Argentine citizenship. If they go to Argentina, they will enter on their British passports and unless the customs officer is particularly awake they'll be given their 90-day entry stamp, just like any other British citizen. But this does not change the Argentine legal position that they are Argentine citizens.

As per Narson's point, we should deal with this with appropriate respect for the views of the islanders - but it is appropriate in this particular context, given that we've just noted the British legal position, to note the Argentine legal position. Pfainuk talk 18:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info the second issue. "most islanders" or "almost all islanders" would fit better than "practically all" (which implies practically "all"), and a reference to these sources may be added.pmt7ar ^(t|c) 19:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

95% is practically all. And why should we even be mentioning the legal position of a foreign country? ðarkuncoll 19:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Because there is a recognized valid sovereignty claim on the islands, which IS relevant; and if you mention the British legal position you should include Argentina's as well to maintain neutrality.pmt7ar ^(t|c) 19:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Because neutrality is important and we have to respect it. Because, like it or not, Argentina maintains a territorial claim over the islands and we can't pretend it doesn't exist. The same reason, in other words, as every other time you ask this sort of question. Pfainuk talk 19:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Britain exercises sovereignty, Argentina has a claim. Citizenship derives prom exercized sovereignty not from claims. That's pergectly neutral; neutrality doesn't mean symmetry where there is none. Apcbg (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for disagree. Citizenship is the mere recognition of a person as a member of a state. Any sovereign state can define the citizenship to his state as whatever it wants. The application of law is another issue, as it can only occur inside the sovereign territory. The Argentine legislation has no place on the island, but that doesn't change the legislation. It may sound incredible, but if Argentina decides that all born in UK are Argentine, then all British are also Argentine citizens, like it or not. UK can't do anything about it; citizenship is a matter of the states to decide. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Although its an interesting argument, it seems contrary to Article 15 of the UN UDHR which states: No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. So Argentina may unconditionally offer citizenship, however the offer must be capable of being rejected. A British Citizen can on application resile from being one. Indeed if one acquires Spanish nationality you are required to do so as Spain doed not recognise dual nationality. It would be a very dangerous concept to enforce citizenship, as for instance, if we were all given American citizenship, their Government would want to tax our worldwide incomes.

Really the way to describe this is that its offered it cannot be mandatory according to the UN declaration on human rights which Argentina has acceded to. --Gibnews (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec with below) That doesn't follow. Argentina's position, that Falkland Islanders are Argentine citizens at birth (based on the fact that they were born in what is, under Argentine law, Argentine territory), does not deprive the Falkland Islanders of nationality, and does it deprive them of the the right to change their nationality.

However, the act of renunciation of citizenship would be an implicit recognition that that citizenship existed in the first place and thus that the Argentine position on sovereignty is valid - something that most Falkland Islanders wouldn't be willing to accept.

Even if the US did extend citizenship to all of us, its tax laws would still be unenforceable on those of us who did not actually travel to US-held territory. Pfainuk talk 20:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The UDHR says arbitrarily, it's not the case as its a law and doesn't contradict it at all. Under Argentine law, one can choose for any nationality, even multiple (unlike other countries like Spanish or Japan). Change doesn't implies resignation, since dual and multiple nationalities complies with 'change of nationality'. The change in discussion is about the Argentine law, so there you only need to cite the law, there is no place for confusion nor debate, we only should summarize the position the law has. The rejection of native citizenship is not defined in Argentina's constitution. So if you would like to resign it, you should recur to the justice. But the definition of native citizen on the constitution makes unconstitutional the rejection or denying of citizenship by any judicial order, that's why there is no way to reject or deny citizenship. We are not giving a judgment of it and there is no point comparing it with other legislation, every country has its own system. If you have to say the posture of Argentine law, just say what the law says, there is no ambiguity to discuss. Also there is no more reliable source than the law itself. The actual sentence is inaccurate and false, I'm not warring nor trolling this up. I invite any of you (Justin too) to compare the actual sentence with the source and fix it yourself. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 20:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

unindent

First of all read WP:BRD you may make a bold edit, it is generally incumbent on you to discuss it thereafter not for anyone who reverts a pointy edit. We are giving the Argentine law equal treatment, we mention that Argentine law makes them eligible to be come Argentine citizens. The reality is they're not and as you've been pointed out, overwhelmingly its rejected. As the child of a refugee from Franco's Spain, I'm now eligible for Spanish citizenship; if I choose to exercise that right but only if I choose to do so. And yes I will raise it at AN/I if you persist with disrupting the article. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"The reality is they're not" . That's not reality, and you're being stubborn insisting the same, please cease and desist. If you keep repeating yourself without any source or verification you're only disrupting. Please explain the position of Argentine law yourself or stop disrupting. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 20:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

One wonders, how does Argentina know who is Argentine citizen (born on the Falklands) and who is not :-) Apcbg (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh god, I can't believe this. I never imagined that verifying a source would be this difficult. Please, anyone read the Argentine constitution amendment of 1994, law 346 of "citizenship and nationality", and compare it with the actual meanings of "eligible" and "citizenship" that are currently in the article. Its really that easy. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 21:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My question "How does Argentina know" relates not to that constitution clause but to its enforcement, not the same thing. Just curious. Apcbg (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't know, population records are in the the island's government offices. If they want to use a right as Argentinians they should register for an DNI, then it'll know. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 21:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Argentine citizenship based on documents produced by the illegal (according to Argentina) FIG?! If so then the latter would be in a position to make some serious money on the side, selling such documents (i.e. effectively selling Argentine citizenship) to anyone who would pay for it. One could imagine several million desperados from troubled countries taking up the opportunity, for starters. :-) Apcbg (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What is that FIG? I don't know what that stands for. About selling citizenship, I don't understand it. Argentina supported immigration since its foundation, and accepts "all men in the world who desire to inhabit Argentina", as stated in the preamble of constitution. Citizenship is free and has no requisites but 2 years of residency. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 22:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Falklands Island Government. Apcbg is addressing the oddness of the law. The fact that argentine law considers them to be citizens is covered, and should be. However, we should not be taking sides on whether or not this is correct or whether argentina can force citizenship on people, so we state they are eligible without coming down either way on de jure statuses (I would say that they are eligible is the de facto situation) --Narson ~ Talk • 22:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with eligibility is that it is inaccurate in this context. A son of Argentine parents born overseas IS eligible for citizenship, he meets the requirements, and may choose if he wants it or not. The Argentine law sees the islanders as native Argentinians, they're not eligible for anything, they're already full native citizens. If you read "they are eligible for Argentine citizenship" you understand exactly that, that they can choose to be citizens if they want. That is inaccurate and contrary to the sources, where they're considered native Argentinians. "de facto eligibility" is also inaccurate, because they are de facto Argentine citizens (which one is Argentine citizen is decided by Argentine legislation and Argentina's only, even the territorial claim has nothing to do with it). They have Argentine citizenship everywhere, but just as any state's law, the rights of that citizenship can only be granted inside de facto sovereign territory or overseas embassies. Its also mentioned in a section above, "(Argentina) they also consider the Falkland Islanders to be Argentine citizens". As Justin has warned me to report a 3RR, I'll edit it later but as to maintain consistency. If the article says that Argentine considers them citizens, and later than Argentine law makes them eligible (that are different things), its clear that a fix is needed. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hrm. According to Argentine Law they possess Argentine citizenship but, due to the Islanders' rejection of Argentine sovereignty and British control of the islands, this has no practicable effect might be a way to go? --Narson ~ Talk • 23:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate. The rejection has nothing to do with it. Argentine laws are not applicable outside the territories under control, like any country. Even if you have rights, you can choose not to use them; but you have the rights. They are free to use or not their rights, but anytime they could go Argentina or its embassies and request a DNI to make use of their right as argentinians. The idea is quite simple: "under Argentine law islanders [also] have full citizenship" or "under Argentine law islanders are considered native citizens". The point in that section is to state that both sides considers islanders citizens; but it seems there is a not neutral tendency to give validity only on the UK side. This issue is separated from the territorial claim, and that islanders are also Argentine citizens is a fact. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 23:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You can also waive rights, though. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Every country has its own laws. Here, there's no such thing as rejecting rights. You are free not to use them, but you still have them and can use them anytime (there's no thing like "sorry, you don't have that right, you rejected it before"). And certainly you can't resign an Argentine native citizenship status (only naturalized); that's how the law is, and we are citing the law in this case.

In any case, I have source of enough reliability (the law and constitution itself) that defines the islanders as Argentinians and have full native citizenship. If you want to say that the Argentina law says that islanders are eligible to citizenship, please submit a reliable show that proves it saying that islanders (or the same category) are eligible for it and has to voluntarily accept it to be citizens. Look how long this section is, and I'm the only one who is giving support to my position, all there is argues about if its possible, on what is the outside opinion, or that islanders reject it. None of that has to do with the position of Argentine legislation. If there is no other prove, I'm in condition to edit it correctly again (and will add both constitution and citizenship law as references). What we editors can argue isn't going to change the constitution. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 00:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a primary document. Want to find something from a reputable secondary source for us? It might have some suggestions on how to phrase things. And primary sources are deprecated. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Primary source may be used as per WP:PRIMARY, these are not original research and there is no problem of misunderstanding (these are laws and a constitution, specific enough to determine a legal system). You can't tweak a law to change its meaning, so it makes it reliable despite being a primary sources. There is a secondary source in the very same sentence ([15]), that just cites the law, as it can be interpreted only in one way. The 1994 reform of the constitution ratifies the islands as integral part of the National territory, the national law no.346 says that "any person born in the the Argentine territory is Argentine" and makes it unconstitutional to reject nationality (there is even the national law no.23059 which declares null the nationality cancelation for treason during the dictatorship). They are quite clear and states the legal position of Argentina towards Falkland islanders. If you ask "what does the law say?" you should accept the law itself as a source. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 01:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd accept a court ruling etc about the law or a law text book telling me about the law. Reading the law yourself as a ley person is how people end up in jail. There is a reason we have solicitors and barristers and law text books. what you are doing is taking several sources and synthesising a reference from that, this is specifically forbidden by wikipedia policies. We cannot add one and one and make two ourselves. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

[unindent]Its a very dangerous concept. For instance Falkland islanders who failed to do their Argentine military service when that was mandatory would presumably be guilty of a crime. As good citizens of the state resident in it they should also be paying taxes etc. Its really an absurdity to extend national law outside your jurisdiction (although the Americans try). For wikipedia we need a form of words that explains the situation but does not state that it is a fact. Certainly if a foreign state tried to claim me as a citizen I'd decline as with citizenship comes responsibilities. I'm sure the UN has something to say about enforced nationality. --Gibnews (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That it may be a dangerous concept does not stop it being fact. It's also pretty much the only consistent position that the Argentines can take: under Argentine law, the Falklands are as much a part of Argentina as Buenos Aires is.

One assumes that any Falkland Islander who, when called, failed to perform his military service would indeed have been breaking Argentine law. To what extent he would care is another matter: so long as he never went to Argentina, there's nothing the Argentines could do about it. And, as discussed above, the Argentines have no formal way of establishing who exactly was born on the islands - they wouldn't know who to call up in the first place. Again, FI parents may be breaking Argentine law by not registering children born on the FI with the Argentine authorities, but the Argentines have no way of enforcing this.

If a foreign state did claim you as a citizen, then that would be their right. You could go and renounce that citizenship (if the country allowed it), but that would mean recognising that it existed in the first place. Or you could ignore them and use your current citizenship. As I say, Falkland Islanders do not have Argentine ID, and if they travel to Argentina will cross the border on a British passport.

The de jure and the de facto in this case are different, but it's clear from the context that it's the de jure that the article is referring to. According to Argentine law, anyone born on the FI is an Argentine citizen. Pfainuk talk 13:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the Argentine constitution states that the Falklands are part of the Argentine and that anybody born in the Argentine (as per the Argentine definition) is automatically an Argentine citizen, then the article should state just that fact. However the article could be worded in such a way as to indicate that this is a de jure position only, leaving the de facto situation as an open question. Martinvl (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I believe it is a fact that the Argentine Government believe the islanders to be citizens, belief is often different to reality. How about:

Under Argentine Law they are considered to be Argentine citizens, but only a small number of islanders have requested Argentine passports.

With suitable references. --Gibnews (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of such thing happening (instead all the opposite), but if you find a reference to some islanders that registered to Argentina that's worth mention. The Argentine government doesn't "believe", they decide that that islanders are citizens, it has the authority to define them as that, thus it is reality. (ftr, they are Argentine citizens in all the world). That proposal is technically accurate (without the latter) unlike the current status. The meaning of this comparison in the article is to state that, just as both countries claims the islands as their territory, they both consider the islanders citizens (both grants full citizenship, UK since the 1983 act, and Argentina by definition of preexisting legislation); are there is no thing as a citizenship being more important that other (in therms of concept: the countries are different, but a citizenship is not more valid than other) so both statements of the comparison should be at the same level: "Under Argentine Law they are full Argentine citizens" (too) is more neutral. The ongoing sentence still applies (the actual rejection by the islanders), and together with the "under Argentine Law", prevents any misleading or misunderstanding. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 21:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The obvious way around this is to cite the Falklands constitution alongside the Argentine constitution, noting that the Falklands Constitution was passed by a British Act of Parliament. This will at least catalogue the official views of both countries. Martinvl (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The law that matters is the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983. The FI constitution defines "Falkland Islands status", defined according to citizenship and residency - the former encompassing anyone who is a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen or a British Overseas citizen; or who was, at the material time, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a British Dependent Territories citizen or a British subject (Chapter I, section 22).

Anyone over 18 who is a citizen and has Falkland Islands status, excluding (among others) anyone who is, by virtue of his or her own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign Power or State gets the vote. "Citizen" in this case means a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen or a British Overseas citizen. That's all Chapter III, section 32.

But the FIG don't have the right to decide who gets to be a citizen. It's British citizenship, so it's British nationality law (decided in Westminster) that applies. The FIG only gets to decide who gets to be resident on the FI, an entirely different state of affairs.

But we don't need to go into huge amounts of detail on this. The only reason this comes up is because we mention that the islanders are British citizens. That's de jure, down to the 1983 act, and de facto as it's the citizenship the islanders actually use. But if we mention that they're British citizens, it would be POV not to mention the situation with Argentine citizenship. If we mention Argentine citizenship, it would be POV not to mention the islanders' views on this. Pfainuk talk 08:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) If no one has any complaint with the change, I'll proceed with the edit tomorrow early. This discussion was not for validating the change, but to clarify what appears as a bold edit and was confused as POV, so the change wouldn't get reverted again without looking this thread. The actual state is inconsistent within the article and is inaccurate to the source its referencing to; and there is a NPOV tendency to minimize the Argentine position. Both de jure position must be in the same level and the islanders position must be mentioned to secure neutrality. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 18:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an edit proposal. IF you're suggesting Martinvl's proposal, that I could probably accept. If your intention is to simply continue with the same disruptive edit then no. The Argentine Government dismisses the Falkland Islanders as mere "squatters" or "implanted colonists". Clearly it doesn't regard them as Argentine citizens. Your edit relies solely on primary sources, you need to provide a reliable secondary source that says that and even then an edit should reflect it is not a de facto one. Propose an edit before you introduce it. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Argentine Government (i.e. administration) may say anything and even mistake, here we're exposing an official position by law, the official source is a valid use for primary sources. The change is to remove the inaccurate "eligible for" (which is unsourced and POV in the comparison as it minimizes the Argentine position), and leave it as the same level the British is exposed. The full sentence I propose is:

Since the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983 the islanders have been full British citizens. Under Argentine Law they are full Argentine citizens[16], but due to the Falkland Islands' rejection of the Argentine claim to sovereignty this is dismissed by practically all Islanders.

As you can see, the only changes are "are eligible for" -> "are full" and "citizenship" -> "citizens". It can also use any of "are native Argentinians", "are full native citizens", "are granted full citizenship", and/or the inclusion of "also" or "too"; you can propose a better redaction while it doesn't change the meaning. The source (here using a link, but it's the same <ref/> as in the article) is the same currently on the article, and the wikilink to Argentine nationality law (which in the end references to the law in question).

The use of official source is valid and reliable if we're talking about the official position itself, and yes, it's the same edit I made from the beginning, so please read all the discussion and you'll see that it's NOT a POV and that it's NOT disruptive (maybe only with you). The current statement is misleading, inaccurate and false to the source its referencing (call it LIE), and in this context it is slightly POV (I assume it was just an error in the traduction, since "are eligible for" and a plain "are" are different). I'm not proposing anything new or BOLD, I just indicated a conceptual error and provided enough support to prove that that is what Argentine law defines. If you want to maintain the "eligibility" concept, please tell me where did you get that from. My first guess is that it was a conceptual error during translation, if so you can ask other people. I'm not being disruptive, I understand it looked a bold edit even like vandalism, hence this discussion meant to clarify the edit to the other editors. Under Argentine law, islanders are just as native citizens as porteños are. I'm giving you the law and consitution: read it.

If you're supporting the current "Under Argentine Law islanders are eligible for citizenship" knowing that, then you're imposing your POV and pretending to own this article. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If they are "citizens" then why does the Argentine Government dismiss them as "implanted colonists"? Please address the question. You're persisting with an obviously disruptive pointy edit, further seeking to raise tension unnecessarily by attempting to spin the comments of other editors then this will go straight to AN/I. The edit is POV and its wikilawyering to create conflict, one of the nice things about wikipedia is that whilst there is potential for nationalist conflict its been noticeably absent from Falklands articles down to the editors involved. A compromise edit that is broadly acceptable was proposed by Martin so why are you seeking to create a conflict where there isn't one or need for one? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the conflict in displaying what the argentine law states. The wording is neutral and just states a well-sourced fact. It is probably the denial of this information the POV position instead. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin: About your question, just like the law defines the islanders as Argentinians (it has the authority to), the same apply to UK. Islanders are British citizens and Argentine citizens. Argentina allows multiple nationalities and has no authority to cancel a foreign citizenship. This I don't have sources, it's just my thinking: dismissing them as "implanted colonists" doesn't conflict with their Argentine citizenship. As I said, citizenship doesn't require loyalty of any kind here. The islanders are British and want to maintain british. That's a criteria for not accepting auto-determination: they're a part of UK so their decission is biased. I'm not raising tension. I exposed why this change must be done. I'm human, and can make mistakes. If so, please tell me why I'm wrong and why the change musn't be done. There has been some confussions (like the islanders position, or that it's not applied internationally e.g. they don't use Argentine passports), but they have been addressed consistently (our scope is only the Argentine law, and the only that need to recognice it it's the Argentine state). If you're insisting without contributing to the discussions but accusing me and this edit, then take it to AN/I, PLEASE, as it seems that you've made up your mind. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 21:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

For those of us who don't really speak spanish can someone point out the part of the source used which references citizenship? Only thing I could find was about citizens travelling there. I can't find any sources about it in English other than wikimirrors. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Narson, given my admittedly crap Spanish it seems to me that the source doesn't support that claim. And I've nothing against saying Argentine law may consider them citizens, it is a step too far to say they are. No source supports that statement. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Narson, the reference to argentine citizenship in this source is: "de acuerdo al Derecho Positivo de la Argentina son Ciudadanos de la Nación Argentina por el solo hecho de nacer en su territorio, siguiendo el principio de "Ius soli"", my (humble) translation: "according with Argentine positive law they are citizens of the Argentine Nation by the mere fact of being born in its territory, by the principle of jus soli". Its the join of the two laws that conforms the official source (1994 reform of constitution, which ratifies Falkland Islands as integral part national territory, and national law 346 which defines "are Argentines: 1) all individuals birthed or that born in Republic's territory, regardless the parents nationality" -and excepts the sons of persons in the service of a foreign government-). pmt7ar ^(t|c) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

-Argentine National Congress: Law 346 on citizenship and naturalisation, plus complementary and reglamentary regulations, 23-11-04 revision.

(p. 3/19)

Law 346 on Citizenship and Naturalisation

Título I - Argentines

Art. 1º Argentine Citizens are:

inc. 1. "Todos los individuos nacidos, o que nazcan en el territorio de la República, sea cual fuere la nacionalidad de sus padres..." (""Every individual born, or to be born, in the territory of the Republic, whatever the nationality of their parents ... ")

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the law cited on Wikipedia Argentine Nationality DECRETO 3213/84 Reglamentación de la Ley 346 refers to those "de la Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur, dentro o fuera de la República" as being eligible for naturalisation.

I suggest that its not up to editors to interpret national laws and their extraterritorial application, so unless there is a secondary source which explicitly supports the concept that its inclusion is wp:or. --Gibnews (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You're decontextualizing it. What you're quoting is a criteria to eligibility for naturalization of foreigners defined in art 2 of law 346 (Foreigners over 18yo who resided at least 2 continued years and manifest their will to naturilazation), it's just 4 lines above your quote. You can't naturalize naturals, they are already natives. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 22:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, your quote regarding foreigners to apply for naturalisation, from here, on:

(p. 7/19)

Decreto 3213/84 -Reglamentary dispositions: (...)

Art. 3º (...)

"e) Habitar o promover el poblamiento del territorio nacional de la Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur;..."

refers to:

(p. 7/19)

Decreto 3213/84 -Reglamentary dispositions: (...)

Art. 3º

"Los extranjeros designados en el artículo 2º, inciso 1º de la ley 346..." ("Foreigners as defined by Law 346, Art 2, inc. 1")

thus not to the Argentine Citizens as defined in Title I, Art. 1º, that I quoted before.

Your quoted line refers to the benefits given to foreigners "that help the promotion of Tierra del Fuego et al. population".

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not going back to our own synthesis from various laws into one, are we? Because that isn't suitable. This must be covered in a regular law text book, surely? The problem we have is that many books are adamant that they do not currently enjoy Argentine Citizenship under those same terms, but as we are discussing de jure it would be nice to have a legal viewpoint. I shall poke a legal editor I know, see if he has any ideas. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Official sources in this case are reliable and applicable even as primary source as per WP:PRIMARY, and the position is defined only by two straightforward sentences (one declaring Falklands as part of its territory, and other declaring citizens to all born in its territory), so it's accessible and verifiable to any educated person without specific knowledge. By the way, the actual reference is a secondary source, an essay that does the interpretation and joins two sentences together in a very clear "they are Argentine citizens", so the official source plus this interpretation is enough source. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 00:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the sources mentioned above by Pmt7ar:

• Primary sources (official documentation, applicable as per WP:PRIMARY):
  1. Argentine Constitution, Provisional Dispositions, First, stating Argentina considers the Falklands/Malvinas as an integral part of its National territory → Page 28/31
  2. Law 346 On Citizenship and Naturalisation: Title 1, Article 1, Inc. 1, defining the Argentine citizenship as based on ius soli → Page 3/19
• Secondary source
  1. El derecho de Autodeterminación de los Kelpers y el Derecho Territorial Argentino en Malvinas, work published by the Faculty of Humanities of National University of the Northeast, offering an interpretation of Argentine legislation and stating "according with Argentine positive law they are citizens of the Argentine Nation" ("PASO 4" section).

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC) pmt7ar ^(t|c) 04:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The secondary source says "according to Argentine law". I think that we need some legal advice here. For all I know, it's one thing to pass a law, and another for a law to take effect; the latter sometimes is regulated by further secondary legislation based on the law, and requiring the fulfilment of particular legal and procedural steps without which the effect stipulated by the law does not materialize. If that is the case in this particular instance, we cannot claim here that the effect has taken place automatically for all the Islanders i.e. that they actually are Argentine citizens, but only that "according to Argentine law they are Argentine citizens". The law is based on the assumption that the Falklands are an Argentine territory but that's just a claim not a fact, hence the citizenship is not a fact either but an offer that individuals may take and proceed to obtain citizenship — or ignore, as the case might be. In any case, I believe that we cannot have the article stating as a fact that the Falklanders are Argentine citizens. Apcbg (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution takes precedence over other laws. If something is clearly stated in the constitution in an unambiguous manner which any reasonably educated person can understand, then it is not neccessery to take a second opinion. The secondary source cited might well be a little ecinomcal with the truth by lumping the terms constitution, decrees etc into a single wordlaw. For the record I have done a course on commercial law at university level and the first part of that course was an introduction to law per se. Martinvl (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You know about 50k of text back, Martin proposed a compromise text that basically said Argentine law considers them citizens, without actually asserting that they are. Gibnews proposed the same, both are acceptable. Apcbg says the same above. Is there anything wrong with that? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 07:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That "the secondary source cited might well be a little ecinomcal with the truth" is your OR; could you source your assertion? Of course a Constitution takes precedence over other laws — but not precedence in application. The precedence of Constitution means that whenever there is a contradiction, then the particular piece of legislation contradicting the Consitution is annuled (usually by a Consitutional Court). However, when you have a constitutional clause and a specific law elaborating that same clause, then it's the specific law that is applied rather than directly the general clause, according to the "lex specialis derogat generali" legal principle (more specific legislative provisions take precedence over more general ones). Apcbg (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I fear we might be treading into one of Apcbg's specialist subjects. Curse his varied and interesting life! --Narson ~ Talk • 10:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The secondary source obviously does have an Argentine POV, but does say that the Islanders are Argentine because they were born on Argentine territory. (That claim being disputed.) It says that they are British Citizens due to their parentage where it fails to realise the difference between being British and being a UK Citizen. It also contains a complaint that Argentine Citizens are unable to live and establish businesses on the Islands so its a bit contradictory. The state of affairs remains that although they may be considered Argentine Citizens under Argentine law that is not the reality of the situation - the law does not in practice apply. Asserting that they are in a Wikipedia article is the same as saying that the Argentine territorial claim is valid, which itself is strongly disputed. So the form of words needs to reflect that. I've suggested something, perhaps IANVS could suggest a sentence which describes the situation fairly rather than from one POV. --Gibnews (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

1) About that "contradiction": actually it is for the island regulations that doesn't allow (for obvious reasons) Argentine citizens to live on the islands. It's not a contradiction, even if Argentina defines them as Argentine, they're also British and the islands/UK allows them to live in the islands. It can even deny that citizenship, it can do anything it wants under its jurisdiction.

Let me remind you that we are talking of what Argentine legislation says. If it says that Islanders have purple skin and float in the air, then write just that. You don't need to find sources of that actually happening; you may if you want add it, but it doesn't compete. The change is following the same header "Under Argentine law"; law position of both countries must be at the same level, without any wording or weaseling. My proposal is neutral and sourced. Obviously the Argentine position assumes that the islands are part of its territory, which is not the de facto case, but that doesn't make it POV, as its what Argentine claims. If islanders where not Argentine natives, it would be accepting that the islands don't belong to Argentina, thus ending the claim; just as if UK sits to negotiate it would be accepting that there is a territorial dispute. The current wording is POV and false, there is no source and it hasn't show in this discussion where it came from; displaying that British grant them full citizenship and that Argentina only "eligibility for" is clearly POV as it threats the British position as being more important or complete. My proposal gives both situations the same level, both in concept and wording; if you have a problem with that neutrality please point it. If you argue about the "are" (which has some rejection), let me remind you that the only authority to define a citizenship is the state in question. So if Argentine state defines them as citizens, they ARE citizens, de jure and de facto (I can call myself an US citizen. AM I a US citizen? If I try to cross the border, they won't let me, so I'm not a US citizen. The Egypt law can grant me US citizenship. AM I a US citizen? Don't think so, US wouldn't authorize it. Only if US gives me citizenship, then I AM a US citizen). It may have no influence at all on islanders life, they could ignore it completely and live with their British citizenship. Even if you refuse to accept they "are" de facto, we're just talking of de jure, so the words are the same. I will proceed with the edit, as still there is no evidence of reliable source for that eligibility status. Actually, its better to remove the actual sentence than to keep that NPOV and unsourced/false statement. I proposed to fix it and put both positions in the same level where they have the same level, I cannot find a more neutral option than that.pmt7ar ^(t|c) 11:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you insiste on proceeding with that edit, it is not neutral and I will revert it. A compromise edit has been suggested which I see no evidence of any consideration of. So far all I see is putting up walls of text and ignoring any of the points put to you. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Justin; if there's dispute over the islander's legal status, it's presumably correct to say that Argentina regards them as citizens, not that they are, on the principle that being regarded as a citizen is not sufficient for being a citizen. But I'm now wondering whether asserting they *are* British citizens, rather than merely regarded as such by the UK, also introduces exactly the same POV in the other direction. Does anyone here know if argentina disputes the islanders' British citizenship? If so, presumably we've got to weaken the other claim too. 82.35.82.150 (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope Argentina doesn't dispute they're British, and there is the Falkland Islands census that backs up the claim they are British citizens. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is a dispute over the islander's citizenship, then it depends which court is hearing the dispute and what sanctions they have to enforce their decision. To use an extreme case, if I disagree with other editors, then Wikipedia has a procedure whereby I can appeal. If I disagree with the Wikipedia decision, I can go to court. If I go to court in Ruritania, they might, under Ruritanian law, order Wikpedia to pay me damages. If the Wikipedia boards tells them to "naff off", there is very little that the court can do to enforce their judgement. If however I go to court in Florida (where the Wikipedia servers are located), and Wikipedia tells them to "naff off", the court in Florida can order the seizure of the Wikipeida computers. Does this put things into perspective? Martinvl (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

82.35.82.150, Being recogniced as a citizen is the only and sufficient way to be a citizen. It's just a title, a definition. If France grants all the world population citizenship, then we all are (also) french citizens. By the same reason, Argentina doesn't have a word to comment on other states nationality; it doesn't nor can dispute the other citizenships islanders may have. No state can do anything about the citizenship of other state (unrecognice it, approve it or deny it; as it doesn't have the authority to).

Justin, I completely agree with Martinvl [17][18] and Pfainuk [19] comments. Also the only proposal besides mine (Gibnews's) is acceptable (without the passports thing). The actual sentence about islanders position is not discussed, will remain the same. And as Martinvl and Pfainuk agree, both positions should be stated and with a neutral wording. My proposal complies, as its my first concern, that both positions are given the same importance (i.e. if it says "have been" for british, the same "have been" or "are" to argentina; if using "are considered", adding "also"). pmt7ar ^(t|c) 12:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Make an edit proposal instead of walls of text and false allegations of bias, you might get somewhere. But at the risk of going down a rabbit hole, the FIG is able to grant "belonger" status, which grants the holder rights to permanent residence. I doubt very much if the Argentine government recognises their status. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"False allegation of bias", yeah sure. Think as you want. Again, Argentine doesn't have the authority to recognice or deny other legislations. UK can do whatever it wants with their laws, and the FIG too. Their are british citizens since they're recogniced by UK. If you can't see my proposal, remove the blindfold.pmt7ar ^(t|c) 13:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Really, so I'm berated for not spotting it in the reams of self-justifying twaddle obscuring it. I propose:

Since the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983 the islanders have been full British citizens. Argentine Law also considers that they are Argentine citizens but due to the Falkland Islands' rejection of the Argentine claim to sovereignty this is dismissed by practically all Islanders.

And lets put it to bed. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We might want to modify the last bit to say that 'however, as Argetina doesn't exercise sovereignty over the islands and as the Islanders reject the prospect of any transfer of sovereignty, this serves little practible effect' or some other non clunky version? I would like to, as an aside, address the idea that NPOV means using the same wording and the same weight to both sides. This would be true if we were just dealing with claims or what not, but there is an objective difference here between the two citizenship positions. The British Citizenship is used by the islanders and enjoys the benefits of being a reality, while the Argentine position is purely a de jure paper tiger. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't come to point. Citizenship is a matter of states, people having more than one citizenship can use whatever they want, as long as they aren't on the jurisdiction the others have absolutely no effect. So it's nothing particular to this case. A person with both argentine and italian citizenship living in Argentina, the italian citizenships serves no effect at all (unless they go to the embassy), just as argentine citizenshipt doesn't have effect to islanders. They're both valid, real and have the same authority; just as you said, islanders choose to use only the British. It's not a difference on the citizenships, it's the islander position.

Justin, that was all I was asking from the beginning. It was a really that small change of 1 word. Your proposal now is accurate, I would add "native" (considers that they are native Argentine citizens) to avoid confusion with naturalization. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 13:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Section Break

No, it wasn't what you asked for at all. I wouldn't include native as it implies they were born in Argentina. 2nd go

Since the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983 the islanders have been full British citizens. Although Argentina has no jurisdiction over the islands, Argentine Law considers that they are Argentine citizens, although the Argentine Government also dismisses the islanders as a "alien population". Due to the Falkland Islands' overwhelming rejection of the Argentine claim to sovereignty Argentine citizenship is dismissed by practically all Islanders.

Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Now you're confusing things up. Tue "alien population" issue refers to the 1833 events. I wouldn't include native as it implies they were born in Argentina, you're being POV, I now understand your position; you are defending your own position of the sovereignty issue. That's not neutral. "considers that they are native Argentine citizens" is neutral, and EXACTLY, it implies that Argentina law considers that they were born in Argentina, and yes, that DOES implies that Argentina law considers the islands part of Argentina. Now, do we need another 73k to discuss if Argentina considers the islands as part of its territory? We're talking of the Argentine position. Argentina does consider the islanders were born on Argentina.. Adding "native" doesn't interfere with your proposal. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 13:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be picky justin, you have two althoughs in that second sentence and it should be 'Argentina has no current jurisdiction', we need to be clear we are talking about de facto/on the ground rather than theory. On 'native', I do agree with Justin on, in the same way I wouldn't call Kelpers 'native British' because it does carry connotations of being born here, they are native Falklanders. Please don't engage in reductio ad absurdum Pmt, no-one questions that Argentina believes the islands are theirs and no-one has said that. I'd probably drop the bit about the alien stuff TBH, unless it can be sourced to current situations (such as with denial of self-detirmination statements saying the Islanders are all aliens, if such exist), I'd also work that into the final sentence with the islanders rejection if you were to keep it. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

@pmt7ar I fail to see how I'm confusing things. The Argentine Government has labelled the population as "usurpers", "squatters" and an "alien population". I think it is incumbent on us to give our readers the information about the dichotomy in the Argentine posistion, on the one hand saying the're citizens and on the other labelling them alien. Nor is avoiding any language that confers a position on the Argentine sovereignty claim POV, rather it is actually NPOV even if I expressed it a little clumsily. Consensus is achieved through polite discussion, not by haranguing editors and attempting to spin their motives. Your proposed text is distinctly POV and to be avoided for that reason.

@Narson feel free to make your proposed changes, I'd just draw your attention to the source of the alien population remark as an address to the UN in June 2009 by the Argentine Foreign Minister. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 14:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In considering application of Citizenship, its worth reading Lord_haw_haw in order to be hung he had to have applied for a passport. I'd be happy with Justins wording. --Gibnews (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I still doubt Justin second go, but as for Narson previous comment, it's accurate, but falls in what I'm claiming about. Certainly, we could also rescue several references and valid facts and then we could add a wall of text of all accurate statements. I fear we're falling in WP:AWW in bombarding and adding things to make british citizenship look more valid, real, applicable when it is just the same as argentine citizenship (that is also valid -per competent authority-, real, and applicable, though not applied). That's why I claim as POV, they can be accurate but giving them more importance and relevance or adding "but"s in this context is affecting neutrality. We're on section Demographics of article "Falkland Islands" of only 3 paragraph, where the one in question should be a short mention. These things could have a more suitable place on Falkland Islanders to mention one. I think we should only mention in 1 or 2 short sentence mere FACTS: what british law SAYS, what argentine law SAYS, and what islanders SAYS. I don't know why you're insisting my proposal is POV (I still go for Justin first proposal, that its exactly like my proposal). PS: by the way, on your second why the new "overwhelming"? that's what I'm saying is turning to weaseling. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 14:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I am always willing to consider removing words that can be seen as weasel or peacock, when 3 out a a population of 3000 ie 0.1% say something I'd call that overwhelming - it also meets your 99.9% criterion btw. Nor is it seeking to dilute anything to mention a dichotomy in a view, when it is the official view expressed very recently by a senior Argentine Government official; I can dredge up 1000s of similar statements (and that isn't an exagerration). Your proposal is POV as it omits significant and relevant information. But we are progressing, lets see what Narson makes of it. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 14:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC) -> 3 out of 1033. There is already "practically all". Adding "overwhelming" is weaseling. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 15:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'll give you that one but that isn't weasel words thats a pleonasm. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement: "Argentine Law consider the Islanders as de iure Argentine Citizens", without further comments, is fine enough for me. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I support IANVS proposal MBelgrano (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No I don't see how you can sustain that proposal since on the one hand, by law they're allegedly Argentine Citizens and on the other the official Argentine Government position denounces them as "usurpers", "squatters" and an "alien population". Both are sourced and an accurate NPOV statement of the position taken by successive Argentine Governments. The article needs to fully inform the reader on the Argentine position, not a half way house. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 17:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know from where you got that the Argentine Government consider the contemporary Islanders as "squatters" or "alien population". I demand a proper source so I don't have to just ignore your claim, Justin. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

IANVS, saying "Argentine Law consider" and "de jure" is pretty the same. I support Justin(1st)/my proposal as a base, its accurate and concise enough to the context. Justin, if you want to go further into that: find amid those 1000 statements one as being part of any legislation (at least national level) so we can add it as an inconsistency on Argentine law. What a politician says doesn't make it law. At least the last reference you used, the aliens and usurpers are the ones introduced directly by UK since 1833 events, I couldn't find on that document anything stating that the current population is alien. What Argentine government says (a lot) is that their determination is biased towards UK, it's like asking one of two sides what the result should be. Is the argument they use to invalidate self-determination and stick towards negotiation and mediation (in any case, none of that is the position under Argentine law). It would be very interesting on another article, like "Falkland Islanders" or "Sovereignty of...", but not on this context. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 17:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I realise I'm jumping in a bit late here, but saying only that they regarded as Argentinean citizens implies that they are not, or perhaps not known to be (this is basic llinguistics - see stuff on conversational implicature if you're worried about it). so I don't see how that's NPOV.

I've also lost track of the argument as to why they're not Argentinean citizens.

We've got something like the following argument:

P1 Argentina regards them (in law) as Argentinean citizens.

P2 Being regarded in law by a state as a citizen of that state is sufficient for being a citizen of that state, therefore

C1 They are Argentinean citizens.

Are people here claiming that P2 is false?? That is, people think there's a distinction between explicitly having the legal status of a citizen of a state in that state's laws, and being a citizen? That seems odd to me.

Sure, they don't *want* to be citizens, but since when was citizenship a matter of what one wanted? (sure, there are clear legal procedures for renouncing citizenship; but that stops a country regarding one as a citizen - it's not sufficient merely that one don't want to be).

Perhaps you can make a distinction between citizenship as a legal notion, and other notions; it's pretty plausible that Falkland islanders aren't Argentinean citizens in anything other than the legal sense. Maybe this ambiguity is what's driving the accusations of NPOV here? 82.35.82.150 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're a bit late, we moved on from there.

"alien population" a statement by Jorge Tianna, Argentine Foreign Minister, in evidence at the UN Decolonization Committee in June 2009. It is no different from statements made earlier this month. The statement was already explicitly referenced. I take it a senior Argentine official making an official statement at a UN forum is a reliable source for Argentine Government opinion? I find it somewhat perplexing that IANVS demands a source for sourced text.

By aliens and usurpers are you referring to the Argentine settlers that chose to remain in Puerto Luis after HMS Clio's captain politely asked the garrison inserted by Argentina to leave, or would that be the garrison inserted by the United Provinces of the River Plate or the Republic of Buenos Aires depending on whatever source you choose or indeed whatever POV you ascribe to?

Anyway neatly sidestepping POV nonsense, the official statement of the perception of the Argentine Government as to the status of the Falkland Islands population, the 9 or more generation islanders for example, is most definitely germane to the proposed edit. NPOV demands that we explain all significant issues to our readers and I find it perplexing that sourced information, directly relevant to the proposed edit is being rejected and I don't see any policy based argument for discarding that information. Yes it should most definitely be in those other articles as well, I don't see an argument for not putting it here. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 18:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you've moved on, but that reasoning looks poor. What we're interested in is their status in Argentinean law, not their status as perceived by the current Argentinean government. Premise 1 in the above argument relates to whether they are regarded as citizens by the Argentinean state, not whether they are regarded as such by the Argentinean government. The two are not the same.

A statement by a politician on their status does not determine their status in Argentinean law. If their status isn't clear in Argentinean law, I can see reason to be relaxed about it. But some of the references above seem to show their status is pretty clear. Sure, the more nuanced sources are necessary to the fuller related entries on it.

Re the POV/NPOV phasing, it does imply they are not Argentinean citizens. That's clearly POV. But I can't see any alternative to this, without either explicitly stating or denying they are Argentinean citizens, which people here think is equally or more POV. This is one of those situations in which any phrasing is going to be POV. I don't know what wikipedia guidelines are for such a case. 82.35.82.150 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't see your point. You can't ignore attitudes in Argentina when there is such a dichotomy between the alleged status under Argentine law and an utterly contrary view expressed by the Argentine Government. NPOV requires all significant views to be represented with due weight. It becomes POV to report one and suppress the other. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had thought we were talking about whether they are citizens, not about whether they are regarded as citizens by the current government. If those two diverge, then it would be best to represent both [e.g., by saying that they are citizens, but are not regarded as such by some members of the government, or according to official government polict, or whatever] 82.35.82.150 (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

{unindent)

(1) The Argentine Constitution says nothing about becoming Argentine citizen (by birth or otherwise), and nothing about the citizenship of the Falkland Islanders.

(2) Citizenship matters are regulated by the Citizenship and Naturalization Law 346.

(3) What the Constitution does say about the Falklands is that “The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, are a permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people.”

In other words, the Constitution stresses the fact that Argentina does not exercise sovereignty over the Falklands (or at least not fully, as the Constitution explicitly says).

Part of that partiality is that not all Argentine legislation (if any) is applied with respect to the Islands.

Neither the Constitution nor the Citizenship and Naturalization Law 346 says if that law is part of the Argentine legislation that Argentina considers as being effective with respect to the Falklands, or part of the legislation that is not being considered effective in that respect.

Therefore, we need reliable sources for the statement that “according to Argentina the Falkland Islanders are Argentine citizens.” (More so that, as Justin has pointed out above, consistent statements by Argentine leaders seem to disagree with such a hypothesis. And statements by responsible state representatives do cary weight in International Law.) Apcbg (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Apcdg. I've found references to a case in which a Falklander applicant for Argentine citizenship had his case dismissed on the grounds he was already a citizen is this legal bulletin, but I'm having trouble finding more info on it.

I'm guessing if right, and there's no relevant evidence to the contrary, that would establish that the legal position according to Argentine law is that they are, and it would follow that this is the position of the Argentine state.

I'd further claim that if that is the legal position, then they are citizens - in a purely legal sense - of Argentina, irrespective of the posturings of the current administration.

Does that seem right? Or is one of those claims false? I'm going to keep digging for that ref. 82.35.82.150 (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope you find your reference. Then we would have a court decision in the case of a person who was under Argentine jurisdiction and seeks Argentine citizenship (some legal experts question the right of a state to impose citizenship even on persons under the state jurisdiction without their consent) — a decision no doubt based on submitted British ID documents; no British documents, no court decision!

We wouldn’t have a court decision in the case of Falkland Islanders who are neither under Argentine jurisdiction nor seeking Argentine citizenship.

Add. Is there any Argentine court ruling on the citizenship of a Falklands-born person who on his/her part was denying that he/she was an Argentine citizen?

If it exist it would be a very interesting reference, but either way it's not required in this case. Laws exists even if they never get applied. I didn't know there was a case in the first place, will try to find more about what linked 82.35.82.150.pmt7ar ^(t|c)

Sorry, “if-then-else” syllogisms have no place here. We could report a fact (court decision) but not delve into OR to interpret it; interpretation should come from reliable secondary sources instead.

“Posturings of the current administration”? I doubt if one may challenge the authority of an Argentine Foreign Minister to speak before the UN on behalf of his country.

So far we have one official position of Argentina, announced by Foreign Minister Taina before the UN on 18 June 2009 — and by successive Argentine Foreign Ministers before that — namely that the entire population of the Falklands is an “alien population”.

False. The document doesn't say that.pmt7ar ^(t|c) 13:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If the ancestors were alien but their present successora are not then what's the problem? Anyway, here is a source on the consistent Argentine position of the Falklanders being un-Argentine. Testifies Senator Rodolfo Terragno: “Islanders ... are an implanted population, which has been the Argentine argument all along” (Source). Apcbg (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we have it sourced to reliable secondary sources, we would get an alternative Argentine position too, claiming that the population of the Falklands (or part of it) are Argentine citizens. Apcbg (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have prepared a suggested wording:

Section 75.12 of the Argentine constitution as amended in 1994 defines place of birth as the principal criteria on which the law of nationality shall be based while a temporary provision [Spanish: Disposiciones Transitorias] in the same document states "The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing [Spanish: imprescriptible] sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory."

Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I fear it is veering into WP:OR territory as it relies on primary sources, and as an edit is missing important verifiable information eg the declaration by the Argentine Foreign Minister that the islanders are an "alien population". I was also about to ask about the Tarjeta Provisoria that Argentina imposed on islanders in the '70s and early '80s. A form of visa required to visit Argentina or travel through Argentina and ask whether states usually require visas for their population to travel? I'd also highlight this is for the demographics element of this article but seems to be turning into a treatise on the Argentine constitution - it is becoming unwieldy. Having just re-read the article and the argument above I still don't see what is actually wrong with the summary it currently contains.

If we're going down this route and I remain unconvinced its necessary, then its simply a case of state Argentine law states they're citizens buts its Government dismisses them as an "alien population", the islanders reject Argentine citizenship. 2 simple sentences. Justin the Evil Scotman talk

Do we really need to go into lots of detail about this? The point of this sentence is not to describe Argentina's attitude toward the islanders, but to describe the islanders' nationality. That's all. If we mention the British citizenship, then NPOV requires that we mention the Argentine citizenship as well. But I don't see the argument whereby it follows that that means we also have to mention the Argentine government's position at the UN. If we're describing the islanders' citizenship, then we should describe the islanders' citizenship. Nothing more.

I don't accept that the piece from the Universidad Nacional de Noroeste is insufficient to back up the point that the islanders are Argentine citizens under Argentine law. It is a reliable source that verifies the point, without need of original research or original synthesis. If we're trying to describe the Argentine position, it is logical to use an Argentine-biased source. So in the absence of sources that dispute this interpretation (that they are Argentine citizens explicitly under Argentine law), I find no reason not to accept the point, given appropriate language (such as "under Argentine law" or "Argentine law considers") and given that we note the islanders' position on this.

It does not back up a claim based on the narrower point of what President Kirchner's government thinks. But we don't need to say that. The point that under Argentine law they are Argentine citizens is sourced to our standards, and we should accept that. Pfainuk talk 19:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of mentioning the statements at the UN is simply to present that there is more than one opinion expressed in Argentina. It is very relevant to mention the Argentine Government's stated position, since an "alien population" is the opposite of "Argentine Citizen". The two positions are in direct opposition. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 22:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Add. Other than that I don't disagree, which is why I posted the text earlier. Narson suggested some changes, I was just waiting for him to do so. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I do have a problem with the present secondary source, with implications for the suggested phrasing too. One cannot see as reliable a source erroneously asserting that the Falklanders are Argentine citizens because of being born on Argentine territory, given the fact that less than half of them (some 46 percent according to the 2006 Falklands census) are actually born on the Islands or in Argentina. The majority of the Falklanders are born elsewhere. I would suggest removing that misleading source from the article. There must be some better sources, no?

Another point. I doubt if we could correctly present the case of Argentine citizenship solely as an issue of supposed domestic Argentine legislation. The very fact that the persons in question are British citizens resident under British jurisdiction necessarily brings in International Law, which seems to have some relevant conventions and established legal principles (the principle of ‘real and effective citizenship’ etc.). I would suggest consulting and possibly quoting this reliable Argentine source. Apcbg (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that reference was heavy going for my limited Spanish but it does raise a number of questions, including the legality of an "imposed" citizenship. I'm going to withdraw my edit proposal as I'm not convinced its accurate. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I agree with Pfainuk. If we want to maintain neutrality, we must say the position of law on both sides and that's all. I know WP:OR, but it still allows use of primary sources and this case applies (since in fact, we're talking about the primary sources itself). Also the secondary source is reliable and valid, the same as the primary sources, they're applicable.

Justin, please quote me where and when the Argentine government has said that the same affected by Argentine nationality are "alien population"? At least on that UN document it always refers them as "ensuing implantation of an alien population", so yes, Argentine government does call alien the ones UK sent to populate the islands. It's not calling "alien population" to those born on the islands. Born on the islands are native Argentine citizens, as we already discussed. Please find another source amid those 1000's where it says explicitly that the born on the islands (or in defect, "all islanders") are "alien population". Else you're affirming something that is not on the sources. (and like Pfainuk, I don't think the government position has place here).

Apcbg, that source is not reliable. It sounded QUITE weird to me and then searched its quotes. It refers to articles and laws that doesn't exist anymore (art 67, inc 11 doesn't exist, art 108 and latters are completely different). I latter realized that that document is 20 years old (dated 16-05-1990 [20]), prior to 1994 reform then that analysis over law is not valid anymore, only as an historic reference. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 12:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That source was quoted in relation to relevant established legal principles and conventions of International Law (‘real and effective citizenship’ etc.). Are you suggesting International Law has changed in that respect during the last 20 years? What changes exactly? Any sources? Apcbg (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. We are here to make an agreement on how to expose the Argentine law position regarding the islanders. It has nothing to do with International Law. A state is the only and sufficient authority to define its citizenship, International Law doesn't tell a country who should be its citizen or not. All references to Argentine legislation in that source are obsolete. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 18:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes International Law is relevant. Above I explained why, and gave a source analyzing in detail that relevance. Other than repeating your opinion that International Law is irrelevant, do you have any sources supporting your opinion? Apcbg (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. "necessarily brings in International Law", why necessarily? British citizens on British jurisdiction is a matter of UK. UK decides who are citizens, and UK can grant them all the benefits from it while they are under its jurisdiction. No more than that. AFAIK, the only place for international law is to allow foreigners to go to their embassy (where jurisdiction extends). Argentine citizenship has nothing to do with international law, neither British. Islanders are British and all we know that, since that British act says so. Native-islanders are Argentine, because Argentina law says so. We also know the only applied is the British, since they live under UK sovereign territory and they choose to use their rights as British citizens. Your source makes an analysis based on the Argentine Constitution prior to 1994, it's obsolote. It also makes a distinction of terms, as you may noticed on my "inconsistency", here isn't such distinction at all. Only Native and Naturalized citizenship exist in Argentina, and Native, or Natural, is the same as "full citizenship", so "citizen","native", and "Argentinean" is the same (the only distinctions is that native can't be resigned, and that naturalized must be applied/can be resigned nor can be elected president). The source doesn't refer to any specific of international law, just a mention to a case in Perú. It does refer to The Hague Convention (which says the same it's already said). Please, tell me a source that says international apply in this case and justify why it should be of incumbency when talking of Argentine position. If there is something on that source please point me which page/paragraph. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 19:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I though of another change to the sentence, as there is an important number of non-native islanders, that the sentence should apply only to native. For example: "(UK position). Under Argentine Law, native islanders are also considered native Argentine citizens, but due... (islanders position)". The reasons the are the same, and it prevents implying that all islanders are considered Argentineans, only the born on the islands. (is the same Justin(1st)/my proposal but adding it only refer to natives). pmt7ar ^(t|c) 18:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but my position has changed after reading the source provided by Apcbg, I would recommend you take the time to read it in detail. It brings up some interesting points, for example in international law you can't impose citizenship from my understanding based upon my admittedly imperfect Spanish. So the position of International law is most definitely relevant per NPOV considering all relevant viewpoints. Also I have referred again to the UN document and it is clear to me that Taiana is referring to the Falkland Islands population as an "alien population". So again NPOV requires us to report that as a significant viewpoint. Also to respond to your assertion that the UK is implanting a population. No. That POV is utterly inaccurate, immigration is a function of the FIG, even I would need a passport to travel there and permission for residence. Please desist from seeking to minimise or dimiss sources based on such semantics. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 20:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I keep on seeing references to International Law. Would somebody please tell me who lays down this so-called International Law and where I can find a copy of it? There are things like the International Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention etc, but that, I beleive, is about as far as we get with International Law. Martinvl (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand Spanish? That document does explain it, I could translate part of it if it helps. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 20:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources of International Law are explained in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (see the Statute in Spanish or English), and in the Wiki article Sources of international law. Some conventions and legal principles of International Law and their origins are explained in the source given above. Apcbg (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please tell me page and paragraph of where is something relevant to this?. I'm assuming you're providing that source for any possible comments on the real facts, because anything it can say about Argentine law is obsolete. Do you agree on that part? pmt7ar ^(t|c) 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The ones minimizing are the ones who discard my sources as OR or POV, a newspaper is valid but a publication of an University is not (it still is valid as to provide an interpretation, for those who reject the primary sources); when primary sources are applicable here, and when we are in need of a POV! Yes, if you say again that is POV I'll take it as a complaint and support to my proposal (any problems with that take it to AN/I). My concern is to be neutral in the wording and weight, not the content which is obviously POV (we are asking Argentine position, Argentine POV, for your information; yes, constitutions itself are POV, like any positive law made by man). The UN document doesn't say that. The "alien population" is only mentioned in "implantation of an alien population", and "that alien population", referring to the former. So no, it's not referring to the native population and it doesn't conflict with my proposed statement. Please point me the page and paragraph of the Apcbg so I can look at the same place as you, as I can't find what you're referring to (neither know WHAT exactly). The paragraph has three parts: UK law position, Argentina law position, islanders position. I'm only touching the Argentine one, as you can see on my last proposal, and it is clear, its a fact, neutral wording and same weight as UK's, and is sourced by both the object itself and a secondary source. We can discuss what to put after latter, do we have an agreement accepting the middle part? Then we can discuss if the government declarations are adequate to this section or not, and can redact something together. I'm afraid we're changing subject, we should talk about nationality/citizenship only; expanding it with declarations over the islands sovereignty if too much and it has its own article. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No we're not changing the subject, this is how consensus works. You started off with one premise, turns out it is not as simple as you may have thought. For example. There are actually 2 viewpoints inherent in Argentine statements; one about what the law means, yet another (directly contradictory) of an "alien population". Now as it turns out a 3rd opinion on International Law that holds the view you can't impose citizenship or nationality. All Argentine. The simple edit you want, doesn't reflect the different positions. No one is disregarding sources, point of fact we consider ALL relevant sources. You can take this to the NPOV noticeboard if you like but you'd be better of AGF rather dismissing comments simply because they come from a Brit. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 21:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have found several things worth mentioning, that may or may not fit in this context, but I was asking just before if we agreed on how to express how argentine law sees the natives? Do we agree or not? I stil haven't seen a single reference of the contrary. We could discuss later if it may end: [UK position][ARG position][international position][islanders position], because that would bring a discussion whetever it is important to this section, or its neutrality. I personally don't see this will going to progress if we keep putting stones and new things in the bag, each one with lots of KB. I want to know if it is now acceptable the Argentine law position, so we settle it and continue with islanders and international position, that's all. Add: I know that the POV will continue towards UK in this and other articles, but I will insist all the necessary if I found an unsourced inaccuracy. pmt7ar ^(t|c) 22:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent)

Prof. Stephen Toope. Public International Law. 1998. pp. 35-36:

“ An individual has the nationality of the state that confers it and domestic law controls its acquisition and its loss. There must be a genuine link between the state granting the nationality and the individual. ”

“ International arbitrators … have given their preference to the real and effective nationality, that which accorded with the facts, that based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and on of the States whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his family ties, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. ”

“ Real and effective nationality: According to the practice of States, to arbitral and judicial decisions and to the opinions of writers, nationality is a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. ”

Reviews on the principle of effective nationality, 2004:

“ ... whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized. ”

“ As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. ”

Apcbg (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

First I would like to apologize for my previous behavior; after rereading carefully some of the guidelines I found myself softening and molding a proposal for your liking, so you will accept it; but even if it was an attemp of redation to present the sources was still my own synthesis. I feel that discussing about my synthesis has distracted the discussion, so from now on I will not write any content of my own, and will stick exactly to the sources, taggin where needed. Having said that, and continuing with this issue, I still claim that there is an unverifiable quote as the concept of "eligibility" is not in the source used to expose argentine law position. I propose its replacement with the accurate text as per source (I offered a translation in a previous edit, but you can ask for other if don't trust mine). As all other comments here, with several worth and that I support adding, I ask for a proposal including all positions; I personally don't want to redact the position of islanders or international law as I'm not sure of these. I think the structure I had proposed, exposing all four positions, is a fair neutral approach to the issue. pmt7ar ^(talk) 16:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Describing Citizenship on Wikipedia

I fear we are getting bogged down in legal arguments and trying to interpret what citizenship comprises and what the competence of administrations is, which is not our role as wikipedia editors. Again I invite Pmt7ar to propose a sentence for inclusion into the article which we can discuss, edit, and approve so that the article describes the situation in a NPOV way.

Although such discussions are interesting, its a lot of Kb discussion about a small inclusion which makes very little difference to the price of fish. --Gibnews (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the following two sentences:

The Falkland Islanders are British and EU citizens by the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983.⁽¹⁾ Under Argentine nationality law, native Falkland Islanders who so wish are recognized as Argentine citizens by birth.⁽²⁾

______________

Explanatory notes (not to be included in the article text):

⁽¹⁾ This is universally recognized, including by and in Argentina.

⁽²⁾ We still need a reliable source for this. Sources quoted above rule out any generalizations of the sort “Under Argentine nationality law the native Falkland Islanders are Argentine citizens,” as we have no examples of Argentina abusing International Law to treat as Argentine citizens Falkland Islanders against their will. Apcbg (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem with (1), is what it actually says (added the EU). The (2) is false, it doesn't differ the actual "are eligible to" and the "who so wish". True, we still don't have any example of this, neither we need for. Look at this: "Under Argentine nationality law, native Falkland Islanders are also considered native argentineans, and the rest are eligible for naturalization.". We don't have sources rejecting this, but we do have the argentine nationality law, don't we? We can add the four positions: UK, argentina, international and islanders, that would be better IMO.pmt7ar ^(t|c) 16:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with this edit is the position of Argentine Law and Argentine opinions on the implications of that law are contradicted by other sources. Argentina cannot impose citizenship. I tend toward the view that citizenship is so complex that in the demographics section we simply state they are British citizenships. We then add a new sub-section that deals with the nuances. Apcbg's proposed wording is more reflective of the sources we've seen and I regret to say that your version isn't. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 19:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Where? Argentine law position contradicted hasn't been exposed here, and yes, it can recognize whatever it wants; if you call it impose then it can impose nationality on anyone; but it isn't a problem at all for islanders. I'm not a lawyer, so we can look for an interpretation of the international law applied on this aspect of Argentine law, but it will be a hard find. From the sources presented on all the discussion, there hasn't been NOT A SINGLE ONE that says the opposite, or that contradicts my proposal, which is correctly sourced. I've been completely open to all what was exposed here, but none has contradicted my proposal; there have been sources that doesn't apply, or has nothing to do with the issue. My wording is completely neutral and accurate. All I oppose is to the current sentence, and last Apcbg wording, as it is INACCURATE and UNSOURCED. I'm completely, completely tired of asking some sources or ask why the rejection and all I get is unrelated and POV excuses. If you want to minimize Argentine position, you have tons of sources to meet that goal. But don't lie. I don't think this is appropriate for the section in question, but if you want so badly to make clear that Argentine claims are a fantasy, then make a 2mb wall of text: expose UK law position, expose ARG law position, expose INTL law position, expose islanders opinion, and expose your 1000 sources of why the ARG one hasn't value, but don't lie when describing the ARG position.

What is happening here, is that I made sourced quote saying the ugly "islanders ARE argentineans", and the UK-ish air here is trying by all means to not put these words, or to remove value from it. And you're trying to reject it quoting real facts, international law, and so. You can't deny that Argentine law sees native islanders as full native citizens with a quote from international law or with metaphysics essays on what is citizenship and what is not. As I said, you shall add it amid your 1000 sources, but that would not change the argentine legislation. So please, if you reject this "Under Argentine nationality law, native Falkland Islanders are also considered native argentineans, and the rest are eligible for naturalization.", tell me a source saying that argentine law doesn't recognize native islanders as argentineans. If not, accept that part and let's continue with all the other things you may want to add like INTL position, argentine declarations, and islanders position. If you think I'm completely wrong, start a thread on AN/I, if I see you keep arguing with the same, I'll start it. Saludos. pmt7ar ^(talk) 20:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you calm down and re-read what I just proposed, review the sources and what they say and then if you wish open up a thread at AN/I. Before you do, you might like to consider redacting calling me a liar. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 20:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My rejection to the current sentence and Apcbg proposal is that is inaccurate and isn't sourced anywhere: Apcbg is saying that who so wish are recognized as native, and that isn't accurate; you can't choose be an argentine natural, that comes by birth, not by choose. It is confusing and misleading. Please reread my last proposal on previous comment, it's perfectly clear on what is what. Implications of the law being contradicted? That hasn't shown here; instead we have said that it doesn't have any implication, as it is not applied AFAIK; still that doesn't contradict or changes the law position. I said that you can add the government declarations too, after my sentence. Can you explain why the wording inaccuracy of Apcbg is more reflective of the sources than mine?. As I said, not a single source implying that the law says native islanders enter in the "naturalization" category, or that the have to choose to be naturals (which in fact contradicts with the sources) (-but we do have, even weak, a rare mention of an islander that got his option rejected by being already a native-). pmt7ar ^(talk) 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What I have tried to say is that the simple edit you propose isn't sustainable by the sources. It needs to be explained and there are several issues at hand. What isn't helpful is your presumption is that I am motivated by nationalism. My record in this area speaks for itself and I have several Argentine editors who have become close friends. So if you wish to raise it at ANI, go ahead, you have several personal attacks under your belt and yet I am still presuming good faith and there is a language issue and not seeking sanctions against you. And again the position of int'l law demonstrates you can't impose citizenship and Apcbg's proposed wording accurately reflects sources. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 20:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've also been repeatedly been accused of POV when I assumed it was a language or semantic issue and tried explaining myself better. If int'l law applies and says so, we can discuss to add it too. But it doesn't change the argentine perspective; argentine law and international law can conflict in this case, but if you expose British position it will not be neutral to censor the argentine position. Is the same as removing all references to Argentine claim just because internationally it doesn't have any implication and British have total sovereignty. pmt7ar ^(talk) 20:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok fine, persist in the bad faith assumption, it is nothing of the sort. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 22:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Users should be aware that this dispute has been taken to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Pfainuk talk 21:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this dispute hasn't been taken to RS/N. I asked for a second opinion of the usability of the official sources, if they are a fair use to primary sources (i.e. "are these sources reliable and usable to state argentine law position?"). No more than that. Don't bring other issues -other sources, international law, or any others position but Argentine law- to that topic please. Thanks. pmt7ar ^(talk) 01:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If you ask for outside opinions, decorum requires you to inform other users that you have done so. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Source removal

I propose to have this source removed from the article due to its being misplaced. While the source is supposed to support the text “Under Argentine Law they are eligible for Argentine citizenship”, it says nothing about such eligibility.

As for the source itself and its possible use, it might be a perfectly reliable and usable source — e.g. on the subject of Falklander self-determination — excepting the issue of Argentine citizenship, and then not because that source was considered biased, but because of the fact that its single sentence concerning the Falkland Islanders and Argentine citizenship is grossly erroneous: The source is asserting that the Falklanders are Argentine citizens because of being born on Argentine territory, however fact is that less than half of them (some 46 percent according to the 2006 Falklands census) are actually born on the Islands or in Argentina. The majority of the Falklanders are born elsewhere. Therefore, the source in question is unreliable with respect to Falklander citizenship matters. Apcbg (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose. Certainly, that's what I've been claiming all this time, the article is saying something that is not in the source. For me, it would be better to remove the sentence and source rather than keeping in this way, however we are already discussing this on the main section, so there is no need for this proposal: the source will remain or be removed from whatever comes from that discussion. pmt7ar ^(talk) 15:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there not a case for commenting on the reference - something along the lines of In a scholarly article by XXXX, it is argued that under Argentine law the Falkland Islanders are Argentine citizens. An analysis of the article shows that in reality XXXX's argument only supports the assertion that under Argentine law islanders who were born on the islands are Argentine citizens? Martinvl (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

@Martin. Possibly, as I note above there are 3 significant opinions in the Argentine literature, so it may be better served with a separate section that considers them separately. But that was dismissed as a bad faith suggestion. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a highly complex topic, I agree with Justin. The discussion on citizenship could well be expanded and merged into the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute with article stating - British and Argentine Laws are at [[Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute|variance]] with each other regarding the citizenship of the islanders. Martinvl (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with that suggestion. Seems an appropriate treatment. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 18:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. All the things suggested were to fill up Demographics, a separate mention there would me more on subject. pmt7ar ^(talk) 19:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems the right approach in principle, let's see how it works more concretely in practice. Apcbg (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Here follows a draft version of the suggested new section in the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute (unindented):

Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship

While Argentina recognizes the British citizenship of the Falkland Islanders, the Argentine nationality legislation is inconclusive with respect to the Islanders. On an individual basis, native Falkland Islanders who have declared before the Argentine authorities that they are Argentine, have been recognized as Argentine nationals by birth. However, the universal application of the Argentine nationality law to all Islanders is inhibited by the fact that Argentina does not exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Islands.

Draft legislation has been submitted before the Argentine Senate and Congress in order to regulate this sitizenship issue by explicitly confirming — with no prejudice to the Argentine sovereignty claim — that the Falklanders are not Argentine citizens, providing at the same time for native Islanders who declare themselves Argentine to be recognized as Argentine nationals by birth, and for those born elsewhere but resident in the Islands for at least two years to be eligible for Argentine naturalization.

Notes

Apcbg (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Section "Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship" added to the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Apcbg (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent)

I am upholding my source removal proposal. Further to its errors pointed out above, the source in question proves to be grossly erroneous in yet another aspect relating to citizenship. Namely, while it alleges that the Falklanders have both British and Argentine citizenship, fact is that Argentina does not permit such dual Argentine-British citizenship according to this authoritative official source. Apcbg (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth. If this article appears to fairly portray the law as seen through Argentinian eyes, it is worthy of retention - albeit with the dual nationality conundrum highlighted. Martinvl (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's only talking about acquired citizenship and how it could be lost, not about the native citizenship (being a native argentinean implies citizenship, and that couldn't be lost). I mean, my mother is Argentine natural and Swiss naturalized, and has both citizenship, she hasn't lost Argentine one, or princess Máxima still is an argentine citizen after being granted dutch citizenship. All nationals are citizens, so this last source is talking about a different citizenship, I don't see it conflicting with the UNNE source, where it clearly states that are considerated argentine citizens for being born on its territory, so it doesn't make it "grossly erroneous". pmt7ar ^(talk) 18:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No thats not correct, it does say quite authoritively that you lose Argentine citizenship if you acquire another - like British citizenship for example. As regards verifiability not truth, that does require us to use sources that are demonstrably incorrect. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 19:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is a consensus that violates a policy or a pillar null and void?

There has been a policy in respect of units of measure within the Falkland Islands work group of "Imperial first as per the existing consensus". Certain editors have tried to revoke this consensus as it probably contravenes both WP:MOS and WP:NPOV. On 17 April 2010, both User:Pfainuk and User:Justin A Kuntz revoked changes that an editor asserted would have brought the article into line with WP:NPOV. In his revocation, Justin A Kuntz stated "…existing consensus prevails till new consensus established and arguing units are POV is simply ridiculous". Pfainuk did not challenged the POV assertion - he merely revoked the changes. Previous changes asserting contraventions of WP:MOS have also revoked by the same editors on simlar grounds.

I assert that if a consensus is shown contravene WP:PG and/or WP:NPOV, then that consensus is null and void to extent that those contraventions are no longer present.

Comments please? Martinvl (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"... if a consensus is shown contravene ..." — shown by whom and where? That some people believe that "it probably contravenes" is one thing, "shown to contravene" is something else. Apcbg (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You know if the metric warriors put as much time into writing articles as wasting it on talk pages wikipedia would benefit significantly. A significant compromise was offered, it fell apart when after implementing it you complained it didn't go far enough. If you want to change the way wikipedia works, then imposing your way without thought of compromise on a series of articles isn't the way to go about it. Change it at WP:MOSNUM do not continue wasting the time of editors who have better things to do. The premise of this RFC is utterly bogus, a unit consensus is nothing to do with NPOV. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 19:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Pfainuk talk 09:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the following should be stated:

• The idea of a consensus for Imperial in the Falklands Islands articles is questionable for the following reasons:

1. A year ago Falklands Islands articles were varied. Some were metric first, others were Imperial first and some were mixed. This is evidence that there was no particular overarching policy.
2. When I pointed out this anomaly, Justin changed the East Falkland article to Imperial first on 3 August 2009 [21] and Pfainuk changed the West Falkland article on 25 February 2010 [22].
3. On the Falkland Island Work Group [23] when the matter of units was first put to the test, three were for metrics and two were for a source based approach while one favoured metrics but thought the consensus was for Imperial. This is hardly evidence for a consensus. Then when the mater was discussed further there were more in favour of metrics than Imperial. This was particularly the case for the weather information, where an overwhelming majority was in favour of metric measures.
4. There is abundant evidence that many who favoured metrics were willing to compromise. Returning to the all-Imperial position suggests a resistance to compromise.
5. The policy on article ownership [24] does appear to have some relevance here.
6. Comments such as "metric warriors" are not helpful, but clear procedures of what to do in cases such as this could help to save time.
7. As there is no clear evidence of an Imperial-first "consensus" in the past and there is clear evidence of a lack of consensus for Imperial-first measures now, arguments based on the notion of an existing consensus for Imperial measures are based on fantasy. The Imperial-first consensus on Falkland Islands articles has all the reality of the invincibility of the Black Knight in Monty Python [25]. Michael Glass (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the old argument. Y'see, according to Michael, consensus for imperial has to be unanimous but consensus for metric can be carried by majority vote. At every one of what must be six or seven months-long discussions on this we've had over the last year consensus has either been achieved for imperial units, or no new consensus has been reached. Pfainuk talk 09:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is abundant evidence that many who favoured metrics were willing to compromise. Returning to the all-Imperial position suggests a resistance to compromise. Are you having a laugh? Those who preferred imperial units - as per current consensus - compromised hugely to get consensus, putting forward and accepting a proposal that would put metric units first in all but a few specific situations. The pro-metric editors compromised from 100% metric in theory to 100% metric in practice. That's not a compromise, it's a waste of all of our time. The reason we don't have consensus is precisely because pro-metric editors were not willing to accept any proposal that would put imperial units first in Falklands articles in any situation that actually exists on those articles.

My position is that, once we have a new consensus, we can change units in line with that consensus. I have been very consistent about this, despite Michael's continual insistence that we must apply a set of units that have not achieved consensus. His refusal to accept basic Wikipedia norms and his bringing up the topic over and over and over and over and over has long since become disruptive. Pfainuk talk 10:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

1. I am not arguing that consensus for imperial has to be unanimous. I pointed out that there was never unanimous support for Imperial. In fact, if you count the one who personally favoured metrics (but thought he was outnumbered) as a metric supporter, support for the two systems was evenly divided. A 3-3 split is no evidence for consensus.
2. You obtained a concession from more than one editor that, despite reservations, they would not contest your suggested guidelines. Others were not willing to compromise as much. I believe the next step was to sit down and look at where they differed, to see if we could iron out the differences. Instead you returned to an all-Imperial position that you knew had even less support. I regard this decision as both provocative and quite disruptive.
3. The idea of making others wait until you have agreement on everything before we move from your preferred position serves your interests, but can hardly be expected to appeal to others. There is clear evidence now that metric weather details are preferred by an overwhelming majority, and yet you won't even concede that these could change before we move on to other, more difficult questions. An agreement to change the weather details would be seen as evidence of good faith in negotiating. Why not do it?
4. You complain that my persistence is disruptive, but have you considered just how disruptive you have been? What was the idea of taking the West Falkland article and changing it against the sources, against the history of the article and knowing full well that it would stir up controversy? That was certainly disruptive, making a point to stir up ill-feeling. What was the idea of playing bait and switch with your compromise proposal? Have you considered how disruptive that was? Have you considered that your tactics may have helped to generate the majority who want change? Michael Glass (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have indented for clarity.

When consensus was first reached, everyone agreed to it except you. You insisted that that consensus did not exist because it was not unanimous, and thus went around systematically defying it. On all other occasions - the six or seven discussions we've had on this in the last year, each of which has lasted months - that consensus has either been upheld or there has been no consensus. So it remains. It's very simple. And of course you know all of this. You were there. And we've had this discussion about fifty times now.

Has it occurred to you that I might not have your apparent skills at intercontinental telepathy, and thus genuinely believed - given the lack of any kind of objection - that my proposal had consensus? Turns out, it didn't, so I reverted it. Of course I did. It is not disruptive to expect that consensus be reached before we make a change, and in the absence of consensus my change could not be retained. We've gone through this about thirty times now.

What you are demanding is that I compromise on every single point until I reach a point where the articles would be fully metric, while those who prefer metric continue to stonewall. That's not reasonable. Those who prefer imperial have already compromised. Consensus is going to have to mean compromise from those who prefer metric as well. Since they are unwilling to compromise, no consensus is possible. And until we have consensus, the old consensus remains. We've gone through this, again, about fifty times now.

Now, unless you're doing something very odd, you've said you'll accept my proposal. Martin refuses to accept it, but also refuses to discuss it for more than one response. He demands that we follow the MOS closely while simultaneously objecting to a proposal that follows it far more closely than his proposal for full metrication. You want to know why we don't have consensus? Ask those who would not compromise, not those whose compromise proposals were rebuffed. Pfainuk talk 15:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "consensus was first reached". It couldn't refer to that 3-3 split that I commented on. Whatever your "consensus" referred to, it apparently gave you the feeling that you had the right to change references to Imperial first on every Falklands article, including the ones that had been metric first from the outset, and regardless of what the source material might have. This is a very expansive interpretation. The changes that I have made to Falkland Islands articles have been in accordance with the sources quoted, which is more than can be said about your changes to the West Falkland article or your most recent change to the Falkland Islands article, which expunged a reference to hectares.

However, the question is where do we go from here. I have suggested a step-by-step approach because the lock-step approach did not work. Thus, we could agree on changing the weather data, for starters. A a step-by-step approach need not be the thin edge of the wedge. As far as I understand it, the difference between your position and Martin's position is that he accepts miles for road distances only whereas you want miles and square miles throughout. A bit of give and take might be in order here. For example, it is crazy to foist on the stub of an article an agreement that would make the measurements inconsistent. You may need to do some horse trading to get an agreement.

Now you might think that withdrawing a proposed compromise because people want to haggle over the details is not disruptive. However, think of it from the other side. From my point of view I saw a possible agreement snatched away at the very first sign of disagreement. Others saw it as cause for an RFC. When you build up people's hopes for an agreement and then dash them it really does disrupt things, even if you didn't mean to have that effect.

Finally, I said I would not contest your proposed compromise. However, this does not bind others. This is the new reality. It follows from the latest vote on the units to be given priority in the Falklands articles. Your proposed compromise is in response to this new reality; more negotiation will be needed to reach an agreement that sticks. Michael Glass (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My proposal has not been withdrawn. I've made it clear on several occasions - including in this discussion - that it is still on the table and that I am still willing to accept it. If it gains consensus. But it hasn't gained consensus. We don't implement proposals when they don't gain consensus. The previous consensus was for imperial units first and that remains until a new consensus is reached.

As it happens, Martin has apparently decided that he doesn't want to discuss this. He states an objection and gives reasons - but does not back up those reasons when they are inconsistent (as now). If he is going to continue to stonewall, negotiation is a waste of time. I am still not prepared to give concession after concession until I reach 100% metrication in practice, as is his position and as you insist I must.

I would note that I do not feel that putting distance in miles and land height in metres is significantly inconsistent (per the wording of my proposal). However, I am open to discussing differing interpretations of inconsistency, and converting units as per my proposal if you feel that this is a problem. I don't mind discussing the details. But consensus is going to have to require meaningful compromise from those who want metric units as well, and unless editors are willing to do this there's nothing we can do. Pfainuk talk 06:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be glad to discuss things that I feel could be improved about your proposal. As you already know, I feel uncomfortable about the use of nautical miles, except when they are specified in the sources quoted. My reason for this is that they are unfamiliar units for most readers. A second thing that I think could be modified is the application of the rule to stubs and minor articles. I think it would be preferable for them to follow their sources. I also feel it would be desirable for us all to come to an acceptable compromise if at all possible. After all, we need to work together.

I don't know if the alternative to compromise would be an imposed solution, such as the following dot point from MOSNUM: "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses." This wouldn't worry me but I don't think you would like it. Your alternative to compromise, the imposition of an imperial-first position, would be inconsistent with British practice, inconsistent with the wishes of most editors and inconsistent with most of the sources. I doubt that such a rule would be imposed on the articles. Michael Glass (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, nautical miles are the unit of choice, generally speaking, for these distances. Mariners will object to the alternative (statute miles) as being technically incorrect, and nautical miles do have the advantage of being easily compared with numbers from international maritime law. If nautical miles are little used, it is more because offshore distances are little used than because the units used are obscure. WP:UNITS calls for (unspecified) "miles", and kilometres are no more used offshore than onshore, so they are unacceptable to me. I have serious reservations about using statute miles over nautical miles in this context, but if will get us consensus, I won't object. On short articles and stubs, I see very little reason to treat them any differently from any other article. The whole point, after all, is that they grow to become larger articles in the future. Better not to have a split based on length but to remain consistent on all Falklands articles.

You speak of my "alternative to compromise". No, my choice is to compromise to try to reach consensus. Hence my proposal. It's those pro-metric editors refuse to discuss anything other than 100% metrication in practice that are looking for alternatives to compromise - this RFC and taking the thing to WP:NPOVN without mentioning it here would seem to be good examples. You can't reasonably expect me to keep compromising until I reach their position while they continue to stonewall - refuse to even discuss the issue let alone compromise on it. And as you well know, in the absence of new consensus, the old consensus remains. Trying to force a set of units through by using the letter of the rule to overcome the spirit of the rule is trying to gaming the system and thus unacceptable. Pfainuk talk 17:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have the same feeling that retaining an obviously unsatisfactory position until every last detail is agreed on can also be a case of gaming the system. We might therefore ask if it's the battle between the games! I can see your point about consistency between the larger articles and the stubs. Unfortunately, the weaknesses inherent in your compromise proposal are glaringly obvious when we examine one or more of the stubs in detail. Take, for instance, Bleaker Island. [26]. At the moment it is consistently metric first, with imperial measures in parentheses. It is also consistent with the source. If we followed through with your proposal, some of the measures would be metric first, others would be miles first, and there could be a bunfight over whether the area should be given in hectares or square miles! Why go there? It makes far more sense to leave it as it is. It ain't broke, and it doesn't need to be fixed.

This shows up a basic problem with your proposal. Metric (except for miles and square miles) may be tolerable - just - in the larger articles but it makes a total mess of measures in the stubs. I know you find it hard to accept Martin's proposal, because it is almost completely metric, but his proposal gives as much ground as it is possible to give without causing significant problems when the policy is applied overall. Basically, you have to be mostly metric or mostly Imperial in any one article. Part metric and part imperial is a mess. That is why I think you need to find a way of giving more ground. This is not to undercut the great efforts you have made to work out an acceptable compromise. Any fair-minded person would have to acknowledge that your proposal went a long way towards meeting the concerns that I and other have raised. The problems that remain are inherent in trying to manage two systems of measurement in one set of articles. I feel sure that we can work something out. However, it will take more negotiation and effort. Michael Glass (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything unreasonable about waiting for consensus to be reached before implementing that consensus. It's not like we're in some massive rush. I don't accept that my proposal makes a mess in the stubs. If you are suggesting that my proposal would cause significant inconsistency between miles for distance and metres for land height then my proposal addresses that - though I do not actually agree that there is any such inconsistency.

You haven't got my point about Martin's proposal. It's not "hard to accept". It's entirely unacceptable to me that we should metricate Falklands articles farther than our own guidelines call for. It's not "almost completely metric" - there are no practical differences between it and full metrication because we have so few distances along roads on Falklands articles - and any we do have will doubtless be metricated in the name of consistency. If we take it at its word, it artificially creates a split in usage between distances along roads and distances not along roads - note there is no equivalent split in British usage, and creating such a split (as Martin proposes) defies both WP:UNITS and common sense. As it is, we have to take it in context. What Martin effectively proposes is full metrication by the back door. Because full metrication remains unacceptable to me, Martin's proposal remains unacceptable to me.

You call for me to make further compromise. On this point, I've reached my limit on miles, I'm afraid. I can't accept a system that does not at least use imperial units in the contexts listed by WP:UNITS. But even if I hadn't, I can't very well have a discussion about compromise with someone who refuses to discuss the issue. You ask for "negotiation and effort". This reminds me of a quote from The West Wing: We were 100 billion apart, and I met you halfway, at 50 billion. Then we were 50 billion apart, and I suspect if I'd gone down to 25, we'd be 12 billion apart. This isn't negotiation - particularly when Martin refuses to discuss the issue and objects to anything short of full metrication. But even if it was, I've reached my red lines. As I say, I cannot accept a system that does not at least use imperial units in the contexts listed by WP:UNITS. Pfainuk talk 06:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

MOSNUM policy says may not must so I don't think it has to be interpreted as rigidly as you have. As I have pointed out before, there are numerous examples of British using kilometres for land distances. Here are a few: [27], [28] or [29]. So when you come to the Falkland Islands and reliable information is to be found in a reliable website [30], it's simply not worth the time and effort to change the figures according to an arbitrary rule. Michael Glass (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So, you're arguing that the British all use kilometres really and just put miles on their signposts to annoy foreigners? No. It is miles that are overwhelmingly more commonly used for land distances and thus miles that we should be using for land distances. Pfainuk talk 06:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that you stop flogging the skeletal remains of that deceased horse, before what little remains crumbles into dust. Your insistence on "source based units" has not been accepted, sorry but the British stubbornly still use imperial measures for land distances, we still drink pints of beer, buy pints of milk and despite overzealous implementation of European rules we can still buy flour, sugar etc in pounds and ounces. Long ago it was demonstrated that a "source based" approach if implemented literally would lead to a bizarre sentence, with units flip flopping and would look decidedly unencyclopedic. Moreover we knew based on past performance that "sources" would be carefully selected to enforce metrication by the back door. If you are so convinced that metrication is the way to go, then change the MOS and stop paralysing any progress on Falklands articles with this repeated, circular tendentious argument. People are really, really fed up Michael and all you're doing is entrenching attitudes you will not wear people down. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 07:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I like your image!l Actually, I was trying to work out a way of bringing both sides together by suggesting that a little flexibility might help. If you and Pfainuk are not prepared to budge, and the others are not prepared to budge, I don't know what can be done to end the disagreement.Michael Glass (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

not prepared to budge???? To be blunt you're taking the piss, both of us have moved significantly. There is a reasonable proposal on the table and its being stonewalled for a push for complete metrication that doesn't reflect common usage. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 09:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

First, may I congratulate you on what must be the most biased introduction for an RFC I've seen in a long time. Perhaps by your own argument, this RFC is null and void, since WP:RFC very clearly says that the statement must be neutral? This appears to be an attempt to play the rules off against one another to force through a change for which there is very clearly no consensus.

Based on the logic of the "POV" argument you put forward, every article on Wikipedia that uses units of any kind is POV - because if it's POV to use imperial units first, then it's POV to use metric units first. NPOV would thus require us to remove all units that are not the same in both systems from all articles. The notion is so clearly absurd that one wonders that anyone would give it any credit at all.

You know the ironic thing? You rejected this proposal, which is based on the MOS, because you didn't agree with the MOS and didn't think we should be following it. The reason we don't have consensus for change is because you wouldn't accept that we should base our units on the MOS - instead you insisted that we had to have 100% metrication in practice. If you are now saying that the word of MOS is paramount, will you drop your objection to our basing our units on it, as I proposed, and allow us to finish this once and for all? Pfainuk talk 09:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please answer the question

The question was "Is a consensus that violates a policy or a pillar null and void?". This question applies to any Wikipedia article, not just the Falkland Islands article. So far, nobody has made any comments on the question itself. Martinvl (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your question could only become meaningful if you explain first, who and how decides that a certain consensus violates some policy or pillar. Apcbg (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And the answer is 'It depends'. No, local consensus cannot override red line policies like BLP or NPOV (though the NPOV violation claim above is bullshit IMO, a red herring). Local consensus can override lesser policies because they are not always appropriate (WP:IAR). The other 'policy' you mention, MOS, is a guideline and so not policy and is totally at the whim of local consensus. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't get a response as it was a Loaded Question, so Martin, When did you stop beating your wife?. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 07:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz's analysis. The correct analysis would be What is the procedure for prosecution anybody beats their wife? I would like to know becasue I have seen a woman who is badly bruised, but at this stage I do not know the cause of those bruises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 April 2010

Users should be aware that Martin has brought this up at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Pfainuk talk 17:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

POV edit

I've reverted this edit [31] twice now for failing WP:NPOV in that it is full of WP:PEACOCK terms and is giving WP:UNDUE prominence to the issue. The article already includes details of that incident. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The proposed edit is POV, goes into far too much detail and uses a lot of peacock terms. Pfainuk talk 17:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Conversion

Falkland Islands#Economy 60,000 million barrels (9.5×10⁹ m³) was 60 billion barrels (9.5 billion cubic metres) Peter Horn User talk 01:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 01:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

60 million barrels (9,500,000 m³), does not yet exist Peter Horn User talk 01:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

EEZ

"The islands claim a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) and an exclusive fishing zone of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km; 230.2 mi)"

To be more accurate the islands' exclusive fishing zone claim to the west is 60 nmi, so it doesn't affect Argentina's 200 nmi. Also, since 'exclusive fishing zone' links to the Exclusive Economic Zone page, why not simply call it EEZ since EEZ covers more than fishing? Perhaps indicating that it's divided into inner and outer fishing conservation zones as per : http://www.fis.com/falklandfish/html/zones.html Dab14763 (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Error in the introduction?

Current version:

Ever since the re-establishment of British rule in 1833 Argentina has claimed sovereignty.

Question to readers:

Isn't the claim based on Luis Vernet's appointment as governor in 1829? If so, the corrected version might read, "Argentina considers the islands as Argentine territory based on earlier settlement, although British rule has been ongoing since 1833."

Please note that accuracy is the goal, not deciding on the rightful party in the UK-Argentina dispute. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Discovery of offshore oil resources in Falkland waters

Offshore oil resources have been discovered by the British firm Rockhopper. Here's the story from a major UK newspaper: Britain's Rockhopper finds oil off the Falklands. N2e (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also look at the BBC website. Martinvl (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Metric Ovines

I am wondering why metric wars have raised their ugly head again, and why we now have a detailed chart on the ovine industry. The chart is very nice and all, but do we not have an economy page where that will make sense? It seems like random detail on an overview page. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Even if it weren't more metric than the MOS calls for on articles related to France (let alone the FI), it would still be far too much detail for this article. Pfainuk talk 06:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rio Group again

There is zero need and zero benefit in including mention of the Rio Group's 2010 meeting in this article, any more than any of the dozens of other statements in support of Argentina's position made by regional bodies in the last x years. The fact that it was recent does not make it any more important. This is not a newspaper, this is an encyclopædia. If this one mentioned oil then so what? Other declarations will have mentioned other things. This resolution is not relevant in this context and is certainly far too much detail for this article. Pfainuk talk 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I said it sometime before, but well, here it goes again. WP:NOTNEWS is a good principle, but it's not meant to be used as a tool to cherry-pick the parts we like about something and hide the unrelated ones we may not like much just because "they are in the news". There are 2 options here: we either describe all the important facts about this topic, or skip it completely (no Rio Group, but no recent explorations either). By the way, Pfainuk and IANVS, try to avoid starting an edit warring about this MBelgrano (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is perfectly possible to discuss oil exploration - and note Argentina's objections - without going into detail about every single avenue that Argentina has taken the dispute down. Indeed, going into such detail would be undue coverage. Pfainuk talk 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't someting done by "Argentina", but by a big group of countries. It is a point of view prominent enough. MBelgrano (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Argentina asked the Rio Group to support a statement and it did. The Rio Group and other regional bodies have endorsed such statements dozens of times in recent years. None of them have changed the situation in any way in the past - and this one hasn't so far either. They are properly mentioned - as a group - on our article about the dispute.

There is no good reason whatsoever to go into lots of detail about everything Argentina has done to further its position - particularly on what is supposed to be an overview article. Pfainuk talk 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pfainuk, no there is no need to report each and every avenue the Argentine Government uses to make noises about the Falklands. This may come as a surprise but the Falklands are a place with a rich and diverse history, interesting fauna and flora and Argentine assertions of sovereignty are not the be all and end all of the place. Its reported, we don't need to turn the article into a list of each and every utterance on the subject. It has due and relevant coverage. Justin talk 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

They aren't living in an island either... well, they do, but they are not isolated from the rest of the world. If their actions have an impact beyond their borders, it is worth being mentioned. In fact, those concerns may have some degree of truth if they were about the content of "economy" or "geography", but we are talking about the section of the relations with Argentina. There nothing "undue" about the description of how was a certain policy received by Argentina.

By the way, I just noticed a detail: the information about this summit is often removed on the grounds that there have been many such summits, but this section doesn't mention this multitude of summits either. MBelgrano (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We are discussing about a line of barely seven words referring to a much relevant international statement regarding a current and relevant conflicting issue involving the Islands and its relations with Argentina. If the rationale for its removal is that "a lot of other statements (not explicitly referring to the issue at hand, BTW) were released before this one, at least that fact should be mentioned instead. Omitting this would be misleading regarding the international support for Argentina's demand on this. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 00:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Rio Group has nothing to do with the politics of the Falkland Islands or the Falkland Islands' relations with Argentina as the Falkland Islands are not a part of the Rio Group and the Rio Group has no authority in the politics of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands do not have their own foreign relations anyway as its foreign relations are controlled by the United Kingdom, which administers the Falkland Islands, and the United Kingdom is not a member of the Rio Group either. The Rio Group does not have any authority over the United Kingdom's continued administration of the Falkland Islands. If the Rio Group's support for Argentina's claim is note worthy enough to be mentioned then the Commonwealth's support for the United Kingdom's administration is also note worthy enough to be mentioned otherwise the article is one sided and biased. 88.106.85.11 (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not a valid argument. As I said, being islands does not mean they are isolated from the world. If an action of the islanders led to international consequences, this should be noted at the right section; regardless on whenever the islanders actualy sought such consequences or not. And if the Commonwealth (as a whole summit or in some other official manner, not simply though some politician's interview with the press) has made a summit similar to that of the Rio Group to express the support to the islands at this specific issue, then you may mention it as well.

By the way, you forgot to log in MBelgrano (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Río Group-Caricom endorsement over Argentina's claim regarding oil extraction is noteworthy enough to a paragrpah that explains Argentina's opposition to oil exploits on the continental shelf. As any similar statement by any other international organization should. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am torn on this one. It has not remained that notable (as my crystal balling somewhat predicted when this first came up) but on the other hand, it is not such flagrant cruft as to really require a fight over. As an aside to that, the next person I see using twinkle in a content dispute will find themselves reported to every damn noticeboard I can find and flogged up one side of the street and down the other. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

First point, the text you add is not backed up by your source. Nowhere does your source explicitly back the Argentine position. Not in the text of the declaration quoted or elsewhere in the press release. I would add that I find it highly illogical to assume that statements from regional (or international) organisations are noteworthy regardless of effect.

MBelgrano argues that "[i]f an action of the islanders led to international consequences, this should be noted at the right section". Possibly. It depends what you mean by "international consequences", really. The Rio Group statement was a statement of the kind that has been produced by just about every Latin American forum in recent years. Like those other statements, the Feb 2010 statement has not had any significant consequences, international or otherwise. If statements of this nature count as "international consequences" then this article won't contain much else: the fact of British administration of the islands has historically been sufficient to produce dozens of such messages from Latin American regional fora, and probably hundreds of protests from the Argentine government, all of which would count as "international consequences" by this standard.

We should be putting the bar higher. We rightly mention that these statements are regularly issued in the article on the dispute. And of course, when we mention the recent spat and when we mention the oil drilling we should put both British and Argentine positions on it. But that does not mean listing every single thing that Britain and Argentina have done in pursuit of their arguments, even when no consequences have resulted. Pfainuk talk 18:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with you, Pfainuk. Except for the fact that we are discussing here about the oil exploration/exploitation controversy. So, the statements issued by these important international organizations , albeit not de iure "consequential", are indeed relevant to show the international official expressions regarding this particular conflict. As such, it would be definitively misleading not to mention them. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 01:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

UN C24 annually makes a statement about negotiations, Mercosur makes supportive noises on a regular basis, Chavez in his monologues to the nation mentions it and there was a guy down the pub who once said something on the subject. None of which means we have to mention every single utterance by any organisation who has stated a sympathetic platitude in favour of Argentina. And per WP:NOTNEWS this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. May I suggest you stop trying to force content into the article and enter a mature and sensisble dialogue putting aside nationalist ideals. Justin talk 09:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What about writing an article about the specific topic of those oil explorations? So far, it doesn't seem to have been written. In such an article, we may go into full detail, while keeping the main articles with just the basic information needed. MBelgrano (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better idea that edit warring into an article that is suppsed to be an overview. So long as full details do not become a list of proclamations. Justin talk 12:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Any such article will need to be judged on its merits. Simply having an article to park the Rio Group in would be missing the point of having articles. My own conclusion, based on WP:NEWSEVENT is that the recent oil drilling dispute is not independently notable according to our guidelines. The drilling itself (which is what you mentioned) is a bit closer. I would judge that it not currently meet our guidelines, but may do so in the future, depending on the effect it has on the islands. Such an article would presumably have a brief section on the dispute over oil drilling in particular - which could go into more detail than here or on Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute but which should still fall short of a blow-by-blow account of the last four months. Pfainuk talk 16:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Map of The Falkland Islands

Within the article on the Falkland Islands there is a map showing the location of the islands with regards to South America, however the islands are shown in green--the same colour as the Argentine mainland. This gives the impression that the Falklands Islands somehow belong to Argentina. I suggest colouring the Falklands Islands another colour. thank you Soreofhing (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Moved here from Help talk:Using talk pages by— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)