![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
[1] I reverted two recent changes to the history section as after reviewing them I did not feel they improved the article. Prior to the changes the article flowed in a logical chronological order, whereas after the changes it flipped from mid-80s back to the 1970s. Reading before and after, admittedly a subjective opinion, the changed text did not seem to be as well written as before. As this took a lot of effort to get to GA status bringing here to discuss. W C M email 09:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the revert of Rob's good faith contribution, the poll is disputed by Argentina and it would be against NPOV to have it in the introduction. I know that what immediately comes to mind is: "Why then are we following the Argentine's position? That's not NPOV either!" My response to that is that the information already appears in the article in an NPOV manner, presenting both perspectives and not lending favoritism to one side or the other. Moreover, the information is easy to spot within a short section on the sovereignty dispute. Therefore, it is not necessary to have the same point brought into the introduction in a manner that does not keep the proper balance. Best.-- MarshalN20 Talk 16:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
There's also something to think about whether or not the magnitude of recent events is being handled correctly. Three years have passed since the referendum and it has yet to be determined if it actually was significant.-- MarshalN20 Talk 16:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's the balanced statement in the introduction ( [3]). I prefer it to an RfC, but I consider that ideally the sentence should not be in there as this article is not about the sovereignty dispute. Best.-- MarshalN20 Talk 23:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Mentioning the position of the Falklander's on the sovereignty dispute without also presenting the position of Argentina is an NPOV issue. The content is already in the article and it's not being disputed, therefore this is most certainly not a content dispute. The suggestion that a voting percentage should be mentioned in the introduction is, bluntly put, wrong. Let's keep in mind that we are writing an encyclopedia entry! This isn't a news tabloid...-- MarshalN20 Talk 15:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, Apcbg, Rob's improvement to the added text established a position in favor of maintaining the balanced sentence. WCM and I would prefer for it to be removed, but I also am not against the sentence as long as it presents a balanced perspective. Therefore, it would be best to avoid reverting to a sentence that was neither the original text nor hold any support ( [5]). Regardless, I honestly do not understand what is going on that is making this sovereignty dispute matter again flare up; maybe I need to catch up on recent events. Best.-- MarshalN20 Talk 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is a case of lead fixation. The lead is a summary of the topic, the most basic and important things to understand what is it all about. The existence of a sovereignty dispute over the islands is clearly worth mention (as it is a dispute from centuries ago, and still unresolved), but this or that event related to that dispute may not be so. In particular, the referendum proved a point but did not have a lasting consequence, as the positions of both countries in relation to the dispute remain exactly the same. It is important to be mentioned in the body of the article, yes, but not so much as to be mentioned in the compact summary of the lead. Cambalachero ( talk) 17:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
“ | In 2009, British prime minister Gordon Brown had a meeting with Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and said that there would be no further talks over the sovereignty of the Falklands.[90] In March 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, with 99.8 percent of voters favoured remaining under British rule.[91][92] Argentina does not recognise the Falkland Islands as a partner in negotiations;[93] consequently, it dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum.[94] | ” |
Complete balderdash from MarshalN20. No credible reason why not to state the results of the referendum considering it was by the people who actually matter, the Falkland islanders themselves. Marshal's argument seems to simply be a way of glossing over mentioning the strength of the pro-UK sentiment in the Falkland Islands from the lede. Mabuska (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
In the paragraph under "Sovereignty Dispute," the parenthetical remark in this sentence should be clarified or removed:
"...continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except for 1982)..."
As worded, it looks like the UK did not bother to administer the islands at any point in time in 1982. In fact, Argentina only occupied the islands for three months in 1982; the rest of the year the UK was in charge of them; and the Argentine MILITARY occupation was an unlawful invasion and act of war.
I suggest the following correction:
"...continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except a brief military occupation by Argentina, 2 April - 14 June 1982)..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 ( talk) 16:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Slow rural broadband whilst on holiday means its very slow to pull the links off. There has been wildly inaccurate reporting all weekend on the UNCLOS story. The CLSC commission has awarded Argentina an extension on its continental shelf only in those areas that are undisputed. It has not as widely reported given Argentina control around the Falkland Islands. Documents from the hearing is here, you will note that the commission specifically excludes the area around the Falkland Islands as that is subject to a sovereignty dispute. In addition, UNCLOS has no bearing on sovereignty. Please don't add inaccurate material to the article. Even the Argentine Government announcement hasn't claimed this [6]. W C M email 10:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
“ | In effect, ”With regard to the recommendations in respect of the submission made by Argentina, it is recalled that, previously, the Commission had already decided that it was not in a position to consider and qualify those parts of the submission that were subject to dispute and those parts that were related to the continental shelf appurtenant to Antarctica (see CLCS/64, paras. 76 and 77 and CLCS/76 para. 57)”. | ” |
[7] W C M email 11:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Pope Francis#Falkland Islands, which may be of interest to the users editing this article. It is about the position of Pope Francis on the sovereignty dispute, or lack thereof. Cambalachero ( talk) 22:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
In the introduction is stated:
"The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012)[A] primarily consists of native-born Falkland Islanders"
The number is correct, but if you check de censous 2012, only 47% of the population are native-born Falkland Islanders. So it should be stated just the opposite:
"The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012)[A] primarily consists of non native-born Falkland Islanders"
Interesting error. Interesting also how so much English people missed it... Should we correct it? or just keep it the confort way?
(interesting also how i stated this a few years ago and nobody cares...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.194.210.210 ( talk) 14:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
First, decide what you mean by population. People who happen to be there during a census, or permanent residents. Re: Civilian contractors - some could be permanent residents, while others could be there temporarily, but live elsewhere. If the census is too complicated for a layman to interpret (which seems likely here), don't use it, as it's straying into OR / synthesis to do so. Find a reliable source (historian, geographer) who makes the interpretation (don't use a news source). ( Hohum @) 20:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I think MarshalN20 has made an improvement here. The data in this report is more complete than the previous "Headline results".
The facts are clear:
This facts, even taking into account the arbitrary division between MPA and everything else, shows that 53,5% of the stable population was born in the islands and therefore the sentence "The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012) primarily consists of native-born Falkland Islanders" it's incorrect. This fact is irrefutable.
This is a Featured Article, every sentence must be verifiable and must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.-- ProfesorFavalli ( talk) 02:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to correct the etymology of the place 'Falkland', [10] which is erroneous and based on folk etymology, and I used the most up-to-date academic work on Fife place-names as a reference to verify the information, the relevant volume in Simon Taylor's Place-Names of Fife; despite this, user:MarshalN20 has some unknown issue with it and is reverting without specifying any issues with the edit. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Gents, for fucks sake, it's only Wikipedia and there is no need for such antagonism at all. If there are competing theories, then MarshalN is quite correct removing one in preference to another is not acceptable. The best solution is to suggest an edit that reflects all of the scholarly works on the subject. A dick waving contest over whose source is best will likely to lead to both of you being blocked. W C M email 21:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Since October 22, 2010 a HAARP facility is working on the Falkland Island with Nicolas Tesla's technique. There is a location indicated like Prado Goose which cannot be found on the maps.
see: Nuove antenne HAARP alle isole Falkland già operative:
https://www.conoscenzealconfine.it/nuove-antenne-haarp-alle-isole-falkland-gia-operative/
So, HAARP should be mentioned in the main article - and the precise location should be found out. And better stop it so the maneuvers againnst world wide population with rain, earthquake and hurricane manipulations etc. will stop.
Michael Palomino, Lima, history, sociology, natural medicine
-- Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch ( talk) 20:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is well written. I enjoyed reading it. I make a couple of comments.
1. "Problems began when Spain discovered and captured Port Egmont in 1770. War was narrowly avoided by its restitution to Britain in 1771."
It would be nice to add a little more information to explain how the restitution of Port Egmont from the Spaniards to the Brits happened.
2. "In the 2012 census, a majority of residents listed their nationality as Falkland Islander (59 percent), followed by British (29 percent), Saint Helenian (9.8 percent), and Chilean (5.4 percent)."
The total is more than 100%. Something is wrong.
ICE77 ( talk) 04:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
MarshalN20, thank you for the feedback! ICE77 ( talk) 06:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Some news pages (like Merco Press) have recently announced that a new island has emerged near the Falklands, which may have been confirmed by Lithuanian geologist Professor "Loof Lirpa". If you find one of those sources, don't use it. It's an April Fools' Day prank, and many otherwise reliable sources fell for it (just read "Loof Lirpa" backwards). -- Cambalachero ( talk) 01:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This morning, the Today Programme (the main political-news programme) on BBC Radio 4 (the largest spoken-word/news broadcaster in UK radio, by a country mile) quoted Jeremy Corbyn (leader of the UK Labour Party; the second biggest political party in the UK) as saying that The Falklands War was a Tory plot to keep their money-making friends in business.
This is probably significant enough to be worth mentioning in the article - both for making the Falklands War a current election issue in the UK, and as an opinion on the war by a significant national figure.
82.9.164.31 ( talk) 08:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The Spanish for "The Falklands" isn't "Los Malvinas", its "Los Falklands". Just because the Argentinians and their allies call it "Los Malvinas" doesn't mean that's how you say "Falklands" in Spanish. Its as ridiculous and partisan a claim, as claiming that "Novo-Russija" is the Russian language translation for the words "The Crimea". 82.9.164.31 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Being associated with Wikiproject Argentina doesn't convey meaning that the Islands are Argentinian, only that the article is of relevance to that project. Knee jerk reactions are not helpful to wikipedia. ( Hohum @) 17:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I never understood why the Spanish was included either. Why is it exactly? Just because Argentina claims the islands does not mean we must add in their name for the islands. The Falklands are an British territory and the official name is the Falkland Islands. Stating the Spanish only implies that that is an official alternative name for the islands when it is not. Mabuska (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Mount Simon has not been edited since almost a decade now. All it has is one line. Would somebody please work on it? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Can we please have a more up to date svg versions of these former colonial flags of the Falkland Islands please ( 2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:4523:B00B:9EF:F101 ( talk) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)) I have put this on here as I could see after over a year of asking I was getting no where, please can these flags be made more up to date. ( 151.231.185.63 ( talk) 17:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC))
I undid some edits that were obviously vandalism. The edits had been made in November and largely cleaned up by other people - including User:Roger 8 Roger. I cleaned up the rest. Now that very same user is leaving me obnoxious talk pages, defending the vandal, restoring their vandalism and claiming that I need consensus on the talk page to remove vandalism. I have never seen anything quite so bizarre.
Well OK. Why not waste some time discussing why vandalism needs to be fixed. Firstly, there's no reason whatsoever to write 'Falklands' instead of Falklands. Why would you want to do that? Only if you were a bored Argentinian teenager can I conceive that you'd think there was a reason to.
And secondly, Falkland Islands is not a collective noun. It's a simple plural. "The archipelago" would be a collective noun. "The island group" would be. Falkland Islands should take a plural verb, as it does in all serious writing that I have looked and, and as it consistently did in this article before the vandalism. Inateadaze ( talk) 08:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a big document that census Report 2006.pdf - a quick scan through it, or rather a search for "43" bring back a fair few examples, but can you clarify where it is stated that "that 43% of residents were born on the archipelago"? It may be there, but I can't see it.
Also, can you offer up more detail on your supplied source of Destéfani? No page numbers, no quote, nothing to support the claim. Is it a reliable source, given the history between the Falklands and Argentina - and the publication date of 1982, when the conflict also took place. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 21:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The 2016 census is 43%
http://www.fig.gov.fk/archives/jdownloads/People/Census%20Information%20Early%20Settlers/Falkland%20Islands%20Census%202016%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf
page 7.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 22:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
It is clearly sourced and linked data that the islands were settled with a mixed population under British government, justifying the term "mostly Scottish and Welsh descent". The fact the population is described as homogenous, and some people are of non-British origin means that "most people are of Welsh and Scottish origin" is wrong, the population is of mixed origins, with the British element the largest. Also the linked census says 43% of islanders are locally born.
There is also tonnes of evidence that the Argentine population of 20 continued to live on the island after the gaucho murder period of 1833-1834 period, given Carmelita Simon and family, Santiago Lopez and Antonina Roxha are documented on the islands in the 1850s.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 21:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The evidence for the origins of the Falklanders is
https://www.falklands.gov.fk/assets/OurIslandsOurHistory1.pdf
The quote showing continuity is this "No shots were red; there was no violence of any kind. Four civilians chose to leave with the mutinous garrison in the schooner but the majority of Vernet’s two dozen settlers, mostly gauchos, remained under the British flag."
Anyway, I would advise you to re-read the Laver text, if you have access, and see if it actually says that "a majority of the settlers are descended from Scottish and English settlers" or whether it claims that the English and Scottish settles were the main body of original settlers. Because the two things are different, and the first is non-sensical given the amount of intermarriage occurring in a 9 generation society. BTW, objectively speaking, Laver is wrong, the census data from 1843 shows that the early colony was principally English, with 11 Scots, less than there were from Montevideo, it also includes 5 of the original Argentine colonists. There were no Welsh people on the island. I suppose this is a primary source, but it is published with notes by the historians working for the Falklands government, so could perhaps be valid as a Wiki source. I am using De Stefani merely to indicate that the British population DID NOT arrive IN 1833 as the article currently says. I'm only using De Stefani because it's the only book currently linked to Falkland Articles that I can honestly say I've read. I know he's controversial, but there really shouldn't be any controversy about the fact that the British didn't just dump a load of Scots and Welshmen in the South Atlantic in 1833. This is not a political edit, it is a nonsense removing edit.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 21:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
What I wrote about De Stefani was mainly for the attention of the other user, we cross posted so it looks like I'm answering you in disagreement. What do you think about removing the reference to Scottish and Welsh and simply putting "British"? Boynamedsue ( talk) 22:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, how about:
–The Falkland Islands population is homogeneous, with locally-born inhabitants mostly descended from Scottish and Welsh immigrants who settled in the territory after 1833. Roberto Laver argues this is likely the result of government policies which successfully reduced the number of non-British populations that at one point also inhabited the archipelago. Laver states that "naturalization ordinances" in the first decades of the British colony "show a wide variety of settlers from places in Europe, Northern, and Central America, and a couple from Argentina". The Falkland-born population are also descended from English & French people, Gibraltarians and Scandinavians. That census indicated that 43% of residents were born on the archipelago, with foreign-born residents assimilated into local culture.[133] The legal term for the right of residence is "belonging to the islands.
Citing the 2016 census rather than the older one, what reference would you put for the population origins? as the census does not actually include ancestry details.
Boynamedsue (
talk)
05:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm tempted to remove reference to Laver:
“ | The Falkland Islands population is homogeneous, with mostly descended from Scottish and Welsh immigrants who settled in the territory after 1833. The Falkland-born population are also descended from English & French people, Gibraltarians and Scandinavians. The 2016 census indicated that 43% of residents were born on the archipelago, with foreign-born residents assimilated into local culture.[133] The legal term for the right of residence is "belonging to the islands. | ” |
The Laver reference is one opinion without a balancing counterpoint per WP:NPOV and I would suggest that other references contradict his claim. Actions to influence immigration were pretty ineffective, eg Lafone was supposed to bring in British settlers, instead he imported mainly gauchos from Uruguay. W C M email 06:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I've changed it to a slightly edited version of what you wrote, the only difference in substance is the addition of "South Americans" to the list of contributors to the population.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, the Falks (may I call you Falks?), the Falks are always a peaceful spot on the globe, caressed by the gentlest of warm breezes...
Dear Roger 8 Roger, you say "Take to talk if you want to. Be careful about casually accusing other editors of vandalism". Well, hey, the unilateral, undiscussed edits by Thunderbelch ( talk · contribs) sure look like WP:ENGVAR mistakes to me. Ah, look at their talk page: "looks like vandalism "- Falkland_Islands, and "you're confused about whose English" UK English versus US_English
So far from being Inateadaze ( talk · contribs)'s unique viewpoint, the user that jammed in "changes that violate English grammar rules" was Thunderbelch. However, you templated a new user with a loud "you're not cooperating!!" while reverting text to that from an editor which has been blocked recently for non-cooperation. Sure looks like the wrong end of the stick to me.
Now I'm no expert on British English, which I have to assume applies doubly here, but I've had drilled into me the interesting take on the thing vs. the things that populate the thing. That is, where a murikan would say "Facebook has facepalmed", the English would say "Facebook have facepalmed". When referring to the entity composed of people, you give due respect to that composition by referring to those people - 'have' not 'has'.
For years (at least June 2014 until December's belchageddon) the text in the lede read:
From scanning the various 'discussions' hereabouts there seems to be controversy over 'thing' vs. 'things', with an assertion that the Falkland Islands are "a thing". Mm-kay. Thus must be "has internal self-governance". Mm-no.
Since when does a geographic entity - them rocks - have "self-governance"? It is a people or the people's representatives that have or exert 'governance'. An island does not bang gavels at court nor debate bills. Since when does an island have "foreign affairs"?
In focusing unilaterally on dirt and rock, both you and User:Wee Curry Monster are quite forgetting the people. It is they and their status as agents that require "have internal self-governance" and "their defence and foreign affairs."
Please go back and examine all of Thunderbelch ( talk · contribs)'s edits here. Some may be legitimately addressing the fragrant isles as a geographical unit. Others of them were disrespectful to the population, whether from confusion, ignorance of WP:ENGVAR (as shown by others'complaints), or whatever reasons.
And the "too ready" friction evidenced in the recent history is what drew my attention. It was unwarranted and unbecoming to these elysiastic havens. Shenme ( talk) 04:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Shenme, as I said before, the problem was first with his confrontational language, not the grammar, lest we forget that. Second, the grammar - This UK-US divide is invention. I'll assume good faith and not an intentional distraction. The grammar point is the same for both countries, and both counties have people who will use plural or singular at different times for different reasons. OrangeJacketGuy, "Falklands' is not clearly a plural just because it ends in -s. Plural or singular will depend on the context. This article is about the singular territory, and the singular archipelago, so it seems better to me to treat it as singular, but I am quite happy to hear an alternative opinion. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
We have the East Falkland and West Falkland islands, collectively known as Falkland Islands. Seems clear as water that the name is plural. Also, this article became a featured one using British english (which is also, as far as I know, the variety of English used in the islands), so we should stick to that. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
A request came in to full-protect this page to stop you all edit-warring with each other. I'm not going to just yet, as the reverting has died down a bit, but I will reserve the right to do so if anyone else reverts some trivial naming. In particular, Inateadaze, this revert, falsely accusing a fellow editor of vandalism and responding with a nationalistic slur is unacceptable and if I see more of this, you may be blocked from editing. I am well aware of The Sun saying "Gotcha!" - there is no need to stoop to their level. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
FYI, turns out Inateadaze was a sock of WP:BKFIP. An editor known for edit warring and aggressive comments when their edits are disputed. The sock is now blocked, I don't know if editors wish to reconsider whether they want to reverse the changes introduced here by his edit warring and the subsequent locking of this page. W C M email 15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 |
[1] I reverted two recent changes to the history section as after reviewing them I did not feel they improved the article. Prior to the changes the article flowed in a logical chronological order, whereas after the changes it flipped from mid-80s back to the 1970s. Reading before and after, admittedly a subjective opinion, the changed text did not seem to be as well written as before. As this took a lot of effort to get to GA status bringing here to discuss. W C M email 09:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the revert of Rob's good faith contribution, the poll is disputed by Argentina and it would be against NPOV to have it in the introduction. I know that what immediately comes to mind is: "Why then are we following the Argentine's position? That's not NPOV either!" My response to that is that the information already appears in the article in an NPOV manner, presenting both perspectives and not lending favoritism to one side or the other. Moreover, the information is easy to spot within a short section on the sovereignty dispute. Therefore, it is not necessary to have the same point brought into the introduction in a manner that does not keep the proper balance. Best.-- MarshalN20 Talk 16:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
There's also something to think about whether or not the magnitude of recent events is being handled correctly. Three years have passed since the referendum and it has yet to be determined if it actually was significant.-- MarshalN20 Talk 16:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's the balanced statement in the introduction ( [3]). I prefer it to an RfC, but I consider that ideally the sentence should not be in there as this article is not about the sovereignty dispute. Best.-- MarshalN20 Talk 23:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Mentioning the position of the Falklander's on the sovereignty dispute without also presenting the position of Argentina is an NPOV issue. The content is already in the article and it's not being disputed, therefore this is most certainly not a content dispute. The suggestion that a voting percentage should be mentioned in the introduction is, bluntly put, wrong. Let's keep in mind that we are writing an encyclopedia entry! This isn't a news tabloid...-- MarshalN20 Talk 15:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, Apcbg, Rob's improvement to the added text established a position in favor of maintaining the balanced sentence. WCM and I would prefer for it to be removed, but I also am not against the sentence as long as it presents a balanced perspective. Therefore, it would be best to avoid reverting to a sentence that was neither the original text nor hold any support ( [5]). Regardless, I honestly do not understand what is going on that is making this sovereignty dispute matter again flare up; maybe I need to catch up on recent events. Best.-- MarshalN20 Talk 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is a case of lead fixation. The lead is a summary of the topic, the most basic and important things to understand what is it all about. The existence of a sovereignty dispute over the islands is clearly worth mention (as it is a dispute from centuries ago, and still unresolved), but this or that event related to that dispute may not be so. In particular, the referendum proved a point but did not have a lasting consequence, as the positions of both countries in relation to the dispute remain exactly the same. It is important to be mentioned in the body of the article, yes, but not so much as to be mentioned in the compact summary of the lead. Cambalachero ( talk) 17:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
“ | In 2009, British prime minister Gordon Brown had a meeting with Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and said that there would be no further talks over the sovereignty of the Falklands.[90] In March 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, with 99.8 percent of voters favoured remaining under British rule.[91][92] Argentina does not recognise the Falkland Islands as a partner in negotiations;[93] consequently, it dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum.[94] | ” |
Complete balderdash from MarshalN20. No credible reason why not to state the results of the referendum considering it was by the people who actually matter, the Falkland islanders themselves. Marshal's argument seems to simply be a way of glossing over mentioning the strength of the pro-UK sentiment in the Falkland Islands from the lede. Mabuska (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
In the paragraph under "Sovereignty Dispute," the parenthetical remark in this sentence should be clarified or removed:
"...continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except for 1982)..."
As worded, it looks like the UK did not bother to administer the islands at any point in time in 1982. In fact, Argentina only occupied the islands for three months in 1982; the rest of the year the UK was in charge of them; and the Argentine MILITARY occupation was an unlawful invasion and act of war.
I suggest the following correction:
"...continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (except a brief military occupation by Argentina, 2 April - 14 June 1982)..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 ( talk) 16:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Slow rural broadband whilst on holiday means its very slow to pull the links off. There has been wildly inaccurate reporting all weekend on the UNCLOS story. The CLSC commission has awarded Argentina an extension on its continental shelf only in those areas that are undisputed. It has not as widely reported given Argentina control around the Falkland Islands. Documents from the hearing is here, you will note that the commission specifically excludes the area around the Falkland Islands as that is subject to a sovereignty dispute. In addition, UNCLOS has no bearing on sovereignty. Please don't add inaccurate material to the article. Even the Argentine Government announcement hasn't claimed this [6]. W C M email 10:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
“ | In effect, ”With regard to the recommendations in respect of the submission made by Argentina, it is recalled that, previously, the Commission had already decided that it was not in a position to consider and qualify those parts of the submission that were subject to dispute and those parts that were related to the continental shelf appurtenant to Antarctica (see CLCS/64, paras. 76 and 77 and CLCS/76 para. 57)”. | ” |
[7] W C M email 11:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Pope Francis#Falkland Islands, which may be of interest to the users editing this article. It is about the position of Pope Francis on the sovereignty dispute, or lack thereof. Cambalachero ( talk) 22:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
In the introduction is stated:
"The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012)[A] primarily consists of native-born Falkland Islanders"
The number is correct, but if you check de censous 2012, only 47% of the population are native-born Falkland Islanders. So it should be stated just the opposite:
"The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012)[A] primarily consists of non native-born Falkland Islanders"
Interesting error. Interesting also how so much English people missed it... Should we correct it? or just keep it the confort way?
(interesting also how i stated this a few years ago and nobody cares...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.194.210.210 ( talk) 14:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
First, decide what you mean by population. People who happen to be there during a census, or permanent residents. Re: Civilian contractors - some could be permanent residents, while others could be there temporarily, but live elsewhere. If the census is too complicated for a layman to interpret (which seems likely here), don't use it, as it's straying into OR / synthesis to do so. Find a reliable source (historian, geographer) who makes the interpretation (don't use a news source). ( Hohum @) 20:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I think MarshalN20 has made an improvement here. The data in this report is more complete than the previous "Headline results".
The facts are clear:
This facts, even taking into account the arbitrary division between MPA and everything else, shows that 53,5% of the stable population was born in the islands and therefore the sentence "The population (2,932 inhabitants in 2012) primarily consists of native-born Falkland Islanders" it's incorrect. This fact is irrefutable.
This is a Featured Article, every sentence must be verifiable and must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.-- ProfesorFavalli ( talk) 02:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to correct the etymology of the place 'Falkland', [10] which is erroneous and based on folk etymology, and I used the most up-to-date academic work on Fife place-names as a reference to verify the information, the relevant volume in Simon Taylor's Place-Names of Fife; despite this, user:MarshalN20 has some unknown issue with it and is reverting without specifying any issues with the edit. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Gents, for fucks sake, it's only Wikipedia and there is no need for such antagonism at all. If there are competing theories, then MarshalN is quite correct removing one in preference to another is not acceptable. The best solution is to suggest an edit that reflects all of the scholarly works on the subject. A dick waving contest over whose source is best will likely to lead to both of you being blocked. W C M email 21:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Since October 22, 2010 a HAARP facility is working on the Falkland Island with Nicolas Tesla's technique. There is a location indicated like Prado Goose which cannot be found on the maps.
see: Nuove antenne HAARP alle isole Falkland già operative:
https://www.conoscenzealconfine.it/nuove-antenne-haarp-alle-isole-falkland-gia-operative/
So, HAARP should be mentioned in the main article - and the precise location should be found out. And better stop it so the maneuvers againnst world wide population with rain, earthquake and hurricane manipulations etc. will stop.
Michael Palomino, Lima, history, sociology, natural medicine
-- Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch ( talk) 20:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is well written. I enjoyed reading it. I make a couple of comments.
1. "Problems began when Spain discovered and captured Port Egmont in 1770. War was narrowly avoided by its restitution to Britain in 1771."
It would be nice to add a little more information to explain how the restitution of Port Egmont from the Spaniards to the Brits happened.
2. "In the 2012 census, a majority of residents listed their nationality as Falkland Islander (59 percent), followed by British (29 percent), Saint Helenian (9.8 percent), and Chilean (5.4 percent)."
The total is more than 100%. Something is wrong.
ICE77 ( talk) 04:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
MarshalN20, thank you for the feedback! ICE77 ( talk) 06:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Some news pages (like Merco Press) have recently announced that a new island has emerged near the Falklands, which may have been confirmed by Lithuanian geologist Professor "Loof Lirpa". If you find one of those sources, don't use it. It's an April Fools' Day prank, and many otherwise reliable sources fell for it (just read "Loof Lirpa" backwards). -- Cambalachero ( talk) 01:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This morning, the Today Programme (the main political-news programme) on BBC Radio 4 (the largest spoken-word/news broadcaster in UK radio, by a country mile) quoted Jeremy Corbyn (leader of the UK Labour Party; the second biggest political party in the UK) as saying that The Falklands War was a Tory plot to keep their money-making friends in business.
This is probably significant enough to be worth mentioning in the article - both for making the Falklands War a current election issue in the UK, and as an opinion on the war by a significant national figure.
82.9.164.31 ( talk) 08:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The Spanish for "The Falklands" isn't "Los Malvinas", its "Los Falklands". Just because the Argentinians and their allies call it "Los Malvinas" doesn't mean that's how you say "Falklands" in Spanish. Its as ridiculous and partisan a claim, as claiming that "Novo-Russija" is the Russian language translation for the words "The Crimea". 82.9.164.31 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Being associated with Wikiproject Argentina doesn't convey meaning that the Islands are Argentinian, only that the article is of relevance to that project. Knee jerk reactions are not helpful to wikipedia. ( Hohum @) 17:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I never understood why the Spanish was included either. Why is it exactly? Just because Argentina claims the islands does not mean we must add in their name for the islands. The Falklands are an British territory and the official name is the Falkland Islands. Stating the Spanish only implies that that is an official alternative name for the islands when it is not. Mabuska (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Mount Simon has not been edited since almost a decade now. All it has is one line. Would somebody please work on it? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Falkland Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Can we please have a more up to date svg versions of these former colonial flags of the Falkland Islands please ( 2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:4523:B00B:9EF:F101 ( talk) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)) I have put this on here as I could see after over a year of asking I was getting no where, please can these flags be made more up to date. ( 151.231.185.63 ( talk) 17:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC))
I undid some edits that were obviously vandalism. The edits had been made in November and largely cleaned up by other people - including User:Roger 8 Roger. I cleaned up the rest. Now that very same user is leaving me obnoxious talk pages, defending the vandal, restoring their vandalism and claiming that I need consensus on the talk page to remove vandalism. I have never seen anything quite so bizarre.
Well OK. Why not waste some time discussing why vandalism needs to be fixed. Firstly, there's no reason whatsoever to write 'Falklands' instead of Falklands. Why would you want to do that? Only if you were a bored Argentinian teenager can I conceive that you'd think there was a reason to.
And secondly, Falkland Islands is not a collective noun. It's a simple plural. "The archipelago" would be a collective noun. "The island group" would be. Falkland Islands should take a plural verb, as it does in all serious writing that I have looked and, and as it consistently did in this article before the vandalism. Inateadaze ( talk) 08:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a big document that census Report 2006.pdf - a quick scan through it, or rather a search for "43" bring back a fair few examples, but can you clarify where it is stated that "that 43% of residents were born on the archipelago"? It may be there, but I can't see it.
Also, can you offer up more detail on your supplied source of Destéfani? No page numbers, no quote, nothing to support the claim. Is it a reliable source, given the history between the Falklands and Argentina - and the publication date of 1982, when the conflict also took place. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 21:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The 2016 census is 43%
http://www.fig.gov.fk/archives/jdownloads/People/Census%20Information%20Early%20Settlers/Falkland%20Islands%20Census%202016%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf
page 7.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 22:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
It is clearly sourced and linked data that the islands were settled with a mixed population under British government, justifying the term "mostly Scottish and Welsh descent". The fact the population is described as homogenous, and some people are of non-British origin means that "most people are of Welsh and Scottish origin" is wrong, the population is of mixed origins, with the British element the largest. Also the linked census says 43% of islanders are locally born.
There is also tonnes of evidence that the Argentine population of 20 continued to live on the island after the gaucho murder period of 1833-1834 period, given Carmelita Simon and family, Santiago Lopez and Antonina Roxha are documented on the islands in the 1850s.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 21:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The evidence for the origins of the Falklanders is
https://www.falklands.gov.fk/assets/OurIslandsOurHistory1.pdf
The quote showing continuity is this "No shots were red; there was no violence of any kind. Four civilians chose to leave with the mutinous garrison in the schooner but the majority of Vernet’s two dozen settlers, mostly gauchos, remained under the British flag."
Anyway, I would advise you to re-read the Laver text, if you have access, and see if it actually says that "a majority of the settlers are descended from Scottish and English settlers" or whether it claims that the English and Scottish settles were the main body of original settlers. Because the two things are different, and the first is non-sensical given the amount of intermarriage occurring in a 9 generation society. BTW, objectively speaking, Laver is wrong, the census data from 1843 shows that the early colony was principally English, with 11 Scots, less than there were from Montevideo, it also includes 5 of the original Argentine colonists. There were no Welsh people on the island. I suppose this is a primary source, but it is published with notes by the historians working for the Falklands government, so could perhaps be valid as a Wiki source. I am using De Stefani merely to indicate that the British population DID NOT arrive IN 1833 as the article currently says. I'm only using De Stefani because it's the only book currently linked to Falkland Articles that I can honestly say I've read. I know he's controversial, but there really shouldn't be any controversy about the fact that the British didn't just dump a load of Scots and Welshmen in the South Atlantic in 1833. This is not a political edit, it is a nonsense removing edit.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 21:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
What I wrote about De Stefani was mainly for the attention of the other user, we cross posted so it looks like I'm answering you in disagreement. What do you think about removing the reference to Scottish and Welsh and simply putting "British"? Boynamedsue ( talk) 22:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, how about:
–The Falkland Islands population is homogeneous, with locally-born inhabitants mostly descended from Scottish and Welsh immigrants who settled in the territory after 1833. Roberto Laver argues this is likely the result of government policies which successfully reduced the number of non-British populations that at one point also inhabited the archipelago. Laver states that "naturalization ordinances" in the first decades of the British colony "show a wide variety of settlers from places in Europe, Northern, and Central America, and a couple from Argentina". The Falkland-born population are also descended from English & French people, Gibraltarians and Scandinavians. That census indicated that 43% of residents were born on the archipelago, with foreign-born residents assimilated into local culture.[133] The legal term for the right of residence is "belonging to the islands.
Citing the 2016 census rather than the older one, what reference would you put for the population origins? as the census does not actually include ancestry details.
Boynamedsue (
talk)
05:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm tempted to remove reference to Laver:
“ | The Falkland Islands population is homogeneous, with mostly descended from Scottish and Welsh immigrants who settled in the territory after 1833. The Falkland-born population are also descended from English & French people, Gibraltarians and Scandinavians. The 2016 census indicated that 43% of residents were born on the archipelago, with foreign-born residents assimilated into local culture.[133] The legal term for the right of residence is "belonging to the islands. | ” |
The Laver reference is one opinion without a balancing counterpoint per WP:NPOV and I would suggest that other references contradict his claim. Actions to influence immigration were pretty ineffective, eg Lafone was supposed to bring in British settlers, instead he imported mainly gauchos from Uruguay. W C M email 06:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I've changed it to a slightly edited version of what you wrote, the only difference in substance is the addition of "South Americans" to the list of contributors to the population.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, the Falks (may I call you Falks?), the Falks are always a peaceful spot on the globe, caressed by the gentlest of warm breezes...
Dear Roger 8 Roger, you say "Take to talk if you want to. Be careful about casually accusing other editors of vandalism". Well, hey, the unilateral, undiscussed edits by Thunderbelch ( talk · contribs) sure look like WP:ENGVAR mistakes to me. Ah, look at their talk page: "looks like vandalism "- Falkland_Islands, and "you're confused about whose English" UK English versus US_English
So far from being Inateadaze ( talk · contribs)'s unique viewpoint, the user that jammed in "changes that violate English grammar rules" was Thunderbelch. However, you templated a new user with a loud "you're not cooperating!!" while reverting text to that from an editor which has been blocked recently for non-cooperation. Sure looks like the wrong end of the stick to me.
Now I'm no expert on British English, which I have to assume applies doubly here, but I've had drilled into me the interesting take on the thing vs. the things that populate the thing. That is, where a murikan would say "Facebook has facepalmed", the English would say "Facebook have facepalmed". When referring to the entity composed of people, you give due respect to that composition by referring to those people - 'have' not 'has'.
For years (at least June 2014 until December's belchageddon) the text in the lede read:
From scanning the various 'discussions' hereabouts there seems to be controversy over 'thing' vs. 'things', with an assertion that the Falkland Islands are "a thing". Mm-kay. Thus must be "has internal self-governance". Mm-no.
Since when does a geographic entity - them rocks - have "self-governance"? It is a people or the people's representatives that have or exert 'governance'. An island does not bang gavels at court nor debate bills. Since when does an island have "foreign affairs"?
In focusing unilaterally on dirt and rock, both you and User:Wee Curry Monster are quite forgetting the people. It is they and their status as agents that require "have internal self-governance" and "their defence and foreign affairs."
Please go back and examine all of Thunderbelch ( talk · contribs)'s edits here. Some may be legitimately addressing the fragrant isles as a geographical unit. Others of them were disrespectful to the population, whether from confusion, ignorance of WP:ENGVAR (as shown by others'complaints), or whatever reasons.
And the "too ready" friction evidenced in the recent history is what drew my attention. It was unwarranted and unbecoming to these elysiastic havens. Shenme ( talk) 04:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Shenme, as I said before, the problem was first with his confrontational language, not the grammar, lest we forget that. Second, the grammar - This UK-US divide is invention. I'll assume good faith and not an intentional distraction. The grammar point is the same for both countries, and both counties have people who will use plural or singular at different times for different reasons. OrangeJacketGuy, "Falklands' is not clearly a plural just because it ends in -s. Plural or singular will depend on the context. This article is about the singular territory, and the singular archipelago, so it seems better to me to treat it as singular, but I am quite happy to hear an alternative opinion. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
We have the East Falkland and West Falkland islands, collectively known as Falkland Islands. Seems clear as water that the name is plural. Also, this article became a featured one using British english (which is also, as far as I know, the variety of English used in the islands), so we should stick to that. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
A request came in to full-protect this page to stop you all edit-warring with each other. I'm not going to just yet, as the reverting has died down a bit, but I will reserve the right to do so if anyone else reverts some trivial naming. In particular, Inateadaze, this revert, falsely accusing a fellow editor of vandalism and responding with a nationalistic slur is unacceptable and if I see more of this, you may be blocked from editing. I am well aware of The Sun saying "Gotcha!" - there is no need to stoop to their level. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
FYI, turns out Inateadaze was a sock of WP:BKFIP. An editor known for edit warring and aggressive comments when their edits are disputed. The sock is now blocked, I don't know if editors wish to reconsider whether they want to reverse the changes introduced here by his edit warring and the subsequent locking of this page. W C M email 15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)