Talk:Falkland Islanders

Talk:Falkland Islanders/Archive 1

Talk:Falkland Islanders/Archive 2

Talk:Falkland Islanders/Archive 3

Nationality (December 2021)

Just adding another source here, Peter Pepper, writing in the Falklands Islands Newsletter (49), a publication of the Falklands Islands Association, of which I believe some of our contributors here are members, (Nov. 1991) "For Falklands Islanders, which Argentina considers its citizens by birth, even a passport issued elsewhere is unacceptable. These can only enter Argentina on an Argentine passport." Boynamedsue (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. In any case, it doesn't tell us anything other than Argentina in 1991 would not accept people born in the Falklands into the country unless they had Argentinian passports. It doesn't say that they were entitled to such passports. Furthermore, citizens do not require passports to enter their country of nationality. While they might be charged with illegal entry, they could not be deported.

Under jus soli, as understood both by English and American courts, people born in occupied territory acquire the nationality of the occupying power. While I don't know whether that applies in Argentina, which modelled its citizenship laws on the U.S., it's an unusual claim per WP:REDFLAG and therefore requires unimpeachable sourcing. Cuba btw which also modelled its citizenship on the U.S. does not recognize people born in Guantanamo Bay as its citizens. (A number of children of refugees from Haiti were born there.)

TFD (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It specifically states Argentina considers Falkland Islanders to be its citizens, which is clearly relevant to the nationality question. Several users who have commented here have vehemently argued in the past that Pepper is an expert on the Falkland Islands, and RS. The source is published by the Falkland Islands Association and another edition is used on this very page as a source. As for the rest, that is simply your own personal legal theorising, and is very interesting conjecture but has no bearing on the case at hand. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

In reality your source doesn't say what you want it to say, and after all these years you have still made no attempt to satisfy the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. There is nothing new or convincing here. Kahastok talk 18:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Large numbers of reliable sources dealing with the Falklands, like the one I have just linked, or Argentine or British citizenship, state that Argentina believes people born in FI are Argentines. That satisfies and exceeds the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. What do you think this source says if not "Argentina considers (Falkland Islanders) its citizens by birth"?Boynamedsue (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, no one has mentioned Pepper. He is not an expert on Argentinian law or in fact an expert at all. Hence his interpretation of Argentinian law fails rs. (Incidentally a Falkland Islander was able to join the Argentine army in 1927 - you might want to look up the circumstances.)

I fully appreciate the Argentine government may bestow citizenship on whomever they please. The issue is whether Falklanders are citizens under Argentine law. I can show you a legal textbook that traces the British nationality status of Falkland Islanders as determined first by case law and later by statute. Your sources are conflicting on whether people born in the Falklands are citizens or whether they have a right to citizenship. It may be that they are merely exercising discretion and they are not born citizens or have a right to citizenship.

TFD (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Re Pepper, you said the source was not reliable. Pepper is considered an expert on the topic of the Falkland Islanders, both WCM and Kahastock have argued this at length elsewhere. You have argued that texts not principally about the Falkland Islanders are invalid as sources for this article. Are you now arguing that a text must both be principally concerned with the Falkland Islanders AND be written by an expert on Argentine law to source this claim? By the reasoning above, surely a British law textbook would be an invalid source as it principally deals with British law rather than the Falkland Islanders.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, if you intend to make a claim about a modern law, then it is really not unreasonable to expect you to produce a neutral academic source to back up that claim. The fact that in three years you have consistently failed to provide such a source probably demonstrates that none exist. And before you come up with that chestnut again, no, legal case from the 1930s cannot be used as a source for modern law. For reasons that should be obvious to any competent editor.

And what we're learning here is that you still don't understand WP:WEIGHT. I start by noting that your quote is cherry-picked, the context is removed and it is impossible to say how much weight the text is giving to this point. It is also impossible to judge whether this is in fact a text on Falkland Islanders. That being said, the existence of mention for such a claim in the entire history of a newsletter - even a if the newsletter were exclusively dedicated to the subject of Falkland Islanders, which it probably isn't - would seem to be a tiny amount of weight. And therefore an argument to exclude, not include. Kahastok talk 21:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

So I can take it from your answer that you now accent that the quote supports the claim that Argentina considers Falklanders to be Argentine? But now the existence of supporting evidence is actually evidence that the claim should not be included in the article? That's an...unusual interpretation. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find any information on Pepper. AFAIK he has no relevant degree or published academic papers. Your claim that British legal textbooks are not reliable sources for British nationality law is absurd. Since it is not a matter of Falkland Islands law, it is not necessary to source it to a book about the Falklands. OTOH, any claim about Argentinian law must either be sourced to an Argentinian law text or at least support the claim by reference to the relevant laws of Argentina. A source you presented said that because Argentina adoped jus soli, that anyone born in the Malvinas is an Argentinian citizen. But as we know, jus soli means that would only be true if Argentina exercised control over the islands. While it may be that Argentinian courts may interpret this differently, you would need a source for this. TFD (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I have provided you with several academic references in English stating that Argentina considers people born in FI to be Argentine citizens, and the text of a judgment by the Argentine electoral court and an act of congress which states this. Please excuse the lengthy recap:

here "In effect Citizenship and Naturalization Law 346 (modified by laws 16.801, 20.835, 23.059, 24.533 y 24.951) establishes that "all individuals already born, or to be born, in the territory of the Republic, whatever the nationality of their parents" are Argentinean. Regardless of ancestry, law 346 consecrates the principle of ius soli and declares all people born in the national territory to be Argentinean. Even though the territory of the Falkland Islands is under foreign occupation, it is an integral part of Argentina's territory, as it is manifested in the first transitory disposition of the Constitution of the Argentine Nation, following the reform of 1994, and therefore it is also such for the purposes of Argentinean citizenship legislation."

here "Persons born in the Islas Malvinas, Gergias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur, which Argentina claims as parts of its territory could in principle claim Argentinian nationality. However the Argentinian nationality of these persons would most likely fail to be successfully invoked against the United Kingdom or against those states who do not 􏰅􏰇􏰐􏰁􏰆􏰈􏰊􏰲􏰇 􏰄􏰅􏰆􏰇􏰈􏰉􏰊􏰈􏰋􏰌􏰍 􏰅􏰊􏰆􏰝􏰉􏰍 􏰁􏰤􏰇􏰅 􏰉􏰝􏰇 above-mentioned islands.36 For the same reasons persons born in the Antarctic territories that Argentina claims for itself would be Argentinian as well, even if recognition of this status by other states may be uncertain. It is important to notice that the fact of being born in Argentinian territory guarantees Argentinian nationality even if the birth took place during an ephemeral presence of the mother or due to some urgency. In addition, any child that was found in Argentinian territory and whose circumstances of birth are unknown can be deemed Argentinian."

here (EUDO Citizenship report, Caroline Sawyer): ""The inhabitants of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, which are claimed by Argentina, were British Dependent Territories Citizens until the armed conflict of 1983, after which by the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983 they became British citizens (they are also entitled to Argentinean nationality but the white-European settler population does not generally claim this)."

Here the Argentine Electoral court defines argentine citizenship: "...Argentine nationality is based primarily in the fact of the birth of the person within the national territory, ius soli ([constitutional references]). This provision includes persons born on the Falkland, South Georgia and South Sandwich islands, as well as persons born in the sector of Antarctica claimed by our country prior to 1959."

here (http://www1.hcdn.gov.ar/folio-cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=1461893663&advquery=1640-S-03&infobase=dae.nfo&record={1DF9}&recordswithhits=on&softpage=Document42) An act of the Argentine congress: "The national constitution establishes that the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands and their corresponding maritime and insular areas "are an integral part of the national territory." At the same time, the laws on Argentine nationality consider all those "who are born in the territory of the Republic" to be Argentine. Therefore, in our law, the natives of these islands are Argentines."

I mean there is loads of this throughout the discussion. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This is rapidly turning into another exercise in trying to bludgeon people into agreeing with you, unfortunately having repeatedly tried and failed to force this into the article you have rather exhausted people's good faith on the matter. You're being rather disingenuous from the outset, Peter Pepper is an acknowledged expert on Falkland's history, it is Dr Graham Pascoe who has expertise in International Law. My position hasn't changed, for you still haven't addressed the fundamental question of WP:WEIGHT. You keep popping up, saying I've found a source, you must allow me to make this edit and when people disagree with you resort to bludgeoning them assuming their opposition to be motivated by bad faith. The problem is you are not listening to what people actually say, rather what you presume is their reason for opposing you. We do not include entirely theoretical legal concepts on citizenship per WP:WEIGHT, because neutral academic texts on the topic of Falkland Islanders do not feel the need to mention it. I remain implacably opposed to adding text on entirely theoretical rights to citizenship of another country, which is of no relevance to the topic at hand. WCM_email 20:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. And Boynamedsue does not distinguish between whether Falklanders are Argentine citizens, can claim citizenship, can apply for naturalization on the basis of their birthplace or can have citizenship bestowed upon them at the discretion of the president. I suspect it's the last, which is unimportant because states can bestow citizenship on anyone they please. TFD (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

TFD, your individual assessment of the legal situation is not really shared by anyone. Both WCM and K know that Falkland born people are Argentine citizens under Argentine law. They both know a massive amount about Falklands history and will be fully aware of the long period in which Falklands-born people were harassed when wanting to visit Argentina as they did not have the "correct" passport. Details are here, this is not an RS per wikipedia's rules, but it is from a strongly pro-British author who doesn't make things up, control f "passport" and "citizen" for position in text. The others have shifted their argument to a spurious interpretation of WP:WEIGHT simply because they need something to keep the pro-British POV in the article, and that's about all that's left.

Anyway, I haven't got the time or energy for the second RfC that the closer of the last one proposed, so I will be leaving it there for now. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which assessment you prefer, but what reliable sources say. And you have never stated whether persons born in the Falklands/Malvinas are Argentine citizens, are entitled to citizenship or may become citizens at the discretion of the Argentinian government. TFD (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

tbh, it is only you who doesn't understand this. 1. Argentina considers everybody (except children of crown servants) born in FI, the Sandwich Islands or South Georgia or the waters around them to be its citizens. (many sources for this, Habib, Sawyer, Guardian, Clarin, Argentine electoral court, BBC, ITV, Pintore) 2. Argentina can not force them to act as such except when they are in her territory (Habib, Argentine electoral court). 3. FI-born individuals can request documents on this basis (many sources for this, Guardian, Clarin, Pintore etc...).

The above is what reliable sources say, but you seem to refuse to comment on the content of them except to occasionally elaborate pseudo-legal theories based on comparison with the legal systems of other countries which are entirely irrelevant and based purely on your own speculation. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You are assigning a position to me that I do not hold, and in doing so you are failing to assume good faith. Because you're basically suggesting that I am lying when I tell you what my understanding of the position is.

I do not accept that Argentina considers Falkland Islanders to be Argentine citizens, because such a position directly contradicts dozens of direct statements of the Argentine government, stating that they consider the islanders to be "squatters", British citizens illegally imported to the islands for the purpose of bolstering Britain's arguments on sovereignty. This argument is fundamental to Argentina's rejection of self-determination and hence to Argentina's legal position in the dispute. And for Argentina to concede this point would be to acknowledge the primacy of self-determination and hence to concede that they have no lawful claim to the islands - something they're understandably very keen not to do.

However, even if your legal theory were accurate, it still would not belong in the article because it is vastly undue WP:WEIGHT. Kahastok talk 22:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your opinion. I would point out that Argentine law considers people born on Argentine territory to be Argentine, even if their parents are there illegally. This is a very well established fact in Argentine case law. The only exception to ius soli is for people who are in Argentina as diplomats. I don't see any connection between this and the Argentine arguments against self-determination. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

You are also mispresenting my opinion and it's not as if I haven't told you my views on the matter repeatedly. My views are very similar to what Kahastok has said above, for every obscure reference you can dig up I can post literally hundreds stating the islanders are illegal squatters and British citizens. If you want to source the official Argentine position on the matter its very clear and the diametric opposite of the overly simplistic edit you propose. WCM_email 08:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Noted. See the response above. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There are actually two exceptions to jus soli. The other one is, "Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien." (A. V. Dicey, quoted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. They are distinct from illegal aliens, since illegal aliens become subject to the laws of the state they illegally enter. TFD (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by, "Argentina can not force them to act as such except when they are in her territory?" TFD (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but citing American law is of no relevance to Argentine law. It is a basic error to apply one country's laws to another, US legal precedent is invalid outside of the US. I have cited Argentine law to you which specifically states that Falkland-born individuals are Argentine (Argentine electoral court, above). US law may have other exceptions, Argentine law doesn't.

The sentence you query means that the Falklands-born indivduals' de jure Argentine citizenship can not be imposed on them de facto. In effect, under Argentine law they are citizens of Argentina, but Argentina can not force them to accept any of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship except when they visit Argentina (see Habib, above for discussion of this). I believe they have stopped even trying to do this, the last mention of their policy of forcing Falklanders to use Argentine passports I can find is from the early 90s and James Peck was living there with a UK passport prior to his decision to accept an Argentine ID document in the late noughties. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to you previously, there are limits usually applied to jus soli, meaning persons born to illegal aliens do not inherit citizenship rights from the illegal actions of their parents. This isn't a uniquely American viewpoint, it is a feature of basic fundamental legal theory that people should not benefit from illegal action. Yet you're quick to dismiss it as it doesn't fit your agenda. Equally Argentina cannot impose citizenship as it would violate human rights law according to the Officer of the High Commissioner on Human Rights[1], which establishes the rights of states to impose citizenship are limited.

But even that debate is a waste everyone's time.

What you actually need to do is first demonstrate that WP:WEIGHT is satisfied, ie that sources about Falkland Islanders regularly comment that they are also eligible for Argentine citizenship. Ideally this should be neutral academic sources on the subject of Falkland Islanders. The fact that they don't should give you a clue. This is how wikipedia is supposed to work, our articles are guided by the predominant views in the literature.

Instead what you have done is decided on the basis of a WP:FALSEBALANCE that this must be mentioned in this article and have been looking for sources to justify it. You've been offered a compromise, that something on the subject could be included in Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute and be discussed at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute but for some reason you have not availed yourself of that option.

Its not helpful or productive to keep on trying to bludgeon people into submission. WCM_email 15:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

In terms of limitations on jus soli, they vary country by country. I have shown you legal sources for Argentina which show the only limitations are on the children of diplomats and foreign military personnel who are posted in the country. If you are aware of any sources which contradict this I will happily look at them and if they are valid we can talk about them. You are repeatedly stating the same argument on WP:WEIGHT to the point of WP:BLUDGEON. I would remind you that this argument was not viewed as conclusive in the last RfC. In my view academic texts, books written by experts and news sources are valid for this section, and as the subsection is entitled "nationality" sources on British and Argentinian nationality mentioning the Falklanders are valid sources for establishing notability, as are books and news articles on the Falkland Islands. There are getting on for 20 such and so WP:WEIGHT would argue for inclusion. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

When someone uses a term in English common law, we can certainly look up the definition in English legal texts. While someone may adopt a term and define it differently, it's an unusual claim that Argentina uses a definition unique among the nations of the world and not mentioned in any legal textbooks.

Most people understand the term citizen to mean a "person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it." (Merriam-Webster)[2] Here again, you are claiming that Argentina uses the term differently, without any legal textbooks to support your definition. Furthermore, the Argentinian constitution provides rights for citizens, so your definition differs from their's.

Habib was presenting an opinion and there is no reason why we should accept it as authoritative. If you want to press your case, find a textbook on Argentinian law that explains why someone born in their territories under foreign occupation acquires citizenship.

Other editors have brought up the issue of weight. If something is so poorly covered in reliable sources that we don't even know which of the competing claims is more accepted, then it lacks weight for inclusion.

TFD (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you have misunderstood my point. I don't believe that Argentine citizenship is qualitatively different from any other country's. Argentina believes that the Falklands-born are its citizens, but is not in a position to make them act as such. What is your opinion on the Argentine electoral court's judgment? So far I haven't seen you comment on it. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There we go again, I give you the textbook definition of WP:WEIGHT and it doesn't fit the agenda so you impose your own interpretation and airily dismiss it. I note yet again a complete lack of interest in discussing the compromise that was offered. I suggest The Four Deuces that you allow them the WP:LASTWORD and find a more productive use of your time. WCM_email 16:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

WCM, I see you are doing your best to make things unpleasant again, it must be very tiring. Bludgeoning the weight thing again I see. As it goes TFD, he is probably right that there isn't much more productive to be said. It'd be good to hear your take on the court ruling which explicitly defines Argentine citizenship with specific reference to the Falklands, as you are very interested in the law, but obviously if you prefer not to answer, that's your prerogative. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Both of these statements cannot be true:

• All people born in the Falklands/Malvinas (except the children of diplomats) are citizens of Argentina
• All people born in the Falklands/Malvinas (except the children of diplomats) have a right to become citizens of Argentina

Do you understand the difference?

Your sources are conflicting on this issue because they are expressing opinions, not facts. It appears that no one has given much thought to this, so weight says we should not mention it. As I said above, I do not believe thqat Argentina's laws on this are different from other countries with jus soli citizenship and any statement from them is politics rather than law.

TFD (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The two sentences you have written are contradictory, but they are not what the sources say. The first sentence represents the position in Argentine law (as stated in the judgment of the Argentine Electoral court) the second is not 100% correct. In actual fact, in Argentine law they are already citizens, but citizens who do not have their documentation. If they obtain that documentation they would be recognised as Argentines by other nations, under international law. So the correct way to formulate the sentences would be:

• Under Argentine law, all people born in the Falklands/Malvinas (except the children of diplomats) are citizens of Argentina. This citizenship can not be renounced.
• All people born in the Falklands/Malvinas (except the children of diplomats) are considered to be citizens of Argentina in that country's law and can obtain Argentine passports/id cards on this basis. This would give the individuals concerned Argentine citizenship under international law.

Boynamedsue (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, that is just one interpretation of the application of jus soli to Argentinian law which shows a misunderstanding of the concept. The fact that this position goes against international law is also problematic, because any treaties Argentina signs become the "supreme law of the land" (Constitution, s. 21). That's why as you pointed out they would have to apply. Furthermore, Argentina must accept them. But anyone can apply for Argentinian citizenship and become one if its government approves. TFD (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Not really, You are treating jus soli like it was a universal concept, rather than shorthand for a general type of citizenship laws. Argentine law does not go "we want jus soli, let's interpret that", there is a citizenship law that states "all people born in our territory are Argentine citizens" and lawyers then describe that law as "jus soli" because it has those characteristics. The Spanish term "ius soli" does not appear anywhere in Argentina's basic citizenship law, only in commentaries on it.

In Argentine law people are automatically citizens from the moment they are born with certain characteristics, it doesn't matter whether they have the papers or not, British citizenship law is the same. An unregistered baby born of British or Irish parents in London is still a British citizen, despite having to apply for documentation. The only difference is which characteristics the baby must have at birth to be classed as a citizen. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The constitution refers to natural citizenship [nacionalidad natural], which universally means jus soli and/or jus sanguinis. Also, any legislation that violates international treaties is void. And, in every other country's nationality laws, "our territory" is interpreted as areas under the nation's control. If you want to make a case that Argentinian law interprets terms differently from the rest of the world, you need a source.

But to get back to the main issue. If you want to make an extraordinary claim, you need an authoritative source. I am sure that Argentina has legal textbooks and you would make more progress if you used them rather than provide arguments.

TFD (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I find your last comment a little ironic, as your comments are based on nothing but your own speculations based on your understanding of American law while mine are simply relating what the sources say! Anyhow, thanks for the answer. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that you want to include information so you must provide sources. You cannot assume that Argentina defines legal terms differently from English common law from which those terms are taken. You want us to believe that "our territory" includes areas under foreign occupation but have no source to prove that nonstandard meaning.

But to get back to the main issue. If you want to make an extraordinary claim, you need an authoritative source. I am sure that Argentina has legal textbooks and you would make more progress if you used them rather than provide arguments.

TFD (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I've provided two dozen sources, you simply speculate on why you think they can't say what they actually say! There is no requirement to provide law textbooks per WP:RS, in fact law textbooks would risk being tertiary sources and so inferior to those I have provided form Argentine and British experts on citizenship. Do you not wonder why not a single source has appeared to contradict my view? Boynamedsue (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

BTW, on the way jus sanguinis and jus solis is understood, I cite an Argentine expert on nationality here: "Original nationality can be attributed according to two criteria which can be considered to be universal, but which are never found in a pure state (nunca se dan puros, my emphasis) in national legislation. [defines jus sanguinis] Jus soli consecrates the place of birth as the attributive criteria for original nationality. Each country attributes nationality according to its own norms which must be adapted to the international framework, as it is international law which habilitates states so that they can make their regulation." Later in the text he specifically states that Argentine citizenship applies to people born in the Falklands, in Argentine law. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

As I aaid above, providing a lot of opinions doe not prove there is consensus support for them. Also, I do not think you are reading your recent source correctly. All countries combine elements of jus soli and jus sanguinis to some degree. There is no mention btw in the UN Working Paper report on the Falklands that Argentina claims its inhabitants are their citizens and Argentina specifically says the Falklanders "had not been subjected to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation by a colonial Power." TFD (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Why would the UN-working paper be relevant to the citizenship of Falkland-born individuals under Argentine law as defined by the Argentine electoral court and every source which comments on it?

Normally to write something off as opinion we would look at other opinions, in this case there are none. The consensus of expert opinion is that they are Argentine citizens in Argentine law (Lorenz [Argentine expert on Falklands] Habib, Sawyer, [experts on international citizenship, law], Egea, Pintore [Professors of Argentine law, former wrote books on Argentine citizenship], Argentine electoral court [literal Argentine legislation], the Argentine congress, Pepper [pro-British Falklands expert], Child [Academic who writes on Falklands]). Not a single source says "Falkland-born individuals are not Argentine citizens in Argentine law" whereas around 20 do say that. Why is that? I would suggest that you are applying rules here that you would not apply to any other article. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Why would the nationality of the inhabitants of the Falklands have any relevance to a paper on the decolonization of the islands? Is that really your question? And no, we don't accept every published opinion as fact unless another opinion is published. TFD (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

We accept expert statements on fact can be published in wikivoice where there is no contradictory opinion. So, at least you are trying to begin to base your argument on sources. What does the paper you reference actually say with regards to Argentine law's position on the people born on the Falklands (43% of the population)? Boynamedsue (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide the policy or guideline that says that. You are forgetting as well that your sources make conflicting claims: some say that Falklanders are Argentinian citizens, while others say they could claim citizenship. TFD (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

So I can assume the source you cite says nothing on Argentine citizenship law, yet you are using it as evidence for a POV which it does not state? I have provided you with the literal judgment of the Argentine electoral court on this matter, I very much doubt any source will be accepted by you at this point. You are misrepresenting what the sources say to create two viewpoints where there is one. The Sawyer quote (which is the only one which could be stretched to fit your position that there are two contradicting positions) states "they are also entitled to Argentine nationality but they fail to claim this." This statement means they are entitled (have the legal right to) to Argentine nationality but they fail to claim (make a request for something which is one's due) Argentine nationality. It does not say they are "entitled to claim nationality" it says they are "entitled to nationality". This is entirely compatible with the fact that under Argentine law they are citizens, there is no contradiction.

It is impossible to be a de facto citizen of a state with which one has no relation, however it is simultaneously entirely possible to be a citizen of that state according to its law. Two of my children were born abroad, if I had not registered their births with the British authorities or requested a passport for them, they would still be British citizens in British law. The nationality is acquired automatically (as with the Falklanders), but we frequently describe someone as "claiming British citizenship" in adulthood due to having a British parent. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Btw, the relevant text is the following: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. You have so far presented no sources which contradict the statement "In Argentine law people born in the Falkland Islands are considered to be Argentine citizens", therefore it is an "uncontested factual assertion". Boynamedsue (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

For your claim that your children would be UK citizens, I would accept Fransman's British Nationality Law, 3rd Edition, April 2011 where it explains that under the British Nationality Act 1981 they would be citizens. I would not accept an article written by a non-expert in a magazine about the Falkland Islands. Anyway, we have been over this and are just covering the same ground.

NPOV, which you quote, says, "Avoid stating opinions as facts." It doesn't matter how many times an opinion is repeated, it doesn't become a fact until reliable sources say that it has consensus support.

TFD (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You've really backed yourself into a corner here! Fransman's British Nationality law is the opinion of its editor on the law regarding British nationality. It is correct and uncontradicted by other sources, therefore it can be stated in wikivoice. The same goes for the 10 legal sources I have added. I hope you will take a moment to reflect on this, and not succumb to the intellectual sunk cost fallacy which makes you continue with your bizarre argument way past the point where it is tenable. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Textbooks are not supposed to reflect the opinions of their authors, but to explain the various opinions in reliable sources and their relative acceptance among experts. TFD (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so it is your belief that only legal textbooks are valid sources for matters of law?Boynamedsue (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No one else seems to have any interest in this conversation. Their main objection is about weight. If you want to continue it, you can post to my talk page. Otherwise, I don't see that there is anything further to be gained. TFD (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you are correct, but I notice you did not answer the question. I suspect that is because you are aware that a variety of legal sources are considered valid to source legal facts in wikipedia, including primary sources (such as the Argentine Electoral court judgment) and the various journal articles I have cited. Textbooks can be used but are considered to be inferior to journal articles and books as are primary sources. Primary sources can be used to attest simple facts (like, for example, what areas are covered by jus soli in Argentine law) but must not be interpreted.

I hope you retire this daft argument for the RfC. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I said that if you wanted to continue this discussion, that you should post to my talk page, which you have failed to do. Otherwise, I see no point in my reiterating in this dicussion thread what I have already said. TFD (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Kelpers merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merged. All content preserved, except an unsourced vague statement. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

---

There's a July proposal to merge Kelpers to here; sounds reasonable, as I don't think that it justifies a separate article. A suitable place might be within the Identity section. Klbrain (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree doesnt need a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the nickname is not notable in itself, doubt a couple of paragraphs is devoted to it in any RS. Could be part of a "names" section. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral As long as content is preserved. WCM_email 10:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.