Talk:Falkland Islands/lede rewrite

The Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, located over 250 nmi East of the coast of mainland South America. The archipelago comprises East Falkland, West Falkland, and 776 lesser islands. Stanley, the capital and only major city, is on East Falkland. The islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory, with the United Kingdom responsible for its defence and foreign affairs.

Controversy exists over the Falkland's original discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. At various times there have been French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements. Britain re-established its rule in 1833, yet the islands remain claimed by Argentina. In 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands, the two-month-long undeclared Falklands War between both countries resulted in the withdrawal of Argentine forces. Despite its defeat, Argentina still pursues its claim; however, UK policy supports the islanders' self-determination to remain British citizens.

The population, estimated at 3,140, primarily consists of Falkland Islanders, the majority of British descent. Other ethnicities include French, Gibraltarian, Portuguese, and Scandinavian. Immigration from the United Kingdom, St. Helena, and Chile have reversed a former population decline. The predominant and official language is English. Under the British Nationality Act of 1983, Falkland Islanders are British citizens.

Both major islands have mountain ranges, both reaching to around 700 m. The islands are home to large bird populations, although many no longer breed on the main islands due to introduced species. Major economic activities include fishing, tourism, and sheep farming (used for high-quality wool exports). Oil exploration, licensed by the Falkland Islands Government, remains controversial as a result of maritime disputes with Argentina.

Comments
The introduction should focus on being a summary of the material within the article, and only use statements requiring sources in it when absolutely necessary. I really do not think it is necessary to write that the islanders reject the Argentinean claim in the introduction, because it has an unecessary aggressive tone to it. It could be mentioned in the demographics section, and it should certainly be in the Falkland Islander article. The introduction should also avoid any "since 1982" or "since the war" statements because it makes the subject seem focused on the war rather than on the islands. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The tone of the statement isn't aggressive. It's a neutral statement of fact. And it's of immediate relevance, since it occurs between statements relating to Argentina's claims to the islands. Readers will wonder what the Falklanders themselves think, although most will probably not even think to pose the question and, given the tone of the remaining text of the lede, would be unnecessarily influenced toward the "Argentine" side if they don't have prior knowledge of the subject. The wishes and opinions of the population of the island are central to any discussion of Argentina's claims and of the war, and should not be relegated to the demographics section together with the usual stats about income, gender and language. Additionally, sources are given in the above text in three places. If sourced statements are to be deleted from the lede, then it would be a more neutral but weaker intro. Deleting just the one would leave an imbalance.SeoMac (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. "The wishes and opinions of the population of the island are central to any discussion of Argentina's claims and of the war". This article is about the Falkland Islands, not the Falklands War. This article is also not a discussion on Argentina's claim (that's the purpose of this other article: Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute). Finally, if the information is so important, why should it be on the introduction and not in the body of the article? Even if in the body of the article, the information would still not go beyond one mere sentence ("The Islanders reject the Argentinean claim...").
 * The purpose of the introduction is for it to be a summary (per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD). I like to use as an example the Peru article, which I've familiarized myself with overtime (added that's an FA-class article). The only "source" used on the introduction is a footnote (barely a formal reference) on the Quechua name of the country. The rest of the text on the introduction is validated (ie, supported) by the body of the article. In the Introduction of WP:LEAD, the following is available for reading: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Simple sentence that this Falkland Islands article should follow (after all, the objective is to make it FA-class as well). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 06:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made some edits to try and clarify the implications of the islanders support, as well as keeping history together and expanding (1833 date I feel is important, as it's when the current regime began). Hopefully this solves some above problems.
 * MarshallN20 is right that we shouldn't need references in the lead, but I think everything here is in the article, the references are just redundant. CMD (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense than before. Needless to say, the history summary gives too much weight to the Falklands conflict. Why does it mention so little of the early disputes between Spain/Britain? Did history end after 1982? What exactly happened after 1982 (even the article doesn't make much effort in mentioning current history)? These are important points. If we want to improve the article, we really need to try to de-Falkanize it (in terms of the war) to the point where the war is a part of its history, not the history. Of course, I'm not ordering any of you to make the changes, but the statements are really only thoughts which hopefully provides some clarity on what goes on in my mind.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While perhaps there's room for earlier history, there really hasn't been anything major since 1982. I worded it with the present stance at the end to note the continuing dispute and positions since that point. CMD (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

- Perhaps we should avoid dealing with the history section (for the time being) of the introduction? I have added some tentative improvements for the economics and demographics paragraphs. Hopefully it will please everyone.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the information about Spanish influencing the rest on the continent, it's an interesting factoid, but quite tangential and definitely not anywhere in the body. CMD (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with it with your change, and I agree that going into detail about the lack of Spanish influence on the islanders' language is unnecessary. That a small number of residents may speak Spanish seems irrelevant.  There may also be a small number who speak French, Norwegian or Portuguese (given the ethnicities listed).


 * In terms of lede references, these are best avoided but it is worth keeping some for purposes of article stability. We have frequently in the past had people come along and remove points as unreferenced because they are referenced elsewhere in the article - this is a particular problem when dealing with potentially controversial subjects.


 * In terms of detailing 18th century history - I am unconvinced because I don't see that it's useful in a very brief summary of the remainder of the article. Pfainuk talk 19:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was deliberately vague in the coverage of history in the lede, I can see arguments over trying to date the start of the Argentine claim for example so I simply fudged it. At present I think it is reasonably terse summary of history without unnecessary embellishment of the details. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Think we're there after CMD's last edit. What do others think? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's better than what the article currently has for an introduction. I don't see the need for references 2 and 3; aren't they justified in the article? Reference 2 is particularly pointless (is it controversial?). I may see a reason for 3, but even that's a bit of a stretch.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In answer to your questions. Yes 2&3 are justified in the article, not its not controversial, though like many inconvenient facts tends to be disputed by those with a POV agenda. Do we need references, according to policy no as they're amplified in the text, in practise yes as we have seen time and again, facts tagged with the intention of removing them as uncited.  Now you may accuse me of bad faith for that remark but sadly it is borne of experience.  Wee Curry Monster talk 11:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the third reference. If anyone disputes Argentina claims the Falklands, well, I doubt any reference will change their minds, to say the least. I also replaced the other three references with ones in the text, so its clear that these are points which are sourced in the body. (The code doesn't work here, but I edited the actual article so it will once copied over.) CMD (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. Now, the following statement is currently on the article "It is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories." I'm not sure if someone removed it or if I didn't include it, but (whatever the case) is this statement controversial and is it relevant to the introduction? If we can resolve this last bit, I believe the introduction is ready to be included (It's a good step towards at least taking this article into GA-status; from personal experience, the higher the status an article gets, the less "content battles" take place).-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the C24 list, it may be in the article but its not currently in the lede. There was a consensus to remove it, see the archive, because there is a need to explain how it defines None Self-Governing, since it bears no relation to the actual governance of the islands.  This is best left to the politics section.  Wee Curry Monster talk 16:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perfect. Well, I'm all in favor of posting this in the article. Pfainuk and Chipmunk?-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A clear improvement, I have no objections. CMD (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Pfainuk talk 21:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)