Talk:Origins of Falkland Islanders

Untitled
This is an interesting article, and subtly written to avoid POV indictments, but one can't help feeling at the end of it that it ought to be entitled "Argentinian origins of Falkland Islanders". Can we have more about the British heritage as well, please? Deipnosophista 10:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It does feel as if the article cuts out very abruptly halfway through the nineteenth century. Are we to believe that the modern Falkland Islands population is wholly or largely descended from the 200 people recorded in 1849? I'm guessing that there have been other, more recent waves of immigration, which get no mention here at all. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

various comments
The corral map is not very "easy on the eye". In particular the sea should be tinted blue.

I think that this article should be incorporated into Falkland Islanders, as is standard practice. The article also doesn't reflect the high turnover of the Falklands population, not only can we find a high percentage of people born off the archipelago living there now, but the Falklands have been bleeding off their population for at least a century... women in particular have tended to leave, and anyone who wants a decent population or job tends to go, and these people often don't come back. Although there are islanders who can trace their ancestry back to the nineteenth century (hardly a long time ago - my grand dad was born then!), the impression given is not of a stable population. In addition, the Shackleton Report quoted someone saying that there "is no glue" in the Falkland Islands. The one thing that seems to be forcing together any kind of community would be the claims of Argentina IMHO. --MacRusgail 11:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to disagree with a number of your comments. The glue holding the islanders together is the dynamics that you see in many small communities, for example the Shetland Islands.  Without the claims of Argentina that would still be there.  I also disagree with the statement that the people leaving the islands don't tend to return, the information in Graham Bound's book tends to contradict it.  The main reason for emmigration in the 1970s/1980s was the economic decline that was largely the result of British neglect, the islands were economically viable but were prevented from exploiting resources because the British Government wanted to avoid upsetting Argentina.


 * The Falklands have only seen a stable population since the British occupation of 1833, that islanders can trace their origins back that far is indicative of a stable population. Sorry but 6-7 generations is a substantial time period here and thats what you're talking about; it certainly is a much longer time period than many Argentinians can claim.  I'd agree there has been a major influx over the last 25 years but that reflects the booming economy.  The islands have full employment and need immigration to sustain the economy.  The fact a substantial proportion of the population is of recent immigration reflects the history of the place not the lack of a stable population.  Justin talk 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Shetland Islands have some similar problems. For example, British rule has not been that advantageous to them, especially when compared to the Faroes whose population has grown and prospered, and whose language still survives. (If the Faroes had had the kind of oil Shetland had, they'd be independent now). In the Shetlands, though, they have a long established culture, national literature, connections with the neighbouring Nordic countries, and a basic distrust of Scotland. Two of the complaints that I've heard about both places is that the demographic is heavily biased towards the male, and you must live the archipelago to become properly educated. In addition, both locations have a substantial English population, which perceives the islands slightly differently to the locally born. Is there any evidence that the Falklanders see themselves as a nation or ethnic group? As opposed to "British". I gather that economic development is still uneven, and a handful of the usual suspects are grabbing the fishing revenues. The immigration, I'd suggest reflects a high turnover of population i.e. bored youngsters out, and cheap St Helenan labour in. --MacRusgail 16:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a certain duality in most British identities, e.g. Welsh, Scottish, English first but British second. From what I've seen its Falkland Islander first and British second.  You're also wrong about the fishing revenues, the wealth generated has been invested in the islands.  You're also wrong about emigration, whilst youngsters may go abroad to the UK to study, in most cases they return.  The immigration reflects economic growth.  Justin talk 17:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes the Falklanders consider themselves a distinct nation (not just ethnic group) with a distinct country of their own; Councillor Summers says that much, 'a people'. Apcbg 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankfully, Scots, and Welsh, are increasingly seeing contemporary "Britishness" for what it is, an expansion of Englishness, which has helped destroy their culture and languages, and involved them in dubious enterprises overseas. Good riddance too. It's good to see them grow out of it, but the position of England itself within the melee is a confused one.


 * By the way, can we really say there was no consensus to merge/not to, when there's only two of us discussing it? The tag should have been left up for longer, as they normally are. --MacRusgail 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC) p.s. I don't think that "British" can be called an ethnicity anymore than Yugoslav, Austro-Hungarian or Soviet could be.


 * Being British is most definitely an ethnicity. Justin talk 20:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The contemporary stuff in this article cannot be construed to constitute anything to do with the Falklanders' "origins", and should be on the other page. --MacRusgail 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the theme of this article is sufficiently unique for it to be deserving of its own page. The text and content of course is still developing and hopefully more people with extensive knowledge will continue to add to the origins theme. To merge it with another page at this stage would defeat the objective of gathering past and contemporary information on origins together to make it a more complete stand alone record. There is plenty of scope still for additional information to be added. Interestingly the article has been edited to state that Scots mainly came to the Falklands from the Orkneys and Shetlands though I know for a fact that my own Scottish ancestors in the Falklands came from Inverness and Aberdeen though other collateral lines came from South Africa and England. Malvinero 13:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I have read in some places that quite a few came from the Northern Isles. However, if you look at other articles on ethnic groups e.g. Scottish people, Faroese people, Czech people, you'll find a lot of that stuff is in the main article. --MacRusgail 23:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Acadians
I understood that some Acadians (francophones from maritime Canada) were sent to the Falkland Islands during the Acadian Expulsion. However, I don't know if they stayed in the Falklands, and, if they did, would be counted as 'French' or 'British'. Does anyone know of this group and their history?K.d.stauffer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They were evacuated after France yielded to Spanish pressure and sold their settlement to Spain. Justin talk 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello . Quite right, apart from the fact that the settlement was not sold , but handed over to the Spanish , with some pomp , by the founder of the colony himself , captain Bougainville ( according to his book  " Voyage around the world bay the king's frigate Sulky and the sloop Star in the years 1766 to 1769..." , first part ). See soon addition in the main article , in "History" --Arapaima (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that Bougainville received a substantial cash sum for the colony, it was a forced sale by Spanish pressure on the French. It was certainly not handed over voluntarily.  Justin talk 09:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * de Bougainville and the St. Malo Company received a large amount of money as compensation for their expenses. "I have received six hundred and eighteen thousand one hundred and eight livres, thirteen sols, and eleven deniers, being the amount of an estimate that I have given of the expenses incurred by the St. Malo Company in equipments for founding their intrusive establishments in the Malvina Islands, belonging to his Catholic Majesty ..." http://servicios.abc.gov.ar/docentes/efemerides/2deabril/descargas/historia/bouganville.pdf (in Spanish, Argentine source).


 * "When I delivered the settlement to the Spaniards, all the expense, whatsoever, which it had cost till the first of April 1767, amounted to 603,000 livres, including the interest of five per cent, on the sums expended since the first equipment. France having acknowledged the catholic kings right to the Malouines, he, by a principle of the law of nations, owed no reimbursements to these costs. However, as his majesty took all the ships, boats, goods, arms, ammunition, and provisions that belonged to our settlement, he being equally just and generous, desired that we should be reimbursed for what we had laid out; and the above sum was remitted to us by his treasurers; part at Paris, and the rest at Buenos Ayres."
 * Louis Antoine de Bougainville: "Voyage around the world 1766-1769", London 1772 (A transcription of the translation of "Le voyage autour du monde, par la frégate La Boudeuse, et la flûte L'Étoile" into English by John Reinhold Forster), (p. 29 in .pdf file) http://archive.org/download/VoyageAroundTheWorldByLewisDeBougainville1766-9/Bougainville_Voyage_Eng_Transcr_JFF.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.St (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Confinement vs Medical Reasons
My understanding is that if a woman goes elsewhere for her confinement, it is often planned well in advance and she will go there while fit to travel whereas "Medical reasons" has a sense of urgency about it. For that reason I have reverted to the language used in the source. Martinvl (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is rather an outdated term and medical reasons is easier for readers to understand. I'd disagree it implied an emergency and so reverted to the simpler form. Justin talk 21:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Referring back to the original source doesn't actually help as it refers to both "confinement" and "medical reasons". Full quote: "Some of those born outside the Islands are children of persons from the Falkland Islands where the mother's confinement, for medical reasons, occurred overseas, but the child arrived within six months of birth." --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the sentence to remove both "confinement" and "medical reasons". The full text from the source now appears in a reference. Martinvl (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes for slightly more concise wording
Michael.

Could you please stop the changes to make things "slightly more concise wording", to be blunt about it, you're taking text that reads well and turning it into dull unreadable prose. This isn't improving the article, these changes actually detract from it. Justin talk 13:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, I welcome your attention to this article. Could you please continue to sort out the prose of this article? It seems that Justin is going to challenge almost every edit I make. Michael Glass (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He has a point in some cases. The aim of is not to make things as concise as possible but to make things interesting for the reader. Pfainuk talk 05:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Justin does have a point in some cases. However, verbosity is not a virtue in writing and the wording of this article does need some attention. Michael Glass (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles are not a list of facts, which is what you're converting them to. It makes for articles that are dull and uninteresting to read.  I'm going to challenge edits that detract from the article.  As usual you presume bad faith and presume it is personal.  Justin talk 07:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, I would appreciate it if you did not make personal comments such as the ones above. Michael Glass (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Michael, if you take readable text and turn it into dull prose, if I comment on that it is not a personal comment. Your comments were needlessly personal and if you continue I am no longer prepared to put up with it.  Justin talk 11:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, time out, everybody. Calling someone's writing "dull unreadable prose" on one side, or "verbosity" on the other, isn't quite a personal comment, but it's understandable in either case why people might not like it much. You clearly disagree about style, but that's no reason to ratchet up the tension and start to throw allegations at each other. Try to reach a compromise, bring more people in if you need an outside view, stop blindly reverting each others contributions and we'll see where we get to. There are arguments to be made on both sides, and in the end it's really not that important.

This article isn't perfect; what is? I'm going to give it a once over and try to make it more readable (anyone tried to fight their way through the intro, which is one long sentence?) but it won't be perfect when I'm done either, and if one or both of you decides you don't like what I've done, I'll shrug my shoulders and move on. Life's too short. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with what you've done. A simple list of facts is dull and uninteresting, this is about making articles interesting to read.  Justin talk 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Who in their various capacities travelled back and forth?
This phrase is quite opaque to me. Where did these people travel back to and forth from? What were their various capacities? I find it impossible to divine the meaning of this phrase from the context.

At the moment the sentence reads:


 * Following the abandonment of the archipelago by the Spanish authorities in 1811, the only inhabitants of the islands were people who in their various capacities travelled back and forth, carried out a variety of commercial and shipping activities, sought refuge there, and through various efforts attempted to colonize the islands.

I think the sentence would be clearer if it read:


 * Following the abandonment of the archipelago by the Spanish authorities in 1811, the only inhabitants of the islands were people who carried out a variety of commercial and shipping activities, or who had sought refuge there, and had attempted to colonize the islands.

Any comments or suggestions? Michael Glass (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Leave it as it is please. Colonize is usually spelled colonise for info.  I don't see it as opaque and there is a certain style about it - and no I didn't write it.  Sorry but you version is bland and unappealing.  Justin talk 14:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so it should have clear, concise language, even if it is bland. I prefer Michael's version with the caveat that I need to check the OED regarding the use of colonise/colonize. Martinvl (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What is unclear and unconcise about it? Please keep it and think about things instead of backing up your metric buddy in a knee jerk reaction.  Justin talk 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Either colonise or colonize is acceptable in British English - manual of style just says to be consistent within one article. The only other usage of either in this article can't be changed as it's in a quotation, and that uses -ise, so we may as well settle on that.
 * As far as the sentence as whole is concerned, I'm inclined towards Michael's version as well - I just don't think that phrase adds anything. Style isn't unimportant but it should never take precedence over clarity, and I don't see the revised version as particularly bland. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest you read Michael's and the original again, there are several nuances that are lost - ie it loses clarity. And yes Michael's is bland. But its getting to the point where I don't WP:DGAF, there are more important things in life and I can always revert later.  16:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of the point being made is that from 1811 to 1829, the population was primarily transitory. There were people there - there were a couple of failed attempts to colonise the islands and probably hundreds of ship visits (some of which lasted many months) - but there was no permanently settled population.  This implication is totally lost by Michael's edit.


 * On -ise vs. -ize: BrE as used by most British people prefers -ise. But it isn't universal and the OED is a notable exception.  IIRC, certain international organisations that have both the UK and US as members use "Oxford English", which is essentially British English with -ize spellings. Pfainuk talk 17:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Could somebody more knowledgable than me clarify a point about the attempts to colonise the islands between 1811 and 1829? Were such attempts made by other countries or were the attempts made by individuals who tried settling there beyond the control of any outside state? Martinvl (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll respond in detail later. Its not a simple question to answer. Justin talk 08:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK To respond in some detail. See below. Justin talk 17:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The trouble with the wording that I challenged is its lack of clarity. If the population was primarily transitory this needs to be documented, as with the couple of failed attempts to colonise the islands and the visits by many ships at this time. This cannot be established or communicated by the vague and baffling phrase, "...who in their various capacities travelled back and forth..." Martinvl's question above is the one that needs to be answered. Michael Glass (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't lack clarity, its a lede, the detail is in the main document. Just a question for you both, you demand people answer questions but I note that you don't bother to respond when people ask you questions. Justin talk 08:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated my changes - if you are too busy to look at them, then somebody else will - that is the nature of Wikipedia. If you are doing a major rewrite, then place a note to that effect and I am sure that everybody will give you time to do such a rewrite. Martinvl (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I politely asked you to wait for me to explain it to you, seemingly you're not prepared to listen, so I'll revert per WP:BRD and then leave it that. Edit War and revert if you wish but I won't be indulging you in an edit war.  It is supposed to be a collaborative endeavour why are you and Michael so hell bent on making every thing a war?  Justin talk 11:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Being the author who initiated this article and wrote most of the text jointly with editor JacobNapoleon (a native English speaker and incidentally a Falkland Islander), I can assure you that the text is very carefully thought over and phrased, as indeed nuances are important in this particular article. Attempts to 'improve' the style in arbitrary pieces taken alone and out of context are hardly productive; for instance, the question "who colonized" is explained in the text that follows immediately, "Most numerous by far among them were etc.", then Vernet's settlement is brought in and so on. Therefore, I would suggest that proposed changes are discussed first here rather than made in the article, inviting reverts as it is. Apcbg (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone's interested any further in my opinion - it's that I think "Who in their various capacities travelled back and forth" is a ridiculous, meaningless phrase, but I've got better things to do with my life than get any more involved in edit wars over something so trivial, so I'm removing this page from my watchlist. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't a voice of sanity is helpful. Justin talk 13:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Justin. OpenToppedBus, your comments in this thread have been very constructive and helpful. Michael Glass (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Populations
1. Whalers & Sealers. The islanders were used extensively by British and American whalers. Particularly the British whalers whose ships weren't as advanced as the Americans, abput 1000 typically. Also a small number of French, Norwegian and Swedish whalers. Whalers would tow a carcass to a camp for the purposes of flensing (removing blubber) and making oil (using trypots). A more settled population were the sealers who would camp and harvest seals from a particular area, taking blubber and fur principally. A minority harvested penguins to render down for oil.

2. Shipwrecks. The islands are well known for shipwrecks, a number of which were resident for some time until rescued most notably Charles Barnard.

3. Provisioning. The islands had populations of feral goats, cattle and pigs. Passing ships would harvest these for provisions. They could stay for weeks at a time.

4. Vernet's expeditions. Vernet's first expedition was in 1824, it was a disaster lasting mere weeks. The second in 1826 was a similar failure.

5. Vernet's settlement. Established in 1828, this was Vernet's private venture for which he sought permission from both the British and the Authorities in BA.

6. Individual settlements. A number of individuals settled on the islands of their own volition without any national support. This included a lady who made her living as a prostitute for visiting sailors, Manuel Coronel and his family who harvested wild cattle and then sold the beef to passing ships and a number of other individuals including Antonina Roxas. Many later were employed by Vernet.

7. Explorers. The British used the Falklands extensively during this period as a basis for exploring the Antarctic. This includes Ross and Weddell. They would over winter in the Falklands, heading South in the summer.

8. Warships. In line with the British practise of maintaining a presence with minimal expenditure the islands were visited by Royal Navy warships at regular intervals.

Hence, my earlier comments and if you feel you can improve the lede go for it here and don't edit war to impose your preferred solutionl. Justin talk 17:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, thank you for the list - it certainly gives anybody working on the article a point of reference. I will put my thinking cap on and see if I can build this into a decent lede. Martinvl (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the frist paragraph of the section (and also the start of the second paragraph). The suggested text (links to follow) is:
 * The earliest known permanent inhabitants of the islands were members of the French and the Spanish colonial establishments (1764 to 1811), but they left when their respective governments ceased to exercise jurisdiction over the islands. From 1770 onwards up to 40 or 50 English and American ships engaged in whaling and seal hunting in the South Atlantic with typically 20 men per ship. Many used the islands as their base during the hunting season but did not settle.


 * After the Spanish left in 1811, a handful of people settled on the islands, initially without the protection of any outside force. They supplemented their existence by supplying services to the whalers and seal hunters. When Vernet established the settlement of Port Louis 1828, they were absorbed into that settlement. The settlement, on the site of the former Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad, had about 100 inhabitants at its high point.


 * Any comments? Where possible, the links in the existing article will be recycled. Martinvl (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is on the origins of the Falkland Islanders, not a history timeline. Which means that the French and Spanish settlements are out of place here as their inhabitants have nothing to do with the Falkland Islanders (unlike e.g. the sealers and Vernet's settlers). Apcbg (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, as is the British settlement in 1765-76.


 * For the record, I'm getting a broken link on the Ushuaia Maritime Museum. The correct link is  - which doesn't quite back up the point being made.  The source says that:


 * Dada la situación de la Revolución Argentina (1810)... recién en 1820 se izó la bandera azul y blanca en las Malvinas por parte del corsario David Jewett (norteamericano) que se encontraba al servicio del gobierno de Buenos Aires.


 * Lo hizo ante la presencia de muchos loberos americanos e ingleses los cuales informaron a sus gobiernos, publicándose el hecho en la "Gaceta" de Salem (EE.UU) y "El Redactor de Cádiz". Se calcula que había entre 40 a 50 naves loberas entre fragatas, cúteres, y goletas.


 * By my free translation:


 * Given the situation of the Argentine Revolution (1810)... it was only in 1820 that the Argentine flag was raised on the Falklands by privateer David Jewett (American), who was in the service of the Buenos Aires government.


 * He did so in the presence of many American and British sealers who informed their governments, publishing the fact in the Salem Gazette (USA) and El Redactor de Cádiz. It is estimated that there were about 40-50 sealing ships, including frigates, cutters and schooners.


 * Noting in passing a certain Argentine bias in the source, it appears to me that the estimate is that there were 40-50 ships in the Falklands on one day in November 1820, not just that there were 40-50 ships in the South Atlantic as we currently state. I must admit I find that number rather large and would like to know where they got that figure from - but that appears to me to be the claim being made. Pfainuk talk 17:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The number of 40-50 stems from what Goebels refers to as the Vernet papers, a paper written by Vernet in 1834 on the orders of Moreno to "document" the Argentine claim. It certainly doesn't reflect the papers by Ross or Weddell.  40-50 seems to be the typical number of whalers using the Falklands at any one time during this period but not necessarily grouped in one place as Vernet suggests, it would seem better to mention this is an itinerant population because it returned year on year for the summer season.  And the incident wasn't as widely reported as noted above, the Salem Gazette story was repeated by El Redactor from the same source an American captain, the Times also carried the story from the same source.  Like Apcbg I note the article is about the origins of the Falkland Islanders.  Well the French (Arcadians) all left, as did the Spanish in 1811, so they don't contribute to the origins of the islanders.  I would mention the itinerant population as some did.  Just my 2c.  I can have a pop at redrafting if you like.  Justin talk 20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference 6
the wikisource text has been moved to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Report_by_Silas_Duncan_Commander_U.S.S._Lexington_sent_to_Navy_Secretary_Levi_Woodbury

and the shitty editor will not accept the new link without some sort of voodoo, which I refuse to waste time on John.St (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Falkland Islanders
This should be merged with Falkland Islanders. BananaBork (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree, this article is the original article, Falkland Islanders was a content fork from this one. Furthermore, this article is about explaining the origins of the population not simply giving facts about the current population.  WCM email 19:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mini-nations
I think this article has a lot of room for improvement, and I would love to help out. We'll start with this sentence in Evolution of Falkland Islander identity:

They are one of the nations and mini-nations of the United Kingdom and the British overseas territories, including also the English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Channel Islanders, Gibraltarians, Saint Helenians, Bermudians, Caymanians etc.

So what is it then, a nation or a "mini nation"? Is it in the United Kingdom or is it a BOT? Rather than just making up fantasy terminology, call it what it is - a British Overseas Territory. Also there is no need to list every single possible British identity. If you insist on providing examples, just choose three broad ones. BananaBork (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Really don't see how thats an improvement, the text is in context of the source named. It makes a point that former British colonies are now nations, mini-nations and BOT.  WCM email 19:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh really. So what exactly is a mini nation? What makes a "mini nation" different from just a small "nation"? It feels like someone made it up for this article - it's certainly not recognised terminology on Wikipedia.BananaBork (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah the oh really statement, of course, I don't agree with you so I'm being unreasonable. An example,, just because it doesn't have an article doesn't mean its not recognised.  Oh and I noticed, despite the emphasis added, you didn't address the point.  WCM email 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your words, not mine. I did not think you were being unreasonable.
 * Anyway, thanks for the source, but I don't think this particular usage of those words suggests that "mini-nation-state" exists as a separate concept to small "nation state". (None of these nations are nation states anyway, so probably not a good example.) You would not describe a car park as a collection of "cars and small cars", even if there was a publication somewhere which off-handedly described a Ford Ka as a small car.
 * I recommend removing "mini-nations" on these grounds:
 * it is unnecessary repetition in a sentence already filled to the brim with three different lists
 * it is made redundant by the preceding catch-all "nations"
 * it is - at best - an extremely uncommon term that is not usually used to describe any of those nations.
 * And then we can see how else to improve this article. BananaBork (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * One of the things I think a lot of people seem to forget, is not only is wikipedia supposed to give facts, it is also meant to be read. We see so much content that is dry, uninteresting and unreadable.  One of the things I like about this article (and I had no role in writing it), is that it does flow extremely well and there is a certain style about the use of language.  With the greatest of respect, your edit changed a text that flowed and was interesting, to one that was decidedly dull.  Your analogy was not particularly aposite in this case either.  We do make a distinction on the basis of size and status and the British diaspora incorporates a number of distinctly different entities eg the home nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man, Jersey & Guernsey, the larger BOT such as Bermuda and the tiny such as the Pitcairn Islands with a population of 48.  Each is British but with their own distinctive identity.  If you can make a better job of conveying that, I will listen but you seem to wish to chip away at words you don't like until you get to where you want to.  If its going to be a choice between what we have now and where you went to with your edit, my vote will be no.  WCM email 19:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually this article caught my attention because of how dry and uninteresting some of it is, so I do find it rather amusing that you think the flow and writing style is one of its best aspects. Aren't opinions just magical.
 * However, you are absolutely right, we do make a distinction based on the size of national entities. Which is why my analogy works: "sedans and hatchbacks" would be fine, "cars and small cars" is not. And guess what -- just as with cars, these differently-sized national entities have existing terminology. There is no need to keep unrecognised jargon like "mini-nations" because you think it sounds more poetic.
 * When I get time I will think of a replacement suggestion for the existing sentence based on your feedback, but I firmly believe it has to be changed. BananaBork (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with, there's no need to keep unclear concepts and wording when a better alternative exists. Also I'd ask to not revert using source as a reason, when source is actually a book of his authorship. WP:COI and WP:SPS comes to mind... -- Langus  TxT 02:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, I oppose it, so you would agree out of principle. Couldn't you find a constructive way to participate Langus. WCM email 07:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an ironic ending for a statement that seems to be saying "I have veto power".
 * Well yes, I do consider pointing out conflicts of interest and unreliable sources as constructive. It speaks volumes about you if don't agree. -- Langus TxT 03:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, Langus, you can continue to WP:ABF and have the WP:LASTWORD as always. Someone who has openly declared their identity on wikipedia does not have a WP:COI.  WCM email 08:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)