Talk:Self-determination: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:28, 13 September 2012 editGaba p (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,881 edits →Introducution of Bias by Edit Warring ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:52, 13 September 2012 edit undoLangus-TxT (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,919 edits →Introducution of Bias by Edit Warring: cmmtNext edit →
Line 150:		Line 150:
	:::Regarding the claim that I've not supplied any reference to Destefani, I refer to my post of the 27 May 2012 in ]. The problem is that wikipedia maintains a written record, so when you try and promulgate a falsehood the written record is readily at hand to prove you wrong. ] <small>]</small> 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)		:::Regarding the claim that I've not supplied any reference to Destefani, I refer to my post of the 27 May 2012 in ]. The problem is that wikipedia maintains a written record, so when you try and promulgate a falsehood the written record is readily at hand to prove you wrong. ] <small>]</small> 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
	::::Indeed WP keeps a written record which allows me to bring back what you wrote for everyone to see. This is what you quoted from Destéfani at the time: ''"Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos."''. Care to explain how is that a source for Britain '''not''' expelling the settlers? Because I cannot find the relevance. ] (]) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)		::::Indeed WP keeps a written record which allows me to bring back what you wrote for everyone to see. This is what you quoted from Destéfani at the time: ''"Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos."''. Care to explain how is that a source for Britain '''not''' expelling the settlers? Because I cannot find the relevance. ] (]) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
			{{od}}''"The settlement was not expelled, it was encouraged to remain"''. Yes, it was encouraged but not all of them accepted the "offer". The fact is that the settlement was partially expelled, and the armed garrison, fully expelled.

			I would also like to ask everyone to check ]. You will see that suggestions given there is '''against''' the way WCM likes to write about this (and as he is doing it here, once again).

			@WCM: please tell me how doesn't constitute ]... --] <small>(])</small> 01:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:52, 13 September 2012

Skip to table of contents

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers

Links from this article with broken #section links :
]

You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem

Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], ]

For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page.

Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Arvind Lavakare (April 5, 2005). "Catch up on history, Mr Aziz". Rediff.com.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ethnic groups Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations: United Nations / Law High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Self-determination article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

POV Disputation

The passive voice of so many critical phrases is the first clue that this article has serious POV problems. Another clue is that "the principle" of self determination is distinct from the phrase "self determination" or its articulaton as such but all those are conflated. The history of the principle of self determination is objectively as old as human social organization itself. Finally, Woodrow Wilson's "southern heritage" being addressed at such length -- amounts to little more than an ad hominem attack on the concept and principle of self determination. The fact that all of these violations of clarity and accuracy point to a devaluation of self determination makes a strong case that the article needs a complete rewite. --Jim Bowery 18:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC

This is true, but, when the new page is created, or reconstructed, please make a general definition section at the very begining to build upon durring the rest of the sectons, one i have found to be relable is the one from dicitionary.com.

Falklands / Malvinas Isl.

The incorporation of these islands in the article about the self-determination seems to me to be incorrect. First: the United Nations already have been sent on the topic clarifying in that it is necessary to to proceed to a process of decolonization of the same ones. Second: there are no doubts that the population of the same ones is well-established. Third: The mention to the comment of the Prime minister David Cameron, this one clearly out of place, not only is insulting for the intelligence of the readers of the article, since clearly it is a discredit argument, almost a joke of evil taste would say, since not only he ignores the history of his own country but he invents the history of other one. It is enough to see the articles about both countries and to consult his history and they will understand my point of view. Fourth: From the point of view of the article, any group of citizens implanted by different reasons in another territory (political, economic, etc), it would ha right to claim the self-determination, for example pakistani citizens in England, moroccans in Spain, up to th:e German citizens in checoslovaquia, polonia, during the third reich, explain clearly my point? --Hernan1483 (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong, and wikipedia is not censored to satisfy nationalist arguments of whatever persuasion. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He forgives, but I do not believe that you have understood me or is clearly well-read my comment. Precisely I refer to it, the article clearly presents nationalistic arguments, but the same one should not be present inside the self-determination, considering the Resolution 2065 of the year 1965: "The General Assembly, Having examined the question of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands), Having in it counts the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee entrusted to examine the situation with regard to the application of the Declaration on the concession of the independence to the countries and colonial peoples relating to the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) and especially the conclusions and recommendations approved by the same one relative to the above mentioned Territory, Thinking that his resolution 1514 (XV), of December 14, 1960, inspired by the longed intention of putting end to the colonialism everywhere and in all his forms, in one of which there is fitted the case of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands), 1. It invites the Governments of the Argentina and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue without delay the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee entrusted to examine the situation with regard to the application of the Declaration on the concession of the independence to the countries and colonial peoples in order to find a pacific solution to the problem, having due in it counts the dispositions and the aims of the Letter of the Close Nations and of the resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly, as well as the interests of the population of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands); 2.He asks both Governments to report to the Special Committee and to the General Assembly, in the twenty-first period of meetings, on the result of the negotiations. 1398a. Plenary session, on December 16, 1965."

Clearly the United Nations consider the situation of this archipelago as colonial. Then, to incorporate it into the article of self-determination, it is basically a political decision. For example, in the article Falklands Islands sovereignty disputes, the resolution of United Nations is mentioned only in 2 lines: "bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)."

He forgives, you do not think that the above mentioned omission answers to a nationalistic argument?--Hernan1483 (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Anything more than a couples sentences is WP:Undue. People should largely be referred to Falkland_Islands#Sovereignty_dispute. CarolMooreDC 03:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Again

I'll repeat what I said at WP:NPOVN. The article is about self-determination, the obsessive demand that we include the Argentine POV that an event in 1833 is viewed as an invasion is completely misplaced. The article should be a brief precis about the role of self-determination in relation to the Falkland Islands Dispute. That particular comment is completely and utterly irrelevant. Langus has reverted to a poorly written text that repeats the phrase "Argentine POV" no less than THREE times, TWICE in one paragaph. I'd edited the article to reframe the debate, describing the differing POV from a neutral perspective, based on academic sources. Instead we have a reversion to version of text spitting out the political POV of the Argentine Government repeatedly. We don't achieve NPOV by stating the POV of either the Argentine or British Governments, we achieve it by describing the debate from a neutral perspective. The WP:BATTLE mentality that is so obsessive about inserting the Argentine POV into each and every article has to stop and I'm getting mightily fed up with all of my edits being reverted by Langus and him following me from article to article as that is clearly hounding, it stops now or I'm going to take this to WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Introducution of Bias by Edit Warring

See Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 7 also Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Do we have to report a false claim as true from a certain POV for the background. Gaba p is once again trying to claim that an Argentine claim that is demonstrably false should be treated as equal to verifiable historical fact as it is "true" from the Argentine POV. Again no, that isn't NPOV, we present the facts from a neutral perspective. His edit ignores that the historical record (both Argentine and British) contradicts this information. Its an old argument he lost a long time ago, I would ask another editor to revert him as I don't wish to risk a block correcting an obviously false claim - btw he already broke 3RR. I won't be reverting again but rather obviously I would risk a block reporting him for edit warring. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh? I'm not using the talk page just as much as you are my friend. It's so amazingly funny how you assert that the source I'm referencing is a "false claim from a certain POV" but you didn't have a problem with that same source being used three lines belowby Moxy (go check) Wee, your continued claims that that British claim is a "verifiable historical fact" and the Argentinian claim is, well, a "claim" is nothing but an indicator of your clear bias (stand by for Wee's accusation of Projection bias) There is nothing neutral about you deciding which sources constitute facts and which ones merely a POV claim. Funny how you also accuse me of breaking the 3RR (which actually is a demonstrable lie) while it's you who reverted and edit-warred me in the first place and did so at least 3 times today. I agree with the neutrality template though. I think it would be better if details were left to the relevant section (Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute) rather than introducing this issue also here.

One more time Wee: just because you agree with those sources does not automatically make them facts, ok? Gaba p (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Do not paste comments as if they were my contributions, that is clearly attempting to create a false impression.

2. As you well know its WP:BRD, the onus is on YOU once reverted to take this to the talk page. You didn't, I did. You are edit warring to force your material into the article.

3. You've raised this ad nauseum, couldn't get a consensus and you're back trying to force it into the article again. This is the very definition of tendentious editing.

4. The only demonstrable lie is Argentina's false claim for political reasons of pursuing a modern sovereignty claim . This is not my personal opinion, I haven't decided what the sources say, its what the historical record shows. Allowing a false claim to be presented without commenting that it differs from what the historical record shows, demoting the historical record to be a British claim is introducing bias to favour a false claim.

5. It is a complete and utter falsehood to present this as a British claim, given that the historical record in Argentina and Britain is in agreement.

6. You are presenting a political claim as historical fact, that is demonstrably counter to our policy of presenting the facts from a NPOV.

7. The only person selecting sources they happen to agree with is yourself. Your edit is based on one source you happen to agree with and you're using it to make the article biased. Rather than reflecting the range of opinion in the literature. Just because you agree with that source doesn't make it a fact, nor does adding a source to a biased comment make it bullet proof as far as wikipedia is concerned. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

1- I pasted your comment which you addressed at me and then you removed (you do know people can go into the History section and check this for themselves, right?)

You have no right to paste my comment here and yes people can do that. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

But you have the right to edit your comments into mine, right? I wasn't aware of this "Wee can do it but you can't" new WP policy...

2- You use this guideline as an excuse to maintain (your) the status quo every time. I've tried talking things to the talk page before editing (anybody can check the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute history where I'm the one raising issues before changing anything) but stopped after realizing that you never use the talk page before editing, only once you are forced to by someone who refuses to agree with your ludicrous statements (like what's happening right now)

Accusations of bad faith don't help you. Multiple editors reverted you, because your edit was contrary to NPOV as it is now. Again the record is here, I initiated the talk page discussion twice, the onus was on you to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just like what is happening now in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, one of your dear friends spared you from reverting again by undoing my edits. He didn't even bother to give a reason by the way, although I would've accepted "because Wee says so" which is pretty much why he reverted.

3- No, I raised it once before in another article and you successfully managed to maintain the status quo in that one. That doesn't make you right, it's just a way to prove how you incur in WP:OWN time after time.

There is a link posted above to that dicussion, it had nothing to do with maintaining the status quo. You argued endlessly but failed to convince multiple editors, your repeated resort to accusation of bad faith don't help you one iota. Nor does the 3rd party opinion at WP:NPOVN which is against your edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The opinions at WP:NPOV were clearly supporting the position that you don't get to decide which sources present facts, rather you present sources period. You can keep saying those editors agreed with you but you can't change the written record Wee.

4- You don't get to decide what are lies and what are facts, no matter how much you might dislike Argentina and it's position on the matter.

No I don't, the sources do. What you're trying to do is force the article in a biased direction. And I don't dislike any particular nationality.

Except the source you want to remove states that it is a fact that the population was expelled and does so by quoting contemporary evidence. You not liking this fact is just another proof of where you stand on this issue (hint: you're nowhere near neutral my friend)

5- I added a source that stated evidence for a given claim, yet apparently you think you are in the position to decide that your sources (pro-British of course) are the ones presenting the facts.

No you didn't you cherry picked a source to support your edit and claiming Laurio H. Destefani is "Pro-British" is ridiculous. Claiming a biased source like Laver, presenting his opinion as fact, is not presenting the facts.

No I didn't cherry pick anything, that source was added by Moxy I just used it again. But you didn't contest Moxy's use of it, right?

6- No, I'm adding a source which happens to be a source you did not contest when another editor used it first.

The material is already sourced, its the biased edit that is the problem not the source. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The material is sourced with only the sources you want to show. My edit intends to reflect this conflict with sources. Your edit intends to vanish one source as a lie and leave only those sources you agree with as facts.

7- Funny how you say this when I'm the one trying to include a source and you are the one edit-warring to remove it.

See WP:DICK as in don't be one, trying to provoke other editors is deeply childish. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Insulting me gets you nowhere Wee. One more time, see WP:OWN and read it.

Again Wee: you don't get to decide which things are facts and which are lies. That's what sources are for, we reference them from a NPOV and nothing more. Your constant attempts at presenting the sources you agree with (pro-British sources) as the ones presenting facts and dismissing those stating anything else is a clear indicative of your position on the matter. I just don't know how else to say this so that you will understand it: it's not up to you to decide what is a fact and what is not. It cannot be that hard to comprehend. Gaba p (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

But what it seems impossible for you to understand, is that NPOV requires us to present ALL of the relevant facts in the literature, presented from a neutral perspective. You wish to present a demonstrably untrue statement as fact, a statement made for political rather than historic reasons. You're trying to demote historical facts to be a British claim, when as I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, the academic historical sources are in agreement. Your edit is a deliberate falsehood, the facts are the same on both sides. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to present ALL of the relevant facts in the literature, presented from a neutral perspective, how can you say this and at the same time be fighting to keep a reference out?? The reference is indisputable, that's agreed, so you must have other reasons to want to remove it. What would those reasons be Wee?

demonstrably untrue statement, you keep saying this. How is it demonstrable untrue? Do you have a time machine we can use to travel back in time and check for ourselves? What we do is rely on sources. What you don't seem to grasp is that simply because you agree with some sources that does not make other sources conflicting with those untrue. We present the facts that we obtain from the sources, if the facts conflict we inform this. We do not get to decide which set of sources state demonstrable facts and which ones demonstrable lies. We present all sources, ok? Now, again, what is your motive to attempt to remove a source other than you not agreeing with what it says? I'm guessing you have none, otherwise you'd have expressed it already. So please stop trying to maintain your version of the (any) article just because you feel entitled to (see WP:OWN) The source is perfectly valid and conflicting facts must be presented as such. Gaba p (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to ignore further personal attacks. Dealing with the only matter relevant to wikipedia. It is demonstrably untrue because the British, American and Argentine sources, indeed sources from all nationalities not that nationality is relevant, from the period show that Vernet's settlement was not expelled see Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 7 for an extensive demonstration of this supported by sources of all nationalities. In addition, referring to Laver p.20, I see nothing that supports your claim that he asserts as fact that the British expelled the settlement. Even were that the case, we don't have to report an untrue claim in one source as fact see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Do we have to report a false claim as true from a certain POV. Again to repeat, we achieve a NPOV by presenting facts from a neutral perspective not based on any particularly nationality.

The historical record is in agreement here, the settlement was not expelled; the only people to leave was the mutinous garrison from a penal colony that existed less than 3 months. Further again your assertion it is a British claim is untrue as again sources from all nationalities reflect the same material. That edit is completelty unsustainable from the perspective of verifiability never mind WP:NPOV and you know it. I note you simply claim it is a British POV and repeatedly ignore the fact that the sources are in agreement here. Your edit isn't sourced.

Now your edit has been challenged, you can't satisfy WP:V never mind WP:NPOV it should be self-reverted immediately. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Time for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment?Moxy (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely any edit needs to be WP:V? This one isn't and at this point its been edit warred into the article. Happy for an RFC, especially given the comments the last time this went to WP:NPOVN, but the article needs to be at the last stable consensus surely? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree - stable version till talk is over. As for the contested statements - is the info found in multiple sources - or just in one place?Moxy (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a confusion. The historical record is in agreement ie there is no controversy there. Like I said, I'm happy for this to go to an RFC, as I can demonstrate it conclusively. I don't actually refer to any nationality but Gaba p's edit is totally misleading for the simple reason he is presenting this as a solely British claim. It isn't. For information, I quote Destefani, 127,000 copies of this book were printed in 1982 and distributed free to schools and universities throughout the world. It was intended to give the historical basis for Argentina's claim, whilst its bias is obvious to any reader, it does show this claim to be FALSE. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently only the historical record you agree with is in agreement and the historical record presented by me is not verifiable. Leaving aside the fact that you are now trying to wikilawyer a source out (and that you attempted to WP:TAGTEAM by leaving a message to one of your editor friends) I'll just copy/paste comments from the NPOV board:

"contemporary historical record" from 1833 needs to be interpreted, even if it is argentine records. So when you state that contemporary historical record shows the claim to be true you are leaving out the question of who it is that is stating that this is the case. Presumably current pro-Argentinian experts makes no such claim? The fact that we are reporting is "...Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833". Which is an uncontested, and easily sourced, fact, ie. nobody is claiming that Argentina is not claiming this. NPOV requires us to report all significant views, and the Argentine view is certainly germane to this discussion, so we can not leave it out. Taemyr (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this... first we (Misplaced Pages editors) should not be interpreting "contemporary historical records from 1833"... that is known as Original research... what we should do is report on the interpretation of published historians. As for POV... we don't report on the claims from an Argentinian POV - we report on both the Argentinian and British claims from a Neutral POV. To put this another way: We (Misplaced Pages editors) must be neutral when reporting on the non-neutral claims of our sources. The best way to do this is through attribution. Tell the reader exactly who says what. For example... we might say: "Argentinian historian Juan Doe Y Smith contends that the Islands contained an Argentinian population that was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833 . British historian Jane Jones disagrees and contends that the islands were unoccupied at the time ." (note... ... obviously, I am making this up here... you would have to adjust the exact wording to match what the sources actually do say). Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(emphasis added)

Now I'm not sure how Wee can interpret these comments as favorable to his position (I'm sure he doesn't, he just throws lies around hoping nobody will actually take the time and effort to go check) Both comments clearly say that it is not our place to interpret neither sources nor contemporary documents. We present all sources and facts and do not decide which ones are true facts and which ones are not, that is called original research and it's what Wee is doing here.

It is demonstrably untrue because the British, American and Argentine sources ... from the period show that Vernet's settlement was not expelled <-- Prime example of Wee's OR. You are coming to that conclusion after examining the sources you choose to assign the status of true. If those sources say population was not expelled, then we present that fact. But we don't hide other sources which present different facts just because you don't like them. That's dishonest. If you say this fact is not a British claim then we can agree that the opposite fact (stated in the source I proposed) is also not an Argentinian claim. You can't have it both ways, they are bot either contradicting facts or they are both claims. Your British bias in the Falklands dispute is not a compelling factor to give more weight to one source over another.

referring to Laver p.20, why would you refer to Laver when I referencing Oliveri López?

I'm happy for this to go to an RFC, as I can demonstrate it conclusively, I've told you already you should write a book with all this conclusions and facts and then reference that book. Until then it constitutes WP:OR and it is not acceptable.

I quote Destefani ... it does show this claim to be FALSE, could you please copy/paste where in the book it states that the population was not expelled from the island? I've asked you for this before but you never did.

I agree with RFC. Gaba p (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It was me who provided relevant quotes by Destéfani and others, in Origins of Falkland Islanders#Early settlers. No need to repeat that time and again. Apcbg (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Apcbg that article has some issues, thanks for bringing it to my attention. This particular sentence is problematic: On 5 January 1833, at the moment when the remaining Argentine military abandoned the islands, 27 of the original Vernet settlers and 2 temporary residents remained in Port Louis.. According to sources like the one I presented here, the population didn't abandon the islands, they were actually expelled. The choice of words in that article is quite biased towards the British position and should be fixed. Also reference is a dead link.

The source used here as a supposed source for the 27 members of Vernet's colony were still in residence in the islands in July 1833 actually says absolutely nothing about that (but you and Wee reverted my edit that fixed this nonetheless) and even more it states: ..on 2 January 1833 they arrived at Port Louis ... Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag. Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands. So here's another source for the expulsion.

I'm not sure what's your point, but Destéfani is used in that article to reference the statement: in 1838 the then single settlement of Port Louis had a population of 40-45 residents including some gauchos and women from among Luis Vernet’s settlers. What does this have to do with the 1833 incident? Does Destéfani state anywhere that in 1833 the population was not actually expelled? Gaba p (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh here we go again. Huge reams of argumentative text making accusations and quibbling about sources. Again I re-iterate, something that you're wilfully ignoring to misrepresent my position, I am not interpreting the historical record I am reporting what the sources say. This is NOT my opinion, I reflect what the sources say.

Yes you are interpreting the historical record. Reporting what the sources say means exactly that: reporting what the sources say. You are unilaterally deciding which sources represent facts and which do not. That is WP:OR. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There were 2 resident populations in the Falkland Islands in January 1833.

1) The settlement established in 1828 by Luis Vernet, somewhat depleted after most of the population took the opportunity to leave as a result of the Lexington raid in 1831.

2) The garrison and prisoners of the penal colony that arrived in 1832. The garrison had mutinied, killing their commander and released the prisoners. This had been in the islands for less than 3 months.

The Argentine claim is that the entire population was expelled and replaced by Britons, which is then used to justify its modern sovereignty claim i.e. Argentina claims that both the garrison, prisoners and the settlement was expelled.

It is no more an Argentinian claim than the settlers not being expelled is a British claim. Again see WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You'll be doing us all a favor giving it a good read. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is untrue. No one disputes that Onslow requested that the Argentine garrison was requested to leave and they did so. However, the settlement was not expelled, it was encouraged to remain. That this was the case is in Pinedo's report, the captain of the ARA Sarandi, corroborated by Thomas Helsby (Vernet's clerk), Onslow's orders, Onslow's report, the log of HMS Clio, the accounts of Darwin and Fitzroy, the census records in the Falkland Islands. Interpreting primary sources, secondary sources document this claim to be false.

Here you go, from the López source: "Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...". This is called a source for a fact, just like your sources for your facts. It can't be made any more clear than that. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are deliberately misrepresenting what the sources say to provide a biased account. You're trying to obfuscate the situation by referring to the request for the garrison to leave, as the expulsion of the resident population.

Read comment above. You are cherry-picking sources (those that go better with your pro-British claim). Not me. I'm trying to keep all the sources for both claims, you on the other hand, are trying to have a source you don't like removed. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant Lopez not Laver but I would guess you knew that. (No I did not, why should I?) Pray how does Lopez support your assertion this is a British claim rather than documented history? (It does not, it's a source for the expulsion of the settlers which makes the British fact a claim just like your sources make the Argentinian fact a claim.) And btw Lopez was an Argentine ambassador, not a historian. (Wee desperate = Wikilawyering = irrelevant = yawn) Wee Curry Monster talk 21:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that I've not supplied any reference to Destefani, I refer to my post of the 27 May 2012 in Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 7. The problem is that wikipedia maintains a written record, so when you try and promulgate a falsehood the written record is readily at hand to prove you wrong. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed WP keeps a written record which allows me to bring back what you wrote for everyone to see. This is what you quoted from Destéfani at the time: "Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos.". Care to explain how is that a source for Britain not expelling the settlers? Because I cannot find the relevance. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"The settlement was not expelled, it was encouraged to remain". Yes, it was encouraged but not all of them accepted the "offer". The fact is that the settlement was partially expelled, and the armed garrison, fully expelled.

I would also like to ask everyone to check Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Do_we_have_to_report_a_false_claim_as_true_from_a_certain_POV. You will see that suggestions given there is against the way WCM likes to write about this (and as he is doing it here, once again).

@WCM: please tell me how this doesn't constitute WP:CANVASSING... --Langus (t) 01:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories: