Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:17, 14 February 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 10 days

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

Military history: South America This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  South American military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. South America: Argentina / Falklands High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America 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.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Argentina (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as High-importance).

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

International position

The position of third countries or international organizations on the sovereignty of the islands is varied. Whilst some countries consider it a bilateral issue, others maintain neutrality but call on both countries to resolve the dispute through peaceful means or to begin dialogue. Some countries support outright either the British or the Argentine claim.

The UN has issued several resolutions calling the UK to resolve the dispute through dialog with Argentina. Britain rejects this calls claiming the resolutions are "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future"

Both the USA and the EU maintain a neutral position encouraging both parties to resolve differences through normal diplomatic channels. The Commonwealth of nations and the EU list the islands as a British overseas country or territory..

The majority of Latin American states back Argentina in its claim for sovereignty and have repeatedly endorsed Argentine proposals calling the United Kingdom to restart the negotiations.. China has also repeatedly endorsed the Argentinian claim over the islands.

The Spanish government has supported Argentina's call for negotiations over sovereignty and has expressed so in the framework of the Ibero-American summit, the UN and the OAS.

• Here's the proposed section. Feel free to point amendments. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I this is the starting point, then I propose that we drop it and start from scratch. I don't think there's a single point in there that is acceptable to me on the basis of the sources I have seen about the dispute. Kahastok talk 21:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of proposing to once again drop the section, why not address the issues you have with it separately? The section is factored in blocks as to be able to address them one by one. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say we should drop the section, I said we should drop this as a starting point for discussion. It's far too long. It does not in any sense follow the WP:WEIGHT provided by those reliable sources on the subject that address the point. It gives too much WP:WEIGHT to the section as a whole. I don't believe the section contains a single point that meets even adequate standards of neutrality - from the failure to include the nuances and limits in Latin American positions (those nuances are pretty much the most important points based on this source) to the UN's "several resolutions" that turn out not to have anything to do with what most readers are going to understand by a United Nations "resolution" (that would be the General Assembly or Security Council). As I say, I really don't think there's a thing in there that I can support.

And as such I really don't think it's somewhere we should be starting. Our best option would be to drop this completely and find a better place to start. Kahastok talk 22:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that as a useful starting point either, it certainly doesn't correspond with the paper identified by Irondome. What is needed is a brief, neutral and concise proposal giving weight due to the literature. I don't believe this fits the bill at all. I don't think it needs much more than:

Even the above I think is lending more weight to the subject than the literature would tend to suggest. I would suggest it needs to be more concise - the above can be cited to the source suggested by Irondome in the main. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets get back to basics, to coin a phrase.

• What is the purpose of the section?
• What is the most we can say, covering all noteworthy events, in the least possible space?

I would suggest we use the Lindgquist article as a basic structural frame. For now. Irondome (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the above paragraph. This is all we need really I would argue. Just a short, roundoff section. It really isnt that controversial.Irondome (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba do we need no less than 10 seperate cites to state that the SA nations support As stance? Its serious overkill.Irondome (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We are making good progress here. Gabas proposal in terms of length is a reasonable opening bid. Now if we can merge the best of both Wee and Gabas drafts, and cut the cites, to my mind OTT numbers, we would be in business. Irondome (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Irondome no we don't need that much sources, we can just pick a few. About Wee's proposal:

1. First paragraph (present in my proposal too): it mainly makes a number of vague WP:OR statements not supported by the sources in place and takes up space. I say we loose it.
2. "in part due to its own domestic political situation", this implies that all Argentina is after is a distraction from economic problems and it's an attempt to downplay the claim.
3. "the region is generally lukewarm to appeals from Argentina", this "lukewarm" thing could only be sourced by that article and it's again an attempt to downplay the Latin American support that can be sourced to countless summits (OAS, Ibero-American, UNASUR, RIO Summit, etc..) Furthermore the article refers to the 6th Summit of the Americas, were a joint statement regarding the backing of the Argentinian position was hindered by the US and Canada (2 out of 34 countries present) We can't mention the first without mentioning the second so I say we re-phrase it.
4. The mention of Spain and that "its support has cooled" is dubious, but largely acceptable.
5. "The British Commonwealth supports the British position", can you source this? All I've found (currently present in the article) is a primary source from the Commonwealth's site that says nothing about "supporting", it merely lists it as an OCT. So basically: source needed.
6. "EU recognises the islands as a British Overseas Territory", again the same thing. The EU doesn't "recognize" them as British territory, they "list" them as such because the UK added them to the Lisbon Treaty. The neutral position of the EU can be sourced which would make this sentence quite deceptive.
7. Why is there no mention of the UN?

Given this caveats, I propose this compromise:

I believe this to be a reasonable middle ground and it's even shorter than the previous proposed edit. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to it: I had some of the concerns you addressed above. I would agree to the above version, noting only that EU's official policy of neutrality needs referencing. --Langus (t) 01:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There's two sources for that that I've found so far: . Pretty sure more can be found. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see that as a reasonable middle ground in its current form. The UN C24 is a a sub-committee of the UN IV Committee. Typically the sub-committe issues a annual statement, without a vote, and not one has been adopted by the IV Committee in years. The IV Committee itself only issues recommendations to the UN GA. The C24 itself is dominated by Latin American countries, so in effect the notional support of Latin America is being counted twice. The UN itself has not issued a GA resolution since 1988 (will check that date but it has been a while). Several Argentine attempts to have GA resolutions passed have failed miserably. And finally, Argentina typically misrepresents UN C24 statemensts as "UN resolutions", which they are not.

In addition, the UK has not rejected UN resolutions, it rejects the C24 statements as flawed. Neither does it refuse to negotiate, it has stated it will only negotiate with Argentina with the consent of the islanders. Argentina claims to want to talk to the UK but only on its terms, only today after demanding talks with the UK, and the UK having acceded to that request did Argentina rebuff the offer when it found FIG representatives would be present.

So the statements attributed to the UN situation are inaccurate. The situation is nowhere as simple as that edit portrays.

Neutral commentators do mention that Argentina's diplomatic agenda is driven by internal political considerations. It in no way downplays the claim but it explains in part the reason for it. I see no reason to not mention it.

Also Latin America expresses support and not a lot else, we have a neutral academic source that comments on this, why not mention it. After all we would wish to overstate the support enjoyed for reasons of neutrality; you could hardly claim I over exaggerated the British support, though I note you've attempted to downplay it and yes it can be cited.

I have to note with some regret that the process agreed to in formulating this section is not being followed. If we're going to cut it down might I suggest in response:

I'm suggesting again a change in title, as it is the section is not about the position of other nations. I feel this is a much better fit. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I do like International Dimension. I think we should cut the UN C24 stuff a bit. Why havent they visited the FI if they are balanced? I propose that can be explored further slightly. Any sources to explain this that you have G? Im afraid I wont be able to give any more coherent responses tonight as im discussing things with mr Strongbow (cider) and im still concerned about my 88year old mothers health, which I may have alluded to. I seem to have slipped into the role of carer unawares. It doesnt help my rather frayed nerves which I have been battling with for 5 years. (Long story)

Bottom line is im a bit mentally tired. But lets keep going. "All shall come right" on this, to quote Jan Smuts. Good night lads. Irondome (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to argue that the UN committee for decolonization isn't relevant regarding the sovereignty dispute of a former colony listed as a "Non-Self-Governing Territories". Wee if you feel some countries are being counted twice then this can be addressed. Your own feelings about Argentina misrepresenting anything are irrelevant. We are not misrepresenting anything here, the committee is being mentioned, not the UN as a whole.

@Irondome: do you want to cut or expand on the UN C24? The fact that they haven't visited the islands can be mentioned but this would only expand that paragraph.

Again, this "in part due to its own domestic political situation" is a POV push and is not acceptable due to it being an obvious attempt at downplaying the Argentinian position. Let's do this: you bring in the "neutral" commentators that say this and we discuss it.

Care to present your sources for the Commonwealth and the EU "recognizing" the islands as British territory? As I've noted, there is a huge difference between "recognizing" and merely "listing. You know as well as I do that the EU's neutral position can be easily sourced and that it only lists the islands because the UK put them there. This is just silly arguing.

International "dimension" sounds like we are purposely trying to make the section vague. There's nothing wrong with "position" since we are actually mentioning positions.

Following Wee's new proposed edition, here's a new compromise:

Again, this is a much shorter version than the original one and one that presents only the most relevant positions, largely based on Irondome's source as suggested. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we suggest that there is an inbuilt bias to the C24 stance? Your wording intimates it, so I would be realitively comfortable with that. In some ways it reminds me of the automatic majority of the O.I.C. members in the UN GA re: I/P. I am not suggesting for a sec the motivations or intentions are in any way similar, but there are parallels. But thats for our own reflections, not the section. I would suggest "maintains" to substitute "claims" re the UK position on the C24 declarations. The C24 stance does seem to be ignoring the inherent right of self determination. There does seem to be an element of double standards in their approach. I would suggest reducing the number of C24 cites to maybe 2-3 max. Again, a bit of overkill would seem to be present to an uninitiated reader. Yeah I would try to precis the C24 stuff down a bit further. Cheers. Irondome (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously going to stay out of the content arguments so as to remain neutral. However I did want to say that it is pleasing to see the different sides here working collaboratively towards a compromise. It seems there has already been agreement from the main parties that a section is justified even if significantly shorter than before which seems to be a huge improvement from the time of the RfC. This back and forth with concrete proposals and commenting only on the issue at hand rather than the editors themselves is the way forward and probably has the best chance of reaching a compromise. If a compromise can't be reached then at least there should be better defined questions for an RfC. If it is felt necessary to start another RfC to break a deadlock can I suggest that interested parties try to reach agreement on the RfC statement before posting it as this will be more likely to lead to a solution that everyone accepts even if it's not the one they desire. I'd like to suggest that editors refrain from commenting on other editors and accept that they have different views. If a compromise can't be reached on an issue I would suggest that the way forward may best be for the sides to admit this before temperatures get too hot and to leave that question for a later RfC once a full list of disagreements had been reached. I'm in no way dictating this way forward and if the parties agree to a different way forward that will likely be better still. I'm just trying to suggest ways to avoid what happened before. Dpmuk (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A mentioned of the UN was requested, not the C24, and I've indicated why I don't think the reference to the C24 should receive quite such prominence. The C24 is not a body that has any real power, it exists to make recommendations to the IV committee, which has ignored it for years. Its also a body that has been widely criticised as no longer fit for purpose; as many commentators observe the devolved Government of BOT should have led to their delisting some time ago. As noted above the C24 also has an inbuilt bias. Your edit isn't representing a middle ground or a neutral viewpoint, its presenting facts selectively.

You also use a provocative term describing my comment on Argentine domestic politics as a "POV push". You also assert this is an attempt to downplay Argentine reasons for doing so. Please note that this derives from the source Irondome suggested, it isn't a personal viewpoint and its a common observation by commentators. Mention of this reflects the WP:WEIGHT of opinion in the literature. There is a compelling reason for including it, it explains why Argentina pursues the course it does. And noting my next point, I give a good policy based reason for the inclusion of such a comment, if it isn't to be mentioned give a reason that is not a veiled personal attack on the original author please.

In addition, I did not express a personal opinion, I stated a fact. Argentina makes a great deal of fuss about wanting talks, the truth is rather different. Note also I was commenting on your edit, which does not present a NPOV, its misleading and does not paint an accurate picture. Can we please move away from the constant reiteration of the same position if you wish to achieve a consensus.

Again please note my comments on the edit, not the editor. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

{{cquote| International dimension

Why are will still trying to claim that calling for negotiations is supporting Argentinians claims to the islands?Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point.

How is that better? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The position of most Latin American countries is of clear support for the Argentinian sovereignty claim. I see you are still not convinced about this, so let me present another source, this one from the UK Parliament's site itself: Argentina and the Falklands

• Latin American countries generally, and all those in MERCOSUR (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, with associate members Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Peru) support Argentina’s claims in the sovereignty dispute (although Guatemala also supports the principle of self-determination), along with China, Syria, Tunisia, Congo and Russia.

• On 23 February 2010 Latin America and Caribbean leaders in the Rio Group of 32 countries concluded a two-day summit in Mexico by showing solidarity with Argentina over the Falklands, reaffirming what they called the "legitimate rights of the republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain".

• Mercosur’s support for the Argentinean claim goes back to 25 June 1996, when Mercosur Member States, plus Bolivia and Chile, expressed in the Declaration of Potrero de los Funes their full support for Argentina’s "legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute related to the Question of the Malvinas Islands".

• The launch of another Latin–American grouping, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which has voiced its support for the Argentinean sovereignty claim, has added to the growing number of South American countries and organisations which support the Argentinean position.

• At the Rio Group meeting at which CELAC was agreed, it was very clear that the new grouping intended to press for a resumption of UK-Argentina talks about sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, and that CELAC firmly supported the latter’s claim.

@Wee: once again I note that you refuse to leave the EU position as neutral and keep using the word "recognizes" for it and the Commonwealth. This is inaccurate to say the least. Present sources please.
The committee for decolonization needs to be mentioned in an article about the dispute for a former colony, it's of complete relevance. What you think personally about the committee and its usefulness is frankly irrelevant. Please see "3.3 The Falklands at the United Nations" of Argentina and the Falklands, the mention of this committee is even given its own section.

The comment about "Argentina's domestic politics" is inflammatory and directly aimed at downplaying their claim. Argentina upholds its own constitution, let me quote the UK parliament again (Argentina and the Falklands):

• This Note looks briefly at the government in Argentina under Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who has pursued the Argentinean claim to sovereignty of the Falkland Islands as a constitutional mandate.
  

(emphasis added)

Furthermore, comments on Argentina's political/economical "interests" in the dispute would obviously have to be met with comment's on British "interests" in the dispute (ie: oil) which would only make the section bigger. In any case, please present your sources so we can take a look at them.

I'll present the version proposed fully sourced which I see as the shorter compromise possible. I note in the article I presented here (Argentina and the Falklands) the section International and regional views (incidentally a very good and sourced title, what do you think?) which gives quite a bit of relevance to Mercosur, UNASUR and CELAC. It can hardly be argued to be a pro-Argentinian source and it clearly points to an indisputable support for the Argentinian position by Latin American countries, so it could be also used as a source for such.

Not all sources need to be used in the final version of course. Finally: Wee please present a version fully sourced if you wish to make any amendments. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

On the basis of your own opinion, you assert it is inflammatory to link Argentina's domestic politics to its pursuit of its sovereignty claim. This is not an acceptable route to decide content, we decide content on the weight and range of opinions expressed in the literature. That you have identified a secondary reason is not sufficient to suppress another.

You also allege, that it is downplaying Argentina's claim. I simply don't see this in the slightest. You need to find a good reason to not include it, simply repeating the same reason over and again is simply an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, ignoring a policy based argument an example of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.

I have given a good policy based argument for not following the description you ascribe to the C24, namely it is presenting a one sided and misleading view. You keep repeating the same text and ignoring the point made. This isn't helpful either, note I compromised to accommodate a point you made, you're not bending in the slightest.

I deliberately did not ascribe a policy of neutrality to the EU, as whilst certain individuals may claim it, I cannot find an official declaration passed as a motion by the EU Parliament. Perhaps you are aware of one, I am not. Hence, the WP:OPINION of individuals does not make it a WP:FACT. I don't think WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is appropriate here, as we are declaring a position held by a body.

May I also observe that whilst I can source any comment I make, we're discussing content here to represent the weight of opinion in the literature. And we're trying to reflect the weight in a source and you agreed to this approach. I note that you are still using numerous sources as a means to add additional content and I believe this to be counter to the proposal for a concise and neutral text. Hence,

I'm keeping it compact, I include the reference to the C24 and the 1994 constitution. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No Wee, you are clearly engaging in WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I commented on each of the issues you presented. Here they go again, one by one this time:

• If you wish to make a mention to Argentina's political/economic "reasons" for the claim please present what neutral sources say this. This is the third time I ask for this.
• Any mention of Argentina's political/economic "reasons", as per WP:NPOV, will have to be met with a mention of British own political/economic "reasons" (ie: oil) If you think this is the right path then: please present your sources and we move forward from there on.
• Your mention of the C24 is so biased it's of no use. Things like "lobbies", "dominated", "allies", etc.. have to be perfectly sourced to even begin considering adding them to the article. You know this is a very sensitive issue, those words are inflammatory and bound to raise issues. My mention of the C24 is perfectly sourced (yours is not) and completely NPOV (yours is not).
• You just keep using the word "recognizes" for the EU and the Commonwealth. Again do you have sources for this? It can't be that hard to realize there's a clear WP:OR going on here. The correct word is "list" and there's a big difference between the two in a sovereignty dispute (as you of course know very well).
• The neutral position of the EU is perfectly sourced. If you wish to contest those sources we can open a ticket at RSN. Should we do that?
• The title you propose is vague. The title I propose is accurate and can even be sourced.

I note you did not make any mention to the article I presented (Argentina and the Falklands) where the international position is covered and summits like Mercosur, UNASUR, CELAC, etc are given considerable WP:WEIGHT. Should we add mentions of these in the section? If not: why not?

I present a lot of sources so editors can see where a statement is coming from, that does not mean we have to use all of them in the final version (third time I say this?) Your version with absolutely no sources is of no use, you know we have to source everything we say and even more so in a delicate issue like this one. Could you please present a fully sourced version so editors can take a look at the sources you propose?

As to not repeat the same edit, I refer readers to the last version I proposed as the most suitable for the reasons presented here. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusing each other of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is unhelpful and inflammatory. If you read that page you'll notice that it says it applies when someone ignores the consensus or the community. Here it seems clear to me that we have no consensus and instead we have two people disagreeing and this is not a case of IDONTHEARTHAT. Likewise accusing each other of WP:NPOV violations is also not helpful as it seems clear to me that both sides believe their view is NPOV. I suggest both of you accept that you're never going to get the other person to agree with you about the underlying principles and instead work on a compromise. You both obviously have strongly held views but that shouldn't stop you accepting that other people have valid, and different, views.

I also note that both of you have used language that is likely to inflame. A comment like "You keep repeating the same text and ignoring the point made. This isn't helpful either, note I compromised to accommodate a point you made, you're not bending in the slightest." is unhelpful as it is accusatory. Instead of saying that you could have asked for them to explain why they disagree with you on that point and left it at that. You may think your statement is truthful but regardless of whether it is or not it's not going to help reach a solution. Likewise "Your mention of the C24 is so biased it's of no use. ... My mention of the C24 is perfectly sourced (yours is not) and completely NPOV (yours is not)." is also unhelpful for somewhat similar reasons. I would suggest not presenting your opinion as fact (e.g. say I think mine is perfectly sourced and NPOV whereas I don't think yours is) as you obviously disagree on these issue and to point out specific issues you have. Just saying it's not NPOV is not helpful. That's simply one example from each of you - I could have chosen several more. Please try to stay cool here, accept you have differences of opinion and use wording that reflects this.

I notice that both your drafts have some similarities. Why don't you agree what bits you are both OK with and then agree on the bits you disagree with each other over. Once that is done you could move on to an agreed upon RfC or some other way of getting more input. Dpmuk (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, let's keep things cool. I for one apologize for implying bias and POV in Wee's edit, that's certainly not helpful ever.

I've tried to be specific with the bits I disagree with on Wee's version. Primarily, his version needs sources. After he presents them we can move forward to try and find a consensus. Regards and thanks for the suggestions Dpmuk. Gaba p (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Lets just carry on. Lots of new material to digest, few bits to do, so gimmie a while. Its actually looking ok. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding sources:

You'll note I hope I found a cite for the EU position. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

See below, I've proposed a few sidebar discussions. If anyone considers me mistaken please say so. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sidebar 1

Is the phrase "lobbies" a loaded term? I don't consider it is and I will WP:AGF that this is down to a language confusion.

See Lobbying and and .

Looking for outside feedback Gaba, hopefully you might believe someone else. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a loaded term, or at least you believe it is: when you are involved in a dispute with other editors and you comment on the behavior of those editors, you systematically use the verb "lobbied" to describe their actions. See examples. It is absolutely unacceptable. --Langus (t) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Really Langus such childish behaviour isn't helping, it seems calculated to try and raise the tension nothing more. And in none of those examples is lobbied used as a loaded term. Please try and comment on content rather than turning every discussion into a point scoring pissing contest. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I am talking about content. That word is unacceptable. --Langus (t) 15:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Lobbies" is actually the most appropriate word to use. I have no idea why you think this is unacceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It has possible negative implications, although I reckon not necessarily. But don't you think we must be extra careful in articles like this?

That WCM uses it when argumenting against other editors (and in no other situations) proves my point. I won't accept such word. If we'd have reliable sources about this whole "cause-effect" idea we wouldn't be discussing the word "lobbying" in the first place... --Langus (t) 16:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How WCM uses the word is irrelevant. It is absolutely the correct word. No similar word or synonym would make any sense. Any negative connotations you perceive are unfortunate, but don't change the fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Now its "possible negative implications" but what are these negative implications? I keep asking and the personal attacks aren't helpful. "I won't accept such word." Well doesn't that demonstrate a lack of willingness to compromise. I'm left bewildered by this assertion that somehow this is something I've invented, given the presence of Argentina at the Decolonization committee is heralded as one of Argentina's great diplomatic triumphs. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What are those negative implications? You tell me, you are the one who uses it against other people.

Here's an idea: show me a source that uses precisely this word to describe Argentina's actions in the C24 and we'll work from there. --Langus (t)

Langus, that comment could well be described as trolling, seriously stop it, you're making yourself look stupid. A source, , presumably you consider that when I refer to the Falkland Islands Lobby in the UK Parliament I'm being negative too - just for consistency. Really why is every non-issue transformed into such a drama fest? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The answer is that there is no negative connotation that I can see - unless the act of lobbying in a given situation is perceived negatively. And if the act is perceived negatively, then that perception will be there regardless of how we describe it. Kahastok talk 17:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The "source" is Cameron himself. After my use of a source quoting Foreign Minister Timerman was dismissed as "POV" and "non neutral" attempting this is just silly. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a gross misinterpretation of the source. Here's the paragraph:

"His comments came on the 30th anniversary of the end of the 1982 Falklands War and shortly after Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner lobbied a United Nations' decolonisation committee to arrange talks over sovereignty of the islands."

Those words are from Defence Management, and not from Cameron. Although Cameron is quoted in the previous paragraph of that article, "lobbied" is a word chosen by the author of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Other sources: "Mrs Kirchner lobbied", "Kirchner lobbies", "Canada confirms Falklands self determination despite lobbying from companies operating in Argentina" - any variation of "lobby" is appropriate here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I read the article quickly and missed that. Thanks Scjessey for providing those sources, all of them appear to give "lobby" quite a neutral meaning. I'd only object the last one since its the companies making the lobbying there, in any case it's enough with the rest. Regards Gaba p (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sidebar 2

Is mentioning Argentine domestic politics in any way denigrating or diluting the claims. It is simply noted as a motivation. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the source, it is a common oversimplification. We would be better off avoiding it altogether.

"It is almost universally held that the junta invaded the islands in order to divert attention from their mismanagement of the economy, but this is an oversimplification. Now, after some 30 years of democratic governance, it is easy to repeat the simplification and apply it to the Kirchner administration." --Langus (t) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Again is it denigrating or diluting the claims? It is noted as an almost universally held opinion. QED for inclusion per WP:WEIGHT. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a common oversimplification i.e. erroneous opinion, you are advocating for Misplaced Pages spreading misinformation. Do you really feel we need to be discussing this in an overhaul of the "international position" section? Do you really think this is critical to this section? Speculation about motives (Argentines or British) should be left aside. We'll never reach consensus otherwise. --Langus (t) 15:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Oversimplification does not imply an erroneous opinion, it simply indicates there other other factors. Its not misinformation or speculation as you attempt to portray. And yes I do think it should be included as the majority of commentators make the link and so per weight we should too. I would imagine our readers would like to know why Argentina is pressing the claim when it has so many pressing issues affecting it. I don't think the criteria for NPOV or weight mentions obstruction of editors. If you don't wish for it to be included, then you have to present a logical argument - then we can reach a consensus. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have done it, you didn't hear it. It seems you have no intention of getting around this issue, it's your way or no way, and further on tangentially related content. --Langus (t) 16:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait, are you really arguing that not including this side comment would be against WP:NPOV?? --Langus (t) 16:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The pantomime "Oh yes I have, Oh no you haven't" impression doesn't help. I have every intention of discussing this reasonably. Shall I present a number of sources also saying exactly the same thing, with a look at the size of my sources comment? I've suggested in a reasonable manner why I believe its reasonable to include it, its been dismissed on the false premise of denigrating Argentine claims and now you're throwing up your hands asserting I'm being unreasonable. Inclusion of the section of iteslef represents a major concession and compromise on my part, I've also compromised on what can be included, I don't think the C24 should be mentioned. This I think should be, simply because just about every source comments on it. Now if you think its only telling half the story, help us tell the full story. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sidebar 3

The C24 comments because Argentine lobbies for it to comment. It doesn't examine the issue for any other reason. I suggest cause and effect should be mentioned. Simply stating it issues a resolution is not explaining the matter to our readers. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to ask for a source, otherwise the "cause and effect" would be WP:OR. Personally, I find it hard to believe that Argentina has so much power over the C24 or its members as to be the cause of its resolutions. --Langus (t) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you really feel that is a helpful comment? If Argentina didn't lobby there would be no comment. Its utter nonsense to suggest this is WP:OR. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It sort of doesn't matter how much power Argentina has over the C24, because the C24 is a meaningless talking shop that just burps up the same tired nonsense every so often. The C24 doesn't speak for the UN as a whole, and their "resolutions" carry little weight. It is important that any text in the article doesn't misrepresent comments from the C24 as being from the UN itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@Wee: but I do, and yes I think it's helpful. WP:BURDEN is on you. --Langus (t) 15:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I presume the Argentine Government is an acceptable source? The c24 covers the Falklands dispute because Argentina insisted on it. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Failed verification: no cause-effect implied. Or at least I couldn't find it. It says:

"En los años posteriores la Asamblea aprobó Resoluciones similares: la 41/40 en 1986, 42/19 en 1987 y la 43/25 en 1988. En adelante, el Comité Especial de Descolonización, con la posterior aprobación de la Asamblea General ha venido adoptando anualmente hasta el presente las Resoluciones sobre la Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas, en las que se reitera el llamado a las partes a reanudar las negociaciones a fin de encontrar una solución pacífica a la controversia de soberanía". Emphasis mine. --Langus (t) 16:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Langus, that source from the Argentine Government doesn't state that the words "case and effect". Playing semantic games really is not in the least bit helpful. It states that it lobbied the UN Decolonization Committee to state its case. The source supports the argument its considered at the UN C24 because Argentina lobbied for it. Please stop being so childish. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't mean the exact words but the idea. You are proposing that "the C24 comments because Argentine lobbies for it to comment". I.e. that the C24 comments are the product of a lobby (which would be far more than to just state a case) from Argentina.

Can't you just point me in the right direction??? Copy-paste the paragraph that supports this idea.

I note that you have called me childish, troll and stupid. STOP, you're insulting me. Thank you. --Langus (t) 19:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

OK which part of the bilingual statement from the Argentine Government about its successful lobbying to have its case heard at the C24 are you having a problem understanding? Is it the Spanish version or the English version? I apologise for speaking directly but likewise ask that you respect cultural diffences and refrain from being facetious that may result in you being so labelled. It never goes down well in Glasgow. I suggest you drop by and try it for yourself sometime. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been at least two years that you're using the Glasgowian excuse. I don't know if it's ok in Glasgow for people to call stupid each other, but here it is not. You need to try to accommodate to the rest of the world, not the other way around.

I have switched to the English I can't find it either.

"In the following years the Assembly adopted similar Resolutions: 41/40 in 1986, 42/19 in 1987 and 43/25 in 1988. Subsequently, the Special Committee on Decolonisation, with the corresponding approval by the General Assembly, has annually adopted Resolutions on the Malvinas Islands Question, in which the parties are again urged to resume negotiations in order to find a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute".

I'll be ignoring and rejecting this as a source for cause-effect until you copy-paste the relevant text. --Langus (t) 03:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sidebar 4

Do the British have economic interests eg oil? Oil revenue goes to the FIG not the British Government. I know Argentina claims this but its not correct. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the interests are strategic, not economic. The islands were once "the key to the Pacific" and they are now both an strategic military station in Latin America as well as the cornerstone on which the British claim to Antarctica rests.

This being said, I think we would be better off leaving these considerations (Argentine and British reasons) out of this section (international position) --Langus (t) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, some issues:

• Sources all point to the same article. This article does not support claims sourced in and . Statement sourced in is misleading (there is full support, not just calls for negotiations)
• Please indicate how sources the statement? This is a highly controversial statement aimed at downplaying/minimizing the whole Argentinian claim (that has been going on for almost two centuries now) to a simple "domestic problem". If this were to be mentioned it would definitely need more than one reliable source (currently has none), it would be have to be assigned to whoever is saying that (ie: no authoritative voice) and would necessarily lead to a mention of British interests (ie: oil) Because of this I say this statement has no place in the section.
• The C24 mention has no sources and still has the same issues I presented above (mainly the inflammatory words). My version is fully sourced and has no such issues.
• The word "recognize" is still being used, this is not accurate nor acceptable. The Commonwealth and the EU both "list" the islands. There is a big difference.
• Title is still unnecessary vague. My proposed title is more accurate and sourced.

Here's a version with some compromises made (some of them need to be sourced) and as I've said, we can pick which sources are left in the final version:

I won't be able to comment any more until monday, so I'll pick it up again then. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Could I simply ask someone independent to look at my sources and consider whether I need to do some further work. I consider it adequately sourced, the source criticised for being used more than once is the source we agreed to use.

I have worded my content on the C24 very carefully. The C24 only issues calls for negotiations, as Argentina lobbies on an annual basis for it to do so, it doesn't decide of its own bat to look into the matter as the above edit implies. I can't accept Gaba's wording for that reason so I'm going to look for other independent editors to comment.

Could I also ask people to look at the sidebars above and comment please. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have commented on your sidebars above.

Some further observations on both proposals:

• "The Decolonization Committee of the UN, half of which is composed by Latin American countries,..." -- is it? And most importantly: why is it relevant?
• "The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory." -- They do. But why is this relevant?
• "The C24, which is dominated by its Latin American allies,..." --is it? Who are exactly Argentina's Latin American allies? Source? --Langus (t) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a question. What does, 'This committee has been criticized by the UK and the US for failing to listen to their overseas territories.' mean? You cannot listen to territories, it is the people who live there that you must listen to. Martin Hogbin (talk)

It refers primarily to the populations and governments of the territories. IIRC the governments of the UK territories (which between them make up a majority of the remaining territories on the list) asked to be removed en masse last year arguing that their status is effectively free association, which is of the three statuses demanded by the committee (independence, free association or integration into a state). But inclusion on the list has always owed more to the politics of the 24 than to an objective assessment of the statuses of the territories concerned.

On the general point, I think we've lost the caveats in the Latin American positions, which is a very important part of the Geopolitical Monitor source, and I think both of them put too much weight on the C24, a minor committee that is routinely ignored. Gaba's is particularly bad in this regard, and I object to it on the same basis as Curry Monster. Kahastok talk 17:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree also. Gaba has not addressed the concerns of some editors that I mentioned earlier. To explain again, Britain supports the status quo and thus does not need to exert pressure or create publicity to achieve its objectives. Argentina, on the other hand, wants to change things and therefore needs to exert diplomatic pressure on other countries and organisations to try to achieve its objectives. As a result of this there are many more sources stating Argentina's position than Britain's position. Just putting what we can find in sources, therefore, does not present a neutral view of the dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed version

Comments on the Proposed version

Noting Wee refused to address the points made about his version, here they go again asking him to please comment on the issues if you intent on moving this short version forward.

1. Sources all point to the same article. This article does not support the claims sourced in and (state how it does please). Statement sourced in is misleading since there is full support, not just calls for negotiations, hence my re-wording of that statement.
2. The mention of "domestic politics" is definitely unacceptable. This is an opinion aimed at downplaying/minimizing the whole Argentinian claim (that has been going on for almost two centuries now). This is not a fact (again, it's an opinion) and it would be have to be assigned to whoever is saying that (ie: no authoritative voice) and would necessarily lead to a mention of British interests (ie: oil). I say no opinions in the section.
3. The word "recognize" is still being used, this is neither accurate nor acceptable. The Commonwealth and the EU both "list" the islands. There is a big difference. Present the sources that state this and we can take a look at them (fourth time asking?)
4. Title is still unnecessarily vague. My proposed title is more accurate and sourced.

@Martin: the version has been terribly reduced and only a handful of countries are being mentioned. What exactly are your concerns with my version proposed below? I'll be happy to address any issues you might have with it if you let me know.

I see that the mention of the C24 is still being challenged so I changed it and reduced it (again). Here it goes:

Let me note that the current section proposed is 17 times shorter than the previous one (yes, I did the math) Considering that there was never a consensus to remove the old version (which should be up right now) I'd say that we are making a big compromise here.

Once again: Wee & Kahastok please be precise on your answers and/or issues with this version, as I am being with the version Wee proposes. Vague statements really lead nowhere. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

Could Latin America be replaced with 'most/many/some Latin American countries'.

Could the second sentence be linked to the first with something like 'resulting in'

Maybe Spain should show 'weak support' or something. To say it has cooled attaches importance to a previous position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

@Martin:

1- Definitely.

2- Not sure I understand you, the second sentence is pretty extensive in its current form. Would you like to present a proposed edit?

I have edited the proposal to show what I mean. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no issues with your proposed edit. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

3- We have a source for "support" (which warrants the importance assigned to the previous position) and a source that states "Madrid fears that the escalation of this issue might come to dominate the Ibero-American summit scheduled for November, and is therefore quite cool in its support". The mention of Spain's position having "cooled" is already quite WP:SYN and the article is definitely not enough to source a "weak support".

Given Martin's suggestions, I've edited the proposed version (and so did he). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Again with the deepest respect I reject your claim that the sources do not support the claim. Further I used the source you and everyone agreed we should use. I further point out, not for the first time, that I have responded to your points. I refer you to my previous answer.

Again I note you fail to address the criticism of previous texts that inserting so many cites, each referring to pretty much the same thing, churned out on an annual basis ad nauseum is not helpful.

Your writing isn't neutral, you imply the UN has regularly passed a resolution on the manner, it hasn't passed a resolution since 1988. The C24 is not the UN GA, its output is recommendations to the IV Committee, they are not UN resolutions. You also use WP:WEASEL words to emphasise matters. Slimming it down to what is relevant to wikipedia we have:

If you're not prepared to acknowledge there is more than one factor in pushing Argentina to raise this constantly, you do not get to pick the one you prefer. If you're not prepared to note the pressures of domestic politics, then to solely list the constitution is not neutral or objective. One of those cases where less is more to reach a compromise. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The most significant international dimension that ought to come first in such a section is surely the Falklands' status of EU overseas territory.

That's not 'listing' as alleged by some, that's mandatory EU Law.

Furthermore, the successive EU constitutional treaties enshrining that status have been ratified by each EU member state with none of them making any reservations regarding the Falklands; that's been in place for decades now, so it's a little bit late to pretend/allege neutrality too. Apcbg (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced we've got the weight quite right based on our agreed source. The entire second paragraph of the section All Politics is International? The Tide of Multilateral Pressure is essentially demonstrating the point that "hough in principle all Latin American countries support Argentina’s claim, for the most part their support ends there", with specific mention of Chile and Brazil. The mention of Spain, in a shorter third paragraph, is merely an extension to this wider point. The weight given to the limits of Latin American support is much higher than that given to Spain. Kahastok talk 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

@Kahastok: that source is but one source. Just because you want it to be the only one (and why would you want that is beyond me) and you could have agreed as much with Wee, that does not make it a mandate. Let me point you to the UK Parliament's own article about the issue Argentina and the Falklands, where the regional summits and the support of Latin America are stated as follows:

• Latin American countries generally, and all those in MERCOSUR (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, with associate members Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Peru) support Argentina’s claims in the sovereignty dispute (although Guatemala also supports the principle of self-determination), along with China, Syria, Tunisia, Congo and Russia.

• On 23 February 2010 Latin America and Caribbean leaders in the Rio Group of 32 countries concluded a two-day summit in Mexico by showing solidarity with Argentina over the Falklands, reaffirming what they called the "legitimate rights of the republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain".

• Mercosur’s support for the Argentinean claim goes back to 25 June 1996, when Mercosur Member States, plus Bolivia and Chile, expressed in the Declaration of Potrero de los Funes their full support for Argentina’s "legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute related to the Question of the Malvinas Islands".

• The launch of another Latin–American grouping, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which has voiced its support for the Argentinean sovereignty claim, has added to the growing number of South American countries and organisations which support the Argentinean position.

• At the Rio Group meeting at which CELAC was agreed, it was very clear that the new grouping intended to press for a resumption of UK-Argentina talks about sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, and that CELAC firmly supported the latter’s claim.

If you want to argue against this source, please be my guest. I'll await your comments.

@Wee: I think we might be reaching a compromise here. The constitution mention was actually added by you, I compromised accepting it if I recall correctly. I'd have no issues not mentioning it. The sources are there so we can pick a few before the final version is moved to the article, I've mentioned this about 5 times now. Here's the proposed version with some minor changes, mainly I changed "many" to "most" in regard to Latin American countries support as per UK Parliament's source. This source would actually point to a much larger mention of summits, but let's just leave it at that. Aside from that I merely re-arranged one or two sentences.

Do we have an agreement? Should we select which sources make the final cut and edit the version into the article? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

yes you are getting there. Would suggest adding "..largely reflecting..." re the 94 constitution. Alternately, dropping mention altogether seems acceptable to all. I would suggest the wording above be the framework for the new section. I see no outstanding further issues barring general agreement?. Congrats to all on a relatively pain - free and productive dialogue. Irondome (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't address my point, I find. Even if we accept your source as appropriate (and I remain to be convinced), I note that no Spanish position is mentioned. If anything, I find it actually strengthens my point: that the qualifications inherent in the positions of Latin American states still receive more weight than Spain's position does. And as such, we should give those qualifications more weight than we give the Spanish position. Kahastok talk 21:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is probably as good as it gets in terms of a version that all can broadly agree on without a resumption of edit warring. G has made significant compromises. Lets just all get up from the table and cash in our chips. Irondome (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

One problem, the C24 does not issue UN resolutions, it passes draft resolutions to the IV Committee, which if adopted are passed to the UN GA. The text above is misleading in pushing the common misconception used by Argentina that the two are one and the same. They are not. It needs to be fixed. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Have added "...draft resolutions have been forwarded to the IV cttee for consideration". Put sentence into past tense and added "on..the UK to..." Any better? I dont think it affects the main thrust of the wording in any way, but may resolve final issues. Irondome (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't the time at the moment to look at the sources, but do any of them support "most Latin countries"? If not, it might be better to use "many" or "a number of". -- Scjessey (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

One wonders why the proposed ‘International dimension’ section drafts fail to account for that dimension at the early stage of the sovereignty dispute. Notably, the US position at that decisive time was not neutral. The USA strongly rejected the Argentine sovereignty pretensions and was prepared to support its position by military force. That US position and action played a key role in setting the basics of the sovereignty dispute between Britain and Argentina ever since. Apcbg (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

@Kahastok: the source is from the UK Parliament itself. If you wish to elevate it to some noticeboard to validate it, please do so. If what you are saying is that we should include more information about Latin American support to the Argentinian position to the section, I'd have no issues with that. We can mention explicitly UNASUR and/or Mercosur if you want and source it to the UK Parliament's article.

@Wee: according to the UN's own FAQ and to this source (currently used in the section) the C24 "makes recommendations to the General Assembly". I've amended the proposed version to make this more clear.

@Scjessey: yes, the UK Parliament's own article supports the "most" wording: Argentina and the Falklands, you can see the parts I pasted above in response to Kahastok if you don't want to go through the whole thing. The other source used actually says "all" Latin American countries support Argentina (and mentions caveats for Brazil and Chile).

@Apcbg: the section is terribly short because Wee and Kahastok so demanded. The old version mentioned the US position in much more detail and even made a mention of the Monroe Doctrine. I'd have no problem in adding the info that was previously up, but you'd have to get W&K to agree to it.

Changes made: 1- made more clear that C24 resolutions are passed to the GA, 2- added info on GA's resolutions passed 3- changed "Since 1960 Argentina lobbies" to "Argentina annually lobbies" since we have no source (that I recall of) to back that there's been "lobbying" since the 60s and 4- made it clear the Spain's support was for the Argentinian position since it was not mentioned.

What say you? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you read my message? Because I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly have inferred "we should include more information about Latin American support to the Argentinian position to the section" going into Mercosur and UNASUR from my post.

I quote some of the qualifications to which I refer, from our agreed source:

• "Though in principle all Latin American countries support Argentina’s claim, for the most part their support ends there."
• "In calling for a nuclear-free South Atlantic... Argentina has crossed Brazil’s own ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons."
• "the reality is that Chile would not like to see any sovereignty changes in South America"
• "Argentina is firmly aware that Chile is not disposed to imperiling its special relationship with Great Britain over this row"
• "Overall, the total absence of the Falklands issue in the final report of this year’s Summit of the Americas shows the region’s lukewarm response to appeals from Buenos Aires."

I repeat my previous message, which I have copy-pasted directly.

Even if we accept your source as appropriate (and I remain to be convinced), I note that no Spanish position is mentioned. If anything, I find it actually strengthens my point: that the qualifications inherent in the positions of Latin American states still receive more weight than Spain's position does. And as such, we should give those qualifications more weight than we give the Spanish position. Kahastok talk 19:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok:

1. You can stop stressing the "agreed source" bit. The fact that you and Wee might have agreed to use that as a sole and primary source (why would be a good question) is completely irrelevant to me and the article.
2. You can be not-convinced all you want about the UK Parliament's own article on the issue, it's still a very relevant source and one that absolutely can't be regarded as being pro-Argentinian. Again: take it to RS/N if you feel the need to do so.
3. If you want to include the caveats that source mentions about Chile and Brazil, we will also be including the UK Parliament's own article mention about the overwhelming support to the Argentinian position from Latin American countries (including Brazil and Chile) If that is what you want to do then we should drop the authoritative voice and assign each claim to each source.

The fact that most if not all Latin American countries back the Argentinian position is impossible to dispute (countless regional summits, UN's C24 resolutions, endless expressions of support by each country separately, all of this can be sourced almost ad-infinitum). So once again: if you want to get into more detail about the support of Latin American countries for the Argentinian position and its possible caveats as stated by Chris Ljungquist, the section will have to be expanded and the claims assigned to each source. Is this what you want? Care to present a proposed version?

As I've said, I'm making a huge compromise here. The old version of the section should not have been removed since there was obviously no consensus (not to mention the malformed RfC itself) and the 72 hours impasse proposed by Irondome has long passed. If the final version of the section is going to take much longer (6 days and counting so far) I'll be restoring the old version until the new one can be agreed upon. Please don't take this as a threat, but it's only logical that we restore the old consensual version until the new one is finished. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Reminder - the C24 does not make "resolutions". It is a toothless committee that doesn't speak for the UN. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed.

Gaba, you say, "lease don't take this as a threat". I do not see any way in which I can take it other than as a threat to disrupt the consensus-building process. I am further disappointed that you choose to withdraw your agreement to this source, the sole basis on which it was agreed to put any weight on this point at all. I believe that it has been agreed as a basis for this section by all other parties here, not just me and Curry Monster. These actions serve only to make it harder for us to attain the consensus for change from the status quo that you profess to want.

I note further, Gaba that you still fail to get my point - which is not a difficult concept to grasp in any sense - despite my having made it repeatedly. I shall try to spell it out to you again, but frankly if you are determined not to understand it I do not believe I can force you to.

The sources give the qualifications I describe a certain amount of weight. The sources give the Spanish position less weight. These two points are both accurate regardless of whether your source is included or not. Therefore, WP:WEIGHT requires that we give the qualifications more weight than we give the Spanish position. This means that we have three choices:

1. We could mention neither.
2. We could mention both, giving the qualifications greater weight than Spain's position.
3. We could mention the qualifications but not Spain's position.

What we cannot do, is what is proposed: mentioning the point that is given lesser weight by the sources but refusing to mention the point that is given greater weight. And I reject your suggestion that what I suggest means a massive expansion to the point on Latin American countries - in the same way, this simply does not meet the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. Kahastok talk 22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

To re-iterate, there was agreement amongst everybody to use that source for weight. Kahastok makes a not unreasonable point that the support Gaba refers to amongst Latin America, as the source notes, is little more than lip service. Again the point has also been made by more than one editor, that consensus becomes less likely when you Gaba go back on your word. As far as I and others are concerned the clock stopped when you decided to take the weekend off.

Btw a source has been provided stating Argentina has lobbied since the 1960s, the source being the Argentine Government document referred to above. I chose that specifically because you couldn't reject it as a "British POV". What is really sad is seeing a return to the same behaviour, pretending no source provided when one has, going back on your word and a none too subtle threat to revert war if you don't get your own way. The only thing preventing a consensus emerging is your behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, what are you proposing exactly? Can you show us specifically what you have in mind? I'm not sure how to read your three choices. --Langus (t) 22:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I've changed "draft resolutions" for "recommendations" which is verbatim what the C24 FAQ says Is this better?

@Wee & Kahastok: let me break down what you propose. You propose we use a unique source written in what you yourselves called and WP:SPS to asses the weight of the mention of Latin American countries and Spain. Given that in that particular source Latin America is given more weight than Spain, then we should do the same in the section. But this is not what you propose. You propose we base the whole Latin American position exclusively on that source and disregard completely another much better and reliable source by the UK Parliament itself (among several others) also commenting on the position of Latin America (for some strange reason). So you want to use exclusively a source that downplays the Latin American backing of the Argentinian position and completely disregard any other source that clearly states a near full Latin American support for Argentina. Did I miss anything?

So here it goes again: if you want to quote that source on the Latin American support being "little more than lip service" (Wee dixit) then we assign it to the source (Chris Ljungquist) and we also quote the UK Parliament's article regarding Latin American support. You have absolutely no guideline to back your position of using only one source for the section, specially when another much better one is at our disposition. You only wish to do so because that particular source downplays the Latin American support for Argentina, nothing more. As you are well aware this is not acceptable.

@Wee & Kahastok: I did not "go back" on anything and you'd be wise to stop accusing me of such. As I stated I have no problem in giving more weight to Latin America's position (as that source you favor does) and to mention its weak support (?) clearly assigned to the source where it is coming from (Chris Ljungquist), as long as we mention the Latin American support as stated in the UK Parliament's article, assigned to it of course.

@Kahastok: please propose a version of what you want the section to look like and we can take it from there.

@Wee: Regarding the "Since 1960 Argentina lobbies" mention source, you mean this one? I don't see where that is stated, could you point me to the relevant section/paragraph please?

@Wee: Irondome's 3 day impasse was proposed on the 31st. If you want to not count the weekend (even though everybody, including you, kept on discussing the matter) very well, we'll do so. That means today marks the end of the proposed period to come up with a consensus version. Tomorrow if we find ourselves still with no consensus, I'll be bringing back an old version of the section until the new one can be finished. As was clearly stated by the closing editor, there was never a consensus in that badly opened RfC to remove the old section. Sorry for the long response. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would be till there was a resort to threats of restoring that section. When it seemed very close to a consensus text emerging this really isn't helping. No, you don't build consensus by issuing ultimatums. The discussion here is clear evidence the text that was there was giving undue weight to the issue.

Further, no, no one is down playing anything. There is a consensus for noting statements of support in Latin America. However, as noted this does not extend much beyond paying lip service through token acts. Your source doesn't refute the point. Both statements should be used, yes, but written in a neutral manner to portray an accurate picture.

Also, Irondome found that source I refer to, there was an agreement to use it for weight. Yes I did entertain doubts that it was an WP:SPS but Irondome took that to WP:RSN and found that paper was reliable based on the author bio. Please check if you don't believe me.

Yes, that is the source I meant and if you honestly cannot see that in there, its in the section preceding 1966 and beyond. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We are not going back to the previous deadlock. We will get a version of the above shortened section agreed on and slotted into the article. Reverting to the disputed original section is not an option. If consensus was blurred the last time, it wont be again. Attitudes have hardened, especially as we were (and hopefully still are) very close to consensus here. Any unilateral steps taken by ANYONE will not go down well. Other eyes are watching this I do not doubt.

G, why did you change my edit in the final section? The part about the C24 passing resolutions to the IV cttee seems perfectly reasonable. Now there has been some static caused by well meaning contributors in the past 18 hrs or so on SA sources. I want to go past that. We must work ruthlessly on that final draft above. I appreciate that you have made serious compromises, but lets not blow it now. Lets nobody im

I have also invited editor dpmuk to come over and take a look at progress so far and get a second pair of eyes on this. User dpmuk was the editor who closed down the last dispute process the group activated. Irondome (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@Irondome: I changed your edits to accommodate Wee's request in line with the C24 own FAQ about its purpose and Scjessey's concern of the use of the word "resolutions" which I changed for "recommendations" again in line with the C24's own FAQ. I commend your calmed attitude, I think you are the only one keeping this from going really sour again.

@Wee and or Kahastok: please present the neutral edits you are proposing. There isn't a resort to threats, there's nothing wrong about restoring the old consensual version, which never should have been deleted, until the new one is finished. In any case I'll take Irondome's recommendation and hold off for now with the hopes of achieving a consensus soon.
About the "1960" statement, you mean the "Ruda report" mentioned in 2. Período 1945-1965? Ok, I've amended the proposed version to mention that. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Since it was getting a bit hectic going back and forth to edit the proposed version, I've moved it to its own section and left this one for comments. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would ask Wee then, to reconsider the objections to the C24 IV commitee reference. I thought my wording was less potentially inflammatory. Any comments welcomed on that. Irondome (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here again on my talk page as it was feared that things may once again be getting out of control. Skim-reading the above I can see what may be causing this fear. It seems to me that we are very close to reaching a compromise that will have consensus support. It would seem a shame to not now get there given the effort that has gone into this. With this in mind I offer a few observations which may help that goal be reached.

Firstly threats to restore the previous section are unhelpful. I can understand the frustration that led to this but I strongly suspect that any such action will lead to reverting, edit wars, page protection and possibly blocks. This will in no way help the long term solution. With that in mind I urge patience and also suggest that some minimalistic version is agreed upon as soon as possible - it can always be added to as consensus is reached on the more contentious sections.

Secondly, I notice the reappearance of a couple of editors that were not so active when the discussions about the way forward etc were happening although they had previously been active in these discussion. I urge them to read some of the way forward discussions if they have not already and try to moderate their comments somewhat. It appears to me that is these editors reappearing that seem to have headed this discussion back towards a battleground and I hope this wasn't their intention, that they realise that this is, unintentionally, what they've caused and that they try to stop it getting any worse.

Thirdly, I notice that as things have deteriorated in the content discussion editors language towards each other has worsened. While this is very understandable it's not helping the situation. Please try to remember the final goal here no matter how frustrated you get.

Fourthly, consensus is not the same as universal agreement. Obviously everyone agreeing is the idea solution but I think that there are now enough editors here that a reasonable consensus could be formed without everyone agreeing. As such if there is a sticking point where one editor is being very firm but all other editors have agreed on a version then it may be best to simply accept that getting a universal agreement isn't going to happen but that there is still a consensus.

Finally please remember that whatever consensus version is inserted into the article it need not, and indeed should not, be the final version. It can still be changed, with consensus, especially if new sources are found, the situation changes or there is some other good reason. Dpmuk (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you taking the time to comment, most helpful. I've copy edited the current proposal. Can we please omit sources at this time as it makes the discussion rather difficult, when effectively we're just tweaking the text. We know the text is cited, so it doesn't really help matters. I've added a small caveat to address Kahostok's comments and before I am accused of WP:OR or WP:SYN I am trying to boil down several sentiments into a single pithy phrase. I hope this addresses the concern expressed and we won't go down the path of wikilawyering again. I believe the material is citable by the source we suggest. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that what you are doing is precisely WP:OR and WP:SYN Wee. We can't use Misplaced Pages's authoritative voice to express an opinion as a fact and we most definitely are not allowed to synthesize several sentiments into a single phrase. You know this very well and I'm surprised you are even proposing we do so here.

What does "but has not acted upon any C24 recommendation" mean? This can't be sourced as far as I'm aware and it definitely looks like WP:OR. If you argue it is not, please present the source which states that.

I've amended the section to address these issues, mainly assigned opinions to its authors and added the position of House of Commons analyst Miller regarding the international position. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A) Mention of the Rudas report is fluff, the article doesn't need this information. I'm disappointed you feel the need to re-introduce it.

B) We've agreed we don't need a list of countries, so inserting one is again going backward not forward. Very disappointing to my mind.

C) The C24 makes recommendations to the IV committee, which if approved by the IV committee become draft resolutions, which if passed by majority vote in the GA become UN GA resolutions. My original comment wasn't WP:OR but a very reasonable summary. But I'll wait for comment.

D) I don't agree with your mention of WP:OR and WP:SYN, what is there is a precis, can we please avoid the accusations as its getting distinctly boring. However, I'll wait on others to comment but I do not accept your rewording for the reason it introduces a list of countries and Latin American institutions which is the polar opposite of what was agreed. It introduces the same material twice, I don't see the need for it at all.

Rather than continuously going back and forth, I've simply struck through fluff and unneeded material. I've added a very small amount of text to illustrate the difference. Lets let others comment eh? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A) Wee, your own perception of something being "Fluff" is not a reason for leaving an important piece of information out. This report initiated the Argentinian "lobbying" at the UN and it's of utmost importance as it had a key role in the following GA resolution adopted (this can be sourced by the very Argentinian source you brought in) If you want to make an explicit mention of when the Argentine lobbying started then we must mention how it started (it takes up exactly 7 words to do so)

B) This group of countries is verbatim mentioned by the UK Parliament's own article and it does not need to be sourced separately since it can be sourced entirely by that article. I'll await comments from other editors on this.

C) As I've pointed out already, both this source and the C24's own FAQ state that that body issues "draft resolutions" or "recommendations" that it later elevates to the GA. Verbatim from the FAQ: "What does the Special Committee on decolonization do?...Makes recommendations to the General Assembly, which them approves resolutions reflecting developments in the Territories".

I did not find any mention of the IV committee anywhere, but if you have the source then present it and we can include that mention.

D) I've replaced the material that was mentioned twice so as to accommodate your request. And yes, what you attempted to do was without a doubt a breach of WP:OR and WP:SYN.

I've made some changes according to your concerns and added some comments myself. I agree that comments from other editors (specially neutral outsiders) would be needed. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, Venezuela has made very clear its intention of backing up Argentina if the issue should escalate to a war. This goes against Chris Ljungquist's analysis that the support "ends there" and should probably be mentioned too. I'll look up some sources. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see the versions that people are proposing here. It's no good working on two independent versions in the same place, and I find the current practice of replacing the one with the other with each passing edit unhelpful and confusing. Could you both put your current wordings next to each other, please? And then could we all agree not to edit one another's texts, please? If anyone has a specific proposal to make on any particular text, they should either make their own section with a new text (and let's say one proposal per person as a rule) or quote a sentence and a new wording, without changing the text of the proposal they wish to change.

The current version under #Proposed version seems to be going backward. It's growing from the last time I saw it and I don't believe it should be based on the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. The list of countries that I thought we'd agreed to drop has been reintroduced. The list of regional summits that was gone has been reintroduced. The WP:WEIGHT in the sources simply doesn't support this. Kahastok talk 19:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok: there is one proposed version located at #Proposed version. The growth is directly related to your (and Wee's) insistence that we introduce Chris Ljungquist's analysis which was counterbalanced with the UK Parliament's own article about the issue which mentions those summits and countries.

Wee also expanded on the UN's GA resolution mention (this could be taken out if you get his approval). The current version is short and easily sourced given that there is no need to source each countries position separately since they are all contained in the UK Parliament's article.

"The WP:WEIGHT in the sources simply doesn't support this". Which sources are you talking about? The WP:WEIGHT in the "Geopolitical Monitor" article and the UK Parliament's article actually point to a much bigger mention of those summits and the position of Latin American countries. The current version is a compromise in keeping those mentions to a minimum expression. If everyone keeps a unique version there will never be a consensus. If you have an issue with the current version explain it and give your reasons point by point please. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For those of us who don't spend that much time here, I find it simply impossible to tell what is being said about what.

I accept the obvious that there is only one version at #Proposed Version - but it's been there for less than two hours. The text before that was completely different. If we're going to it like that we need evolutionary change to a point that we can all agree on. The revolutionary change that you made is inconsistent with that approach.

I don't agree that keeping them separate will mean that there can never be consensus. But even if I did, they are already separate. The fact that you're just replacing the one version with another, as opposed to making evolutionary changes, demonstrates the point. Better, in these circumstances, to have the versions next to each other, so that we can look for ways in which we can reconcile differences of opinion. My point is not that you or anyone else can't make proposals, but that there is a better way of doing it that will make it easier for everyone to follow the discussion and see where the points of difference really are.

I don't see that you can blame me for the fact that the whole thing is a lot longer by pointing out the weight disparity. I pointed out before that one legitimate option was to remove Spain altogether from the versions at the time. This would have resolved the weight issue entirely without increasing the length. Instead, we have lists of summits and lists of countries that I have repeatedly given reasoned objections to. Kahastok talk 20:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok: let's do this. Address the issues you have with the proposed version point by point like I did with the version(s) proposed by Wee and explain your reasons. That way we can narrow down what exactly you are opposing to and why and try to move forward towards a consensus. Can you do that please?

Currently Wee exposed 4 points which I responded to individually. From that I guess we can say we disagree on these key points (correct me if I'm mistaken):

• The mention of the Ruda Report (Wee opposes as per "fluff")
• The mention of those 5 non Latin American countries sourced to the UK Parliament's article. (Wee opposes as per ??)
• The phrasing of the GM article and Latin American support. (he has reservations about it)
• The lack of mention of the IV committee (I don't actually oppose but I've found no source to source its inclusion)

Do these points sum up your concerns too? Feel free to add your concerns if they are not included so we can pin the key disagreements. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Added facts that go against Ljungquist's opinion of Latin American support "ending there". I think the UN resolution quote should/could be shortened. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Shortened the proposed version to accommodate some issues (like mention of regional summits and mention of several countries) I've only left the two biggest countries mentioned by the UK Parliament's article (China and Russia) and removed all regional summits. Also shortened the UN mention which was not really necessary. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I deliberatley left your comments intact to allow others to comment, you've simply wiped mine out to overwrite them with your own text again. Even more disappointing to me is that rather than addressing the weight issue, using the method we agreed you're reverting to the past tactic of inserting a load of extraneous quotes giving undue weight to the Argentine side. Its exactly the same behaviour that has lead to a quite poisonous atmosphere on any discussion in which you take part. Its clear to me at least that your patria does not allow you to write neutrally on the subject.

You've ignored my comment, I said quite explicitly we should not be making lists of countries and there is no need to mention the House of Commons Report. Mention of the Rudas report was and is fluff, in a summary like this its simply extraneous detail. We don't need lists of countries, we agreed we didn't need lists of countries and yet again you go backwards to insert one. And frankly continuously accusing people of WP:OR and WP:SYN is being a WP:DICK, no need to continuously state this is your opinion. Take it to WP:NORN if you insist but I do not accept your opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

OK I've cut it down to what is actually agreed at this point. I still think Kahastok makes a not unreasonable point that needs to be addressed. Lets actually address that instead of moving backwards and modifying what is agreed. The text should be neutral and reflect what the source we agreed to use to address weight. This does not mean we revert to the same tactic of inserting a load of extraneous quotes as "balance". Wee Curry Monster talk 08:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with some of Wees points. The possible insertion of Chavezs' basically pariah state threatening to militarily support A is very dodgy. Also we must accept that A is unable to even send its navy into foreign ports without ships being impounded (the Ghanain v A navy training ship seizure incident ) or stuck for months in a foreign port because it cant get its generators fixed (the Corvette stuck in S Africa for 2 months because its generators broke down and the German manufacturers refusing to repair till they had money up front). Basically A is seems near bankruptcy, and its FI diplomatic offensive appear to be a more pacific tactic of 1982. Play the FI card. I think that deserves a mention in terms of As motives at this time. We agreed on using the Lindquist article as a basic shape for the narrative structure of the section, and I thought that was agreed. I am still in basic consensus with your new 17 times smaller version, but any expansion of SA support would be counterproductive I feel.

It is strange that in the 90s A-UK relations warmed considerably, despite the 94 constitutional amendement. Now there is a deeply cold diplomatic war in progress. The political and economic motivations of As present administration re the dispute are wide open to exploration via solid sources. And the smell of oil in the air. I wouldnt advocate expanding on this aspect of the dispute, but it is a dimension that we in this group should not airbrush away. Irondome (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Says Martín Rodríguez Yebra in Argentina's La Nación:

“Europa jamás cuestionó (y hasta avaló en la legislación comunitaria) la soberanía británica sobre el archipiélago.” (“Europe never questioned (and even supported with EC legislation and aid) the British sovereignty over the Islands.”

So much for the alleged EU ‘neutrality.’ Apcbg (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, some comments:

@Wee: just to make it clear in case it was not (thought I've said it quite a number of times already), I believe your position that a single source should be used to asses the weight of a whole section in an article is absurd. I really don't understand how you think you could maintain this argument if you were called to do so (like at ANI for example) given that there are numerous other sources out there to asses the issue and its weight. Once again and for the billionth time: I agreed to use the GM source as a source to asses weight, not as the only source to do so. I never agreed not to include countries if their position could be reliably sourced and I still don't. I never agreed to chop the section to a fraction of its original length, I'm compromising as a sign of good faith after you and Kahastok deleted the old one without consensus of any kind. What you and Kahastok might have agreed is immaterial to me, you two backing each other edits is a given around here.

As I've explained, this is a ridiculous position you've assumed. This is WP, we use sources. Lots of them. What you and Kahastok have done throughout this exchange, stressing the use of a unique source when lots more are available, will certainly be remembered in future discussions.

@Irondome: again what we might make of the issue is completely irrelevant. Our own opinions/analysis really couldn't matter less here in WP. The mention of Venezuela military support and Mercosur banning ships with FI flags was put there to counterbalance the opinion expressed by the analyst at the GM article claiming Latin American support was little more than "lip service" as Wee said. It is clearly not, and the actions (facts not opinions) of those countries proves it. In any case, since Wee took out that opinion there's no need to introduce those facts. Oh and I'm completely open to explore Argentina's and British interests in the region (ie: oil) You'd have to get W&K to agree to expand the section though.

So, regarding the section proposed by Wee:

1) You presented a source that states how Argentina lobbies "Since 1964" at the C24. That very same source explains that the lobbying started with the Ruda report (or Ruda statement), verbatim:

If you want to mention when the lobbying started, we mention how it did. Mentioning it takes up exactly 7 words and quite frankly saying that it is "extraneous detail" when it is the reason we can source the lobbying starting when it did is absurd.

2) "bearing in mind the interests of the Falkland Islanders". Here's resolution 43/25, the last GA resolution put forward in 1988, as you will see there's no mention of the islanders. Here's resolution 2065 the first one presented in 1965, which states:

Things to note: 1- the resolutions are all called "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" which should definitely be mentioned given that it recognizes the spanish name (not a minor detail) 2- The current wording of the section makes it look like the islanders are mentioned in all (or at least the last) resolution by the GA when they are actually never mentioned (the population is) 3- Why did the GA presented about a dozen resolutions calling for dialog? Why does the C24 repeatedly keeps calling for dialog? This "call for dialog" is mentioned but we never say why. This is a serious shortcoming in the section, a casual reader will not understand why so many calls for negotiations keep being presented and no actual negotiation is ever done. This needs to be mentioned.

Given these caveats, I've amended the section accordingly. Let's try to pin down the key issues we disagree on and try to come to an agreement. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

One more source] to asses the international position and yet another one that mentions China's position. I think this country should be mentioned given its importance as one of (if not the) most powerful nations in the world. The support is 100% clear so adding it would not cause any issues regarding sourcing and/or vague statements of support. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah well lads, things could be worse.

Lets move things on. I suggest we have a vote, based on the most consensual version that has been presented so far. As the admin/ed who kindly popped over to add a few words indicated, getting at least a version into the vacant section should be addressed ASAP. At least there will then be some something there that we can further refine. Having them stuck in the garage so to speak, isnt helping progress in the sense that we are having the luxury of an interesting debate, without actually getting the section to to the wider world. So, thoughts on the best version please Irondome (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I fully agree with Irondome on the need to have a version in the article ASAP I'm not sure a vote is the path to go. Misplaced Pages in general dismisses votes as a poor substitute for a good discussion. This said, the discussion has dragged for quite some time now.

I do not think the current one is the best version possible (I'd like to add quite some more information to it) but I find it acceptable enough to be included as is (properly sourced of course). I'm afraid W&K will not agree with me and I would dare to venture which points specifically they will argue that need to be taken out:

1. China's position
2. the Ruda statement'
3. the title of the UN GA ("Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)")
4. UK's refusal to negotiate against the islanders wishes

I've compromised a great deal and accepted going from the old section to this one several (!) times smaller. Given that I've clearly stated the reasons as to why those 4 points are of relevance to the section (and add at most three sentences to it), I believe my position has been very flexible throughout this whole thing. Hopefully we can agree to put this version up and continue the editing from within the article as Irondome wisely proposes. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason why we don't generally do votes is that there are generally many possible options. A rewording, or change in emphasis, selective removal or rebalancing per WP:WEIGHT generally falls in the middle of a black-and-white vote.

I regard the text under "Proposed version" not as "the most consensual version" but as Gaba's own current personal preferred version. How different it is from Curry Monster's preferred version, I have no idea. What other objections have been raised, I have no idea. What the points currently in contention or under discussion are, similarly I have no idea. I have no idea because when I asked that we work to a system that would allow us to answer these questions at a glance, you refused.

I have objections to the current version under "proposed version". I see lots fluff in there that I do not believe is justified per WP:WEIGHT. But right now you're insisting we run blind, which is ridiculous. I oppose any move to a vote, or choice between specific points, while those who are choosing are not allowed to see all of the proposed alternatives. Kahastok talk 21:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I just want to quote a few comments from WP:FILIBUSTERS, yes I know some will comment that its inappropriate to comment on editor behaviour but bear with me.

Just in the last couple of hours, consider some of the behaviour here and again , I ask what is the point in addressing any comment, when the same point is repeated again and again. There is a complaint above on user behaviour, accusing others of refusing to move. If you'd been able to see the text as its evolved, it would become quite apparent that indeed those people have moved, they've compromised, they've attempted to find a common ground. The only reason consensus has proved elusive is one editor has not.

I next want to draw attention to a couple of news reports that have been a hot topic for the last couple of days. When I say hot, front page news in Argentina, about the 5/6 th in the uk and barely worth a mention anywhere else.

First of all a report on statements issued by Hector Timmerman, . He stated:

Well not exactly true but if you look at the edits one editor has been espousing for some time, you can discern a particular agenda to impose precisely this sentiment in this article. What I found interesting was an editorial in LA NACION , an Argentine newspaper. Translating the relevant paragraph:

Now dragging myself to the point. Gaba p would like to see the article presenting the official position expressed by Timmerman. The article needs the neutral POV expressed in La Nacion.

I would hope this achieves its intended purpose of letting Gaba P understand that he needs to put his POV to one side if he wishes to edit wikipedia.

So addressing the same points again:

1. As has been pointed out there is no need to list a whole list of countries who you claim supports Argentina. As has been repeatedly pointed out the extent of that support is little more than lip service as the editorial in La Nacion points out.
2. There is no need to mention the Argentine ambassador to the UN in 1964, it adds no material understanding to the article.
3. There is actually no need to mention the title of the resolution - look at the name of the article. Trying to claim I am suppressing mention of the Spanish name rings hollow when you realise you're accusing the editor responsible for inserting the Spanish name into articles.
4. The UK position on the Falklands issues is already in the article. The article currently states:

There is no need to mention it again. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok Wee, leaving aside your personal attacks (one more time), let me address your points.

1. Why exactly you want to assign that much weight to one analyst in a news article but refuse to mention (for example) China's position which is far more important in an international context, would be a good question. We all know the answer though.
2. You want to dismiss the analysis by a writer for the British House of Commons and instead give relevance to a single quote by a random journalist. Again, your intentions are crystal clear.
3. Have you suddenly forgotten about WP:NOTNEWS Wee? You know, that guideline you've used so many times to keep content out of WP? How do you think that affects an article written literally yesterday?
4. By your own standards of weight, how exactly does the mention of that journalist fit into the section?

Of course your version is unacceptable. I'd urge you to take out the mention of that journalist if you have any desire of ever reaching a compromise (you can pick a reason out of the ones I've mentioned)

Further comments:

• There is no "list" of countries being mentioned, only China which is a major player (like the US)
• We mention at least three times that there are "calls for negotiation" and you don't think it's relevant to mention why there are no negotiations happening? The fact that a mention is buried inside the article helps your argument very little.
• I'm not mentioning the "Argentine ambassador" but the statement/report that initiated Argentina's lobbying as you wanted to include. As you very well know that report had a major impact on the UN and the following resolution.

Anyway, you are of course aware of these issues and I'd ask you to reconsider your version in view of them. If this is the end of the line regarding your "compromise", then I guess it's time to raise the issue to some relevant noticeboard. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, regarding our WP:WEIGHT discussion which Wee himself elevated at WP:NPOVN ("Establishing Weight and Due"), I'd missed the comment an un-involved editor made on the issue about 6 days ago. Want to know what he said verbatim? Here it goes:

How about that Wee? What should we do about the outcome of this noticeboard request and the section at hand? This pretty much changes the whole scene wouldn't you say? I'll await your comments. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster translated: "But so far Argentina, leaving aside ‘lip-service’..." from here.

This is incorrect. The correct idea is "But so far Argentina, , has not managed to increase diplomatic support for the Malvinas cause, <no maybe whatsoever here> except in Latinamerica and some emerging countries.

Lip service means 'giving approval or support insincerely'. This is not implied by the editorial article, on the contrary: the diplomatic support in Latin America is explicitly given as a point in favor of Timerman.

I agree with Kahastok that this way of working is getting impossible to follow... --Langus (t) 01:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the criticism of my translation, for a start it wasn't mine, it was done by a professional linguist in Uruguay . The relevant phrase is "más allá de las palabras" and as you can see here, it can be translated literally as beyond the words but is used in many contexts. No I don't see it as incorrect.

@Gaba - no it doesn't change anything, the comment is about sourcing not weight. There was no discussion as you quite effectively disrupted outside comment.

As you demand I respond to every "point" you raise.

1. We agreed to use that source for weight, it was an agreement to move forward. This was a mutual agreement on all parts, not something imposed by me as you insinuate. Are you going back on your word?
2. I am not dismissing an analysis, I point out you were mentioning the same thing twice. This is a strawman, criticising something I never said.
3. Argumentative nonsense, I used a recent article for a source on commentary on the subject at hand. This is nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS, which is about reporting recent events.
4. It is an example, expressing the sentiment of comments expressed by a number of commentators and you know that I would normally just put the comments into context but from experience with you I knew you wouldn't accept that, you'd insist on listing the commentator and then put in a load of extraneous comments as "balancing the POV". If you agree with the former I'm happy to do it but it would help the discussion if you avoided your normal "damning me if I do and damning me if I don't" approach to every tiny detail.

As to the rest, I refer you to my previous answer, argumentatively repeating the same points ad nauseum is not discussing. Take it to WP:DRN if you insist but honestly and frankly you're wasting people's time over trivia. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course Wee, the outcome of the ticket has to be disregarded since it did not turn out in your favor. The RfC did not turn out in your favor too, remember? There's really no point in arguing like this with you anymore, your constant ethical contortions are becoming so clear I don't think I need to keep pointing them out. Let's just try to put the most acceptable version up and then continue editing from inside the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You got it wrong, that part is not a translation: it isn't enclosed in quotes. Pay close attention to how the quotes are used, how the article starts, etc. "Beyond words" could be a correct translation; "lip service" certainly isn't. Who is the author of the MercoPress article, by the way? --Langus (t) 00:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent rebuff

The BBC reports that Argentina declined the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Falkland Islands, saying "he international community does not recognise a third party in this dispute." This would seem to be a significant and worth coverage in the article. The UK responded in a manner that seems to put the brakes on any talks. Perhaps less significant is a claim to the islands by Uraguay. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree but recent events such as this one have been previously rejected as per WP:NOTNEWS. Feel free to make a bold edit though. Regards. Gaba p (talk)

Argentina was offered talks with the UK FO but threw its teddy out of the pram when it found the islanders would be present. Argentina regularly demands talks but it does nicely illustrate only its terms, when its been offered talks twice in the past year it has refused them. I refer to this above. However, per WP:NOTNEWS I would suggest specific mention is not made.

That comment from Uruguay is interesting from a purely academic point. Utis possidetis juris also known as Utis possidetis juris of 1810 was a principle agreed among South American states at the Conference of Lima in 1848. In essence it settles border conflicts, by fixing the borders of South American states at the limits defined by the former Spanish colonies in 1810 (Argentina btw did not sign or agree the original treaty). In 1810, the Spanish penal colony at Puerto Soledad was administered from Montevideo, conferring any rights upon the modern state of Uruguay not Argentina. Argentina cites Utis possidetis juris as the principle by which it "inherited" the Falkland Islands. Utis possidetis juris is not accepted as a general principle of international law and as a non-signatory of the original treaty, the UK cannot be compelled to accept it as a factor in the Falklands dispute. When Uruguay had a long standing dispute with Argentina over the Island of Martin Garcia, Uruguayan diplomats sometimes taunted their Argentine counterpart with the technically superior Uruguayan claim threatening to claim sovereignty and transfer to the UK

Like I say of academic interest but probably not suitable content to the article. I can see only edit wars resulting if you were to try. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Juan Ackermann and Alfredo Villegas are, respectively, an architect and an engineer. If they were versed in laws they would know that sovereignty is lost if not protested upon other party's violation of it (acquiescence).

Most importantly, Uruguay's official position remains unchanged by this book. --Langus (t) 02:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(Adding this here to avoid interrupting flow with the outdent below).

There is acquiescence, but I believe both Britain and Argentine would argue that the other side has acquiesced at some point over the years, so I don't think that would be a good reason to exclude a putative Uruguayan claim from the article. Right now, the good reason to exclude is that the point gets very little WP:WEIGHT in the sources - being purely theoretical and of no practical relevance. If the Uruguayan government were to claim sovereignty, I would imagine that this would change. Kahastok talk 18:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My only reason for opening this thread was to draw the editors here to the recent media coverage so that they could be assessed for their value and mined for anything useful. That being said, I don't see how WP:NOTNEWS can be used as a justification for rejected the recent UK overture and Argentine rejection. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The article explains it rather well why per notnews, we don't report every spat. Even those where Argentine diplomats make asses of themselves. This is of course down to my pro-Argentine bias....:-)

Actually Langus, that interpretation is not unique to those two. JC Metford considered the Uruguayan claim for sovereignty under Utis possidetis juris to be superior to Argentina's for example. It would be relevant if Argentina had never "inherited" sovereignty as it claims but Uruguay, in which case Uruguay has you correctly point out as has lost it by acquiescence. Sovereignty is not gained by persistence in asserting a inheritance that never happened.

But here is another point, Utis possidetis juris was agreed at the Conference of Lima in 1848. Argentina never signed the treaty or accepted it at the time. At what point did Argentina adopt the convention? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

On the "rejected talks": are you aware that the issue of sovereignty was off the table? "The representatives made it clear that they would be making some forceful remarks and that if the issue of sovereignty came up, it would not be discussed." Looks like a media stunt really. --Langus (t) 16:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a media stunt to me. Argentina only backed out of the talks when it learned Falkland Islanders would be there. That's quite a "fuck you" to the people of the islands. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually they knew would be there in December. Timmerman appears to have tried a stunt and came unstuck. Whilst I have little time for these diplomatic charades, Hague played a blinder here and Timmerman ended up looking foolish and inept. Having seen the guest list for next week, Argentina is scraping the barrel a bit.

Did you know anything about what I asked btw? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW President Fernández did the same at the C24 last June: when the FIG representatives directly and publicly asked to talk to her and her government, Fernández basically blanked them. Kahastok talk 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@WCM: are you asking to me? I don't know what convention are you referring to, but the principle of uti possidetis didn't emerge from a convention. The primary idea behind uti possidetis juris is to organize a territory internally, as it was politically divided before a critical date. It is not a Latin American thing. --Langus (t) 19:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was actually. You're incorrect. Utis possidetis is a Roman law, Utis possidetis juris was a principle agreed at the Conference of Lima as an agreement between Latin American states. It was adopted by treaty, it is not a general principle of International law, nor universally applied. Some African states have since agreed to use the principle as a means of determining border disputes. As I said Argentina didn't subscribe to the treaty, nor did it accept it at the time. So I'm curious at what point it subcribed to the principle it at first rejected? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly:

"Uti possidetis juris is a modified form of uti possidetis; created for the purpose of avoiding terra nullius, the original version of uti possidetis began as a Roman law governing the rightful possession of property. During the medieval period it evolved into a law governing international relations and has recently been modified for situations of newly independent states." (taken from Uti possidetis juris) --Langus (t) 11:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source....Utis possidetis and Utis possidetis juris refer to different things, it certain And I quote:

Utis possidetis juris of 1810 is a principle agreed among Latin American states, it is not a generally accepted principle of international law. What is interesting, well to me at least, is that Argentina rejected the Conference of Lima in 1848 and at the time refused to accept the principle. None of the treaties involving the evolution of Utis possidetis juris include Argentina. So purely from an academic exercise, I'm genuinely curious at what point Argentina accepted the principle? You might like to read that paper, it is very well written and researched. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Utis possidetis juris is a principle that evolved through history and that was later applied during the decolonization of Africa and the breakup of Yugoslavia. Ergo, it is not a Latin American thing, nor something you had to sign for in 1848 to get the right apply it.

Anyhow, I agree that this is getting forumy, we should probably stop. --Langus (t) 03:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No Utis possidetis is a principle of Roman law, which has evolved. Utis possidetis juris is a modification of that principle adopted by treaty in South America and later applied in Africa with the consent of the parties involved. One of the principles of the ICJ is that states have to agree the applicable principles, since differing states have different paradigms of law. And as I pointed out, Utis possidetis juris was rejected by Argentina in 1848 and again in 1876. So when did it change? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We'll continue this on another occasion, Wee. Cheers. --Langus (t) 22:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That Argentina declined an opportunity to meet with representatives from the Falkland Islands is nothing new. What seems to be a new development though, and setting a most significant precedent, is the refusal of the British Government to discuss Falklands related topics with Argentina other than jointly with FIG representatives. Apcbg (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesnt really strike me as much of a precedent. It seems to be attempting to accomodate the much more self-conscious and politically assertive FIG. Its also in line with the consistent UK position of the FI wishes being paramount in any decision making. In any event, the unwillingness that A displays in discussing issues with the FIG flies in the face of its "anti-colonialist" creditials, as it ignores the fundamental right of self-determination, which is a cornerstone of the UN. As the FIG actually attends the C24, unlike the UK, it makes As unwillingness to accept them as negotiating partners all the more problematic. Irondome (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Argentina will not agree to discuss the matter with the islanders because that would be an implicit acceptance that they are a legal partner in the Malvinas/Falklands dispute. Argentina states they are not, being an implanted population, hence self-determination does not apply to them. This is nothing new, the UK of course knows this rather well which is why this can be regarded as a mere stunt by the UK to keep the islanders happy and present Argentina as the one not willing to negotiate.

Anyway, let's all remember WP:FORUM. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a strange argument G. Many nations were originally "implanted" in terms of their original core pop. The original 13 colonies of the US, Australian "first fleet" etc. Indeed the original European derived pop of A itself. Seems A is straining the argument to breaking point on that one. Irondome (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the difference is that Argentina claims that population displaced an already existing Argentinian population. You can check Disputed status of Gibraltar (be aware of the usual POV issues) which has a similar history and where the British/Spanish claims are very similar. In any case I don't intent on commenting on the rightness/wrongness of either the Argentinian (or Spanish) nor the British claim Irondome, that's not why we're here for. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nor I Gaba. Indeed that appears to be the A position. Irondome (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is very easy to overstate the similarities between the Falklands dispute and the Gibraltar dispute - there are very important differences. Key among them is that Spain explicitly signed Gibraltar over to Britain in 1713 and that as such (and contrary to popular belief) Spain does not actually dispute the existence of British sovereignty in Gibraltar: only its extent. Kahastok talk 21:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"It seems to be attempting to accommodate the much more self-conscious and politically assertive FIG." Maybe so — which incidentally was very much the driving force behind the constitutional development followed by Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. — but that's not the point; and yes, it is a major precedent indicating that from now on, and especially after the forthcoming referendum, the British Government will not just pursue internationally Falklands made Falklands policies, but will not be representing the Falklands other than with FIG direct participation. Apcbg (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

References

The proposed drafts area

Lets stick them in here then. Irondome (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Text - Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

My proposal for a straw poll. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Text - Gaba p (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Text - Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Text - Scjessey (talk) -- REVISED: 22:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll / comments

I suggest that a straw poll is not the way to go right now, as it would be disruptive for reaching consensus. Further, I fear you got the translation wrong. See my comments above. --Langus (t) 01:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Please no further comments here. I propose this is strictly an area for drafts. I will create a seperate comments section for each draft inserted.Irondome (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wees draft. Comments area

For WCMs draft comments Irondome (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I would be prepared to support the compromise version proposed by WCM, subject to the “listed” and “neutral” misrepresentations’ getting fixed. Apcbg (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you suggest needs fixing? Happy to consider it. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The EU is not neutral, and that fact is acknowledged by the Argentine source I cited above. Particular sovereignty disputes might be left to the relevant member states to resolve and not part of the EU common foreign policy, but the Falklands like all EU overseas territories (inhabited by EU citizens, too) are subject to EU internal policies including EU legislation, special EU institutions responsible for the EU remote and overseas territories, programmes etc. Terming that as ‘listed’ and ‘neutral’ is uninformative and misleading. As for the USA, as a party with vested interests in the islands in the early 19th century, that country explicitly rejected the Argentine sovereignty claim when that mattered (without objecting to the British one at the same time), and I am not aware of any subsequent renunciation of that rejection. Therefore, the use of ‘neutral’ in this case blurs an important international dimension of the sovereignty dispute. Apcbg (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Amended draft for you to comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

“... and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory” is less than adequate in explaining the EU affiliation of the Falklands which is important and, like I wrote, should come first in an ‘International position’ section. Incorporation in the EU constitutional treaties entails a particular status (EU overseas territory) with legal, political and economic implications rather than mere listing for bibliographic purposes. Apcbg (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Amended the draft again for you to consider. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As a possible compromise, I would be prepared to support your present draft. Best, Apcbg (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that the text The European Union classes the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas, and eligible for some European funding initiatives be replaced by The European Union classes the islands as a UK overseas country or territory, and has associated them with the Union. Argentina objects to that association and demands the removal of the Falklands from the relevant EU Treaties, which demand has been dismissed by EU. The status of association in question is established by Article 182 of the EU Treaty: “The Member States agree to associate with the Community the non-European countries and territories which have special relations with Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.” Reliable secondary sources on the association status and the relevant exchanges between Argentina and EU are given below in my responses to Langus. Apcbg (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is tolerable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not an acceptable version and this is very disappointing. Wee refused to add even tiny bits of information when I proposed it but apparently has no problems doing so when the information added serves to refute Argentina's support (like the comment by an obscure analyst vs the analysis by a House of Commons writer or the mention of China or the couple of words to mention the Ruda statement). Do you really think your intentions are not transparent Wee?

Outstanding issues:

1. If analyst Yerba is to be mentioned, then we should add other writers/analysts too. Why only this one? What exactly makes this one so important as to be the only one mentioned?
2. The EU and US mentions have both been expanded with the sole purpose to obscure their positions. They are neutral and this can be perfectly sourced. Apcbg: the EU lists the islands because the UK added them to the treaty, please read , it can't be made any more clear than that. The current state of the section is viciously misleading. If we are to expand on the US position, the Monroe doctrine should be mentioned too.
3. The 1988 resolution does not mention the islanders, the wording is misleading. The Ruda statement and the name of the resolution should be included as relevant information.

Let me direct the attention of editors here to the outcome of the WP:NPOVN ticket Wee himself opened and is now disregarding (because it did not turn out in his favor) Reliable newspapers can be used for weight and thus more information can be certainly added to the section based on them. Noting this concerns, I'll be adding my proposed version here too expecting to hear comments on these issues by those editors commenting here. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that I doubt very much that the EU is officially neutral as the UK has a veto. Neither source actually makes the claim per se. I have made this point in more detail below. Kahastok talk 18:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A factual correction: it's formally referred to as the "Commonwealth of Nations". It used to be the "British Commonwealth", but they changed it (I believe in the 1940s). Kahastok talk 19:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've responded below to the EU's position issue raised. The mention of the Commonwealth should be amended with ", although it has issued no official position on the matter". That is unless you can produce a source that states the Commonwealth supports the UK claim. Just mentioning that it lists the islands as a British OCT (because the UK put it there of course) is a deceiving attempt to imply support. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe it is "a deceiving attempt to imply support", and I suggest that you reconsider your language because that comes very close to accusing Curry Monster of lying again.

Other than the name of the organisation at hand, the point is factually accurate. Given that you see such an implication, do you have any evidence that it is inaccurate? Can you source "although it has issued no official position on the matter" with respect to the Commonwealth? Kahastok talk 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask you 2 questions Kahastok (and Wee):

1- As per WP:WEIGHT, how exactly do you justify the mention of the British Commonwealth in this version?

2- How are you proposing we source this mention? Because I've yet to see a source for it. Surely it's not a primary source, right?

I'll await your answers. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I included the Commonwealth in my proposed text is because I thought it provided a sensible balance to the mention of the support of Latin American countries per WP:NPOV. I assume the same is the case for this version. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with you very much on that reasoning Scjessey. But you see, Wee and Kahastok have been pounding arguing for weeks now that any mention in the section needs to be weighted by its mention in a reliable source on the issue. Since the Commonwealth is not mentioned in any source that has been presented here, much less in the source they chose as the source for some reason, the questions spring to mind:

1- As per WP:WEIGHT, how exactly do you justify the mention of the British Commonwealth in this version?

2- How are you proposing we source this mention? Because I've yet to see a source for it. Surely it's not a primary source, right?

I will eagerly await your answers. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be much appreciated by one and all if you could resist the temptation to indulge in personal attacks.

1. Why do I justify mention of the British Commonwealth? Well the Falkland Islands take part in a number of Commonwealth activities. only this week hosting an event in the islands themselves . With over 4 x 10^6 hits on google, it seems rather obvious it should be mentioned. And I would agree with Scjessey's reasoning.

2. Your second point is nothing but continuing to be needlessly confrontational. I don't see any need to provide a response but do note that I saw it as you will usually claim I haven't addressed some irrelevant point you claim is vital.

I have already commented why I don't feel what you assert to be essential is not included. Pretty much that it is fluff, unneeded and is actually duplicating material already in the article.

As to your point about the EU, I simply respond so what. The Falkland Islands were only ever noted as a Non-self-governing Territory as the UK listed them. On that basis should we be removing them from mention by any UN resolution?

In addition, the usual assertion if I mention one commentator you must be allowed to mention others is not helpful. This is the usual pretext for filling the article with reams of tendentious argument, whereby you claim simply because something is sourced it must be included. The comment chosen is to represent the opinion expressed in a number of sources that whilst Argentina noisily demands support, all the comments are little more than lip service. If you wish to source a similar opinion of a commentator that expresses the converse, please bring it here for us to consider. However, after considering the weight of opinion expressed in the literature I simply note that i have not found a similar expression that such support is advantageous to Argentina. This is what you need to find, conducting your own research and placing a load of quotes taken out of context.

Similarly, your (and I have to say not unexpected) accusation that this is an attempt to downplay Argentine support is not helpful. No, its sourced, the comment reflects the weight of opinion expressed in the the literature. In fact, what we see is the converse, you're seeking to suppress material to overstate the support enjoyed by Argentina and I note that your comments reflect almost verbatim Argentine Government statements on the matter. Your writing is clearly non-neutral and is following the same agenda expressed by the Argentine Government. You will of course note that I am reflecting neutral commentators and you can hardly claim an editorial in La Nacion is pushing a British agenda.

As regards the semantic argument vis a vis the 1988 and the earlier resolution. The text of the 1988 resolution explicitly mentions the Charter of the United Nations, the earlier resolution did not as it had yet to be adopted. The 1988 resolution thus can be argued to include the right to self-determination and please note Article 103. The resolution also refers to including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Are you claiming that the UN explicitly excludes the islanders, as that is clearly incorrect? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, you don't get to weasel out that easily Wee.

1- How do you justify the mention of the Commonwealth adhering to the same WP:WEIGHT arguments you and Kahastok have been waiving around for weeks? You apparently forgot to take into account that particular bit in my question. Bare in mind that the standard that you are now adhering to (ie: relevance of appearance in news media) is exactly the same one you and Kahastok have been dismissing as not valid for weeks now. You seriously think people here don't notice these kind of things?
Incidentally: you know as well as I do that the "google hits" thing is a well known fallacy in WP. Let me refresh your memory: WP:GNUM.

2- Funny how you completely chose to disregard this question. Here it goes again: how are you proposing we source this mention? SOURCES WEE. Please present your sources for this statement.

I'm not an unreasonable person Wee, I'm very willing to compromise to reach an agreement. But when you and Kahastok oppose the inclusion of any information citing WP:WEIGHT and claiming only sources "on the subject at hand" can be used to asses it, and then turn around and without blushing say that the Commonwealth should be added even though you have no sources to back its mention much less any mention of it in a source "on the subject at hand", you'll understand how I must point that you and Kahastok are applying a clear double standard.
Taking into account your behavior I'm not really expecting to hear from you (or Kahastok) an acknowledgment of being wrong or even a direct answer to any of those two very simple questions. Nonetheless I'm giving you both one more chance to give a reasonable response. Next step it's DRN, which would be great if we could just avoid. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Your constant habit of claiming I haven't done something, when I have and it can be easily checked is rather childish. Your charge of double standards being a case in point, I have frequently suggested a source to judge weight eg

Lowell S. Gustafson Assistant Professor of Political Science Villanova University (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-536472-9. Retrieved 10 February 2013.

Shall we go through the archive and count how many times it has been suggested?

DRN should not be used as a threat as you appear to think. Now if only you could stop being so confrontational it would help tremendously. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a threat at all Wee, it was a real request for you to please address the questions I had done so we could avoid such an instance. You have not answered my questions, you have simply attempted to weasel out of the first one and directly refused to present your sources for the second one. I have no idea what you think you are answering with the above comment, seriously. I really hope you are not making the assumption that editors here can't see right through your actions Wee, because they are quite transparent. I'll go ahead an ask for outside opinions at DRN. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You were asking a question I'd already answered repeatedly. I will be commenting at DRN you are abusing DR to filibuster the discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No Wee, you have not answered my two simple questions in spite repeated requests of mine to please do so. I have to tell you, your above comment looks quite a bit like a threat to scare me out of requesting outside opinions. I hope I'm mistaken. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be appreciated by one and all if you simply stopped claiming you haven't had an answer, when you have - repeatedly. Your threat to abuse the DR process has been noted, you may take my comments as a statement of intent to prevent such abuse. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Gabas Draft. Comment area

Gabas area Irondome (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would we need to add the Monroe doctrine as the US has not disputed the UK's right on the Islands, and thus not enforced the Monroe doctrine in this instance?Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe it to be more informative than simply stating "in the 19th Century sided with Britain due to its own disputes with Argentina over rights in the islands" which really gives no information at all. Which "disputes"? How exactly did it "sided"? The fact that the US chose not to enforce the Monroe Doctrine (and thus not dispute UK's sovereignty) gives more information than saying "sided with the UK" and has the same end result. Regards.Gaba p (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

We could also just remove it and go back to the previous version before Wee added stuff to obscure the US and EU neutral position. I note his draft doesn't even mention the EU position of neutrality which can be very easily sourced . Regards. Gaba p (talk)

My thoughts, just those that immediately strike me. I'm afraid it's a bit long, but I hope you will take them into account.

• You say "As stated by House of Commons Library analyst Vaughn Miller", as if you were trying to puffing the point significantly, particularly given the contrast with "ccording to some analysts", which seems to be downplaying the point.
• I see no reason to put "lip-service" in italics.
• I have yet to see justification for mention of China per WP:WEIGHT.
• The point "ccording to some analysts this support does not go far beyond lip-service" appears to be being applied to China, but I believe it is actually applied to Latin America.
• I have yet to see justification per WP:WEIGHT for mention of Venezuela or the announcement of a bar on Falklands-flagged ships from certain ports. I note that these are cited as examples of support "beyond lip service", but it is not obvious why we should assume that these are not also lip service since they refer to statements and not actions.
• I have yet to see justification per WP:WEIGHT of "with the presentation of the Ruda statement". I see no reason why we care.
• I have seen no justification per WP:WEIGHT that the name "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" in particular is of relevance. The argument before was that it included the Spanish name? I don't see why that matters - the Spanish name is already featured prominently in the article.
• The sentence "The UK refuses to negotiate the sovereignty of the islands until that is the wish of the Islanders themselves." is not dealing with the international position. The UK position is already included in the article, and we have to assume that readers will have read the rest of the article.
• I've noted my objections to claiming that the EU maintains "an official policy of neutrality on the issue" in both other sections. I don't believe that - the British would have vetoed any such policy - and it isn't supported by the sources. I do note your responses elsewhere but also note that the result has not been applied to your proposal.
• The arguments on the US apply similarly - I have yet to see a source justifying "neutral on the issue since the 1940s", which is not the same thing as described here. Since it's a primary source, interpreting that as official neutrality violates WP:PSTS.
• I struggle to see the relevance of the Munroe Doctrine and have not seen justification per WP:WEIGHT.

I've referred repeatedly to "justification per WP:WEIGHT". This means weight per reliable sources on the subject at hand. Those can be news articles (though per WP:RS other sources are preferred) provided that they are actually about the subject at hand. Sources of any calibre focussed on specific events or statements cannot reasonably be used - nor can sources focussed on other aspects of the subject or on other subjects (related or unrelated). I note with respect to the NPOVN that you have been citing, that one single-sentence response is not exactly a glowing endorsement of your position, and I note that the response does not dispute the point that weight cannot be judged from sources not on the subject at hand. Kahastok talk 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Addressing Kahastoks concerns:

• This is done because there is more than one analyst bought by Wee to support the lip-service statement. We could of course pick just one and mention his name just like with Miller's name. Would that be better?
• lip-service is in italics as being a quoted statement. I can remove the italics and use instead "lip-service".
• China is mentioned both in the BBC article's section about the international position and in the UK Parliament's analysis of the international position. Countless sources can be produced from established newspapers to source it, which is a clear indication of the weight of this country's position.
• That's correct, I'll amend this.
• Fair enough, Venezuela can be taken out.
• The Ruda statement is the reason we can say "Since 1964 Argentina lobbies". Furthermore this statement has a major influence in the following UN GA resolution which makes it a notable piece of information.
• It's of relevance because the UN is recognizing the Spanish name. It doesn't matter that this particular article already displays it, we are talking about the UN here.
• The UK refusal to negotiate is buried in the article. In this section we mention at least 3 times "call for negotiations" but do not say why so many calls and no actual negotiations. This merely explains that, otherwise the section is quite hard to follow.
• The EU position can be amended as Scjessey did to avoid this issue.
• There are countless sources stating the US position of neutrality I don't think this is an issue.
• The Monroe Doctrine was put there simply to give more information. The statement produced by Wee said pretty much nothing (and has exactly the same weight I might add)

Hopefully this answers your questions. Now let me ask you a question Kahastok. As per WP:WEIGHT, how exactly do you justify the mentions of Rodriguez Yebra and the British Commonwealth in Wee's version? I'll make the same question over at his section so we don't disrupt the flow. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of these remain. The notion that "countless sources" can be produced is irrelevant to judgement of WP:WEIGHT unless those sources are actually written on the subject at hand. I'm sure that I can provide countless sources to the effect that rabbits eat grass or that Swiss cheese has holes in it - but we wouldn't put either point in the article because you would be unlikely to find either point in a discussion about the Falklands sovereignty dispute, or the positions of third parties in the Falklands sovereignty dispute.

In several cases - "Ruda Statement" and "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", you totally fail to address the point. Even if your points are entirely accurate, and I'm not convinced, it does not matter because they still don't belong in the article. In both cases you seem to be drawing large-scale and far-reaching conclusions for the article from scant evidence. For example, in the case of the "UN is recognizing the Spanish name", you seem to be trying to draw the conclusion that the UN supports Argentina from the fact that it uses "Malvinas" as well as "Falkland". Do you conclude that the UN supports Britain given that the Spanish version of the resolution (Spanish being an official language of the United Nations) was on the Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas (Falkland)? It doesn't - it's just a matter of diplomatic language. Even Security Council Resolution 502 - adopted unamended from a British proposal during the 1982 war - referred to the "Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)" in English.

I note that you say that he UK refusal to negotiate is buried in the article. Where do you think this section is going in the article? Once the reader has got to this bit, we can reasonably assume that they've read about the British position. And even if they haven't, it's not exactly difficult to find.

I finally note that WP:WEIGHT is just part of WP:NPOV, and that we have to ensure that we deal with this subject properly neutrally. That does not mean pretending that the British have no support, not matter what Héctor Timerman might think. Kahastok talk 20:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kahastok, I'm not letting you off the hook that easily. Both you and Wee have been arguing for weeks that everything we might include in the article must comply with WP:WEIGHT in reliable secondary sources or in your own words: weight per reliable sources on the subject at hand. So no, the poor excuse for an "explanation" you give comes nowhere near to addressing the two clear questions I made you and Wee. Please stop by Wee's draft area above and kindly answer my two very simple, very short and very clear questions on your (I want to believe) apparent amazing double standards. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Given your recent actions elsewhere, I am surprised that you see fit to make an accusation such as in your message.

I am interested that you make no attempt to address any of my points in the message preceding this. Can I assume that you accept that these points in your draft are inappropriate?

My view that this section does not actually merit any WP:WEIGHT at all is unchanged. But if we are to have a section, it has to be neutral. WP:WEIGHT is a means of attaining neutrality, and particularly appropriate when dealing with puffery of an already-substantial point with irrelevant points not mentioned by the sources. But we equally cannot use any rule to defeat its purpose. WP:WEIGHT is a means to end, the end being neutrality, so trying to apply it so as to create a non-neutral section is inappropriate. It is not neutral to suggest, as you propose, that the British have no support internationally. Kahastok talk 18:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, your concerns have all of them been address point for point you are simply engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right now, which is silly. I do note however that you once again refused to answer the two very simple, short and clear questions I made above in Wee's area. The "neutrality" claim you are now waving (moving the goal post) does not answer how exactly your own particular assessment of it and WP:WEIGHT allows you to dismiss the inclusion of a country thoroughly sourced (China, at least 7 sources presented) but back the inclusion of a group of countries for which no source has been presented (Commonwealth, 0 sources presented). So once again, would you be so kind as to direct your attention to Wee's area and please address the questions I make? Thank you.

Oh and I do not propose the British have no international support, I've clearly stated that a much larger group of countries have voiced its support for Argentina (this is a fact, not an opinion). This is just you following Wee's path (as usual) accusing me of something I never said. In any case, we're all used to you following and backing Wee around so it's not really a surprise. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Where do I start? I find nothing in this draft to recommend it. Let me start with the weasel words "The UK refuses to negotiate", which could almost have been written by Hector Timmerman himself. The UK does not refuse to negotiate, as we saw recently the only people who refused to engage in dialogue was Argentina. Further, Argentina is not prepared to negotiate, it fixed the end game in its own constitution in 1994; it leaves no room for negotiation. I'm also bemused why there is a need to mention it, given we're supposed to be discussing the International dimension and its already in the article but written in a neutral manner.

It makes no mention of the islanders themselves, though UN resolutions provide for this explicitly, and I simply note that any mention of anyone who supports Britain has been removed. Its clearly non-neutral and is intended to imply a lack of support for Britain, which is a conclusion i arrived at all by myself and it reflects what Hector Timmerman was claiming last week. It also makes no mention that support for Argentina is nothing more than lip service. Again the personal attacks aren't really helpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee, your late attempts at comparing me with Timmerman have me puzzled. I don't know if I should laugh at your silliness or laugh at what they seem to imply. In any case I laugh, so I thank you.

Yes, the UK does refuse to negotiate until it is the wishes of the islanders themselves. Look it up Wee, this are almost verbatim Cameron's words (but of course you know this already) Resolution 43/25 (1988) makes no mention of the islanders (again: you know this). Since that is the resolution we are mentioning, I simply try to be as to be as faithful as possible to the original wording. If you go below you'll see how I've mentioned to Scjessey that we could mention what is stated in resolution 2065 (1965) where the population of the Falklands/Malvinas is mentioned.

I removed the mention of the Commonwealth as per no sources. The minute you present a source for it, I add it back.

The lip-service thing was removed to reduce the section. It is an opinion (not a fact) and it should be accompanied by mentions of Mercosur banning ships flying the FI flag (not present in your version by the way), which only adds more details to the section which I believe to be less relevant than others that do merit its inclusion (like China's position for example) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope Cameron does not state that he refuses to negotiate, he said he will only negotiate with the consent of the islanders. Sorry but I would not be so cruel as to compare anyone with Timmerman, I simply pointed out your edits were clearly POV reflecting verbatim what he'd said.

And although I've already mentioned this point, I will repeat it - AGAIN. Your so-called proposal for "balance" of opinion is not what is required. You need to source opinion stating that the support from Latin America has achieved something if one exists. The so-called flag incident is another example of paying lip-service, since in practise it had no effect whatsoever, they simply switched to the Red Duster and it was business as usual. Again you're trying to over state what Latin American support has achieved, ie diddly squat. Your beliefs are immaterial to deciding what content to include. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's really anything in your above comment that requires an answer of any kind, given that it's pretty much just you laying down your POV (making your bias in the issue rather clear I might add) So... regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Scjessey's draft. Comment area

for Simon's draft comments Irondome (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

One minor correction. The mention of what was presented in the 1988 resolution ("The most recent was in 1988, asking both countries to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514") is not correct. Here's the original 43/25 (1988) resolution where no mention of the islanders or of resolution 1514 is made. This is the 2065 (1965) resolution which states verbatim:

It is actually this one where the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and the 1514 (1960) resolution are mentioned. So this is a mixed up situation where we mention the 1988 resolution but quote from the 1965 resolution.

Given how extremely delicate the interpretation of this resolutions is (Argentina and the UK both have their own interpretations based on what those documents do say and what they do not say) I'd propose not incurring in WP:SYN trying to merge all resolutions into one and instead try to adhere as precisely as possible to the exact wording present in the 1988 resolution, which is the one we mention.

Other than that I can see this version as a reasonable middle ground. Regards and thanks for the input Scjesseys. Gaba p (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The claim that the EU has "an official policy of neutrality" raises not so much red flags as large red bedsheets. These matters are decided by unanimity in the EU, and Britain would have had the opportunity a veto any such proposed policy. I cannot conceive that the British would not have used that veto. I further note that neither of the sources raised in support of this makes refers to the position as "neutral" or "neutrality", and neither source refers clearly to it an official position according to European law. Kahastok talk 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources presented could not be any more clear on the issue, you are playing a semantics game Kahastok. The BBC article presented by Wee himself to source EU's position says verbatim: "The European Union and the US say they recognize the "de facto UK administration of the Falklands/Malvinas", but take no position regarding the issue of sovereignty, which they say must be settled by the UK and Argentina." (emphasis added). There's also this Mercopress article quoting the EU ambassador himself which leaves absolutely no other way to interpret EU's position. How exactly would you proposed the EU's position be mentioned according to what is presented in these sources? What wording are you proposing exactly? Regards Gaba p (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

After examining the sources, I have made changes that I think more fairly reflect what they are saying. I agree with Gaba's comment about the 1965/1988 issue, but disagree over the EU neutrality issue. Those sources really do not support the neutrality position. The BBC piece does not use the word "neutrality" and I think the EU ambassador is playing with semantics. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Scjesseys if the issue is with the word "neutral" and/or "official" then I'd suggest: "The European Union classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas, but take no position regarding the issue of sovereignty." This is verbatim taken from the BBC article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read some additional sources on the matter and tweaked the wording of the second paragraph. I've also removed the UK position, since that is not what the section is meant to be about. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick question: China's position is clear and easy to be sourced. Being one of the most important nations in the world, wouldn't you say this merits a mention in the section? On a more general line of argumentation: what standard would you propose we use to asses if a given country merits being mentioned or not in the section? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about China. It is indeed one of the most important nations in the world, but the standard for inclusion has little to do with that and more to do with how often it appears in reliable sources. And that really answers the second question as well, doesn't it? If something appears in a preponderance of reliable sources, it should be considered for inclusion - pretty much the standard for all articles on Misplaced Pages. Of course, the reality is a little more complicated than that. One has to consider other factors like WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:CONSENSUS et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed, that's my position as well. In this particular case I believe China is very relevant and its appearance on reliable sources grants its inclusion. I'll present the sources here for you to asses: UK Parliament's article, China's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs (point 5, in Spanish), BBC UK, Mercopress, and three of the biggest Argentinian news media outlets Infobae, La Nación and Clarin (many many more less known sources can be mentioned) In my proposed version the mention of this country takes up exactly 10 words (China has also stated its support for Argentina's sovereignty claim) I think that amount of coverage warrants at least that. What do you think? regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

All in all, this one seems as the only proposal with chances of being accepted (without much enthusiasm) by everyone. I'd say we go with it, or that we use it as a base for a diff-based approach of collaborative editing as we did here. I prefer the former, honestly... It's already been more than a month. --Langus (t) 00:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the mention of the UNGA should mention that the 1988 resolution is also the most recent one. The text currently fails to indicate that the resolutions dried up 25 years ago and have never restarted, which I think is an important point here.

China is a significant economic power, but it is not so powerful politically that its POV is necessarily significant in all cases regardless of circumstances - even in a dispute half way around the world, where China has no clear current or historical stake. And indeed one of the sources strongly implies that for China this as a quid pro quo - China wants Argentine support over Taiwan and regards supporting Argentina over the Falklands to be the price of that support.

I find the case that Gaba makes for China to be near-identical to the cases he has previously made for several others, and it seems to me that the answer is no different. I see it as the thin end of the wedge - the thick end being the full-blown list of countries that is widely opposed here. Per policy, only reliable secondary sources on the subject at hand are appropriate for judging weight, and I note that several of the sources that Gaba claims as evidence are primary sources, and/or are not on the subject at hand but are specifically on the subject of individual summits or statements. I'm sure we can find a lot of sources about the Argentina-England football match in the 1986 World Cup - but that doesn't provide evidence that we should be giving a match report in this article. For the same reason, I see no policy-based reason for China to be mentioned in this article. Kahastok talk 20:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could create your own proposed text that incorporates your concerns? I think we are very close to something now. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I will have a look at it. Kahastok talk 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I can largely support this as a draft text. A couple of points I think need to be addressed. I changed my draft to reflect Apcbg's comments on the EU. I would suggest you look at them. We're supposedly looking at the International dimension and the fact that the Falklands are eligible for EU funding should be mentioned. Similarly by not including the fact that whilst expressing support, many countries pay no more than lip service to supporting Argentina, is over emphasising it. I note that even commentators in Argentina make this comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think "expressed support" is relatively muted language that does not imply a ringing endorsement. My inclination is to exclude any mention of EU funding because its existence can be, to a degree, be implied by the fact the islands are partly subject to EU law; however, I am open to persuasion. If these are the only issues you have, I would suggest updating the article with what exists and then opening a new discussion concerning these specifics. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Up to a point I'd agree, however, I'm not convinced muted language would suffice. Do you not think it persuasive that commentators in Argentina make this point? I do think the EU position important enough to mention, as it has been mentioned during talks between the EU and MERCOSUR but I'm more willing to compromise there. I didn't include it in my first draft and only added as Apcbg commented. Whilst I would be happy to proceed with adding your proposal, I don't think I'm the one you'll have to convince. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Scjessey, what do you think about China's position and the sources presented? Let me note that there has been no source presented yet to back the mention of the Commonwealth and that Wee and Kahastok oppose any mention of China (7 sources presented) but lobby for the inclusion of the Commonwealth (0 sources presented) I see this simply as a clear double standard and I'm inclined to open a ticket at DRN to get outside opinions. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Question: why is it relevant that the Falklands are eligible for EU funding? Does it carry an implication of support to the British position? If so, PLEASE SOURCE IT. No argumentative walls of text needed (nor desired). Thank you. --Langus (t) 00:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

“International position” is far from being confined to formal declarations in support of British sovereignty or the Argentine sovereignty claim. The EU dimension comprises the Falklands status of association according to Part IV of the EU Constitutional Treaty (cf. European Union: Consolidated Versions of the Treaty On European Union and of the Treaty Establishing The European Community.) involving actual legal, political and economic links (including EU funding too, unlike the imaginary legal association with the Argentine Tierra del Fuego province), a progressing comprehensive special relationship with the Union. (cf. Green Paper: Future relations between the EU and the overseas countries and territories. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 25 June 2008.; Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Green Paper.) For this reason, EU should come first in the proposed section. Apcbg (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I changed my draft in line with your comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Just letting everybody here know I've opened a request for outside help regarding the China/Commonwealth inclusion issue at DRN. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Apcbg, do you realize you have answered me with an argument of your own? I need a link to a secondary source presenting that same argument. Yours or Wee's is not enough, that's WP:OR. We already have a reliable source stating that the mere listing of a self governing territory DOES NOT IMPLY support to the administering power's position: Malvinas dispute a ‘bilateral issue’ which is not included in the EU agenda

So, that means that a) being listed as an overseas territories in then EU constitution doesn't mean a thing in this context (and I am not the one saying this, it's the UE ambassador Diez Torres, which ABSOLUTELY DEMOLISHES any argument that we -mere WP editors- can present); and b) you need a reliable source for the logical leap you are proposing. You can't "convince" us; here on Misplaced Pages you need a source.

Note that all your links talk about "overseas territories" and note the implications that this would have over Gibraltar, given the fact that Spain also signed those documents. --Langus (t) 16:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Langus, those comments don't actually relate to the proposed edit, which refers to what the status of the Falkland Islands in regards to the EU. No one said anything about EU support for the British position. I suggest you look at and read what is actually proposed before launching personal attacks like that, as to be honest you look decidedly foolish at this point. You're in high dudgeon about an edit that isn't even proposed. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, Gibraltar is not one of the EU overseas territories at all, as it is not listed in the relevant Annex to the cited Treaty. By virtue of Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome Gibraltar is a proper part of the Union instead. Apcbg (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

@WCM: and why is "the status of the Falkland Islands in regards to the EU" important to this article? Is this article about the EU? No, it is about the FI sovereignty dispute (not the FI either), and, more specifically, this section is about international views on the subject. If you mention the status of the islands in regards to EU, then you're asserting that this status is in fact a view on the subject, which is what you need to source with a reliable source, your reasoning is not enough.

Finally, note that you have no means to point to a personal attack in my last comment because I haven't done so, while I could complain that "you look decidedly foolish" is a (not exactly flattering) comment about me, not content.

@Apcbg: you're still presenting arguments of your own, product of the analysis of primary sources. --Langus (t) 14:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Langus, here are some reliable secondary sources on the status of association with the EU of the relevant overseas countries and territories including the Falklands:

1. Paul Joan George Kapteyn. The Law of the European Union and the European Communities: With Reference to Changes to be Made by the Lisbon Treaty. Kluwer Law International, 2008. 1406 pp. ISBN 9789041128164

2. Timothy Bainbridge, Anthony Teasdale. The Penguin companion to European Union. Penguin Books, 1995. 502 pp. ISBN 9780140165104

3. Dimitry Kochenov. European Union Law of the Overseas. European Monographs Vol. 77. Kluwer Law International, 2011. 492 pp. ISBN 9789041134455

4. Rebecca Adler-Nissen and Ulrik Gad, Eds. European Integration and Postcolonial Sovereignty Games: The EU Overseas Countries and Territories. Routledge, 2012. 252 pp. ISBN 9780415657273

Hope this helps. Apcbg (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not questioning the status of association, but the fact that this status has any meaning in the context of the sovereignty dispute. I'll repeat: this section is about international views on the subject. If you mention the status of association, then you're asserting that this status is in fact a view on the subject, which is what you need to source with a reliable source. --Langus (t) 00:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that further clarification might be appropriate for the readers’ benefit. We could add some text like: “Argentina objects to the Falklands’ association status with EU and demands their removal from the relevant EU Treaties, which demand has been dismissed by the Union.” Sources: Argentina protests inclusion of Falklands/Malvinas in EU constitution. Mercopress, 27 April 2005; Argentina's protest receives no EU presidency response. Mercopress, 29 April 2005; Outrage at Falklands definition. BBC News, 29 April 2005; Malvinas in EU Constitution, “unfortunately affect us”. Mercopress, 2 May 2005; 2010 Ibero-American Summit to Address Malvinas Sovereignty. Mercopress, 3 December 2009; Falklands/Malvinas bilateral issue, but Islands are covered by EU as British OT. Mercopress, 20 January 2012; Malvinas dispute a ‘bilateral issue’ which is not included in the EU agenda. Mercopress, 31 January 2012; Argentinean Legislators Reaffirm Sovereignty over Malvinas Islands. Xinhua – Radio Havana Cuba, 27 February 2012. Apcbg (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright! That seems acceptable and certainly not OR: Argentina protests its inclusion and the EU dismisses this protest. However, we still need to clarify why they dismiss it, so the reader won't think that it is because of strong support for the British position or something along those lines. --Langus (t) 10:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't support the revised draft, the Commonwealth of Nations plays a significant role in the Falkland Islands and to simply not mention it is illogical and doesn't reflect the weight attached in sources. I have provided secondary sources, I've been doing so for some time, so I can't understand why you say there are none. I was prepared to compromise to accept the previous draft in order to get an agreement, this draft I cannot simply because it is pushing an agenda favouring Argentine claims by what it omits. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee: the key issue here are sources. You and Kahastok have been arguing for weeks that we should not only have reliable secondary sources for each statement but that we should adhere to an ad-hoc standard (invented by you two) that only information in secondary sources "on the subject at hand" could be used to asses WP:WEIGHT. You have been rejecting all kinds of information on the basis of that "standard" while supporting the mention of the Commonwealth which violates both those standards. You can't use a different set of rules for information you like and information you dislike. It isn't WP:NPOV and it's a clear "double standard".

Scjessey, regarding the inclusion of China: this presents a broader discussion about which information should be added into the article. Your comments are valid but, wouldn't this way of deciding what goes in and what doesn't (ie: using our own geo-political criteria/analysis) be a reach of WP:OR? In any case I agree with you, let's put up a version and continue the discussion on what information should be added within the article. I can support your draft version to be edited in as is. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Gaba claims again I have not provided a source as a basis for judging weight - some previous diffs ,,. I have repeatedly provided a basis for establishing weight most recently and first on 20 January 2013 . Apologies if other editors find these childish games as boring as I do.

As regards mention of China, a suitable source for establishing the quid pro quo, prior to this China maintained an official policy of neutrality. Taiwan's position also is of interest to the broader discussion. I'm sure we should also mention Iran, Syria or other states motivated by their anti-Western views.

I do not agree with adding the revised draft for the previously stated reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• @Gaba - WP:OR only applies to something you are adding to the article, rather than something you are not. I think the "China question" should be discussed after we have put an updated section into the article.
• @Wee - I am somewhat sympathetic to your position; however, the "Commonwealth question" is something that can be discussed after we have updated the section.
• @All - I think we should proceed with putting in the "revised" version of my proposal and then immediately begin two separate and fresh discussions about inserting language pertaining to China and the Commonwealth. These appear to be the only things holding us up, and I think it is silly to not have a halfway decent international section just because we have two little issues that need resolving. What say you? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a section that ignores any form of support for Britain can possibly be neutral.

And I'd put another point that I don't think people have considered yet. In my view, it is not at all appropriate for a section intended to be of this length to go under a (== Level 2 ==) heading - that's just asking for the section to be re-expanded and this whole process will not be a lasting improvement. Better to go for a (=== Level 3 ===) heading, probably under the "Current claims" section, which would be renamed "Current situation" or "Current position". The current third-level headings "Argentina" and "United Kingdom" would change to "Argentine claims" and "British claims". Kahastok talk 21:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Please make a proposal of your own, Kahastok. So far, I have only seen you pick holes in the proposals of others. Put something up so I can get a sense of what you are looking for. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've already compromised so much and now your text has diverted from presenting a NPOV. Its no longer a case of compromising, every item I suggest should be included per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV has been removed so that the resulting text is no longer neutral but pretty much states what Argentina claims by default. I cannot in good conscience agree to adding it in the form you suggest. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Whining about neutrality? See: Malvinas dispute a ‘bilateral issue’ which is not included in the EU agenda. The listing means nothing to this dispute, according to the only reliable source that we have right now on the subject.

I suggest that at least we properly weight its meaning by adding something along the lines of "However, EU ambassador in Buenos Aires, Alfonso Diez Torres, downplayed the meaning of its inclusion, noting that Spain signed the treaty despite Gibraltar being listed as British territory".

Although, obviously, the non-WP:OR way to go would be to just leave it out. --Langus (t) 00:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that Gibraltar is listed as British territory nowhere in that Treaty.

The Argentine observers and statesmen are well aware of the sovereignty implications of the Falklands association status with EU, see for instance Malvinas in EU Constitution, “unfortunately affect us”. Mercopress, 2 May 2005; Malvinas, el colonialismo y la soberanía Clarín, 30 de abril 2005; Para la UE, las islas Malvinas son británicas. La Nación, 14 de diciembre 2007 (“For the EU, the Falklands are British” ... “"El Gobierno rechazó, ante las instituciones y los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea, la pretensión de incluir a partes del territorio nacional argentino en la lista de países y territorios a los que se aplica el régimen de Asociación de los Países y Territorios de Ultramar del Tratado de Lisboa", dijo la Cancillería, en un comunicado oficial.”); Reclaman a Europa por las islas Malvinas La Nacion, 07 de noviembre de 2006 (“Las islas figuran en esa lista, por lo que eso significaría reconocerles la soberanía británica.” – “The islands are on this list, so that would mean recognizing their British sovereignty.”).

They remain unconvinced by Amb. Diez Torres’ placating words seeking to sweeten Brussel’s negative answer (EU will not consider amending its Treaty), and keep on demanding that the Islands be removed from the EU Constitutional Treaty, see Argentinean Legislators Reaffirm Sovereignty over Malvinas Islands. Xinhua – Radio Havana Cuba, 27 February 2012. (“Meanwhile, the lawmakers called on the European Union to exclude the islands from European overseas territories in the EU Constitution Treaty.”).

The EU financial aid for the Falklands is also regarded as relevant to the sovereignty dispute, with Argentina protesting against that aid too, see Nueva protesta por la ayuda de la Unión Europea a Malvinas. Clarín, 15 de agosto 2006. Apcbg (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

@Wee: if you want to include the Commonwealth you need sources that mention the Commonwealth's position on the issue. I know you understand this and thus I see your constant beating around the bush as simply an acknowledgement that you have no such sources.

@Langus: I agree that the way the EU is being mentioned right now is biased towards implying a "support" of some sort towards the British position and that a sentence like the one you propose is needed to put the inclusion of the islands in EU's constitution into proper context. @Scjessey: I agree that your current version is the most suitable for its inclusion. I would only make a minor change at this moment, this "interests of the Falkland Islanders" for this "interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". The last phrasing is verbatim taken from the 1965 resolution and I believe it to be more neutral. In any case this can also be talked about later on, after your version is added into the article.
@All: I would like to draw the attention of other editors here to the noticeboards where Wee and I have raised this issue: NPOVN and DRN. In both noticeboards un-involved editors have commented that reliable secondary sources such as newspapers are perfectly valid to establish weight and asses the merit of a given country's inclusion; a point they refuse to take. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Spanish word for the Falkland Islands is included in the beginning of the article. It does not need to be used again unless it is part of a direct quote. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a direct quote, the statement "interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" is a verbatim quote from the 1965 resolution. That's why I say we should stick as close as possible to the original wording as to avoid problems down the road. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We are not using that direct quote, so there is no need to use the Spanish language version. I can't imagine what "problems down the road" you anticipate. Besides, this is the English language version of Misplaced Pages and the use of the Spanish in the lede is quite sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Having seen endless discussions over single words in articles related to this issue my recommendation is to adhere to the original wording as much as possible. That said, I'd have no problems endorsing your last version for its inclusion in the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Useful sources

A high-quality secondary source that can be usefully mined (apologies if previously used) - Hoare, Liam; Jan 11, 2013 Falklands Redux: Is President Kirchner South America's Biggest Troll?, The Atlantic. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Likewise The Guardian's resource, created on 3 January 2013 and updated: The Falkland Islands: everything you ever wanted to know in data and charts --Wikiain (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

I would bring to everyone's attention that User:Gaba p has started a case at WP:DRN but hasn't notified all participants. See WP:DRN#Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously Wee? I gave notice in this talk page 5 hours ago right after I notified you and Kahastok, the only editors arguing that as per WP:WEIGHT we should dismiss China (thoroughly sourced) but include the Commonwealth (not sourced at all), which is why I only included you two in the DR/N report. If any other editor here wishes to give his input over there (or add himself as an involved user), I would really welcome it. That's why I left the message here 5 hours ago Wee. Seriously... Gaba p (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see why dispute resolution is necessary. I thought we are doing quite well coming up with a proposed text, with only a couple of minor points to resolve. I've only been around for a week or two but it seems to me we have come a long way in a short time, with only just a little bit further to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I opened a report asking for assistance after both Wee and Kahastok repeatedly refused to address their apparent double standard when assessing what information should be included in the article and why. A matter as simple as mentioning China's position (heavily sourced with secondary sources) is being dismissed by them, but at the same time they argue for the inclusion of the Commonwealth for which they have only a primary source and nothing else. Relaxing the conditions when the information favors one side and hardening them when it favors the other is definitely not WP:NPOV.

I'd really appreciate your comments on this issue either here or over at the DR/N report so we can move forward as soon as possible and finally have the section up. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have already commented on this issue above. My feeling is that China should not be in the section because (a) it appears to be a half-hearted move of political quid pro quo designed to get support over Taiwan, and (b) China is not geographically or geopolitically significant in this dispute. With that said, I am also leaning toward dropping any mention of the British Commonwealth from the section. While there are plenty of primary sources to support what is in my proposed text, I can find precisely zero secondary sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not be prepared to support a text that didn't mention the Commonwealth. I have provided a secondary source above that does mention it. Of course Gaba will be able to provide a diff showing where I refused to include China, oh no he won't as there isn't one. I agree the DRN ticket is not needed, perhaps you would comment there please. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If you two are going to keep behaving like children fighting over a cuddly toy, I have no interest in participating in any discussion whatsoever. The sensible thing is for us to put in a proposed text that includes what we all currently agree on (I think my most recent proposal satisfies that criteria) and then have continued discussion on what additional stuff can be added to enhance it still further. But the petty bickering needs to end. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, I've struck through it. However, my comment on the Commonwealth of Nations is still appropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It is exactly because of the reason stated, " China is not geographically or geopolitically significant in this dispute"....that I am interested in seeing exactly what China has to say or do with all of this (as a reader). Apparently there has been some progress in working-on a solution, such-as the suggestion at the DRN that another template or way of presenting additional countries positions in the matter. I hope that you can expand on this24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What are we doing back here? Come on now, lets get back to where the real work was being done. I leave you lot for a couple of days and chaos. ( Im being semi-serious). But seriously, I have got you from an all out edit war barely amonth ago to some basically mututually agreed rather good final drafts. We ARE NEARLY THERE. The details are to be finalised and anyway, other drafts may still be proposed. Lets just all go back to the drawing board. Withdraw the Commonwealth and China. We will be having Iran next eh? Lets just get back to the page and close this down. Irondome (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

DRN is appropriate if one party thinks the talk page discussion is going in circles, or if they think a consensus is virtually impossible. If GabaP wants to cancel the DRN and resume the discussion here on the talk page, that is fine. But if GabaP (and we assume good faith) feels that the talk page discussion is going in circles, or is otherwise stalled, then DRN is a good forum to get fresh input. --Noleander (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class South American military history articles
• South American military history task force articles
• B-Class South America articles
• High-importance South America articles
• B-Class Argentine articles
• High-importance Argentine articles
• WikiProject Argentina articles
• B-Class Falkland Islands articles
• High-importance Falkland Islands articles
• Falkland Islands articles
• WikiProject South America articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics