Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:13, 25 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.

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)

Proposed Text - Gaba p (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC) -- REVISED: 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Text - Wee Curry Monster talk 12:49, 25 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 wonder if we could duly source our possible explanation, without which it would be our OR I’m afraid. Mind it, the Falklands dispute is nothing extraordinary for the European Union; a number of other European possessions around the world are subject to various claims, too. We have also the British Antarctic islands of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands claimed by Argentina; the British Indian Ocean archipelago of Chagos claimed both by Mauritius and Seychelles; the French Indian Ocean islands of Bassas da India, Europa, Glorioso and Juan da Nova claimed by Madagascar, Tromelin claimed by Mauritius, and Mayotte claimed by Comoros; the French New Caledonia islands of Matthew and Hunter claimed by Vanuatu; the Spanish African enclaves of Ceuta, Melilla and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera, and islands of Peñón de Alhucemas, Islas Chafarinas and Isla Perejil claimed by Morocco; and the Danish Greenland's Hans Island claimed by Canada. Most likely, because of EU members’ solidarity as well as an obvious common European interest in having preferential access to those most valuable territories (inhabited by EU citizens by the way) and their resources (enormous EEZs and exceptional biodiversity if nothing else), the European Union has no good reason to question the sovereignty exercised by its member states over their outlying possessions – even the British and French Antarctic claims which are effectively under Antarctic Treaty governance. Apcbg (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we can: "The EU ambassador explained that there is certain confusion regarding the Lisbon treaty since the fact that the Falklands/Malvinas are included is “merely descriptive”. Member states enumerate their overseas territories and in this case “it’s an article from previous treaties”". --Langus (t) 18:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The quoted statement does not answer your question, “we still need to clarify why they dismiss it.” If the Falklands inclusion was “merely descriptive,” why not remove it? If it was “an article from previous treaties” in 2012, then it was not an article from previous treaties in 1973, when first included by consensus in the EU consitutional treaty and Argentina’s protest was dismissed – why? (Sourced: “El Tratado de Roma, en su Anexo 4, contiene disposiciones especiales para los territorios de ultramar (PTU). Al suscribirse en 1973 el Tratado de Adhesión entre el Reino Unido y la Comunidad Europea quedaron incorporadas, como territorio de ultramar británico, las Islas Malvinas (Falklands para los ingleses), sus dependencias (Georgias del Sur y Sandwichs del Sur) y el denominado territorio Antártico Británico. Argentina protestó esta medida ante cada uno de los Estados signatarios.”) Apcbg (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Because there's no need to do so! And it would be extremely complicated, if not impossible: the UK would oppose and unanimity is required. Here you have his full answer, in Spanish as it was originally given:

Source: Díez Torres: "El tema de las Malvinas no entra en la política exterior europea"

And it makes sense: this annex has formerly contained territories that are now independent countries, such as: Vietnam, Morocco, Cameroon, Rwanda, Suriname, Bahamas, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Brunei, etc.

Gibraltar is covered under Article 355(3), which applies to "the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible". Declaration 55 of the Treaty ("Declaration by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland") says that "The Treaties apply to Gibraltar as a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. This shall not imply changes in the respective positions of the Member States concerned". That is, sovereignty issue is avoided.

Argentina is forced to protest its inclusion, "to safeguard the Argentine position regarding Islas Malvinas". Not doing so could be alleged as an act of sovereignty by the UK not protested by anyone. --Langus (t) 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense to amend the Lisbon Treaty provisions on the Falklands, says Díez Torres. That may well make no sense for the EU (Amb. Díez Torres is EU), yet it apparently does make sense for Argentina which after Díez Torres’ statement continues to demand the removal of the Islands from the EU constitutional treaty.

As EU members, Spain and Britain have equal saying on the EU policies on Gibraltar, while – unlike Britain – the non-member Argentina has no such saying on the EU policies on the Falklands. Furthermore, while the Spanish position is safeguarded by the British declaration on Gibraltar that you quote, there is no such British declaration on the Falklands to safeguard the Argentine position. Apcbg (talk) 16:27, 19 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)

Apcbg, I've answered you above. Looks good to me. --Langus (t) 10:20, 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)

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)

Let's get on with it, folks!

This reversion by Kahastok is unnecessary. I believe the section as added represents a reasonable compromise of all positions. It includes the Commonwealth stuff desired by Wee, and also the China stuff desired by Gaba. Both have been modified to make them palatable to both "sides". I would like to see Kahastok self-revert, or at least consent to it being restored. There is no reason why we cannot continue to modify the section afterward, but I think this represents a reasonable base section from which to move forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree both with Kahastok's edit and his points made at the DRN discussion; furthermore, the proposed texts still fail to reflect adequately the EU aspect as discussed here. Apcbg (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd also agree with it, please don't assume my support would extend to over riding a quite reasonable position of another editor. For info, I would reword the section on China as it changed from a neutral position. I have been away and I see passions seem to have cooled. I would hope a consensus is easier now. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The current version is a tremendous compromise on my part. It includes the Commonwealth (poorly if not directly un-sourced), mentions Canada (which, if we were to adhere to W&K's original "standard for inclusion" shouldn't be mentioned at all) and mentions China the way Wee wanted to (now moving the goal posts). Wee and Kahastok keep opposing though. I agree with Scjessey, there is no reason we can not continue improving the section afterward. The discussion has been going on here and at DRN for well over a month and W&K's continued opposing is getting ridiculous. I echo Scjessey's call for Kahastok to self-rv as soon as possible. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on content not editors. You will note my comment on China was a purely minor tweak, easily achieved. Note also I did not oppose but stated quite explicitly my support for a particular aspect of the text did not justify over-ruling another editor whilst there was a move to achieving a consensus. I have offered a text proposal including material I believed to be important, which has been repeatedly removed from text proposals. I've added some germane material about Kosovo and attempted to address the concerns expressed by Apcbg - I believe they are broadly in line with previous discussions on the matter, Wee Curry Monster talk 12:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation: you are still opposing.

All this stuff you talk about can easily be discussed after the section is included in the article. As both you and Kahastok are well aware, the section we include will not remain unchanged forever (this is Misplaced Pages remember?) so this apparent request that we wait until a definitive version that suits 100% all parties in every minor detail can be drafted is both ridiculous and inane. As I've said, this version includes your demand that the Commonwealth and Canada be mentioned and it even mentions China the way you wanted. To continue opposing its inclusion is just gaming WP. Once again I urge Kahastok to self-rv or Wee to restore the section. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:13, 25 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