Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:42, 15 March 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.

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)

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)

I can understand and sympathise with any reluctance to implement a consensus text until there is agreement. The problem with discussing anything after implementation is the track record of filibustering to frustrate consensus. What continues to be frustrating is, despite your asseertion I'd agreed to something, it didn't address China in the way I thought appropriate, you simply implemented it without giving me a chance to comment. And here we are again, I am defending myself against your attacks rather than discussing content. If you could resist the urge to drag the dicussion down to childish levels it owuld be appreciated by all. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your new proposed text seems to contain an awful lot about Argentina's position, rather than the position of the international community. It's also surprisingly long. And frankly, it is your "return" from brief absence that has ratcheted up the personal rhetoric, if anything. I feel very strongly that the compromise text worked out between me and Gaba represents a solid foundation from which to move forward. It should not be seen as a "final version" or anything like that, but something that we can build on. I'd like you to read it once again and compare it to your earlier proposals, which were very similar. The article is being harmed by having nothing at all, so we need to put something in very soon. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made no remarks about other editors so frankly your comments blaming me for personal rhetoric are complete and utter bollocks. Actually that comment is a pretty effective way of making things worse by encouraging it to continue and increasing the tension by targeting those still urging restraint. I would oppose putting in the compromise text you and Gaba worked out, because it clearly doesn't include elements I considered important based on what I read in the source material. And whilst I don't see it as needing much work, I wouldn't agree with adding it till there was agreement, as having been implemented there would be filibustering to prevent a consensus emerging on including anything else. Please feel free to further increase tension by accusing me of assuming bad faith but it would still be me being a realist borne out of long and bitter experience of trying to do anything with those two if it doesn't promote the Argentine POV.

The argument that the article is being harmed is frankly hyperbolic nonsense. We have no need to put in "something" soon. As to the claim of the article being harmed? Actually no its not, we've not had one single edit war demanding we mention the latest super important summit that Argentina has announced supported it. Yet within hours of that piece going in, you had some anonymous IP editor doing precisely that. It is all the more compelling reasons for getting things right from the outset.

I have offered a text in good faith, I remain willing to compromise and once again ask editors to comment on content not each other. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster asked me to provide some input. After reading the above discussion, I continue to believe that Wee Curry Monster's proposal from the DRN case is a good middle ground, that is consistent with WP policies. That proposal was:

1. Argentine motivations (a) Domestic politics (b) 1994 Constitution

2. Argentine diplomatic offensive to constantly raise the issue
3. Latin American support noting that commentators observe it is little more than "lip service"
4. US official policy of neutrality but noting that previously it supported the UK due to its own dispute over the Falklands
5. Commonwealth of Nations support for the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination
6. EU dimension
7. China's previous ambivalent position changing to support due to a quid pro quo with Argentina in return for support on Taiwan.

I also think that the recent text that was in the article is fine:

Argentina has pursued an aggressive diplomatic agenda, regularly raising the issue and seeking international support. Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at regional summits. China has backed Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan. Since 1964, Argentina has lobbied its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN, which annually recommends dialogue to resolve the dispute. The UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions on the issue. In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. The United States and the European Union recognize the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty; however, the EU classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas. The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory. At the 2012 OAS summit Canada stated its support for the islanders right to self-determination.

I also think that keeping all text out of the article until a final agreement is reached in the Talk page is not best for WP readers. That could lead to 1 editor filibustering and preventing any text from being inserted. Best is to insert some middle-ground text; then identify the 2 or 3 issues with the text; then to have RfCs on the specific issues. But that could take 2 or 3 months, and leaving the text out for the duration is not ideal. --Noleander (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the step of re-inserting the above text into the article, so WP readers can get some information. I think the next step is to create an RfC on the specific remaining issues. --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that that material does not include any citations (footnotes), so I've self-reverted and removed the text. The material should be in the article, but it needs citations, of course. An editor familiar with the material should supply citations, and I would support inserting it if the citations were included. --Noleander (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I did propose a good middle ground. However, the reason for proposing agreement in talk before implementing is all too apparent in previous discussions. I don't agree with the above text for one minor reason - China changed position from neutral to supporting Argentina as part of a Quid pro quo over Taiwan. You would think this is a minor fix but although I've kept a low profile for a week, instead we had two editors resorting to personal remarks when it was simple to resolve and I would probably have agreed for now.

Secondly take point 3. I can source several political commentators referring to Argentine support being little more than lip service. Any attempt to put in informed comment is denounced as being there to "water down the support Argentina enjoys". There will be an insistence if I include it that numerous quotes by Chavez, for example, are included as "balance". At no point has there been sourced comment that demonstrates those comments do not reflect the weight of opinion in the literature. Your reference to filibustering is most appropriate, there would be filibustering to prevent comments of that nature being inserted into the text and I have to observe the reasons for excluding it are based in narrow nationalism not wikipedia's policy on neutrality.

So I have to observe the imperative for achieving agreement on all points is that there will be no incentive not to filibuster without it. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Noleander: I've added citations to the nearly consensual version above. Please tell me if there's anything else you need before adding the section into the article.

The problem with Wee's version you mention above is that it has failed to get consensus (for many reasons not worth getting into again). You'll see that all the proposed versions are quite similar except the last one proposed by Wee which is the largest (even though he and Kahastok argued the section needed to be small) and the one that introduces the most disputable statements (which is why it's not even close to being a middle ground). My last version on the other hand, which is really Scjessey's version to which I made minor additions to accommodate Wee and Kahastok's requests, is the closest one to full consensus. I'd appreciate it if you could add it back into the article because if I do so either Wee or Kahastok will immediately remove it. Regards Gaba p (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
(PS: this "water down the support Argentina enjoys" is a completely made up statement.)

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 12 Where you'll find numerous comments by User:Gaba p that material should not be included as it is variously "downplaying" or "diluting" Argentine support. Yes he never said verbatim "water down the support Argentina enjoys" but semantics aside, I was correct in my description and this is not a valid reason for censoring content on wikipedia. Its being excluded for reasons of narrow nationalism not grounds relevant to wikipedia. My text proposals have had support and the first comment at DRN by a purely neutral editor was it represented a good middle ground.

Similarly as I've previously indicated, sourcing as done by Gaba P seems more about listing as more C24 sessions as possible in the guise of sourcing rather than providing a reliable source for a single fact. Its introducing bias in the guise of citations not providing a suitable base for sourcing. You need a simple source from a reliable reference, not this sledge hammer approach.

I oppose the proposed text - it doesn't address key aspects and its simply the thin end of the wedge as far as I can see it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to go and look "compromise" up in a dictionary. Right now we are at the "I'm willing to compromise as long as we start with my version" point, which is not compromise at all. We were this close to working something out, and then all of a sudden we are back to square one. DRN was no help at all and has just left us with two separate discussions with editors talking past each other. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no, I supported your text right up to the point where I'd compromised so much it became unacceptable. And we were at a point where a minor tweak would have addressed my concerns but rather than compromising yourself you chose to join in personalising the dispute rather than urging a focus on content. We were close to working something out and no I am not so fucking precious as to demand we start with my version. I am happy to start with yours if it helps your ego, providing it addresses the content suggested by sources and content is not excluded for illegitimate reasons. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

Scjessey: I'm not really responding to Wee anymore because what he proposes, as you correctly point out, is basically that we start from square one discussing yet another version (or another group of additions) by him. As you know, this is not reasonable. The version I proposed is your version with three edits to accommodate Wee's requests: the Commonwealth, Canada and China mentioned the way he wanted to. Even though I compromised to all his requests he's still opposing.
The discussion at DRN is closed so there are really no separate discussions, just this one. I find it rather amusing how Wee now accuses me of "censoring content on wikipedia" when it was him and Kahastok who completely deleted the old version of the section. Oh, the irony.
Noleander: you'll see that I present several sources for the "Latin America" sentence. Wee believes this is "bias in the guise of citations" (does such a thing exist?) so feel free to select the ones you feel are more relevant or ask here if you want me to trim those sources down to just a few. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

When you can stop being childish and insulting me in the guise of talking to another editor, come back with your content proposal that addresses the very minor point I made that needs to be addressed. I remain unconvinced there is a need for this section at all, since the WP:WEIGHT attached to it in sources on the sovereignty dispute is none existent. Even being prepared to suggest suitable content is quite a compromise on my part. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... let's try this again: Wee are you talking about the mention of China "changing its position from neutral"? If this is the only thing preventing you from lifting your block then for the love of god present the source that states this so we can move on. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the text with references. If we could start a new section to discuss it from here on, that would be great.
Wee, if you have a source for "changing its position from neutral" I won't oppose this inclusion. --Langus (t) 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring that section. That is a real benefit to readers. I think that from now on it would be best to just address incremental changes, one at a time, treating the text that Langus just restored as a baseline or starting point. The WP:RFC process can be used if there is a specific issue that cannot be resolved here in the talk page. --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Initially, I reverted it, thought about it some more and self-reverted. I would like to thank Langus for sourcing it the correct manner, as I indicated the way it was being done was problematic. I will look at sourcing my comment again but if I find any change I suggest is simply reverted I suggest we will go back to having nothing again. All the personal abuse and rhetoric leads me to conlude that any change I suggest is going to be opposed by certain parties simply because I made it. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Wee, but you don't get to say "we do things my way or I delete the whole thing". That's not how it works. I agree with Noleander that we should now treat each incremental change one at a time. So, in that spirit: Wee would you please give me one good reason I shouldn't revert this edit you made? You changed "reciprocating" for "in return for" when the source used says verbatim reciprocating. Understand that this has nothing to do with you making the edit, it's just an edit we can not support with our sources. So either present a source for the edit you just made or please self-rv until you have one. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is getting simply ridiculous. The edit summary indicated why I changed it, we do not have to use the same exact words as the source. Your comments merely re-inforce my point you'll oppose a change simply because of who made it, not whether it materially improved the article or not. You seem determined to create conflict with me for no good reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No Wee, this is Misplaced Pages. We use sources. You can not presume to make changes to an article with no sources to support them. You have no real reason to change the wording (improve English and grammar flow?) and it did not improve the article in any way, so I'll revert it to the wording used in the source. I also noticed you took the liberty to add quite a bit of text to the section. Fair enough, I'll do the same myself so we can have a more complete section. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can source a commentary from a suitable reliable source then that is fine but if we're going to see further disruptive insertion of a load of crass comments by Chavez as "balance" as you've done previously I will revert back to where we were. People have better things to do than play your childish games, it really is about time you grew up and stop being a WP:DICK. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all: your personal attacks and aggressiveness are not helpful. Second: everything I ever add to the article is 100% sourced by reliable sources. Third: your mention of Chavez's crass comments is borderline racist. Fourth: I really do not appreciate you insulting me so please let that be the last time. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And this is exactly what I meant. This is not an example of commentators commenting about the practical levels of support that results from Argentina's aggressive diplomatic campaign. It is:

a) a reference to a summit where Latin American states agreed to a token gesture of banning Falklands flagged vessels. None of which visted Latin American ports, which would be welcomed anyway if they switched to the Red duster. Its an example of precisely the token action referred to as "Lip service" by commentators.

b) Chavez spouting off that he will defend Argentina if it faces "imperialist aggession". A comment simply chosen for its rhetorical content, it has no meaning whatsoever.

Notably, nothing of relevance, added purely disruptively, sourced but violating WP:WEIGHT.

I treat the attempt to paint me a racist with the utter contempt it deserves. You think I'm a racist, take it to WP:ANI. If you don't, then aplogise now or I will take it to ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee, you can't expect an article to only include the information you regard as important and disregard everything else. The two "commentators" you added to the article are pretty much nobody yet you somehow see fit to assign them enough WP:WEIGHT to warrant their opinions inclusion in the section. I disagree with that but I still I left them there. Now you can't at the same time disregard related and properly sourced information because you feel "it has no meaning whatsoever". I've already commented on your WP:OWN attitude regarding Falkland related articles Wee and this is yet another example of it. I urge you to please self-rv the section back into place.

I do believe referring to the official statements by the president of a Latin American nation as crass comments is borderline racist, as I believe referring to the actions of a female president as a "hissy fit" (as you did not long ago) is borderline misogynistic (and I told you that much at the time). I'd suggest striking that part of your comment. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

We have a good base. Now let's move forward

Now that we have a good starting point, let's begin fresh negotiations in a new section about how it can be improved. First I'd like to address "in return for" versus "reciprocating". I agree with Wee in that there is no need to quote any source verbatim; however, "reciprocating" indicates a mutual agreement, which is what it actually is, whereas "in return for" sounds a bit like "for services rendered". I think "reciprocating" makes more sense here. What do others think? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree 100%, that's why I've been restoring the original wording from the source (ie: "reciprocating") The words "in return for" have an implication of the position taken being nothing more than a mere favor whereas "reciprocating" has no such connotation. Now I am not a political analyst but even if I were my opinions would matter very little here in WP. It could very well be that China is simply "returning a favor" but if we want the section to mention that, then we need sources that say that much. We can't simply edit in our own analysis of the dispute. If there are sources for such a statement then by all means present them and we can re-factor the section accordingly. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"In return for" implies payment to my mind, whereas "reciprocating" implies mutual back scratching. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The two sentences are equivalent, there was no negative connotation in the very minor change I made to improve the grammer and English usage. However, it is simply something that is too fucking trivial to argue about. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point Scjessey. What I think should be stressed here is that regardless of the meaning of those two wordings one thing is clear: they do not imply the same thing. Given that the source we have at hand chose one way to put it we could only begin to discuss the changing of that wording if we had a new source commenting the issue in a different way. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee. Please refactor your last comment to tone it down a bit. If you do, you may delete this comment at the same time. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee. If it is too trivial to worry about, please just give your consent and then we can move on to the next thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming Wee can provide the necessary source, I would support changing the China sentence to the following:

"Although previously being neutral on the matter, China now reciprocates Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan by backing Argentina's sovereignty claim."

What do others think? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If we can properly source the statement "Although previously being neutral on the matter" I see no problem with adding it. I'd prefer something like this though: "Although previously being neutral on the matter, China now backs Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan". This way we would need to change the current wording very little thus remaining as faithful as possible to the source. What do you think? Regards. Gaba p (talk)

I thought about doing it that way in the first place, but I didn't like the awkward two-comma sentence structure. By the way, as long as we are not changing the meaning of what a source says, using our own words is actually preferable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm yes I see what you mean but we could always loose the second comma, right?. One issue I see with the current wording (adapted from the BBC UK) is that it appears to imply that Argentina backed the Chinese claim to Taiwan first and after that China supported Argentina. Neither that article nor the Mercopress article actually state this clearly. Do we know who supported who first? It'd be nice to find sources on this so we can present this facts more accurately. I'll try to come up with some.

I agree that using our own words is preferable as per WP:COPYPASTE as long as we don't change the meaning. There are certain words though that, if changed, would change the entire meaning of a statement; so those should definitely be kept. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You make a good point. The sentence makes it look as if one thing happened before the other. How about:

"Although previously being neutral on the matter, China now backs Argentina's sovereignty claim in a reciprocal agreement in which Argentina supports the Chinese claim to Taiwan."

It's a little more of a mouthful, but it eliminates any potential timeline discrepancy. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely better. When we have the source for the first part I'd say this is the version that should go in. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I repeat my comment that I'm not prepared to argue over trivia. I don't apologise for or withdraw a blunt comment to that effect.

China's Balancing Act: Cancun, the Third World, Latin America Robert L. Worden Asian Survey Vol. 23, No. 5 (May, 1983), pp. 619-636 Published by: University of California Press

I went looking for the source I had in mind, when i came across the above. I think it explains the situation far better. If you register at JSTOR you can read it online. As Kahastok observed, China's foreign policy is quite equivocal. JSTOR is a good resource which shows that not much has in fact changed. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So do you support this then?: "Although previously being neutral on the matter, China now backs Argentina's sovereignty claim in a reciprocal agreement in which Argentina supports the Chinese claim to Taiwan." -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest you register at JSTOR and please read that article first. As regards your text proposal, before I read the above article I would have said yes. Whilst I could simply provide a supporting cite, reading that article made me pause and think it was perhaps too simplistic. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't register. I am not a member of any institution. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee: would you mind presenting here what you have in mind? What do you want to change/remove/add? It would be a lot easier if you just told us instead of having to play guess. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Anybody can register for free read access, you only need to register from an institution if you want download access. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Claims that the referendum was "illegal"

I copy edited the sentence on Argentina to simply state that Argentina rejected the referendum. To state in Misplaced Pages's voice that Kirchner stated the referendum was illegal under international law does not comply with WP:NPOV. If that were the case, and it isn't, a neutral commentator's comment would be needed and we would need to reflect the range of opinions in the literature. This was a classic example of abusing the use of quotes to make a political POV statement in a wikipedia article. That the referendum was reject by Argentina is a fact, that Argentina claims it was illegal is a rather dubious opinion, which should not be presented as fact. Moreover simply including it as a quote is abuse of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to insert political statements into wikipedia's articles. I've removed it again and invite the editor responsible for inserting it to follow WP:BRD and discuss whether it should be included. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It might be illegal under domestic Argentine law that is neither applicable in the Falklands nor part of International Law. The referendum deals with the relationship between the Falklands and the UK, which as pointed out by the European Commission spokesman is an EU member state internal affair. Apcbg (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to state Argentinians position, but also to make clear it is their opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added the reason for Argentina's dismissal of the referendum as stated in the source. I think it's an important piece of information to mention and it is clearly stated that is Argentina's opinion. Regards. Gaba 17:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No one has seen fit to add any comment by a British political leader on the significance of the referendum. Why then is there an imperative to include a claim made without basis from an Argentine leader?. Misplaced Pages deals in facts not opinions. That you think it important to state a claim made by a politician does not form a sustainable reason for adding it. Its simply WP:SOAPBOXing. We explain it was rejected that is sufficient. This merits no more than a simple summary of the facts, nothing more. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wee, it is not a "claim without a basis", it is the reason why said country decided to dismiss the referendum. It also is not just "the claim from an Argentine leader" or "a claim by a politician", it is the position of the whole political body of Argentina represented by its president and both the Congress () and the Senate ()

As I explained to you over at the Falkland Islands article (where you also removed this fact): it is important to note that Argentina regarded the referendum as illegal because: 1- it is an indisputable fact and 2- it improves the article providing sourced and relevant information. This is the third time you remove this fact from the article and I'd appreciate if you could please self rv (also accusations of "soapboxing" are not helpful) Regards. Gaba 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No I will not self-revert. You stated an opinion not a fact.

What principle in law was cited? Answer: None. Ergo it was a statement made without foundation. Equally it is simply your opinion that it is important.

You ignore the very basic point no one feels a need to refer to any statement made by British leaders, or that we simply need to state the very basic facts in a summary. I would appreciate if for once you would actually address a point made to you, rather than ignoring it. Simply asserting it to be my opinion doesn't make it go away. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again Wee: that statement mentions the reason Argentina dismissed the referendum. That Argentina considers the referendum "illegal" is an indisputable fact and an addition of encyclopedic value to the article. Your WP:OR about "principles of law" and it being "made without foundation" is irrelevant as you well know. You are once again attempting to obscure relevant and properly sourced information from an article and once again I'll ask you to please self rv. Regards. Gaba 19:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My point which was very simple and has not been addressed. No one has seen fit to include statements by British politicians asserting the referendum to be legal, or any comment on the great significance of the result. That Argentina rejected the referendum is a fact, that it asserts it to be illegal is an opinion. That it has provided no basis is largely irrelevant, this was a tangential point I made. Address the central issue please.

Time and again, we see the same behaviour. You seize on an irrelevant tangential point and go on and on about it. You simply restate your own personal opinion ad nauseum. Its boring, irritating and will lead nowhere.

I have no more desire to see a load of quotes from British politicians on the great significance of the referendum, than I do wish to see the anticipated statements of outrage from Argentine politicians.

We should a summary that should be no more that a simple assertion of the facts and not be inserting political opinions of either persuasion into the article. I invite this point to be addressed. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And yet once again: "that it asserts it to be illegal is an opinion", no Wee it is a fact that Argentina considers the referendum illegal. I'd urge you to go through the refs I provided to check this () You are removing properly sourced and encyclopedic information from an article (yet again) to make a WP:POINT and that is not acceptable. So here it goes once again: please be reasonable and bring back the statement you removed 3 times from this article, just like you removed it 3 times from the Falkland Islands article.

Also, please don't engage in WP:PAs Wee. We can discuss this reasonably without having to resort to any kind of accusations. Regards. Gaba 20:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As noted on another page already. The deliberate use of a quote assering an opinion that it is "illegal" is to deliberately abuse the use of quotes to make an overtly political point by using negative language. This is contrary to WP:NPOV.

The actual reason Argentina rejects the referendum is that it refuses to recognise any right of the people of the Falkland Islands to have a say in their own future. The deliberate use of a negative term is designed to mislead rather than inform our readers and I reject the use of such language for that reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is saying we should use quote marks. That Argentina rejected the referendum as illegal is an indisputable fact Wee, as shown by the refs I presented. Argentina also considers that the islanders have no say in the issue, but this is in addition to that fact not the reason for the rejection. You are proposing we obscure a relevant and properly sourced fact because you consider it negative, this is not acceptable Wee.

As I proposed in that other article, I say we use the term "no legal value" instead of "illegal" if it is that term that upsets you (even though that is not a valid reason to keep information of encyclopedic value out of an article) Regards. Gaba 21:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, again the reason why Argentina rejects the referendum is that it refuses to recognise the islanders have any say. I am proposing that we simply state that and do not obscure it by selecting phrases for their political overtures. It is very much a disputable fact that it is "illegal", the British Government states it is a legitimate expression of self-determination. Again I am not arguing to put that statement in, simply to state the facts and not overtly political statements of opinion. Please do try and address the point. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, once again let's try to make the point get across. "the reason why Argentina rejects the referendum is that it refuses to recognise the islanders have any say", can you source this Wee? I can thoroughly source that the reason Argentina rejects the referendum is because it considers it has no legal value (ie: it considers it illegal): . Can you source that the reason Argentina dismissed the referendum is expressly because of what you say? What you might think about this fact is irrelevant and you know it. This is a fact that can be thoroughly sourced and as such should be included in the section. Can you understand the difference between a fact and your own opinion Wee? Regards. Gaba 22:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

".....the Islanders are not part of the sovereignty dispute since the sovereignty claims are over the territory and not them.” Argentina Ambassador to London (Alicia Castro) dismisses referendum. Moriori (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Right at the beginning of that article the reason is stated: "Argentina's ambassador to London Alicia Castro dismissed the referendum held by Malvinas Islanders saying it is “a ploy that has no legal value.”" (emphasis added) This is the official position of Argentina and the reason for the dismissal (as can be seen in all the refs I provided above). Regards. Gaba 01:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Cherry picking personified. See WP:Balance. It seems you want to select a quote from the ambassador's comments but ignore another which is equally significant, namely "...the Islanders are not part of the sovereignty dispute...". Moriori (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the basic statement is that the islanders don't have any right to have their say, everything else is just window dressing. This is the reason for the dismissal and the selective quoting to offer a different explanation is seriously misleading. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Moriori, have you checked the refs I presented above? At least the titles of pretty much all of them? The sources all state that the referendum was dismissed as illegal either by Argentina as a whole or by some of its politics separately. How do you justify picking that specific line you mention over any other in that article? How about the lines "..It was neither organized nor approved by the United Nations.." or "only represents the opinion of some 1,600 British citizens against the millions and millions of people that recognizes Argentina’s sovereignty over the Malvinas". How do those lines differ from the one you picked? How is that not "cherry picking"?

Furthermore I absolutely do not propose to ignore the line you mentioned. Quite the opposite in fact, I believe it should be mentioned that Argentina considers it illegal (as the reason for the dismissal) and also what you mention here if you believe it to be important. It is Wee the one who proposes we obscure information from the article, not me. Regards. Gaba 12:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is what's in place now:

• Argentina has rejected the referendum.

and this is my proposal:

• Argentina considers that the Islanders are not part of the sovereignty dispute and thus rejected the referendum as having no legal value.

Regards. Gaba 12:42, 15 March 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