Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:47, 22 June 2012

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: 30 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.

Archives

Sept 2005 – Dec 2006 January 2007 – June 2007 June 2007 – June 2008 June 2008 – August 2010 Sept 2010 – June 2011 June 2011 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

2012 Summit of the Americas

"The Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly has repeatedly endorsed Argentine proposals calling the United Kingdom to restart the negotiations. However, at the 2012 Summit of the Americas Argentina perceived a failer to gather support for a joint statement on the Falklands dispute by the other American countries."

Second sentence casts doubts over the first one. That's however an entirely wrong interpretation on our part (that is, WP:OR). If you read the sources:

Mercopress:

More specifically on the Falklands/Malvinas issue, Holguin said it was “a bilateral issue” between Argentina and the UK, and called for a dialogue between the parties involved , while the war against drugs “is a matter of concern to all”

AlJazeera:

" was furious, we are told, because of the lack of full, complete support for Argentina's claim of control of the Falkand Islands," Newman said.

The New York Times:

Another obstacle this time was Argentina’s unsuccessful demand for language in it that would support its claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, a British dependency in the South Atlantic that Argentina calls the Malvinas. In that dispute, which boiled over into a war between Argentina and Britain in 1982, Mr. Obama said the United States remains neutral.

In short, worded as it is right now, the article implies that the support for calls for negotiations is falling apart. While I'm not saying that in the future this tendency can be reverted (next OAS General Assembly meeting is in June), right now that clearly isn't the case (see interview to Holguin). Argentina pursued a declaration of support for Argentina's POV (that's a step further from neutrality), and it didn't got it. --Langus (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it does. The sentence reads "...Argentina perceived a failer to gather support for a joint statement on the Falklands dispute...", which did happen. Perhaps the word 'full' could be added: "...Argentina perceived a failer to gather full support for a joint statement on the Falklands dispute..." to make it more clear. Gaba p (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Langus (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is already distinctly equivocal about this, in that it refers to a perceived failure to gather support for a joint statement. Which seems to imply that there's another interpretation of events that says Argentina succeeded in getting support for such a statement. Which I doubt.

Referring to "failure to gather full support" suggests that such a statement was supported by a substantial number (a majority at least) of members but was thwarted by one or two hold-outs. Do we have evidence for this in the context of this particular summit?

I note that it refers only to a statement on the Falklands dispute. It doesn't say what that statement is supposed to have said - no statement was made at all. This doesn't necessarily imply that there's waning support for negotiations (though that is a possibility) - only the plain fact that the islands were one of the factors that prevented a joint statement being released. Kahastok talk 22:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That one sentence alone doesn't imply a fading support, I agree. But without any clarification and delivered right after the idea that "The OAS has repeatedly endorsed Argentine proposals calling the United Kingdom to restart the negotiations. However...", it certainly does. Something has to be done, IMHO. --Langus (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, there was no agreement for such a statement at the 2012 Summit of the Americas. The summit did not agree to call for negotiations. If President Kirchner didn't ask for a call for negotiations but for support for her position, it seems to me that that doesn't change the fact that no agreement was reached for a call for negotiations. I don't think we should be actively suggesting that there is not a lessening of support for negotiations (other than Obama and Cameron's conversation earlier this year I'm not sure we have evidence either way). Since we're going into this we should report the fact - which is that no statement was issued. Kahastok talk 16:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've found two sources that state that out of the 34 countries in the summit, only Canada (and the US neutral position) where the reason for not achieving a joint statement first source, second. I'll add these two sources and rephrase the sentence to reflect this fact. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS can we please have an agreement not to enter details of every summit in South America where the same group of countries state exactly the same position time after time with no effect or change in position. Whether its the OAS, UNASUR, MERCOSUR or whatever its always the same countries repeating the same mantra. Its tedious, this is supposedly an encyclopedia and I don't wish to see this article become an endless list of summits spouting the same thing every time. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

annn

The two references I provided are an important piece of information since they both state that only Canada and the US where opposed to a joint statement supporting Argentina's claim and the remaining 32 countries backed that claim. I hardly think this is an irrelevant fact or tedious details. I move to add both references and my rephrasing back. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The question that should be asked is does this represent a shift in anyone's opinion? The answer is no. Therefore its repeating information already in the article and its sirrelevant and tedious details. This article does not exist to document every foreign summit where Argentina puts a debate about the Falklands on the agenda - tediously on a weekly basis of late. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not trying to document every foreign summit, we're not even trying to document this one. It's just two lines of relevant information regarding this dispute, how can we talk about the summit and not about what came out of it? It's two lines of information, how is that tedious? I found two crystal clear references on the positions of the countries involved in the summit and that minimal information should be added. Gaba p (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Does it represent anything new? And every time there is a summit we hear the same thing. Its only two lines is not a justification and you`re avoiding the point. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly relevant information given that it says that a joint statement in the last Summit of the Americas was not achieved only due to Canada and the US neutral position. How can this piece of information be irrelevant when we are mentioning the last Summit of the Americas?

And yes it does Wee. Can you please point me to where in the article another Summit of the Americas and its outcome is discussed? Because I don't see it. The fact that you've heard countries in America massively supporting the Argentinian claim several times is not a valid reason for obscuring this information. Gaba p (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I ask is this anything new, you simply assert it is relevant. Does it represent a new development? Yes/No - its a simple question just answer it. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

To add, I've removed the whole sentence, every one of these summits results in stupid edit wars as every announcement is so "relevant" and "important". This was only noteworthy for CFK storming off in the huff at not getting her own way but that is only tangentially relevant at best for this article. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Copy/paste my own comment above:

Yes it is something new, no other Summit of the Americas and it's outcome is mentioned in the article (and even if it were, this is the last one and thus the most relevant one) Gaba p (talk)

And now you've removed it entirely?? I come here to look for consensus on virtually any change I intent to do in the article, no matter how small, and you just go and unilaterally remove the whole section we are discussing?? This is unacceptable and you now it. I'll revert your changes to my previous edit. The reasons you asked for have been given several times already, please do not revert my edit again without consensus. Gaba p (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Whats new about it? It is the same position of those countries stated at <random>any forum</random>. So what is new about other than her hissy fit?

BTW if you want to go back to the last consensus version fine but don't substitute your edit and tell me I can't change it. You haven't given a reason other than "it is relevant 'cos I says so" and notably you're avoiding answering a simple question. Is this anything new? The answer is no by the way. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

OK for the second time I'm bringing this to the talk page, I've reverted back to the version which last had consensus. So again is this anything new? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You're bringing this to the talk page after I reverted your unilateral changes, you forgot to mention.

"notably you're avoiding answering a simple question", please read carefully Wee, I've said this two times already: Yes it is something new no other Summit of the Americas and it's outcome is mentioned in the article so yes it is new information. The fact that any forum you can think of supports the Argentinian claim is not a valid reason for dismissing this one and you know it.

"You haven't given a reason other than "it is relevant 'cos I says so"", so you don't think that a forum constituted by 34 countries (almost all of the countries in the American continents) including the US (the most powerful nation in the world) is relevant? Really? This is your other argument? Gaba p (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again you're being needlessly combative, you reverted to restore your unilateral changes and you did so whilst it was still being discussed. You didn't only revert my changes, you restored your edit.

And no that bears no relation to my comments. Let me see, do we currently report in this article the position of those countries and does this offer a new perspective? It doesn't, it fell neatly along exactly the same lines as before. And again you're avoiding the question, is this anything new in the context of this article - seeing as a summit of American states is only tangentially relevant to this article. It isn't. Again I draw your attention to WP:NOTNEWS. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, no Wee I'm not being needlessly combative, you are once again manipulating the facts to hide your reprehensible behavior. The only one who made any changes to the article while it was being discussed is you as I noted 4 comments above and this can be seen in the article's history. Only after that did I start reverting your changes until the version by Mcarling was reached and we returned to the talk page. It was you who, in the middle of the discussion, unilaterally went and deleted the whole paragraph.

Please tell me exactly which of the 4 points in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER you think applies to this issue, because none does as far as I can see.

I find it quite amusing to say the least that you only started to push for the removal of any mention of the Summit of the Americas, after I provided the references that state that full support for the Argentinian claim was not achieved due to Canada and the US neutral position. Prior to that you seemed to have no problem with it. I also notice that per your "nothing new" argument, the outcome of this summit would only be acceptable for its inclusion if the majority of countries had expressed their support for the British claim. If they expressed their support to the Argentinian claim (as they did) then it's "nothing new" and not worthy of even being mentioned. You are disregarding this forum based on its outcome, is this not WP:POV?

"And again you're avoiding the question, is this anything new in the context of this article", I can only assume at this point that you are trying to wear me out until I give up and quit or lose my temper and insult you so you can have me blocked. I've answered this three times already but here it goes once again: it is new in the context of this article since no other mention of this summit exists. The outcome of this last summit is new information relevant to this article. The fact that you feel that the Summit is "only tangentially relevant to this article" is not a reason to deny the inclusion of two perfectly acceptable sources or even worst, to completely remove any mention of it. Gaba p (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster is quite right. This is not newsworthy. An encyclopedia is not meant to include every trivial detail. Mcarling (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, you're constantly commenting on me, not my edits. Again I am compelled to answer an allegation made by you rather than my edits. If you think my edits are reprehensible then report me at WP:ANI, in fact I positively urge you to do so but I doubt you'd get the outcome you want and see WP:PETARD.

I am not disregarding this forum based on its outcome. I am suggesting reference to particular summits are removed to be replaced by a reference to the position of the countries involved. I see nothing of benefit to this article in continuously reporting SA summits where Argentina has tabled motions on the Falkland Islands.

Apart from anything else, Timmerman does have a history of claiming the support of countries which don't support Argentina's position - shall we include that as well. If you really want to report on what was significant about the summit, it was that prior to the summit Argentina made a big fuss they were going to get a statement of support and CFK left in a hissy fit because one was not forthcoming . Shall we also include that? Per WP:NOTNEWS I suggest there was nothing of significance to the Falklands dispute, seeing as no country changed their position or suggested a new initiative. If fact there was nothing of any significance whatsoever - apart from CFK storming off in the huff when she didn't get what she wanted but as news item I wouldn't usually include that in an article. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Wee Curry Monster. The only thing newsworthy about the summit was CFK having a hissy fit and storming out. While CFK's antics are relevant to this article, I don't think they are significant enough to include here. Mcarling (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. Now that I've found not one but two sources indicating that the support for the Argentinian claim in the Summit was pretty much total, the forum becomes not newsworthy and trivial. How funny this was not an issue before when the article said that Argentina had failed to gather support for a joint statement. Well there's not much I can do, it's two editors against one so I guess the Summit of the Americas (composed of 34 countries including the US, almost 100% of the American continents) is now a trivial and not newsworthy event.

I wonder, what would you have said if the outcome of that forum would have been a massive support to the British claim? Gaba p (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your hypothetical, if it were the status quo, it would not be newsworthy. It would not be newsworthy if the EU were announce support for Britain's claim because every member state of the EU has already officially recognized that the Falklands are legally Britain's through Annex II of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Lisbon). Is it newsworthy if the sun sets in the west? No, of course not. Would it be newsworthy if the sun set in the east? Yes, of course. Your hypothetical is analogous. Mcarling (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There are lots of international forums and the US is in many of them. That the US happens to be in this one does not make it noteworthy. I would note that for all the going on about "including the US", we must remember that the US did not voice support for Argentina at the summit. I find it difficult to see how this is particularly noteworthy for any reason other than that President Kirchner stormed out. And it's WP:RECENTISM. But if we are to mention it, the word "perceived" is wrong because it implies that by some other interpretation Argentina did successfully get support for a statement. Which is clearly inaccurate. Kahastok talk 21:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"I am suggesting reference to particular summits are removed to be replaced by a reference to the position of the countries involved.", are you suggesting we remove any reference to this summit and replace it by the individual positions of the countries involved?

Mcarling your hyperbolic analogy would make sense if this summit were addressed anywhere else (it'd have to be addressed countless times actually) It is not and I dare you to find a single reference to it in the entire article. Also, am I correct in understanding that had the outcome of the summit benefited the British claim then you would've had no problem in calling it newsworthy? Because that is definitely not what Wee said.

"That the US happens to be in this one does not make it noteworthy", no the fact that it encompasses almost the entirety of the American countries makes it notable. "the US did not voice support for Argentina at the summit", of course not, the US remains neutral and my edit said exactly that. "the word "perceived" is wrong because it implies that by some other interpretation Argentina did successfully get support for a statement. Which is clearly inaccurate", I agree. Argentina did not gather full support due to the positions of Canada and the US, the rest of the countries backed its claim and this is what the two references I provided stated. So why shouldn't this be said in the article? Gaba p (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would meet the newsworthy test (it might or might not meet other tests) if the OAS were to back Britain over the Falklands, just as it would be newsworthy if the EU were to back Argentina over the Falklands. Please try to keep to NPOV. Misplaced Pages is not the place to advocate personal political objectives. Mcarling (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I support Langus removing that sentence per WP:RECENTISM. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you answer my question please Wee? Did you suggest we remove any reference to this summit and replace it by the individual positions of the countries involved?

Mcarling I was just trying to correctly understand your position. You said you agreed with Wee, but then what you said is definitely not what Wee said. So which part did you agree with him specifically? "Please try to keep to NPOV", could you please tell me which part of any of my comments do you regard as POV? Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

falklandshistory.org is a self-published website

Why are we using it? Hcobb (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a readily available online resource for primary sources that are not published elsewhere - and it is reliable. What exactly do you dispute? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Then mine it for sources and use those. Disintermediation! Hcobb (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a concern? The material cited to it is uncontroversial. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Wee Curry Monster, but I agree with Hcobb. Disintermediation is important. Mcarling (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I disputed it's obvious bias (specifically the P&P pamphlet), but Wee said it was acceptable under WP guidelines. Gaba p (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OWB. 31.People who loudly accuse the community of some vice are almost invariably guilty of, but blind to, some variant of that vice themselves. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OWB. 35.It's good to let your ego be punctured once in a while. Most of us, after several years and tens of thousands of edits, start to put a lot of our egos into our work here, more than we originally either intended or anticipated. While it's natural for this to happen, the unintended consequences include feelings of ownership over one's contributions and a quickness to react in poor faith, and even with arrogance... Gaba p (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sticks and stones, old boy, sticks and stones. Kisses. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha, you're funny. Hey and sticks and stones right back at ya mate. Gaba p (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Every bundling comes with bias. From the limitations of the bundler, if nothing else. The way to overcome bundling bias is with effective review and self-published sites lack this. Therefore we ought to unbundle and let all of the unbundled references stand or fall on their own. Hcobb (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not biased, its just that it contradicts Argentine claims that are historically inaccurate - such as the expulsion of Vernet's settlement in 1833. But again here its citing facts that are uncontroversial. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall, what exactly do you dispute that is cited by this reference? I wouldn't care but I've asked 3 times now. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My dispute is that the website does not match to our requirements to use it as a reference. To the extent that it links to reliable sources we should use those instead. Hcobb (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing to do this, or expect others to do it? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If Hcobb wants to replace secondary citations with primary citations without changing the text of the article (which I guess is what he wants) then that should be uncontroversial, right? Mcarling (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The only remaining issue is to determine which of the bundled references support each claim. Hcobb (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'm slightly wary of people who make a fuss but aren't prepared to put in the leg work. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't have all these sources. Why? Because we have a site that makes claims and then claims that these claims are covered somewhere in their big stack of references. Hence the problem. Hcobb (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a big problem. Secondary sources are ok, but primary sources are better. If someone wants to do the work, then that's fine. If not, then there is no point in complaining. Mcarling (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Convention of Settlement ended Argentina’s protests over the Falklands.

How is that sentence true? WCM? Gaba p (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It is true, Argentina did not protest to the UK between 1850 and 1888, then there were no further protests till 1941. Further the section is presenting the British claim in that section and that is the British position. I note we also present the Argentine position without attempting to remove facts we don't happen to like; for example Argentina's argument for denial of the self-determination right of the islands is based upon a false claim that the settlement was expelled in 1833 (which never happened). Wee Curry Monster talk 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is: The Convention of Settlement ended Argentina’s protests over the Falklands, and you say It is true, Argentina did not protest to the UK between 1850 and 1888, then there were no further protests till 1941.

Where is the logical leap I'm missing that starts from a hiatus between 1850 and 1888 and from 1888 to 1941 and ends with the statement that Argentina's protest ended? Gaba p (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is quite misleading... --Langus (t) 14:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think what is trying to be said is that this ended Argintinas legitimate claim, but we w9uold still need a source for that claim mas wwell.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No it is not, it is stating the British position, it is not misleading. Removing the statement is misleading as you're removing part of what the UK maintains in its claim and it is easily sourced; to whit Hague's recent statement for exa,ple. We don't comment on the nonsense in Argentina's claim where there is a leap of logic stemming from the false claim of an expusion in 1833 that never happened, therefore the Falkland Islanders can't have a self-determination right. Or perhaps Argentina's claim to be responsible for venereal disease in the Falklands is a "protest"! Wee Curry Monster talk 14:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The source does not say that Argintinas claim ended. Does it say that becasue Spain did not maintian the settlement this voided argintinas claim? Or is that how you ae reading the source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing two issues, the British do maintain that Argentina's claim ended with the signing of the Convention of Settlement. Spain agreed with France to maintain a settlement at Port Louis as part of their agreement, Spain did not. That is a separate point. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No the point is a claim that a source says X, does it? Does the source say that becaseu Spain did not maintian its settlement that voided argentians claim?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is true. The Convention of Settlement did end Argentina's protests over the Falklands. That Argentina later tried to resuscitate their protests doesn't make the statement any less true. Mcarling (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok Wee, can you produce a source to back the claims The Convention of Settlement ended Argentina’s protests over the Falklands (1). After the Message to Congress in December 1849, the Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress for 91 years until 1941 (2). If so please add them and I would consider that as sufficient. Right now even though it is in the British claim section, it reads more like a statement of a fact rather than a statement of UK's position (and even if it's just UK's position, it still needs a reliable source)

Both sentences are taken literally from P&P's pamphlet page 23 and even there it just says so, it doesn't reference any primary source. Thanks. Gaba p (talk)

The primary source, the only possible primary source in this case, is the set of transcripts of all the Messages to Congress from 1850 to 1940. Any other source would inherently be secondary. Mcarling (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A UN document, which includes a statement by the UK ambassador laying out the British position. As noted above it was not mentioned in the Messages to Congress from 1850 till 1941. It is the British position and you are trying to wikilawyer it out. I could equally point to elements of the Argentine claim that read as statements of fact, are we to remove those as well? See also WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, a secondary source is preferrable in this case. There is no basis for removing this from the British claim section. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So why not use that as the source, rather then one that you seem to be unwilling to provide a quote from?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Wee look, someone agrees with you, can I accuse you of WP:TAGTEAM too? Ha, just joking. So Mcarling do you presume P&P had access to said transcripts? How else do you think they would now that? Because they're not referencing anything as you can see. Gaba p (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No you can't, seeing as you acted in concert to force the removal of material claiming the cite didn't support it and no one else has. Laver p.30 clearly does. Criticising a source by speculating about the research of its authors is not sustainable either. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

seeing as you acted in concert again with the unfounded accusations Wee... Do you always accuse people you don't agree with of WP:TAGTEAM? How can I know you and Mcarling didn't agree prior coming here on what to say/do? Don't you realize how silly your accusations are? Anyway... Criticising a source by speculating about the research of its authors is not sustainable either, can you really tell me you believe the authors of that pamphlet had access to said transcriptions? What other scenario do you propose of them acquiring such privileged information? Gaba p (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I hadn't seen your comment above, that seems like a much more reliable source. Let me check it out and I'll come back to you. Gaba p (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Pascoe and Pepper have done extensive research in the Argentine archives and the information is not priveliged. Anyone can access them, they were published in the public domain. This is simply more speculation to discredit a source and its not sustainable. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that is definitely an interesting source. For what I can see it says nothing about the Message to Congress issue, the closest thing is the sentence:

In the 90 years following ratification of the 1850 Convention, the Republic of Argentina only submitted one official diplomatic protest, in 1888. Now, either you consider this official diplomatic protest as actually referring to a Message to Congress protest or you don't. If you do, then the 91 year gap statement is shown to be false. If you don't then the question remains because there's nothing in that source about it: what source is there to back the 91 year Message to Congress gap as a British claim? And if P&P's pamphlet is the source then: where is P&P getting the information about this gap? Gaba p (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What utter nonsense it doesn't contradict it, it confirms it absolutely. The source is Buenos Aires, the Argentine national archive - this is simply trolling now you've had an answer already. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me correct myself. It doesn't really matter where P&P got that information from or if they invented it, it doesn't even matter if Mark Lyall Grant (author of that UN article) makes any sense or not. The 91 year gap is stated as a British claim and I think P&P's pamphlet is a clear source for that being so biased towards Britain's position. So I withdraw my request to find a source for that 91 year gap, it's pointless. It doesn't matter if the gap is real or not, Britain says it is and so it is clearly a claim. I'd suggest referencing that UN article too as a source of that claim.

My problem with the gap is that I was looking for a reliable source of the gap itself when I should have been looking for a reliable source of the claim for that gap.

Wee you say those transcripts are in the public domain, would you happen to have a link for that? Because I looked but couldn't find it. Thanks Gaba p (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion that P&P didn't read the manuscripts of the Messages to Congress while they were in the Argentine National Archives is absurd, especially as P&P's 40 page paper cites documents in the Argentine National Archives 22 times. I have not tried to count the number of citations in P&P's thousand page document. Mcarling (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit war over citation

Can we revert to the pre-dispute version of the articel and discus sources here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am askng that the low level edit war stops untill this matter is resovled.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no edit war, Langus keeps removing a cite which on the face of it is an uncontroversial fact - which he allows to be repeated later. He's made no attempt to explain his rationale to me and instead keeps removing it, which on the face of it appears to be vandalism. 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

An edit war is where two (or more) editors keep reverting each others edits, that is what is happening. I am asking now for the page to be reverted to its pre-edit war status and the page locked.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing a valid cite is vandalism, reverting vandalism is not edit warring. As usual taking this to talk could solve the problem, instead we see two editors working in conjunction per WP:TAG to force a change. I wouldn't risk another revert in case it is falsely reported as edit warring, which appears to be the motive here. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an accusation that the source does not support the claim, that I wuld argue that the edits are in good faith. can you provide the quote from the source that supports the text?Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to this section to keep both topics separated. Gaba p (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster How about if you just produce the quote from the source that supports the text and be done with it, instead of accusing me and Langus (and Slatersteven?) of working together to annoy you? Gaba p (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The pre-dispute version is that of 10:49, 16 May 2012‎. After that, Nigelpwsmith added a source which doesn't support the statement. I don't blame him as he's new to Misplaced Pages policies, but WCM should be more careful about these issues. --Langus (t) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You keep removing a cite claiming it doesn't support the statement. Laver p.30 clearly states that it was a requirement that Spain continued to maintain a colony at Port Louis. Spain largely abandoned its colony in 1806 and made a complete withdrawal in 1811. On the face of it, it supports the statement that Spain breached its agreement with France. My comment stands this should have been taken to talk - you have successfully tag teamed to remove it. How doesn't it support the statement? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a dispute about this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How can it be a "dispute"? The cite states precisely that Spain agreed to maintain a settlement. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does the soource say that this ended argintinas claim?Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The citation directly supports the claim. I cannot see any way of rationalizing removal of the citation as anything other than vandalism. Mcarling (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If my memory serves me abuot this source it says that there was an agreement, nit that spaoin wsa in breach of it (or that this nulified Argineitnas claim) again can we have a quote demonstratiing that I am wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming that there was synthesis here? I don't see it personally - as part of the agreement Spain agreed to maintain a settlement - they didn't. Its a statement of fact. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does the source say that this nullified argintinas claim?Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No but then neither does the article? It states that Spain breached the agreement. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"That the title ceded to the Spanish by France in 1767 would have reverted by Fundamental breach when the Spanish breached the agreement to maintain a colony at Port Louis to prevent the British gaining title" Does the source say this?Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No the source does not say that verbatim but it does note there was an agreement that Spain would maintain a colony and Spain did breach that agreement. Do you disagree this is relevant? I'm struggling to see what the problem is here? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The problom is that it does not say that, I bleive the source says that this is in fact not the case. It repeats the British claim and dismises it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I'm willing to be convinced but if it its stating the British case then its a valid cite for a British claim is it not? We're sourcing a claim not a rebuttal of that claim - for example we don't source rebuttal of any of the Argentine claims. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I belive the source claimeed it was invalid in the same section it mentions the claim. And what I am saying is the source you are using states the British claim is not valid, So why not use a soource that does not critise the British possition?Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As an example, I'm not aware of any serious legal discussion of Argentine claims regarding the Treaty of Tordesillas that does not dismiss it as a pile of festering dingo's kidneys (a homage to Douglas Adams). Anyway the point stands - it supports the statement so why is it being removed. Just because the source dismisses it, doesn't mean it can't be used. The assertion was it did not support the claim and it clearly does. A valid cite is being removed and the sentences tagged and you can bet your life the statement will then be removed as uncited. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Then fox them by using another source. I really fail to see why this is so objectionalbe.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If an alternative source has to be sourced fine but in the mean time this is perfectly acceptable. The issue of edit warring and WP:TAG to remove a valid cite remains and that is simply vandalism. As no reason for removing it has emerged I intend to restore it presently. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoting Slatersteven : "That the title ceded to the Spanish by France in 1767 would have reverted by Fundamental breachwhen the Spanish breached the agreement to maintain a colony at Port Louis to prevent the British gaining title" Does the source say this? Answer: no, it doesn't. It does talk about how the French wanted to prevent the British from gaining title, but the first part (the core of this British claim) is not in the cited source, not even refuted. (In fact I have reasons to believe it is original research, or at best an idea not yet published.) If I'm wrong please correct me with a quote, not just 'blah blah blah'. Until then I'll keep reverting, noting that the one going against WP spirit is you, WCM. --Langus (t) 13:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Laver does say that as part of the agreement with France, Spain agreed to maintain a settlement. Spain did not. Are you disputing that the sources says this, Laver p.30, easily verified for yourself with Google Books. You claim it is WP:OR, how is that, when that is what the source says? The original claim you made was that the cite did not support the claim, now the goal posts are moving to claims it is WP:OR. Pray is it because you've noticed that is what the source says? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Then lets have a quote please? As I can find no claim on page 30 that the Spanish inabilty to maintian a settlemt made its treaty with France void, nor can I see on page 30 any mention of the British goverments attitude. Page 31 indeed says that the agreemtn was fully implemented in an "expeditious manner", so no it does not supprt the text.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the solution here is to add it to the French claim that the agreement included a provision for Spain to maintain a settlement and also note that Spain did not. Both are citable easily. If Nigel can produce a cite confirming his claim then it may change but for now I'd suggest removing that from the British claim section. Does that seem a reasonable solution?

If it isn't yet published then I agree it appears to be WP:OR, however, on the face of it the cite supports the claim that Spain breached the agreement. Langus needs to be clearer in what he is objecting to. Here the cite is not the problem as stated but that the editor was drawing their own conclusion. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

French pretensions were already included in the French claim section, and I have no objections to that. I don't recall Laver saying that the agreement "included a provision". Those words seem to imply that they were written down, which is not yet clear to me. I believe the current wording correctly reflects the source: "France insisted that Spain maintain the colony in Port Louis and thus prevent Britain from claiming the title to the Islands and Spain agreed". --Langus (t) 16:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have or know where to find the text of the 4 October 1766 agreement between France and Spain? Mcarling (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Bias in article intro

The last sentence of the article's intro although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation is biased towards Britain's position and should either be removed or moved to the 'British claims' section (with its correspondent citation added). Thoughts? Gaba p (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not biased at all, its a statement of fact. Argentine claims of an expulsion in 1833 are untrue. What would be biased would be allowing that claim to stand unchallenged as it is allowing a falsehood to be promulgated. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite so. The fate of virtually every settler is documented in contemporary Argentine, British and American records, which are unanimous on that. Apcbg (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a sovereignty dispute, you don't get to decide what is a fact and what is not; that's why there are references and 'Claims' sections. According to Argentina, it is a fact that the British expelled not only militar but civilian popullation living there see here, should we add that fact to the intro too? Even this article says there were civilians living there at the time. My point is: you are making a subjective interpretation of facts when you say this claim is contradicted. It is only contradicted from the British point of view, not from the Argentinian one. Could you at least cite a reference for that claim? Gaba p (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No its a claim by Argentina that the civilian population was expelled, the historical record shows this is actually untrue. A lie is a lie. Claiming it is an Argentine "fact" doesn't make it true and we mention what Argentine claims. You can assert it is a fact that black is white but you'll only manage to kill yourself on a pedestrian crossing. The lede does not need a cite as it is expanded in the article. This has nothing to do with POV. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And btw it is not a "British POV", that claim is contradicted by contemporary Argentine records such as the log of the ARA Sarandi for example. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You know what the problem is? Your bias towards the British position makes you try to scrutinize and analyze facts instead of just pointing them out in the article. "the historical record shows this is actually untrue", this is no what Argentina says (and again, check this article where you'll find sources of what I'm saying) and so it's a British claim. Furthermore you can't decide for yourself that a "claim is contradicted by contemporary Argentine records", if you want to do that then do your research and write a book about it. WP is not the place to write down your subjective views on a topic. On the other hand if you have a source that claims what you are saying then please reference it. I still say this should be moved to the British claims section as it introduces a bias where it is, whether Wee wants to admit it or not (of course I won't touch it unless there is consensus) Gaba p (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

BrickbatsThe historical record both British and Argentine shows this is untrue, nothing to do with POV or a "British claim" and there were still members of Vernet's settlement resident in the 1850s. The only civilians resident in the islands between 1833 and the formal commencement of British colonisation in 1842 were those remaining from Vernet's settlement. Further I have not decided anything for myself, it comes from a source. There is no bias but what you're trying to do would introduce it. You repeat a common mistake that NPOV requires us to give equal credence to falsehoods perpetuate by nationalist ideologies - it does not. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you keep doing it: "shows this is untrue", you can't just say that; you have to substantiate that claim with a source (both an Argentinian and a British one) that says that. "The only civilians resident", you're still subjectively analyzing a fact. Who are you to decide if those civilians count or not? "equal credence to falsehoods" and who decides what constitutes a falsehood in a sovereignty dispute? It's a delicate issue, that's why it should be left to sources. You are not citing sources for that claim, I cited even a WP article where it's stated that there were in fact Argentine population living there. The mere fact that the sentence starts with an "although" is indicative that it is biased towards Britain's position and shouldn't be there. If Britain says no civilians were expelled but Argentina says there were, then it's a disputed fact and should be in the corresponding section. And you still haven't cited the sources that makes that claim. The sentence says: "although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation", so please reference the source that specifically states this. Gaba p (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope you fundamentally do not understand NPOV. We do not report on Argentine claims from an Argentine POV, or on British claims from a British POV, instead we comment on Argentine and British claims from a neutral POV. If Argentine claims are demonstrably untrue, NPOV does not require we report them as true from an Argentine POV. You are the only person to keep referring to national viewpoints, blinkered by a crude nationalism with the misguided notion that we have to reflect that nationalist viewpoint. We don't. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral in saying "although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation", you really don't see it? As it is you are making a subjective statement of a fact based on your own interpretation (of the documents), how is this NPOV? If a source specifically says that, then we should add it and change "contradicted by the contemporary documents" to "contradicted by some sources (based on contemporary documents)". Otherwise it's just WP saying it and then it is POV. WP is not an original source of facts/knowledge, it's an encyclopedia. If you are going to state a fact, you have to reference it.

If the contemporary documents relating to the occupation are so clear about contradicting that claim then there must be a source we could reference, could you please cite it? Gaba p (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you presume it is my intepretation, it is not. And again per WP:LEDE we do not generally include citations in the lede. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean your as in you specifically, I meant as in any WP editor. Citing WP:LEDE: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.". This it what is says later on in this article (under Claims by the United Kingdom):

• That the islands have been continuously and peacefully occupied by the UK since 1833, with the exception of "2 months of illegal occupation" by Argentina.
• That Argentina's attempts to colonise the islands in 1820–33 were "sporadic and ineffectual".
• That the islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement.

Not only is none of those claims sourced, they do not specifically address the statement that there are contemporary documents contradicting the occupation.

I direct anybody reading this (other than Wee of course) to please go here and read the comments by the two editors that responded to Wee. They say almost exactly what I'm saying here. Most notably are the excerpts:

- ""contemporary historical record" from 1833 needs to be interpreted, even if it is argentine records. So when you state that contemporary historical record shows the claim to be true you are leaving out the question of who it is that is stating that this is the case" Taemyr

and

-"A few thoughts on this... first we (Misplaced Pages editors) should not be interpreting "contemporary historical records from 1833"... that is known as Original research... what we should do is report on the interpretation of published historians. (...) We (Misplaced Pages editors) must be neutral when reporting on the non-neutral claims of our sources. The best way to do this is through attribution. Tell the reader exactly who says what. " Blueboar

I'm simply asking to reference that controversial claim. Is it really that much to ask? Am I the one pushing POV here? Gaba p (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Curry Monster is right here. Even if there was agreement to add a reference to the lede, it will only be removed within a month or two on the basis of WP:LEDE.

I view the NPOVN discussion as rather more closely favouring the status quo. It doesn't say that we have to pretend that a claim is accurate when it can be demonstrated that it isn't, which was the effect of your original proposal. That's a pretty standard understanding of WP:NPOV. Just like we don't have to give equal credence to the POV that the Earth is flat. Nobody's saying that we should leave the Argentine government's POV out - that is the whole point of putting this claim - but we can't imply that it's neutral.

That's not to say that I would be averse to removing the entire section from the lede, so, ending the point after the words "do not have the right to self-determination".

(On the other things you claim are unsourced from the British claims section, they're actually all sourced to the FCO, and in any case aren't being used to back up the statement concerned.) Kahastok talk 19:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:NPOVN generated precisely the comment I expected and it offers no comfort to the claims you're trying to make. Yes you are the one pushing a POV here. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, the comments from both those editors clearly state that a reference should be given, go check it out again please. If you don't have any (as it would appear, otherwise you'd have produced it already) that sentence must be removed (and the POV thing was a rhetorical question, there's no doubt who is pushing POV here Wee)

Kahastok I cited WP:LEDE where it clearly says Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations, I don't get why you say it would be removed, it wouldn't violate any guidelines. In any case, I would be ok with removing everything after "...right to self-determination"; is this what you are proposing? Actually, that whole last paragraph could be removed since the point of self-determination is addressed fully in the article from both POV; but I don't want to get into another endless status-quo discussion so if you agree to remove everything after "...right to self-determination" then I would just need Wee's confirmation that he's ok with it and I'll do it.

As for the last part of your comment, this part "aren't being used to back up the statement concerned" was exactly my point. Since that statement has no citations of it's own and there's nothing in the rest of the article to support it, then it should be removed. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not willing to see it removed to satisfy a POV push. And yes there is no doubt who is pushing a POV here. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with not removing it too, we would just need a reference for that claim. Can you produce one? Gaba p (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I insist: the claim needs a source. I'm not saying we should give equal weight to Argentinian and British POV, I'm simply stating that such a claim needs to be sourced otherwise it falls under the category of WP:OR. If the worry is that per WP:LEDE it will be removed (although I've mentioned two times now that a cite in the lead section is perfectly ok in controversial articles by WP guidelines) then the statement should be moved out of the LEDE and a citation needed tag added to it.

I also note that in the course of this discussion I've asked Wee no less than 5 times to produce a reference for that claim, which he has failed to do each time (but yet refuses to move/remove the statement). Gaba p (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Much as this may wikilawering I have to agree, we need a soource for any claim. I will be putting a CN tag there.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor Apcbg added a reference. It says:

Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982. pp. 97-98. (The author tracks the fate of the Argentine settlers who stayed on the Falklands after 1833, quoting contemporary sources such as the Argentine Augusto Lasserre who visited the islands in 1857 and 1869.)

I don't have access to that reference so I have to ask: does it say anywhere in that book that contemporary documents contradict (or do not support or refute) the Argentine claim that population was expelled by the British? If so please quote it verbatim, the quote provided is not acceptable as it is, since it doesn't address the issue in any way. Gaba p (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Lasserre’s reports on the number and occupation of the Argentine settlers on the Falkland Islands after 1833 do contradict the claim that the Argentines had been expelled in 1833. And that’s precisely what the lede says – that contemporary sources contradict that claim, not that they say they contradict it (if such a claim existed in the 1860s at all). Lasserre's account was originally published in the Buenos Aires newspaper Rio de la Plata on 19 and 20 November 1869. Apcbg (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Lasserre’s reports (...) do contradict the claim", I'm sorry but that is your own interpretation of the source and thus WP:OR. You need to cite a source for that particular claim. You are incurring in WP:OR because you make a statement based on a source instead of making it actually referencing the source.

"that’s precisely what the lede says – that contemporary sources contradict that claim, not that they say they contradict it", that's exactly my point! WP is not the place for personal interpretation, right now the lede says that, not the source. Gaba p (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Destéfani citation is sufficient. It is a contemporary Argentinian source which refutes the Argentine claim. Mcarling (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There is not, and never has been, a requirement that we quote exactly the terms used in secondary sources. Destéfani is fine.

More important than Gaba p's repeated quotes of WP:LEDE is what people actually do. It is not unusual for editors to come to articles and remove all citations from the lede, because the lede should be merely summarising the article contents. Cites added to ledes of even vaguely prominent articles rarely if ever remain there for very long. As such, I would suggest that it is very likely that this cite will be removed per WP:LEDE, probably within the next few months. Kahastok talk 17:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Look this is pretty simple. Somebody, some editor, wrote that sentence, ok? Now that editor either a- took that statement from an actual source, or b- came up with it after interpreting a source (or several). If the case is a- then let's just add that source and be done with it. If the case is b- then an actual source for that claim must be produced. The lede is not the place for OR, you can't write your own conclusions /interpretations from a source, you have to actually reference the source.

Kahastok If the citation will be removed then why not move the whole section out of the lede? Right now there is nothing in the actual article making this statement, why not just move it to the 'British claims' section?

Mcarling could you indicate where in particular in that source it says that the Argentine claim is refuted? What is quoted right now doesn't support that. Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A few comments:

• We shouldn't be limiting ourselves because of possible future actions of unknown editors. We establish now a decision and it will remain that way until someone comes and challenges our consensus. When (if) that happens, we will defend it or accept a new arrangement. This shouldn't be a reason to prevent us from introducing any modification.
• Some bits of this article does not follow the suggestions provided at WP:NPOVN:
  • "when you state that contemporary historical record shows the claim to be true you are leaving out the question of who it is that is stating that this is the case";
  • "we (Misplaced Pages editors) should not be interpreting "contemporary historical records from 1833"... that is known as Original research";
  • "We (Misplaced Pages editors) must be neutral when reporting on the non-neutral claims of our sources. The best way to do this is through attribution. Tell the reader exactly who says what".

I'd be in favor of trimming the lede right after "...right to self-determination." If not, we should attribute this statement: "although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation".
Regards. --Langus (t) 23:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The report of an Argentine naval officer (Lasserre) that some Argentines had stayed on the Islands after 1833 – promptly published in Argentina in 1869, and quoted by another Argentine naval officer, Destéfani in 1982 – is in no want of interpretations. As for the idea of moving Lasserre's evidence to the ‘British claims’ section, that would be a little bit too surrealistic even for a Falklands sovereignty dispute topic, I reckon :-) Apcbg (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well where should it be (not in the lead by the way)?Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Apcbg you are interpreting the source and coming to your own conclusions: that is WP:OR. The source does not say "B" (that Argentinian claims are contradicted), the source says "A" (that some Argentines had stayed on the Islands after 1833) and from "A" you interpret "B". Again, this is WP:OR.

If you were to interpret the source, "A" doesn't necessarily imply "B": what if not all but 90% of the population was expelled by the British and that is what Lasserre saw? Would you say the Argentine claim is false or contradicted if this were the case? My point is: that source you referenced needs to be interpreted by someone in order to draw that conclusion and thus it is not acceptable as a reference for that statement.

To use this source, the last sentence of the lede would have to be changed to something like "although some sources indicate that some Argentines had stayed on the Islands after 1833". Then this statement would have to be added to the 'British claims' section and referenced there since they keep telling me "no sources in the lede". Gaba p (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to speculate about that. The evidence is that 27 remained and that 4 chose to leave. The mutinous garrison was expelled (and nobody denies that), but the civilian population was encouraged to remain - in fact, the inducements given were so significant that Vernet's company's failure to deliver them is considered a primary motive for the later Gaucho murders.

Your new proposal is distinctly misleading (the vast majority of those present remained, whereas it suggests that it was only a few), and it is fundamentally dishonest and strongly POV to try to present this point as a British claim when it is actually a simple statement of fact. And that's before we point out that you've now repeatedly tried to represent a statement sourced to an Argentine Naval officer as a "British claim". Kahastok talk 12:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If we're reporting Argentina's claim that the population was expelled, neutrality requires that we point out that the historical evidence is clear that this didn't happen (as has been demonstrated with sources). The alternative proposed - which suggests that the claim has some basis in fact, when all the evidence is that it doesn't - misleads the reader and strongly biases the article in Argentina's favour. Kahastok talk 12:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My original proposal also included that this statement be removed. If my current proposal (which I only drafted to try to accommodate Apcbg's source) is misleading than we don't use it, simple really. And I'll correct myself: In order for this statement to be moved to the 'British claims' section a source would be needed that this is in fact a British claim (which the current source is not) I think it'd be much easier to just trim the lede as originally suggested by Kahastok. (I won't be commenting again until monday) Gaba p (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no interpretation involved here. Numerous sources, including Destéfani, directly refute Manuel Moreno's exaggeration of the events. That some sources believed Moreno's false claims does not make them true. Mcarling (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, attribute the statement to them then. We're not here to "analyze the evidence" or to decide which group of authors is right (i.e. to distinguish "the truth"). The lede (the whole article, in fact) shouldn't talk about contemporary documents, only about the authors' opinion on those subjects. --Langus (t) 19:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we should not be citing fiction as though it were fact and then calling it "disputed". Falsified accounts should not be treated as valid sources. Mcarling (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually Langus is wrong and Mcarling is correct, we do not have to treat a falsified account as a valid source, nor does NPOV require us to treat what Argentina asserts to be fact from its POV. Consensus allows editors to objectively evaluate sources and how to present information in order to write articles in a neutral manner. I will repeat what I said earlier, we do not report on Argentine claims from an Argentine POV, or on British claims from a British POV, instead we comment on Argentine and British claims from a neutral POV. If Argentine claims are demonstrably untrue, NPOV does not require we report them as true from an Argentine POV.

A source as demanded, which pretty much hits the nail on the head. No doubt we shall have reams of tendentious argument suggesting this should be disregarded as a "British" source presenting a British POV. But no matter, let us evaluate the evidence, often from primary sources to establish whether this is a true statement of fact or not.

Captain Onslow's report and orders are in the British Archive at Kew Gardens. Onslow's orders were clear

Onslow's report documents his efforts to persuade them to stay, many wanted to leave as the Falklands were a harsh place to live and the Gaucho's had not been paid since Vernet's departue in 1831.

Pinedo corroborates this:

The Complete Works of Charles Darwin online includes the diaries of both Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy. HMS Beagle visited the settlement in March 1833 and again the following year. In March 1833, Fitzroy documents his meeting with Matthew Brisbane, Vernet's deputy, who had returned to take charge of Vernet's business interests. Fitzroy also documents his efforts to persuade the settlers to continue in the islands. Both Darwin and Fitzroy document their meetings with the settlers supposedly expelled 3 months earlier.

Brisbane brought one Thomas Helsby who also kept a diary and documented the residents of Port Louis. Residents of Port Louis This pretty much co-incides with Pinedo's account in January 1833. All without exception members of Vernet's settlement.

There is also Thomas Helsby's accounts of the Gaucho murders, when disgruntled Gaucho's ran amok and murdered Vernet's representatives

I could go on, for example the death of Manuel Coronel, was widely mourned in the settlement in 1841 and residents of the settlement are recorded in the Falklands census of 1850. Example Carmelita Penny (remarried widow of the overseer Simon} and Antonina Roxas.

What is plain, the members of Vernet's settlement were documented by Pinedo in January 1833. They were still there as documented by Thomas Helsby in August 1833. Darwin and Fitzroy document their meeting with these same people in March 1833 and note the return in 1834 which documents meeting the survivors. I did not even need to mention the accounts in the archive in Stanley by Lt. Smith documenting all of the early years of the settlement, all settlers being those brought by Vernet augmented occasionally by temporary residents, nor his care for Vernet's assets.

Clearly what Argentina claims in its sovereignty claim is untrue, the assertion that the settlers sent there by Vernet were expelled to be replace by British settlers is demonstrably false. The opening as written is completely neutral and is not biased.

But before I call it a day

Destefani documents not only that the settlers weren't expelled but that the remaining settlers importance in the early stages. And its not as if this is an unbiased book, rushed to print in 1982, 127,000 free copies were distributed to libraries in universities all over the world. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This is so pointless... WCM you shouldn't ask for counseling in a Noticeboard if you're going to ignore the comments. I think your original research is reasonably valid, but as I said, pointless, as this is Misplaced Pages and not a forum. Editing in a contentious area requires from us the humility to leave the matter in the hands of reliable, secondary sources. If there are reliable, secondary sources that states that the population was expelled or replaced, is not right for us to disqualify them.

But, alas, consensus beats the Five Pillars every time (or so I've learned from experience so far).

Regards. --Langus (t) 00:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If we found a reliable, secondary source that said that Congress of Tucumán was in 1763 and took place in Ushuaia, (or, alternatively, the US Declaration of Independence in 1830 in San Francisco, the Battle of Hastings in 1143 somewhere near Edinburgh), would you want to alter those articles to allow for those possibilities as well? We must be neutral when reporting on non-neutral claims. And that doesn't mean treating a point that we know to be false as though it were accurate. Kahastok talk 06:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Langus, did you notice the first quote, that was a reliable secondary source. The rest is just pointing out how this is backed up by contemporary records. WP:OR applies to edits in article space, it doesn't mean that we can't do our own research in the talk page to evaluate the validity of certain claims. Editing in a contentious area requires us to carefully evaluate claims to ensure we don't allow[REDACTED] to be hijacked to promote a nationalist cause. Far from ignoring the comments in the noticeboard, they actually back up my approach 100%. And quit the breast beating about the 5 pillars I am less than impressed, the current article is fully in line with those 5 pillars. Misplaced Pages exists to promote a WP:NPOV not the Argentine and not the British POV. When you demand we reflect the Argentine POV, as you often do, and try to wikilawyer it into articles then you are violating the 5 pillars. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WCM, what you say can be reduced to the question "I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent". I don't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely on stating as fact many statements that are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with?", which is answered at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the opponent.

Kahastok, yes, if there were reliable sources saying that the Congress of Tucumán took place in the XVIII century in Ushuaia, and there were enough of them so that we could say it was not a fringe theory, then yes, by all means, we should mention that as well. Of course, that is not the case: unlike those topics, the location and dates of the Congress of Tucumán are undisputed. Cambalachero (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Any reliable secondary sources supporting the allegation that all Vernet's settlers were expelled by the British in 1833? Apcbg (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, people can honestly fail to see the bias inherent in a popular term or point of view, simply because it's the one commonly used or familiar to them. Can that not equally apply to Argentine claims concerning the so-called expulsion? Your comparison is clearly inappropriate, as to present what Argentina claims as part of its sovereignty claim as a fact without noting that the historical record is different from what Argentina claims is to promote a falsehood by omission. This is not so much "writing for the opponent" but writing to skew the POV of an article to promote a nationalist agenda; even if unconsciously. I suggest we simply present the facts and let people make their own minds up. If you're talking about "writing for the opponent", pray tell me why you are all so keen to remove this information?

To add to what Apcbg asks above, do you have a reliable secondary source that is backed up by the contemporary historical record? Anyone can make a claim but unless it is verifiable, then thats all it is. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Question to WCM and Pfainuk: if I bring here, say, 5 reliable, secondary sources stating the population was expelled/replaced, would you then agree to attribute the statements in the lede as suggested at WP:NPOVN? If not, how many reliable, secondary sources (approximately) would it take? Thank you. --Langus (t) 14:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Add: "a reliable secondary source that is backed up by the contemporary historical record", again, it's not up to us to "outsmart" secondary sources. --Langus (t) 14:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Wee's wall'o text is a clear example of WP:OR and I can't believe you really are trying to use that as a reason to use the disputed source. Let's make it simple again:

-The article says: "this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation" <-- Claim A

-The source says: there were Argentine inhabitants in the island after 1833 <-- Statement B

The article interprets B as meaning A. How is this not WP:OR?? The source does not say A! Gaba p (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, ‘secondary sources’ means sources that are secondary with respect to contemporary primary sources not to modern day Chancilleria statements. Like the French historians Langlois and Seignobos put it in 1897 in their immortal dictum: ‘No documents — No history’. Apcbg (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see we're down to personal accusations and ignoring what we don't like.

Langus, I simply note you chose not to respond, a common occurrence when you are trying to wikilawyer Argentine claims into articles. Instead, as usual you try to ask the unreasonable. Tell me how many untrue documents does it take to change the historical record? Which is exactly what you're trying to do. We present the Argentine claims, we don't ignore them. You simply wish to present them and hide the fact that there is more than compelling evidence to show they're untrue. Thats POV editing, which is precisely what the commentators at NPOVN advised against.

Gaba p. You repeatedly demanded I provide a source and I did. My comments are not WP:OR, I am not trying to back up my own synthesis, I'm simply demonstrating that a reliable secondary source is backed up by the historical record. I simply note you try to present a distortion of my actual posting in order to continue with pushing a POV.

Can you either of you produce a source with evidence backing up the claim it makes? Or do you simply wish to present an untrue statement as fact? I won't be holding my breath in anticipation. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"You repeatedly demanded I provide a source and I did", you didn't provide it, Apcbg did. "My comments are not WP:OR", of course they are. You should write a book. "I'm simply demonstrating that a reliable secondary source is backed up by the historical record" <-- this is the definition of original research. You are the one making the research and interpretation here, you know that, I know that, everyone here knows that. "to continue with pushing a POV", nope, that's all on you. "Can you either of you produce a source with evidence backing up the claim it makes?", we should produce a source?? You are the one making un-sourced claims, why should we do it?

Again, if you could address this issue I'd very much appreciate it:

• The article says: "this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation" <-- Claim A
• The source says: there were Argentine inhabitants in the island after 1833 <-- Statement B

The article interprets B as meaning A. How is this not WP:OR?? The source does not say A! Gaba p (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Reality check, I do provide a reliable secondary source. Then I demonstrate how its backed up by reference to the historical record. Can you do the same or do you plan on continuing to do an "Alex79818" and deny the written record in front of you. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The best you could do with that first source is to change the sentence to something like: although this claim is contradicted by some sources and then have that statement appear sourced under the 'British claim' section. That is as far as you can take your source, and I stress the some part since I'm sure I could produce sources claiming that the populations was in fact expelled (whether you like them or not) As for the rest of your comment: "let us evaluate the evidence...", this is where I stopped reading. This is WP, not your blog where you can do your own OR.

Would you like to include that statement to the 'British claim' section and put the reference there? Or would you rather remove that whole section from the lede?

(Alex79818? You mean that editor you used to falsely accuse me of sockpuppetry and have me blocked for a month? The same accusation that was immediately dropped by and admin as soon as I revealed my true life identity? The same false accusation you never bothered to apologize for? You mean that editor?) Gaba p (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen could we please stop the defamation and the comments on editors, and focus on content?

WCM, I don't know what are you expecting me to answer, I believe I've already explained myself. I'm willing to investigate if there are reliable, secondary sources that back this idea, but first I need to know what would it take to convince you that this is a scholarly view worth of including as such, as I don't want to lose my time in vain. For what I've read so far, I believe several editors have already judged this claim as false (based largely on WP:OR and some secondary sources too), so I'm guessing that it would be a futile exercise. --Langus (t) 01:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No Langus, people have judged the claim as false because it is contradicted by reliable secondary sources of all nationalities, which they have confirmed with reference to contemporary historical records. The question you're dodging is are those reliable secondary sources you suggest support Argentine claims backed up by contemporary historical records? I can answer you already, they don't, they rely on playing semantics about the garrison that was removed. And focusing on content would be peachy but preaching about it then making a personal attack is rather hypocritical isn't it?

Gaba p. A very jaundiced view, you were reported to an admin because of the striking similarity in behaviour with the banned and prolific sockpuppeteer User:Alex79818, something you continue to do. And it wasn't dropped when you revealed identity documents to JamesWatson, it was dropped when I intervened with James with information I had about him. No funnily enough I don't feel the need to apologise for having gone much further than I needed to, seeing as how from the outset you see fit to make personal attacks on my integrity and continue to do so. You demanded a source, you got one and its backed up with evidence. Time to drop the stick and close this dramafest Wee Curry Monster talk 08:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha what a way to put a spin on reality Wee, but I expect that from you. "it was dropped when I intervened", it was dropped after I forced you to intervene and reveal to James the identity of Alex. You didn't even have the decency to stop by my talk page during my block, don't you remember? If it were for you, I'd still be blocked (and for what I've seen you started lobbying to have me blocked again about a week ago. How did that turn out by the way? Could it be that Nick-D and James didn't give you the time of day?) You are right about one thing thou, it's time to drop it. You've successfully managed to keep the bias in the lede, so good for you. I can't keep pushing against your hell-bent determination to enforce your pro-British position, I've invested too much time already. At least the evidence for what you are doing is now written down for everyone to see and not obscured behind an anonymous claim in the article. Have a nice day. Gaba p (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just say what the situation is, that 'according to X the population was expelled by this is disputed'.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I would rather suggest 'The population was not expelled (source) but Argentina claims otherwise (source)'. Apcbg (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The situation only arises because there is an insistence that the lede includes why Argentina denies the self-determination right of the islanders. Remove it and the need goes away - its amplified in the text anyways. Otherwise it should stay as it is. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no justification for including demonstrably false claims in the lede. Demonstrably false claims can go, as demonstrably false claims, in the main body. Omitting demonstrably false claims from the lede is not bias. Mcarling (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait "there is an insistence that the lede includes why Argentina denies the self-determination right of the islanders. Remove it and the need goes away", are you actually agreeing to remove the section from the lede? If so, why not do it when Kahastok proposed so 5 days ago?

Mcarling: "demonstrably false claims", and who decides which claims are demonstrably false? The sources you like best? The OR taking place in this talk page?

I'd also like to point out that under the Argentine claim section one can now find this:

this is a refute to an Argentine claim inside said section. You can not find a single instance of this happening in the British claim section. Gaba p (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out something that in the British claim section, which happens to be untrue? Therein lies the answer. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

First, you didn't answer my question: are you agreeing to remove the section from the lede as Kahastok proposed?

As for the rest "which happens to be untrue", the same questions I asked Mcarling apply: who decides which claims are untrue? The sources you like best? The OR taking place in this talk page? Even more, that is the Argentine claim section. If Britain has refuted Argentina's argument then that refutation should be attributed to Britain and added to the British claim section. It shouldn't be WP the source for such a refutation no matter how true you think those refutations are because this is not the place for OR and you don't get to decide what is true and what is not, you only get to reference authors regarding such issues.

Would you find it acceptable if I added refuting sources to the British claim section making it look like: "José María Pinedo (...) protested verbally, but departed without a fight on 5 January, though sources from the time dispute this, suggesting that the colonists were in fact expelled."? Gaba p (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be acceoptable to remove any rebutals in the claism sections.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Gaba, an example of demonstrably untrue would be a secondary source, not based on any primary sources, which is contradicted by other secondary sources and contradicted by ALL of the primary sources. For example, Manuel Moreno's 1833 protest is a secondary source (to the extent that it claims to report what happened in the first days of January 1833 in the Falklands) that doesn't rely on any and is refuted by all primary sources. Also, Gaba, please stop introducing discussion of other topics into the thread. If you want to discuss a new topic, start a new thread. Mcarling (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, is anyone else finding this tiresome? Gaba p, have you a reliable secondary source stating that? Answer no. Have we got one backing up the statements in the article? Answer yes. Is the account reported by the secondary source we used corroborated by the historical record? Answer yes. Is yours? Answer no. There is your answer. We didn't decide what is true, the sources do and no matter how you try and wikilawyer it to try and malign everyone claiming OR or bias, the only one doing that is you.

There isn't a rebuttal in the claims section, neither is it a rebuttal, its provision of information. We let the reader make their own mind up by providing all of the information, this is just another example of Gaba P trying to skew the POV by censoring information that contradicts Argentina's claim. It happens to be in the section dealing with the historical facts. And I find it unacceptable that such information would be removed.

Time to close this, I think. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for introducing another discussion into this one, it really wasn't my intention in the first place. Should I move these comments to their own section?

Mcarling I disagree about Moreno's protest being a secondary source. He was actually alive there and then, how can we disregard his statements as a secondary source?

Wee, you still haven't answered my question: are you agreeing to remove the section from the lede as Kahastok proposed? (I'll adress the rest of your comment later, right now I have to go) Gaba p (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Gaba, the reason why Moreno is a secondary source (with respect to this particular question) is that he wasn't there and didn't see firsthand whom Captain Onslow did or did not expel, but there are numerous firsthand i.e. primary sources, some of which I listed above. If merely being alive at the time would make Moreno a primary source, then I could write in the Weekly World News that you murdered your mother seconds after you were born, before your umbilical cord was cut, and I would be a primary source just because I was alive at the time. Being alive at the time is far from sufficient to make a source primary, as the absurd example of you killing your mother before your umbilical cord was cut shows. Mcarling (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys but right now I just don't have the time to carry on with a second discussion so I'll have to drop my involvement in this one (it really wasn't my intention to start a second one) If you want to carry on with it, please do; otherwise I'll just bring it up again when I find some time and we can pick it up from here.

To close the original discussion, I'll just like for Wee to answer the question to know if the problematic (and now un-sourced again) section in the lede can be removed. The removal was proposed by Kahastok and backed by me and Langus. Wee apparently backed it in one of his comments but a confirmation would be needed. And of course your input too Mcarling (I believe you haven't address the removal of that section yet); this way we can see if a consensus has been reached about it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In order to avoid possible misunderstanding, could you please specify exactly which language you propose to delete? Maybe I know of a suitable source for citation. Mcarling (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the original proposal by Kahastok to remove from the lede everything after "...do not have the right to self-determination." to which apparently Wee agreed in one of his last comments. Gaba p (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I favor striking from the lede ", arguing that they are not aboriginal and are descendants of those brought in to replace the Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833, although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation" Mcarling (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then that makes four in favor. If Wee could confirm/deny what he said in his previous comment (or if someone else would back my interpretation of said comment, that he is in fact in favor) I'd say that pretty much means a consensus. Everybody agree? Gaba p (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like WCM is active here and has been for a long time, so there should be no reason to interpret anything less than a clear statement. He can speak for himself. Removal is not urgent. Mcarling (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I was very clear that I would support removing the whole sentence but if the comment about self-determination is to remain ie Argentina's denial then the rest should also. For the avoidance of doubt I would remove:

And further for the avoidance of doubt if this is a precursor to removing information later in the document concerning how Argentine claims are contradicted by the historical record, then I oppose changing it. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WCM. The whole sentence should be deleted. Mentioning one particular claim in the lede among the many which are discussed in the article is not appropriate. I also agree with WCM that this should not lead to deleting similar material from the body of the article. Mcarling (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Kahastok's proposal (which I agree) intended to keep the part that reads "Argentina argues that the islanders do not have the right to self-determination." Otherwise, it only leaves in the lede the British argument: that "Contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British. They gained full British citizenship with the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, after the Falklands War." Nonetheless, I agree that this shouldn't lead us to delete anything from the body. Regards. --Langus (t) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British. They gained full British citizenship with the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, after the Falklands War." Those are not British arguments. Those are background facts. As far as I know, they are not in dispute. The problem with leaving the rump sentence is that the intro would then be biased by including only one claim (even one so easily refuted as the non-applicability of self-determination claim) from only one side. It's better to leave all the disputed claims out of the lede. Mcarling (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mcarling on the removal. Besides, we cannot introduce in the article (in the lede or elsewhere) the issue of self-determination by out of the blue informing the reader that Argentina does not recognize that right. That should be preceded by explaining that the Islanders exercise the right of self-determination and that is supported by Britain as the administering power of the Falklands. Apcbg (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So to summarise, you wish to state an Argentine claim in the lede, without explaining the basis for that claim or provide information that shows it to be false. Not only that but you describe basic background facts as "British claims" And you complain of an alleged "bias" because we wish to give people the information to make their own minds up. Did I miss anything out? Wee Curry Monster talk 07:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes: several guidelines about neutral point of view and a thread (started by you, ironically) in the NPOV Noticeboard. Cheers. --Langus (t) 12:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, the posting at NPOV, which stated we did not have to report untrue claims as "true from an Argentine POV". Thanks for reminding me.

None so blind as those who will not see Wee Curry Monster talk 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In case someone did not see the comments in the NPOV noticeboard by the two editors that answered Wee, I think it's very important that you do because I sincerely believe Wee is misinterpreting and misquoting them on purpose; so here it goes:

"contemporary historical record" from 1833 needs to be interpreted, even if it is argentine records. So when you state that contemporary historical record shows the claim to be true you are leaving out the question of who it is that is stating that this is the case. Presumably current pro-Argentinian experts makes no such claim?

The fact that we are reporting is "...Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833". Which is an uncontested, and easily sourced, fact, ie. nobody is claiming that Argentina is not claiming this. NPOV requires us to report all significant views, and the Argentine view is certainly germane to this discussion, so we can not leave it out. Taemyr (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this... first we (Misplaced Pages editors) should not be interpreting "contemporary historical records from 1833"... that is known as Original research... what we should do is report on the interpretation of published historians.

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

I agree with the neutrality dispute template and I would extend it to the entire article in fact. There's just too much bias toward British position right now. Regards Gaba p (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not misinterpreted anything, the reply I got was what I expected. Nor is there a need to repeat their comments here so I have collapsed them. The article as written is neutral, I see no needs for extending it, particularly as Apcbg addressed my concerns with his edit. I see nothing in any of your comments that reflects a lack of neutrality, you're constantly talking about nationalist viewpoints and that is at odds with presenting neutrality. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV rules do not require us to include obviously false historical claims. If they did, the Earth article would have to give equal weight to the flat-earth hypothesis. The false claims that settlers were expelled in 1833 is contradicted by every Argentine source that was present, Pinedo, the log of the ARA Sarandí, etc. as well as by all the British and US records. The false claims, that started with Manuel Moreno's exaggerated protest to Britain, have no more credibility today than claims that the earth is flat. Mcarling (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@WCM: you are shockingly misrepresenting the discussion. Further, hiding the comments looks highly suspicious.

I've replaced the claim of "expelled population" for that of "transplanted population", both found in the same source. Hopefully this will resolve the issue.

Regards. --Langus (t) 18:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Which I reverted as it does not represent the Argentine position, which claims an expelled population. Misplaced Pages isn't censored and that edit censored the fact that Argentina makes a false claim.

As regards usual allegations of misconduct, I respond what utter nonsense. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Both claims are taken from the same official document from cancilleria.gov.ar. How do you conclude that one phrase reflects the official position better than the other one? To me, it looks like you are choosing the weakest one to beat. If you're worried about censorship maybe we should include both (not necessarily in the lede). --Langus (t) 20:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we please confine this discussion to the lede? Mcarling (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that argument Langus is utter nonsense. You did not select a "phrase that reflects the official position better", you carefully selected extracts of phrases to give a misleading impression. Its not a case of "two" claims, you attempted to present only part of it and in a way that was mendacious and misleading. I am not trying to "beat" anything, I do not see this as a contest - I only wish to present the facts and all the facts to allow a reader the facility to form their own opinions. Noticeably on the basis of a claim of an alleged "bias" you and other editors sought to remove information. There has been an effort to censor but its not acceptable here. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"you attempted to present only part of it and in a way that was mendacious and misleading" then it follows that the article is currently presenting only a part of the claim... don't you think?

Here, for example, author Wayne S. Smith supports author Oliveri Lopez, with these words: "The principle of self-determination is perhaps the most inapplicable of all. What we have in the Falklands/Malvinas islands is a transplanted population". --Langus (t) 05:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

First, Wayne Smith is an expert on Cuba, not an expert on international law, and not even a lawyer. Second, most of his forward is damnation of Lopez by faint praise. Third, his forward accepts as given all of Lopez's assertions, all of which are based on British sources who got it wrong, for example, "The British frequently assert, or suggest, that the islands were unoccupied at the time the British squadron arrived in 1833 to take them over." We all know that's not a frequent British assertion, though I'm willing to believe that some British idiot may have said it once or twice upon a time. Fourth, and most important, any opinions about the right of self-determination written before the International Court of Justice recognized the right of self-determination as a peremptory norm of international law in 1995, have been superseded by that development. Also, Langus, you seem to be taking us away from the question at hand, again. The question at hand is on striking from the lede these words: "The islanders exercise their right of self-determination with the support of Britain as the administering power of the Falkland islands. Argentina argues that they do not have that right, arguing that they are not aboriginal and are descendants of those brought in to replace the Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833, although this claim is contradicted by the contemporary documents relating to the occupation." WCM, Apcbg, and I are in favor. You seem to be against, but haven't given a valid reason. Now, could we please stop changing the subject and answer the question at hand? What say you? Mcarling (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, we're presenting here what the Argentine Government claims and to quote one of your favourite policies Langus, you used a "euphemism" to cover a false claim made by Argentina. In addition, you're now editing warring to introduce a grammar error, by removing quote marks from a quote from the Argentine position. Do we now have to also point out that this "act of force" never happened - something even Pinedo's account backs up. The only person who contemplated the use of force was Pinedo. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with removing the last two sentences from the lede as Mcarling suggested. Also Wee please refrain from editing my comments as I do not touch yours (or any other for that matter). Gaba p (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

References

1. Mary Cawkell (January 1983). The Falkland story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
2. http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf Pepper and Pascoe's document has a convenient reference.
3. http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf Pepper and Pascoe's document has a convenient reference.
4. http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf Pepper and Pascoe's document has a convenient reference.
5. http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf Pepper and Pascoe's document has a convenient reference.
6. Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. p. 91-94. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 27 May 2012.

Claiming to have claimed

It would be interesting to know, when did the first source appear, reporting that Argentina claimed that all the Argentine settlers had been expelled from the Falkland Islands in 1833? Best, Apcbg (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

In the very 1833 itself, the diplomatic complaint by Manuel Moreno right after the event. See here Cambalachero (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Except it does not, it merely includes the removal of the garrison. Whilst I am well aware this is wp:or, and not suitable for inclusion I have not seen it as a claim before the 1964 speech at the UN. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It mentions both the garrison and settlers: "...que la guarnicion y colonos de las Provincias Unidas en las Islas Malvinas, igualmente que la goleta de guerra Sarandí, estacionada en aquel dominio de la República, habian sido obligados á retirarse, por intimacion de dicho capitan Orislow de la corbeta de S. M. Clio, y que este oficial, desalojando por la fuerza la dicha guarnicion y colonos, habia declarado que iba á tomar y tomaba posesion de las islas á nombre de S. M. B., no obstante la discusion pendiente." (bolded the mentions, "colono" is the Spanish for "settler") Cambalachero (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, got the translation wrong. Either way its still untrue. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I saw that 'la guarnicia y colonos', but being ignorant if that refers to 'and settlers' or 'and the settlers' (meaning all the settlers; I must be wrong, but why is it not 'la guarnicia y los colonos'?), I wonder if any English version of Moreno's note is available? Apcbg (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember that that's Spanish language of 2 centuries ago, it is not exactly the same than modern Spanish language. Cambalachero (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So do you think Moreno was saying "all settlers", or " settlers", or his wording could mean both? Apcbg (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, in this case "la guarnicion y colonos" and "la guarnicion y los colonos" means about the same, which is "all of them". But this could be interpreted differently; that's why we need secondary sources. --Langus (t) 19:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This is why we should not be using fictional secondary sources like Moreno for any purpose other than noting that a fictional claim was made and we should instead be relying on the primary sources, which include the log of the ARA Sarandi, Onslow's written instruction to Pinedo, Charles Darwin's March 1833 count of the settlers, etc. Mcarling (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreno's complaint is a primary source as well, see Misplaced Pages:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources for a description on which is which. The problems of the subtle differences between the modern Spanish and English languages and those spoken 2 centuries ago would manifest in all the primary sources of the time period. That's why we must use secondary sources, and not primary ones (neither Moreno's complaint, nor ships logs, instructions or reports by visitors). Note that I never said we should use Moreno's complaint as a source of anything: the original question of this thread was when was the first complaint about the expulsion of the settlers, and I simply gave an answer. Cambalachero (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, where is the source for that wikisource document? Whenever I've put a document into wikisource, it has to be sourced to an external sources to allow for verification. How do we know the transliteration is accurate if it cannot be verified? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The current positions

Is this correct?

The Neutral or calling for negotiations section reads:

Shouldn't that read UN instead of UK? Oh and the reference link is dead. Gaba p (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it should read "UK". The Falkland Islands were added to the list by the UK. Mcarling (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, is there are reference link for this, because for what I read here:

it wouldn't appear so. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The administering powers were required by Article 73(e) of the UN Charter to submit the names and other information about all of their non self-governing territories. Britain did so promptly. Mcarling (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, could you provide a reference? As I said, that's not what that site would appear to be saying. The one cited is dead anyway, so a new reference is needed. Gaba p (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT why don't you get off your lazy backside and find one for yourself instead of constantly demanding others do things for you. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't do all of Gaba's research for him, but I'll point him in the right direction. It will be in the Journal of the UN for 1946 or 1947. One can get a clue here: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/032/60/IMG/NR003260.pdf?OpenElement and here: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/033/17/IMG/NR003317.pdf?OpenElement Mcarling (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wee I did get off my lazy backside and provided a reference. If you bother to read my second comment you'll see it there. The problem is that reference seems to imply something different from what the article says, and since the current reference is broken I thought better to ask first instead of replacing it with mine (which would've implied I change UK with UN) Mcarling, I'll check that reference to see if this fact is actually there. Otherwise I'll change UK to UN and put the reference I quoted above. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And it would have been reverted straight away because its untrue. The UN did not decide of its own bat to have some official grab an atlas off the shelf and make up a list of colonies. It relied on the member states to list them, which the article reflects. It means that entities that could have been classified as a colony, such as Patagonia, were never listed. And in your rush to post it seems you failed to notice I fixed the link and added a quote - took me all of 30 seconds to do. Probably less time that it took you to compose that reply. The list maintained by the C24 is based on the original submission back in '46. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, thanks for fixing that. Mcarling (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that's why I didn't change the reference in the first place, because I acknowledged the possibility that that article (the one I referenced) might be mistaken. Thanks for finding a replacement for the dead link Wee. Next time maybe improve the attitude a little, ok? Because in your rush to insult me you fail to notice you insult Mcarling too, who did not provide that reference in 30 seconds like you did (after first coming here and investing another 30 seconds to accuse me of being lazy that is). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel at all insulted by Wee Curry Monster. Thank you, Gaba, for taking this up in talk rather than directly introducing false information. There is too much eagerness to make controversial changes in this and related articles without first establishing a consensus. Mcarling (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Article intro II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The last part of the lede could be taken as stating a British claim, since the right to self-determination is in fact a British claim. Right now it says "Contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British. They gained full citizenship with the..." I move to change this to: "Contemporary Falkland Islanders gained full citizenship with the...". What they consider themselves is only relevant in the context of the British claim of self-determination given that Argentina doesn't care what nationality they think they are. Thoughts? Gaba p (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. That the Falkland Islanders consider themselves British would still be relevant if there were no sovereignty dispute. It's who they are. I think all the sources are in agreement on this point. Mcarling (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the sources on what nationality the islanders think they are, this fact is more than clear. I'm saying that since what nationality they think they are is the British claim for maintaining its sovereignty over the islands (self-determination), stating that in the lede is the same as stating a British claim. This article deals with the sovereignty dispute and thus this simple fact becomes more than just another piece of information about the islands. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you're confusing who they are with the political association they choose for themselves. The former is a background fact. The latter is the exercise of their right of self-determination. Mcarling (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"you're confusing who they are with the political association they choose for themselves", I don't think I am. Who they are (background fact) is clear: they are Falklanders. The political association they choose (self-determination disputed claim) is also clear: they choose to be British. The article is not saying who they are, the article says who they choose to be associated with politically by stating that they consider themselves to be British. As I said, being that this is the British argument for maintaining sovereignty, this fact should be left for the claims section (where it already is mentioned) Gaba p (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it is simply background information, do you have anything better to do, such as actually writing articles? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If it were a British claim rather than an accepted fact, that the Falkland Islanders consider themselves British, then there would have to be a counter-claim, that they consider themselves something else, perhaps African or Chinese. So, Gaba, where are the counter-claims? Mcarling (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It is background information, it is not a statement of a claim - not even Argentina disputes that they are British. And if you want to be pedantic about it, Argentina uses that fact to declare they are not a 3rd party in the dispute. Given all the abuse you have directed toward me and others, feigning injured pride at my irritation (not aggression) at your continued disruption is more than a little hypocritical. IF you put as much effort into article writing you'd have created more than "2". Wee Curry Monster talk 13:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point Wee Curry Monster. If most Falkland Islanders being British (or feeling British) is a British claim, then it is also an Argentine claim. Rather, it is an undisputed fact which is used by all three sides to make differing claims. Mcarling (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wee thanks for your suggestions on how to use my own time and how to create more articles, I'll keep them in mind haha... Oh and I'd like to add that I've had no other issues with any other editor but you (something I believe many editors can relate to) Gaba p (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither Britain nor the Falkland Islanders nor anyone else of whom I'm aware claims "that since they consider themselves to be British then the islands are property of the UK (self-determination)." That's not what the right of self-determination means at all. The right of self-determination means that they have the right to choose, which does not necessarily depend on "what nationality they think/feel they are." Thank you for conceding that it will stay as it is. Mcarling (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A piece of advice, worth repeating as you still seem to think NPOV consists of representing nationalist perspectives. We do not write about matters from the British POV or the Argentine POV. We describe the British and Argentine positions from a neutral POV. A common mistake by nationalists of all persuasions is to demand that their POV is represented to counter what they perceive as bias. The fact that I attract brickbats from nationalists of all denonominations I consider a badge of honour. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes Mcarling "The right of self-determination means that they have the right to choose", I agree, that's why I think that stating that they choose to be British in the lede is the same as stating a British claim. Argentina does not recognize their right to self-determination (Argentinian claim) and the UK does (British claim) so my point is that by saying that they consider themselves to be British we are a priori accepting that they have this right thus favoring the British claim. That's why I think it should be left to the claims section. But you are right, it's two against one son unless another editor comes in and agrees with me, it stays as it is. Cheers.

Those are hollow words coming from you Wee, since you are by far the most POV pushing editor I've seen. I know you'd like to think that you are a NPOV paladin but I'm afraid that is not true. Your "brickbats" template is a joke and it's not even funny; I'd suggest you stop flaunting it around, it only makes you look kind of desperate to prove something and usually those most eager to prove NPOV are the ones with an agenda. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wee, sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beastie, O, what a panic's in thy breastie!. By the way, have you ever come across the concept of projection bias, sometimes we give away so much about ourselves in our efforts to malign others.

A second piece of advice, focus on content not editors. A third piece of advice is WP:CONSENSUS is about strength of argument not how many mates you can drag into an argument. Latin would usually be included in italics a priori for example. Here endeth the lesson. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"have you ever come across the concept of projection bias", haha that's funny because you are the first to accuse editors of being nationalistic POV pushers.

"focus on content not editors", good advice, I suggest you take it since you were the one who insulted and attacked me first (twice) out of the blue (oh, it's not an attack if it comes from you right? I see..)

"WP:CONSENSUS is about strength of argument not how many mates you can drag into an argument", and who determines the strength? Could it be the consensus? Or maybe it's you who determines it?

"Latin would usually be included in italics a priori for example", what do they say about those internet users who focus on petty orthographic issues? Flamers right? I can speak three languages Wee, English not being my mother tongue. How about you? Cheers mate! Gaba p (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I can speak a number of languages, more than 3 in fact, so whats next willie measuring?

One of the things you seem to forget, is the written record is right above you. Take a sneaky peek and you'll find it was in fact you who started to bandy about accusations of "bias" and "POV". Similarly the insults start from you and if I snap back in irritation don't whine about it. Don't hand it out if you can't take it back. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Now remember, I haven't addressed you in any way at the time and was having a very civil discussion with Kahastok and Langus. So who started with the accusations again my friend Wee-man? Gaba p (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. If there isn't a content discussion going on here, could I suggest we have no discussion at all? Kahastok talk 20:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with you but I'm afraid Wee will accuse us of WP:TAGTEAM. Haha just kidding, yeah we should end this it's gone far enough. What say you my favorite evil-scotsman Wee-flamer? Gaba p (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to end it, perhaps avoiding the personal attacks would have been a good idea? No personal attacks means no personal attacks. Kahastok talk 21:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right Kahastok that's not way to end the discussion (even though he did incur in flaming) I shouldn't have let Wee drag me to an exchange of insults in the first place, so mea culpa for that. I agree to bury the hatchet if Wee acknowledges that he started throwing around accusations of nationalism after I came back to this talk page on May 6th and promises to make an effort not to attack me for no reason again (like he did today for example) I think it's only fair. Regards Gaba p (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Bogus declaration

Just for the record, a recent development relevant to the article. The fresh OAS general assembly resolution says:

"... solving the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands, Georgia del Sur y Sandwich del Sur Islands and the surrounding maritime areas in the framework of resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 of the United Nations General Assembly, the decisions adopted by the same body etc."

A preposterous text indeed, as none of those resolutions and decisions makes any reference whatsoever to "Georgia del Sur y Sandwich del Sur Islands and the surrounding maritime areas"!

One wonders, what kind of intergovernmental organization could issue such blatant untruths? Apcbg (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if there's no other point for creating this section than ranting, I believe it must be removed as per WP:NOTFORUM. I also quote Mcarling: "Misplaced Pages is not the place to advocate personal political objectives.". Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Article intro III

I'd like to resume the discussion that sadly had to be terminated after accusation started flying around. My position was that the sentence in the lede "Contemporary Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British. They gained full citizenship with the..." be changed to "Contemporary Falkland Islanders gained full citizenship with the...". My view is that the way it is expressed now gives undue weight to a British claim. I copy/paste the last useful comment (the rest can be seen in the closed section):

Yes Mcarling "The right of self-determination means that they have the right to choose", I agree, that's why I think that stating that they choose to be British in the lede is the same as stating a British claim. Argentina does not recognize their right to self-determination (Argentinian claim) and the UK does (British claim) so my point is that by saying that they consider themselves to be British we are a priori accepting that they have this right thus favoring the British claim. That's why I think it should be left to the claims section.

I also add this WP guideline (taken from WP:NPOV_dispute):

Gaba p (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, no, this is not stating a British claim, it is stating a verifiable fact. It is presenting background information and does not present or favour a British position relative to the sovereignty dispute. Again neutrality does not demand we present a British POV and an Argentine POV, we present both from a neutral peespective. We are presenting a fair and reasonable representation of the dispute. Your repeated assertion this is giving undue weight to a British claim is unproven and not a sustainable logical argument. Point of fact, Argentina relies on their British citizenship as part of its argument they do not enjoy the right to self-determination. If anything its presenting a fact relevant to the position of both parties.

Continuously reprising the same tired worn argument is disruptive and needs to stop. My suggestion is to simply close this immediately. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"it is stating a verifiable fact" <-- "Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.", WP guideline.

"does not present or favour a British position relative to the sovereignty dispute", it favors it since it takes for granted that they have the right to self-determination, something Argentina denies.

"neutrality does not demand we present a British POV and an Argentine POV, we present both from a neutral peespective", by just stating that the Falklanders consider themselves to be British we are a priori accepting that they have this right, thus favoring the British claim.

"We are presenting a fair and reasonable representation of the dispute.", it is not fair if you directly imply they are exercising the right to self-determination and never mention that Argentina does not concede them this right.

Your comment has no real argument Wee, you just keep repeating it's fair and verifiable.

"close this immediately", could you please don't start being aggressive? If you don't want to comment on the section then don't. Thanks. Gaba p (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That the islanders consider themselves to be British is one of the basic facts of this case, that both Britain and Argentina have to factor into their arguments. Nobody disputes this fact. It is a fact that is relevant to both sides, as both sides have to factor it into their argument. Just as Britain promotes self-determination as the means of resolving the dispute, Argentina is at pains to argue that it is inappropriate. That the islanders consider themselves British is not a British claim. It is one of the most basic facts of this case, and most certainly not something that we can just ignore or pretend doesn't exist.

You say that it "takes for granted that they have the right to self-determination". No it doesn't. It doesn't say or imply that self-determination is the crucial factor.

You say, eutrality here at Misplaced Pages is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. Even if this was entirely consistent with Misplaced Pages policy (and it isn't), there are no competing versions of this fact. It is not credibly disputed that the current inhabitants of the Falkland Islanders consider themselves to be British. But that's not how it works anyway. We need to present both POVs from a neutral perspective. That doesn't mean presenting two sides as equal when the evidence suggests that one side has got its facts wrong.

And I finally note that you're already getting into the personal stuff. One would have thought that recent experience would have demonstrated that this is not the way to get consensus. There is no point in this discussion continuing if you are unable to keep personalities out of it, as was demonstrated last time. Please desist from making personal remarks or else I'll have to close this discussion as well. Kahastok talk 19:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kahastok, but how am I getting into the personal stuff? You mean by asking Wee to please don't start being aggressive? I apologize if this was taken as a a personal remark, I just felt he commented the section somewhat aggressively (asking for its immediate closing is not exactly a friendly greeting) and so I asked him no to be aggressive. It is not my intention at all that this section takes the same road the other one did. See your own comment for example, it disagrees with mine completely but it does so in a civil and non-aggressive way. That's all I ask from Wee. Besides there's no need to close anything, if there's no consensus then nothing changes in the article, period. If my intention were to change it regardless of the opinions of other editors, I would've done it from the start rather than coming here to discuss it.

So back to the point: that the islanders consider themselves British is a non-arguable fact as I've mentioned already, so in this we agree 100%.

"You say, eutrality here at Misplaced Pages is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are.", I personally don't say this, it's directly quoted from the WP section WP:NPOV_dispute. It's clear that there is no competing version (no one claims the islanders consider themselves Argentinian) I quoted this article mainly for the first part of it where it states that simply because something is a fact, it doesn't mean it's automatically neutral which I believe fully applies in this case.

If the islanders didn't consider themselves to be British then the main British argument for maintaining its sovereignty claim over the islands would disappear. That they consider themselves British is not just an innocent background (undisputed) fact but a very important piece (the most important actually) in the British claim over the islands. Since this fact is already addressed later on in the article (so no information would be lost by removing it there), I propose to change the last sentences in the lede accordingly. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for this change, the arguments you're putting forward don't stack up and you're repeatedly bringing up the same discussion. This is disruptive and should stop, this thread should be closed. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wee the section above this one is a clear candidate for closing/deletion, why haven't you touched that one? That you think my arguments are weak is clear but as I've said, I feel that you saying it's fair and verifiable is not a real argument against my proposal. Maybe some other editor would like to speak his mind about this (I know I'd like to hear Kahastok's reply if he wishes to), what's the harm in leaving this open to let them do it? Why target this discussion in particular when there are several others still open and clearly dead in the Talk page? I have not repeatedly brought up the same discussion, I only opened this one back in a different section after it was closed and couldn't be finished. There's no need to close it, so please stop doing it. Thanks.

Also if you could please stop by the first section an answer my question I'd really appreciate it. Gaba p (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What utter nonsense, as usual you've take a subset of my comments and are trying to play semantics rather than taking the comment on board. You're wasting a lot of editors time here, frivously raising issues that have no substance. You've had your answer, drop the stick.

And asking a question already answered won't get a different reply. Does everyone else agree with me this discussion is effectively over. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No Wee, I'm raising issues I consider important, I'm sorry you don't consider them as important, you are not forced to comment in any of them if you don't want to. In case you didn't notice I'm not using this as en excuse to edit the article, I'm just expressing my concerns in the talk page, why on earth does this bother you so much? I am not making any changes in the article unless there is an actual consensus and you are not obligated to comment. You also didn't address the issue of why you are singling out this section and not closing the one above which clearly deserves to be closed. Please focus on the content and not the editor.

If you check the first section you'll see you never actually answered my question: "Did you suggest we remove any reference to this summit and replace it by the individual positions of the countries involved?" I understand that you did and since a few weeks ago I made the exact same proposal I just want to check if we agree on this. Gaba p (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaba p, you seem so proud of your reasoning that without the Britishness of the Falkland Islanders there would have been no self-determination.

However, that’s quite fallacious.

The Islanders right to self-determination does not derive from their Britishness but from the fact that they are the people of the Falkland Islands.

As a people, they might be British and opt to disassociate themselves from the UK, or vice versa, be of non-British origins opting for association with the UK.

So you have no point here, subject closed. Apcbg (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think I quite understand what you are saying Apcbg, could you rephrase it a bit please? The fact that they have or don't have the right to self-determination is disputed: the UK claims the have it, Argentina claims they don't. The (undisputed) fact that they consider themselves British is currently the main British argument for maintaining its sovereignty claim. According to pretty much all of the recent statements by British politicians if the islanders suddenly chose to be Argentinian then by the right to self-determination the UK assigns to the Falklanders, the UK would have to drop its claim over the islands. Gaba p (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That the Falkland Islanders have the right of self-determination is not a British claim. It the Falkland Islanders' claim and the British have conceded the claim -- as have the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council, the 4th committee, the C24, etc. The most support Argentina ever gets from other countries is "sit down and talk." No other country has ever, to my knowledge, backed Argentina by saying that the Falkland Islanders don't have the right of self-determination. The first sentence of Article I of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by nearly every country in the world, reads "All peoples have the right of self-determination." Taking seriously any claim that the Falkland Islanders do not have the right of self-determination makes as much as sense in the context of NPOV as taking seriously the claims that the earth is flat. Mcarling (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Taking seriously any claim that the Falkland Islanders do not have the right of self-determination makes as much as sense in the context of NPOV as taking seriously the claims that the earth is flat", that is 100% your POV and thus not relevant I'm afraid. That the islanders do not have that right is a bona fide Argentinian claim whether you think it's reasonable or not. Gaba p (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly an Argentine claim that the right of self-determination belongs to "all peoples" but not to the Falkland Islanders (along with the Argentine claims that the British expelled all the settlers from the Falklands in 1833, that none of them were ever allowed to return, that there was never a gap in their protests to Britain, that force was used by the British in 1833, etc., etc., etc.) but whether that claim is bona fides or not is in dispute. Mcarling (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, like I said the fact that it is an Argentine claim is bona fide, not the claim itself, that's a more complicated issue (and not one we should be judging as correct or incorrect; not in the article at least) Given that it's a disputed claim whether or not they have this right, stating that they consider themselves British without mentioning this dispute is not neutral. By only mentioning this, the article gives the sense that they have this right regardless of everything else and this is not true since that fact is currently disputed. Since this is mentioned later on in the article, nothing would be lost by trimming those words from the lede (just like we did with the last paragraph not long ago) and the article would be more balanced as a result. Gaba p (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaba, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Mcarling (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I believe it does but I respect that you (and apparently the rest of the editors commenting here) don't. Unless another editor comes in and agrees with me, I'd say this is it. Thanks for your input. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

On the inclusion of the FI 2013 sovereignty referendum

Recently Kahastok reverted my removal of the mention to this referendum. I argue that the same arguments used to remove the mention to the SOA 2012 can be used here and I fail to see how they don't apply. These arguments were:

• Wee argued the event felt under the category of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER saying:

Since this referendum changes no position whatsoever, Wee's statements fully apply.

• Mcarling argued it was not newsworthy saying:

and

to which Kahastok agreed:

Again given that this merely re-states the well known position of the islanders wanting to remain British, this argument applies.

• Finally Kahastok mentioned WP:RECENTISM to which Wee agreed and which was eventually used as the reason for removing the SOA 2012 mention by Langus. Could somebody please explain how does this guideline not apply considering this referendum hasn't even taken place yet?

Also, I would like to ask Kahastok if he could revert the article's state to that of last consensus (ie: with no mention of this referendum) until the matter is settled. Otherwise, if we just let it sit there, it becomes the status quo and then it's virtually impossible to touch as we all know. I'd do it myself but I don't want to be accused later on of gaming the 3RR. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is of course a fundamental difference here. Argentina routinely places the Falklands on the agenda of various summits in South America, which routinely pass some resolution pacifying Argentina by some asinine call for "negotiations". There is nothing new there, its rountine, happens almost on a weekly basis and never changes.

Equally we have seen various claims by Argentina that the people of the Falkland Islands are "hostages" of the British military .

The referendum as announced is new, there has never been one before and promises to give a definitive representation of the islander's views. Its also something that was key in Gibraltar and something sponsored, in Bermuda for example, by the C24 to gauge the feelings of the people on the C24 list. So in reality it is not the same at all.

That said I'm ambivalent about including it - at this point. I tend to avoid WP:RECENTISM and would prefer to wait a few weeks until the details and positions on various sides is clear. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, the referendum is newsworthy, for the reasons already stated above. On the other hand, it does suffer from recentism. I'm also ambivalent about this at this time. I would prefer to wait at least until the date of the referendum has been announced and the actual text of the referendum has been written and made public. Mcarling (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a tricky question. Is Cristina's 30th years since war conmemoration declarations not worthy of mention? The risk is that we end judging the British referendum more relevant than any other argentine civil act or political move. In my opinion the insertion of the referendum in the article should be accompained by an evaluation of whats newsworthy or not regarding the dispute in Argentina. If, hypothetically, nothing is new in the Argentine position how to keep the article balanced? —Chiton magnificus (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We should be dealing with this from a neutral perspective. Not from a British perspective and not from an Argentine perspective. You appear to be proposing that we need to "balance" this neutral fact with something from an Argentine perspective, which fails WP:NPOV. Kahastok talk 18:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM neither means nor says that we cannot mention any recent event. Only that we have to take a long view of the subject. To help with this, it proposes the ten-year test:

I find it difficult to see how the referendum is not going to be worthy of at least a mention in the history of this dispute ten years' time. We're not talking about a section devoted to it. Right now we're talking about a single line. OTOH I see no plausible way in which a hypothetical outcome of one particular routine regional summit, out of the dozens of routine regional summits that will have occurred, is likely to be similarly worthy of a mention.

By your logic, WP:RECENTISM means that we should not be making any reference to 2014 FIFA World Cup or the United States presidential election, 2012 anywhere on Misplaced Pages. After all, they haven't taken place yet either.

I would add that I don't appreciate being quoted out of context. I feel your quotes misrepresent my comment and would ask that you be far more careful in future. Kahastok talk 18:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonably certain that the referendum will still be relevant 10 years from now. It seems nearly as certain that anything Argentina might declare now (other than a renunciation of claims) will not be relevant 10 years from now. Mcarling (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Mcarling, you really need to watch your provocative language. Especially because you're plainly wrong: Argentine claims to sovereignty are (and will be) relevant because it keeps the claim alive. I'm sure you've read in these articles about acquiescence.

Back on topic, while the relevance of such a referendum is clear, there's so little know about it at this stage that I would agree with WCM to hold the information for a few weeks. --Langus (t) 23:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Mcarling. First you are dismissing what the president of Argentina might declare and second what seems reasonable to me is that the relevance of a referendum that will change absolutely nothing about the current state of affairs is arguable. The UK will continue to use the self-determination as their (almost sole) claim for maintaining sovereignty (as they have so far without this referendum) and Argentina will continue to claim they do not possess such right so the existence of a referendum will mean nothing to it. Even so, I 100% agree to adding it as a reference of the claim that the islanders wish to be/remain British, but only once it has taken place. Any mention of it prior to that is WP:RECENTISM and in violation of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER to me.

"I find it difficult to see how the referendum is not going to be worthy of at least a mention in the history of this dispute ten years' time. We're not talking about a section devoted to it.", I can say the exact same thing about the SOA 2012 forum. "Right now we're talking about a single line.", I wanted to add two lines mentioning the SOA and Wee responded "Its only two lines is not a justification". "OTOH I see no plausible way in which a hypothetical outcome of one particular routine regional summit, out of the dozens of routine regional summits that will have occurred, is likely to be similarly worthy of a mention.", there is only one mention to any other summit (the Ibero-American Summit) and I don't understand why several editors keep repeating this as if the article already mentioned several American/Latin-American forums. Also, I personally give much more weight to a "routine regional summit" which encompasses tens of countries than to a referendum by the islanders of which we all know the outcome long before it happens.

"By your logic, WP:RECENTISM means that we should not be making any reference to 2014 FIFA World Cup or the United States presidential election, 2012 anywhere on Misplaced Pages. After all, they haven't taken place yet either.", you are comparing two worldwide events (the US presidential elections affects pretty much the entire world) with a referendum by no more than 2000 people on an issue that most of the world could care less about. This is hyperbolic argumentation.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to bring back the SOA 2012 mention (although I didn't agree to its removal), I'm simply trying to understand the reasoning behind the removal of that event versus the inclusion of this one, which right now seems like a double standard.

Kahastok, I added your full quote so you won't think I'm purposely misquoting you. For the record, I truly believe it says exactly the same that my reduced version of it and in no way did I mean to misrepresent your position. Gaba p (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your attempts to link yet another regional forum with the referendum is WP:POINTy. We discussed the Summit of the Americas. This is a discussion on the referendum. These points are separate.

It is apparent that you would like to turn this article into little more than a list of all the Latin American regional forums and what their outcomes were. Except in the case of the Summit of the Americas, what you actually want us to report is what you think the outcome might have been had things gone differently, which is even more tenuous.

If you genuinely think that that's going to appear in history books about the dispute in ten years' time, it is difficult not to be concerned about your ability to edit Misplaced Pages from a neutral perspective. OTOH, it is difficult to see how, in ten years' time, the fact of the referendum won't be mentioned. You may not like this, but that doesn't change that fact. Resolutions of Latin American regional summits are ten-a-penny. There has never been a referendum on this subject in the Falklands.

Your argument was that we should not mention the referendum because it hasn't happened yet. The US presidential election hasn't happened yet either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it in appropriate articles. You say that this is different because it's a referendum "by no more than 2000 people on an issue that most of the world could care less about". It seems to me that this argument applies to just about everything in the article. Nobody is putting a gun to our readers' heads and saying that they have to read a Misplaced Pages article about the dispute. Our readers will, pretty much by definitions, be the ones who are interested.

The fact that the islanders are only a few thousand is irrelevant to the fact of the referendum. Regardless of what either side in the dispute would like, their views are highly relevant to this dispute. That they will express these views formally by referendum next year cannot but be significant.

For those saying we should wait a few weeks, the obvious question is, why? In what way is the question of whether we include it or not liable to be fundamentally different in six weeks' time from what it is today? I see none. We normally wait to gain a more lasting idea of what the long-term impact of events will be. We might have a date and a question, but the fundamentals will be the same. I see no reason to wait. Kahastok talk 09:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I also consider my comments were taken out of context, I would imagine that others would feel the same. As I noted earlier I consider that the referendum will be relevant. However, we should avoid filling the article with a list of regional forums in which Argentina repeats its position and mentioning the referenda is not a wedge to be used to force it into the article. I'm certainly not suggesting 6 weeks but when details of the date, observers and referendum question are available, that it is the time to add it. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Your attempts to link yet another regional forum with the referendum is WP:POINT", what other regional forum are you talking about? I clearly stated I'm not even trying to bring back the SOA 2012, I just used it as a way to compare the standards for inclusion/rejection being used in the article.

"It is apparent that you would like to turn this article into little more than a list of all the Latin American regional forums and what their outcomes were", again: what are you talking about? When did I mention the inclusion of any other American forum? I repeat: I even said I'm not trying to bring the SOA 2012 back.

"Except in the case of the Summit of the Americas, what you actually want us to report is what you think the outcome might have been had things gone differently", I just have to keep asking: what are you talking about?? You mean the two references I presented which stated that only two countries (Canada & US) were responsible for not obtaining a full joint statement in the forum? I was quoting directly from (two) sources. If you mean something else, I have no idea what it is.

"If you genuinely think that that's going to appear in history books about the dispute in ten years' time, it is difficult not to be concerned about your ability to edit Misplaced Pages from a neutral perspective.", I'm sorry you are concerned but that's WP for you: a many people endeavor where you can't pick and choose who to work with. I too feel that several editors in this article do not respect NPOV so I guess we're even here. And just for the record: I believe my contributions to be NPOV always.

"OTOH, it is difficult to see how, in ten years' time, the fact of the referendum won't be mentioned.", I hardly find this difficult since it's just an anecdotal event. The position of the islanders has been well known for decades and this referendum won't change that. It's notable to the extent that this is the first time they'll be putting it on writing officially, but no more than that.

"Resolutions of Latin American regional summits are ten-a-penny", you keep thinking I'm trying to list every summit/forum in this article when I'm not even trying to bring back the most relevant one. I just have to ask you where did you come up whit this? Because in my previous comment I said: "I'm not trying to bring back the SOA 2012 mention", I don't see how I could have been more clear about it.

"The US presidential election hasn't happened yet either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it in appropriate articles. You say that this is different because it's a referendum "by no more than 2000 people on an issue that most of the world could care less about". It seems to me that this argument applies to just about everything in the article", and that's exactly why this is hyperbolic argumentation. You're comparing apples and oranges.

"Regardless of what either side in the dispute would like, their views are highly relevant to this dispute", actually their views are not really at all that important to Argentina (unless they decided to suddenly become Argentinian) since Argentina does not recognize their right to self-determination, hence what they feel like being is irrelevant.

"I also consider my comments were taken out of context, I would imagine that others would feel the same.", sigh... well Mcarling is the only one missing to feel taken out of context. Tell you what Wee, you tell me here what do you think the proper context for quoting your comment would have been and I'll edit my comment accordingly, how about that?

Again, I'm not trying to bring back the SOA 2012 mention, I'm trying to understand the differences between these events that would make one of them be erased from the article and the other mentioned even before it has taken place. Gaba p (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As many people around here are concerned with the long-term perspective and how things will be read ten years from now (to say a number), let me ask a question. Does this referendum take place in calm waters? Has everything been quiet and calmed during 2012 in regards to the dispute, with no diplomatic controversies, and then they called this referendum? Because that's what the future reader would understand when reading the proposed text. Either that part is expanded to mention the whole 2012 diplomatic crisis and its outcomes, or it is omited. Cambalachero (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well we could include a comment about Argentina escalating the rhetoric and making wild claims, demanding talks and then turning down a letter offering talks if you think that helps. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

^ Prima example of Wee's slanted position favoring the UK. Thanks Wee, no other editor could have summed up your POV better. Are you still concerned about my perceived POV Kahastok? Gaba p (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Prime example of someone engaging in personal attacks prompted by Projection bias, Argentina refuses to receive invitation to dialogue from the Falklands’ government - clear offer for talks, summarily dismissed. Argentine election fever: minister accuses UK of keeping hostage “2000 Falklands’ Islanders” - prime example of some of the ludicrous claims made by Argentina. This is before we even get onto the Argentine president's stunt of flying a 757 full of hangers-on to New York and preaching about planting turnips and flying birds. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Langus is making personal attacks against me. My statement was not provocative. It is he who is plainly wrong regarding acquiescence. Either the principle of acquiescence is valid (which the ICJ said it is in the 2008 Pedra Branca case) or it's not. If it's valid, then Argentina lost any claims to the Falklands in the 19th century and so failing now to keep up the renewed claims would be irrelevant. If it's not valid, then failing now to keep up the renewed claims would be still be irrelevant.

Gaba, you call WCM POV just because he exposes your own POV. Shame. Mcarling (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"...some of the ludicrous claims made by Argentina. This is before we even get onto the Argentine president's stunt of flying a 757 full of hangers-on to New York and preaching about planting turnips and flying birds.", you keep doing it Wee, exposing your bias a little more each time. Your lack of respect for Argentina, the Argentinian people and its politicians is amazing; the sad thing is that by doing this you lower the overall status of the discussion and consistently chip away at your position as a neutral bystander on the issue.

No Mcarling, continuous attacks by Wee to Argentina's president (and other members of the government) show a clear favoritism towards the UK he couldn't hide even if he tried. Try this, put yourself in the shoes of an Argentinian coming here and having to read Wee's attacks and persistent mockery to his/her political representatives and tell me how would you see it then. I can only assume the reason you feel the need to side by him in 90% of your comments is that you agree with him on that his behavior towards the Argentinian president (and its inhabitants in general) is acceptable, which is a real shame. Gaba p (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And about your "references": the first is an (inflammatory) letter sent by the Falklands government, not by the UK government which is the one Argentina wants to negotiate with (but of course you know this, you're just trying to throw some mud over Argentina as you usually tend to do) The second one is a statement by an Argentinian military of which you say represents a "prime example". This is a lie (again: you know this) I dare you to find another current reference by an Argentinian politician saying that the islanders are being kept hostage. This was a one-time faux-pas you referred to as "we have seen various claims by Argentina that the people of the Falkland Islands are "hostages" of the British military". Really? Have you any other current reference to back this "various claims" claim? Gaba p (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

To me the WCM sources are "Troll references" seems to be more chosen to troll than bring the discussion forward. How big is the relevance of the Falklands British goverment if its not recognised as legitime counterpart on soverignity topics by Argentina? –Chiton (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As I see nothing in reply but blatant bad faith attacks , I conclude you have no real argument but seek to digress discussion into trivia. Chiton, Argentina demands talks constantly, well they just got what they asked for, if it refuses to recognise democratically elected representatives how can it ever get what it allegedly wants. As for CFK her presence was a stunt and nothing else. If I dismiss a speech full of lies and ridiculous hyperbole for what it is, well if you`re embarassed your problem not mine. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Falklands British government is very, very relevant because so says the UK Government which presumably is recognised as legitime counterpart on soverignity topics by Argentina. If the latter government may negotiate, then they may as well authorize representatives (e.g. the Falklands British government) to do that on their behalf. Apcbg (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note how Wee first tried to side-track the discussion (which he sadly temporarily accomplished) with his empty comment "Well we could include a comment about Argentina escalating the rhetoric and making wild claims, demanding talks and then turning down a letter offering talks if you think that helps." designed to this effect, to later on try to smear Argentina with bad faith references and finally put himself in the position of an editor under attack. Also note how he refuses to answer questions raised by his questionable attempt to diminish the Argentinian claim and obvious contempt and disrespectful attitude towards the president of said country; a sucker-punch then run & hide tactic also used typically by internet trolls.

Anyway, back to the topic. Apcbg the question to me is not if the Falklands government is relevant but whether this referendum is. Since it will only put in writing the known position of the islanders, is it notable enough to be added to the article? I say it is not, but it will be a perfect reference for the claim that the islanders wish to be/remain British. My position is to add the referendum only once it has passed and as a reference for such claim. Gaba p (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaba P, you can quit the rhetoric no one is impressed. As to the Argentine president, as a former soldier I find her comments about the Argentine servicemen interred in the Falklands in the worst possible taste. The British Government offered long ago to repatriate the remains, it was refused by the Argentine Government, they asked for assistance in identifying the dead, that was refused, they have facilitated the visits of the bereaved families, even in the face of direct obstruction by the Argentine Government. They buried the dead in a purpose built cemetery on land donated so they could have a christian burial rather than rot in battlefield graves. And yet in 2012 she stood at the United Nations and lied to the world claiming that the British obstructed the families. Her remarks are beneath contempt and I make no apology for holding her in utter contempt. An "inflammatory letter"? An invite to the talks demanded? Mmm, I think someone has clearly demonstrated their nationalist POV agenda. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't care for the Argentinian president and that is just fine, it's your choice. Just try not to let it show so much in WP, this is not your blog where you can rant about Argentinian politicians and how much you dislike them. This is a delicate article where your continuous mockery and defamation directed at Argentina's political representatives is disruptive and downright trollish. You don't see anyone else here disrespectfully commenting on Cameron or any member of his staff (or their actions)

"An "inflammatory letter"?", yes Wee it is an inflammatory letter aimed at attacking the Argentinian government and its position on this issue. If you read the letter (or your own quoted article) you'll see that it starts with: "we are writing with one very simple purpose, to ask that the Argentine government ends its campaign of harassment and intimidation against Falkland Islanders, and allows us to live in peace in our Islands, which have been our home for almost 180 years". A letter that asks for negotiations to a given country while at the same time accusing it of a "campaign of harassment and intimidation" can hardly be regarded as nothing else. Not to mention the fact that Argentina never asked to negotiate with the islanders, it has always been the UK who Argentina has called for negotiation and who has systematically refused; which makes this letter all the more irrelevant and ill-willed. Your nationalistic agenda is as clear as day Wee but hey, go ahead and keep accusing everyone else of having one. As they say in my country: "Miente miente que algo queda". Gaba p (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaba p, WCM's comments about CFK are not defamatory for the simple reason that his comments are true. Truth is always a defense against defamation. On the other hand, your continuing defamation of WCM is tiring and inappropriate. Mcarling (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's really sad that you feel that way about Argentina's president Mcarling, but insulting and mocking (at times borderline misogynistic; ie: hissy fit) is you prerogative too. I would just ask you the same I asked Wee: keep it to yourself (or your personal site or anywhere but here) WP is not the place to throw mud over anybody and even less so in an article about such a delicate topic where people could get really offended really quick (and given the way you an Wee refer to CFK, they would have a perfectly valid reason) If you both could manage to maintain a civil attitude towards Argentina's political representatives, the tone of every discussion in this article would improve greatly. Gaba p (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the unjustified overreactions to my proposal, my answer is yes. Write an article on the whole 2012 diplomatic crisis and its outcomes (which include both the forums and the referendum), and all the things sad and replied. Does this include "Argentina escalating the rhetoric" etc etc? Of course it does. And the British replies (which were not exactly trying to cool down the conflict) should be mentioned as well. Cambalachero (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I was already considering writing such an article. However, I am curious as to exactly which British reply is supposedly inflammatory?

As to the referendum, no this should be mentioned very soon, it should not wait till the actual result. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

There's a mention in the article that says "In 1841, General Rosas offered to relinquish any Argentine territorial claims in return for relief of debts owed to Barings Bank in the City of London. The British Government chose to ignore the offer." Actually, the existence of such a proposal is disputed, as I described here. First, because the proposal made no sense, and second, because fact-checking historians sought info about it at the Foreign Office and found none. However, this info was removed by WCM here as "irrelevant comment".

First of all: it is not me who says that the proposal makes no sense, it is Marcial Quiroga. Cited by yet another historian, to confirm his notability. At that point, Britain had both the islands and the Argentine debt. Why would Britain pardon the Argentine debt in exchange of something they already had as well? It is clear, from it's very enunciation, that such a proposal would never be accepted. Which leads to more complicated questions: why would Rosas bother at all to make a proposal doomed to failure? If he was truly interested in getting rid of the debt taken by Rivadavia, why didn't he tried to negotiate with something else, something that was actually within his power to give? I can think of several examples of other things he could have offered to Britain.

But second and more important, this proposal is just a cliche, something that most people take as truth by force of repetition, because an author saw it somewhere and repeated it, and another one saw it as well and also repeated... and then an author tries to actually check the source documents rather than take the "it's written in several places so it must be true" approach, and finds that no documents actually support the thing. Should we mention the misconception as it is usually taken, or should we mention it and follow it with the authors that found that it does not stand a fact-checking in source documents? Yes, it's a rhetoric question: this very issue was discussed shortly ago. Simply apply the same rationale proposed by then. Unless some author actually finds the documents about this purported negotiation, the fact that Ferns did not find any will stand, and it can not be considered "irrelevant" or held against parrot sources that merely state something without fact-checking it.

Of course, the specific wording may be improved. I know that "it is said" is a bit vague, but the misconception is not held by a specific author or source, it's just a common misconception. Cambalachero (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It is said is plain weasel wording to cast doubt against a WP:FACT based on the WP:OPINION of someone else. And I find it more than a little ironic you're preaching about force of repetition given Argentine claims of a so-called expulsion in 1833 that never actually happened. It is a verifiable historical fact per WP:V and just because your WP:OR leads you to believe different is not an excuse to vandalise the article with your personal opinions. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not discussing about the settlers here, but about Rosas' purported proposal. There are no records on the foreign office about this purported proposal, as pointed by Ferns. Quiroga's concerns about the lack of sense of it simply reinforce the idea, but it is not the core. Yes, there is a doubt being casted on the proposal attributed to Rosas, because the original documents detailing it are nowhere to be found, as reported by a historian who sought them. There is no original research anywhere here. The opinions cited in the article are not mine, the investigation in the Foreign office is not mine. In fact, compare the sources: I cited a history book and reputed historians, and the paragraph as it is merely cites an entry of a timeline in a web page Cambalachero (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

All I can see is a statment that the UK reluctance to recognose Argentians soverty made the proposal pointless, not that it ws not made.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The text says the offer was "to relinquish any Argentine territorial claims" not to cede sovereignty. While the British had possession and sovereignty at that point, they didn't have the Argentine claim i.e. Argentine recognition of British sovereignty, so the proposal was not pointless at all. Apcbg (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the "fact-checking-against-contemporary-sources" philosophy of most editors here, it follows we should investigate this thoroughly... am I right? (Oh, the irony...) --Langus (t) 19:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I see you couldn't resist the chance to make a barbed comment. By all means check it out but there is big difference between basing an edit on the opinion of one author, when the historical record says different, ands basing an edit on history distorted for the purpose of advancing an irredentist agenda. Wee Curry Monster talk

I will cite the text of the book I'm talk about, "Imposturas históricas e identidad nacional" by Marcelo Lascano. First, in its original languaje

In English, he says

As you see, it's not a single author but three (an author, Lascano, cites other authors to reinforce his point). And what is the "historical record" supposed to be? The archives of the original contemporary documents? Because it is Ferns, not the many "parrot sources", who has checked it. If a single author who checked the historical record says one thing, and many other "parrot sources" say the opposite, but without offering counter-documents to back up their claims, then the single author would still prevail.

As a user that WCM must surely respect would say, its a claim by Britain that Rosas offered the islands, the historical record shows this is actually untrue. A lie is a lie. Claiming it is an "fact" doesn't make it true and we mention what Britain claims. You can assert it is a fact that black is white but you'll only manage to kill yourself on a pedestrian crossing. This has nothing to do with POV. Cambalachero (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No its not a claim by Britain, since I have seen Argentine documents that report the same claim. Humbert F. Burzio: “Rozas, el empréstito inglés de 1824 y las Islas Malvinas”, in Boletín del Centro Naval, Buenos Aires, January/February 1944, p. 647ff The offer was made by Rosas to Franck de Pallacieu Falconet, the Baring emissary. Manuel Moreno also made the offer to British Foreign Secretary Lord Aberdeen, who turned it down and it was Moreno who reports that it was because the British rejected the Argentine sovereignty claim. And it is a single author making such a claim, reported by others - did they for example check his assertion. There are too many contemporary documents that repeat the same fact, both British and Argentine, so it is a very extraordinary claim, which does require proof.

Your attempt to spin this as a nationalist agenda is not helpful, its not as if it is a disputed fact by either side. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen such parrot sources in Argentina as well. My last paragraph was actually pointing your double standards here: fact-checking outweights a majority of unreferenced sources, or not, according to whose claim will be benefited (that's why I copied most of the text of a reply you gave at an analogous discussion, changing just the specific details). A libel is a libel, a parrot source is a parrot source and a fact-checked statement is a fact-checked statement, regardless of nationality (as, in this case, this is actually a dispute between Argentine historians about Rosas, caused by XIX century Argentines that made several unsourced libels against him for domestic reasons that do not involve Britain or the Malvinas more than in a tangential manner). Cambalachero (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We need someone to check Fern, I have dne a quick Gbooks search and can find no passage that matches the one given by Marcelo Lascano.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The ISBN of Lascano's book is 950-02-5900-1. The book of H. S. Ferns cited in the book bibliography is "Gran Bretaña y la Argentina en el siglo XIX", Solar, Buenos Aires, 1968 Cambalachero (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Britain_and_Argentina_in_the_nineteenth.html?id=3sFPAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y dose not (as far as I can tell) contain the quoted passage, so again I will ask for someone with access to the book to confirm that the alleged passage is present.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I will decline this topic for some time, until I get a copy of Ferns book. I can not locate the original passage with mere snippets. Cambalachero (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And I can't find it either, though I do know someone with the book and I've asked them to check for me. If you check the 1977 reprint, on p.224 there is a passage that acknowledges the offer made to Baring's agent. It would appear the reference quoted may in fact contradict the author's claim. I will just note that initially you were asserting this was solely a British claim and were singularly unpleasant in attacking me personally, the second I point out an Argentine source saying the same thing, thats simply waved away. We call that "moving the goal posts". Wee Curry Monster talk 15:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Another Ferns reference p.87

I'm not impressed by the thoroughness of your researchers either, since some of the relevant letters are in Archivo General de la Nacion in Buenos Aires. Give me time I can get the reference for you to check yourself. So it looks like the contemporary sources do back up what all those historians report and the source you mention actually contradicts what the authors claim. What were you saying about "parrot sources"? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

British claim/settlement

The fact that the islands were claimed by the British and settled in them before the Republic of Argentina existed is not redundant. It is one of the most perennial British claims and there are no grounds whatsoever for it not to be listed there. In addition, many of the other points which Argentina and the UK discuss are mentioned elsewhere in the article. It would be unacceptable for me to remove the bullet point in Argentina's claims regarding British withdrawal in 1776; therefore it is unacceptable to remove the bullet point I added. WilliamH (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The previous claim clearly contains this one: "That the British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim.". Once again, Wee (not WilliamH who did the right thing and came straight to the Talk page to discuss the issue) forces changes upon the article not caring one bit about consensus. He has now, as a consequence of such unilateral changes, violated the WP:3RR. I will not be reverting his changes again, but I'd appreciate if some other editor reverted to last consensus until the matter is solved. Gaba p (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The points that they were the first to claim the islands, and that they did so before Argentina's existance are clearly two distinguishable contentions. WilliamH (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets leave out the mentin that it was before Argintina's existance (unless an RS makes that specific point).Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue of British involvement in the Falklands before Argentina's existence as a specific point is unlikely to be challenged - it is one of the most mainstream and obvious arguments. Here it is being reiterated by the British ambassador to the UN. Included as a suitable indication of the British government perspective. WilliamH (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

So the answer is yes, it is a British position and so should be included.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I still believe the first claim contains this one, but if Slatersteven backs the edit I won't oppose. Gaba p (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

There is already a reference to the C24 resolutions, the video link is not a good idea as the URL will shortly change when it is archived. It is far better to use a reference a more permanent link as previously. The reference, in my honest opinion, was just a ruse to sneak in recent news reports that offer no new insight.

The other editor noticed a significant ommission and corrected it. It is not currently in the article and should not be removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I concur. For Gaba p, please read up on WP:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links. --Dave 15:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If anybody cares to check, Wee has recently violated the WP:3RR by repeatedly reverting changes to the article instead of coming to the Talk page first. He needs to have WP:The Last Word always apparently (of course, he accuses me of trying to game the system instead of actually respecting the rules himself)

The reference is to the latest UN decolonization comity resolution not originally added by me by the way. If the issue is its durability fine, I'll check for a more permanent reference. Note however this was not the reason Wee removed it in the first place: "c24 makes same statement annually" & "there is no need to repeat a statement already in the article just because they repeated it". Gaba p (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, the burden was on you to show that the video link was necessary/relevant and per WP:BRD you should have seize the initiative to bring the matter here for discussion but chose instead to continue edit warring despite your lack of information. Where is your collaborative spirit? Lastly, nobody is stopping you from going to 3RR noticeboard to lodge your complaint. But before you do so, please read up on WP:BOOMERANG. --Dave 16:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also FWIW, WBC does not appear to have broken the 3RR, although he almost certainly will be blocked if he makes another revert. WilliamH (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And for the record I have no intention of making any further reverts. I only reverted a 3rd time, because Gaba P made no attempt to discuss the matter. The only person to raise this in talk was me. It is clear that Gaba P was edit warring to make a WP:POINT and using 3RR to game the system into forcing his edit into the article - he is well aware of WP:BRD. Given his history of trying to needle me, I would watch out for a WP:PETARD rather than a WP:BOOMERANG. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Your both sailing clise to an edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I did seize the initiative to bring the matter to the Talk page Dave, you can see it for yourself here. "Lastly, nobody is stopping you from going to 3RR noticeboard to lodge your complaint.", I have no intentions to do so. My chances of winning that argument are slim to none, as was clearly demonstrated after Wee had me blocked a few months ago (even though it was clear there was no case against me) and I had to resort to giving up my right to anonymity to lift it. Wee has many friends (such as yourself) that will vouch for him no matter what he does (and apparently he will reciprocate)

WilliamH yes he has. He made 3 reverts today, check the article's history for yourself.

"Gaba P was edit warring to make a WP:POINT and using 3RR to game the system into forcing his edit into the article", first I don't know what point you think I'm trying to make (looks more like just a random accusation), second I didn't game the 3RR, you on the other hand broke it. Lastly, it wasn't my edit it was another's editor edit which you reverted and I added back.

Wee you can try to intimidate me all you want, you and I both know who is in the wrong here. I'll see about that reference tomorrow. Gaba p (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Making 3 reverts in less than 24 hours is not exactly advisable, but it is not a violation of 3RR. It's the fourth revert which will get you blocked, not the third. WilliamH (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct WilliamH, it's the fourth revert that will get you blocked. However note that: "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." WP:3RR. Also, WP:BRD-NOT and WP:OWN clearly apply here. Gaba p (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD Bold, revert, discuss ie after being reverted you initate a discussion. Upon being reverted you immediately commenced to edit war. I do not normally do more than 2 reverts but on this occasion removing an edit that fixed a glaring omission for a frivolous reason seems more akin to vandalism. You were edit warring to make a point, that much is clear. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD-NOT quote:

• Note:"BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow.

(emphasis added) You reverted the original edit made by BlueSalix and improved by Apcbg saying "rv c24 makes same statement annually". After I added just the reference used in that edit by both those editors back (since you had complained about the statement, I removed it and left the reference only) you again proceeded to revert it. Up until then, you had reverted the same edit twice. I reverted you again asking you to take the matter to the Talk page and one more time (third) you reverted before coming to the Talk page.

Today I added the reference taken directly from the UN press release about the outcome of the last Committee on Decolonization (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gacol3238.doc.htm) and Wee reverted the edit once again saying "rv sneaking recent news in the guise of a reference that isn't needed". How can you argue that a reference to the UN's last decolonization committee with the title "SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION CONSIDERS ‘QUESTION OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS)’, HEARS FROM PETITIONERS, ISLAND ASSEMBLYMEN, ARGENTINA’S PRESIDENT" isn't relevant in this article? Having two references, one from 2005 and another from 2012, showing the same statement coming from the UN (ie: resume negotiations) is indicative of a message the Committee is sticking to through time, which in no way can be dismissed as simple "recent news". I ask you to please revert yourself and add back the provided reference. Gaba p (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's up to you to provide a reason justifying inclusion. All I've noted here is bluster and personal attacks. It appears that you are seriously arguing that yet another instance of what is after all an annual call from the C24 is absolutely crucial, but that an unprecedented referendum on precisely the topic of the article is totally irrelevant. I have to say that I find it very difficult to take your points seriously when your bias shows through so clearly in your arguments. Kahastok talk 22:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Kahastok, I've already addressed the three points you mention.

"It's up to you to provide a reason justifying inclusion.", see the comment above yours: "Having two references, one from 2005 and another from 2012, showing the same statement coming from the UN (ie: resume negotiations) is indicative of a message the Committee is sticking to through time, which in no way can be dismissed as simple "recent news"."

"It appears that you are seriously arguing that yet another instance of what is after all an annual call from the C24 is absolutely crucial", I am seriously arguing that the results of a UN committee on decolonization that specifically deals with the Falklands issue is relevant enough to, at least, warrant a reference. Yes Kahastok, I seriously do. Your (and Wee's) dismissive attitude towards the resolutions of an organism as important as the UN is actually what's hard to believe to me.

"an unprecedented referendum on precisely the topic of the article is totally irrelevant", I argue it is not relevant enough to have it's own mention by the same standards the SOA 2012 is but, as I've said: "it will be a perfect reference for the claim that the islanders wish to be/remain British. My position is to add the referendum only once it has passed and as a reference for such claim.". I argue it should be added as a reference for the mentioned claim. The difference with this is that Wee (and apparently you too) are arguing the latest UN resolution on the matter isn't even worth a single reference. Gaba p (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(PD: I'm sorry you feel I'm biased. I'm really trying to keep a balance on the article from a NPOV.) Gaba p (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a UN resolution, its a recommendation by the C24 to the IVth Committee, taken without a vote. They make the same statement annually. The IVth Committee has not acted on any recommendation on the issue since 1988. And no you're not trying to create a NPOV, your edits have a distinct POV about them. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... and once again you've removed an edit introduced & improved by four different editors (BlueSalix, Apcbg, myself, Langus) If you check the last reference of the International Position section you'll see that this exact UN Special Committee press release is quoted from the years 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010. How about adding it there, as a 2012 reference? Any objections to that? (What do you say we drop the mutual POV accusations? Neither of us is impressed, we both believe the other has a clear bias so it'll take us nowhere and it can get really tiresome, specially to the other editors) Gaba p (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Asssuming of course in a contentious area of editing BlueSalix an editor with a, let us say, unusual pattern of editing, is not, let us say, completely unrelated to other editors. And ignoring that Apcbg did not introduce that edit. And ignoring that it is the same position, the same committee adopts on annual basis, without taking a vote and ignoring that the committee is dominated by countries sympathetic to Argentina and that the recommendation of that group has been ignored since 1988. And ignoring that I and other editors are accused by both sides of being biased toward the other. Cutting out the unwarranted accusations of bias would be a good start but don't even pretend we are in any way alike. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Do note I offered an olive branch and Wee attacked me... again.

I don't even understand what you are accusing BlueSalix of but I guess he/she'll will have something to say about it (Or not. I'd actually advice him/her not to; your history of accusing pretty much everybody who doesn't share your exact view on the matter of POV speaks for itself and calling you out on this unfunded accusation will go nowhere)

Apcbg improved upon that original edit as I said a number of times already, thus accepting it. Of course you are 100% aware of this and are only trying to obscure the fact that 4 editors had agreed on that edit before you came in and unilaterally reverted it.

"And ignoring that it is the same position, the same committee adopts on annual basis, without taking a vote and ignoring that the committee is dominated by countries sympathetic to Argentina and that the recommendation of that group has been ignored since 1988" <-- disregarding an international committee just because it doesn't comply with your own position. I know I'm not the only one to note this is clearly not NPOV.

"I and other editors are accused by both sides of being biased toward the other", if you are referring to your Brickbats template, let me tell you what I see. First I see a message by an anonymous editor calling you a "Fucking Argie Loving Wanker" (god knows where this comes from) right below a comment left in your Talk page by your friend Dave (who you recently defended in an ANI ban request made against him) calling Argentinean soldiers "cowards". How lovely. Second I see an "ignorant propagandist" accusation to an editor by the name Justin (I guess that's you?) by an editor who doesn't exist anymore and which could easily be taken as an accusation of being a propagandist for the UK. So you'll excuse me if I'm not impressed.

"don't even pretend we are in any way alike", I don't Wee. I am actually willing to make a compromise with an aggressive editor for the sake of the article. You apparently won't quit until a fair admin stops by and blocks your account. Your choice I guess.

I actually don't know why I keep asking for your permission as if you owned the article. I think at first I did it just to be polite, but now all I do is reinforce your WP:OWN attitude so I'll stop.

So to anybody else reading: if you check the last reference of the International Position section you'll see that this exact UN Special Committee press release is quoted from the years 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010. This edit won't even add a new reference, it will only add the latest to the string already quoted in that single reference. Since I see no reasonable argument as to why the previous 6 press releases should be there but not this last one, I'll go ahead and add the reference. Gaba p (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I stress that this would be an update to a reference, not an introduction of a new one. --Langus (t) 05:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaba p, please grow up and stop the attempt to wind me up, it ain't gonna work. There was no olive branch, just more of the same. WP:ANI is resplendent with "friendly admins", you're more than welcome to raise the matter there. Don't forget to mention you're edit warring again. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"friendly admins", you mean friendly to you I presume? I said fair admin, read carefully the comment one more time please.

I see you finally got tired of trying to find an excuse to remove a valid reference just to prove you own the article. Good. Now as to the edit warring, see new section please. Gaba p (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI, be sure and include the bad faith accusation against the admins there, thats sure to help your case. I didn't give an excuse, I gave a valid logical reason. You're of course welcome to have the last word. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring over nothing...

Wee has recently reverted two times and edit made by Langus and I saying: "rs quote" and "rs quote again - quit edit warring" (those where his actual explanations as to why he reverted two times the same edit by two different editors, whilst accusing me of edit warring of course) The UK claim being referenced is this: "That in an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances, preferring to remain British.". The reference Wee is fighting to keep quotes a huge section of the article which does not mention anywhere the 87% fact and only mentions in the last part of the last sentence the fact that the islanders voted "preferring to remain British". This is the quote Wee is edit-warring to keep in the reference:

This is the quote I hereby propose as a middle ground given that it mentions both facts and it's not half the article:

There is nothing wrong with the existing quotation. And there is more reason to including this quote than you suggest. It includes a whole raft of information, for example the UK policy of independence upon request, a policy in place since the 1960s, and that they wish to retain the connection with the UK. And quit the name calling, this isn't a school playground. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The compromise wuld not be a qoute forom the source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also I thinik this refers to the section about the UN resolution ignori9ng the Islanders wishes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I only quoted from the source because Wee doesn't want just a reference pointing to the article, he also wants a quote (I'm not against a reference to the article with no quotes) Also, how could I quote from a different article? I think I'm not understanding what you mean by "The compromise wuld not be a qoute forom the source.", could you explain that sentence a bit more please?

Again, the UK claim being referenced is this: "That in an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances, preferring to remain British.". How is my quotation wrong when it mentions the whole claim (almost verbatim)? And how is Wee's quote better given that it's enormous and even so it fails to address the 87% point? Gaba p (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, the quote is there to reference more than one point. Not just the poll. It is referred to, twice. Wee Curry Monster talk

Ok I see the second claim being referenced is this: "That UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future.". This makes the current quote even less appropriate since (aside from being huge) it doesn't fully address the first claim and doesn't address at all the second claim. So I propose this quote for the first claim:

and this quote for the second:

This way both claims would be more accurately referenced with smaller and more precise quotes. Gaba p (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Right now the quotation has no relation with the actual use of the source in the article, constituting therefore just a political WP:SOAPBOX speech. But do as you like. --Langus (t) 00:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The quote is directly related to the use of the source in the article, its not WP:SOAPBOX speech ie a vehicle for propaganda. How many c24 resolutions is referenced? What was that about "Double standards"? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense whatsoever Wee. No one is talking about removing any quote or reference (as you intended to do with the latest UN committee press release and actually did with the SOA 2012 mention), I'm simply trying to improve the current quote by making it more accurate. As I said, right now it fails to address half of the first claim and 100% of the second. There's no logical reason not to correct that so I'll go ahead and do it. Gaba p (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No correction is needed, it addresses the claim made and you should not be removing it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, rather than leaving details to the citation, they're now explicitly in the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This has now (as far as I can see) been resovled.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it has been resolved Slatersteven. If you check the article you'll see that Wee, in his determination to keep that enormous and irrelevant quote, has repeated an entire reference+quote and split a single claim in two. I wonder what would Wee had said if any other editor had repeated a reference or a whole claim just to make a WP:POINT. I made a new edit to try to correct the repetition of reference+quote and the irrelevant splitting of a single claim. Please tell me what you think. Gaba p (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It was resolved and your edit once again removes relevant information. Whilst previously I was content to see this subsumed in the reference, it also seems you are hell bent on removing and suppressing this information. Your edits are always about promoting, in your words the "Argentine POV" and equally you remove relevant information on the British position.

You've removed from the article:

ie you remove the British rebuttal of the stated Argentine position that the islanders do not have a basic human right conferred by the UN Charter. And you've removed:

You've removed text relating to the fact that the British position is to willingly grant independence to its overseas territories. And that Britain allows them to choose their own future. This is clearly relevant to this article and should be re-instated. I am asking you to self-revert and explain why this information cannot be given to our readers. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't have the chance to self-revert nothing since Apcbg already reverted my edits. This is the claims, references and quotes you (and Apcbg) want the article to show:

• That UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future
• The Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination and the UK Government will not enter into negotiations on sovereignty without their consent.

quote (repeated) says: "Although the United Nations General Assembly has not debated the question of the Falklands since 1988, the Committee of Twenty-four has continued to adopt resolutions calling for negotiations between Britain and Argentina. These resolutions are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future. Several members of the Committee have acknowledged this omission. The principle of self-determination is included in every other resolution considered by the Committee. The British position that sovereignty is not for negotiation remains unaltered. There will be no change in the status of the Falklands without the Islanders' consent."

quote says: "The Argentine Government has argued that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right of self-determination, on the (false) basis that they replaced an indigenous Argentine population expelled by force. However there was no indigenous or settled population on the Islands until British settlement. The people who live in the Falklands now are not a transitory population. Many can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early nineteenth century. Britain is committed to defend their right to choose their own future. The Islanders are fully entitled to enjoy the right of self-determination. It is a right which cannot be applied selectively or be open to negotiation, and one which is recognised in the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Self-determination does not necessarily mean independence. Britain has willingly granted independence where it has been requested, and will continue to do so where it is an option, while remaining committed to those of its Overseas Territories which choose to retain the British connection. In exercise of their right of self-determination, the Falkland Islanders have repeatedly made known their wish to remain British."

First, I object to the repetition of quote which is 100% unnecessary. Second I object to the length of both quotes but specially that of quote , which should only be there to reference the claim "The Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination" and this can be done in a much simpler way.

I propose to merge both claims which are actually just one claim, into:

• That the Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination which makes the UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future".

where quote reads: "The Islanders are fully entitled to enjoy the right of self-determination. It is a right which cannot be applied selectively or be open to negotiation, and one which is recognised in the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

and quote : "(...) the Committee of Twenty-four has continued to adopt resolutions calling for negotiations between Britain and Argentina. These resolutions are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future."

There is no need for such huge quotes when the readers can easily go the the referenced article and read it whole if they so wish to. My statement of UK's claim is much less convoluted than Wee's split-statement and it makes no use of a repeated reference. Even more, both the quotes I propose fully address the claims being mentioned while maintaining a reasonable size. And in no way am I promoting an Argentina POV (where in god's name do you see that in my edits??)

"You've removed text relating to the fact that the British position is to willingly grant independence to its overseas territories. And that Britain allows them to choose their own future. ", the section deals with British claims. What you state are not British claims but British positions on the matter and are completely irrelevant in regards to the claims being referenced. The quotes I propose are much smaller and address both statements in full without going into lengthy details. Gaba p (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Quote 63 is not repeated, its a named reference used twice. Your premise is based on a flawed an incorrect appreciation of how the article referencing system operates. And the wall of argumentative text is not helpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... the attacks aren't helpful Wee, could you please drop it? Did you read my comment? It's pretty small, it looks big because I wrote your quotes and mine but the premise is simple enough to understand. Could you read it and comment on the points made instead of dismissing it entirely?

You're so utterly convinced I'm editing from an "Argentina POV" that you don't realize your way of phrasing the UK claim is confusing and convoluted and only makes it harder for readers of the article to understand the British position. Since Apcbg and you agreed on the current state of the article I won't oppose unless another editor agrees that my editing is better.

Slatersteven I would very much like to hear your comments on this. Gaba p (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no prblom with the merge, it does seem to be more or less the same, point made twice. I cannot see quote 63 used twicwe eitehr, so not sure what the issue is. Quote 64 is far too long and does need trimmiing. As long as Gaba's quotes are accurate I prefer his version at time.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is he removes the FCO comment on the Argentine claim that self-determination doesn't apply and he also removes the British position on the granting of independence to overseas territories. Its removing significant information and that why I and others have objected. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"he removes the FCO comment on the Argentine claim that self-determination doesn't apply", that claim is already listed as one of Argentina's claims in the Claims by Argentina section. There is no need to repeat it here.

"he also removes the British position on the granting of independence to overseas territories", we're editing the British claims section and thus we list and reference British claims. You are quoting a British political position: "Britain has willingly granted independence where it has been requested, and will continue to do so where it is an option, while remaining committed to those of its Overseas Territories which choose to retain the British connection.", which has nothing to do with the claim being referenced. If you want to include the British statement that they are willing to "grant independence to overseas territories where it has been requested and it is an option", it would have to be somewhere in the article and we should also mention the fact that out of the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories territories (non-decolonized territories) listed by the UN, 10 are under the administration of the UK.

So far Langus, Slatersteven and I are in favor, and Wee and Apcbg oppose. I now trust I've addressed Wee's concern of "removing significant information" in full. So can I reinstate my edit without having to worry about an edit-war? Gaba p (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the offerd text does still mention that the UK rejects argintinas comments abut self determination "*That the Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination which makes the UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future"." and note "(...) the Committee of Twenty-four has continued to adopt resolutions calling for negotiations between Britain and Argentina. These resolutions are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future."I see that mentioning it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well since Wee's and 89's edit war has led to a 1-week full lock down on the article, I guess I'll have to wait until the protection is lifted to make the edit. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't have a consensus yet.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I'll wait to hear what Wee and Apcbg have to say. Gaba p (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism isn't edit warring, even if the admin can't see that the editing was done in bad faith, do you think you could stop with the needling? I would disagree with the proposed edit anyway. You're continuing to be disingenuous in addressing my comments. The material wouldn't be duplicated, you're removing why the FCO considers the Argentine Government is wrong. You're not addressing my concerns in the slightest, you're misrepresenting them. If you continue to introduce material without consensus you're as bad as any vandal. Work up an edit in a sandpit first. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This thread became confusing after Gaba p's wall of text of 15:24, 21 June 2012 (and I'd incidentally encourage all editors not to write such long comments as they can be seen as disruptive). Gaba, since you're talking about making "the edit", could you please present a proposal. That is, please tell us exactly what "the edit" that you would like to make is. Please avoid making personal remarks when doing this. Thanks, Kahastok talk 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My impression, too. Apcbg (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Kahastok, I presented the proposal in my "wall of text" (which turned out so big because I presented Wee's proposed huge quotes too, in an attempt to make my comment balanced and fair; I guess it was a bad idea) Slatersteven also mentioned my proposed edit in his comment above, but here it goes again:

• That the Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination which makes the UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future".

where quote reads: "The Islanders are fully entitled to enjoy the right of self-determination. It is a right which cannot be applied selectively or be open to negotiation, and one which is recognised in the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

and quote : "(...) the Committee of Twenty-four has continued to adopt resolutions calling for negotiations between Britain and Argentina. These resolutions are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future."

You can read my comments above as to why I believe this is a better way of phrasing that claim than the current split-statement and why I believe the quotes are also preferable (I won't repeat them so as not to make this comment too long)

Wee, I think I'll just stop responding to you entirely. You've voiced your concerns, I've addressed them fully. Enough. Gaba p (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't respond to me, you usually try and twist what I have to say into a pretzel. As you just did here. You haven't addressed my concerns and I don't accept your proposed edit for the reasons stated. Ignoring what I have to say won't make me go away. Consensus is about collaboration, it isn't about snide remarks and point scoring as you clearly seem to think. If you continue in the same way, you'll get nowhere. Previously I was happy to have a whole host of points summarised in the quote, if you're planning on removing some of that information it'll need to go back into the article. I made a polite suggestion to suggest an edit in a sandpit, if you don't want to do that fine. But quit the walls of text please and the personal remarks it is getting old. You've been given a chance you didn't deserve Alex, don't blow it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Full protection 1 week

I've fully protected the article for one week due to the edit warring. It is not an endorsement of the current version. Discuss below, stay away from personal attacks and the word "vandal". I don't care who is "more wrong" than the other, there is plenty of blame to go around. Once the protection has expired, the changes should reflect the consensus. If edit warring continues, I will simply block the editors in question instead of protect again. Keep in mind, it isn't necessary to pass 3RR to get blocked for warring. I'm genuinely hopeful that you guys will just hammer out a consensus, and I don't have to come back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• 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