Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

Removal of important summit by Wee and Kahastok

Will you explain the reasoning behind removing the mention the very important "Cumbre de la unidad de América Latina y el Caribe" summit were representatives of 33 countries expressed their support for the Argentinian position please? Wee says "we don't report every summit". Who exactly is "we" and why do "they" feel "they" can decide not to report this summit? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Argentina raises the issue at every summit it attends, once even claiming at a summit on venereal disease to be responsible for VD in the Falkland Islands (apologies for the easily shocked but that still amuses me most childishly). As noted previously [1] a discussion in which Gaba p participated it is not necessary to give a long list of summits etc at which Argentina has raised the issue. There was nothing new or different at this summit and we describe the usual measures given. You're raising a dead issue, already resolved. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree we don't need or want a list of summits, but I think it is worth recording that those 33 countries have declared their support of Argentina. I've edited to The members of the Rio Group of South American states have jointly declared their support to the Argentine position, and a number of their members including Peru, Brazil, Chile and Mexico have also individually declared their support and voiced that support within international organisations - an improvement? Khendon (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It has the major problem that several of those countries are not staunch supporters of Argentina but rather have tended to sign up to whatever statement is put in front of them. Here, for example, is Caricom supporting the British position - and Caricom's membership includes several states that were at the Rio Group in 2010. In some cases, countries have accepted mutually contradictory statements within weeks of one another. Kahastok italk 18:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, and the contradictions worth a mention in the article I'd say Khendon (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To add to what Kahatosk said earlier, Argentina issued a press release claiming support from certain Commonwealth countries (CARICOM), they later issued a statement denying that they supported Argentina's position. They're not always contradictory, in some cases it is claimed they supported a motion they didn't. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"once even claiming at a summit on venereal disease to be responsible for VD in the Falkland Islands" I believe you're wrong on this one, that you have mistranslated a book in Spanish. What source are you basing on? --Langus (t) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The declaration is clear: it downright supports the Argentinian position. The position is neither neutral nor "calling for negotiations" and it is not an Argentinian press release either. In any case I'm content with the current state of the section, I've onle added the word "large" (as not to mention "33 countries"), "Caribbean" next to Latin American and moved the ref to this section since, as I mentioned, it is supportive of Agentina, not neutral. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In the circumstances - given that we're referring to a group of countries that have signed statements supporting both sides - I cannot accept a statement claiming that the Caribbean supports Argentina, which is what your version says. Such a statement is inaccurate and biased. Kahastok talk 20:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok Kahastok, could you please indicte which Caribbean coutries signed the declaration supporting the British claim please? That way we could even sort them out and mention them explicitely. I will reinstate my edit but removing "Caribbean" until we can sort this out. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, that isn't what we should be doing, as that is original research by looking at primary sources and making a judgement call on the position of individual countries. Simply because a country supported a resolution calling for negotiations does not mean they support either. We need a reliable and neutral 3rd party source to do that. Neither should we be listing summits, rather generalising and ideally based on what neutral 3rd party sources say. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. And I also object to the use of the word "large", which creates an quantitative claim as to the number of countries that is not supported by the sources without original interpretation. IOW it interprets, without sources to back it up, that those that we have unequivocal evidence for constitute "a large number of Latin American states" (emphasis mine).

I'd also dispute the word's neutrality as it emphasises support for Argentina, which is something we shouldn't be doing. Kahastok talk 23:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree on the word "large" but I didn't revert it on the basis it was so childish to have inserted it in the first place. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I've added information regarding the UNASUR so as to remove ambiguity by the use of the word "large".

Wee: I don't understand to what are you referring as WP:OR. I asked for a source that stated which Caribbean countries backed the UK in that reunion so we could mention that information in the article. What exactly do you find wrong with this? Do either you or Kahastok actually have such information or not?. If so, could you please present it?. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok: please do not remove important information regarding Latin American states and Spain. It's not a list of anything and there has never been anyhing even remotely similar to a consensus in this talk page to not include such relevant information. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Given my opposition to this idea going into masses of detail about the position taken by each individual country, I see no need to provide any more sources than I have already provided, which refers clearly to the nations of Caricom. If you wish to make a proposal to change the article in this direction, it is your job to source that proposal (including both British and Argentine POVs as appropriate), not mine. I also oppose the addition of UNASUR (this is not a list of Latin American summits attended by Argentina, and in any case there is overlap with Caricom) and Spain. This is too much detail here.

Your claim that there has never been explicit consensus not to include, even if true, is irrelevant because the current consensus does not include it. If you wish to make the change, you need consensus for it. Not the other way around. Kahastok talk 19:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted for a 3rd time, clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN as the editor has inferred their own conclusions from sources. Clear POV edit in elevating support for Argentina and deprecating that for Britain; this should be guided as how neutral sources describe it. Reverted hence for failing to conform to WP:NPOV. And also use of WP:WEASEL words. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you one more time to please stop making this blanket reverts without reasons. I'm currently making four edits:

1. France and its current vs its old position during the war. I have found no new sources stating that France supports the UK in its claim.
2. Added UNASUR which includes all Latin American states without the need to list each one separately. This informition is vital since it reflects clearly that the totality of Latin America backs the Argentinian position.
3. Added position of Spain which is involved in an identical issue regarding Gibraltar. How could this country's position not be relevant enough to be included in the article?
4. Expand on the result of the Ibero American summit. What exactly do you find wrong with this?

Your accusations that my edit are POV are childish. I'm reflecting almost verbatim what the sources say and what different countries state about the issue. Once again: this is an encyclopedia and we are supposed to make it better with more sourced and relevant information. Your constant attempts at obscuring relevant sourced information are baffling. Please do not incur in more blanket reverts. If you have an issue with any of my edits then address them here one by one. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course Wee has now jumped the blanket revert wagon too. Fine, I'll await here your comments about each point and why you think that information should not be added into the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok and Wee please address each point and why you have removed it from the article please.

1. France and its current vs its old position during the war. I have found no new sources stating that France supports the UK in its claim.
2. Added UNASUR which includes all Latin American states without the need to list each one separately. This informition is vital since it reflects clearly that the totality of Latin America backs the Argentinian position.
3. Added position of Spain which is involved in an identical issue regarding Gibraltar. How could this country's position not be relevant enough to be included in the article?
4. Expand on the result of the Ibero American summit. What exactly do you find wrong with this?

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely all that is needed is a source that shows that generally Anglo-phone and European countries support the Islanders and a source shows that that unsuprisingly Spanish speaking countries and Argentina's neighbours support Argentina. It is not as though they have suddenly changed policy. As side issue, whilst Gibraltar is similar in someways it is not an identical situation, the main similarity being that the residents want to continue their relationship with the UK. Bevo74 (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevo74 agreed. That is why I added a single source which included all Latin American countries without the need to mention each one (edit number 2) This was deleted by Wee and Kahastok.

Agree again with your 2nd point. That's why my edit said that Spain and the UK where involved in a "similar" issue regarding Gibraltar (edit number 3) This was also deleted by Wee and Kahastok.

I will not be reverting their reverts since they are tag-teaming and I do not want to breach the 3RR. If you agree with any (or all) of the edits, I'd ask you te please re-instate it/them.

I'm still waiting to hear the reasons for the removal of each point by Wee and Kahastok. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The only attitude we need to know about Spain is regarding the Falklands, Gibraltar is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with Gibraltar being irrelevant (it's the other highly disputed former British colony and by Spain nonetheless which is heavily involved in the discussion about the origins of the islands sovereignty) but if such is the consensus then only the first part of edit number 3 can be re-added.

Still waiting to hear reasons for deleting all 4 points by Wee and Kahastok. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevo74 and Slatersteven: could I ask you to comment on all 4 of the edits and tell me if you find some reason as to why they should not be included please? You'll find them sequentially in the last diff revert by Wee. Thanks a lot. Gaba p (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the sources do not say that they support Argentinian claims to the Falklands, they support a call for negotiations (thus you have placed then in the wrong section.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I added it there because of the title "Apoyo de España por Malvinas" and the quoted statement. How would you state that Spain supports a call for negotiations based on that article? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Because we use the text of an article for what it says, not the attention grabbing head line

"The Government of Spain yesterday confirmed its commitment to the claims of Argentina for Britain to support negotiations on sovereignty in the Falkland Islands."

is what the first paragraph says (my translation may not be that accurate, but is I suspect close enough).Slatersteven (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Believe it or not, Gaba, not all of us spend all of our time in front of a computer waiting for you to edit. You demanded responses five times in the space of an hour. That's not helpful. It doesn't make me likely to respond to you any faster. It doesn't increase your chances of persuading me to agree with you. Sometimes you just have to be patient.

As it happens, I've already told you why I oppose this edit. You say that it's "childish" to call it POV. That isn't going to persuade me to agree with you either. And it's also false. When the effect of your edit is to systematically emphasise the support for the Argentine POV and de-emphasise support for the British POV, then your edit is POV. It doesn't matter whether you are quoting your sources verbatim or not - quoting a biased source verbatim does not make that source neutral. And that's even ignoring the fact that your edits suggest that all these countries are clear supporters of Argentina when I have already demonstrated that this is inaccurate.

I oppose the notion that we should be trawling through countries looking for whatever they might have said about the Falklands in the past. We used to have a map that did something like this: it was removed because of complicated situations such as the Caribbean states, because divining opinion often required significant OR, and because it placed far too much undue weight on the platitudes of states who in all likelihood don't care either way, or whose opinions are of little significance in terms of the dispute. All of these points remain. A list of countries and their platitudes could easily take up the entire article, would constitute severe OR and for the most part would be totally beside the point. That's not to say that we shouldn't be listing any other individual countries - but only the major players, such as the remaining members of the P5. The rest should be put in general terms.

I also oppose the notion that we should be listing every regional summit that has voiced any kind of support for Argentina, let alone go through them all in detail as you propose. Ignoring the basic POV points here - you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain, and suggest a clear-cut position in cases where the evidence is nuanced - Argentina raises the point at every regional summit or organisation it attends. The suggestion inherent is there is somehow a significant difference between one summit where a few South American countries supported Argentina, and another summit under a different name where the same few South American countries supported Argentina, and then a third summit under a different name where the same few South American countries supported Argentina. This suggestion is illogical and significantly overemphasises the level of support - you're basically trying to count them several times over. Kahastok talk 21:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that neatly and succinctly summarises my position also. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Slatersteven: as I said, I based my edit on what the minister said. In any case if you think this part would be better suited for the following section I have no problem in moving it. Would you agree with that?

No you said you based the edit on the headline.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee and Kahastok: First of all I note how you avoided mentioning what you problem was point for point but instead presented only vague statements. I expected this since you clearly can't find anything wrong with each edit in particular and chose to do this to distract from that fact.

1. "quoting a biased source verbatim does not make that source neutral". Please explain which source is not neutral.
2. "your edits suggest that all these countries are clear supporters of Argentina when I have already demonstrated that this is inaccurate". The Caribbean states are not mentioned in my edits. I have no idea why you bring that up here. The edit mentions Latin America not the Caribbean. I presume you are aware of the difference between the two so I'll have to ask you: which countries are you talking about?
3. "I oppose the notion that we should be trawling through countries looking for whatever they might have said about the Falklands in the past". That is why I added the UNASUR statement which allows us to group all Latin American countries in one single source. Your reason for the removal of this sentence doesn't even make sense.
4. "I also oppose the notion that we should be listing every regional summit that has voiced any kind of support for Argentina, let alone go through them all in detail as you propose". There are currently two summits mentioned the OAS and the Ibero-American summit. If you want to get rid of one then the OAS is far more suited than the UNASUR since it is almost 7 years old while the UNASUR statement is from last year an clearly states the full support of all Latin American states to the Argentinian position, not just a call for negotiations. This is simply an attempt to obscure the position of countries backing the Argentinian claim and it is borderline WP:VANDALISM. As for the "detail" I propose, I believe a sentence as short as "The totality of the South American states (with the exception of the French Guiana, an overseas region of France), through the UNASUR, have stated their support towards the Argentinian position regarding the issue" surely can't be an issue.
5. "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain" <-- When did I propose not to list pro-British position? I'll ask you to provide a link or take back your words.
6. "you're basically trying to count them several times over". As I said, if the issue is the number of summits (currently two) I'll go ahead and remove the OAS mention being much more relevant and current the UNASUR mention. I note also that the Ibero-American summit mention already mentions the OAS so there's no need to mention it again.

I'll re-instate the edits one by one (except the Spain mention which Slatersteven and I are working out, something you don't seem willing to do). If you have an issue with one of them I'll ask you to revert it if you want and address the reason one by one. Abstain from blanket reverts and vague statements and instead discuss each edit in particular. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A basic principle here is that we don't add new information unless it gets consensus. The accusations and personal attacks in your messages above are deeply unhelpful to your position in this regard. Your attempts to edit war the text into the article show a disappointing disregard for Wikipedia policy in this matter. It's WP:BRD, not BRDRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

It is obvious that a declaration by a group of states explicitly supporting one side in a dispute, or that a government statement putting the government's position on a particular matter, is not a neutral source. And where we are discussing neutral reporting of such statements, quoting them verbatim would still not necessarily be neutral, if the choice of statements isn't neutral. Given that your proposals choose only to describe statements that support Argentina, and you propose only to downplay statements supporting Britain, this appears to be a fair description of what you are doing. (You want a diff? Here. Please point out where you propose mentioning any statement supporting the UK in the same detail as you propose for every statement supporting Argentina.)

It is your responsibility as an editor to ensure that the article is neutral. That means you have to research both sides. You have to write for your opponent as well as for those you support. Picking the pro-Argentine points and expecting others to find the pro-British ones is not good enough.

You repeat claims about "Latin America" but also suggest that Latin America is fully represented by UNASUR. I suggest you look at Latin America, and note the varying definitions in use. One definition of "Latin America" does include all members of Caricom. Your definition, which appears to be based on UNASUR, also includes two members of Caricom: even if we only take UNASUR, the claim you propose we make a great play of - of a monolithic support for Argentina - is not borne out by the sources. And Caricom aside, you claim support for Argentina from "totality of the South American states" - even explicitly excepting French Guiana. If French Guiana counts, the presumably the Falklands do as well: please provide a source that demonstrates that the Falkland Islands government supports Argentina in this dispute.

I remain opposed to your edits because I do not feel that my previously expressed concerns, which covered your proposal fully, have been adequately addressed. Please also note WP:FILIBUSTERS. Kahastok talk 18:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And once again another blanket revert by Kahastok and once again a refusal to address the points one by one and instead produce only vague statements of POV.

First of all let me warn you: "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain", this is what you said about me. This is a lie. I never proposed such a thing and everyone here knows it. The fact that I'm trying to bring some balance to a heavily pro-British section does not mean in any way that I "propose" to not expand on the British claim and the countries that support it as well. You have not taken back your words and you have even chosen to accuse me once again. Fair enough. This is the last time you get to do so. Next time I'll take you to ANI.

• Your statement that because a group of countries support the Argentinian claim then the mention of a declaration put forward by them is not neutral is beyond ridiculous. Even if that were the case the statement is also sourced by Mercopress. Is that a non-neutral source too?
• I "repeat claims about Latin America"??? Have you actually taken the time to read my edit before you blanket-reverted them? I do not mention Latin America at all. The only mention to Latin America was there before I started editing. This is either a bad faith claim by you or a terribly careless one.
• "If French Guiana counts, the presumably the Falklands do as well: please provide a source that demonstrates that the Falkland Islands government supports Argentina in this dispute". What? Are you proposing we add the Falklands to the "states" that do not support the Argentinian claim? Noting that this is just a childish way of trying to trash a perfectly valid edit, if you seriously think this will improve the article then I have no problem including the Falklands in the statement.

So here we are, back to an old biased version of the section after several blanket reverts by you. That's ok, let's then go ahead and review each edit one by one.

1. France was supportive of the British position during the 1982 war.
2. The totality of the South American states (with the exception of the French Guiana, an overseas region of France), through the UNASUR, have stated their support towards the Argentinian position regarding the issue.
3. The Secretary of State for International Cooperation and Latin America of Spain, stated in early 2012 that "Spain shares with Argentina its position over the Falklands. It has done so for a long time and this is expressed in the framework of the Ibero-American summits, the OEA and the United Nations". Spain is currently involved in a similar issue with the UK over another former British colony Gibraltar.
4. The Ibero-American Summit has called for negotiations "within the framework of the resolutions of the UN and the OAS, and the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations, including the principle of territorial integrity". The countries members of this summit have repeatedly backed Argentina in its calls to restore negotiations while asking the UK to refrain "from taking unilateral decisions involving changes in the situation of the Falkland Islands in accordance with Resolution 31/49 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which do not contribute to a final settlement of the territorial dispute."

This are the edits I propose. Please indicate the problem with each of them and/or how you would re-phrase them. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the link I referred to above, the current version of the article represents a neutral summary and a consensus position that user:Gaba p agreed with. To tag it, is purely disruptive at this point, in fact its simply WP:POINT. As noted, the edit he attempted to force into the article is not neutral. I will simply note this pattern of disruptive behaviour seems to be creating a battleground for no benefit to the project. There is no attempt to discuss its simply filibustering .Wee Curry Monster talk 21:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Kahastok talk 22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agreed with nothing, the fact that I didn't put the tag before does not mean I believe the section to be neutral. In fact I do not. I can't believe you and Kahastok are telling me what I believe. This is just amazing. First you deleted all four edits with no particular reason. Then you refuse to discuss them after I asked you to several times. Finally you remove my tag of NPOV telling me what I actually believe.

Kahastok: your message at my talk page is laughable since I reverted only 2 times and one of them simply to reinstate the NPOV tags when I could have just edited them in. Want to try your luck? Please report me.

Wee saying "there is not attempt to discuss" after he refused to discuss the matter commenting nothing about any of the four edits is... well it's just Wee behavior.

So to re-cap: you have commented absolutely nothing about any of the four edits or why you feel its inclusion to be inappropriate. You have deleted all edits with vague statements of "OR" or "POV". And you have removed the tags of NPOV I added refusing to discuss the matter here. I think at this point it's either DRN or ANI. Would you like to choose one or should I? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee and Kahastok: once again, before taking this to DRN, I'll politely ask you to please comment on the mentioned edits separately and why you have reverted them please. Note that the edit regarding Spain is being discussed in the section below. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For my part, given that just about every comment I have made on the subject (including the detailed objections that I have already provided) seems to have been met first with a flurry of personal attacks and accusations and second with a total denial that any comment was made, I struggle to see what benefit to the encyclopædia is likely to be attained by continuing this discussion. Kahastok talk 20:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Spain

The material about Spanish support for Argentina should be re-worded and moves to the calls for negotiation section. The material on Gibraltar seems superfluous.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I will gladly move it to the mentioned sub-section. Would you like to propose a re-worded version of the edit or point me to which part specifically you think needs to be re-worded so I can do it? Regarding the mention of Gibraltar I still think it is an important piece of information to show given the involvement of Spain in the beginning of the issue and the similarity with this former British colony, but if a majority of editors think Gibraltar should not be mentioned then I'll remove it. Regards and thank you for responding. Gaba p (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Something like

The Spanish government has supported Argentina's call for negotiations over sovereignty.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven, though I'm worried about so many short sentences in that section... Maybe we could copy-edit a bit? --Langus (t) 15:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How about something like: "The Spanish government has supported Argentina's call for negotiations over sovereignty and has expressed so in the framework of the Ibero-American summits, the OEA and the United Nations". (removed Gibraltar mention as advised by Slatersteven and expanded as advised by Langus) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I remain opposed for reasons expressed earlier, and note in this context that Spain ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, formally recognising the islands as British, so the best we can say for Argentina is that they are another that swings both ways. Kahastok talk 20:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What "reasons expressed earlier"? Could you be more specific please? The treaty of Lisbon is already mentioned in the article, so of course this needs to be mentioned too. I'd ask that you please 1- express specifically why do you oppose the addition of this information and 2- propose a form for this edit if you so wish too. I remind you that the current consensus is to locate Spain in the "Neutral" section, this is not being presented as supporting Argentina. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know why I oppose this, I suggest you go to the beginning of this section and start reading. It's all there. And I don't accept your assertion that there is any consensus such as you describe - I see none in this section, and there is no previous consensus that would back such a claim. Kahastok talk 12:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that's "there" are your vague statements of POV. If you want to oppose this edit you need to state here why exactly do you oppose it. Do you believe this to be an unreasonable request? Because I think it's pretty simple: three editors are involved in working on an edit for the article and you simply "oppose" refusing to state why. Once again let me ask you to please expose your reasons as to why the position of Spain should not be added to the article. If you've already written the reason then it can't be that hard to copy/paste the same reason here, right?

If Slatersteven agrees with my proposed edit I'll go ahead and add it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you do not like my arguments does not mean that they were not made. Given that every time I have made a point you have immediately started issuing personal attacks and unwarranted accusations - and totally ignored the substance of the point made - I see little reason to believe that continually repeating them will be of benefit to the encyclopædia. Kahastok talk 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

France

We need evidence of renewed French support, or else we should note that France was supportive to the British position during the Falklands War. I looked for news but I found none. --Langus (t) 15:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I could not find any current mention of France's position either, that's why I proposed the edit. Can any other editor produce a reference where France supports the British claim in present days (or a couple of years old)? If not the sentence needs to be re-phrased so as to not mislead the reader. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would note that trying to apply the same standards to a country whose interested is in having support for its position being affirmed at every opportunity and a country whose interest is in the thing getting as little publicity as possible is fairly obviously unreasonable. It should be expected in this context that support for Britain will be more subtly expressed. In this case, France ratified the Treaty of Lisbon and has never argued the Argentine position. Unlike countries like Spain, this is an example of a country - and major player, member of the P5 - whose viewpoint we can pin down as consistent. Kahastok talk 20:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We are not applying any standards here. France is mentioned as currently supporting the British position with no source to back the statement. This needs to be fixed by either re-phrasing the sentence or adding a source, simple. If you believe we can pin down France's view as "consistent" then please provide a source so we can do so.

I note the use of the word "particularly" in the current statement which is a clear WP:PEACOCK term. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not accept your claim that you are applying a standard - you're applying a standard that suggests that support for the British position will be expressed in the same way as support for the Argentine position. This is not a reasonable assumption. Kahastok talk 12:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Kahastok's view that ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon and not contesting Argentina's claim is enough to say that a country "has been particularly supportive of the British position". I note also that the two references included in that expression refer to the Falkands War, so I'm applying a 'failed verification' tag. Kahastok, is in your hands now to bring a secondary source backing your opinion. --Langus (t) 17:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please justify the reason for that tag, as on p.166 of Gustafson, Gustafson states that "France has been particularly vocal in its support for Britain", I'm paraphrasing rather than quoting directly. And could you explain why we need "renewed evidence", since we have reliable sources stating that France has supported the UK and as you advocate that we're not allowed to question reliable sources by our own original research. Speculating that French support of a close ally has changed is of course your original research and demanding we prove a negative is of course impossible. Equally, you appear to apply a double standard in that countries that have been equivocal in supporting any one country you appear to insist we state as unconditionally supporting Argentina based on one source, whilst ignoring others which indicate the oppposite. I would be grateful if you could outline your logic in selecting which source to use in that respect. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For info see [2] Wee Curry Monster talk 22:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok this is an encyclopedia. What we do is write articles with relevant and properly sourced information. If a vast number of countries choose to be more vocal about their support for the Argentinian position, it is not our position to apply some "standard" and obscure mentions of this support just because other countries are not doing the same for the UK claim.

As this source clearly states [3] the EU remains neutral about the Falklands/Malvinas issue and the fact that the islands are included in the Lisbon treaty is "merely descriptive" and even more "This does not imply acknowledgement of UK sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas by EU members. This must be defined bilaterally between the UK and Argentina". Seeing that the Lisbon treaty does not imply support for the UK position, the mention of France as stated in the article is currently 100% wrong. The edit proposed here is much more accurate and I've yet to see a reason by Kahastok as to why it shouldn't be added. I'll await some reason or else simply make the edit. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@WCM: Leaving aside the original paraphrasing, you should note that Gustafson's book is dated 1988. It's been 25 years since. "Has been" implies continuity up to today: see present perfect continuous. When Gustafson uses the expression, you should read "Up to 1988, France has been...".

You said: "since we have reliable sources stating that France has supported the UK". We agree on that: we do have RS stating that France has supported the UK. But we don't have RS stating that France has been supportive to the UK (remember: present perfect continuous + January 2013 --although a source dated 2003 would still be acceptable). Per WP:BURDEN, it's not up to me to bring secondary sources saying that now things have change.

May I suggest switching the past tense as shown above? I think that would settle it. --Langus (t) 19:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out Britain doesn't demand a statement in support every week, so why would there be regular and continuous statements of support? It doesn't matter that a book is dated 1988, its been regularly reprinted and the author has seen no need to revise it. You are conducting original research through speculation that things might have changed and demanding a different burden of proof should apply. The statement should reflect the source, that is all, we should not be interpreting it as you wish to do. If we go back to a previous example, I questioned the use of Lopez as a cite, noting that Lopez claimed Goebel supported his hypothesis. I simply pointed out that Goebel did not and questioned your insistence on the use of Lopez, at which point you were adamant I could not use WP:COMMON but had to knowingly repeat a false claim verbatim. On that occasion you were absolutely adamant I couldn't question a source but here again you're using your own speculation as sufficient reason. I'm struggling to see the logic, consistency of approach or the justification for the tag you applied, since the source verifies the statement and you've given no sustainable reason for adding it. If you cannot, then I request you remove it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence implies current support when the sources do not. The book is 25 years old and the article talks about support during the 1982 war (31 years have passed). I've changed the tag to one I believe to be more precise, please tell me if I'm mistaken. Once again: we either come up with a current source stating France's support or we re-phrase the statement. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

UNASUR mention

I propose to change the mention of a list of south american countries currently in the article (Peru, Berazil, etc..) by the sentence:

• Through a communique issued by the UNASUR on November 2012, the totality of the South American states (with the exception of the French Guiana, an overseas region of France and Paraguay which was suspended as a member following the ouster of the country's former president, Fernando Lugo, and thus not present at the meeting), have stated their support towards Argentina regarding the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute, while at the same time rejection the possible outcome of the referendum that will take place on 2013 on the Falkland Islands. The member states also urged the UK to resume negotiations with Argentina, in conformity with the declarations of the UN and the OAS.
  A number of these countries have voiced their support for the Argentinian claim at various international organisations.

This has the benefit that it does not list countries (something Wee and Kahastok oppose) and its far simpler to source. If no one opposes in the next days, I'll make the edit. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Again I note that it's a call for negotiations, not Argentinians sovereignty claims. Slatersteven (talk)

I remain opposed for reasons already expressed. Kahastok talk 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Slatersteven: If you check the declaration (last paragraph) you'll see it is not just a call for negotiations but rather a full support for the Argentinian position. This is what it says (I can help translate it if you want to):

• Los Estados miembros de UNASUR reiteran su firme respaldo a los legítimos derechos de la República Argentina en la disputa de soberanía con el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte sobre las Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur y los espacios marítimos circundantes y ratifican el permanente interés regional en que el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte se avenga a reanudar las negociaciones con la República Argentina a fin de encontrar -a la mayor brevedad posible- una solución pacífica y definitiva a esa disputa, de conformidad con los lineamientos de la comunidad internacional y las resoluciones y declaraciones pertinentes de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) y de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA).

(bolded by me) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"and ratifying the permanent regional interest in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should agree to resume negotiations with Argentina in order to find, as soon as possible, a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute," Seems to me it backs neither side but says that both sides claims need to be addresses and that Argentinians as a legitimate right to demand negotiations, I see nothing here that says they support Argentinians sovereignty (As long as British interest are also taken into account). In fact what it seems to be talking about is the issue of the referendum and right of self determination, not sovereignty.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me correct your translation a bit: "and ratify the permanent regional interest in that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland resume negotiations with Argentina..." It is both a full support for Argentina and a call to the UK to resume negotiations (noting that they back the Argentinian position). The first part leaves no room for doubting the support: "The UNASUR member states reiterated their strong support for the legitimate rights of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas" (bolded by me). It states verbatim a "strong support" for the Argentinian position on the issue and later on asks the UK to resume negotiations. The Mercopress source used in my proposed edit refers to the previous UNASUR meeting, I just noticed (the last one took place on Nov 2012 in Lima). These sources make the support stated in the last meeting more clear [4][5][6]. I also note that since Paraguay was suspended from UNASUR its support for the Argentinian position should not be added since it was not present in that meeting. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You are cherry picking, the statement refers to the issue of the islanders right of self determination and unilateral action, not sovereignty. It is Argentina's position on those that the statement supports. I suggest we take this to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears we are not finding a common ground here so yes, perhaps the best is to request external opinion. Should I open the ticket or do you want to do it? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You should, it's your source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've amended the proposed edit a bit. Please tell me what you think of it and if you still think we should request help at RSN. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ibero-American summit

The current mention of this summit is quite short simply stating "The Ibero-American Summit has called for negotiations." I propose to change this sentence to:

• The Ibero-American Summit has called for negotiations "within the framework of the resolutions of the UN and the OAS, and the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations, including the principle of territorial integrity". The countries members of this summit have repeatedly backed Argentina in its calls to restore negotiations while asking the UK to refrain "from taking unilateral decisions involving changes in the situation of the Falkland Islands in accordance with Resolution 31/49 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which do not contribute to a final settlement of the territorial dispute."

which adds more information about the outcome of the summit. This edit also allows us to remove the mention to the OAS so as to not repeat the same countries in each summit. Please discuss this change here. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree is too short, but I also think that the proposal is too long... one longer sentence would be optimal IMO. --Langus (t) 21:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I remain opposed for reasons already expressed. Kahastok talk 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How about:

• The Ibero-American Summit has backed Argentina in its calls to restore negotiations "within the framework of the resolutions of the UN and the OAS, and the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations, including the principle of territorial integrity", while asking the UK to refrain from taking unilateral decisions involving changes in the situation of the islands.

I think its more concise this way. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy between this History of the Falkland Islands

Is all the historical detail in this article necessary? It seems the detailed information should be in History of the Falkland Islands, with a short summary in this article. Khendon (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea is that the two have similar but not identical goals. Whereas History of the Falkland Islands gives the history of the islands, this article gives the history of the dispute. There is certainly going to be a fair amount of overlap, but the emphasis should be different and there may be different decisions in terms of content (things that may be relevant to the islands' history but that had no effect on the dispute, or vice versa). Kahastok talk 13:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Convention of Settlement - Secondary sources

[7] Our History, Our people

A more than adequate cite that the British considered the matter settled in 1850

Anticipating the usual objections....

A number of historians have commented on the relation of the Convention of Settlement to the Falklands dispute. The Mexican diplomat and historian Carlos Pereyra considers that General Rosas gave up the claim to the Falklands in order end Britain's involvement in the River Plate. Pereyra adds that the effect of the Convention was as if it had had an unwritten article stating that “Britain retained the Falkland Islands.” Pereyra’s book was reprinted in Buenos Aires in 1944, with the same statements.

The impact of the treaty was also raised in a 1950 debate on Argentina's claim to the Falklands by a member of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, Absalón Rojas. Rojas complained that the treaty restoring “perfect friendship” between Britain and Argentina without any reference to the Falklands was a serious omission and a weak point of the Argentine claim. As a result Rojas blamed General Rosas for the loss of the Falklands.

Other Argentine historians have indicated that the Convention of Settlement has a negative impact upon Argentina's modern sovereignty claim. These include historian Ernesto Fitte and Alfredo R. Burnet-Merlín. Both indicate that the omission of any mention of the Falklands in the treaty was a “a concession to Britain or a culpable oversight”. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be blunt: do you own any of these books, or are you just trusting in a flawed source like Pascoe & Pepper's Getting it Right? --Langus (t) 23:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Pereyra, Burnet-Merlin and Fitte I got from the British Library collection on loan, there is a system in British libraries that allows you to borrow books from the collection. The Diario de Sesiones de la Cámara de Diputados was harder, had to get a friend in Den Haag to do some photocopying. So no I don't own them but I have done my own research. Thank you for your concern.

Equally i don't consider Pepper and Pascoe flawed, they always check out when i verify their claims for myself. Unlike Lopez for example or several other sources you like to quote. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll get Fitte's Cronicas soon. In the meanwhile, would you mind to quote Fitte on how exactly the Convention of Settlement had a negative impact upon Argentine claim? To be honest, I have the impression that Pascoe & Pepper tend to cite authors that actually don't support their thesis.

BTW regarding congressman Absalon Rojas, you'll find enlightening the rebuttal by his peer John William Cooke (Cooke was a Peronist and Rojas from the opposing party). Here you can read it online (page 390). --Langus (t) 04:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Really that is just breathtaking hypocrisy. You lambasted me relentlessly for pointing out that Lopez was misrepresenting Goebel, you force an edit into self-determination by misrepresenting sources and then airily dismiss sources by criticism through speculation. I do hope you will apologise when you find you're wrong. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And the quote? You could prove me wrong right now. I don't understand why would you think I'd owe you an apology for being wary of P&P... evidently you're taking this too personally. If I'm wrong I'll have no problem in recognizing so. We're humans after all. --Langus (t) 16:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No I was referring to your comments at WP:DRN and other places accusing me of OR and SYN for simply having the temerity to point out that Goebel did not make the statement attributed to him by Lopez. You were adamant I could not question a source I knew to be wrong, as opposed to a source you simply speculate is wrong.

Oh and btw you demanded a source, its been more than adequately sourced, so do I take it you'll stop removing it from the article?

I will get you a quote as soon as I get the scans from archive, patience. You are of course aware that I don't have to and for once doing some of your own research might do you some good. If nothing else it would allow you to appreciate the effort others put into neutral writing.

You could of course help, what does Cresto have to say in Historia de las Islas Malvinas, 2011? I believe he was quite critical of Rosas. You can hardly accuse him of being pro-British. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to get Cresto too. And I'll be waiting for that quote. Cheers. --Langus (t) 21:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove International position section

I have often wondered on the value of having the "International position" section for a number of reasons.

1. The position of individual countries depends not on the merits of either claim, rather they are fixed by narrow national self-interest.
2. In most cases, individual countries do not have a strong opinion either way.
3. Its a waste of valuable editing time, resulting in numerous edit wars as Argentina raises the issue at every regional summit, at every session of the UN, at every session of the UN C24 and produces a press statement for every international visit or diplomatic mission. Every occasion is a vital statement of support that simply must be mentioned.

I note that once again, the talk page is paralysed by demands to emphasise the International support for Argentina, whilst at the same time trying to minimise that for Britain. I think the time has come to simply consider removing it altogether as it does not add materially to the article. Referring to other articles concerning sovereignty dispute, none feel the need to state International positions.

Spratly Islands dispute, Senkaku Islands dispute, Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain, Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute, Sino-Indian border dispute

Why should this article have a separate section that doesn't materially add to the article, results in numerous unnecessary edit wars and in many cases is simply a vehicle for claiming support for Argentina, when in most cases such support is equivocal at best. I realise this will de-emphasise the support that the UK has but I don't think it has a material effect for WP:NPOV. I am therefore proposing to remove this section. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

[8] introduced by now banned user User:Astrotrain see [9] Wee Curry Monster talk 17:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I support this change. I think it's fair to say that the whole section causes significantly more trouble than it is worth, and deletion would be of net benefit to the encyclopædia. Kahastok talk 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I also support this change. As Kahastok and also most countries views are weak on the matter, they'll agree at conferences but not follow up as it is of little interest to most. Which is probably why it hards to source anything. Additional unless a third party promised support in a war it would make little difference anyway. Bevo74 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm against this change. I think the information is useful and undoubtedly adds to the article. It worries me to think that article content could be being removed just to satisfy a POV, as it already happened to the Argentina's position on islanders citizenship section.

Also, note that the editor who introduced this section did so in the context of a major article expansion: see before and after. --Langus (t) 19:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the change, too, per Kahastok's reasoning. Apcbg (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As a way of dealing with a lot of dubiously-notable individual items which together might amount to something definitely-notable, what about a comment along the lines of "Various expressions of support have been made for the Argentine position (refs), for the British position (refs), and for a negotiated settlement (refs)? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I support this move. Although I have not particiapted, I have watched it and it is little more than a "My daddy is bigger than your daddy" type battle. Martinvl (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is really hard to believe. The section apparently was perfectly alright (specially according to editors Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok who defended its state time after time) until not long ago, but after I start bringing in sourced and current information that demonstrates that the section is terribly pro-British biased, then the section has to go. The section is of vital value since it shows the position of the rest of the world regarding the issue, it amazes me that its removal is being proposed. I of course oppose 100% and I note that editors Wee and Kahastok have blanket reverted my edits giving as reasons only vague statements of POV and "not consensus". Kahastok: your continuous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude saying "I've already said why" when everyone here knows that you did not, has not go unnoticed.
If the reason for wanting to remove this section is that it introduces a lot of work to the article, then I propose moving it to its own article: International position regarding the Falkland Islands. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that User:Gaba p opposes move but also that his comments relate only to editors not content below. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Separate section for comments on individual editors

I would be grateful if editors could confine comments on editors to this section. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I've never been happy this was appropriate and that content fork is not appropriate. Please note the comments on content. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have again moved the rambling personal attack to a separate section, simply because such rambling personal attacks have become a ruse for long tendentious discussions that have no relation to content and a means of blocking progress in any discussion. Feel free to report this to WP:ANI but I feel this is definitely in accordance with WP:IAR, I have not modified your comment in any way shape or form and I'm not refactoring the discussion. If of course you do go to WP:ANI your aggressive personal attacks will be scrutinised so watch out for that WP:BOOMERANG. If you have a comment on content rather than editors you are welcome to contribute to the content discussion above. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of section titled "International position"

Proposal has been made to remove the section entitled "International position". Reasons:

1. Not a feature of any other article noted on sovereignty disputes.
2. Positions of individual countries often do not reflect clear support for one country over the other.
3. Support by any one country reflects narrow national self-interest not the merit of either countries position.
4. Continuous edit wars for no benefit to the encyclopedia, reflecting that Argentina continuously raises the subject, whereas the UK does not. This is used to justify mentioning numerous regional summits in South America. It fails WP:WEIGHT by implying greater support for one party over the other.
5. Frequently comments are simply a call for negotiations nothing more.

The section on "International position" creates a platform for numerous edit wars by nationalist POV pushers for no benefit to the article or the encyclopedia. Requesting comment from none involved editors on the merit of the proposal, noting that its presence is currently paralysing discussion in the talk page and results in numerous personal attacks and other disruptive behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate your support or otherwise. I have transferred comments from above.

• Support Wee Curry Monster talk 17:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Kahastok talk 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Apcbg (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Martinvl (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bevo74 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Gaba p (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Langus (t) 19:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support (Hohum ^@) 15:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support NE Ent 16:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Please comment on the content not individual editors. Any comment on editors will be removed.

Sovereignty disputes are inherently international, since they address the question of whether the community of states recognizes one or more state's sovereignty over a certain area. If the comments by pro-Argentine states are very similar as is stated in the RFC question, like "a call for negotiations nothing more", then they can be succinctly summarized rather than individually listed. But the rationale that "Argentina continuously raises the subject, whereas the UK does not" is not a legitimate reason to sanitize mentions of international controversy. Furthermore, the comment on countries' "narrow national self-interest" is judgmental and inappropriate, since the pro-Argentine position is well-known to cite ideological justifications, such as anti-colonialism. Shrigley (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth bearing in mind that we can reasonably suggest that a lot of countries would put this dispute somewhere pretty close to the bottom of their list of foreign policy priorities. We have a lot of countries out there that don't give two hoots and aren't going to let the fact that Argentina (and it generally is Argentina) is insisting on a statement in support of their position get in the way of their important trade deal that is otherwise all agreed. In some cases, we can demonstrate that they supported (or appeared to support) both sides within the space of a few weeks. Kahastok talk 20:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sovereignty disputes are by definition international, because sovereignty pertains to states, and any dispute would have more than one state involved which makes it international. And no, sovereignty disputes do not address possible recognition by “the community of states.” Why should they? Apcbg (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The comments calling for negotiations are currently summarised in the form you suggest and that is pretty much the format we have tried to follow for some time. However, the reason for my comment if you refer to the discussions above is that the constant raising of the issue by Argentina is used to justify adding mention of numerous summits and demanding we produce chronological proof that it be proved that say France for example still supports the UK position. Now whilst I accept your criticism that frustration with the constant POV pushing and edit wars that result from the inclusion of this sanction has prompted my suggestion, the fact that other articles on sovereignty disputes don't include such a problematic section does indicate it is perhaps unwarranted. However, as noted above the support is pretty equivocal and several countries have made contradictory statements on the issue. Given that its pretty lukewarm for all the rhetoric it does seem more trouble that its worth. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: do take note of how an uninvolved editor expressed his view that international position is of encyclopedic value in the context of an international dispute, and the three editors jumped to his neck without refuting this idea. It is disruptive, the arguments have already been expressed.

"The support is pretty equivocal" >> yes, according to Wee Curry Monster (WP:OR). "In some cases, we can demonstrate that they supported (or appeared to support) both sides" >> and you're choosing instead to delete content?? Why??

The wording in the RFC alone should hint editors that this proposal is the real POV push ( this is not the first time). A push that sadly seems will work out, as in WP consensus beats NPOV everytime... --Langus (t) 00:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Langus please note that the comments preceding yours relate to content, no one is attacking the commentator. Note also his comments on content are the polar opposite of what you espouse but actually reflect what the very editors you're commenting on have suggested. And finally yet again, I simply note your comment is a none too subtle personal attack accusing me of POV pushing. If another uninvolved editor sees fit to remove your comment as I suggest comments on editors should be removed, then please note they have my express and unreserved permission to remove mine also. I am tired of discussions being filibustered by comments on editors not content. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do explain me how I am exactly commenting on you. "Your comment is a none too subtle personal attack accusing me of POV" --then your last comment is an EXPLICIT personal attack accusing me of POV!!! (wtf?)

"Note also his comments on content are the polar opposite of what you espouse but actually reflect what the very editors you're commenting on have suggested" -- ok, this is beyond me....... --Langus (t) 23:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The information is relevant to this article and should not be removed. What is the reasoning here? It's too much work to find sources so let's just take it out? Kahastok's and Wee's claims can be summed up by the following points:

• "In some cases, we can demonstrate that they supported (or appeared to support) both sides within the space of a few weeks"<-- I believe you are referring to the Caribbean. Why not say this then? Why not produce a sourced statement that reflects this?
• "the constant raising of the issue by Argentina is used to justify adding mention of numerous summits" <-- Only two summits where to be mentioned (Ibero-American summit and the UNASUR declaration) and nobody asked to mention any more. You can check this talk page to see that one of my proposed edits aimed at doing exactly this by removing an outdated OAS mention amd leaving only a mention to this two.
• "demanding we produce chronological proof that it be proved that say France for example still supports the UK position" <-- Demanding a source to back a statement is disruptive now?? If France is being mentioned as still supporting the British claim, is it disruptive to ask a source that says that much??
• "as noted above the support is pretty equivocal and several countries have made contradictory statements on the issue"<-- As noted above this is only true (apparently) for the Caribbean. Latin America backs Argentina in its claim without any doubt, which the last UNASUR meeting proves. Once again: why not mention in the article this dichotomy by Caribbean countries?

This wouldn't be this troublesome if editors Wee and Kahastok accepted the fact that a lot of countries support the Argentinian claim and have decided to be vocal about it. The fact that other countries are not vocal about their support of the British position has an obvious consequence: their positions can not be mentioned in an encyclopedia since there is no source to back such statement. Why should we obscure current, relevant and properly sourced information from this article just because we can not demonstrate an equal support from the international community for the British claim? This is most definitely not NPOV. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts;

1. How recent is recent, just because a position has not been repeated it doesn't mean it doesn't still hold true. The Treaty of Windsor still holds from 1386, so does that mean Portugal backs the UK position of self-deterination?
2. If there is a change of government is the country's position assumed to have reverted to neutral?
3. If a country has a view does to it have to express it regularly for it to be valid?
4. What constitutes support, do all the EU countries back the UK position as the EU recognises the Islands' sovereignty being with the UK?
5. Where do the Caribbean countries fit in as UNASUR and Commonwealth members?
6. Do countries express views for genuine reasons or for their owns reasons? E.g. If Iran backed Argentina's desires, should be this been given equal weight to say the Spanish view? So it becomes mere count of countries Bevo74 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yours is a nice collection indeed; perhaps these questions would be more easily answered if one has beforehand the answer to the following Question 0: In what way does the support by third parties matter in a sovereignty dispute? Apcbg (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're seriously saying that in an international dispute the support by third party countries has no relevance?

@Bevo74: if you have a source from the last 10 or even 15 years stating that France was "particularly supportive of the British position" at that point in time, I'll take it as valid for a statement about now. How hard could that be? Maybe the expression is original research, haven't you thought about that? Well, you can add it as a further thought then. --Langus (t) 23:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer Question 0, did you? In what way exactly does the support by third countries matter in a sovereignty dispute? Apcbg (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevo74:

1. Good question, that's why a clarification is needed wouldn't you agree? Saying that a country "has been" supportive of a position when the most recent source to back that claim is 25 years old is a bit confusing I'd say. Why not state what both sources say then? That France was supportive of the British position during the 1982 war (it could even we extended to the period until the book used as a source was written), what is wrong with accurately using a source?
2. I'd say that until the new government makes a new opposing statement the position remains what it was (support or oppose). Why would we assume it changes automatically when no statement to back that change exists?
3. Not necessarily, but it does need to express it to be mentioned and reliably sourced. The key word here is "sources", if we have them we can use them.
4. This one is easier, please see what the EU ambassador stated on early 2012 about the inclusion of the islands on the Lisbon Treaty.[10] The position of the EU members is clearly neutral (regarding this treaty) unless we can find sources for a given country backing the UK.
5. The statement by UNASUR is clear in its support to the Argentinian position and also for a calling that the UK resumes negotiations. The issue with the Caribbean countries (two of which are a part of UNASUR) that backed the UK in a summit recently can of course be mentioned since we can properly source it. What is wrong with this?
6. What reasons make a country backs or not a claim is not for us to interpret. If we can source it, we can add it. Regarding the "list" of countries I'd say that the "relevance" of a country is not for us to decide. If there's support for either side (say, by Iran) and we can source it, then why not add it? We are talking about the "International position" on the matter, what makes Iran (for example) not suited to be mentioned? Who are we to decide which country is worthy of being mentioned?

Please tell me what you think about my answers and if you think something is wrong. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Gaba p

1. Good question, that's why a clarification is needed wouldn't you agree? Saying that a country "has been" supportive of a position when the most recent source to back that claim is 25 years old is a bit confusing I'd say. Why not state what both sources say then? That France was supportive of the British position during the 1982 war (it could even we extended to the period until the book used as a source was written), what is wrong with accurately using a source?
2. I'd say that until the new government makes a new opposing statement the position remains what it was (support or oppose). Why would we assume it changes automatically when no statement to back that change exists?
3. Not necessarily, but it does need to express it to be mentioned and reliably sourced. The key word here is "sources", if we have them we can use them.
4. This one is easier, please see what the EU ambassador stated on early 2012 about the inclusion of the islands on the Lisbon Treaty.[11] The position of the EU members is clearly neutral (regarding this treaty) unless we can find sources for a given country backing the UK.
5. The statement by UNASUR is clear in its support to the Argentinian position and also for a calling that the UK resumes negotiations. The issue with the Caribbean countries (two of which are a part of UNASUR) that backed the UK in a summit recently can of course be mentioned since we can properly source it. What is wrong with this?
6. What reasons make a country backs or not a claim is not for us to interpret. If we can source it, we can add it. Regarding the "list" of countries I'd say that the "relevance" of a country is not for us to decide. If there's support for either side (say, by Iran) and we can source it, then why not add it? We are talking about the "International position" on the matter, what makes Iran (for example) not suited to be mentioned? Who are we to decide which country is worthy of being mentioned?

1. The problem comes with the tense of the statement, France and Chile did support the UK position. The problem comes with imposing an arbitrary time limit. As the Latin American countries make annoucement quite often, where as the Anglo and Europeans do not it would be difficult to impose a limit that was not POV.
2. Chile is again a problem, in a democracy less large shifts happen, but if a latin American goverment is otherthrown, the new dictators could well have different views on Argentina and the UK.
3. As a wikipedian I certainly agree about sources, but due to the availability of recent enough sources this would certainly leave the section looking very pro-Argentinian. Would be better to move the sources to the current claims section?
4. Very true about the EU. A better example would be NATO. Does membership of NATO imply that a country such as Turkey backs the UK?
5. For the 'Anglo-Caribbean' nations' position to be included, certainly needs well sourcing, but leaves, the section looking weaker if countries have contradictory positions.
6. I agree that we should not be placing weight on countries' stated opinions either based on influence or potential politicking. To me, this is a reason to rethink the point of this section as will merely become a list of countries. I had mentioned Iran as its'goverment is very anti-UK, for reasons far removed from this subject.

I don't think any one of the above is enough to remove the section on its' own, but enough weaknesses are there to mean it will forever be a POV battleground. Thank you Bevo74 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

International responses and actions are relevant, but could probably be presented,chronologically and restricted to the more significant ones. If changes in opinion are reported on, those could then be mentioned, and maybe neutral academic sources specifically mentioning the sovereignty dispute can be mentioned, not just within the coverage of historical events. Peter James (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a fairly clear consensus to remove this section, this is what we should be discussing. If there emerges a compelling reason to keep it that may change. But for now the consensus seems clear. You'll note the number of editors who support the proposal, I expect you to respect the consensus. I note Apcbg has asked the question a couple of times, what does the opinion of a 3rd party country matter in a sovereignty dispute? The answer is not a lot really. I presume this is why it has been ignored. There is a demand to mention every summit where a call for negotiations is supposedly support for Argentina's cause. Except those are only made because Argentina demands it and as we saw at the summit of the Americas in 2012, will flounce off in the huff when they don't get it. As I have repeatedly pointed out mentioning of every summit is a clear POV issue. Britain doesn't do it, so you won't see many statements and limiting it to the last time a statement was made is to underplay one actor, whilst of course overplaying the other. There is also a great deal of WP:OR and WP:SYN going on, such as claiming by deductive reasoning that a UNASUR resolution means all of South America supports Argentina. Anticipating the usual personal attacks, you will of course note that I opposed mention of the 2012 Summit of the Americas when Argentina failed to get any statement and the president of Argentina had a missy fit and stormed out. I apply the same standard here. I suggest removing the section as not adding to the article and to bring it in line with the format used on similar articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013

This should probably be mentioned, or at least linked, somewhere in the article. Peter James (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to add a content suggestion, I have thought the same myself but have avoided doing so for my own reasons. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It was rejected when first news appeared in the papers because there were no details about it. I think we have more info now and it can be mentioned. In a neutral way, of course. --Langus (t) 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)