Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

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)

[2] introduced by now banned user User:Astrotrain see [3] 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)

I have restored this section from the archive because it relates to a current discussion. Kahastok talk 18:27, 31 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"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm not going to try to reach any conclusion from this RfC as it's been so badly organised from the start that there is no way I think consensus can be reached from it. Firstly, as stated at WP:RfC the RfC statement should be neutral and the RfC statement in this case is so far from neutral it's likely to have poisoned the rest of the RfC. Second this RfC has largely been set up as a vote with no comments at all in that section as to why people agree or disagree with a position. Per WP:NOTAVOTE consensus is not reached by a vote but rather by strength of argument. While removing long discussions from the survey section of a RfC is often helpful it's also good to have people's reason for their position in the survey. Thirdly and closely related to two I note that many of the support / oppose positions were "copied" from another section by one editor without any of the accompanying argument. This section was later archived making it very unclear what was going on. Finally significant amounts of the discussion have been unhelpful discussion of editors rather than the issue at hand. Trying to get good input from other previously uninvolved editors in this situation seems likely to be nearly impossible as they are unlikely to be able to work out what the various arguments are etc. With all that in mind I'm going to stop this RfC without a conclusion - without prejudice to a new better run one being started if needed (see next paragraph).

All that said I note that some progress towards a consensus compromise is now being made else where on this page - if this RfC has helped get to that then it's served some purpose. I suggest discussion go on there in the collaborative way it currently appears to be happening as it looks like a consensus version may soon be reached.

---

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)
• Ambivalent Do what reliable sources do. (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)
• Reduce to one sentence with multiple refs. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- Scjessey (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an odd way to resolve a content dispute; delete everything! Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per my comment below. I am uninvolved editor whose comment is based on this invitation of RfC bot. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Retrolord (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - These things become an undifferentiated list that deliver precisely zero information. This is particularly so when the position is a neutral one - listing all the countries that have no view on a dispute is particularly inane. FOARP (talk) 13:28, 28 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)

Really, so you suggest that the resolution to remove this section was for POV reasons and that isn't a comment on the originator. And yet again we see you filibustering in a demand I answer you question, when the answer is plain enough. The originator suggests we don't need to mention every summit and that is the polar opposite of what you are pushing for. And no it isn't a personal attack its a comment on your content proposal. Please not the survey above indicates a clear consensus for the proposal. As another editor once observed, those who shout the loudest about bias and POV pushing are usually the worst offenders. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:21, 18 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.[4] 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.[5] 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)

Wee the issue is being discussed, you can participate if you want to. Should I present diffs here of you saying to me how a vote is not a mandate and issues should be discussed with to goal of obtaining a consensus? I'd appreciate it if those people who voted also took the time to discuss the matter. I think we should give time to hear the reasons from these other editors too, don't you agree?

I note that summaries of "filibustering" are not helpful. I also note that once again you make an untrue statement: nobody is demanding for every summit regarding the issue to be mentioned. Care to point to who exactly is "demanding" this according to you? Because I recall saying specifically: "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 and leaving only a mention to this two.". Isn't this clear enough for you?

Expressions like "(Argentina) will flounce off in the huff when they don't get it" and "the president of Argentina had a missy fit and stormed out" are not only extremely unhelpful but demonstrate that your position on the matter is clearly pro-British. I'd suggest you try to keep them to a minimum.

In what way is "deductive reasoning" to say that all state members present at the signing of the last declaration of the UNASUR supporting the Argentinian claim, actually support the Argentinian claim? The countries who signed that declaration compose all of South America with the exception of the French Guyana and Paraguay (suspended at the time) which is what my edit specifically says (please see the UNASUR mention section above). You claim it is OR and SYN to group the countries below the title "South America"?

Regarding Apcbg's question: the position of the international community is important because it puts pressure on both parties and can indicate which side has the bigger support by current political standards. Why do you take this to be an irrelevant piece of information? Regards Gaba p (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevo74:

1. Again the key word is "sources". If France or (Chile) supported the UK during the war but decided to not be vocal about its support from there on, then of course this decision will have an impact on how the position of said country is presented. If its last statement of support (that can be sourced) is from 25 years ago and France decided to not mention this support ever since, why should we assume the support is still there? If we can source it, we can say it. At the moment all we can say about France is that it was supportive during the war, what is POV about this?
2. I don't see why Chile is a problem. Its position backing Argentina can be thoroughly documented in present times (the UNASUR declaration is one of those sources). I don't get your mention of dictatorships, if a country is overthrown (or an election takes place) and the head of state changes then nothing changes until they so decide to make a statement about the issue which we can source. Again: why would we assume that a change in the president of a country would automatically mean a change in support for the issue? If they pronounce themselves about it, then we can source it and edit its position accordingly.
3. The section will look like the sources make it look. It is not our position to obscure sources or statements just because they show a bigger support for one side or the other. Doing that would definitely be editing with a POV.
4. I have no idea about NATO but will look into it. If there's a statement signed by any number of countries that support the British position then of course we mention it.
5. We can mention and source the contradictory position of those Caribbean countries who decided to back both positions. We don't need to make any judgments about this, we only mention this "double-backing" and source it.
6. If a country decided to be vocal about support to any party then why not mention it? Who are we to decide on the reasons that made any country support a given position? Even worst, who are we to decide that the position of a given country does not count because blah, blah..? If the country made its position public then we can source it and mention it, nothing more.

I hope this appropriately answers the issues you presented, if not please do tell me and I'll try to be more clear about it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed consensus is not a vote , its about strength of argument, though you frequently base claims of consensus claiming weight of numbers. But here you're not advancing an argument, you're simply repeating the same points over and again. It is filibustering posting huge tracts of text, demanding detailed answers but you don't actually address the fundamental question. Why do we need this section? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't address the questions? Wee, I took the time to address Bevo74's question one by one and I took the time to answer the issues you raised also one by one. So if I put all this effort it's "filibustering posting huge tracts of text" but at the same time I'm not addressing the questions? There's no way I could ever satisfy your demands of brevity and full answers at the same time, you realize that right?

Regarding Apcbg's question, let me copy/paste my answer that apparently you missed above: "the position of the international community is important because it puts pressure on both parties and can indicate which side has the bigger support by current political standards. Why do you take this to be an irrelevant piece of information?". Is this enough for you? As advancing on the argument, I repeat: I took the time to address the issues raised by the only editor here that took the time to raise some (Bevo74) If you have more questions than the one you just did, please do ask them and I'll try to answer them as fully as possible.

I note that the section is currently under work (above this section). I also note that you do not simply want to remove this section from the article, you also opposed the moving of this section to its own article. So your position is not just "lets remove this from this article because its a lot of work" but actually "lets completely remove this information from Wikipedia". I can't stand behind this position of yours, it's not sensible. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: once again the repeated accusation of "filibustering" in your summaries[6][7] are extremely unhelpful. I'd appreciate it if you would please stop. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you're not answering Bevo74's points, you are simply restating the same position you held previously. This is filibustering as is demanding detailed answers to your tendentious arguments. If you filibuster I will comment on it.

And taking your reason, you're simply referring to summits at which Argentina demands a statement of support, it puts no pressure on Britain whatsoever. Its not about putting pressure on Britain, its about keeping the issue in the news in Argentina for domestic consumption because of the Argentine political landscape; no one else really cares. Argentina's trading partners may issue a statement of support noting they can extract concessions from Argentina for it, then they ignore it other than token gestures. Again it doesn't create any political pressure. Sorry but your claim does not stand up to logical scrutiny. My position is that its information not relevant to the article, it doesn't contribute to the understanding of the issues. That is also filibustering, misrepresentation of the issue and criticising a none position. The purpose of an RFC us to elicit outside comment, note its outside comment ie not from a group in stalemate. Like many RFC I have seen, reams of tendentious argument simply deter it. My point remains there is a consensus to remove it are you going to respect it; yes/no? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) When there is a concern that an editor may be obfuscating using WP:FILIBUSTERS, the recommendation is actually to point this out.

The whole removing information from Wikipedia bit is a red herring. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything and sometimes information does have to be removed for the wider good of the article, the encyclopædia or both.

I do not accept your suggestion that the international position stated as you propose puts any significant pressure on both sides or either side, nor that this is a good reason to include this section. In the past century, the only time that the positions of third parties on the dispute has been a significant factor in events was during the 1982 war. It appears to me that attempting to indicate "which side has the bigger support by current political standards" is not something we ought to be doing and in any case the different approaches taken by the different sides means that this will inevitably be impossible to state neutrally.

I find your answers to Bevo's questions 1 and 2 irreconcilable. But you do seem to be arguing that we should trawl through the statements of each country and state a position for each. This may satisfy some sourcing and OR concerns, but not without creating a major NPOV concerns. Such a process is impossible without giving massively undue WP:WEIGHT to the past statements of the large majority of countries whose relevance and interest is negligible.

I do not believe that these inherent conflicts can be resolved without removing the section, and I do not believe that the section is so important that it would be any significant loss to the article.

I don't actually expect you to pay attention to any of this, of course. Based on the last time I tried to discuss this with you I can probably expect that you will respond by accusing me of lying and laying out a series ad hominem attacks, and then promptly deny that I even made this comment. But it is here for others to note. Kahastok talk 13:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

1. There is no POV issue in reporting the position of countries that chose to be vocal about their support for one side or the other. Your position that since Argentina has succeed in getting more support than the UK our reporting of such support is POV has no logic whatsoever. We report what we can source. If no country has voiced its support for the British position then we can not include it. There is absolutely no POV issue in reporting what the sources say. You know this, Kahastok knows this, everyone knows this. We could open a DRN if you wish to ask if it's POV to report what we can properly source.
2. You have no power to decide which country "matters". This is actually offensive. If a country has voiced their opinion and we can source it, why not add it? If we can group countries rather than listing them one by one (like I'm trying to do with UNASUR), even better.
3. Wee, I will not comment on your political analysis regarding Argentina and its "trading partners" as it is clearly WP:OR and has no place here.
4. "The purpose of an RFC us to elicit outside comment", you've said it my friend. An RFC is not about votes but on gathering people to comment about the issue at hand. I note that three "outside" editors have commented here: Shrigley, who opposed its removal; Bevo74, who made a series of valid questions and said: "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"; and Peter James, who said "International responses and actions are relevant, but could probably be presented,chronologically and restricted to the more significant ones". All of the "outside" editors who commented on this RFC agreed that the removal of the section was not the appropriate path. Will you respect the consensus? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevo74 is not an outside commentator. His first comment is from 6 days before the RFC. Plus, he's been contributing to various Falklands-related articles since at least Feb 2012.[8][9][10] --Langus (t) 19:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How do reliable sources, which are only about the sovereignty dispute, deal with the positions of other countries and bodies? Isn't that the yardstick we are supposed to use for inclusion and weight? (Hohum ^@) 17:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hohum: do you mean how much weight do sources give to a given country's (or body of countries) position or if the positions of other countries are listed in reliable sources? Regards Gaba p (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Both. Although a lack of inclusion would tend to mean zero weight. (Hohum ^@) 21:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You say, "Your position that since Argentina has succeed in getting more support than the UK our reporting of such support is POV has no logic whatsoever". That's not my position and I have no idea how you might have managed to infer that as my position from anything that I've said. Like it or not, the fact that Argentina shouts louder does not necessarily mean that it has greater support. And if we were to keep any such section, neutrality would absolutely require us to take the difference in approach into account. There are, in principle, ways of doing this within policy, but they do not include ignoring the problem as per your arguments.

I am very disappointed that you choose to misquote me. I note that I am not saying that we should be deciding which countries belong - I am saying that we should remove the need to do so. Any remaining section that hoped to satisfy WP:WEIGHT and therefore WP:NPOV would have to find a way of excluding the irrelevant - this is pretty basic stuff. If the requirements of WP:NPOV offend you then that is concerning, but not ultimately a reason not to follow those requirements.

I note that your representation of the status of consensus in the above discussion is significantly inaccurate, failing to take account of the points made above the RFC and in the poll. There is, as things stand, a reasonable consensus for removal on the grounds described above. Kahastok talk 13:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is currently quite reasonable grounds for removing it at this time. I will hold off from doing so until the debate from outside contributors reaches its natural conclusion.

I am disappointed but unsurprised that my comments on the reasons for removing this section have not been answered. I will take that as simply confirmation that a reasonable logical answer could not be formulated. Equally I note that yet again you've simply stated the same position again; a perfect example of filibustering.

Noting Gaba p's comments I will respond, once, thus:

1. You are not referring to countries that have chosen to be vocal in supporting Argentina, you are referring to countries that have voted for a motion tabled by Argentina at various international summits. Some have taken token action that is all. References to press statements made after the conference are not suitable sources to use for the opinion of individual countries.
2. I simply note that no one has made a comment on which countries opinion matters, that is a straw man constructed for needless argumentative hogwash. The comment is that the position taken by various countries at any one time is not necessarily suitable for inclusion in this article.
3. You presume my comments are WP:OR, they are in fact based on observations in political commentaries. An example of WP:OR would be to refer to a press statement issued by UNASUR, claim all South American countries are members and synthesise an edit claiming that the totality of South American countries support Argentina. I simply note you ignored a point you couldn't refute by falsely alleging it to be WP:OR.
4. The majority of outside comments suggest that the content should be based on WP:RS, ideally neutral 3rd party academic sources. I trust you'll note I've been making that point to you for months. The fact remains the strength of argument leans toward deletion at this present time.

Now Gaba, please feel free to have the WP:LASTWORD as usual, I would have assumed someone of more than average intelligence might realise your argumentative style is counter productive and merely reinforcing the secondary reason I give for removing this section. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment:

• 1. One of the four notions of sovereignty is "formal recognition by other sovereign states". If there are other articles on sovereignty disputes they should contain this section if there are sources for its content.
  2. Yes, there are probably countries which position is clear and those whose position is not clear. Lack of clear position is also a position which should be presented to the readers
  3. narrow national self-interests should be explained
  4. eventual edit wars are not a valid argument to delete article's content
  5. same goes for the content of comments
• I think that this is not a RfC. This is a poll and I am not sure if it is properly organized. Still I will write my opinion above, which is that I am opposed to removal of the section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have followed the guidelines suggested at WP:RFC pretty much to the letter, if you can identify where I have failed I would be grateful for the feedback. In answer to your comment. The reason for suggested removal is not the endless edit wars, rather one of relevance and conformance with the style of similar articles. As regards relevance, neutral 3rd party sources on the dispute touch on International position only obliquely instead focusing on other issues such as territorial integrity vs self-determination. I otherwise agree with all of the points you make, thank you for commenting. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that RfC was not properly organized. I said "This is a poll and I am not sure if it is properly organized." Poll. Not RfC. I was uncertain if this poll was organized properly because according to the guideline Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion: "Content issues are almost never subject to polling."

Since you mentioned RfC I took a closer look at it. I noticed that you actually did not follow the request procedure for RfC.

• You requested the comment with this edit and added "... noting that its presence is currently paralysing discussion in the talk page and results in numerous personal attacks and other disruptive behaviour." - By doing that you violated RfC procedure which says "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template.". Your statement was far from being neutral.
• Next step of the procedure says: Save the talk page. Now you're done. The RfC bot will take care of the rest, including posting the RfC in the proper RfC lists. It may take the bot up to a day to list the RfC, so be patient. - Did you follow it? No. You copied position of other editors who already participated in the discussion, including your own although you wrote in RfC statement that you expect comments "from none involved editors". Then you accused another editor for personal attack (diff) and misinterpreted the discussion claiming there is " a fairly clear consensus to remove this section," which is incorrect.
• I am afraid that your editing is disruptive and aimed to circumvent the normal process of consensus.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would accept your criticism that I should not have referred to the ongoing disruption and POV editing. I accept that by doing so I have effectively undermined my reasoning for starting the RFC ie my belief it was irrelevant but that the disruption was a secondary reason for removing it. Thank for you pointing that out, I will take it on board.

I do however feel that it was maybe harsh commenting on copying other users comments into the RFC. However, I can see your point I should have allowed editors to do it for themselves, including those for the proposal as well as those opposed. Thank you again for pointing out my mistake in that respect, I will take it on board.

May I ask if you believe I was incorrect in that I believed I was being attacked personally? As the originator of a proposal, if the editor suggested it was done for POV reasons, would you not agree it seemed personally targeted. Yes I was irritated but would you not agree they should have commented on content not the editor? It is difficult not to wish to defend your comments when it is alleged the motives for doing so are contrary to the 5 pillars.

Can I ask how I've circumvented the normal process of consensus other than the mistakes I've acknowledged? Wee Curry Monster talk 01:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely a "brief, neutral" description still requires you to write the reason why you have called for an RfC - otherwise no description could be written? Similarly, a survey is part of the template for RfC - yes, polls do not replace discussion, but neither does word-count, and taking into account the majority view of editors, so long as they have good reason for holding those opinions, is part of judging the consensus. The basic fact is that it appears the consensus is at least for not including neutral countries, since this would simply form a list of countries that do not care about this issue and not inform the reader in the slightest. FOARP (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Martin Hogbin

There may be a long-standing and intractable content dispute but that is all it is, a content dispute; it cannot be a reason to delete everything. WP is intended as an encyclopedia for the benefit of its readers not a forum for discussion. Readers may want to know about the subject under dispute, therefore we should say something. As Huhum suggests above we need to look at what reliable secondary and review sources say. If sources disagree then we should give all sourced points of view with appropriate weight to each. I cannot see any problem that cannot be solved by the application of standard WP policies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, sure, but that doesn't meant that there are not good reasons to remove it entirely. I would argue that the fact of near-constant content dispute can often point to a wider problem with the article or section - that suggests that it probably never belonged in the first place. I've dealt with this in other articles where I came to question a particular point and it turned out the entire premise of the section was on dodgy grounds. This is the same.

In this case, having an international positions section is unusual to begin with on an article about such a dispute. Most do not have any such section. And note that the section is primarily based not on the notions of weight given by reliable secondary sources but on news coverage dedicated to the summits and statements made - and in some cases the primary text of the declarations made. These, I would suggest, do not provide any evidence about appropriate weight, and I would note that I have not seen any evidence as of yet that any weight on this section is appropriate. The only place where we rely on a book is ironically the one that editors above are actually trying to tone down, arguing that it specifically refers to the 1982 war.

Removing the section does not just relieve Wikipedia of the continual edit wars and disputes but also relieves it of a section that does not, and it appears cannot, be made to meet our content policies. Kahastok talk 13:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The "near-constant content dispute" is 100% fueled by you and Wee (and Apcbg at times) removing properly sourced content from the section. Please walk me through your argument because I don't follow you: how is it a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to mention in the section the things we can reliably source? What "proper weight" are you talking about? We are mentioning what we can source. If you have a source for a given country backing the UK claim then please add it, nothing is stopping you. So, here are my questions to you:

1. How is it a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to mention in the section things we can reliably source?
2. How could this section not be "violating weight" according to you? What changes specifically do you think should be made?
3. Do you agree with Wee that this information should be completely removed from Wikipedia?

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: "arguing that it specifically refers to the 1982 war", you argue it does not? Could you back this with any quote from that book please? Gaba p (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, could it be you don't realize that WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV deal with reliably sourced content that is inappropriate for other reasons? Apcbg (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that, because this is a contentious topic, all material should be very well sourced but I can also see that even impeccable sourcing does not guarantee balance within the article. For example if most countries support position A but we can only find sources for countries that support position B, it would be wrong to just put the countries supporting position B in the article as this would present an unbalanced and misleading overall view. If there is absolutely no way of meeting these strict criteria then, I suppose, the section effectively deletes itself but edit wars has never been a valid reason for removing sourced information from WP.

Two ways round the problem might be:

If there is a category of country within which we have good quality sources of information on the great majority of countries in that category then we might include those countries. For example, we can probably give reliable views on nearly all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council so we might have that as a sub-heading with the countries and their positions listed.

For other categories, perhaps we should always start with a high quality secondary source which gives an overview. For example, if we have a source which says, 'Most countries in Europe support position A' then we could list individual European countries without giving an unbalanced view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My point about reliable sources which are only about the subject of the article was intended to mean this: How does a book which is only about the Falklands Island sovereignty dispute, or sovereignty disputes in general, deal with the opinions of other countries and bodies. This should give us guidance on how extensive a section the article should have, and what sort of content it has. I did not mean every news articles about who has what opinion - which although reliable, give us no guidance on whether they should be in this article. How much edit warring it may cause is simply not relevant to inclusion as long as it should otherwise be included.(Hohum ^@) 19:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both Martin and Hohum, that if we are to retain this section, then its composition should be guided by how it is viewed by neutral third party sources. It would certainly give an idea for content and length. I feel it would be very short however. If I may I would suggest:

Lowell S. Gustafson (1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 20 January 2013.

Check the rear cover and you'll see why I suggest it.

However, Martin I fear that you have rather missed the point. I have in fact suggested we remove it for the reason it is somewhat of an oddity, in that no other article on sovereignty disputes features such a section. And if you were to think it through further, what does the position taken by individual countries matter? The answer is in all probability not a lot. Books on the subject devote pages to issues such as territorial integrity vs self-determination, or the applicability of utis possidetis juris but very little to positions taken by 3rd parties.

The fact that its current inclusion induces numerous edit wars is only of secondary consideration. Further your suggestion of using third party sources is an excellent one, one if you check my contribution history I have been suggesting for months. That would assume that all editors are reasonable and seek to produce a text following NPOV. I regret I don't believe that is the case here (the fairly obvious personal attacks against myself and another editor should give you a clue as should WP:FILIBUSTERS). So far, we have seen such pearls of wisdom as:

• The only source that can be used to describe the Argentine Government position, is statements by the Argentine Government.
• That if a statement is known to be untrue but is stated by the Argentine Government, we have to report it as "true" from the Argentine perspective. We are not allowed to report that neutral 3rd party academic sources question its accuracy.
• Statements from sources repeating the Argentine statements corroborate the Argentine claim if you use a quote.
• I discovered that an author incorrectly quoted another, even if we knew that I could not question quoting a source known to be wrong.
• Although statements can be sourced to a neutral 3rd party academic source, it has no value beyond the date the book was first published; even it has been through several editions since.

So Martin, whilst I thank you for your comments and in particular your suggestion that we should be basing the content on neutral 3rd party sources. Truly that is music to my ears to hear someone reinforcing a point I have made repeatedly. I also very much agree that we shouldn't be basing this on news sources reporting the results of summits. (And before I am accused by other of doing this for POV reasons again, earlier last year I opposed the mention of the 2012 Summit of the Americas where Argentina failed to get the statement it wanted and stormed off in the huff.) However, I do seriously question whether it belongs here at all. I base this point on examples such as Gustafson above, who only mentions the issue obliquely in passing; ie he doesn't have a separate section for it. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this.

It's not the edit warring that means it should be deleted per se. But edit warring can be a symptom of a wider problem. The wider problem is that we cannot possibly judge what is due weight here in the absence of reliable secondary sources on the subject, and the section is based almost entirely on news reports.

The fact that some insist that the only possible way we can do this is by listing every statement we can find, indeed, that it is "actually offensive" to do anything else - when the result of such a policy would be to overwhelm the article with information whose relevance to the dispute is questionable at best - demonstrates why this is a problem. Kahastok talk 22:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how most of the complaints about the section by Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster apply. I was imagining essentially factual information. X supports the British position, Y supports the Argentine position, Z is neutral. I think the US section could be reduced to something along the lines that the US is officially neutral but helped the UK during the Falklands War. Would you not be happy with a simple list of the well sourced positions of countries, subject to my suggestions above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Martin. Kahastok and myself have suggested commentary along the lines you suggest, I don't see any difference between us in that respect. Where we perhaps differ, is that I've always considered the section as superfluous for the reasons stated. Can I ask a few simple questions, would you be prepared to help in preparing such an edit along the lines you suggested? Would you also agree it should be based on what neutral 3rd party academic sources? May I also ask that if those same sources place little weight on it, you would agree with the same weight being added to the article. If you have access to sources such as Gustafson, I would imagine you will see where I'm coming from. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to help reach an agreement which is in accordance with WP policy. Perhaps a good starting point is that we should require consensus for any material present or added to the section.

Regarding sourcing, it was not my intention to try to lay down the law but just to suggest some principles that would help us work together. For example, on individual countries, sources from the country itself, particularly government sources, should be considered reliable. I would suggest that we do not accept British or Argentine sources about the status of other countries.

As I said before though, just because we do have a reliable source does not mean that we must add a country if doing so would present an unbalanced global view.

As a start, would anyone mind if I added a sub-section 'Permanent members of the UN Security Council' which stated the views of those countries. I think this is a significant and relevant grouping of countries for this purpose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking it as read that you exclude Britain from the equation. This is a standard that we have tried before, but it was shouted down on the argument that it was arbitrary and that if some countries were included all countries had to be included. Clearly, that argument is absurd - I can't think of an issue or dispute in the world in which all outside parties are genuinely equally relevant. But the major problem is, given the lack of appropriate sources on the subject on which due weight can be measured, what (other than your own suggestion) leads you to the conclusion that the P5 will necessarily be the relevant ones?

WP:NPOV is quite clear. We base the weight given to different points in our article on the weight provided by reliable secondary sources on the subject at hand. Outside sources suggest that the appropriate weight here is zero. We should follow that.

I note that a major problem has been editors pushing summits as well as countries. For example, this discussion began when an editor insisted we list the Rio Group summit from 2010 and state or imply based on the statement that all countries present support Argentina. Previous arguments have been that we should include what the same editor would have liked the result of the 2012 Summit of the Americas to be (the summit actually ended inconclusively: President Fernández stormed out after her statement was vetoed). Same editor is currently pushing for a mention of a UNASUR summit claiming that "the totality of the South American states" supports Argentina. He argues that they are neutral because he can source the statement (a pretty serious non sequitur, but never mind).

Now in all these cases, the implication of the user's proposals (that the support for Argentina is clear and unanimous) is rubbish - all of these organisations have members that have expressed support for both sides within the past sixteen months. But perhaps more significantly, the membership of these organisations is largely the same every time. The argument is that all these summits are individually important and individually of strong relevance to the article - even though it's the same countries making the same statement on a different letterhead, year after year, with nothing changed. Now, common sense would suggest that any notion of due weight would at least combine them (as has been the practice) - but we base due weight on the secondary sources on the subject of the dispute as a whole - and that means nothing on any of it. Kahastok talk 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"just because we do have a reliable source does not mean that we must add a country if doing so would present an unbalanced global view", again music to my ears Martin. I agree 100% about presenting a balanced view. Which is diametrically opposite to the view that is paralysing discussions that because it can be sourced it is neutral. Equally we already have sources from some members of the permanent members of the security council, I simply ask you to note that there is an attempt to downplay this claiming the source doesn't validate the statement, it does by the by.

However, I note you have still to address my point. Why should this article be different from the norm? No other article on sovereignty disputes has a similar section. If we look at neutral 3rd party academic sources, the international position is mentioned obliquely and in general I have not seen works that pay much attention to it. Given that these sources pay little attention to it, I ask why should we? Again what does it actually add to the article? I may have missed it but you don't appear to have addressed it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#UNASUR_mention where I state my proposed edit mentioning the UNASUR declaration. The support for the Argentinian position in the issue is hardly arguable. I note that Kahastok and Wee are opposed to mentioning lists of countries but are also opposed to the mention of such countries grouped in a proper form (ie: South America). So basically: they oppose everything.

Kahastok: if you have sources that prove that a given country in South America has backed the UK claim we can use it and add it to the section. Want to present such sources? I note Caribbean countries has already been discussed and I've stated that their inclusion as supporting both claims is of relevance.
"The argument is that all these summits are individually important and individually of strong relevance to the article", I've said this to Wee and yourself more times than I can count now: no one is asking for all summits to be mentioned as if they represented separate groups of countries. They can be presented in a single line of text and regarded as "several/various summits". I can only assume your (and Wee's) continued misrepresentation of my clearly stated position means you are either a- not reading the comments or b- purposely assigning claims to me that are untrue. In any case I'd ask you to be more careful please.
As I mention below, I'd have no problem in presenting the position of the P5 countries grouped as such. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(Wee: should your above comment be deleted on grounds of 90% of it being dedicated to comment on editors instead of content? Does your wall-of-text qualify as WP:FILIBUSTERING? Sigh...)

I agree, we should use neutral 3rd party sources as much as possible. When this are not present, secondary sources will have to do. The information is still there and is still relevant and there is still no reason to obscure important and properly sourced information from WP.

• "I also very much agree that we shouldn't be basing this on news sources reporting the results of summits", why do you oppose using news sources as a valid secondary source? Is this position of yours only applicable to this article or to all of WP?

Let me repeat my questions in case anybody cares to answer them (specially Kahastok):

1. How is it a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to mention in the section things we can reliably source?

I have explained how this might be possible. If it just happens that we can only reliably source information that represents a minority view then to report it would be NPOV and misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

1. How could this section not be "violating weight" according to you? What changes specifically do you think should be made?

See my suggestions above.

1. Do you agree with Wee that this information should be completely removed from Wikipedia?

No, provided that we meet WP criteria in all respects. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Does the call for using only neutral 3rd party sources and not secondary news sources apply also to articles such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? If so, what would this decision imply for that article in particular?

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: "If it just happens that we can only reliably source information that represents a minority view then to report it would be NPOV and misleading", you loose me here. As I understand it, if we can't reliably source something then it doesn't exist as far as WP is concerned. If a country has chosen not to be vocal about its support for the position of either party, then its position can't be sourced and therefore, to us, it hasn't taken a position and we can't mention it. If 90% of countries that chose to be vocal about their support have done so to support a given party, how is reporting this not NPOV? My point is: if we can source it, then we can add it. If there's no source for it, then we can't. Nothing more.

I would have no problem with a P5 sub-section. Note that the US' and China's position is already in there and France's position is currently under dispute since we could find no source for it "current" support and the only sources point to its support of UK during the war. I think I can find something about Russia which would be the one missing. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, I don't propose to respond in detail as I have previously noted your demand for detailed answers to your comments is a classic example of WP:FILIBUSTERS. I have also more than adequately explained my position, the position of others is very clear. You're simply repeating the same position ad nauseum and it is unhelpful in defining a consensus position. I simply refer you to my previous comment as nothing has in fact changed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you are not interested in this discussion anymore. Very well, I'll continue with the editors who do want to contribute to the article. I'll just leave you with one question (out of many) you have not answered and I'd like to know your answer.

1. Does the call for using only neutral 3rd party sources and not secondary news sources apply also to articles such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? If so, what would this decision imply for that article in particular? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't suggested not using reliable news sources, I have suggested using reliable work(s) which are only about the topic as guides on the space given and style used. While an exemplar source has been suggested, I don't have access to it. Who does? (Hohum ^@) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record Hohum ^@ I was referring to Wee suggesting not using news sources, not you. The source Wee refers to (Gustafson) is from 1988 and he only presents it as a way of saying "this source makes almost no mention of the international position so neither should we". I agree that reliable 3rd party sources are ideal, but in this case what we have are reliable secondary sources (news articles mainly) and I see nothing wrong with the use of such.

Let me repeat my question to Wee so it doesn't get lost:

1. Does the call for using only neutral 3rd party sources and not secondary news sources apply also to articles such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? If so, what would this decision imply for that article in particular?

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I do have Gustafson, and it is available online, though I forget where (sorry). Gaba p, no I just don't intend to repeat myself, when you do so. I have already addressed the point, I would advocate using neutral 3rd party sources for the British position too and positions on the sovereignty referendum. Klaus Dodds for example, has commented on it. This does not mean other sources can't be used for some details. Now having made the point, I trust you won't be frivolously claiming I haven't answered (I have already but never mind), nor will you be using my comments out of context. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba (or anyone), do you have other reliable sources about sovereignty disputes which can guide us about the amount of space, and treatment of the opinions of external bodies? If not, WCMs is the best we have to use as a model. (Hohum ^@) 19:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no book about sovereignty disputes and its relation with the international position, although several exist (example here). It's quite hard to find mentions of international positions regarding this particular issue on books because the siding of several countries with one party or another is a somewhat recent event (like the Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 of which you'll be pressed to find mentions of in books). Note that Gustafson's book is 25 years old and thus will hardly represent the current state of the international community on the issue.

In this case I subscribe to the use of secondary sources mentioning statements on position by any country that wishes to do so. That's why I say we should only mention what we can reliably source. If a group of countries expresses their support for A or B, we mention and source it. If a country/group of countries have an ambiguous position, we mention it and we source it. If a country has stated that it remains neutral, the same. If there is no source for a country's position, we can say nothing about it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So, you are arguing weight and due coverage (WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE) based on no source whatsoever, and you're suggesting that we don't base this on neutral 3rd party sources because the position of individual countries is a "recent event". What you in fact suggesting is that we independently research and identify the position of individual countries, which is to my mind the classic definition of ORIGINAL RESEARCH is it not? If it is in fact a "recent event", which by the way I do not accept, we should not be reporting it per WP:NOTNEWS until such time we can establish a definite change in policy. However, I am not aware of any significant change in position in the last 15 years.

At this point, I am arguing for deletion on the grounds that neutral 3rd party sources that examine the sovereignty dispute place little weight upon the "International position". Gaba p produces we conduct original research to compose a picture, which is clearly unacceptable on policy grounds. I have to note that the weight of argument is in my favour. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No Wee, I propose we use reliable secondary sources and mention what we can source through them. I also propose we use neutral 3rd party sources like Gustafson, which is a good source for the fact that France was supportive of the UK during the war. As we can come up with more 3rd party sources they should be added to the section, WIKIPEDIA IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. There is no original research involved in simply presenting the position of countries as stated by them (be it in a summit or somewhere else) and as reported by reliable secondary sources. It would be OR if we were coming up with our own conclusions about the position of a country based on its "narrow national self-interest not the merit of either countries position" (Wee dixit).

There is absolutely no WP:WEIGHT or WP:DUE issue here because we are not deciding which positions to add and which ones to obscure, we present everything we can source. There would be a WP:WEIGHT or WP:DUE issue if we started deciding by our own criteria which countries matter and which do not (something you and Kahastok apparently propose).

You propose to completely remove valid and properly sourced information from Wikipeda (since you are also opposed to this being moved to its own article) based on low availability (at present) of "neutral 3rd party sources", ie: published books. Please go take a look at the main article Falklands Islands and tell me how many of its sections would have to be removed because they do not comply with this "quality standard". Should we move over there and start proposing that sections be entirely deleted from Wikipedia too?

So no, I have to note that the weight of argument is not in your favor. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"... we present everything we can source." No. We don't. That's simply not how Wikipedia works. Apcbg (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In this specific case it is until we can bring out more 3rd party sources to add to the section. As I said: WIKIPEDIA IS A WORK IN PROGRESS.

Once again: if you want to restrict articles only to what books say about a given issue then head on over to Falklands Islands and start nominating sections for deletion. It is not always possible to have books to source and so we depend on reliable secondary sources to source the information. In that respect, deciding for ourselves which countries matter and which do not is a severe breach of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYN and pretty much every guideline you can imagine.

Proposing to completely remove all of this properly sourced relevant information from Wikipedia just because you think a country's position matters more (or less) than others is not sensible. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm very much mistaken your approach is to collate what you consider are reliable secondary sources, primarily press releases from International summits, conclude that where a resolution is passed in Argentina's favour you can infer that every country that attended supports the Argentine position. Any source that refers to a country supporting the British position is qualified up to and including the year of publication of the reference. So on the basis of your this research you conclude whether a country has a position in favour of Argentina but derogate any source on the British position on the basis of criteria you've arbitrarily defined.

As Martin Hogbin noted "just because we do have a reliable source does not mean that we must add a country if doing so would present an unbalanced global view". What is required to present a balanced global view is an independent piece of research (ideally multiple examples) that has examined the position of countries and made conclusions about the position of individual countries. This will enable us to assess the WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE coverage to apply in this section. That, as you acknowledge, few such sources exist and further that the coverage is minimal, does indicate that the WP:WEIGHT we should apply is minimal or zero. I believe this is a logical coherent argument, your counter argument that its bad to delete content that doesn't present a balanced global view I don't see as either logical or coherent. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are very much mistaken. Secondary sources are news articles about those summits (be it South American summits or European summits) and primary sources are the declarations themselves. A given country signs a declaration that states its full support for a given position and you say that this does not imply full support for that position? You realize how little sense you are making right? In any case we have quite a number of secondary sources to source the outcome of those summits, the declarations themselves can be added simply for informative reasons.

I note that you have up to now presented absolutely no source for any country backing any position, be it the Argentinian or the British one. Your claim that I intend to "derogate" sources stating a given country's backing of the British position is laughably ridiculous since you have presented none. Once again: I propose we add those countries that have voiced their opinion and which we can reliable source through secondary sources, be it backing the British or the Argentinian position. I can't be any more clear about this.
I agree that a neutral 3rd party assessment of the matter would be ideal, sadly books are not always available (and once again WIKIPEDIA IS A WORK IN PROGRESS). In those cases we rely on secondary sources to assess the WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE coverage to apply to the section, as it is done all over WP.
One more time I ask you: should we head on over to Falklands Islands and start nominating sections for deletion based on this criteria? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As you like to quote essays, WP:INDISCRIMINATE ie Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, precisely what you propose; indiscriminately collecting information but qualifying some sources on the basis of their year of publication. Please indicate which policy allows you to add such a qualification?

And as I see see it, you do not propose to add those countries that have voiced their opinion, you propose to reference summits and infer their opinion. Equally unless a country regularly makes a statement, even on those occasions where we can source an opinion, you wish to qualify it as being valid only up to the year of publication of the source. The net effect is to emphasise the Argentine position, as Argentina demands a statement of support at every summit it attends but, as I note, to derogate the British position, since Britain simply does not. Setting aside the basic flaw in your argument, that from original research you can synthesise a position, your proposal is counter to presenting a balanced global view. Wikipedia's policies preclude the approach you are adamant we must follow.

What you refuse to acknowledge is the issue of WP:WEIGHT, noting that, as you yourself acknowldge, neutral 3rd party sources considering the sovereignty dispute attach little if any weight to it. You simply repeat the same point, if it can be sourced, it must be included. This is filibustering again. In addition, you have acknowledged you have no source to support WP:WEIGHT. I am of the opinion the discussion as effectively come to an end. A policy based argument justifies its removal, a reference to an esaay (WP:WORKINPROGRESS) combined with a flawed methodology does not.

There is zero weight attached to the subject in the literature, the article should attach zero weight to it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me just quickly point a couple of statements made by you in the above comment that are simply not true:

• I do not intend on qualifying sources by their year of publication. This untrue comment refers obviously to France's position referenced as still supporting the British claim with a 25 years old book. This is not arguable, the statement is not supported by the source. Note however that my proposal is not to remove it but to re-phrase the mention to be in line with the source. Your adamant opposition to this is mesmerizing.
• "you propose to reference summits and infer their opinion", again untrue. As I stated above, I propose to use reliable secondary sources to source these statements. Go read my comment again please.
• If a country does not voice its support for a position then we can not source it and therefore we can not add it. The decision by the UK not to call for support from other countries (as Argentina has) has a direct implication: there is no support to add. This is not a synthesis from my part, this is simply the state of the international community. There is no WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE or WP:NPOV issue here since the current state of secondary sources in existence 100% back the fact that a bigger pro-Argentina position is being voiced. Wanting to obscure the whole section from WP simply because you can't add statements regarding a pro-British position by any country, is however a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

I agree that the discussion has apparently come to a stall but I'd advise you check the comments again. Of all the editors commenting only you, Kahastok and Apcbg have stated any reason for the removal of the section. The rest (myself, Langus, Shrigley, Bevo74, Peter James, Martin Hogbin and Antidiskriminator) have stated otherwise. I'm waiting to see Hohum's final position after our discussion. I note that one editor even commented about your behaviour in this RfC in the following way: "I am afraid that your editing is disruptive and aimed to circumvent the normal process of consensus".

You do not have consensus by any measure of the word to remove the section so I'll ask you to please abstain from doing so.

Once again: by your criteria of "no weight in literature" then we should move on to Falklands Islands and remove quite a number of sections. Is this what you propose? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The position advocated is to base weight on the weight attached to the subject in reliable sources. In that respect, ignoring the fixed position you and Langus always adopt, there is a consensus on the process for composing an edit based on the weight attached to the subject in reliable third party sources. In fact, there is no difference of opinion, it is simply the case that, as i've pointed out, such sources attach little if any weight to it.

This does not mean that reliable sources can be used to synthesise a position that there is greater support for Argentina as you now acknowledge is your intention. Your stated intention is to clearly violate WP:NPOV, in that respect you are stating an intention to be disruptive; WP:NPOV is not negotiable. Equally the inherent threat to disrupt Falkland Islands based on a strawman extrapolation is inherently disruptive.

Your claim that I have no provided a reason for removal is patently false. Such a denial is a classic example of further disruptive editing by filibustering. It seems fairly clear to me that there is a consensus position, its a position solidly based in policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Since your last comments are nothing but personal attacks and repeating the same "I am right and you're wrong" statement, I'll simply stop responding until another editor makes a comment. I've told you I intend to "synthesize" nothing and that your position of obscuring relevant and properly sourced material is a clear breach of WP:NPOV. There is also no "strawman extrapolation" and neither is it a threat of any kind, I'm simply pointing out how your position is full of holes as clearly demonstrated by attempting to apply it to the Falklands Islands article (and virtually any article).

I've told you already you have absolutely no consensus for the removal of the section and I expect you will respect that. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

With a bit of luck we may have a current position of France on the issue available if it chooses to respond to this France should back Britain in event of Falklands fight. Could even put to rest the discussion on whether that country still supports or not the UK position. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is disappointing that you present the stated positions of other editors here so inaccurately. I note that the comments of several of those editors you list, the poll above and the comments in the previous section (which certainly count toward consensus) give a startlingly different conception of the consensus from that which you present.

It is also disappointing that you choose to insist that we must not follow WP:WEIGHT, which as part of WP:NPOV is pretty much fundamental policy. The rule that we follow the weight given to the points in reliable secondary sources about the subject at hand is not some novel invention. It's a basic standard on Wikipedia.

By your everything-we-can-source rule this article could contain anything about anything at all - be it fringe, misleading, irrelevant, off topic - it doesn't matter. Would your article on Earth go on and on about the flat Earth theory? On the basis of "we present everything we can source", the only possible answer is yes. Would we put it also on the article United States? If we are to "present everything we can source", clearly, yes. Would we put it on this article? If "we present everything we can source", we have no choice: yes. It should come as no surprise that this would be unworkable. And it should come as no surprise that it is not and never has been accepted by policy.

The fact that you suggest that there is "no support" for Britain internationally demonstrates nothing but that you haven't looked. It's pretty trivial to find evidence of countries supporting Britain. I even cited such evidence earlier (and no, before you argue the toss, the fact that you ignored it does not mean that I didn't cite it). You seem to have an idea that you only need to do the Argentine side and others can do the British side. No. It is your job as an editor to make your edits and proposals neutral and the evidence would suggest that you haven't even tried. Kahastok talk 23:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok: I'm going to have to ask you to please clarify you accusations that I "present the stated positions of other editors here so inaccurately". Here are the editors I said had stated otherwise (as not supported the removal) in the comments section:

• Shrigley: no vote, his comment made it crystal clear that he opposed.
• Bevo74: supported the deletion in the votes but in his final comment so far he stated: "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." Need I make it clearer?
• Peter James: no vote, stated: "International responses and actions are relevant, but could probably be presented,chronologically and restricted to the more significant ones". Definitely did not support deleting the section.
• Martin Hogbin: opposed removal.
• Antidiskriminator: opposed removal (and questioned Wee's behaviour).

Oh and I see now that I forgot about Richard Keatinge who voted "Reduce to one sentence with multiple refs.", clearly no support for the removal.

Remember at the last ANI what was discussed about making untrue statements? You might want to be a little more careful next time.

"The rule that we follow the weight given to the points in reliable secondary sources about the subject at hand is not some novel invention. It's a basic standard on Wikipedia.", thank you my friend. That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. Let's base on reliable secondary sources (like the ones used right now) and add reliable 3rd party sources (ie: published books) as they come along. Glad to see we agree on this.

"It's pretty trivial to find evidence of countries supporting Britain", it is? Then why haven't you added any to the section? The only mention you made was of some Caribbean countries backing the UK at a recent summit but did not add it, why is that? Are you expecting me to do it? Why is that?

"You seem to have an idea that you only need to do the Argentine side and others can do the British side", no I do not. As I have said previously, we definitely should mention the ambivalent position of those Caribbean countries you mentioned. I have not come across any other position regarding support for the UK, am I in breach of some WP guideline here for not finding sources? If you say sources are so easy to find, why haven't you presented them? Why haven't you added them to the section? I really don't see the logic in your reasoning here. You act as if I were to oppose the addition of sources stating support for the British claim by a given country when nothing could be further away from the truth.

"By your everything-we-can-source rule this article could contain anything about anything at all - be it fringe, misleading, irrelevant, off topic - it doesn't matter", now this is a gross strawman. If you object to the addition of a given country (or group of countries) in the section on account of WP:FRINGE or WP:OFFTOPIC then please speak up. The positions currently present are all of them 100% properly sourced by reliable secondary sources. Again your position makes little sense.

I'm not following your position Kahastok: on the one hand you want to completely remove this information from this article as irrelevant and on the other hand you accuse me of violating WP:NPOV because I haven't added to the article sources presenting countries backing the UK claim (which I have not found and I'd welcome if you have them). Make up your mind: should we delete this section or should I continue to expand it?

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to be a genius or an experienced WP editor to see there's no consensus here. I wish I could say I'm perplexed at the fact that people have completely different versions of reality, but sadly that's not the case at the Falklands-related articles.

Wee (and I think that Kahastok too) said: "Argentina demands a statement of support at every summit it attends but, as I note, to derogate the British position, since Britain simply does not." If we can source this, maybe we could include it in the article, in lieu of WP:NPOV. Although not in those exact words, of course, as they clearly fail that very same policy.

And no, it is not my job to source this, as Kahastok seems to imply above. --Langus (t) 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote "it is not my job to source this", actually it is, after 2 years of editing wikipedia you still fail to realise you are required to produce NPOV content. You can't write POV content and expect others to add POV content to balance it out. I'm perplexed that after numerous attempts by myself and others to explain a basic policy, you still don't get it. As far as I can see from day 1 you have seen your role to be to ensure the Argentine POV is represented, utterly failing to comprehend it isn't. Your role is simply to describe how neutral sources see the Argentine and British positions. If you have a different perspective of reality, that simply reflects the fact you just don't get it, nothing more.

Equally you still don't get that consensus is about strength of argument and if one set of editors is arguing solidly from the basis of policy and another is suggesting a route that is fundamentally at odds with policy, then consensus is with the former not the latter. Nor does consensus require us to attain your assent for a change, that is simply a recipe for disruptive editors to stall content improvement as we see here. At this point I would be perfectly within my rights to proceed with the proposed change, since there is the basis for a consensus approach. You can't stall for ever, arguing that we must include every scrap of indiscriminate information as you insist. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

While I am please to note that you (Gaba) agree that we should base weight on the coverage by reliable sources on the subject, I wonder if you have missed my meaning since this does not appear to be what you have been arguing for. Right now, the section is not based on reliable secondary sources on the subject (i.e. sources about the sovereignty dispute). Rather, it is based on sources like this one - a source about a summit - or on sources about statements. These are not appropriate for the purposes of determining WP:WEIGHT on an article on the subject of the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the weight given to different points in a source about an individual statement is likely to match the weight that we should be giving to an entire section in the article - and every reason to assume that it will not. Kahastok talk 18:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Quote "it is not my job to source this", actually it is", actually it is not. It is OUR job to add content to the encyclopedia. This is a collaborative project in case you weren't aware. If you believe something is missing from the article then go ahead and fix it. Don't expect other editors to do it for you and then accuse them of POV if they don't.

"You can't write POV content and expect others to add POV content to balance it out", untrue statement. There's no POV content being added, the positions of those countries are completely sourced by reliable secondary sources and the only ones trying to obscure positions from being presented in a clear breach of WP:NPOV is you and Kahastok.
"Your role is simply to describe how neutral sources see the Argentine and British positions", that's exactly what we are aiming to do by presenting reliable secondary sources. Again it is you who's on a crusade to remove proper content from Wikipedia.
"At this point I would be perfectly within my rights to proceed with the proposed change", no you would not and I strongly advise you don't since it will only escalate this issue.
Finally please note Wee's obvious WP:CANVASSING recruiting more old friends to help him close this RfC. This is quite unacceptable Wee, you should know better by now. The statement by editor Antidiskriminator about your behaviour ("your editing is disruptive and aimed to circumvent the normal process of consensus") is looking more and more accurate with every new comment of yours. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have had no contact in any meaningful way with WCM in all my brief time at Wiki. I recieved a message (open, on my page), I spent 5 bloody hours reading this dreary argument in its horrid entirity yesterday. Credit me some intellectual indepencdence. I camr to the conclusion that the section is garbage and has no place in the article. It seems to reek of what you wikis call undue weight. How many of the major works out there concentrate on the position of third party countries and relatively obscure organisations in this dispute? As the sources keeping this tendentious section alive appear to consist of press releases and other "sources" based on obscure and often contradictory announcements

I say remove, and/or merge some of the more useful parts into already existing sections. Irondome (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems thoroughly bizarre that you expect others to source your proposals. I see no reason why I should scrabble about finding sources for a proposal that I oppose on principle in a section that I wish to remove - the idea that I should seems thoroughly bizarre. The fact that your position appears to be based on the premise that the British have no support, as I say, is your problem. Nobody else's. And even if we weren't simultaneously discussing removing the section it would be reason enough to oppose without any of the other concerns.

And I don't think substituting "untrue statement" for "lie" helps you any. The problem is the sentiment - that you are accusing people of deliberately telling falsehoods. The exact terminology you use is immaterial. Kahastok talk 18:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a brief background. I am a Brit, and was 19 when the war was in progress, At the time I was highly pro-Argentine, but the passage of years has given me a more neutral viewpoint. In no way am I particularly engaged with the subject, as other subjects of controversy on Wiki tend to engage me more. However I must say that I agree with the removal of this section.

The above was part of my opening thoughts that I deleted in the earlier hours because I was dissatisfied with the wording. I should have kept it visible, but I do not know how to score through sections that I have had second thoughts about. I am an uninvolved editor, who has never concerned himself with this whole painful topic. That the section in my opinion is unecessary (except perhaps to push an arguably pro Argentine POV in terms of endless lists of otherwise eminently forgettable regional summits that have trotted out the obligitory anti-Uk position) is my view after having the read it and the painful repetitive argumentation here, is my opinion. Irondome (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually thought it was almost an honour that as a new editor, I was called to express an opinion. Perhaps a more double - edged honour to be debating wioth some of the most well known and notorious figures :) on Wiki, in this specialisation. I have followed the likes of WCM, Gabba, Langus, the notorious sockpuppet incident, avidly via talk pages over the months. Its far better than any soap.

But I have had NO input into these debates until now. I have never addressed any of you before. So it be called a "friend" of WCM, Gabba, is both totally innaccurate and slightly flattering. I have left a few technical points on the FW article, and done a few minor edits. All military, technical and non controversial. I assume WCM was taking more notice of me than I realised. Fame at last! I am recognised by you guys as an actual wiki entity.

Seriously. I have doubts about the section in its present form, but I cannot agree to its total destruction, WCM. Why cant it be hived off into a new article. Then it can be a source of an eternal edit war, much like the Kashmir or Israel/palestine related pages, with occasional grisly flare ups.

I recognise the different factions and personalities here now, and I think you all basically repect each others integrity and knowledge. So the "UK faction" if such a tendency exists here can quite confidently let the "internationalists" get on with it. I actually think it would be quite civilised. And most importantly, it would guarantee my continued entertainment via the talk pages. So. Remove, and let it go free to mutate into the wikiwild. The lesser spotted new tendentious article. Irondome (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Are there sources to sustain such an article per WP:GNG? I've seen no relevant evidence so far. Kahastok talk 19:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

One last thought. The only question here is, is this section viable? Does it conform to the various wiki strictures, and if not, does that make the section invalid. The only way to test that is to let it be nominated, or whatever the procedure is, into a small seperate article. It will then be judged by the whole wiki community as to whether it should be here in any form.Irondome (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kahastok: "It seems thoroughly bizarre that you expect others to source your proposals", that is absolutely not what I expect. Everything in the section right now is completely sourced and I never said I expected anybody else to source what I add to the article. I expect you and Wee to help improve the article and bring all this information you keep talking about but never present. It is the responsibility of all of us to do so, not just mine. As I've told you a dozen times already I have found no new information regarding the position of countries backing the UK claim (with the exception of those Caribbean countries which you brought up but for some reason did not include in the article, perhaps expecting me to do so?) and the moment I do I will personally add it to the section. I find it extremely odd that you claim to have all this information but will not add to the article and neither present it here.

"your position appears to be based on the premise that the British have no support", I did not say that. Ever. I said that a number of countries have lately decided to be vocal about their support for the Argentinian position, which can be sourced through reliable secondary sources, while the same can not be said for the British position. If something can't be sourced then it can't be added to WP. I know you understand this.

@Irondome: I give every editor intellectual independence and I apologize for calling you an "old friend" of Wee, I should not have done that.

I agree with your position of opposing the total destruction of this section from WP. As I've said, if the section is found to be not suited for the article for some reason, then we could simply move it to its own article. The nomination of the section as a separate article could be a good idea, as long as everybody agrees to respect the outcome be it Keep, Merge or Delete.

Finally: I'm happy that you find our misadventures amusing and entertaining. At least somebody is enjoying all this WP:DRAMA :) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont think the section, or proposed article would be viable Gabba. Looking at the guide, it would seem to have issues on Significance, and just a collection of information fronts, at least. They may be others, and thats to my inexperienced eye. If it fails to survive as an article then it should be removed. Thats the only way. And this is the only way to sort this. Kill or cure I say @WCM. I personally dont think its a viable section or article, but let the community decide.Irondome (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Irondome, I would have thought being described as my friend would have been instant grounds for an incivility block. You were asked because you do close RFC and difficult AFD which few will. Funnily enough, if you recall the last one we were both involved in you closed against my position, so you're obviously the first port of call if I wanted to canvas anyone.

However, I should perhaps have warned you that anyone asked for an opinion, would naturally be accused of being incapable of thinking for themselves. And doing things openly is obviously done in bad faith.

I regret per WP:BEANS that you suggested this be hived off to a separate article, as an indiscriminate collection of crap to prove Gaba p's personal belief "that a bigger pro-Argentine position is being voiced" ie WP:OR and WP:SYN pushing WP:POV. Funnily enough as Klaus Dodd's recently voiced, it actually demonstrates "a sign of “profound weakness". Thats an opinion easy to source by the way. You're right, its not something that would survive as an article in its own right but does the community need the crap that will inevitably go along with its removal?

Gaba p may I politely suggest you don't shove beans up your nose..... Wee Curry Monster talk 20:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@Irondome: Not always an article survives as such because at times it is proposed it be merged to an already existing article. It's an intermediate position between an independent article or nothing at all. The current section has quite a lot of relevant and properly sourced information, it has been up for quite some time now and that's the way I believe it should stay; as a section of the currently article.

As I've pointed out already, the position that a section can only exist if it is sourced by published books would deprive a great deal of articles of a great deal of sections. One needs to go no further than Falklands Islands to see that by that standard a lot of sections over there would not survive (or the whole Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 article). It is a flawed "quality test".

(PS: My nick is "Gaba" or "Gaba_p", not "Gabba") Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@Wee: your comments are becoming more aggressive with each one Wee. I recommend you take some fresh air and tone it down so as to not repeat "mistakes" from the past.

Your grounds for removal have been proved to be POV and not applicable to any other article out there without compromising it entirely. Secondary sources are perfectly valid and this "indiscriminate collection of crap" as you call it is quite an informative section regarding the position of other nations. Your pro-British crusade is known throughout WP Wee, there's no need to source your position to Dodds or anybody else, your comments are more than enough. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense, you admit your intention is to prove a premise, its plainly POV editing and what you propose is to add an indiscriminate load of crap. You can't argue on the basis of WP:WEIGHT and invent a complete strawman that anything you can source can be added. Take that to WP:NPOVN, I could do with a laugh. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologise Gaba. We all have "positions" I think. But they should be positions based on a solid unbiased intellectual frame. There is no shame in positions, as such. @Wee I accept totally the premise that will generate additional grief, but what to do? The argument here is I believe exhausted. I suggest we all provide final summary positions, and a simple majority decision of those who have provided coherent positions decide. My main concern here is in all honsty, is it Wiki "legal" to be getting rid of this section in its entirety, or should it be left to expire under community scructiny, if it fails article guidelines. Irondome (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes the argument is exhausted, move it to a separate article ready for deletion as an unsustainable article. What should it be called though, List of new reports on summits where Argentina has tabled a motion on the the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Precisely :) Irondome (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba. A dash of wry humour is not exactly a warlike attitude. Anyway, I will leave you lads to it. Good luck Irondome (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Gaba p complaining of sarcasm, wow. Cough, splutter, choke...

Seriously, going on to do a distinctly POV edit of your personal opinion was not helpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I apologise for being flip. Didnt wish to add any fuel to fires. However WCM sums up the issue in broad satire with the absurd title. This is exactly what it will be. Does Wiki coverage of the FI dispute also require this?Irondome (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING, just great. And excuse me but again, no, it is not my job to source things sprouted from Wee's mind. I even disagree with this particular thought, and I doubt it could be reliably sourced. --Langus (t) 23:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume that is an attack on me? I suggest you read my points to Gaba upthread, re my presence. He has accepted it, as far as Im aware. As I said, I came to this fresh and spent hours wading through this stuff. I came to the conclusion the section is unhelpful. You may not agree with it, but it a genuine viewpoint. I dont think that qualifies as canvassing in any damaging or disruptive way.Irondome (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume so Irondome. WP:CANVASSING is the sole responsibility of the editor doing it, not the editor/s called upon. If I may speak for Langus I'd say that nobody is holding anything against you as far as I can tell. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats fine Gaba. Others may also notice that I have tried to make a few new points and suggestions. My opinion runs directly counter to WCM in terms of my reluctance to erase this section per se. I have suggested that the section be hived off as a small specialist article. It can then stand or fall by its inherent suitability (or lack of) as a wiki article. The wider community will decide. Im hardly anyones tool here.Irondome (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, you've done nothing wrong Irondome. --Langus (t) 01:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Some more thoughts

Sorry that I have not been able to help much. I still think the P5 counties could have their own section. The reason for choosing this particular group is that they have the power to veto UN resolutions thus we know there will never be a UN resolution about this dispute that is seriously contrary to the stated position of any P5 country.

For the rest of the world, would having a table, or three sections, Pro British, Pro Argentine, Neutral, based on the last stated position of counties be an idea? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've stated before I would have no problem in having a sub-section for the P5 countries, I think it's a pretty good idea.

A table or only three separated sections (pro UK, pro Argentina, Neutral) would be complicated due to the positions of some countries being somewhat in a grey area. I would say separate into:

• UN statements
• P5 positions
• Clearly pro-British
• Clearly pro-Argentinian
  • Calling for negotiation/dialogue (sub section of pro-Argentina because the UK opposes dialogue)
• Strictly neutral.
• Ambivalent (some Caribbean states could go here)

Martin, would you be willing to wrap up a draft of the P5 section and present it here? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Until someone finds a justification from relevant references about sovereignty disputes for including a significant section on the opinion of other countries or bodies, it seems pointless for you to keep suggesting adding details about it. (Hohum ^@) 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Martin, could I again ask you a question as it seems you are either ignoring it deliberately for a reason, which I presume there is a good reason for, or you simply missed it. If the former feel free to email me if you prefer. As I note sources on the sovereignty dispute attach little if any weight to International positions, surely the article should do the same? And as regards last stated position, err, how do you propose to source that? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a seriously flawed argument being used here to back the deletion or refuse the expansion of the section: that we should strictly adhere to a similar extension present in published books. I ask anyone reading this to please go for example to the Falklands Islands article and try to apply this "rejection standard" to almost any section. You'll see that, leaving out the ones specifically dealing with historical events, there is virtually no section that could remain on the article. The sections are almost exclusively sourced by reliable sources (mostly newspapers and online articles) such as the ones used in the section being discussed. What about articles regarding more recent events such as Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? Should we nominate that entire article for deletion?

Now take one of them most (if not the most) controversial topics in WP: the Israel-Palestine conflict. Feel free to grab a random article, here are a few:

• Operation Pillar of Defense
• Israeli–Palestinian conflict
• Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations
• Gaza War
• Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
• Borders of Israel
• etc.

Imagine going over to any of those articles and telling the editors over there that if the sections inside them can't be made to comply with the extension present in published books then they have to go. Please do and then come back here with the answer they give you.

Could I ask editors here supporting this "rejection standard" which part of WP:UNDUE is being breached/violated by the section? Would you be so kind as to quote the specific part that is not being respected? I believe that would help us find the core of this disagreement. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Simply a straw man, irrelevant and unnecessary argumentation, a) no one is saying any such thing b) notably none of those articles are on sovereignty disputes and c) people are discussing WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. The suggestion is to judge weight on the weight attached to the subject in reliable secondary sources, pretty much a standard on wikipedia. This absurd extrapolation that you apply the same suggestion to a current event is just being silly. Were the subject considered in reliable secondary sources, you would have no problem demonstrating it, the fact you don't and are resorting to filibustering, not to mention you openly state your intention to demonstrate a POV, does tend to support there's is zero weight attached to the subject.Wee Curry Monster talk 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Worth noting - though it should be common sense - that it we need to base the section on reliable sources on the subject at hand. It's no good citing this and saying, oh yes, that's a reliable source and it gives the point some weight so we have to put it in - it and others like it are patently not sources about the dispute but sources specifically focussed on summits and so on. Obviously, there is room for manoeuvre with recent or future events that pass the 10-year test (will this point still be relevant in ten years?), but this would not credibly apply in this situation - it's not as though no third country ever took a position before the last couple of years. Kahastok talk 18:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Would it be more acceptable to editors if any citations offered in this section were headlined specifically about the statement, declaration, whatever. Ie, "Chile reaffirms support for Argentine FI stance" and it be at least 10 years old? If we could work towards an acceptable def of what is an acceptable source (even through slightly gritted teeth) would that help? We must press on here and not get bogged down Irondome (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My thinking is that the above hypothetical piece, if it was on the bbc website from say 2001, would be acceptable. What do you think Wee et al? The question of whether the section of itself is questionable, I think we should ruthlessly put aside while we reach a consensus on what is a universally accepted source, and what is shite.Irondome (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We should start by asking what the WP:WEIGHT given to the international position by reliable sources about the dispute is. If the answer is "none", or less weight than we can plausibly give in an article - as it appears to be - then that's simple. We simply have no section.

If the books and other scholarly sources did contain a section, we would then look to what positions it chose. If it did provide a full list of countries and last known positions - and I doubt it would - then we would go with that. If it gave a few important cases and ignored the rest, we would do that. If it generalised based on geography and membership of international organisations, we would do that. If it discussed the point exclusively in the context of the 1982 conflict, we would do that. Only once we had that would we then start looking at sources to demonstrate the individual positions, to allow for any change from the text of the source from which we are judging weight. This would also allow us to judge how much detail we should be going into on each side, and thus make the appropriate allowance for the difference in approach between the two sides.

Gaba clearly has his own ideas, but they are not based on due weight from reliable sources but on his own feelings, apparently guided by his POV (and I note that he has made it clear that he feels that we should present Britain as having no support whatsoever).

We don't need to do that: as I say, the current evidence is that the appropriate weight is none because the reliable sources about the dispute do not give significant coverage to this point.

A significant part of the problem with having a whole article section on which the reliable sources place no significant WP:WEIGHT - such as this at present, and such as you effectively suggest - is that we then have no means to judge what WP:WEIGHT should then be given to individual points within that section. This in turn causes article instability - as it has here: as I've said before in this discussion, the instability is not a reason to remove in and of itself, but it is a symptom of a deeper problem with the content. Kahastok talk 18:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree about Weight. That was one of my initial issues, along with Collecting lists of information. But that argument should be put aside for now. Lets focus on what is an acceptable sourceIrondome (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably escaped your notice as the verbiage added to deter community input hides it but I suggested Gustafson above. I could also suggest Signals of War by Friedman and Gamba-Stonehouse but whilst the latter is accurate for the period from the 1960s onward, it does contain some fundamental errors in the early history. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Were the subject considered in reliable secondary sources, you would have no problem demonstrating it" <-- Wee
• "We should start by asking what the WP:WEIGHT given to the international position by reliable sources about the dispute is" <-- Kahastok

Am I understanding you correctly Kahastok and Wee, are you saying that established newspapers are not a reliable secondary source??
We establish WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE guided by reliable secondary sources like pretty much every other article in WP does. Attempting to apply the standard you came up with here would deprive a large number of articles of a large number of sections (see list of Israel-Palestine articles above) The standard is absurd and inapplicable.
Once again Kahastok and Wee: could you please quote which part of WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE you believe is being breached here? It's a simple question, could you please address it? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am tempted to question your WP:COMPETENCE to edit as you seem to believe simply repeating the same point and ignoring anything in reply is how to discuss a subject. I refer you to my previous answer. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee, do you seriously believe that other editors don't see right through you weaseling around my questions? Because it is quite obvious that you are refusing to answer them. Your previous answer did not mention absolutely anything about the guidelines you claim are being breached. Look, this is amazingly simple, I'll post two questions and you try to answer them separately so we can trace the root of this disagreement, what do you say? Here they go:

1. Are you saying that established newspapers are not a reliable secondary source?
2. Could you please quote which part of WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE you believe is being breached here?

Am I asking too much here? That you (or Kahastok) answer two simple questions separately? Should we not be trying to reach a consensus here? Is this really too much to ask? Look, I'll even save you the trouble of writing a whole comment, you can just use the following and post your answers there:

Wee's answers:

1. ...
2. ...

I'll await your reply noting that the only way to move forward is if we first agree on what guideline is being violated and what are we calling reliable sources. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I find your patronising and aggressive tone here distinctly unhelpful, and your ultimatum could almost have been designed to get people's backs up. Particularly when your questions have already been answered. You don't just get to repeat questions over and over until you get the answers you want. It doesn't work like that.

Your questions are already answered above, and as such I refer you to my previous comment, just as Curry Monster referred you to his. Kahastok talk 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Amazing how you just keep finding ways to get out of answering two simple questions. You and Wee are repeatedly hiding behind rhetoric to avoid having to answer two very simple questions. Your statements that "this has already been answered" fool exactly no one. You have not answered neither of them.

Seeing that Wee and Kahastok refuse downright to answer two simple questions aimed at finding the root of the disagreement, I'll just post them here so any editor can answer them:

1. Are established newspapers a reliable secondary source?
2. Could you please quote which part of WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE you believe is being breached by the section in discussion?

I'll post my own answers and hope others follow:

1. Yes, I believe they are.
2. No part of those guidelines is being breached.

Please feel free to add your answers, if we don't agree on these basic principles then there is no way we can ever get to the root of this issue. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The context of the question posed is bordering on "have you stopped beating your wife?", but I'll answer. In reverse order.

2. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

The most relevant reliable sources are ones solely about the article subject.

1. Quality newspapers can be reliable sources, but they are pretty far down the list compared to books on the subject, then generically, sovereignty disputes.

That is not to say that I think newspapers shouldn't be used in the article, just that the weight of their coverage should be guided by better sources.

(Hohum ^@) 12:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have answered the same questions more than once myself.

1. I have at no point said newspapers are not a reliable source, this is a straw man Gaba p constructed. They are not suitable though for establishing weight.

2. You are clearly violating weight by giving undue prominence to newspaper reports of summits. NPOV requires us to present coverage on a topic that is representative of the coverage and books on sovereignty disputes provide such a guideline as to the coverage. Very few attach significance to the International position of other countries; which goes a long way to showing why this article is unique in having such a section.

You see gathering such sources as proving a premise, the very gathering of sources in that manner is synthesising a position through original research. All of which I have quietly explained before and if you're repeatedly claiming I haven't then that is a utter falsehood. At this point I am minded to simply remove this section, there is clearly a consensus to do so and the tactics here are simply filibustering. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you do not remove the section Wee. There is clearly not consensus for doing so and as I've explained below, your argument that we should base the extent of a section/article based exclusively on books and completely delete everything else is absurd. Read my comment below please. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Hohum, even though you apparently consider them "trick" questions (which they are not or are least were not designed to be) I finally have a direct and specific answer after all that beating around the bush by Wee and Kahastok. Really, thank you.

So, let's try to find some common ground then. We agree that reliable sources should dictate whether a topic should be present in WP and to what extent. So far so good, right? We both agree that established newspapers are reliable sources, but that having even better sources (like say a couple of book mentioning the sovereignty dispute in the international context) would be "ideal". The issue is then (correct me if I'm wrong), what do we do when ideal is unattainable? What Wee proposes is delete all information completely from Wikipedia. I believe this is not a sensible proposal. I say we take a look at what other articles do in this case. Take for example the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (or pretty much any article about that conflict) which is a topic even more controversial and prone to edit-warring and POV pushing than this one. Now take almost any section in that article and see how many published books vs how many newspapers are used as sources. Take as another example Gibraltar which is a more closely related topic to this one. See the "Transport" section (or the main article itself Transport in Gibraltar), it's based exclusively on online articles and newspapers. Would it be sensible for me to go over there and nominate that section for complete deletion based on Wee's criteria of WP:WEIGHT based on published books exclusively?

The point is: we agree about the "ideal" situation but since WP is a work in progress we make do with what is available, just like it is done all over WP. We base WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE on what reliable sources say (in this case, mainly news articles). If an event is significant enough to be covered by various newspapers, I say it passes the test of being notable enough to be included.

As Wee said "NPOV requires us to present coverage on a topic that is representative of the coverage" (except he wishes to asses the coverage based exclusively on published books about the topic and delete everything else, which is of course absurd). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well there is some consensus about fit sources here, I think weight is the big issue. Gaba, im a bit perplexed by the deployment of these sources in the section. (Im sorry I cant do source hyperlinks yet so bear with me) 96, 98. Now 96 is a link to the official EU "position" on the FI. It seems to be EU site. Very strong source. It supports the text stating the UKs tacit support for the UK, position, and also confirms the FI are eligable to EU funds. That would appear to further confirm the solidity of the EU/UK "understanding" on this issue. But you then deploy 98. Now that source is equally respectable, but it is an Argentinian newspaper article reporting what appears to be an off the cuff remark saying that Argentina should not take the EU position re the Falklands as support for the UK. Now I would say that the newspaper article is a relatively weaker source than 96, yet you deploy 98 to trump the information supported by 96. I understand you are deploying your limited sources skilfully, but I think you are attempting to steer the article narrative there, on a weaker source than 96. As ive said, I dont have any issues with mild POV, just as long as its impeccably sourced, with the weightier cites guiding the text. If it was me, I would take the Argentinian media-supported caveat out. Its straining a vital argument too far on a relatively weaker source. Irondome (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually gaba, I restated what I had already said. Newspaper reports are not useful in deciding the amount of wieght to give them in this article. There is no way of deciding the proportion of the article that should devote to a subject from them - a source entirely about the subject clearly does. Perhaps you could answer a direct question. How do you think they can? (Hohum ^@) 23:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

@Irondome: I'll have to correct you on a couple of points there. Source 96 is absolutely not the EU "position" on the claim. It makes no mention of it and any attempt to extract that would be WP:OR (you can ask Wee if you think I'm off here). Source 96 is correctly being used to source that the EU classes the islands as an OCT, nothing else (and this is correct). Source 98 is MercoPress, an established news agency used all over WP and based in Uruguay (not Argentina). Furthermore source 98 quotes the exact statements by the European Union ambassador making no ad-hoc interpretation at all and his statements are rather clear about the EU maintaining a neutral position on the issue. Feel free to ask me if anything isn't clear to you. Regards.

@Hohum: "There is no way of deciding the proportion of the article that should devote to a subject from them - a source entirely about the subject clearly does", and what should we do in those cases where a book entirely about the subject is not available? How do you believe this "quality standard" would apply to other articles in WP? It is not a reasonable yard-stick to use because only a minimum number of articles (or sections within them) would pass such test. We might as well go ahead and delete half of WP's database.
Regarding your question, I believe that if an issue has been deemed important/notable enough to be covered in a reliable secondary source such as an established newspaper (even more so if more than one source can be found) then that gives us enough reason to conclude it is worth of being at least mentioned in WP. Note that I'm not saying we should devote an entire article to each countries' position, merely a simple mention properly sourced would be enough. Regards Gaba p (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You ask what happens if a book entirely about the subject is not available. But this is not the case here, so in this case the question is not one that we have any need to concern ourselves with. I note that your suggestion we should mention any point that can be sourced to an established newspaper runs directly counter to policy. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and considers enduring notability of events: all newspapers contains many things that are unsuitable for Wikipedia. Today's newspaper is tomorrow's chip paper. Kahastok talk 13:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is an issue we should be concerned with because you are trying to apply an absurd "quality standard" to the section of an article that very very few articles/sections in WP would pass. You say there are books about the subject available, could you present them please? I searched but I could not find books written specifically about the international position on sovereignty disputes.

Please give WP:NOTNEWSPAPER another read. That guideline deals with breaking/recent events that would be more suitable for Wikinews. The events sourced in the section under discussion are at least 7 months old and can hardly be regarded as breaking news.

I'd like to direct you to the section I've opened at the bottom of this talk page where you can state what specific issues should be address in the section so as to remove the supposed POV and WEIGHT issues you and Wee claim it has, with the aim of reaching a compromise. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kahastok and everyone else advocating for using books to determine the appropriate weight needed for inclusion: What do you think we should about the proposal below? (FI's 2013 referendum) What do you think we should do about the banning of the Falkland Islands flagged vessel from the ports of Mercosur members? Because if we are going to apply these harsh requirements to prove relevance, they most probably will go to the recycle bin too... --Langus (t) 01:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Again WP:COMPETENCE, the suggestion is pretty much a benchmark for WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE on wikipedia ie they're not harsh requirements. Whats the alternative - you add anything you can source, without any constraint? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE actually applies to your inability to understand that I'd question the WP:WEIGHT of the referendum and the flag banning, and to your inability to understand that by "harsh requirement" I'm actually referring to other people's proposals.

"Whats the alternative - you add anything you can source, without any constraint?" >> Thanks for demonstrating how a straw man argument works. --Langus (t) 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

How is that misrepresenting your position old bean? Thats called speculation as you've never actually stated how you would establish WP:WEIGHT but it is ironically another example of a straw man argument. What I suggest is pretty much a standard on wikipedia. As to the banning of the Falkland Islands flag, which in many cases shouldn't have been included per WP:NOTNEWS but as usual was edit warred into articles despite largely being a none event and on articles where it was irrelevant. Whether the referendum is included rather depends on the result and how its considered in suitable sources - which does include items such as a peer reviewed journal articles. Newspapers remain unsuitable for establishing weight, which is not the strawman you constructed (and something I never suggested) which was to claim all of wikipedia couldn't use them as a source. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My position can be easily inferred from this comment: we've never needed books or scholar articles to decide relevance; in fact until a month ago you just seemed to trust your guts. As you've been tipped, news and mainstream media are very important for creating/sourcing WP's content. I'm obviously not objecting to using more robust sources as a guide, but ultimately the decision is up to us.

(Note this is different from having no constrains: we have WP:NOT to guide us). --Langus (t) 03:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In terms of the referendum in particular, I would argue that as a future event that sources obviously haven't caught up with yet, it passes the 10-year test.

The rule is WP:WEIGHT. That's weight in reliable sources about the subject. The important point is not so much whether it's a book or a newspaper report (though this may be used to judge the reliability of the source) - but rather that the source is on the same subject as the article that we're trying to judge appropriate weight on (as opposed to being on the subject of particular statements). And of course, negative results count as much as positive ones.

This discussion has got very confusing in that it is very split up. I suggest we start a new section at the bottom and stick to it. Kahastok talk 19:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Bad sourcing

I removed two sources that did not verify Chinese support for Argentine sovereignty. The first simply reported on what the Argentine president said, not what the Chinese government did. The second was from "Finance Online", which is not a reliable source. Two new references put in by another editor are acceptable. On a matter like this, sourcing must be impeccable. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have restored this section from the archive because it relates to a current discussion. Kahastok talk 18:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Both sides are going to have to compromise

If this dispute is to be resolved some compromise will be required by both sides. My understanding of WP policy is that:

There is no requirement for reliable secondary source to say that a particular aspect of a subject is interesting or notable for us to have a section on it.

There is no requirement that a section should be able to stand alone as an article.

Just because it is sourced does not mean that we should put it in the article if doing so gives an unbalanced view of the subject.

Is there any possibility that we could all agree to these principles? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please sign your name? If you are new, welcome. Irondome (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it was me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I agree in principle with what you suggest, WP:WEIGHT would tend to suggest that if a topic doesn't receive coverage, neither should we, since to do so falls foul of WP:DUE. Hence, I qualify that the first point is limited by the third. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE both refer to balance of views within a section or article. It does not relate to whether we should have he section or not. Within the section, of course, both apply, which why I had the third point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are rules for inclusion or not. A science article about the earth would not include flat earth theories however widespread source material on that is. This is because we use science articles as a model for what would be included. I am merely suggesting we do the same here. (Hohum ^@) 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have somewhat replied above but I'll reply here again. I agree with the first two points made by Martin, but the third is a bit complicated. If the position of a country can be properly sourced by a reliable secondary source, I'd say that is worth at least a mention in the article. Otherwise we would be deciding ourselves which countries are more important and that is definitely WP:OR and a breach of WP:NPOV.

@Hohum: I believe you are mentioning WP:FRINGE which is not the issue here, that guideline deals with ideas held by minorities. The position of a country in an international dispute can hardly be regarded as such. As I've said, a reasonable rule for inclusion could be (and in fact it already is all over WP) that we only add what we can source by reliable secondary sources. That's not to say we should expand indefinitely on each country's position, but at least a short mention of its position (again: if it can be reliably sourced) should be present. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Which bit of 'compromise' do you not understand?

If you chaps are going to continue to slog it out, each insisting that they are 100% right, we will never get anywhere. If we want to make progress both sides will have to give a little. In other word both sides will have to accept some things that they do not agree with. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I am perfectly willing to compromise, I have for a long time accepted a section I thought wholly unnecessary, largely comprised of selected quoting but ultimately at a stable neutral view. A poor compromise but if you check the edit history, I have resisted various Brit POV pushers inserting lousy content as much as the Argentine. I note however you still have avoided my question, so I'll ask another, do you expect editors to go from neutral to compromising with a POV on the fringe and expect neutral content to result? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It didn't seem like you were willing to compromise when you proposed to remove all this information completely from Wikipedia. Anyway, I welcome that you are proposed to do so now and would like to refer you to the section I've just opened so we can start building a sensible compromise that will benefit the encyclopedia. Regards. Gaba p (talk)

Martin, I have compromised. I have moved from a position of "delete it" to "keep as much as a reliable source on the subject has (either specifically, or sovereignty disputes in general), with similar style/balance". A model source has been provided, Gaba or others are free to find others. (Hohum ^@) 15:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Test case

I am beginning to come round to the idea that this issue goes beyond just the FI series of articles, but has a bearing on many other articles across WP. The issues are primarily source weighted in nature.

Gaba proposes to keep the section, because technically it is sourced adequately.

Wee (and some others) are of the view that only sources in major and recognised works on the subject, (Wee cited some) should be used as the framework for this section, and that the section subject PRIMARILY is recognised and adressed in a major cited work of scholarship, or it be removed.

Gaba made the relevant point that many other articles or sections on WP rely on relatively weaker but still acceptable sources. I am ignoring other issues such as the sections percieved POV or otherwise, because I think the source issue is at the heart, and the POV thing would be also solved by dealing with the source weight dispute.

I suggest we take this to the suitable arbitration forum for discussion, based on those two opposing views. It would then create some kind of precedent which may inform other editors. We need some uniformity across WP here. Its crazy to have purely local standards of source acceptability held by one group of editors on WP and an entirely different set of criteria by others.

Im beginning to think the more purist view would be a better target for WP to aspire to, but it would be an evolutionary thing. Maybe the whole criteria of article/section creation needs tightening up on WP. I propose we look for a judgement here in the wider community, if people agree. It would be an utter pain in the arse to go through though. Irondome (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No. I have said that the weight - i.e. the amount and type of coverage should be guided by the proportion and style within works specifically about the article subject, or soveriegnty disputes in general. Not limited to what those works say, because some of them will be old - but used as a guide for wieght - using newer sources as required for actual content. I can't see how this is complicated, misunderstood, or unfair.(Hohum ^@) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think thats what I was getting at. i.e if a major work has a section dealing with "international positions" then that would give the section additional validity. it is the absence of this, and heavy reliance on sometimes tenuous sources culled from media, etc which is causing much of the reservations about keeping the section. I dont misunderstand it, I think I see the core issues. Some obviously do see it as unfair. Its become complicated because about 50k words have probably been used so far in this discussion i think. Irondome (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all while I've never liked the section, I was prepared to compromise whilst the content was pretty much neutral. The last thing it needs is a POV push to "prove" Argentina has greater support. I fully agree with Hohum's comments above. If it stays it needs to reflect weight and due coverage. This isn't rocket science. I'm not sure it reflects a problem with community standards for deciding content, more its inability or reluctance to deal with disruptive editors. Basic civility standards can be safely ignored, POV pushed and a whole swathe of articles held hostage by one disruptive filibustering editor. There's your problem. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

First, nobody is trying to "prove" Argentina or the UK has a greater support. You can drop this bad faith accusation because just repeating your own untrue statements makes you look like a vandal.

Second, please see WP:LIKELYVIOLATION, just because a topic is susceptible to attract disruptive behaviour is in no way an argument to ask for its removal. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a deletion discussion, try and stay on topic and the wikilawyering isn't that impressive. And it isn't bad faith when it happens to be true and stop being so silly as to deny something you admitted on this very page. The argument for removal is based on WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE, the continuance resort to strawmen arguments merely shows your argument is weak. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We've been to ANI not a month ago and you were advised to not misrepresent what other people say if you don't want them to call you a liar. I'm going to say it for the last time and I expect the above is the last time you claim otherwise: I never said I intended to "prove" Argentina has greater support. This is a lie by Wee and I seriously recommend it be the last. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

[11] Play your usual semantic games, the written record is there. Do you feel a warm sensation in the trouser region, or is your nose growing? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And btw you may have failed to notice but I didn't name any particular editor above. The only thing incriminating you in this section was your own conscience. The English expression would hoisted by your own petard. Ciao. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well Wee, you have made use of your last warning regarding your WP:BADFAITH misrepresentations of my comments. Be aware that there will be no more warnings and that your next accusation/personal attack aimed at me based on an untrue statement (including this one) will be met with the immediate filing of a report commenting on your behaviour on an appropriate noticeboard. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

International position - Compromise

Ok, if this is going to move forward at all we need to start being specific about precisely what edits would allow us to reach a compromise. I note Wee and Kahastok have been complaining about POV and WP:WEIGHT in the section throughout this discussion, but have done so without pointing to any specific problem. Could I ask them what precise changes do they feel would have to be made to the section so it would not have those issues anymore? Because until now all they have proposed is "remove the section entirely" and not much else. For the record, I disagree with the section having those issues, but am willing to agree to a sensible compromise. Please be as specific as possible with the proposed changes and the reasons for them. Something like this would be ideal:

• Original statement --> Proposed edit. Reason for the change.

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask you, Gaba, how you would resolve this problem. Because the UK has de facto control of the islands, expressions of support for the British position are somewhat unnecessary and pointless. On the other hand Argentina wants sovereignty over the islands and therefore often brings up the subject at international meetings. The recorded statements of support are therefore likely to be biased towards the Argentine position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the expression of support being "unnecessary and pointless" is debatable, Argentina is obviously doing it hoping to put some pressure on the UK to sit down and negotiate. We could of course mention this in the section,l as best sourced as possible, and say something along the lines of what you just said. I think I can get a source for a very similar statement (that Argentina has something to gain from raising the issue and the UhihuK does not, hence it doesn't do it and hence the imbalance in the international opinions being voiced). Give me a couple of days to find it.

I believe a way to compromise could be to adhere to a strict "two reliable sources" rule. That way we would only add to the section positions we could source with at least two reliable sources and leave everything else out. What do you think about this? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

renaming the section "Continuing (Argentinian) diplomatic pressure" may take some of the issues away. It honestly reflects the theme of actual events. Positions, is tto vague, allows for POV misunderstandings.Irondome (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd definitely support the change in title, since most of the content being added is not about the International Position. Its about listing summits where Argentina has demanded a statement of support. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually Irondome, that title would be a clear violation of WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:NPOV and 100% unacceptable. I'd advise you to take a look at those guidelines if you haven't done so yet. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It also happens to be the reality of the situation Gaba Irondome (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: if we can source that "Because the UK has de facto control of the islands, expressions of support for the British position are somewhat unnecessary and pointless" we could include it in the article, in lieu of WP:NPOV. That should clear things up, and leave everyone happy, right? --Langus (t) 01:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Then you can add.."Despite that, Argentina has continued to mount an aggressive international diplomatic campaign reasserting its FI claims, attempting to garner support from uninvolved countries both in the region and further afield..." Bet we could source that from the Uk media. Irondome (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@Irondome, everything we could add to the article must be properly and reliably sourced so we should focus on getting sources. Our own opinion regarding the reality of a situation couldn't have less weight in WP.

There are already two compromises being proposed here: adding a properly sourced opening paragraph commenting on the imbalance on voiced positions with regards to what each country has to gain from them and adhere to a "two reliable sources" rule to asses the inclusion or not of a country/group of countries position. Could I get opinions on these proposed compromises? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds like a plan. There are many UK media and think tank sources out there that have been saying that, I would wager. It would only balance the Argentine material anyway. It would be good for all sides.Irondome (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether the section remains is still a moot point, whilst I have indicated a willingness to compromise this is not carte blanche to recommence the effort to politicise the section to present the viewpoints of the editors concerned. Per NPOV, we should not be describing either position, other than from how neutral sources see it. Yes Irondome, we can easily source that comment from the UK media (equally from foreign media) but should we? If the section is to remain, then it must be in line with WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Sourcing that Argentina has embarked on an aggressive campaign to try and elicit support is OK but then sourcing out every summit where Argentina raises the issue isn't.

And I would like to see how Gaba p and Langus propose to demonstrate how the material they propose merits inclusion per WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Repeating the mantra that newspapers are reliable secondary sources and anything we can source must be included is not an acceptable answer. I expect a properly formulated logical argument. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested sources for weight:

Lawrence Freedman; Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse (1991). Signals of War: The Falklands Conflict of 1982. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-02344-1. Retrieved 28 January 2013.

Lowell S. Gustafson (1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 28 January 2013.

Please feel free to add. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee you do not WP:OWN this or any other article. We don't have to get your permission to edit and improve it. Sometimes you seem to forget where you are. Look around, this isn't you personal blog see?

I find it amusing that Wee keeps referring to violations of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE but refuses to quote precisely which part of these guidelines is being violated. I think this speaks for itself.

Please read the comments in full Wee. I stated above I propose adhering to a "two reliable source" rule as a guideline to add a country's (or a group of countries) position to the article. Try to keep up.

And as I've proved quite a number of times and with several illustrating examples already, your position of "let's base everything we do on books" is beyond absurd. It'd be wise to drop it already and get on board with the rest of the editors here to try and get a compromise to improve the section. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, this has already been explained to you. The weight and due model is how the best reliable sources deal with the issue, this is standard wikipedia practice. Do you have any other high quality reliable sources about the sovereignty dispute to add? Something reported in a couple of newspapers doesn't suddenly make it relevant. (Hohum ^@) 15:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hohum, I've already explained that: 1- established newspaper are "reliable sources", 2-the standard that every topic in an article should be guided by extension found in books is not reasonable, virtually half of WP would absolutely not pass this test and hence would have to be removed, 3- relevance in WP is measured by its mention in reliable sources, not only in books.

"Something reported in a couple of newspapers doesn't suddenly make it relevant", this statement of yours, if applied indiscriminately all over WP, would be devastating. Please, check the Falklands Islands article and try to apply the standard of "extension measured by what books say" to sections like "Climate", "Biodiversity", "Demographics", "Infrastructure". All this sections would have to be removed according to that standard. This is not to mention entire articles like Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 and virtually any article regarding the Israel-Palestine dispute (just to name a few). I just can't stress it enough: it is not a reasonable standard.

I've proposed a standard to apply that lies in between "only what books say" and "everything found in reliable sources": we add only what we can source with two different reliable sources. I think this is a sensible standard to use. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Newspapers are lower quality sources than sources only about this sovereignty conflict or sovereignty conflicts in general. As already explained. Newspapers also don't help to determine what weight should be given to the subject. As already explained. Articles on the Earth do not have flat earth sections because the best reliable sources also don't include it. This is normal wikipedia practice. I have also repeatedly said that we shouldn't limit ourselves to the *content* of the sources as they may be out of date - but they are a good guide to weight and style. How many times does this have to be said until you hear it? (Hohum ^@) 16:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Look Gaba I have made a suggestion as to how to establish weight, its pretty much a standard for wikipedia. Hohum has patiently explained exactly the same thing to you. This is not about sourcing, its about weight and the continual references to your own strawman merely suggests you do not have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit here. Your suggestion to establish weight is not an acceptable one, anyone can find two separate newspaper reports, it offers no difference from your anything I can source must go in approach. Raised at WP:NPOVN here Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(Wee: your personal attacks are getting old and tired. Seriously now: just drop it.)

Hohum: and as I've said already (a number of times actually), I completely agree that the ideal situation would be to have several published books exclusively about the international position on sovereignty disputes issue to use as a guide to weight. The issue is what to do when such ideal sources are not present and all we have to guide ourselves are reliable secondary sources such as newspapers.

I see you haven't answered my question as to how would this proposed standard apply to other articles (like the ones I mentioned)? Do you see yourself backing the deletion of several sections in Falklands Islands or the entire Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? What would your position be if somebody decided to apply this same standard to other articles in WP? This is a serious question, what you are proposing is not "normal wikipedia practice" as can be immediately seen by searching through similar articles. I'm interested in your answer because so far all I've heard are repeated "strawman" accusations by Wee. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There aren't any sources? Nonsense [12], notice which one is first by the way. There are plenty, the trouble is the ones I've identified place little weight on the subject. So again, what you would propose to identify weight.

Again I've already answered you, it would have no effect whatsoever. We're suggesting a means of establishing weight and due NOT sourcing. I have repeatedly pointed this out, so frankly raising the same strawman is simply boring.

There is a willingness to compromise if you can establish weight and due, if you continue in the same vein, I will presume you're continuing to filibuster and I will implement the consensus to remove this section. This farce has dragged on long enough. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure if this is an acceptable source. Its from the Geopolitical Monitor, 16/07/12. Chris Ljungquist. Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?-Geopolitical Monitor http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/falklands-2012-war-or-diplomacy-4701

"Most analysts merely count two players in this dispute, namely the UK and Argentina, and rightfully so, since they are the actors whose relationship will ultimately decide the legal fate of the Islands" My point is that there appears to be no academic consensus of the relevance of the position of third parties. On that basis Gaba, I would say remove the section, until, or if, new viewpoints are published. Articles, however respectable as sources, merely reporting Argetinian initiatives, cannot compensate for this lack. Irondome (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Read again Wee: "the ideal situation would be to have several published books exclusively about the international position on sovereignty disputes issue to use as a guide to weight". Seriously, do you read the comments before you decide to go and repeat yet again the same argument? I've already stated my proposed standard for weighting measure like 4 times, but here it goes once again: we establish weight and due mentioning only what we can source by at least two reliable secondary sources. The extent of such mention can either be dictated by those same sources or we can simply agree to keep it short (which I think would be better).

Of course you have no consensus to remove the section and simply repeating the same threat over and over again makes you look a bit desperate. I'd suggest stopping. You've raised the matter at NPOV noticeboard now so let's see what other editors say over there.
Oh and by the way, I wasn't talking to you, I was asking Hohum to please answer those questions so I don't see why you felt the need give any kind of "answer". Ciao and regards.
@Irondome: that is a very interesting source you found. I note section "All Politics is International? The Tide of Multilateral Pressure" of that article where MERCOSUR, Latin America, Chile, Brazil and Spain's position are mentioned in the international context of the dispute. That article is definitely giving weight to the international position on the issue. The quote you mention refers to the non-inclusion of the islanders in the dispute Irondome, not the rest of the world. Good job finding this, it's a pretty good source to establish some WP:WEIGHT to the international position. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats not how I read it G. But there is some good stuff in there, especially the reality behind some national positions re this dispute.Irondome (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you be happy to use this as the primary source for a MUCH REDUCED section? I also strongly suggest the section be completely renamed. (See suggestions upthread I made on titles and opening sentence(s)). Lets see what the others think about this source first though, and its strength or otherwise. It seems quite neutral. Regards Irondome (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely be willing to use this as a guide to WP:WEIGHT and what countries to mention, but I have to point that no country backing the UK is mentioned which would leave the section looking a bit partisan. I'd say we should nonetheless try to source the statement mentioned above the Argentina has something to gain from raising the issue and the UK does not, which would explain the imbalance in opinions being voiced. As for the reduction of the section I note that much of it is being taken by the mentions of the UN and the USA which could easily be trimmed down. The re-naming of the section I disagree with, at least with the proposed one which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. But this can be of course discussed.

I also present this article by the same source which mentions the positions of a lot more countries regarding the dispute, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia and China. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest "Continued Argentinian diplomatic efforts" Also this might be the place to insert the raison d etre of the Argentine diplomatic pressure of the FI dispute in terms of domestic imperatives. Irondome (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this an WP:SPS? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesnt look like it Irondome (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to deciding which countries to mention, there is already a Wikipedia mechanism in place to help. What we are looking for is a preponderance. If a country's position on the matter receives significant coverage in high-quality secondary sourcing (mainstream media and scholarly works), it is worth inclusion. If it fails to meet this standard, it should be excluded. It would also be useful to distinguish between the historical position of nations (signatories to treaties and whatnot) and the recent position of nations (particularly where that conflicts with the historical position). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@WCM: here's the logical argument by an uninvolved commentator of why international position is relevant: One of the four notions of sovereignty is "formal recognition by other sovereign states". Please remember it this time. --Langus (t) 23:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, I strongly feel we should move away from the listing countries according to their percieved attitudes re the dispute, and move towards a much more cogent overview of Argentinas actions and motivations, domestic and regionally, using this source and potentially other material from this site. Its Canadian, and would thus be an acceptably NPOV source. The listing of who loves who weakened the credibility of the section in the first place. The new source is a good summnation of events since the 90s. Its ideal to reinvent the section. It would make it a more intelligent and cogent section. The main issue now is to get a consensus and opinions as to whether the new source satisfies WP source reqs. Irondome (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Scjessey: "If a country's position on the matter receives significant coverage in high-quality secondary sourcing (mainstream media and scholarly works), it is worth inclusion". It's basically the standard for WP:WEIGHT I've been proposing for a while now (except that I offered to adhere to a more strict "two reliable sources" rule). I note that what Langus points out is also of relevance to establish the importance of such a section being present in the article.

@Irondome: the source you presented is a good one to give an idea of the weight assigned to the international position on the issue, it doesn't mean we should base the entire section on that article or only articles from that source (in fact: we should not, the more articles from reliable sources the better). The problem with attempting to come up with a summary like you propose is that it would be very difficult to come to an agreement. In this case, short mentions of individual (or grouped, as to avoid listing) positions could prove to be less prone to attract never-ending discussions.

This is what I suggest (all in one single section with separated paragraphs):

• International position (title)
• Opening paragraph about the disparity in pro-Argentinian and pro-British positions being voiced (properly sourced and neutral)
• UN resolutions (briefly, mainly: "The UN does not recognize the islanders as having a right to self-determination hence Britain continually rejects the repeated UN's calls for resolving the issue through dialog with Argentina")
• Mention of the US and EU neutral positions (the "Monroe Doctrine" should be moved to another part of the article as to not extend the US position too much) as major international players. The fact that the islands are listed as a British OCT by the EU and the Commonwealth should be mentioned too.
• Mention of the majority of Latin American states backing Argentina (as per article presented by Irondome, the article presented by me and this article accessible here, section 3.1). China should be added here too being another major international player.
• Finally Spain's position could be mentioned (this is debatable)

That's my proposal and I am of course open to hear comments and/or corrections. It should end up being quite shorter than the current section and easier to source too. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Significant coverage is, of course, open to interpretation. Normally, we are talking about a selection of references in high-quality examples of national and international press. The number of references is not as important as their quality. On a separate not and without wishing to belittle certain nations, I think it is also important to consider that the views of some nations (such as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council) are more significant than the views of some random island in the middle of the Pacific. Also, I cannot see why the status of Gibraltar is relevant to this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed about the coverage. What nations members of the United Nations Security Council are you referring to specifically? And what islands in the Pacific? My proposed edit mentions no islands in the pacific (at least not separately) and if positions of countries members of the United Nations Security Council can be sourced, then I'd be open to include them. I actually have no issue with the length of the section and the inclusion of other countries' positions, other editors do. My proposed edit aimed at trimming it down a bit to compromise with their view.

Noted about Gibraltar, apparently I'm the only one who thinks it has any relevance. I'll remove any mention of it from my proposed edit above. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant the entire UNSC, but I had no particular island nation in mind (hence the use of the word "random"). I was just making a point that the views of highly influential nations are perhaps more important than the views of nations with very little influence on the world stage. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth starting out by pointing out that this is a blog entry and thus not a reliable source. It is also not a neutral source - the blogger concerned sets his bias out very clearly. So even if it were not a blog I would be inclined to give it a very low priority.

I would suggest that it is clear that routine news coverage of the routine statements made by routine summits - which is what Gaba's proposals have been primarily based on - do not constitute appropriate sourcing for the weight to be given to this section in an article on the dispute as a whole. That's not to say they shouldn't ever be used to source facts, only that they aren't suitable for judging weight.

And that does not mean that more general news articles about the dispute as a whole are in the same category - these can take their place along with the books that Curry Monster has already cited, based on the quality of the sourcing. That said, it isn't simply a matter of, one article, and it belongs in all its gory detail. It doesn't mean we should be in the business of listing any country we can source to a given standard as Gaba has proposed. Rather, we should judge the weight in all the sources can have on the subject of the dispute and use the position as a whole to judge the weight in the article.

It may be that a single neutral sentence is appropriate. But I don't see any evidence to maintain anything like the detail the previous section has, let alone the increase that Gaba has proposed. Kahastok talk 22:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The site is in no way a "blog". WCM has expressed his support for its usage, and I will continue to press for it. I suggest you go and read my argument for its usage at RS. Title is Geopoliticalmonitor usage in FI dispute. Yes i was concerned a bit by the tone of the second article, but it aint no blog. Its a Canadian think tank, with considerably weighty content. That site should be used. Not necessarily that article however, as it does appear biased, re the very title.Irondome (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair I expressed my own doubts about the site and I entertain some doubts that its use shouldn't require some caution by editors. It does appear to offer the opportunity for self-published commentary, rather like the the UK publication the Spectator. I anticipate some coverage may well be biased, so a site to be used with caution - please note the article in question could be used to support the position I suggest and yet I am suggesting its use be qualified. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The site is not a blog. But the post is a repost of this blog post. So, the source in that case is a blog. That doesn't invalidate the entire site, but it does mean that we shouldn't be using the post, and we should probably be cautious with the rest of the site - without dismissing it out of hand. Kahastok talk 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not advocating the usage of that article per se. Gaba dug it up. I propose to use the more neutral and up to date article that I originally identified and brought to editorial attention. See above. Regards Irondome (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This does illustrate the problem, whilst some articles are clearly neutral, others are effectively WP:SPS. Some are appropriate for wikipedia, some not, it requires some value judgement with each case on its merits. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of the contributors appear to be "staff", including the author of the piece I originally identified. Others appear not to be, as is the case with Gabas choice. Indeed caution must be applied. But its still better than a mess of media sources I would contend. Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We find ourselves in agreement, if I may venture to suggest whilst caution and common sense may be appropriate where editors are prepared to cooperate and evaluate sources objectively, when they wish to advocate a particular POV, that goes out of the window. I rather suspect we may find ourselves having anything on the site declared reliable or face an accusation of double standards. Leaping from the frying pan springs to mind... Wee Curry Monster talk 23:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a potential pitfall. As a workaround for now, I would suggest only using the authors who are listed in "people" on the site. Their biogs and qualifications are listed. Their material appears better, in all senses.Irondome (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the principle you suggest and in future any contentious material should be referred to RSN. How does that sound? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. That way we can iron out any issues before sources are deployed. Will cut the grief dead that way. Excellent Irondome (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Ljungquist's article is suitable, and to adhere strictly to contributors listed in the "People" section. --Langus (t) 02:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's helpful. Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC International Position

It seems clear from the RFC and subsequent comments that the section entitled International Position should be removed in its current form. What replaces it seems open to debate. However, it seems clear to me that the filibustering conduct is going to continue to prevent the article moving forward in a meaningful direction. I am therefore proposing to remove it per the RFC outcome, whilst an edit is composed in the talk pages.

As I see it, it removes the motive to filibuster the discussion and hopefully a genuine consensus will result. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee this is like the fifth time you threaten with removing the section. As was told to you already you have absolutely no consensus to remove the section. Doing so will only lead to an edit-war and escalate the issue much further. You are welcome to give your input on how the section could be improved in the section above. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Already removed after giving plenty of notice of my intention to do so. There will only be an edit war if you edit war, rather than discussing the matter in an adult manner. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

UNBELIEVABLE you went ahead and removed the section unilaterally without waiting from comments from other editors. I'm warning you Wee, abstain from any more disruptive and borderline vandalism editing. Gaba p (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You were specifically counselled at WP:ANI for using threats of reporting editors as intimidation, a number of editors have already agreed this should be removed, and I'm still quite happy to work on an edit for replacement content. I have given more than adequate notice of my intention to do this and you deliberately disrupted my attempt to use WP:DR to get an external opinion at WP:NPOVN. You are still more than welcome to discuss such an edit in a civil manner, however, if you continue to be confrontational, aggressive and disruptive your comments will rightly be ignored. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Blimey

This is exciting stuff!!!

I note some compromises above which all seem to have failed; can I suggest (and it is only a suggestion, I have no personal interest in the issue) just limiting the section to a bald statement of facts, i.e., as the opening line states:

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

Fundamentally, is it really necessary to list countries which have expressed an opinion? It's likely to be incomplete. The 'Foreign Depts' of most Governments doubtless have a view on the matter, however strongly / frequently (or otherwise) stated.

See what I mean...? Basket _Feudalist 17:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that and agree with you 100%. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that as long as there are references for this sort of summary. I think the views of specific countries might be useful as well if those views are somehow notable (like a surprising change in position that receives significant media coverage). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just that opening sentenced was very well referenced on its own: ref>BBC article EU rejects Falklands claim fears on 3 May 2005, retrieved on 13 February 2012</ref> Basket _Feudalist 18:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Where Irondome has a little rant

I thought we had consensus. WE CAN USE THAT geoploticalmonitor material! Its a def to pass RS. I thought we had consensus here I really did. Now lets just chill and START AGAIN. Sorry im simultaneously having issues at home here so excuse my strident tone. Gaba you indicated you were content with it, and so did Wee. Lets step back, and start using that source constructively to cut and restructure the section. Please? Gaba alist of countries is unacceoptable as a section. Its irrelevant. Now I have found you a basis in material to make the section actually of use. I did not mean it to be used as a weapon for you to prove some fetish here. Irondome (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be quite happy with that approach, cut the section and re-structure with the source you found, its what is proposed above. I agree 100% with the approach to sourcing, establishing weight and approach to content. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. can we just get some consensus here on one simple question.

• The new material is used as a source base for a nice, neutral short concise section. Yes or no? I dont give a flying F what antigua or the solomon islands or whoevers pompous little declarations say. I would just, if i was a new reader, want to see a concise section on the major political events post 82 and the current increase in tensions, with a brief overview of why its happening WHICH THAT MATERIAL PROVIDES. Other nations views can be mentioned within the context of that, not as an end in itself.Irondome (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You know. I logged off late in the early hours having worked up a bloody good argument over at RS plus looking for good new stuff (theres lots of similar stuff out there, i betcha. That new material took me less than 5 mins to find) with the niave impression this was on the way to being sorted. I log back on and chaos. Gaba, I thought you agreed with my proposal to rework and use the geo material as a substitute for the contentious secondary media stuff. What has changed in 15 hours. Its all this moving the goalposts thats crippling this.Irondome (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • That was my understanding too. Who knew? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"You know" was just a blurt of sheer frustration Wee. Rant over. Irondome (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nae worries, you sassenachs get all excited sometimes. Especially when we trounce yae at fitbae. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Im alright now. Normal service resumed. That was a low blow Wee lol. First smile of the day. Ta Irondome (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad my assistance was of no use whatsoever -joke. Good to see it'll all be sorted out now! Basket _Feudalist 19:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it was of no use. I appreciate an injection of humour thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gabas proposed sources. Lets rebuild the section here.

Gaba, im sorry for my intemperate tone. Born out of a very bad day, chaos here and a too fast reading of a large amount of new material. Your propsal is more subtle than a mere list of countries. I thought you had returned to some default position initally and I apologise. Lets just use this section as a discussion ground for your propsals re the structure of the section. Thanks and regards Irondome (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree to Gaba's proposed structure above.[13] In case we couldn't source the introductory paragraph, the current one could be used. --Langus (t) 03:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose it because the weight provided by the sources we have on the subject of the dispute (taken as a whole) would not justify such a large section. If we are to include something, I believe we should be aiming for something no longer than a sentence or two, dealing in generalities.

Could I suggest we keep further discussion to this section please? The above mix of sections on the same thing is confusing. Kahastok talk 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The proposal was to delete the current content to be replaced by a short and concise section, the weight of its contents based on academic sources. That I can support, a large section I agree is unwarranted. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The article is actually fine as it is, all the major recent develpments appear effectively covered and cited. It would have to be short. We had a section that was of excessive length, covering not a lot of critical substance really. Irondome (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC).

Ok, I have my doubts but let's move forward. Have you formed an idea of what its content should be? --Langus (t) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Langus obviously has issues with my presence here. Having been invited to come here, I appear to be percieved by some as a second class Wikicitizen. Therefore I will leave you all to it.Thanks for the kind words and valuable experience that many have given me, on both sides of the debate, especially Wee and Gaba. Cheers.Irondome (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I remain willing to work toward a concensus text, reflecting weight in the literature and written neutrally. I don't consider your second class Irondome. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would echo that. I would add that I don't find the whole WP:CANVASS accusation at all convincing given that Curry Monster's post was neutrally written and given that none of us had any knowledge of your viewpoint (or even if you had one). Shoot, given the case of mistaken identity, even if Curry Monster had been trying to WP:CANVASS inappropriately he would have failed! Kahastok talk 19:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I hadnt thought of it like that. LOL Irondome (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Applied section as proposed and agreed here. It's much shorter and heavily sourced. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That section is not agreed, it contains some seriously misleading and untrue claims. The UN at no point states that is does not recognise the islanders right to self-determination. The whole section is seriously POV. I would suggest this is reverted immediately. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It was never agreed, certainly never had consensus. Its bias as written is extreme and it totally and entirely fails follow the weight provided by the reliable sources (including those that don't give any significant weight), both in the amount of coverage it gives to the topic and the amount of coverage it gives to each point within it. Notably, whereas the source we have has numerous caveats that point out that the support referred to is very nuanced, no such nuance is presented in the proposal. Notably several of the points it makes are plain false, either in fact or in implication. I don't think there's a thing in there that I can support. Kahastok talk 21:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Irondome, you have provided valuable help in moving forward this disagreement. However, I do have issues with the way you were called in. You state that you had "no contact in any meaningful way with WCM"[14], yet he said to you "As you're aware, I value your ability to provide a neutral summary of debates in closing RFC."[15] What gives?

Update: I've just seen the explanation here. I apologize to you. And I warn WCM that I (and most editors) will never accept a RFC he started being closed by an editor he called in. He should know better...

Anyhow, I apologize if my concerns offend you, but I'm sure you'll understand I have nothing against you as an editor, on the contrary. --Langus (t) 00:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

UN

My apologies if this has been covered before. Can someone show me the source that specifically supports "[t]he UN does not recognize the islanders as having a right to self-determination" in the article? I was unable to find it in the references given. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The UN does not make any such statement. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's an article [16] but I'm sure a better source can be found. The sentence can also be re-phrased to something like:

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

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you really just source this to Hector Timerman, the Argentine Foreign Minister? Frankly, the notion that anyone could think that neutral is breathtaking. Kahastok talk 21:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No I did not. I used the 'Buenos Aires Herald' as a source and as I've stated above, the sentence can easily be re-phrased. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And the Buenos Aires Herald directly attributed the point to Timerman. So, yes, you did.

The sentence does not belong unless reliable sources on the subject of the dispute suggest that such weight belongs on the article. I have yet to see any such evidence: the sources I have seen do not suggest that it belongs at all. Kahastok talk 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look below Kahastok. The sentence has been reformulated. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So the answer to my question was, quite simply, that the references did not support the statement at all. Thanks to Wee Curry Monster for a straight answer. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Self determination

It is my understanding that the General Assembly of the United Nations said in Resolution 1514 that all people have a right to self-determination. On that basis, surely the UN effectively supports the position of the UK? This differs quite significantly from some of the proposed text below, some of which seems to infer the exact opposite. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scjessey, it's not quite so simple. Let me point you to this article by the UK Parliament which I believe summarizes the dispute rather well: Argentina and the Falklands. You'll see in it a section called 3.3 The Falklands at the United Nations which should give you a broad idea of the issue.

Basically (as I see it) since the UN has not made any mention to the self-determination principle regarding the Falklands/Malvinas dispute in its resolutions calling for negotiations, it is not clear whether it supports it being applied to this particular case. Argentina says it does not apply, the UK says it does. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

But the Decolonization Committee (that made the "resolutions") is not the United Nations. It is simply a small faction within the UN that consists primarily of former colonies - not at all representative of the General Assembly. The UN as a whole appears to support the UK position that the people of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's correct, it's a committee, not the same as the UN General Assembly. Whether the UN as a whole supports or not the islanders right to self-determination is part of the issue. To the best of my knowledge they have never issued a resolution (or note or anything) that states this much. Meanwhile the C24 (as a committee of the UN) has stated several resolutions calling the UK to resume negotiations with Argentina and the islanders have not been mentioned. Thus the issue of the ambiguity, the UK says these resolutions are "flawed" (because there's no mention of the islanders) and Argentina takes this "no mention" as an implicit agreement that they in fact do not have such support. The UK says the UN upholds the right to self-determination but Argentina says the UN's resolution does not apply in this case being the islanders an implanted population.

It would be great if we had something to source about the position of the UN's General Assembly on the issue but I believe there is nothing (WCM noted the last resolution passed in 1988).

Sorry if this response went a little forumy. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am confused. Resolution 1514 is the position of the UN General Assembly. That covers all people, and by extension, the people of the Falkland Islands. It would seem the C24 is a toothless committee comprising nations with an axe to grind. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The above comment by Gaba p is inaqccurate, it doesn't represent the role of the UN and misrepresents the role of the C24. The UN as a body has two forums for expressing a collective opinion, these are the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly. The C24 is a sub-committee of the IV committee and its role is to pass recommendations to the IV Committee not to express an opinion of the UN as a body. Its motions are annually adopted without a vote. The C24 as a body is not qualified to comment on any right to self-determination and the only UN body that is, is the International Court of Justice.

The UN does uphold the right to self-determination, an Argentine sponsored attempt to limit that right in cases of a sovereignty dispute was convincingly defeated in the UN General Assembly.

It is accurate and neutral to note that Argentina misrepresents C24 resolutions as UN resolutions, when they are not, and C24 statements as the UN qualifying the right to self-determination, when they do not. It is also accurate to note that C24 recommendations to the IV Committee on the matter have simply been ignored and the General Assembly has not debated the issue as a result. The fact it doesn't make it into the GA indicates a lack of International will to intervene further in the dispute. (And before there is mention of the UK's position as a permanent SC member, this has no bearing on GA resolutions).

It is also accurate and neutral to note the UK (and the US) has criticised the C24 as flawed and anachronistic body for not considering the views of the people of overseas territories. In Bermuda for example, the C24 has twice pushed referenda on full independence but on both occasions that was rejected by the electorate. By any criteria specified by the UN, British and American overseas territories should have been delisted years ago. Neither Government supports the C24 anymore, for years the UK did not attend, the US refuses to. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Anything we might say about this in the article needs to be sourced. Our personal opinions mater quite little. If you look at the next section my proposed edit is fully sourced and makes no inaccuracies whatsoever. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is what was in place (before Wee and Kahastok deleted it) about the UN in the article[17]:

In 1946 the UK included the Falkland Islands on the UN list of non-self-governing territories under Chapter XI of the UN charter. However, the General Assembly of the United Nations did not explicitly address the issue of the Falkland Islands until 1965, which Resolution 2065 noted:

the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over [said] Islands

inviting those governments to:

proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly UN Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

and requested:

the two Governments to report to the Special Committee and to the General Assembly at its twenty-first session on the results of the negotiations.

The UN General Assembly and the UN Decolonization Committee have repeated this call for the resumption of negotiations since then given that Britain refuses to negotiate the sovereignty of the islands, stating that the resolutions are "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future." The Falkland Islands Government has requested that the UN Decolonization Committee send a fact finding mission to the islands. To date, that request has not been answered (the committee has never visited the islands). Following the visit by the chairman of the C24 to Argentina, the FIG called for a reciprocal visit to the islands.

I believe this (although flawed in some respects) was a lot more informative/encyclopedic than the minimal version that they (Wee and Kahastok) are asking for now. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

My comment simply gave facts about the way the UN operates, nothing more. The comments preceding it are misleading, nothing more. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

International position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ International dimension

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

Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda, in part due to its own domestic political situation, seeking support at regional summits. Whilst most of Latin America expresses support for the Argentine claim, the region is generally lukewarm to appeals from Argentina. Spain is often thought of as a natural ally to Argentina owing to a similar dispute with Britain over Gibraltar but following the nationalisation of the Spanish-owned oil company Repsol, its support has cooled.

The British Commonwealth supports the British position and the EU recognises the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US has maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue.

”

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

Lets get back to basics, to coin a phrase.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. First paragraph (present in my proposal too): it mainly makes a number of vague WP:OR statements not supported by the sources in place and takes up space. I say we loose it.
2. "in part due to its own domestic political situation", this implies that all Argentina is after is a distraction from economic problems and it's an attempt to downplay the claim.
3. "the region is generally lukewarm to appeals from Argentina", this "lukewarm" thing could only be sourced by that article and it's again an attempt to downplay the Latin American support that can be sourced to countless summits (OAS, Ibero-American, UNASUR, RIO Summit, etc..) Furthermore the article refers to the 6th Summit of the Americas, were a joint statement regarding the backing of the Argentinian position was hindered by the US and Canada (2 out of 34 countries present)[18][19] We can't mention the first without mentioning the second so I say we re-phrase it.
4. The mention of Spain and that "its support has cooled" is dubious, but largely acceptable.
5. "The British Commonwealth supports the British position", can you source this? All I've found (currently present in the article) is a primary source from the Commonwealth's site that says nothing about "supporting", it merely lists it as an OCT.[20] So basically: source needed.
6. "EU recognises the islands as a British Overseas Territory", again the same thing. The EU doesn't "recognize" them as British territory, they "list" them as such because the UK added them to the Lisbon Treaty. The neutral position of the EU can be sourced which would make this sentence quite deceptive.
7. Why is there no mention of the UN?

Given this caveats, I propose this compromise:

“ International position

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

Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda, seeking support at various regional and international summits. Most of Latin America expresses support for the Argentine claim, though support by Brazil and Chile was met with difficulties in mid 2012. Spain is often thought of as a natural ally to Argentina owing to a similar dispute with Britain over Gibraltar but following the nationalization of Repsol, its support is said to have cooled.

The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British OCT. The US has maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue and so does the EU.

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ International dimension

Argentina currently pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda seeking international support, prompted in part due to its own domestic political situation. It regularly raises the issue at regional summits, where Latin America has often expressed some support for the Argentine claim. Spanish support has cooled following the nationalisation of the Spanish-owned oil company Repsol.

The British Commonwealth and the EU recognises the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US has maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue. The UN last passed a GA resolution calling for negotiations in 1988.

”

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

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

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

It's hard to argue that the UN committee for decolonization isn't relevant regarding the sovereignty dispute of a former colony listed as a "Non-Self-Governing Territories"[21]. Wee if you feel some countries are being counted twice then this can be addressed. Your own feelings about Argentina misrepresenting anything are irrelevant. We are not misrepresenting anything here, the committee is being mentioned, not the UN as a whole.

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

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

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

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

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

“ International position

The Decolonization Committee of the UN, half of which is composed by Caribbean and South American countries, has issued several resolutions calling the UK to resolve the dispute through dialog with Argentina. Britain rejects this calls claiming the resolutions are "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future" The UN last passed a General Assembly resolution calling for negotiations in 1988 (check).

Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda, seeking international support. It regularly raises the issue at regional summits, where Latin America has often expressed support for the Argentine claim. Spanish support is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol.

The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US and the EU have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue.

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ International dimension

Argentina currently pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda seeking international support, prompted in part by domestic politics. It regularly raises the issue at regional summits, where Latin America has expressed some support. It also lobbies annually at the C24 Committee at the UN. The C24, which is dominated by its Latin American allies, has been criticised by both the UK and the US for failing to listen to their overseas territories. The c24 annually issues a recommendation, passed without a vote, calling for negotiations. The UN has not acted upon its recommendations for some time and last passed a GA resolution calling for negotiations in 1988.

The British Commonwealth and the EU recognises the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US has maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue. The UN last passed a GA resolution calling for negotiations in 1988.

”

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

{{cquote| International dimension

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

Good point.

“ International dimension

Argentina currently pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda seeking international support, prompted in part by domestic politics. It regularly raises the issue at regional summits, where Latin America has expressed support for a negotiated settlement. It also lobbies annually at the C24 Committee at the UN. The C24, which is dominated by its Latin American allies, has been criticised by both the UK and the US for failing to listen to their overseas territories. The c24 annually issues a recommendation, passed without a vote, calling for negotiations. The UN has not acted upon its recommendations for some time and last passed a GA resolution calling for negotiations in 1988. The British Commonwealth and the EU recognises the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US has maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue.

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

“ International and regional views

The Decolonization Committee of the UN, half of which is composed by Caribbean and South American countries, has issued several resolutions calling the UK to resolve the dispute through dialog with Argentina. Britain rejects this calls claiming the resolutions are "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future" The UN last passed a General Assembly resolution calling for negotiations in 1988 (check).

Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda, seeking international support. It regularly raises the issue at regional and international summits, where Latin America has expressed support for the Argentine position and repeatedly endorsed Argentine proposals calling the United Kingdom to restart negotiations.. Spanish support is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol.

The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. (WP:OR? Third or secondary source needed)

Both the USA and the EU maintain a neutral position encouraging both parties to resolve differences through normal diplomatic channels.

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ International dimension

Argentina currently pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda seeking international support, reflecting the mandate enshrined in its 1994 constitution but also in part prompted by domestic politics. It regularly raises the issue at regional summits, where Latin America has expressed support and called for a negotiated settlement. It also lobbies annually at the C24 Committee at the UN. The C24, which is dominated by its Latin American allies, has been criticised by both the UK and the US for failing to listen to their overseas territories. The C24 annually issues a recommendation, passed without a vote, calling for negotiations. The UN last passed a GA resolution calling for negotiations in 1988. The British Commonwealth and the EU recognises the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US has maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue.

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding sources:

“ International dimension

Argentina currently pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda seeking international support, reflecting the mandate enshrined in its 1994 constitution but also in part prompted by domestic politics. It regularly raises the issue at regional summits, where Latin America has expressed support and called for a negotiated settlement. It also lobbies annually at the C24 Committee at the UN. The C24, which is dominated by its Latin American allies, has been criticised by both the UK and the US for failing to listen to their overseas territories. The C24 annually issues a recommendation, passed without a vote, calling for negotiations. The UN last passed a GA resolution calling for negotiations in 1988. The British Commonwealth and the EU recognises the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US and EU has maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue.

”

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

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

Sidebar 1

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

See Lobbying and [22] and [23].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Langus, that comment could well be described as trolling, seriously stop it, you're making yourself look stupid. A source, [24], presumably you consider that when I refer to the Falkland Islands Lobby in the UK Parliament I'm being negative too - just for consistency. Really why is every non-issue transformed into such a drama fest? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

The "source" is Cameron himself[25]. After my use of a source quoting Foreign Minister Timerman was dismissed as "POV" and "non neutral" attempting this is just silly. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sidebar 2

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

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

"It is almost universally held that the junta invaded the islands in order to divert attention from their mismanagement of the economy, but this is an oversimplification. [...] Now, after some 30 years of democratic governance, it is easy to repeat the simplification and apply it to the Kirchner administration."[26] --Langus (t) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sidebar 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I note that you have called me childish, troll and stupid.[28] STOP, you're insulting me. Thank you. --Langus (t) 19:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sidebar 4

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

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

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

Ok, some issues:

• Sources [51][52][53][54] all point to the same article. This article does not support claims sourced in [51] and [54]. Statement sourced in [53] is misleading (there is full support, not just calls for negotiations)
• Please indicate how [50] sources the statement? This is a highly controversial statement aimed at downplaying/minimizing the whole Argentinian claim (that has been going on for almost two centuries now) to a simple "domestic problem". If this were to be mentioned it would definitely need more than one reliable source (currently has none), it would be have to be assigned to whoever is saying that (ie: no authoritative voice) and would necessarily lead to a mention of British interests (ie: oil) Because of this I say this statement has no place in the section.
• The C24 mention has no sources and still has the same issues I presented above (mainly the inflammatory words). My version is fully sourced and has no such issues.
• The word "recognize" is still being used, this is not accurate nor acceptable. The Commonwealth and the EU both "list" the islands. There is a big difference.
• Title is still unnecessary vague. My proposed title is more accurate and sourced.

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

“ International and regional views

The Decolonization Committee of the UN, half of which is composed by Latin American countries, has issued several resolutions calling the UK to resolve the dispute through dialog with Argentina. This committee has been criticized by the UK and the US for failing to listen to their overseas territories. The UN last passed a General Assembly resolution calling for negotiations in 1988.

Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support, reflecting the mandate enshrined in its 1994 constitution. Latin America has expressed support for the Argentine position and endorsed proposals to restart negotiations.. Spanish support is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol.

The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US and EU have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue.

”

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

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

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

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

I have commented on your sidebars above.

Some further observations on both proposals:

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed version

“ International and regional views

Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support. As stated by House of Commons Library analyst Vaughn Miller, Latin American countries support Argentina’s claims in the sovereignty dispute (along with China, Syria, Tunisia, Congo and Russia) and have endorsed its proposals for negotiations to restart at several regional summits including Mercosur (plus Bolivia and Chile), Rio Group and CELAC. According to analyst Chris Ljungquist although all Latin American countries support Argentina’s claim, their support "ends there". Spanish support for the Argentinian position is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol.

Since the presentation of the Ruda Report in 1964, Argentina has lobbied its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN, which annually recommends dialogue to resolve the dispute. The UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions on the "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" issue the last one in 1988, asking both countries to "initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations".

The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US and EU have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue.

”

Comments on the Proposed version

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

1. Sources [51][52][53][54] all point to the same article. This article does not support the claims sourced in [51] and [54] (state how it does please). Statement sourced in [53] is misleading since there is full support, not just calls for negotiations, hence my re-wording of that statement.
2. The mention of "domestic politics" is definitely unacceptable. This is an opinion aimed at downplaying/minimizing the whole Argentinian claim (that has been going on for almost two centuries now). This is not a fact (again, it's an opinion) and it would be have to be assigned to whoever is saying that (ie: no authoritative voice) and would necessarily lead to a mention of British interests (ie: oil). I say no opinions in the section.
3. The word "recognize" is still being used, this is neither accurate nor acceptable. The Commonwealth and the EU both "list" the islands. There is a big difference. Present the sources that state this and we can take a look at them (fourth time asking?)
4. Title is still unnecessarily vague. My proposed title is more accurate and sourced.

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

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

“ International and regional views

Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support, reflecting the mandate enshrined in its 1994 constitution resulting in most Latin American countries repeatedly expressing support for the Argentine position and endorsing proposals to restart negotiations at regional summits and through the Decolonization Committee of the UN where several resolutions calling the UK to resolve the dispute through dialog with Argentina have been issued. Spanish support is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol.

The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US and EU have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue.

”

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

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

Some suggestions:

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

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

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

@Martin:

1- Definitely.

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

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

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

3- We have a source for "support"[29] (which warrants the importance assigned to the previous position) and a source that states "Madrid fears that the escalation of this issue might come to dominate the Ibero-American summit scheduled for November, and is therefore quite cool in its support"[30]. The mention of Spain's position having "cooled" is already quite WP:SYN and the article is definitely not enough to source a "weak support".

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

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

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

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

“ International and regional views

Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support. In response, many Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for a resumption of negotiations. Argentina has lobbied the issue at the UN Decolonization Committee since the 1960s and though it issues an annual statement on the issue calling for negotiations, the UN General Assembly has not passed any resolution on the matter since 1988. Spanish support is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol.

The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US and EU have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue.

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ International and regional views

Argentina pursues an aggressive diplomatic agenda regularly raising the issue seeking international support. In response, most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and endorsed Argentine proposals to restart negotiations at several regional summits. Since 1964, with the presentation of the Ruda Report, Argentina lobbies its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN. Numerous recommendations calling on the UK to resolve the dispute through dialog with Argentina have been presented to the UN General Assembly by this committee. The General Assembly passed several resolutions since 1965 on the "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" the last one in 1988, asking both countries to initiate negotiations.

Spanish support for the Argentinian position is said to have cooled following the nationalization of the oil company Repsol.

The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory. The US and EU have maintained an official policy of neutrality on the issue.

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Wee: according to the UN's own FAQ[31] and to this source (currently used in the section)[32] the C24 "makes recommendations to the General Assembly". I've amended the proposed version to make this more clear.

@Scjessey: yes, the UK Parliament's own article supports the "most" wording: Argentina and the Falklands, you can see the parts I pasted above in response to Kahastok if you don't want to go through the whole thing. The other source used[33] actually says "all" Latin American countries support Argentina (and mentions caveats for Brazil and Chile).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kahastok:

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

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

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

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

Yes indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Scjessey: I've changed "draft resolutions" for "recommendations" which is verbatim what the C24 FAQ says[34] Is this better?

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

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

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

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

@Wee: Regarding the "Since 1960 Argentina lobbies" mention source, you mean this one[35]? I don't see where that is stated, could you point me to the relevant section/paragraph please?

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

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

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

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

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

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

G, why did you change my edit in the final section? The part about the C24 passing resolutions to the IV cttee seems perfectly reasonable. Now there has been some static caused by well meaning contributors in the past 18 hrs or so on SA sources. I want to go past that. We must work ruthlessly on that final draft above. I appreciate that you have made serious compromises, but lets not blow it now. Lets nobody im[pose any deadlines afterwhich probably unwise and regrettable actions are taken. By anyone. Irondome (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

@Irondome: I changed your edits to accommodate Wee's request in line with the C24 own FAQ about its purpose[36] and Scjessey's concern of the use of the word "resolutions" which I changed for "recommendations" again in line with the C24's own FAQ. I commend your calmed attitude, I think you are the only one keeping this from going really sour again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent rebuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the "rejected talks": are you aware that the issue of sovereignty was off the table? "The representatives made it clear that they would be making some forceful remarks and that if the issue of sovereignty came up, it would not be discussed."[38] Looks like a media stunt really. --Langus (t) 16:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not exactly:

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

Wikipedia is not a reliable source....Utis possidetis and Utis possidetis juris refer to different things, it certain[39] And I quote:

“ Other scholars agree that this congress and the treaty that resulted from it represented an important milestone in the development of uti possidetis. Alvarez (1909: 290), for example, notes that the uti possidetis of 1810 "was, moreover, recognized in fact by all the states, and proclaimed in the Congress of Lima in 1848." Similarly, Ireland (1938: 327) writes that the doctrine "came gradually to be accepted as a general guiding principle, in South America known as the doctrine of the Uti Possidetis of 1810, and proclaimed in the Congress of Lima un 1848." Bächler (1976: 261) argues that at the start of independence from Spanish rule, border problems between the new states were practically nonexistent; it was only later, when national consolidation and the discovery of new resources necessitated the precise demarcation of border lines, that uti possidetis was applied in earnest. Edwards (1925: 290) similarly suggests that the intraregional dimension of uti possidetis was recognized as important during the Congress of Lima: "Already frontier questions were beginning to appear and, in order to prevent the conflicts to which they might give rise, it was decided that, in the absence of special stipulations, the boundaries of the various States should be those existing at the time of their emancipation from the Spanish rule." ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

References (PLEASE leave at the bottom)