Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

Treaty of Madrid

The article states: "...The conventions were unilaterally repudiated by Spain in 1795 but implicitly revived by the Treaty of Madrid in 1814..." I just wanted to ask if someone know where can I find the text of this "Treaty of Madrid" that revives the Nootka Sound conventions. I would like to search for the content of that treaty to check what it says about the subject, but I cant find it anywhere. When I look for "Treaty of Madrid" on this Wikipedia, there is no treaty from 1814. Thanks! --190.224.224.52 (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ALLIANCE WITH SPAIN The relevant article is article 1, which states:

“ Art. 1.—It is agreed that, pending the negociation of a new Treaty of Commerce, Great Britain shall be admitted to trade with Spain upon the same conditions as those which existed previously to the year 1796. All the Treaties of Commerce which at that period subsisted between the two nations being hereby ratified and confirmed. ”

For information, neither Britain nor Spain applied the Nootka Convention to the Falkland Islands. It was a claim that emerged in the late 19th Century and appears to have been generated by Paul Groussac a French emigre to Argentina, then incorporated into the Struggle for the Falkland Islands by Julius Goebel in 1927.

Does that help? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

WCM, Greenhow (1842) states that the 1780 convention excluded Britain from occupying the islands. That's a least one noteworthy instance that predates Groussac quite a lot. Besides, we cannot say that 'neither Britain nor Spain applied the Nootka Convention to the Falkland', because that stipulation in the agreement was obeyed for more than half a century. Therefore, we can either argue that it can be inferred that the stipulation was applied, or argue that we don't know if it was. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever Greenhow may have stated, the secret article in the Nootka Sound Convention of 28 October 1790 states the following

... respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question." (my emphasis added) John.St (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Sound_Convention John.St (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

[1] Link to Greenhow. Thanks I've never found an earlier reference. As John correctly points out, Nootka, if applicable became irrelevant when BA intervened. However, Britain never considered that it did, since there was the pre-existing agreement with Spain from 1771. And neither Britain or Spain ever applied it to the Falklands.

As regards the Treaty of Madrid it is debatable whether it revived Nootka, since it refers to trading agreements not territory as per Nootka. It is not universally accepted that it did. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Greenhow elaborates in this article. I think the relevance of Nootka to the dispute is quite doubtful, though it is worth mentioning that scholars who can doubtfully be labelled as pro-Argentine in regards to this dispute are less doubtful about it (e.g., Gustafson in his book published by Oxford University). One of my doubts is due to what WCM says in his last sentence. However, I do not share the analysis in John.St's observation.

Firstly, Nootka may be considered one piece of evidence towards the interpretation of tacit British recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the islands (although the main evidence are decades of acquiescence). Secondly, if we give credit to uti possidetis juris or, in other words, to the United Provinces as successor to the rights of Spain in the vice-royalty, then Argentina would play the part of Spain in the treaty, not the role of a third power. In his response to Moreno, Palmerston wrote: "[T]he United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other state to exercise a right, as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain herself" (my emphasis).

These two mechanisms, however doubtful, are not invalidated by the secret clause. On the other hand, as I tried to say before but wasn't clear, given that Britain did not occupy the islands for decades, it either applied the treaty to this case or we don't know if it did (because the lack of occupation could respond to other causes). What we cannot affirm is that it didn't apply the treaty. I think what WCM meant is that they were not explicit about it, but tacit recognition is also accepted as a source of international law. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, utterly wrong, only the parties who signed a treaty can be held liable to it. As a successor to Spain, Argentina cannot be held to a treaty signed by Spain, nor can it derive benefit from it. Argentina as an entity in its own right invalidates Nootka by dint of the secret clause.

Similarly even tacit recognition is debatable stemming from the 1814 treaty since it deals with commerce not sovereignty. Spain unilaterally chose to abrogate Nootka and whether implicit, tacit or otherwise it was revived is debatable. Whether it applied is debatable but Argentina's intervention as a 3rd part invokes the secret clause.

The assertion of a British absence is also incorrect, the islands continued to be exploited for commercial purposes throughout this period. As a limited example when Jewett limped into the islands in 1820 he made safe anchorage with assistance from the British explorer Weddell who was already there. The British absence is a myth. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor input since we're on the subject of Nootka: the last sentence of the first paragraph in that section has had a disambiguation needed tag for a year and two citation needed tags for three years. If someone can provide sources then please add them, otherwise I'd say that last sentence needs to go. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

@Gaba: I don't know if whoever entered that Spain repudiated the agreement was referring to Spain's declaration of war in 1795 (and its consequential suspension of all arrangements between the warring nations) or to something more specific that I don't know of. Regarding the 1814 Treaty of Madrid, it is disputed if it revived all of the conventions, as discussed above. However, if that dispute is mentioned, it should be accompanied by explaining the first of the mechanisms that I comment about above, which is exempt of such a suspension. I think it will be complicated to discuss this here, being there several open discussions and so many other doubtful points in the article that can be treated more simply. I can produce some sources but would rather wait before engaging in endless discussions around them. For example, Gustafson says the following in his book published by Oxford University. I leave it to you if it is supporting the "first mechanism" that I explain above:

“ Nevertheless, for the time being England had agreed not to occupy islands then occupied by Spain. The Malvinas were among the islands then occupied by Spain. Spain had surrendered its claimed exclusive right of navigation and fishing in the area in return for Britain's recognition of Spanish sovereignty over occupied regions. If Britain ever had claim to the Falklands, it seems to have been seriously compromised in this treaty. Hugo and Berrutt conclude that Britain had affirmed and guaranteed "the exclusive juridical power of Spain, excluding all other sovereigns from the region where the islands were situated." The Spanish population, which occupied the islands until 1811, further strengthened Spain's claim. ”

Regarding WCM's last reply, I see little merit in it. I never argued that a third-party was liable. It is empty to claim that a succeeding nation doesn't inherit rights. Actually, inheriting rights pretty much summarizes what succeeding means, as per Palmerston's words "exercise a right, as derived from Spain". My mention of tacit recognition had nothing to do with the Treaty of Madrid. I brought it up to indicate that not mentioning something in any subsequent treaty doesn't mean that the something wasn't applied or that international law cannot take that something as agreed upon. And anyone who is commenting so abundantly and strongly here, as well as reverting so freely, should know that occupation, in this context, means effective occupation as required by international law, which is not fulfilled by temporary landings, as explained in any textbook on international law as well as in the foundational classics (I can quote at least Grotius). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Except Argentina did not succeed Spain in a legal sense, it revolted and seceded from Spain. Rights in a succession are granted by consent, nothing can be transferred by such a secession. However, Britain could not be held to an agreement between Argentina and Spain on transfer of rights; its a basic principle of law that 3rd parties cannot be held liable to an agreement between other parties. Britain has also maintained a position that the Nootka Convention does not and never has applied to the Falkland Islands; since there was a pre-existing separate agreement over the Falkland Islands in 1771.

Spain did not recognise Argentina till 1859, by which time it had already recognised British administration of the Falklands. Argentina's succession from Spain did not legally occur till 1859 and when it did so, Spain did not transfer and recognition of rights over the Falkland Islands.

And if we're on the subject of tacit acceptance - 1850 Convention of Settlement.

“ Convention for re-establishing the perfect Relations of Friendship between Her Britannic Majesty and the Argentine Confederation.

Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, and his Excellency the Governor and Captain-General of the Province of Buenos Ayres, charged with the foreign relations of the Argentine Confederation, being desirous of putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship, in accordance with the wishes manifested by both Governments; the Government of Her Britannic Majesty having declared that it has no separate or interested object in view, nor any other desire than to see securely established the peace and independence of the States of the River Plate, as recognized by Treaty; have named to that effect as their Plenipotentiaries, viz.:

”

Argentina in its own right declared an end to its claim to the Falklands in a treaty that settled existing differences. Compounded by the later declarations of an Argentine president stating there were no differences with Britain.

On the subject of what goes into the article. May I observe that this is an encyclopedia, it exists to provide the basic facts. What it doesn't exist to do is to provide an insight into finely nuanced legal arguments and I'd suggest we don't go there.

And as regards effective occupation [2] This taking of possession consists in the act, or series of acts, by which the occupying state reduces to its possession the territory in question and takes steps to exercise exclusive authority there. Spain never excercised exclusive authority over the Falkland Islands, neither did France, neither did Argentina. Vernet's attempt to exercise exclusive authority resulted in the Lexington raid of 1831. The only country to have effectively occupied the Falkland Islands was Britain and that wasn't achieved till the 1850s.

You will notice of course, I said the British absence was a myth. I made no comment about effective occupation - the continual raising of straw men arguments is not helpful or conducive to an effective discussion. Please also note - I commented solely about content. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disregarding usual WP:OR by Wee Curry Monster I'd agree with Andrés that we should better hold on before engaging in a content discussion regarding this section at least until the two opened RfCs are done. I still maintain what I said though: we either add sources or we remove the unsourced content. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: On reason for Falkland referendum dismissal by Argentina

Argentina dismissed the referendum held by the Falkland islanders recently. In the discussion above several editors argue that we should mention how Argentina dismissed the referendum "as illegal" or "as having no legal value" while two editors oppose. The full discussion and the sources presented are above. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The RFC comment is not neutral and does not present the issue at all.

In various political statements, Argentine politicians have dismissed the refererendum as "illegal" or being invalid as the Falklanders do not exist, or because they are "squatters". Such political statements have no place in a wikipedia article presenting a NPOV.

The reason Argentina dismissed the referendum is it refuses to recognise that the Islanders have a say in the sovereignty dispute. The edit proposed by Gaba P obscures this, he takes a comment made by political leaders out of context as the "reason", which is misleading. The current article is a neutral summary of the situation. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(Dismissing usual "not neutral" accusations)

The issue is quite simple really. We have endless sources stating that Argentina dismissed the referendum as "illegal". This is the reason for Argentina's dismissal of the referendum as can be easily gathered from the huge number of sources presented [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. The German news media Deutsche Welle says explicitly: "The Argentine government considers the referendum illegal and does not recognize it, based on the fact that it was not convened by the United Nations, does not have its approval nor was it supervised by the organization."[14] To make it even more clear, the official declaration put forward by the Argentinian Senate regarding the referendum states (emphasis added):

“ Mr. President, by the above, I ask my peers to join me in the adoption of this draft declaration, which rejects the illegal referendum that has called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in violation of the UN resolutions in the Question of the Malvinas Islands. ”

This is as official and as clear as it can get to support the statement "Argentina dismissed the referendum as having no legal value" (which means adding at most 5 words to the article). Incidentally, editor Wee Curry Monster has removed that information from the article 5 times in the last 12 days [15][16][17][18][19].

The edit was discussed above where it can be seen that 6 editors agreed to its inclusion, immediately removed by Wee Curry Monster. The edit furthermore does not propose to "obscure" information as Wee Curry Monster claims, quite the contrary: it aims at adding properly sourced, relevant and factual information to the article, which is being blocked by him and Kahastok. They keep referring to the edit as a "comment made by political leaders" when it's a fact that this is the official position of the country, as clearly proven by the official declaration approved by Argentina's Senate presented above. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The simple way to demonstrate this is a political statement - ask which law is being broken and the silence is deafening. QED

The simple facts, Argentina rejected the referendum as it doesn't recognise the people of the Falklands had the right to hold it. Everything else is just headline grabbing nonsense. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Mosnter: "ask which law is being broken and the silence is deafening". German news media Deutsche Welle: "based on the fact that it was not convened by the United Nations, does not have its approval nor was it supervised by the organization"[20]. Furthermore, leaving out the reason, as stated by the country itself (an indisputable fact), because you believe "no law was broken" is a gross violation of WP:OR as you are well aware.

The simple facts we should add are those we can source: Argentina dismissed it as illegal as all the sources presented above clearly state. Also, calling "headline grabbing nonsense" to the official position of a country as put forward by its Senate is rather offensive. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, Deutsche Welle, reported comments from Argentina. And btw the comment was which law was broken, neither of those comments relate to International Law. My comments about "headline grabbing nonsense" relate to comments by politicians, the attempt to spin this as being offensive is a rather naked attempt to shut down comment. BTW as I've previously pointed out, your obsession with the WP:LASTWORD will more than likely deter outside comment, since the RFC you raised will be perceived as a disruptive editor lobbying to have his version imposed. Just as you've effectively disrupted previous RFC you will cause your own to be still born. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"Deutsche Welle, reported comments from Argentina", that's precisely what I'm saying. "the comment was which law was broken", this is more of your usual WP:OR Wee Curry Monster. Not commenting on usual WP:PAs once again. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I realise English is not your first language, so I will simply point out that none of those comments actually relate to International Law. I could however modify my comment that "ask which law is being broken and the silence is deafening" would be better replace by "ask which law is being broken and all that is received in response is loud shouting about something completely unrelated"

Honest advice as to how to avoid disrupting your own RFC is not a Personal Attack. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My objections:

I feel that if the reader needs to be told at this point that Argentina does not accept self-determination, then this is a problem with the article as a whole. It would mean that the emphasis of the article as a whole is wrong because we would have failed, by this point in the article, to put across one of the most basic points of dispute - that Britain insists upon self-determination and that Argentina rejects it. We have to assume that the reader will have read the article, and we need to think about the article as a whole rather than putting on the blinkers and dealing with each paragraph individually. Otherwise we risk ending up with an article that reads like every paragraph was written by a different committee. The solution is to fix the article as a whole, not to rehash the same points in every paragraph as though they were fundamentally new.

The proposal is that Argentina says that the referendum is of no legal value. It does not say under whose law it has no legal value. It does not say in what sense it might be seen to have no legal value. In fact, it tells the reader very little at all. It's a soundbite, not an argument against the applicability of the referendum. Even if I accepted all of Gaba and Andrés' points made in the discussion above (and I don't), it would still fall down for me because I find that they are not reasonably implied by the words "Argentina dismissed the referendum as having no legal value".

By contrast, Curry Monster's alternative actually makes the point in question, accurately and neutrally, giving the reader the reason for Argentina's objection.

And note that it is clear that change to the proposal is unlikely to be accepted. Gaba has insisted that no good faith objection to his proposal is possible and that we must accept it without change. To the extent that even this RFC was started after Gaba used it as a threat: he announced that unless we all immediately accepted his proposal as it stands, he would start an RFC to try and push it through over the top of objections raised. He decided, apparently, that he would rather put the article through the rigmarole of RFC than make any form of compromise. Kahastok talk 21:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok: about your first paragraph, no one is proposing that. I'm not even sure what you are talking about. The proposed edit is to simply add 5 words to the article (at most).

Second paragraph: that's WP:OR. It's not our concern how do international laws apply. Argentina has stated this as its reason for the dismissal of the referendum (this is indisputable) and we should mention it as such.

Third paragraph: Wee Curry Monster's statement can stay in its entirety. Again, no one is talking about removing information here, except you and him.

Fourth paragraph: please read the comments where I said I'd open an RfC and see it they agree with Kahastok's accusations: [21][22]. Your bad faith representation of my comments is just astonishing Kahastok. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason why have been repeatedly warned and blocked for accusing editors of bad faith, Gaba. WP:AGF is not just a rule for the sake of having a rule.

There is absolutely nothing in policy, including WP:NOR, that prevents my from objecting to the edit concerned on precisely the grounds I raised in my second paragraph.

I raise those points in my first paragraph because nobody else is raising them. And I don't see how I can make it any clearer. But I will try once more.

If we need to put these points, then we need to think about why we need them. The underlying point here - the disagreement as to whether self-determination applies - is one of the most basic points of difference between the two sides. Of all the points that this article makes, this is one of the most important for the reader's understanding of the dispute. If this key point is so non-obvious to the reader that we need any explanation beyond that covered by Moriori's point 1, it is because the article as a whole is failing to give it due prominence. We should fix this failure in the article as a whole, rather than trying explain a vital point as an aside at an apparently arbitrary point half way down the article. Kahastok talk 22:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My position: The statement "Argentina dismissed the referendum as having no legal value" is faithful and acceptable. My justification:

1) It is clear enough that 'having no legal value' is written in an pro-Argentine voice, not WP's voice.

2) The law referred by Argentina is international law (meaning Argentina's interpretation of international law).

3) Even though the phrase is not precise, precision should not be sought at the expense of conveying the wrong idea. We can discuss the inclusion of additional precision later if necessary, though there is some consensus on not enlarging that portion without need.

4) According to several sources as those offered by Gaba, Argentina grounds that idea on (1) its own interpretation of international law and (2) on the lack of support from the UN Assembly, which rejected this method of resolution for this dispute. This lack of sanction by the UN is documented throughout literature, as explained and sourced in this talk page under "Sources for a reverted statement". The editors contesting the statement argue that the second aspect of the Argentine response—the lack of UN approval—is meaningless, so they intend to put, in an Argentine voice, a response that only contemplates the first aspect of its justification, besides the possibility of other vices that we are now failing to see.

5) In line with Gaba's position, I disagree with that alternative because it would mean, or at least it could mean, distorting the Argentine response based on a doubtful, or at least disputed, hypothesis (meaning the alleged invalidity of the second part of the Argentine justification). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment; if some content regarding the view of X Y or Z regarding their opinion of the Falkland Islands' referendum it should be attributed as the opinion of whomever or what organization says whatever. The weight of the content should be equal to the weight of the notability of the individual in relation to the subject. Furthermore, if X says they are against B, than for balance, I can see also including Y says they are for B.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

On attribution: the statement is attributed to Argentina, in no way is it stated in WP's authoritative voice. On weight: the "individual" making the statement is Argentina as a country so notability is a given. On balance: the statement already includes the UK's view on the referendum, precisely for this reason. Just to make it clear, this is the edit being proposed. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Brought back RfC archived by bot. Gaba ^(talk) 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Kind of a waste of time, the RFC was effectively still born at getting outside comment by your obsession with the WP:LASTWORD. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Relevance of International Position Section

See Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 11#RFC: Removal of section titled "International position" & Archives 10 - 15.

Does the article merit a section entitled "International position":

1. Primary reasons for removal:

A) Weight attached to positions taken by other countries in the literature of the sovereignty dispute is minimal. 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.

B) It is not a feature of any other article on sovereignty disputes.

2. Secondary reasons for removal

A) Positions of individual countries often do not reflect clear support for one country over the other.

B) The section has proven to be problematic for years. It has provoked numerous edit wars, it suffers permanently from recentism. It took a tremendous effort to get a small brief summary agreed and almost immediately the same behaviour emerges. Yet it adds nothing to the encyclopedic value of the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Aren't RfC's summaries supposed to be neutral? Is Wee Curry Monster allowed to advance his position so blatantly?

Please note that Wee Curry Monster attempted to delete that section through and RfC about 2 months ago. The RfC was closed with the closing editor commenting "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"[23]. Editors Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok deleted the whole section anyway with absolutely no consensus on Jan 29th[24][25][26][27]. It took no less than 7 editors almost a full month to re-factor the section[28][29] and introduce it back into the article[30]. The reason the section is problematic is because these two editors make sure it is. Right now Wee Curry Monster added a NPOV tag[31] after an editor introduced a minor change to the section[32] that can easily be discussed in the talk page.

The international position regarding the issue (thoroughly sourced) is of clear importance as it reflects how the rest of the world positions itself in the discussion for sovereignty. And again I note: this is the same RfC Wee Curry Monster opened two months ago. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I support per the reasons above. I note that in my experience it is not unusual for the least encyclopædic sections of articles to be the most problematic - a symptom of the lack of good sourcing on which to base a section. But in any case, having a section on this means giving the point far more weight than it gets in the literature. It should be removed.

A similar RFC was indeed raised previously - and the admin ruled it ended inconclusively. The section disappeared, and was shortly replaced with a short section. I note that Gaba's wild accusations of bad faith are very wide of the mark: his behaviour is disappointing but, for those of us with experience on this article, unfortunately unsurprising. Kahastok talk 22:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we going to have a coup de etat every two months? I suggest you two WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Langus (t) 02:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair comment. Neither a coup d'état nor an issue of WP:STICK. This is the second time this has been suggested and put to RFC, and the first was closed without judgement of consensus during a fraught ANI discussion. I believe that there was consensus for complete removal at that time - there certainly wasn't consensus to retain unless like Gaba you ignore half the contributors - but that is beside the point. We ended up with a short section. Again, I don't believe the content of the short section ever achieved consensus other than as a stop-gap, contingent on the outcome of a future discussion that - as it was always going to (this is why I opposed this as a solution) - failed to achieve anything.

There are now - again, entirely predictably - attempts afoot to lengthen it once more, by adding more irrelevant detail. Fact is, the weight accorded by the sources would suggest that anything on this point in an article of this length is too much. It should just go. Kahastok talk 16:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The RfC question is: Does the article merit a section entitled "International position"? I support a section entitled International Position' after reading the entire sections in the Talk pages and the article itself. One of the main reasons people will go to this article is to understand the history and current state of the sovereignty controversy. I appreciate reading the different viewpoints of all the interested nations and the UN. I don't want to read an article weighted toward one side or the other, and I want to know why each nation takes their position. I found Gaba's and Marsha's arguments more rational, persuasive and less emotional than others'. Markewilliams (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Large number of concurrent discussions

We seem to have about six discussions running at the same time. Could we avoid this in the future please? It makes it very much harder to keep track of what is happening. I suggest that we temporarily drop two or three of them completely for now - revert those parts of the article to the last stable versions and deal with any objections or proposals once we've finished with the sections being discussed. There is no deadline and there's no reason why we should feel the need to do everything at once. Kahastok talk 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the RFC on the International Position is allowed to run. Archives 11-15 are nothing but endless tendentious argument about it and it really is a wasted effort. It adds no material value to the article. I for one would be glad to hear some fresh perspective brought to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. For one thing, it could well resolve some of the other points without need for further discussion. Kahastok talk 22:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, isn't there something else to say regarding how unmanageable this talk page has become? Some observations: (1) Wee Curry Monster reverted every single point that I contributed, which were plentiful because I entered several per edit, including the removal of authoritative references and despite the fact that I had cautiously discussed most the them here beforehand. (2) I am repeatedly correcting his misrepresentation of sources and of my words. (3) Several times he claimed about there being sources instead of simply producing them properly, which leads to unnecessary text in talk pages. Not to mention that argument that, given his failure to provide a clarifying source, can be considered borderline xenophobic. (4) How many times Gaba and I are repeating our arguments to him, after finding them disregarded in his responses? (5) With all due respect, are all the proposed debates and challenges efficient? For example, how is it neutral to question China's importance in the world but not Canada's? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to correct something. WCM did leave a few of my contributions. But I see he put back a sentence that I had objected and that I was correcting via one of those edits. Kahastok, what do you suggest I do now? Enlarge this talk page? Let WCM own the article? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I need to correct something too. The sentence I added a more or less verbatim quote from the same source you used. Your edit removed part of that information, I can guess why, it happens to be untrue but that is what Argentina claims. Your edit wasn't a correction, it was suppressing a lie commonly peddled.

As I demonstrate above, you repeatedly claimed something wasn't sourced, it was. You're also not representing China correctly and persisting with an unfounded allegation of Xenophobia. And yes all you do is repeat, you never listen, consider another view and modify your approach to achieve a consensus. As regards WP:OWN I haven't edit warred material into the article - you did. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I was deliberately avoiding naming any names at all because I didn't feel that it would help.

The thing to do is either not to make contentious edits in the first place until the last set of contentious edits have been dealt with. If you really feel you need to bring something up, start a talk page section - without making the edit - asking that the point be discussed after the existing discussions have been finished. If people forget or it gets archived, you can always ask again at the appropriate time.

Despite your wild accusations - your accusation of xenophobia may well be a serious enough personal attack on its own to see you blocked and you would do very well not to repeat it or anything like it - the large number of discussions here is not Curry Monster's fault. You object to Curry Monster's reverts - but that seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You have made several reverts yourself. Particularly given that WP:BRD is standard practice here, your attempts to edit war your preferred text into the article would not seem any better. Remember that the standard practice on Wikipedia is that the article remains the same unless there is consensus for change. You need to gather consensus for changes that you wish to make, and you don't do that by personally attacking the editors you're trying to persuade. Kahastok talk 18:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing content moved over to new section

I'm going to have to agree with Andrés here: 1- about Wee Curry Monster's constant and senseless reversions of pretty much every edit that doesn't come from either him or Kahastok, 2- about Wee Curry Monster's constant misrepresentations of sources and comments (something I've been complaining about for some time now), 3- about having to ask him for a source multiple times because he will just say "it's sourced" as if his word was enough and 4- about him disregarding all arguments by constant repetition of the same responses, clearly engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Wee Curry Monster hasn't edit warred information into the article but he has most certainly edit warred it out. That said, let me refer to Wee Curry Monster's statement: "Your edit wasn't a correction, it was suppressing a lie commonly peddled". Leaving the bias aside, I assume you are referring to this edit of yours which introduced pretty much the same claim as stated below by Andrés. May I suggest a compromise? Regarding Wee Curry Monster's version of the claim, the key words "aboriginal" and "replace" are not present in the source, so they have to be removed. Regarding Andrés version, the bits "distinct people" and "external self-determination doctrine" are not present either so they would also have to be removed. Based on this, here's my proposal: That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality. This can be fully sourced to the Argentine official document and is both shorter and simpler than the versions currently up. What do you think? Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Replying to WCM: (1) It was not "a more or less verbatim quote". I had observed that the statement did not follow from that source, pointing out words like "aboriginal" and "brought". You didn't say anything for a week and you didn't justify your revert. Could you please show us where in the source is this verbatim? (2) BTW, among your many reverts of my edits, you turned the URL of that source back to its deprecated version. (3) You didn't demonstrate anything. I took it that you presented Metford as a reference of previous comments regarding dependence with Montevideo and the notice of that first mention at Lima 1848, both of which I answered. BTW, Metford's well-known paper is from 1968. If there is one from 1967, I couldn't find it without a title. Please show me where does it say that Argentina explicitly rejected the principle. (4) I see that you read Metford, in another comment you mentioned owning Gustafson, and you have judged Freedman... I wonder why you believe these WP articles are fairly neutral when so many of their statements contradict all of these scholars? You recently fought us on at least one of these statements, disregarding Freedman because (according to you) he based his work on his collaboration with Argentine Virginia Gamba. What about Metford and Gustafson? Replying to Kahastok: I didn't know "one contentious edit at a time" was WP policy, sorry if it is, I need to look into that further. The problem here is that it seems every point is contentious and debates are plagued with unproductive behaviour that I indicated above. Both WCM and I reverted (in my case to undo reverts that were not explained properly) but reverts were not the behaviour that I criticized. What I observed was distorting sources and other people's words, abundant reverts without offering proper cases, having to be asked several times to produce claimed sources, etc. These lead to unnecesarily long debates. Unfortunately, it requires some time to read the above in order to analyse the case. But I think I can say that I haven't incurred in these practices as WCM has, and I did submit most of my edits to prior discussion. My point was that there is a better way to improve the editing process than having the same but slowed down. I don't mean a ban, but help from editors who are not emotionally invested in these discussions. Regarding the xenophobia thing, I must point out that I didn't say that WCM was xenophobic. What I said is that there is a xenophobic element in that particular statement of his (unless it was supported, which wasn't) and I stand by my words. I'm sure you understand that, not being personal, such a statement doesn't constitute a WP:PA. If WCM and you are interested (I wasn't the one escalating this issue) I'll be happy to explain. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Replying to Gaba: Thanks. I agree with your proposal, but feel that those quotes need to be clarified, which may be accomplished briefly by providing a reference like this. The purpose of those quotes is to indicate that the words are not meant in layman's meaning, but that they are a legal concept. In the source this is clear, as they are put in UN voice and directed to a public who knows the subject. But, without a reference, a casual WP reader may interpret that the quotes were written for other reasons. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC) I don't agree with that proposal. The claim is an expulsion of an Argentine settlement, replacement with Brits and a refusal to allow others to return. That particular claims refers to a well know principle whereby an agressor cannot depopulate a territory, replace with their own people and then claim self-determination. This is why Argentina makes those particular 3 claims together. This is the basis by which Argentina denies the right to self-determination. Gaba p's edit doesn't cut the mustard, it doesn't represent Argentina's claim. The edit Andrés and Gaba edit warred into the article is seriously misleading in that respect. The claim is simply untrue and the fact it is untrue is becoming increasingly well known. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I believe the issue here is that two claims are attempting to be synthesized into one. Here's a new proposal that takes into account Wee Curry Monsters' mention of "those particular 3 claims together" and also Andrés' mention of "a transplanted population of British character and nationality": That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled the people that had settled there not allowing their return, violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. That the current inhabitants are a transplanted population of British character and nationality no different from the people of the metropolis and thus "not a people with the right to free determination". How about these two? I believe they make both points by Andrés and Wee Curry Monster rather clear and furthermore they are almost verbatim taken from the official Argentinian source for its claims. Regards. Gaba (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC) The specific section is: “ This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina.[33] ” I presume the second comment relates to: “ The interests of the inhabitants and not their wishes must be taken into account, as indicated by the United Nations in the different documents relating to the Malvinas Islands . This is so because the UN has taken the view that a population transplanted by the colonial Power, as is currently the case in the Malvinas Islands, is not a people with the right to free determination, as it is not different from the people of the metropolis. The British nature of this population has been recognized by the United Kingdom and since 1983 its members have the status of British citizens, in accordance with the British Nationality Act passed that year. If, in the case of the Malvinas Islands, self-determination were to be admitted in respect of the current inhabitants, of British character and nationality, this would be tantamount to allowing a group of persons from the colonial Power itself to decide on the destiny of a territory that is being claimed by another State which had that territory taken away from it by force nearly two hundred years ago. ” The second comment is a repeat of the principle in the first paragraph. Its the same thing stated twice in a different way but the second misses out the crucial expulsion allegation. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Even if both points refer to the same principle in its core (rejection of self-determination) they express a separated set of claims by Argentina that should be mentioned. What is your proposal? Are you opposing or endorsing the replacement of both claims currently present in the talk page by these? Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Well I avoided commenting in the hope of getting outside opinion. I am opposing your proposal, for the reasons stated - ie it doesn't convey the information of relevance. Currently the article repeats the same claim twice and I would propose to fix it by returning to the text that existed before such changes were edit warred into the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Wee Curry Monster, the version you entered into the section is not verifiable through sources and will not remain as is, so going back to it is not an option. Please, could you avoid a blanket opposition and be specific with your reasons? Otherwise we'll never move forward. Above you commented on how the claims needed to address 3 key points: "depopulate a territory, replace with their own people and then claim self-determination". Do you feel any of these points are not mentioned in the version I propose? What "information of relevance" you think is not being conveyed (that your version apparently does)? Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC) I don't know what part of the article you are discussing, what you are proposing and why. You are certainly not discussing my proposal to reduce the number of discussions going on at once (in fact you seem to have started another one). If you will insist on playing the let's-see-how-many-highly-involved-discussions-we-can-have-at-once game, could you at least make it much clearer what the topic is? Kahastok talk 17:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Leaving your unnecessary aggressiveness aside Kahastok, I agree that this section is not the place to have the current content discussion. I'll open a new one and move some of the relevant comments over there so as to not disrupt this one any further. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Hello people, I will admit I have not fully read everything you guys have been talking about, i've only briefly read over everything but I wish to speak out that The Argentine claim that Britain expelled an Argentine population from the Falklands in 1833 is false. What was there was military garrison of soldiers that brought some of their families with them. "When the HMS Clio arrived, there were 33 genuine resident civilian settlers; Captain Onslow gave them a free choice of staying or leaving; he applied no pressure on them to leave and indeed encouraged some to stay. Only four of them chose to leave" [Source] And Britain was pretty much reclaiming the islands after they had already left a plaque proclaiming the islands to be the "sole right and property" of George III in 1776. And in terms of the UN, the "Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions and that people should choose their own future" [source] or have I missed the point of what you guys are talking about? --Truthsir789 (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Hi Thruthsir, regarding your comment, our beliefs regarding the claims of either country are irrelevant. We as WP editors do not have the capacity to edit articles based on our own analysis of sources and the statements put forward by them (much less if they are primary sources). The issue here is to convey the claims as stated by both parties as clear as possible, always ensuring full compliance with the sources. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed content has been moved over to this section. Let's please continue the discussion over there. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

On editing of Argentine claims

I'm making this new section and bringing some comment over from this one because that was not the place for content discussion. I'll paste the comments below. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

(copying only relevant bit of my own comment) ... That said, let me refer to Wee Curry Monster's statement: "Your edit wasn't a correction, it was suppressing a lie commonly peddled". Leaving the bias aside, I assume you are referring to this edit of yours which introduced pretty much the same claim as stated below by Andrés. May I suggest a compromise? Regarding Wee Curry Monster's version of the claim, the key words "aboriginal" and "replace" are not present in the source, so they have to be removed. Regarding Andrés version, the bits "distinct people" and "external self-determination doctrine" are not present either so they would also have to be removed. Based on this, here's my proposal:

• That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality.

This can be fully sourced to the Argentine official document and is both shorter and simpler than the versions currently up. What do you think? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Replying to WCM: (1) It was not "a more or less verbatim quote". I had observed that the statement did not follow from that source, pointing out words like "aboriginal" and "brought". You didn't say anything for a week and you didn't justify your revert. Could you please show us where in the source is this verbatim?

(2) BTW, among your many reverts of my edits, you turned the URL of that source back to its deprecated version.

(3) You didn't demonstrate anything. I took it that you presented Metford as a reference of previous comments regarding dependence with Montevideo and the notice of that first mention at Lima 1848, both of which I answered. BTW, Metford's well-known paper is from 1968. If there is one from 1967, I couldn't find it without a title. Please show me where does it say that Argentina explicitly rejected the principle.

(4) I see that you read Metford, in another comment you mentioned owning Gustafson, and you have judged Freedman... I wonder why you believe these WP articles are fairly neutral when so many of their statements contradict all of these scholars? You recently fought us on at least one of these statements, disregarding Freedman because (according to you) he based his work on his collaboration with Argentine Virginia Gamba. What about Metford and Gustafson?

Replying to Kahastok: I didn't know "one contentious edit at a time" was WP policy, sorry if it is, I need to look into that further. The problem here is that it seems every point is contentious and debates are plagued with unproductive behaviour that I indicated above. Both WCM and I reverted (in my case to undo reverts that were not explained properly) but reverts were not the behaviour that I criticized. What I observed was distorting sources and other people's words, abundant reverts without offering proper cases, having to be asked several times to produce claimed sources, etc. These lead to unnecesarily long debates. Unfortunately, it requires some time to read the above in order to analyse the case. But I think I can say that I haven't incurred in these practices as WCM has, and I did submit most of my edits to prior discussion.

My point was that there is a better way to improve the editing process than having the same but slowed down. I don't mean a ban, but help from editors who are not emotionally invested in these discussions.

Regarding the xenophobia thing, I must point out that I didn't say that WCM was xenophobic. What I said is that there is a xenophobic element in that particular statement of his (unless it was supported, which wasn't) and I stand by my words. I'm sure you understand that, not being personal, such a statement doesn't constitute a WP:PA. If WCM and you are interested (I wasn't the one escalating this issue) I'll be happy to explain. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Replying to Gaba: Thanks. I agree with your proposal, but feel that those quotes need to be clarified, which may be accomplished briefly by providing a reference like this. The purpose of those quotes is to indicate that the words are not meant in layman's meaning, but that they are a legal concept. In the source this is clear, as they are put in UN voice and directed to a public who knows the subject. But, without a reference, a casual WP reader may interpret that the quotes were written for other reasons. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with that proposal. The claim is an expulsion of an Argentine settlement, replacement with Brits and a refusal to allow others to return. That particular claims refers to a well know principle whereby an agressor cannot depopulate a territory, replace with their own people and then claim self-determination. This is why Argentina makes those particular 3 claims together. This is the basis by which Argentina denies the right to self-determination. Gaba p's edit doesn't cut the mustard, it doesn't represent Argentina's claim. The edit Andrés and Gaba edit warred into the article is seriously misleading in that respect.

The claim is simply untrue and the fact it is untrue is becoming increasingly well known. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the issue here is that two claims are attempting to be synthesized into one. Here's a new proposal that takes into account Wee Curry Monsters' mention of "those particular 3 claims together" and also Andrés' mention of "a transplanted population of British character and nationality":

• That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled the people that had settled there not allowing their return, violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.
• That the current inhabitants are a transplanted population of British character and nationality no different from the people of the metropolis and thus "not a people with the right to free determination".

How about these two? I believe they make both points by Andrés and Wee Curry Monster rather clear and furthermore they are almost verbatim taken from the official Argentinian source for its claims. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The specific section is:

“ This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina.[34] ”

I presume the second comment relates to:

“ The interests of the inhabitants and not their wishes must be taken into account, as indicated by the United Nations in the different documents relating to the Malvinas Islands . This is so because the UN has taken the view that a population transplanted by the colonial Power, as is currently the case in the Malvinas Islands, is not a people with the right to free determination, as it is not different from the people of the metropolis. The British nature of this population has been recognized by the United Kingdom and since 1983 its members have the status of British citizens, in accordance with the British Nationality Act passed that year. If, in the case of the Malvinas Islands, self-determination were to be admitted in respect of the current inhabitants, of British character and nationality, this would be tantamount to allowing a group of persons from the colonial Power itself to decide on the destiny of a territory that is being claimed by another State which had that territory taken away from it by force nearly two hundred years ago. ”

The second comment is a repeat of the principle in the first paragraph. Its the same thing stated twice in a different way but the second misses out the crucial expulsion allegation. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if both points refer to the same principle in its core (rejection of self-determination) they express a separated set of claims by Argentina that should be mentioned. What is your proposal? Are you opposing or endorsing the replacement of both claims currently present in the talk page by these? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I avoided commenting in the hope of getting outside opinion. I am opposing your proposal, for the reasons stated - ie it doesn't convey the information of relevance. Currently the article repeats the same claim twice and I would propose to fix it by returning to the text that existed before such changes were edit warred into the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, the version you entered into the section is not verifiable through sources and will not remain as is, so going back to it is not an option.

Please, could you avoid a blanket opposition and be specific with your reasons? Otherwise we'll never move forward. Above you commented on how the claims needed to address 3 key points: "depopulate a territory, replace with their own people and then claim self-determination". Do you feel any of these points are not mentioned in the version I propose? What "information of relevance" you think is not being conveyed (that your version apparently does)? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have explained my opposition, the fact as usual you ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist doesn't change that. I see no point in continuing to answer if you simply ignore any response, then claim you have had none. Do you think for once you could let someone else comment? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The aggressiveness is definitely not helpful Wee Curry Monster.

I have not ignored your opposition, on the contrary I quoted your reason(s) for opposing in my comment above. The issue with your opposing is that is doesn't give us any way to move forward (saying "it doesn't convey the information of relevance" is a bit cryptic, wouldn't you agree?). I've explained that your version is not suitable and neither is Andrés'. Right now they could both be said to be committing citation fraud since they are most certainly not verifiable by the sources used. I'm tagging both versions with a failed verification tag, let's try to come to an agreement please? I'm not sure what you mean by 'let someone else comment', I welcome any comment by any editor Wee Curry Monster. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello people, I will admit I have not fully read everything you guys have been talking about, i've only briefly read over everything but I wish to speak out that The Argentine claim that Britain expelled an Argentine population from the Falklands in 1833 is false. What was there was military garrison of soldiers that brought some of their families with them. "When the HMS Clio arrived, there were 33 genuine resident civilian settlers; Captain Onslow gave them a free choice of staying or leaving; he applied no pressure on them to leave and indeed encouraged some to stay. Only four of them chose to leave" [Source] And Britain was pretty much reclaiming the islands after they had already left a plaque proclaiming the islands to be the "sole right and property" of George III in 1776. And in terms of the UN, the "Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions and that people should choose their own future" [source] or have I missed the point of what you guys are talking about? --Truthsir789 (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thruthsir, regarding your comment, our beliefs regarding the claims of either country are irrelevant. We as WP editors do not have the capacity to edit articles based on our own analysis of sources and the statements put forward by them (much less if they are primary sources). The issue here is to convey the claims as stated by both parties as clear as possible, always ensuring full compliance with the sources. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this way of presenting the claims. Verbatim selection has a subjective element. Sometimes, official or otherwise noteworthy sources say something silly (e.g., statements about gaucho Rivero's episode from CFK). Other times, a phrase shouldn't lose its context.

For example, Britain widely recognizes that the French settlement predated the British, even Pascoe and Pepper do in their pamphlet, but we have chosen a peculiar sentence from the FO's website that doesn't. Perhaps the author was not careful, or meant it in approximate terms (the French preceded the Britons by only 2 years) or subscribed to the dubious claim that planting a few vegetables and leaving in a ship marks the beginning of a settlement. By choosing that particular phrase in spite of the rest, we are representing the British stance in a peculiar way (an "extreme" one, if I may). We could go further that way if we highlighted words from dubious discourses by CFK, for example.

Similarly, pro-Argentine learned sources know perfectly well that Onslow didn't remove all the settlers (though I disagree on qualifying the evicted ones as "not genuine"). When the text from Cancilleria refers to a population being removed, it probably means that a settlement of Argentine character was removed. This was done by removing the Argentine authority, as well as the possibilities of reparation and progress (hence the reference to not allowing them to return). That text stresses the removal of authority elsewhere, a comment that would be pointless if the claim was that all of the inhabitants were evicted. By choosing the 'population' phrase with no mention of the 'authority' phrase, and with no context from more-detailed sources, we are failing to represent the case.

There is also the possibility that the Cancilleria and the FO's webpages were not written well enough. Those are simply intros, not carefully-prepared legal presentations. Quoting their poorer phrases is not what good encyclopedias should do.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting WP:OR, just pointing out that this road is not leading to a good summary. Readers may interpret, as Truthsir789 did, that the pro-Argentine claim is based on an erroneous belief that Onslow removed all of the inhabitants and that they were Argentine creole. That is certainly not what a learned pro-Argentine depiction states, and is probably not what Cancillería meant. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, listing the claims like this is the most straightforward way to do it with minimal intervention from editors I believe. I'm open to improving this section if you have a better way to present the claims Andrés. Bare in mind that we can not synthesize information from several sources into one though. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Andrés, Argentina has since the Ruda speech of 1964 made very specific claims in an effort to deny the islanders have a right to self-determination. A) That the Argentine settlers were expelled B) their return was prevented and C) they were replaced by British settlers. This is to address a specific point in the evolution of self-determination as a principle in International Law that an aggressor may not invade a territory, expel an existing population, which is then replaced by its own people to claim territory on the "self-determination right" of an implanted population. The specific nature of the claim is that the pre-existing Argentine settlement established by Luis Vernet was expelled and that Vernet was prevented from returning. The assertion that the islanders are an implanted population is a recurring one and stems from those 3 claims. Much of what is in the public domain is confused by the prolific output of what I would class as misinformation from Argentina in its effort to advance its sovereignty claim. Your interpretation of what is on the Cancillería website is pure WP:OR. Were it a case of an expulsion of just the Argentine authority; a garrison that had been there for less than 2 months and who'd revolted and murdered their commanding officer is not a solid foundation for a sovereignty claim. As you note yourself it does not establish effective occupation now does it? Your suggestion to moderate the Argentine claim to what you interpret as being the basis, rather than what is actually stated is classical WP:OR and WP:SYN.

Like many things in the Falkland Island's controversial history, the historical facts paint a rather more different picture. Whether it was an "Argentine" settlement is debatable. Vernet sought permission from both the British and Argentine authorities, he specifically stated a preference for a British garrison to protect his settlement under a British flag. He also sought military resources from the Republic of Buenos Aires. That the settlement was expelled is simply untrue; it was not, Onslow had orders that forbade him from doing so and as Pinedo notes in his own report, the settlers were encouraged to remain. That Vernet was prevented from returning is only partially true. Initially his return was encouraged and at one time was seriously considered for the position as a British Governor of the Falkland Islands. Later when Vernet became embroiled in the Argentine claim for the islands, he was prevented from returning. That the settlers were replaced by Brits is simply untrue; Onslow brought no settlers and the islands were populated by the remnants of Vernet's settlement until the 1840s when the decision to formally colonise the islands was made. And whilst there was colonisation from Britain in the 1840s the majority came from what is now Uruguay.

Now I am open to ideas for presenting the controversies in differing positions but I do note one aspect of what you're proposing that is disturbing. Your edits seek to undermine the British case and to promote the Argentine case. This is contrary to our policy of presenting a WP:NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Break

Look, this is quite simple. Currently there are two overlapping claims added by Andrés and Wee Curry Monster. Both of the claims have issues with failing verification and are identified in the section by [not in citation given] tags. I've proposed two new versions of those claims as a replacement which can be fully verified by the official Argentinian source for its claims:

• That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled the people that had settled there not allowing their return, violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.
• That the current inhabitants are a transplanted population of British character and nationality no different from the people of the metropolis and thus "not a people with the right to free determination".

Please state your objections clearly (enumerated would be best and please no blanket objections) and in what way you think these claims should be fixed, preferably by proposing your own version.
Wee Curry Monster: going back to the old version is not an option since it fails verification so don't bother proposing it.
Let's please try to stay on topic and please no WP:OR. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As I previously stated, I object to this edit, as it is stating the same legal concept twice.

I clearly stated this was my objection.

The whole idea of a content discussion is to move forward, I have already explained why I disputed your edit so continuing to push the same edit, demanding I again explain my objections is unhelpful. Its also disruptive.

The only word in the article that is not in the citation is the word "aboriginal", which refers to an Argentine claim that the islanders are not "native". This we can fix; I propose we do so. Example cite [35], one of many. The claim that this cannot be verified is patently false. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster: regarding your objection, the claims as I presented them put forward two different set of claims by Argentina. That you (think you) can reduce them to a single legal concept (incidentally, this would be WP:OR) is not a valid reason for either of them not to be mentioned.

Your version reads:

• That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population

This is a synthesized claim which fails verification thus committing citation fraud. You can not verify this claim using the official Argentine document stating its claims and I have no idea what that article you presented is supposed to be used for. If you still sustain your version is verifiable, then clearly state how or present a new one.

Please please please please avoid beating around the bush Wee Curry Monster and be as specific as possible. This constant behavior of yours of being purposely vague simply translates into discussions being dragged far longer than they should. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And that particular message was useful, how exactly? Simply labelling something as OR regardless of circumstances does not make it OR.

I note that Curry Monster addressed your points very clearly and very obviously about the citation in your message above. You completely ignored him. This is clear and irrefutable evidence of disruptive behaviour on your part, and I would imagine that similar behaviour is contributing greatly to the difficulties on this talk page. Kahastok talk 19:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... Wee Curry Monster presented a source that serves no purpose as I see and I'm asking him to explain how he believes it does. He again is asking to use his version of the claim when I've explained countless times that it is not verified by the source used. I asked him to be precise about how he expects to source that claim I don't know how many times and again he was purposely vague.

So Kahastok: I'll ask you because you seem to be grasping something that I don't, could you explain how does the source Wee Curry Monster presented make his claim verifiable please? I'll await your comment hoping that, unlike the previous one, it helps moving forward with the discussion at hand instead of being simply another "Wee Curry Monster is right" type of empty comment like the ones you have us all already used to. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If you think that ad hominem is somehow going to persuade me that you didn't completely ignore Curry Monster, you're sadly mistaken.

Curry Monster said:

The only word in the article that is not in the citation is the word "aboriginal", which refers to an Argentine claim that the islanders are not "native". This we can fix; I propose we do so.

You responded:

Your version reads:

• That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population

Either you did not even bother to read Curry Monster's message before responding or you deliberately ignored it. Which do you prefer?

Curry Monster's source very clearly backs up the point that he used it to back up (specifically the use of the word native, which the source ascribes to Héctor Timerman). If you don't like that, then tough. That's nobody's problem but your own. Kahastok talk 20:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(No idea what "ad-hominem" you are referring to, so I'll just dismiss your baseless accusation)

So Kahastok should I understand that this is the version you are proposing?:

• That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not native and were brought to replace the Argentine population.

I definitely did not get that from Wee Curry Monster's comment. In any case, please do tell me Kahastok, how is that article Wee Curry Monster presented a suitable source for the last quite important bit "were brought to replace the Argentine population"?
Also, and more importantly, how is this version (synthesized partially through a random quote taken out of a random article) better than this one:

• That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833 and expelled the people that had settled there not allowing their return, violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.

based entirely in the official Argentine document regarding the Falklands/Malvinas issue? I'll await your comment. Please note I made two separate questions. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Before changes were edit warred into the article by Gaba p and Andres, which I tagged for the NPOV problems they introduced, the article made two clear statements:

• That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population (see below).[61]
• That the Argentine population was expelled by an "act of force" in 1833.[61]

Inline citation [61] refers to [36] in the old version. As quoted:

“ This is because the specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands lies in the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility of applying the principle of self-determination is ruled out, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity” of Argentina. ”

This cite was originally added to address the specific claim made of an expulsion, not the reason for non-application of the right to self-determination. That there is a claim the islanders are not native (aboriginal) is not in this inline citation, I would agree, but it is supported by [37]. WP:SYN does not apply; since this is a specific claim made by Argentina. The inline citation I propose to cite the claim made in the article is just one example, where an official from Argentina makes this claim. The fix is rather obvious, add an inline citation regarding the one phrase that isn't supported by the original citation noting the original citation [61] was only ever added to address a challenge made regarding the expulsion claim and not this particular aspect.

That there may be a conflict is because you edit warred changes into the article that you now acknowledge aren't in the original - diff [38]. Again the fix is to revert and sort out the inline citations not to add a synthesis of what Andres suggests is the more "intellectual understanding" of what Argentina claims. Our function as an online encyclopedia is to report what Argentina claims, not to provide an analysis of what we think they mean.

Again I object to your edit for stating the same claim twice. In the same document, the same claim is repeated on more than occasion not a different claim as you assert. That there is a document setting out some of the claims made by Argentina is helpful but is does not set out all of the claims made by Argentina. Examples [39],[40]. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(Dismissing usual WP:PAs by Wee Curry Monster. Same ol' same ol'...)

Inspite of Wee Curry Monster's attempts to complicate the issue, it's actually rather simple. There are currently two claims in the article: one added by him and the other added by Andrés. Both fail verification to some extent and have been marked with a [not in citation given] tag. Andrés' claim will be treated separately to make things simpler.

Wee Curry Monster has presented a random article to source a single word ("native") in his claim, even though he knows perfectly well this implies a synthesization of an argument and, even more importantly, that that article does not source at all the last part of his claim ("...were brought to replace the Argentine population") which is not a minor detail. So there's two problems with his version: WP:SYN and citation fraud.

The version I propose to replace this incorrect claim is based entirely in the official Argentine document regarding the Falklands/Malvinas issue and thus fully sourced. To make it more clear, here's the version I propose to replace Wee Curry Monster's version.

Note that I propose two claims: one to replace Wee Curry Monster's and another one to replace Andrés'. Simples. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Treating exactly the same point in two separate ways is not useful to the article and I see no benefit in creating yet another obscure split in the discussion as you proposed. There should be only one bullet point to address one point made by Argentina.

I see no synthesis here. That argument is simply spurious. It is not, and never has been, original synthesis to draw multiple sources together if there is no novel conclusion drawn that is not made by the sources, as here. The point made here accurately reflects the contents of the article concerned. There is no requirement, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect, that any editor will demonstrate that a source makes a point that neither they nor anyone else has ever claimed that it makes. It appears to me that the point as a whole is adequately sourced. Which is not to say that it is perfect.

But your proposals do not achieve this. You stick far too closely to the original, to the extent that you repeat even their mistakes and poor English. For instance, the word "metropolis" doesn't mean what the Cancillería thinks it means. Taking the normal English meaning of the word "metropolis" - a very large city - the Cancillería's sentence makes very little sense at all. And because you stuck to their wording so closely, your proposal also makes very little sense. There is nothing wrong with using different words from the source and we certainly shouldn't be repeating their mistakes.

I note that I do not believe that the wording currently in the article credibly constitutes a new consensus. Consensus is needed to change the old version to a new version, and no such consensus has yet been achieved. Trying to play to the crowd as in this message, and passing comments about personal attacks that do not exist, do not make such consensus more likely. Kahastok talk 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, there is no synthesis and the version edit-warred into the article should be (ideally) self-reverted. It was edit warred into the article and there was no consensus for it. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please

Can we please just disuse one thing at a time, all these debates are long, convoluted and very badly formatted. I am asking for all conversations to be archived and we start from scratch one thing at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Several discussions have been archived today. Three discussions still open can be archived since they are (I believe) finished: Utis Possidetis Juris, NPOV problem with the detailed Spanish map and Large number of concurrent discussions.

That would leave only 4 discussions open (not counting this one): the two RfCs, the one about the re-factoring of the Argentine claims and the one about the Treaty of Madrid. The RfCs should be left open until they are closed and the other two could perhaps be postponed? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, I agree with your proposal. There is another open discussion, about a revert of some edits of mine, which automatically went to Archive 15 (under "We have a good base..."). I had repeated my reasons for part of those edits and was waiting for a counter-argument or a rv. Further details on the reasons for the remainder edits were waiting, as I didn't want to write it all at once. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that it is going to be nigh-on impossible to consider any consensus resulting from any discussion on the talk page since the middle of last month - other than possibly the RFCs - to be particularly strong. It is simply impossible for outsiders - including those familiar with the page - to come into such involved and long-winded and spread-out discussions and have a clue what the points in question are.

I think that several editors need to start shortening their points, to make discussions readable. Write less text but make it more to the point. If someone says something, don't blank it. The idea is to reach a consensus, not to score points against one another.

We should put every discussion under a single second-level heading. And leave it there. Don't start the same discussion somewhere else. If a discussion needs splitting up for convenience, or a division is needed, put it at the third level - this will avoid the complete mess that the international position discussion turned into and that the above is rapidly becoming. Kahastok talk 19:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Falklands/Malvinas articles and our editing process

Wouldn't it be great if the article concurred with authoritative literature on the points that are agreed upon by scholars, while the points in which they differ were presented explaining each noteworthy position? Isn't that what we are meant to do when editing WP?

Right now, many key points in this article are reproducing propaganda derived from Pascoe and Pepper's pamphlet. This is repeated in the abundant discussion in this talk page, and with other Falklands/Malvinas entries. As WP editors, we are meant to synthethise quality research, not to pretend to recreate it from scratch or from nothing else than one dubious pamphlet and a few websites that borrow from it. Among other problems, this produces unmanageable discussions in talk pages.

To evaluate if sources are "authoritative", we need to consider criteria such as peer-review or editorialization by reputed institutions, citations in scholarly publications and the author's credentials, as well as content-based factors such as the absense of out-of-context quotations and dubious reasoning. There is much work that qualifies, such as Reisman's paper (he's an expert in international law and his paper was published by Yale University), Gustafson's book (published by Oxford U.), Hope's paper (Boston Law), Greenhow's study (it's old but the author and the journal were reputed), Freedman, Metford, Groussac, Goebel... Some of this work can be fairly qualified as pro-British and some as pro-Argentine, but it is still valuable. For adjacent concepts we have tons of authoritative sources.

Before commenting, let's make an effort to consult such sources, particularly if we are trying to refute something. Only yesterday I was presented with a singular theory about state succession, an interpretation of the effectiveness of Spain's and Argentina's occupation, and one about the absense of Britain, none of which concur with sources like those explained above.

I am just trying to promote understanding. Many people trust Wikipedia even for disputed subjects (I think they shouldn't), which causes hurtful and inconvenient situations if we fail to clear it up, as much as we can, from propaganda and fanatism. Last year, the same motivation encouraged me to spend time clearing up the Spanish Wikipedia from some ungrounded anti-British claims related to the Paraguayan war, as you can verify if you understand Spanish or with the help of Google Translator. I am not trying to ridicule Britain or anything of the sort. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)