Jump to content

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Summary: reply to Apcbg
Line 456: Line 456:


::::Gaba, 2 of your 3 quotes actually support Wee's position. [[User:Apcbg|Apcbg]] ([[User talk:Apcbg|talk]]) 19:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
::::Gaba, 2 of your 3 quotes actually support Wee's position. [[User:Apcbg|Apcbg]] ([[User talk:Apcbg|talk]]) 19:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::Thank you Apcbg. Your comment is the perfect example of how intricate Wee Curry Monster's semantic gymnastics are at this point. Would you mind expanding on your reasoning please? Tell us exactly what you think Wee Curry Monster's position is and how those ''2 out of 3'' quotes support it, would you? Regards. [[User:Gaba_p|<font color="blue">Gaba</font> ]] <sup><font color="green">[[User talk:Gaba_p|(talk)]]</font></sup> 21:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


== Regarding the Falklands/Malvinas articles and our editing process ==
== Regarding the Falklands/Malvinas articles and our editing process ==

Revision as of 21:44, 8 May 2013


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)[reply]


(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


The specific section is:
I presume the second comment relates to:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [2], one of many. The claim that this cannot be verified is patently false. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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 [3] in the old version. As quoted:
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 [4]. 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 [5]. 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 [6],[7]. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The problem with 'aboriginal' is that, if presented in the synthetic list, it looks like if a key point in the Argentine case would be that a population has to be indigenous for them to be entitled to external self-determination, and that is certainly not the Argentine position. The fact that an Argentine diplomat once mentioned them not being indigenous doesn't turn it into a summary of that aspect of the Argentine case. I also have a problem with "brought" because population transfers, according to scholarly literature, are also attained through (for example) economic incentives (e.g., offering them jobs) and misinformation (e.g., telling them that British sovereignty is unquestionable). Saying that "the population was brought" doesn't convey that meaning to laymen.
Gaba is asking me about the following:
  • 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".
I would prefer to put "transplanted population" between quotes, to show that it is a legal concept and not an expression in layman's terms. Besides, I am not sure that the phrase "no different from the people of the metropolis" is worthy of a summary. And the ending may lead to confusion. It is obvious to anyone who has read about the subject that Argentina doesn't deny the islander's right to participate in their government, which is one of the meanings of "free/self determination". The text refers to what is sometimes called "external self determination", meaning the right to decide which state will be sovereign over the land they occupy. Isolating the phrase from this context may lead to confusion.
What do you think about the following?
  • That the principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question because, as Argentina argues, the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

. Sorry but I cannot accept that proposal. For starters, that was just one example. Please verify for yourself with a Google search it is a common assertion that Argentina does claim only native peoples have the right to self-determination. In addition, of itself that is not an argument that would support a denial of the right. As I've pointed out repeatedly Argentina's claim depends on 3 separate assertions; the expulsion, prevention of return and replacement. This does not accurately reflect what is claimed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To also add, the claim that Argentina doesn't deny they have a right or role in Government, given recent statements about the referendum is clearly unsustainable. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok: could you please present your source for "...were brought to replace the Argentine population"? I must've asked for this 4 times now. Perhaps acknowledging that you have none and agreeing to re-factor the claim based on actual existing sources would be a sensible idea at this point? Also, Wee Curry Monster you need to understand that not having your written permission to edit an article does not equal "no consensus". Please, could you give WP:OWN a thorough read?
So back to content once again. How about this (yet another proposal to merge into one single heavily sourced claim):
  • That the principle of self-determination does not apply since in 1833 the United Kingdom expelled the people that had settled there not allowing their return, proceeding to bring its own colonists to the islands; which makes the current inhabitants a "transplanted population" of British character and nationality.[8][9]
I've used the source Wee Curry Monster presented above and this version also mentions the 3 key points Wee Curry Monster wants to mention. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba, I don't think that sentence summarizes the aspect of the Argentine case that it intends to represent. The documents explain more, offering context for some of those words. For example, as I argue above, "bring[ing] its own colonists" (in layman's terms) is not what makes a "transplanted population", because this can be achieved through more-subtle policy. The document puts "bringing" in parallel with immigration control and then says:

That provides a context to understand that "bring[ing] its own colonists" doesn't mean forcing a bunch of people, as other sources further clarify. On the other hand, the quid about the nature of the population is not if a handful of gauchos were expelled or not, or if Argentines would have been kicked out at gunpoint had they landed on the shore. Let's not try to pinpoint isolated sentences that may forward that misunderstanding. In reality, the quid has to do with policy that deeply affected the composition of the population, such as offering jobs to British citizens and undermining Argentina's possibilities of doing the same thing. For example, see these other paragraphs from the source given:

By the way, we are not talking about replacing the next bullet point, about territorial integrity, by this, right? That point, or a similar one, definitely has to be included. It is a key point, that refers to concepts from the UN Charter and, among other things, explains why the above-mentioned migratory policy was illegitimate (according to Argentina). Mentions (one or many) about the islanders not being indigenous doesn't mean that Argentina claims it to be a requirement for self-determination at large, external or not. In any case, they mention it to discard the classical de-colonization process of remedial self-determination. A use of the indigenous factor deserves such an explanation. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés: I understand what you say about context, but we need to somehow summarize all of that information into one (or more) relatively small bullet points since that is the format of the section and changing it now would be a daunting task (just look at what we are struggling with one or two points) Could I ask you to present a version of the claim(s) you propose (it needs not be just one)? And no, the idea is to replace the two claims in the section that fail verification, the rest of the claims are good as far as I can tell. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't propose to respond to the above in detail because it is altogether too long and I'd be here all day. One of the main reasons why this talk page is so hard to follow is because people keep posting 3kB behemoth after 3k behemoth - see WP:FILIBUSTERS and WP:TLDR. But I would like to suggest one of Gaba's points above seems to take the opinion that a consensus is whatever you can edit-war into the article. No. And I would suggest that we need a rather higher standard of consensus on a talk page that is as convoluted as this one than we would if things were easier to follow.

There is no consensus, and has not been at any point in the last month, for any particular replacements to these points in the article. The status quo does not in any credible sense constitute a consensus. And if no new consensus can be found, the proper procedure would be to revert to the last consensus version. Kahastok talk 17:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take Kahastok's point and will try to be brief. We see here an attempt to deny that Argentina claims the population was expelled. Taking into account the comment about using authorative sources:

.

I will re-iterate I am willing to see a rewrite where warranted, to add cites to facts that are challenged. What I am unwilling to see is the article rewrittent to falsify what Argentina in fact claims and that is what these proposals are doing. We had a very brief summary that covered the claims adequately, this should be restored. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(No Kahastok, I do not imply a consensus emerges from edit warring (of course you know this) but neither does your or Wee Curry Monster's written permission equal "consensus" (as you apparently do not realize) Perhaps a thorough read of WP:OWN would come in handy to you too).
I see both of you are still peddling reverting to the previous version. It would seem neither of you grasp the fact that the previous version is not verifiable through sources. What part of this are you two not comprehending? I've asked both of you to come up with a source for the very important bit "...were brought to replace the Argentine population" about five times now. Do you plan on playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for much longer?
We have two very clear sources for Argentina's claim regarding the applicability of self-determination: [10] and [11]. These are official documents put forward by that country and there is absolutely no reason to attempt to synthesize a claim from any other source. I'm mentioning the second one because Wee Curry Monster presented it, but I believe the first one should be more than enough.
Again, we have the most perfect sources for the Argentine claim we could hope for: documents stating the Argentine claims put forward by Argentina itself. I say we all present a version of the claim(s) based on these sources and move forward from there on.
Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok: please please please enough with the "let's go back to the previous version" thing. It fails verification and needs to be re-factored. If you are not willing to move an inch away from that version of the claim and will neither present a suitable source to at least synthesize it, then you'd do well to excuse yourselves from the rewriting process since you are only blocking the improvement of the article. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see very little in that message that hasn't already been answered - from the claim of synthesis (that doesn't exist) to the claim that neither Curry Monster nor I are "not willing to move an inch away" from the previous consensus version when both of us have independently stated willingness to improve the point. It's very difficult to make progress here when you so completely ignore other people. Your habit of assigning people positions that run directly counter to those that they have argued makes consensus much harder to find.
If you genuinely believe that a lack of new consensus here would mean that your preferred version rather than the last stable version remains in the article, it is you, not me, who needs to look back at WP:OWN. Kahastok talk 20:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, Kahastok: 1- my proposed version is not in the article so it definitely can not "remain". At least make the effort to get your facts straight before throwing random accusations around, would you? 2- For the billionth time you have made an empty comment that brings absolutely nothing to the discussion and once again you've played the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card when I asked you for a simple source. You don't seriously believe other editors are fooled by this, do you?
Furthermore I proposed that each of us presented a preferred version and you have neither comment on that nor presented any version, so I'll just go ahead and assume you'll back any version Wee Curry Monster presents to save us all some time.
I'll start a new subsection and present my proposed version there. Regards. Gaba (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Guys, when it is said that a population was expelled, it is to summarize the fact that, before January 1833, there was an Argentine settlement and, after that date, there was not one anymore, plus Argentina was prevented from settling again. The rest of the sourced text are trying to summarize this situation, as per the fragments I copied, and other sources further clarify. This was done by force, Gustafson and others concur with that. The quotation brought by WCM only denies acts of violence, which according to Gustafson are a myth in Argentina. The erroneous belief that there was violence is not extended around here imho, but we could refer to it if you would like to. However, please don't present it as if it were a noteworthy claimed point, because it isn't.
You are trying to make it look similar to other cases where self-determination is rejected on the basis of a mass of people having been removed, but that is not Argentina's point. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that is precisely Argentina's point. Argentina claims that a settled Argentine settler population was expelled to be replaced by British settler population. You are attempting to portray this claim as something different. As Gustafson and other sources point out, this is in fact simply untrue but the Argentine basis for claiming self-determination doesn't apply is dependent upon it.
In addition, Argentine claims that people from Argentina were prevented from settling or returning. This is also untrue and the historical record shows it is untrue.
  • In March 1833, Vernet sent Matthew Brisbane to the Falkland Islands to restore control over his assets in the Falklands.
  • After Brisbane's murder Lt Smith and his son looked after Vernet's assets and provided regular accounts.
  • Samuel Fisher Lafone imported a large number of Gaucho's from Urguguay and Argentina in the 1840s - 1850s
  • Admiral Laserre, from Argentina, notes a number of settlers of Argentine origin living in the islands in the 1860s
There was nothing to prevent Argentine citizens settling in the islands, they simply didn't want to.
Now having addressed this again, I am asking you directly why you wish to insert a text that claims something that differs from the official Argentine position?
As an aside, the whole rambling discussion has become dysfunctional and impossible to follow. I propose to revert to the last consensus version of the article and proceed to a structured discussion as to how this should be rewritten. Are you agreeable to that Andrés? Lets eat the elephant one bite at a time eh? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our own historical analysis is of no value here in WP Wee Curry Monster (you've been told this a number of times already). We abide by what the sources say. The official sources for the Argentine claim are clear and your attempts to synthesize a set of claims through your own perception of "truths" is of course irrelevant.
There is no need to revert anything, we simply need to agree on a new version of the claims that currently fail verification and be done with it. You've had many many opportunities to propose a version and you refused each time. Andrés and I have so far proposed several new versions 100% verified by the sources which you (and of course Kahastok) keep blocking. My proposed version below is based completely on the Argentine official documents for its claims and unless another version is presented or a valid objection raised, I'll be replacing the current claims with that one. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit is not acceptable because it does not accurately reflect what Argentina claims. WP:WEIGHT requires all significant views to be included in the article. I am well aware you will fight tooth and nail to keep any material that contradicts what Argentina claims out of the article. You reliance solely on a single source isn't acceptable. No one is trying to block anything and as noted above your continued accusations ain't helping. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WCM, as I've been saying since the beginning, what Argentina claims is not what you say it claims. When it refers to the removal and the prohibition to return of an Argentine population, it is not referring to some private citizens acting individually, but to a settlement of Argentine character, meaning a social unit that responded to an Argentine authority and thus recognized itself as under the sovereignty of the Argentine state. This is abundantly clear. It even responds to common sense, because the case cannot reasonably rest on the removal or not of five gauchos who were minding their own business. Not surprisingly, it doesn't. So please let's not do WP:OR or WP:SYN to confuse readers leading them to think that the quid of the matter is that. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I have to point out, bemused, that isn't the edit that is proposed, nor what actually happened and at this point I haven't a clue what you actually propose.
What I think you're proposing is that the entire case depends on the expulsion of a garrison, that was inserted over British protests in 1832, that was only there for 2 months? That it doesn't depend on the (false) claim of the expulsion of Vernet's settlement (which is what I presume you mean by private citizens) as virtually everyone else seems to think. Do I have you correct? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. These distinctions that you are making, more precisely "Vernet's settlement" vs. "garrison" and "genuine settlers" vs. "not genuine", do not have the meaning that you are attributing to them, which (afaik) originates from a confusion that emanates from Pascoe and Pepper.
There was an Argentine settlement at the islands, founded by Vernet and commanded by him until 1832, which continued with that "garrison". By the way, what you call a "garrison" was analogous to a presidio crew, meaning a frontier militarized population in accordance to the requirements for effective occupation. The Spanish used it a lot for that purpose, and for supporting frontier populations, as was most presumably the case in Port Louis given the consequences of the Lexington attack. Removing this "garrison" was no minor thing, as it removed the Argentine character of the settlement and the possibilities of repair and progress under Argentine authority.
On the other hand, the fact that many settlers were foreign doesn't lessen the support they gave to the Argentine case by settling given that they were responding to Argentine authority when they respected, e.g., land rights and titles emanating from Buenos Aires (I can quote Vattel on this). Pascoe and Pepper claim that Vernet sought permission from Britain on the basis that he supposedly had the land grants "countersigned" by the British consul. But "countersignment" means validation of a document, it's authenticity mostly. Such act (if real) could even be interpreted as the consul approving the right of Buenos Aires to grant land. But to derive that Vernet's settlement was not Argentine is absurd and contradicts authoritative sources. Please look up "countersign" in a dictionary.
To recap, there was an Argentine settlement and it was forcefully removed, regardless of some individuals staying or of the fact that many were foreign. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the sources are clear in this. This has nothing to do with Pascoe and Pepper, which despite your repeated assertion is not the source. Since the Ruda speech of 1964, Argentina has been claiming the islanders do not have a right to self-determination on the (false) premise that an Argentine settlement was expelled in 1833. This is what Gustafson dismisses as myth. As this is what is claimed, it is what we should report. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrés, don't waste your time. Wee Curry Monster understands the point perfectly, he's just purposely tiring you. As I stated below, what is claimed by Argentina can and should be obtained from the official documents presenting said claims developed by Argentina itself. I know this is painfully obvious, but Wee Curry Monster seems to be determined to make us all waste as much time as possible pretending not to grasp such a simple concept.
So once again: if no valid objection is raised (ie: one backed by sources not just WP:OR or personal perceptions of "truths") I'll be replacing the claims that fail verification with the ones proposed below. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Gaba, please do so. I hope I was clear (as the Argentine explanations at large are) that expelling an Argentine settlement is not synonymous of sending away all of its occupants. BTW, in case someone is still falling to the repeated abuse of citation that we are being subjected to, I will offer the context of the Gustafson sentence copied by WCM, to prove my previous remark when I said that the "myth" is not the forcible eviction of an Argentine occupation but the drama with which, according to Gustafson, the incident is portrayed in Argentina:

Needless to say, Gustafson's comments don't imply that the Argentine claim rests on this "myth" of there being a dramatic ejection of people. Neither does he imply that the "myth" should displace more-accurate accounts about the 1833 eviction that are present in Argentine discourses such as our sources. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of Gustafson's comments about historical events, as I am aware of a number of authors commenting on these events. Gaba p has spent more than a year doing his level best to suppress this fact on wikipedia, or to obscure the fact that the settlement was not expelled by misquoting various authors. The fact remains that Argentina in claiming self-determination does not apply relies on the (false) claim that the Argentine settlers were expelled. The point Gustafson makes is actually that the significance of the events of January 1833 on the competing sovereignty claims is unclear. The attempt at semantics that expelling an Argentine settlement is not synonymous of sending away all of its occupants is not a compelling argument, since that is precisely what is claimed. Apart from anything else no one in the settlement was expelled; 4 chose to leave voluntarily the rest remained. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Again, dismissing usual Wee Curry Monster WP:PAs.)
Wee Curry Monster: once again, we abide by sources. Absolutely every edit of mine is backed 100% by reliable sources. Your habit of presenting your own WP:OR and perceptions of "truths" and "facts" as a suitable replacement for sources is quite disruptive.
Seeing that no valid objection nor any source to back the statement "...were brought to replace the Argentine population" has been provided (even though it was asked no less than 6 times), I'll go ahead and replace the claims in place that fail verification with the ones proposed below. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your conduct speaks for itself, that there is any problems is due to you edit warring to impose a false view. It is not 100% back up by sources, you are taking one source and misquoting it. My conducts about your conduct can easily be verified from your contribution history. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Break 2

Now that the block imposed on the article is lifted I'll once again ask Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok for either: a reason as to why they oppose the addition of the proposed version of the claim or a source to back the claim they both support.

The reason for opposal needs to be based on sources. You can't just say "the claim does not represent what Argentina says" with absolutely nothing to support your statement other than your own word. The claims are taken from two official Argentine documents stating those claims so it really doesn't get any more official than that. If you feel these sources are being misquoted present your evidence. Again Wee Curry Monster: your word is not enough.

Regarding the source that I asked both of you for about 7 times now, here's one more request. If you wish to back the claim as presented in the article, you need to back the statement "...were brought to replace the Argentine population". Remember: your word is not enough Wee Curry Monster (neither is being backed by Kahastok).

Apcbg: since you've reverted twice the last addition of properly sourced content I'll ask you to please join the discussion and state your arguments. Otherwise please abstain from making unconstructive reverts to the article.

I've asked the editor who blocked the article to please take a look at this discussion and open a neutral RfC. It would be great if we could spare him the time and effort and come to a sensible agreement ourselves. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it to RFC is fine by me, I will simply note that sources were provided, statements were supported but you simply ignored them and (falsely) alleged WP:OR and WP:SYN. I can't see any content discussion being fruitful when you raise multiple issues simultaneously, continually misrepresent what editors have commented upon and simply repeat yourself over and again. I would welcome a neutral RFC from a neutral 3rd party and request that any attempt to WP:FILIBUSTER with WP:LASTWORD is dealt with. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that once again no source was presented and no valid objection raised but still the block remains, it would appear an RfC is the only way to go. I'll see what Dpmuk says and otherwise I'll request a neutral 3rd party admin to take a look at the discussion.
You're of course free to attack me all you want Wee Curry Monster (god knows you've never needed my permission), but the RfC would be far more productive if you could limit your contributions to content discussion. Your call though. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Proposals for claim(s)

Proposal by Gaba Gaba (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That in 1833 the United Kingdom expelled the Argentine authorities, the military garrison and their families and forbade their return; proceeding to bring its own colonists to the islands.[12]
  • That the principle of self-determination does not apply since the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population" of British character and nationality, not recognised as a "people" by United Nations resolutions.[13][14]


I think Gaba's proposal is fairly accurate. As explained before, I would prefer to clarify the meaning of "bring" (Perhaps with a footnote?) but it's not a big deal. I approve this version. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I don't, the Argentine claim is based on the (false) claim that Vernet's settlement was expelled in January 1833. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wee Curry Monster, the Argentine claims are clearly stated in the official Argentine documents stating its claims[15][16] (yes I know I'm being redundant, that's an indication of just how ridiculous this discussion has gotten) The proposed bullet points accurately reflect this being based entirely in those documents. If you believe they don't then please state precisely how by citing the relevant parts of the sources that prove your point.
If no valid reason is presented (the "reason" in your comment above being a clear example of one) I'll replace the current claims by these ones. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, can we now restore the edit proposed by Gaba? WCM, as we have explained before, your comment about Vernet's settlement is wrong. We have already shown that the context of the sources suggest that "expelled the people that had settled there" does not imply that all of the settlers were expelled. Argentine sources do not claim that, thus it can hardly be a basis of the Argentine case. Further examples:


This is my translation from the website of the permanent legislative commission "Observatorio Parlamentario Cuestión Malvinas". The text is by Rosana Guber, an academic member of the commission.


This is by Andres Cisneros, who was Argentine Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs during the 90s and was, at that time, put in charge of the Malvinas claim.


This is my translation from Napp's The Argentine Republic (1876), a book prepared by request from the Argentine government to be presented at the 1876 Philadelphia Exposition. The fragment is part of a detailed passage, which concurs with current Argentine arguments, where there is no mention of the settlers being expelled. I purposely selected this antique source as it exposes one of the plentiful propaganda artifacts in Pascoe & Pepper, a pamphlet that is probably the source of this an many other misunderstandings.

Is that enough? The verbatim selected by Gaba is more precise and relevant to the case. Can we please restore it and move forward? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, the claim made by Argentina is that the settlers were expelled, I pointed this out with a supporting cite on March 29. There has been a proposal for an RFC, which I've accepted. Let us follow the process please.
As I have patiently pointed out this has been a claim since the Ruda speech at the UN in 1964 and it is part of the rationale for denying the islanders have the right to self-determination. Selecting sources to fit your a priori assumptions does not make for a NPOV which requires that all relevant opinions are presented, you are cherry picking sources to support your edit not looking at sources to define it. You're trying to assert that Argentina doesn't make this claim and it does. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@WCM: I haven't cherry picked anything, only providing noteworthy sources for something that is well known. Please try to debate constructively and let's try to clarify this odd conversation: Are you now saying that Argentina claims that (1) settlers were expelled, or that (2) all of the settlers were expelled? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't play semantics here the claim is that the Argentine settlers were expelled, the moment I see discussion devolving into arguing semantics it is cleaer there isn't a strong argument. The only slightly odd aspect is that apparently you seek to revert to the pre-Ruda speech position that Argentina. If you were to go into history, I would agree that prior to the Ruda speech of 1964 Argentina had claimed only the explusion of the Argentine authorities. However, that changed in 1964, when Ruda made his speech to the UN to claim the Argentine settlers had been expelled. We can of course refer to the academic writings on the subject but that reflects a change in response to the evolution of self-determination doctrine.
If you want to put both claims in the article, then I don't object and I'm sure we can get to an agreeable wording. However, removing one to replace with another I can't agree with as you undermine the very case that Argentina is making based on self-determination doctrine. A garrison is a transient population, the settlers are not. Removal of a transient population shortly following a diplomatic warning would not be a strong case for denying a right to self-determination 200 years later. This is why Gustafson suggests the effect of events in 1833 aren't clear.
Again I've agreed to accept an RFC on this if conducted by a neutral admin, I'm still waiting to see it enacted. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "supporting cite" presented by Wee Curry Monster on March 29 states verbatim that the UK "expelled the people that had settled there". This is exactly what the first one of the claims proposed above states, in more detail. Wee Curry Monster is simply echoing Pascoe & Pepper's pamphlet (a WP:SPS and worst, a heavily pro-British biased one at that) where the authors make the artificial distinction between civilians and the garrison and claim that "Only 11 civilians left", that they "were not expelled; they made a free choice" and that "Only the garrison was expelled" (see page 19, point 19). They claim this invalidates the statement made in the Ruda Report which stated verbatim:
  • ...De hecho y de derecho pertenecían [las Islas Malvinas] a la República Argentina en 1833 y estaban gobernadas por autoridades argentinas y ocupadas por pobladores argentinos. Estas autoridades y pobladores fueron desalojados por la violencia, no permitiéndose su permanencia en el territorio.
The report says that both the authorities and the people/settlers/inhabitants were expelled which is precisely what the proposal above says. The difference between garrison and pobladores (people/settlers/inhabitants) is an artificial difference created by UK supporters designed to undermine the Argentine claim, as P&P's pamphlet attempts to do. That's why you see him here incoherently trying to produce some argumentation for his continued blocking of a properly sourced edit.
By all means try to extract some sense out of his comments but it's really a lost battle. We need some more neutral editors commenting here because you can count on at least two editors backing his position no matter how irrational it is and they will use this to deter consensus. Regards. Gaba (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WCM: I made a very simple question to try to clarify this absurd discussion and was met with your customary hassle. As we argued ad-nauseaum, your opinion that the people of the "garrison" were not "settlers" is irrelevant. WP:OR, and a poor one imho. The Spanish Empire used such "garrisons" commonly to comply with the requirement for effective occupation, they were called "presidios". Oftentimes they had no women, unlike the one at the islands, which had women and children and was thus probably meant to support a larger settlement, which was partly there already, responding to Argentine authority and titles and therefore part of the overall Argentine settlement. We don't know if each staff member would be ordered to remain for a year or a lifetime, but that's irrelevant, and please don't disrupt with a harangue about permanent vs. temporary occupation, because I'm referring to something else. Argentina calls these people "a population at the islands" too add up to the settlers who had arrived with Vernet.

So what Ruda and the others are saying is that these people, but not all of the settlers (not even all of the Argentines, Ruda is explicit about that) were removed. But what is more important to the Argentine case is that its authorities were removed and not allowed to return. And these facts can be fairly synthesized by saying that an "Argentine settlement" was removed, as we may read here and there, without implying that all of the settlers were removed.

We are trying to edit in a phrase that reflects the real claim more accurately, to replace the previous statement, which was misleading and incomplete. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're intepreting what Ruda meant and that is classical WP:OR and WP:SYN. Its noticeable that you're constantly making assertions about what is meant, as opposed to what is written. As an encyclopedia we do not make such interpretations and we have policy that specifically forbids such original research. You falsely claim this is down to Pepper and Pascoe, it is not. Argentina has been making this claim in response to provisions in self-determination doctrine and its to address specific aspects of self-determination doctrine. Now I've agreed to a neutral RFC where this can be debated and community opinion sought - you will get your chance to make your case. I can tell you now the constant personal attacks you keep making and the personal vendetta you and Gaba are pursuing will really undermine any case you hope to make. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreting is not equal to making WP:OR. To understand the meaning of a sentence, and to evaluate if it provides a proper synthesis, we need to pay attention to its context, meaning the rest of the text basically. That is what I'm doing. Moreover, we can use other sources to clarify ambiguous points, sources like those quoted above, particularly because we are referring to the Argentine position at large. This does not amount to advancing a new theory as in WP:SYN or WP:OR, but quite the contrary. Actually, the previous version had that defect, by taking a sentence out of context.
We have already addressed (repeatedly) several of the points that you're mentioning, but I can paraphrase and refer to the Ruda statement particularly. Please help me understand, first, what it is that you are objecting, with more precision. We agree that these Argentine voices are saying that inhabitants were expelled. Our point is that this doesn't mean that all of the inhabitants, so we are proposing a phrase, from these statements, that gives more precision regarding who was supposedly expelled. What objection do you have to that phrase? Do you mean to say that these voices are saying that all of the inhabitants were expelled, or that specifically the settlers who arrived with Vernet were expelled, and we are hiding that statement?
On the other hand, do you object to us mentioning that the authorities were expelled?
Please try to be flexible, accepting the possibility that you may be wrong regarding the basis of the Argentine case. Would it help if I provided more quotes like the 3 above? I haven't done it already only because it takes me some time and I didn't want to be met with another pointless "cherry picking" accusation. Please help me learn what kind of evidence you would like. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Wee Curry Monster accusing of WP:OR and WP:SYN is quite ironic I must say.
We are explicitly and almost verbatim reproducing what is present in the Ruda Report. Here it goes again because it would appear you didn't read it:
  • ...De hecho y de derecho pertenecían [las Islas Malvinas] a la República Argentina en 1833 y estaban gobernadas por autoridades argentinas y ocupadas por pobladores argentinos. Estas autoridades y pobladores fueron desalojados por la violencia, no permitiéndose su permanencia en el territorio.
I've repeatedly pointed that what the sources state were expelled are:
  • Ruda Report[17]: the authorities and the people/settlers/inhabitants
  • Argentine UK Embassy[18]: the authorities, the military garrison and their families
  • Cancillería[19]: the people that had settled there
You keep repeating "No, the settlers were expelled". This is precisely what the first proposed claim states, ie: "the military garrison and their families". There is no distinction made between civilians and military garrison regarding the settlers as far as Argentina is concerned, which is clearly demonstrated by the sources above. So what is your point? Are you arguing that the word settlers should be mention explicitly? I don't even know what you are opposing anymore. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wee Curry Monster: either open the RfC or ask another editor to do so or the edit needs to be made to the article. More than enough time has passed and the sources have been presented to you clearly over and over again. The article can't have those tags forever, specially when a perfectly valid edit based 100% on official Argentine sources is at our disposal and your reason for blocking its inclusion is pretty much nonexistent. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. To be honest, I think it would be more respectful to our time and effort that WCM or someone else simply restored the edit. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will not restore the edit and I will seek admin intervention if you continue with the threat to edit war per WP:3RR. I have objected to your edit because it presents an untrue picture as to what Argentina claims. I agreed to an RFC, which was your suggestion Gaba. I note that you've contacted various editors [20], [21] who've declined to open a neutral RFC and I note the RFC you started received no response - that should have sent you a very strong message. Noting the comments about bickering, which I fully agree with, I would suggest a more useful use of your time would be to suggest an edit that conforms to wikipedias policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and which doesn't rely on your own WP:OR and WP:SYN. Focusing on content rather than continuing to attack me personally will be a more productive use of your time. You cannot use ONE source and ignore/suppress what others say and that is pretty much what you're doing; you're even ignoring what the source itself claims. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wee Curry Monster: you don't even know what you are opposing anymore, do you? I have contacted one editor about opening an RfC for this issue and that's Dpmuk. I contacted Scjessey about a completely different issue (namely, your blocking of the reason for Argentina's dismissal of the referendum) Dpmuk said he had no time so I asked you to either open one or ask another editor to do so.
There has been no RfC opened bout this issue. The RfC I opened, again, was about the referendum matter (which by the way, did receive responses, even though you quickly attempted to bury it under accusations of not-NPOV and endless unsubstantial comments, with the help of Kahastok). Please pay attention because your desire to continually attack me is making you loose track and confuse your perennial oppositions by default.
We are using three different sources, all of them official Argentine sources (of course you know this already). Are you now arguing that the official claims as stated by Argentina are not suitable sources for the official claims as stated by Argentina? Are you proposing we use also use Argentine sources to comment on the British claims?
I'm ignoring what the sources say? Would you please comment further on this assertion? I've pasted verbatim above what the sources say, all three of them, and I based my proposal precisely on that. Please be specific: what are you opposing to now? Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are ignoring it and the fact I may have confused one of multiple discussions that you insist on raising, including reams of tendentious argument may have something to do with it. Argentina claims the settlers were expelled, not just the garrison; you're cherry picking sources to create misleading picture. I was clear on the point I disputed. Your sources do not support the claim you attribute to it, your interpretation of sources is WP:OR and WP:SYN. I have agreed to an RFC where you will have every chance to state your case. If just for one second you could resist the temptation to have another go at raising the temperature of talk page discussions it would be appreciated - FOCUS ON CONTENT NOT EDITORS. If you can't find anyone to open the neutral RFC you requested that should say something. Continuing to repeat the same position is unhelpful. Are you going to have the RFC I agreed to or not, you're the one who suggested it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it's my fault that you accuse me of things that never happened? I see. What Argentina claims is expressed precisely in the official Argentine documents stating its claims. I've said this so many times now it's really getting ridiculous. I am not interpreting anything, I'm barely making any changes to what the sources say. The next step is to copy/paste verbatim what is stated on the sources.
I like how you ask me to focus on content after you falsely accused me of raising multiple RfCs at Dpmuks talk page. Again: I have only asked Dpmuk to open an RfC and he said he didn't have the time. Your claim that I can't find anyone to open an RfC is designed to make it look like I've tried many times, which is untrue as I've explained to you a number of times already. Please tone it down Wee Curry Monster.
Let's wait to see what Dpmuk says about opening an RfC. If he doesn't have the time we can search for someone else. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the RfM process as Dpmuk suggested but I found out that one of the requirements is that the issue had first gone through "a less-formal dispute resolution method, such as third opinion, request for comment or dispute resolution noticeboard;". So which one do you guys prefer? Seeing that the latest couple of RfCs opened had little to no engagement, I say we could try DRN. I'll see about asking editor Marshall20 if he'd be willing to open a ticket for us over there. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marshal has agreed to help us mediating this discussion. He won't have time until the 11th, so we'll have to wait till then. In the interest of making things a bit simpler, Wee Curry Monster: do you also oppose replacing Andrés' claim with the one proposed above (the second one)? Otherwise I'll just add it into the article to ease the process and leave the first one to be discussed. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we'd both agreed to step aside, I would not have responded if I hadn't seen my username in your edit summary. Are you stepping aside or not?
As I previously noted on many occasions I oppose the edits proposed as not accurate. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wee Curry Monster I've been correcting you for the last couple of days now: this is one discussion, the one regarding the referendum is a completely different one. We stepped aside from the other discussion, remember?
So you oppose everything then. Very well, we'll just have to wait until Marshal has the time to review the discussion in full and propose a compromise/mediation. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either you step aside or you don't, I agreed to do so and supposedly so did you. I consider it rather sneaky to say the least that you're wikilawyering now to claim it was only on one subject. Its clear you had no intention to step aside. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What the?? I'm wikilawyering??? I have stepped aside from the other issue, why would you assume that means stepping aside from the entire article?? Look Wee Curry Monster, no one is forcing you to contribute (to call it something) to this discussion, so if you want to stop doing it then stop. I'd advise you to watch your accusations though. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose formal mediation through RFM because of previous bad experience with the process. I note that mediation is almost always best achieved by outside editors with no history of involvement on the topic, who are far less likely to be taken as biased by any side. Detailed knowledge is not required at the outset. In this case, given the entrenched positions of certain editors, I do not believe that consensus is possible for any particular change, with or without mediation. The discussion has run its course and I see no benefit in prolonging it. No consensus means that the previous consensus (without the changes that Gaba proposes) applies.

I would suggest, Gaba, that if you feel that people are confusing different discussions, you might consider that you are trying to carry on too many discussions at once. Kahastok talk 18:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kahastok: The previous version is unfaithful to the sources and misleading. Too much in the article follows a pamphletarian version of the topic. Let's improve it, applying something at least remotely resembling a scholarly standard. I'm putting a good deal of effort and it's rather hurtful to read blanket accusations of filibustering and entrenchment. I will try to summarize the conflict treated in this section, but please let's try to work on this and other content. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kahastok: so you oppose the edits based on verified sources, you oppose mediation to try to achieve a consensus in the issue and apparently you now also oppose Marshal as a neutral mediator. Ok.
There are only two discussions going on right now and Wee Curry Monster spent days confusing both. Really Kahastok, if you have nothing of value to add to a discussion could you please be silent? Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one trying to prolong this discussion, not me. As I indicated, I would be very happy for us to close this discussion with no consensus for any specific change reached. I note that neither I nor Curry Monster objected to change in principle, only the specific change that was proposed. You might do well to consider your own advice: I see very little of value to the discussion in your message to me or your message to Curry Monster. I will remind you that you cannot create consensus by filibustering until those who disagree with you start ignoring you.
I felt that there was any significant chance of success, I would not object to mediation by a genuinely external party (though not through RFM - I don't want to still be waiting for a mediator in August). But the discussion above demonstrates to me that there is no significant chance of success. And I remain of the view that appointing any insider as a mediator is likely to be bad for the mediator and unlikely to help the article. I note that a vital first step in practically all Wikipedia mediation is gathering the consent of all parties to the process - a step that you have skipped out here. Kahastok talk 22:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Kahastok. We'll just have to wait until Marshal has the time to review the issue and take it from there. I have to note that your involvement in this discussion has been of so little help for either position, it's almost ridiculous. Anyway. Cheers mate. Gaba (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

There are several points in the controversy between WCM on one side, and Gaba and me on another. The most notorious is that WCM wants to emphasize that Argentina claims that Vernet's settlers were expelled and not allowed to return. But Argentina doesn't claim that. To support the assertion, WCM's referred to an Argentine communication that stated that the UK "expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return", and to another (i.e., the Ruda speech) that according to him says that "A) That the Argentine settlers were expelled B) their return was prevented" [22].

I find two reasons for WCM's misinterpretation and assertiveness on this matter:

(1) A misunderstanding of the concept of unlawful population transfer. WCM stresses the depopulation of the territory as a requirement, disregarding the removal of authority as an effective foundation ( [23] [24]). But both beliefs are incorrect (e.g., see "settler infusion policies" in Kolodner 94).

(2) Believing that the pro-Argentine voices consider that the military men and their families, sent in 1832 to join the remnants of Vernet's settlement, were not "population" or "settlers"; thus those voices are referring to Vernet's settlers when they say that a population was expelled. That is absurd, more so considering that classing out those people is doubtful at the very least. In the early 19th century, small populations under orders (such as garrisons or small militarized villages called presidios by the Spanish, as well as penal settlements, etc.) were frequently used to support frontier populations or to comply, by themselves, with the requirement of effective occupation.

(3?) It is not clear to me, though I asked twice, if WCM believes that Argentina claims that all of the settlers were expelled. I provided several "official" sources [25] to show that it is not claimed.

If we discard those misapprehensions, we can interpret the context of the two sources rendered by WCM avoiding a misinterpretation that I have addressed repeatedly throughout these five weeks of unnecessarily-difficult discussion (e.g., see [26] [27] [28] [29]). When those sources say that an Argentine population was expelled, or that settlers were, there is no reason to believe that it means all of the settlers at the islands, or Vernet's settlers particularly. The Ruda statement is even explicit about some Argentinians staying.

On the other hand, the verbatim from the other source claimed by WCM, more precisely "expelled the people that had settled there and did not allow their return", is not a proper summary, particularly due to the absence of its context (as I commented here [30]). There is no reason to believe that "The people that had settled there" means all of the people who had, or that it means Vernet's settlers. Such an interpretation would be incompatible with the other sources mentioned before, and it is discouraged by the rest of the document. Elsewhere, the document states that "in 1833 the United Kingdom expelled the Argentine authorities, the military garrison and their families and forbade their return". Those are the alluded people. With Gaba, we are proposing to use that line instead, as it offers a proper summary of who was expelled according to Argentina, because it is a more-accurate statement that keeps its meaning when taken out of its context, unlike the other proposal.

Some other points were discussed here, but we can deal with those later. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers on your good summary of P&P's pro-British straw man. Sadly, bias is strong in some editors here, and I don't think that this will change anytime soon.
Well said, tho. --Langus (t) 20:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an accurate summary. I have, as promised, stayed away from the discussion, I have no particular desire to continue with a dialogue of the deaf and don't intend to make this a habit. However, I cannot allow such a statement, which is nothing but repeated personal attacks to remain unchallenged.
Langus' claim that this is based on a paper by British researchers Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe is simply untrue. His accusations of bias I reject out of hand. The fact is the edit is based upon what Argentina claims. Andrés' assertion that Argentina's claim stems solely from the expulsion of the garrison is decidedly inaccurate.
Andrés has referred to an exchange between Andrés Cisneros and Peter Pepper in the Buenos Aires Herald and Mercopress, I remember it well. The full exchange is here [31]. In one letter, Falklands/Malvinas controversy: “Minds closed, indeed”, Cisneros writes:
Specifically Cisneros claims that NONE of the Argentine civilians stayed after the British returned. This claim by Cisneros is specifically excluded from the summary that Andrés presents above. I note above he claims that I have not provided any source to show "Argentina claims that all of the settlers were expelled". This is the problem, you provide a source and its simply ignored. I first provided such a source on 29 March 2013 [32]. Its now May and he is still claiming no source has been provided.
That we are unable to achieve on a consensus on what Andrés insists upon inserting, is down to the manner this discussion has repeatedly devolved into accusations of bias, assertions this is P&P's pro-British straw man and basically down to the fact that interpreting documents to assert this claim refers only to the garrison is pure WP:OR and WP:SYN on Andrés' part. It is not helped by posts like the above, long on personal attack / accusations and very thin on actual substance. Nor can any discussion move on if we see decidely childish behaviour such as repeatedly claiming no source has been provided, when it has. It is not helped by cherry picking from sources to support an a priori position. To paraphrase Pepper and Cisneros, there can be no consensus with closed minds.
The reason I oppose the changes suggested by Andrés is that they do not accurately reflect what Argentina claims, which I have backed up with reference to sources both official and unofficial. I won't be persuaded to change my mind with the constant accusations and personal attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why we are unable to reach consensus is because you refuse to accept that the Argentine claims should be taken from the official Argentine documents stating those claims. What you have been doing instead is to repeatedly misrepresent one of the official Argentine sources (specifically [33]) to say that "Argentina claims that all of the settlers were expelled" like you did above. Neither that source nor the other two official documents say that, which I've pointed out repeatedly too. Just to summarize once more what those three official Argentine sources state in regards to who was expelled:
  • Ruda Report[34]: the authorities and the people/settlers/inhabitants
  • Argentine UK Embassy[35]: the authorities, the military garrison and their families
  • Cancillería[36]: the people that had settled there
None of them mention explicitly all of the settlers and none of them make any distinction whatsoever between civilians and the garrison as you insist on doing. Argentina has never said it bases its claims on the expulsion of all the settlers. This, as you are perfectly aware of, is a pro-British argument that attempts to downplay Argentina's position by shifting the attention to the statement that "only the garrison was expelled" as if that made any difference at all.
Cherry picking an opinion piece like that of Cisneros and his exchange with Pepper & Pascoe is utterly ridiculous when we have at our disposition three official Argentine documents to obtain the official Argentine claims from. Accusing others of cherry picking while doing so is downright hypocritical.
Finally: you don't own the article We Curry Monster. There is no requisite to get your own personal approval to make a thoroughly sourced edit to the article. Nevertheless, since Kahastok and Apcbg will back whatever your position is thus effectively blocking consensus unless we do get your personal approval, I've asked Marshall to please take the time to go through this ridiculously long mess of a discussion and open a RfC or RfM if he believes it to be necessary. Let's give him time to do so and see what his comments are on the issue. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gaba, 2 of your 3 quotes actually support Wee's position. Apcbg (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Apcbg. Your comment is the perfect example of how intricate Wee Curry Monster's semantic gymnastics are at this point. Would you mind expanding on your reasoning please? Tell us exactly what you think Wee Curry Monster's position is and how those 2 out of 3 quotes support it, would you? Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 fanaticism. 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)[reply]

It would be rather nice if we could actually work together to promote understanding and improve coverage of the topic. And it would be nice to be able to base the article in such a foundation. Nothing would please me more.
My comments the other day derived from a paper by Metford. Whilst the comments and sources you named I would by and large agree with, I have to note this doesn't reflect the content of your edits or your discussion points in talk.
Metford for example makes that point about state succession, my comments reflected his. Equally Metford makes the point I attempted to discuss the other day about utis possidetis juris.
I note that your edits have attempted to suppress an untrue claim made by Argentina, attempting to dress this up as referring only to the garrison for the example. Equally you've attempted to down play the British position.
I also note that you have worked in a tag team to edit war your comments into the article. Thus far it seems your edits seek to make the article more pro-Argentine.
That is an honest comment on my perception so far, I would like to be wrong about you, I would like to work along the lines you suggest. I, however, baulk at your dismissal of Pepper and Pascoe as propaganda. I don't agree with everything they say but their historical research is solidly based, where I sometimes disagree is with the interpretations of International law. Your presumption that the article is based solely on their research is wrong, I frequently rely on Gustafson for example, Reisman is another author I have read extensively. In fact pretty much all of those authors and then some. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WCM, I'm sad to see that my statement above didn't make you reconsider for at least one hour your customary practice of claiming sources carelessly. We will deal with Pascoe and Pepper later, and I will skip your groundless accusations about my work here. Let's focus on what you claim now about Metford 1968.
(1) You say he supports your theory about state succession. I understand that we mean that theory with which you rejected my comments (supported by lots of literature) about succeeding states inheriting rights. Your argument was that Argentina seceded through a understanding with Spain on which third countries couldn't be made liable. Metford doesn't support that singular theory, on the contrary, the little he says related to it is that the territorial rights inherited by Argentine depended not on a formal cession (thus somewhat rejecting it) but on Argentina's capacity to prevent the reestablishment of Spanish authority.
What Metford questions is uti possidetis juris, which means a question of boundaries, but I had conditioned my comment on its acceptance. What I said is that, if we accept uti possidetis juris (meaning that we include the islands in the seceding part), then Argentina would play the role of Spain in the 1790 treaty (regarding the islands). You attacked my reasoning invoking that singular theory of yours. Now you invoke Metford as support, but he only questions the hypothesis of my inference (i.e., the boundary question), which is not the same thing. In the process, we are generating a lot of pointless text in this talk page. By the way, besides dissecting Metford, there were lots of sources to consult to see if there were grounds to my statement or to your reply.
(2) You say your comments about uti possidetis juris were based on Metford. But the part I was asking you to source was that statement about Argentina rejecting uti possidetis juris in 1848. Metford doesn't say that. You repeated the statement, claiming that he did. Again, promoting lots of avoidable text by both of us. The statements that you did borrow from Metford I had accepted and answered previously.
(3) You reckon reading Gustafson and Reisman. Don't they say that Argentina effectively occupied the islands until 1833, and that Britain abandoned them in 1774? Then why did you freshly write the opposite yesterday? Inviting me, once again, to engage in long pointless discussions... You now say that you based those denials on Metford. In which page does he deny those facts?
Please try to research more carefully before proposing debates here. Preferably not just trying to "fish" for one document that you deem to be a source, but by verifying if the statement you intend to make agrees with general authoritative literature or at least doesn't contradict it.
You are right, you will see me promoting a more "pro-Argentine" version compared to what is said in this WP article. But that is due to there being a lot of what I deem propaganda and poor statements here, and I intend to ground each correction. Likewise, a South American revisionist could accuse me of promoting "pro-British" changes to the Spanish Wikipedia. In neither case is the accusation, by itself, proof of my work being tendentious. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment: P&P's "Getting it right" is an openly pro-British pamphlet (acknowledged by the authors themselves) and what's worse a WP:SPS written by two men who, as far as I could research, are neither historians nor have been published ever. This pamphlet can be used to source the British claims but nothing more. Sadly it is present in a very big number of Falkland-related articles (mostly thanks to Wee Curry Monster) which is going to make the purging process quite a difficult task; necessary nonetheless if our aim is to actually improve WP. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TLDR, I'm afraid. The process of discussion works much better when editors are not confronted with walls of text such as this. It would be much easier for everyone if we all could write more concisely. Kahastok talk 17:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andres, I hold out an olive branch saying I would like to work with you and its dashed from my hand. You continue to be wrong about Argentina inheriting rights from Spain relating to Nootka. And writing walls of text following a personal attack will not convince me you're correct.
Nor will rewritinhg what is claimed by Argentina change the price of fish; the Argentine denial of self-determination is based upon the expulsion claim. The fact it is bogus and is becoming embarassing among the better informed does not justify airbrushing it from the article as you would wish. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advise you to be careful Wee Curry Monster, your bias is showing again. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Kahastok: How else, other than by offering details, can I prove the repeated citation fraud that is disrupting our editing process? I underlined key points to make it easy to read. You are concerned, as we are, by the length of these discussions. Doesn't this issue deserve some attention? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no citation fraud and I utterly reject such an accusation. Moreover such accusations do not help in the slightest. The only misconduct I see is the attempt to misrepresent Argentine arguments related to its sovereignty claim and the false accusation this is to undermine them. You've been repeatedly warned that discussions are becoming unmanageable and veering into allegations of misconduct are not helping. The only disruption is raising multiple issues at the same time and the huge tracts of text that make discussions impossible to follow. I have offered to try and resolve this in calm and mature manner but it seems for all your fine words about co-operation - here we go again, the discussion dissolving into personal attacks and accusations - not helpful at all. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa back a bit WCM, it is understandable that Andrés Djordjalian mentioned citation fraud because there have been a few seemingly dodgy edits surrounding this subject. Example -- an editor added the following text to the article, "Argentina .... only recognises the UK government as a legitimate partner in negotiations." That was lifted from Falkland Islands and added to a sentence in this article immediately preceding an existing reference. It isn't actually mentioned in the reference given, either at Falkland Islands or in this article. Who was the culprit? NOTE. I didn't say there was deliberate citation fraud, only that some edits could give that impression. Moriori (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa right back at you, that is clearly not a case of citation fraud and is not not related to what I was accused of. Do you care to comment on why you didn't comment on the unhelpful personal attacks and accusations? You spend half your time in discussions here refuting such allegations and I for one am tiring of both it and the lack of action over such incivility. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smokescreening can't help your case. Why don't you actually address what I wrote? It is reasonably understandable that some might agree with Andrés Djordjalian's mention of citation fraud when they see your edit I have described above. You have not commented on that edit in the context I brought it up but you sidestepped with irrelevancies which I will not dignify with a reply. Moriori (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I did address your comment, I pointed out it isn't a case of citation fraud, as you yourself had already noted and it was unrelated to what I was accused of. Its often the case that an inline cite can be accidentally separated by subsequent edits. As regards side stepping, I again ask why you chose not to address the bad faith accusation of citation fraud, I also ask you if you feel that making such accusations helps? I have no case to answer here, if you want I can email you a copy of Metford and you can readily verify yourself that his paper reflects the comments I drew from it. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moriori, that Argentina only recognises the UK government as a legitimate partner in negotiations is common knowledge, reasserted every second day by the Argentine government less someone might forget their position. Should you believe that it must nevertheless be sourced in that particular place too, you might place a "citation needed" tag in the article and be done with it, rather than open yet another discussion here. Apcbg (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address my point, but no matter, I'll comment on yours. (1). It is immaterial to me whether it is true or false that Argentina recognises UK only as a partner in negotiations, and it is irrelevant to the context of my post. (2 )That context was about someone mentioning "repeated citation fraud", a response from WCM who resented that inference, and me giving an example of an edit by WCM which some may rightly or wrongly consider citation fraud. The point is that an editor added a fairly significant claim into the article and plonked it hard up against an existing reference which does not support the claim. If the editor involved has not removed the claim, or provided a reliable reference, then how about you tell him to fix the problem. Or is it simply easier to shoot the messenger? Moriori (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it unproductive to discuss people (rather than topics), let alone shoot them :-) Best, Apcbg (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't want to address my point, so how about you talk about sources! You added a reference to the article today to support a claim in the article, namely "Argentina .... only recognises the UK government as a legitimate partner in negotiations." Neither that new source, or the existing one, say what is stated in the claim I have just quoted. I am removing it as being unsourced. Moriori (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were discussing sources that support rather than necessarily repeat that statement verbatim. If you don’t like the source I provided, here are couple more which, in my opinion, support the statement that “Argentina .... only recognises the UK government as a legitimate partner in negotiations.”: USA Today: “Today, Buenos Aires refuses to recognize the Falklanders, insisting they are implanted British settlers that usurped an Argentine population in 1833. As such, it has branded the referendum illegal and says the dispute must be solved bilaterally.” and The Korea Times: “Argentina has demanded negotiations, and Britain has agreed, but insists that the islanders be involved in any talks, which Argentina refuses to on the grounds that it would be de-facto recognition of the residents' claims to the islands.” (reproduced also by The MetroWest Daily News). Apcbg (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those references says Argentina only recognises the UK as a legitimate partner in negotiations. If you think they do, then please quote verbatim the clauses which say so. Hint, saying "Buenos Aires refuses to recognize the Falklanders" does NOT say "Argentina only recognises the UK as a legitimate partner in negotiations". Moriori (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so, then we think differently what “support” means; I beg to disagree. Apcbg (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't stay on topic, then don't comment. The word "support" is not mentioned in the text I quoted.Moriori (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: “The word "support" is not mentioned in the text I quoted.”
Quite so. Why should it be?
The word “support” is the word used in your text “You added a reference to the article today to support a claim in the article ...” above. (My boldening added.)
It is also the word used in my text “... here are couple more which, in my opinion, support the statement that “Argentina .... only recognises the UK government as a legitimate partner in negotiations”.” above. (My boldening.)
And it is the same word used in the same sense in my conclusion “... then we think differently what “support” means.” above. (My boldening.)
As such, the word “support” doesn't need to be mentioned in any quoted text whatsoever. Apcbg (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you ever actually address the point? If you don't want to or can't, ask for a RFC or go to ANI. Complain that Moriori insists that information in Wikipedia must be referenced. Moriori (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, to suggest we have to use the exact same words as the source is a ridiculous argument to make. If we apply that standard every wikipedia article would be a WP:COPYVIO. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said anything about verbatim -- paraphrasing is fine. However, we cannot say X because of Y, when Y doesn't say what is in X. I removed a claim because neither ref said what the claim said.Moriori (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing is not fine at all, we are required to write original prose based on sources not paraphrasing them. Simply paraphrasing is insufficient and will also be classed as a copyright violation. The sources suggested above do support the phrase that the Argentine Government only considers the UK as a legitimate partner in negotiations. Frankly I can't see why you would say it doesn't, it clearly supports it to my mind. Yes the original reference did not support that claim, it was never intended to but was added for a different reason. The sources that both Apcbg and myself have suggested do, as the claim had not been challenged previously there had been no need to add it. Are you talking about the original source or the sources suggested above? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Apcbg: I find it ironic that you would say you rather discuss topics when you didn't help with a single comma to the discussion you involved yourself with by reverting two times [37][38] a properly sourced edit. I'm still waiting for your explanation of these rvs other the the "no consensus" summary you gave (please see WP:DRNC). Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Moriori brought it up I have to mention a much clearer case. There's a discussion going on above where Wee Curry Monster is attempting to keep in the article a version of a claim supposedly made by Argentina that is not verified by sources. I've explained to him on multiple occasions that this is indeed citation fraud and asked him for a source to support his version of the claim about 8 times throughout the discussion, to no avail. He's still claiming he provided a source (all those involved in the discussion of course know he did not) and he's still blocking the edit of the article based on an edit not supported by sources. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the source isn't there, zap the text, but say why in talk or edit summary. If he comes up with a text later, then OK, restore the info then. Moriori (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The material is in the text, I made a comment on 29 March 2013 above showing a relevant extract from the source, he then queried another word and I pointed to another source. This was simply dismissed as WP:OR and WP:SYN as the source used the word native not aboriginal. Are you aware of WP:BEANS by any chance, because as an admin you've just instructed that editor to go ahead and remove sourced material based on an unsustainable accusation of citation fraud; which on past performance he will act upon. I note you still haven't answered as to why you haven't commented on unhelpful accusations. Not to mention you yourself have simply removed material easily sourced rather than challenging what you disagreed with [39]. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Your statement that I have instructed anyone to "remove sourced material based on an unsustainable accusation of citation fraud" is insulting and reveals a lack of comprehension skills. (2) BEANS is exponentially less important to me than Wikipedia Policy which says "material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed.....The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (4). Re your claim that I "have simply removed material easily sourced rather than challenging what you (I) disagreed with", I think my removal of unsourced material, per policy, is a crystal clear hint that I sure did challenge it. If someone produces suitable references I will support inclusion of the information in the article. Until then, no. Moriori (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of comprehension skills? Well this may be partly explained by the fact you failed to comprehend that Gaba p is raising a separate issue here, which you then told him to go ahead and remove.
Pardon me but I did provide a source above and I can't see why you're saying it is unsupported by the additional sources provided. Wee Curry Monster talk

Moriori: you are correct about the proper use of sources. Sadly, applying personal interpretations of sources is routine behavior in Falkland-related articles; specially by Wee Curry Monster. WP:COPYVIO is of course not an excuse to engage in WP:OR and WP:SYN.

I'd say there's no need to zap the text because a new edit completely verified by sources has been proposed. The issue here is that Wee Curry Monster is blocking its addition (with the help of Kahastok and Apcbg). I won't try to replace the unsupported text again because it will only lead to an edit war or endless WP:PAs by him, so I've asked a neutral editor to open an RfC as soon as he has some time. Hopefully we can take care of that issue then.

Regarding Moriori's removal of uncited content from the article, I agree with it. This wouldn't be an issue if Wee Curry Monster hadn't unilaterally reverted the edit that was in place which had been agreed by no less than 6 editors when the issue was discussed. This is the edit we should go back to since it can be thoroughly sourced and Wee Curry Monster reverted it (again, after 6 editors had agreed to it) with no valid reason. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WCM is, once again, disregarding the arguments we were making about the verbatim we are intending to change. What he claims is often not in the source (e.g., the underlined Metford 1968 issues I wrote above) but, when it is, we must consider that the presence of a sentence in an acceptable source doesn't mean that it maintains its meaning when moved from its context to a different one. Or that it provides a proper and convenient summary, that can displace certain other statements. BTW, while we're having these bizarre debates with him, in the archives of this talk page we have, waiting, justified edits that were reverted without offering any argument whatsoever. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added back the thoroughly sourced reason for Argentina's dismissal that was replaced by Wee Curry Monster with the unsupported statement removed by Moriori. I used the Deutsche Welle article but I can produce no less than 10 other sources if needed, not counting the official Argentine document which states this very same reason clearly. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC),[reply]
The text you inserted said "Argentina rejected the referendum considering it illegal" but your source does not mention the word illegal. I am removing your edit per Wikipedia Policy "material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed.....the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Moriori (talk)
Actually, it does: "El gobierno argentino considera ilegal el referéndum y no lo reconoce". --Langus (t) 23:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not signing Langus, unintentional. So, yes, if one reads Spanish, they will get the message, illegal. But as this is ENGLISH wiki, and there are at least 10 other sources available according to Gaba, can we have a source in English per WP:NOENG? Moriori (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a text that did not get consensus when it was discussed, including at RFC, and with very good reasons. Waiting a month and then adding it anyway is not helpful. For the benefit of anyone joining us, what is being quoted is a slogan that does not actually communicate any meaningful information to the reader.

The basic fact of the matter is that Argentina does not recognise the islanders as having the right to self-determination. Once that is clear, the objection to a self-determination referendum is blindingly obvious. We should explaining it in that way gives the reader an understanding of Argentina's position. If we just say that Argentina calls it "illegal" - as Gaba insists we must, to the exclusion of all other text or of any compromise - then for all the reader knows Argentina has a technical dispute over ballot paper design.

I also object to putting any explanation here because we shouldn't need to repeat the same arguments over self-determination over and over again throughout the article. We need to think of this article as a whole, rather than dealing with it as a series of individual sentences to each be handled in isolation. The responses of the two sides to the referendum were entirely predictable to anyone with even a basic understanding of the dispute, and by the time the reader gets to this point, half way through the article, they should already have such an understanding. It shouldn't be possible to get to this stage in the article without this most fundamental point of dispute having been discussed - and if it is possible now, this is a problem that we need to fix.

Now, doubtless Gaba will now announce that no objection was ever raised in the previous discussions here, here and here - or in this message. He always makes this claim when someone objects to one of his edits, no matter what objections were raised: this behaviour is the main reason why consensus has become nigh-on impossible to reach on this page. It is not altogether surprising that as a result we are now potentially heading for our third RFC in the space of a month. Kahastok talk 09:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kahastok: 1- Not having the written approval by Wee Curry Monster and/or you does not equal not having consensus. Really, have you read WP:OWN?
2- I have not excluded "other text" from the article, it was Moriori who removed a bit not supported by the sources, not me (it's easier to attack me, I know).
3- The text was backed by 6 editors when it was first discussed only challenged by Wee Curry Monster and yourself. I'd say that is broad consensus. It's worth noticing that by the time Wee Curry Monster removed this sourced text from the article (agreed by 6 editors in the discussion mentioned) he had already done the same 4 times in the previous week [40][41][42][43].
4- You have once again not provided a single source to back either your comment above or your removal of sourced content from the article.
5- Of course objections were raised: by you and Wee Curry Monster. But the thing is you need sources besides your word Kahastok. This is Wikipedia, not your personal blog.
6- What makes consensus nigh-on impossible here is the clear sense of ownership and the constant WP:OR and WP:SYN by Wee Curry Monster (specially) and yourself.
Moriori: here are some [44][45][46][47]. If these are alright to you, would you do me the favor of picking on you like and adding the statement back to the article? If I do it I will simply be accused of edit-warring (to say the least) by either Wee Curry Monster or Kahastok or both. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said I agreed it should be mentioned. Argentina has said it was illegal, and I see no reason why we cannot say that Argentina claims it was illegal (as long as that is what Argentina has said). I note that in fact the sources do not say it was illegal, just not being legally recognised (or having any legal authority).Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me there Slatersteven. What I see in those sources is the word illegal being used verbatim. What do you mean by "the sources do not say it was illegal"? Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry one of the sources does not say that Argentina has claimed it was illegal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which one Slatersteven? I see that all of them mention that. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/01/uk-disappointed-argentina-talks-falklands, also we at this time have only one (in effect) source for this (it's the same newspaper).Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That article is not in the list of articles I proposed as a source Slatersteven. The four articles I proposed above all state verbatim that Argentina dismissed the referendum as illegal. What am I missing? Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is the article being used as an inline source for the wikipedia article we are discussing. Why is a source being used that does not support the claim?Slatersteven (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no idea what that article is supposed to be doing there. I believe Apcbg added it at some point. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kahastok, every major newspaper considered it meaningful information for the reader. Your refusal to let Argentina's reasoning into the paragraph because of minor technical details is, at best, worrisome.
Also, note that the the article you provided as reference is previous to the referendum, therefore not adequate for sourcing Argentina's dismissal. --Langus (t) 14:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that I don't want Argentina's reasoning to be in the article couldn't be much further from the truth here. My argument is pretty much the opposite of your characterisation.
If we have to explain the point right here in this paragraph, the explanation needs to go beyond the "what" and the "how" and move to the "why". Saying it was illegal is how they rejected it, not why they rejected it. And as I say, if we point out that Argentina does not recognise a right to self-determination, the point does not need further explanation because it is obvious.
That the "how" was repeated in a lot of newspapers does not imply that we have to repeat it as well. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so the way we cover these events will not be the same as that found in newspapers.
But I think you still haven't realised why I am saying it shouldn't be in this paragraph. I go further than that. I'm saying we should make the whole point a lot more prominently. I'm saying the reader should already know why Argentina rejected the referendum by this stage. Because we should have told them. We should have, a lot more prominently than we do now, and explanation of these basic points so that the reader well understands the reasoning for Argentina's position. Britain's support for, and Argentina's rejection of, self-determination - and the reasons for those positions - are among the most important points that this article has to get across. If the reader takes almost nothing else away from this article, they should be taking away that point. So it shouldn't be being relegated to a side point half way down the article.
But you're even opposing that. You and Gaba seem to be saying that the reader should have to infer this, one of the the most fundamental points in the dispute, from first principles based on the historical background and the statement that a referendum was "illegal". I'm saying Argentina's reasoning should be present. I'm saying we should make far more of it than we do now. If there is someone who is objecting to its going into the article, particularly "because of minor technical details", it certainly isn't me. The closest editor to that position that I can see is Gaba. Kahastok talk 15:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just quote Argentinians official position (as a quote)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That could also be a solution. I've posted above the official Argentine position as stated by its Senate, we could quote a part of the relevant statement:

Kahastok: weren't you the one accusing me of WP:WALLOFTEXT some days ago? Your argumentation of how vs why is weak at best (not to mention a clear example of WP:OR) and can't hide the fact that you and Wee Curry Monster are effectively trying to obscure relevant and properly sourced information from the article (not the first time I might add). The sources are abundant and all quite clear. If you have a source to reinstate what Moriori removed then present it and be done with it. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my argument is weak. Nor can I see it as in any way problematic from an OR perspective - I have no idea (beyond a general tendency to describe anything you dislike as OR) where you might have got that idea from. But I do think that when your only attempt to rebut a point is to claim that it is "weak", then that's probably a good indication that you have no argument against it and that it's actually quite a lot stronger than you care to admit. Your accusations are unhelpful and, as I believe I demonstrated, untrue. And I note that the quote you provide does not attempt to explain why the Argentine government rejected the referendum. Kahastok talk 15:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kahastok, I agree with your proposed conceptual approach. If accepted, it would contribute to the article's integrity and quality. Apcbg (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kahastok: if all you took from this discussion is that I think you argument is weak (I was being polite BTW), then you need to give it a re-read my friend. Your reasons for blocking this information from being added to the article (ie: "the reader should know this by the time it reaches that point in the article", "that's the 'how' not the 'why'") are so poor, I'm tempted to refer you to WP:CIR.
If you think the article needs to make "Britain's support for, and Argentina's rejection of, self-determination - and the reasons for those positions" clearer, then I am all for it. However I fail to see how this is an excuse for your removal of properly sourced and relevant information. You claim the article needs expansion and you want to do that by removing information?
The official document drafted by Argentina's Senate is a primary source only presented if a direct quote was needed as Slatersteven proposed. We rely on tertiary sources (ie: newspapers) to reliably source our edits. So far I have presented no less than 14 sources (10 in Spanish and 4 in English) that support the edit you and Wee Curry Monster refuse to accept into the article. You have presented not one source to back the previous edit in place, which is the reason Moriori (not me, Kahastok) removed it.
Am I the only one who feels this discussion is completely pointless by now? The fact of the matter is extremely simple: there are innumerable sources stating that Argentina dismissed/rejected the referendum as illegal. This is unquestionable. For how long are two editors allowed to block the edit of an article refusing to get the point? Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


How about

In March 2013 the Falkland Islanders voted overwhelmingly in a referendum for the territory to remain British. Prior to the holding of the referendum Argentina’s ambassador to London said that the referendum was illegal.[1][2] The UK Government urged Argentina and other countries to respect the islanders' wishes.[3]

Slatersteven (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see two issues with that proposed edit: it focuses only on the ambassador when the statement was actually made by the entire body of Argentine politicians and it states that it was Prior to the referendum when actually it was prior, during and after and this would make it look that it was only prior. Wouldn't it be better to keep it simple?:
  • Argentina rejected the referendum as illegal[4]
I believe this is more accurate, perfectly assignable to the source and has the benefit of brevity. What do you think? Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely one of those situations where you need a neutral 3rd party sources to source such claims. Various Argentine politicians have stated its illegal, so what, if we simply repeat Argentine statements without attribution then we are turning Wikipedia into a propaganda platform. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV definitely applies in this case, otherwise an overtly political opinion is inserted into the article as fact. I question where we even need to state that Argentina has made that claim. The word "illegal" (and a series of other phrases) could be included in several parts of the section, but (up to now) any such terms have been rightfully avoided. It is further worth noting that, aside from illegal, the referendum has also been called a parody, political maneuver, and publicity stunt. While they are good for selling newspaper stories, none of those terms are appropriate for the article.
Repeating a previous comment, how many issues do you intend to raise at the same time, how many times do you intend to raise the same issue? From my count this is the 3rd or 4th time in a month you've made the same demand that we describe it is "illegal". Wee Curry Monster talk 14:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
"The government of Argentina rejected the referendum, claiming it was illegal."
It matches the source, but does not awkwardly use Wikipedia's voice. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about just:
"The government of Argentina rejected the referendum."
It also matches the source but doesn't pick at random one of many headline grabbing sobriquets. Is there any need to mention them at all? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gaba's and Scjessey's wordings are both fine. Argentina's use of the 'I' word is a notable escalation of rhetoric so should be included. Petecarney (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The GLobal Post, The Guardian and The Telegraph are suitable 3rd party sources (as are the other sources I've presented in Spanish). WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is being respected since the claim is clearly attributed to Argentina. This is not simply what "Various Argentine politicians have stated", this is the official position of the whole body of the government as the official document drafted by its Senate demonstrates, which regards verbatim the referendum as illegal.

Wee Curry Monster: there would have been no need to raise this issue not even once if you hadn't removed this properly sourced and relevant piece of information from the article at least 5 times. Furthermore it certainly wouldn't have been necessary to raise the issue after the first time it was discussed if you hadn't removed this information form the article after 6 editors agreed to include it.

Petecarney: thanks for the input. I would also have no issue with Scjessey's wording. Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I remain opposed to these wordings for reasons I stated earlier. This is describing the words in which Argentina rejected the referendum, but entirely fails to explain the reasoning, which the reader will have to work out for themselves from first principles. We have the choice to explain Argentina's reasoning and I see no benefit to the reader in replacing it with a soundbite.

I note that Gaba's attempts to rebut the point do not seem to extend much beyond describing the point as "weak" and issuing a personal attack - though I note that he seems to declare a principle that expanding the article cannot mean at the same time removing or declining to add redundant information. I disagree. In fact, expanding the article will very often mean precisely this as a point that is put better elsewhere does not need to be repeated ad infinitum. And even if we aren't expanding the point, there has never been a rule that says that Wikipedia articles must include all information or even all on-topic sourced information, if the benefit to the reader is as slim as in this case.

I would dispute Petecarney's assertion that Argentina's use of the word "illegal" is a "notable escalation of rhetoric". The word "illegal" has been a fairly standard part of the Argentine government's rhetoric on Falklands issues for decades. Kahastok talk 17:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Wee Curry Monster’s wording is acceptable, while Gaba's and Scjessey's are not due to the confusing use of the word “illegal.” The reader would be puzzled – illegal according to which law? Surely not under British and Falklands law. Nor could it be illegal under Argentine law, which is not applicable on the Islands. And not according to International Law either, as the referendum’s subject (relationship between UK citizens and the UK government) is an internal affair. Furthermore, whether something is legal or illegal is ruled by the court of justice; it is not obvious which court might have the relevant jurisdiction in this case. In any case, the suggested use of “illegal” would be confusing. While political statements might – intentionally or otherwise – be confusing, encyclopedic articles should not. All this could be clarified within Kahastok’s proposed more comprehensive approach to the article. Apcbg (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that "illegal" is pretty much a standard part of Argentina's rhetoric over the Falkland Islands, in fact that is why I suggest it isn't included as we end up repeating the same thing over and over. Were it something new, I would perhaps have a different view about its inclusion here. Apcbg also makes a strong case why we should include that WP:WEASEL word at this time.
I simply don't see that arbitrarily picking one of a number of head lining grabbing statements (long on rhetoric but short on fact) has any place in an encyclopedia. All of these statements are great for headlines but not relevant content for an encyclopedia. We've already stated Argentina's view, why do we need to state it again and again. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kahastok: if you want to expand the article later on, that's fantastic and do count on my help to do it. There's no replacing anything here, just the addition of an irrefutably sourced piece of information correctly attributed to Argentina. My "attempts to rebut the point" are quite simple: this is a properly sourced and relevant piece of information. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons are not enough to keep it out.
Apcbg: by "Wee Curry Monster's wording" you of course mean completely obscuring this information. If you are concerned about why Argentina dismissed it as illegal then we can add that information too. It's right there in the German news media Deutsche Welle article I've presented a number of times now. It 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."[48] So I take it you want to include something along these lines into the article, right?
Wee Curry Monster: you can keep repeating this is just a "head grabbing statements", it does not make it true. It's the official position of Argentina as stated by its entire body of government . As the 14 sources I've presented state, it is the reason for the dismissal/rejection of the referendum by that country and as such worthy of at least a single mention.
Let me note that in the previous discussion there were 6 editors in favor of making this edit (which Wee Curry Monster removed from the article). Now 2 more editors have said they too agree (Scjessey and Petercarney) which makes it 8 editors for the addition of this information and only 3 against (that's counting Apcbg but I believe he would have no reason to disagree with including the edit and expanding it as I've proposed above). Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok have made it quite clear that they will not give their consensus and have effectively been blocking the inclusion of this information pretty much since the referendum was held more than 40 days ago[49]. At which point do we apply broad consensus and make the edit? Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assume that my suggested compromise text implies that I approve of the inclusion. I was just throwing it up there. In fact, I lean toward exclusion for all the reasons stated by Kahastok. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kahastok said "This is describing the words in which Argentina rejected the referendum, but entirely fails to explain the reasoning, which the reader will have to work out for themselves from first principles. We have the choice to explain Argentina's reasoning and I see no benefit to the reader in replacing it with a soundbite."
I wonder how would he oppose to the concise explanation that "Argentina dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum, arguing that they have no such right". --Langus (t) 21:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scjessey, Kahastok's proposal in no way implies that we should exclude this information. As I've stated above I'm all for expanding the article explaining Argentina's and the UK's reasoning regarding self-determination in more detail as he proposes, but this does not mean we must leave this information out. I can't see why anyone would think these two edits are mutually exclusive. This is what Argentina had to say about the referendum, its the official position of one of the parties in the dispute, it takes no more than 3 words to state it clearly and it can be humongously sourced. What am I missing here? Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gaba, your quote (“... 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.”) does not say — illegal under which law? Apcbg (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Apcbg, your point is that it could mean Argentine domestic law? To answer that, we have to consider the context. In all of the explanations they are referring to (1) the lack of legal consequences and (2) the lack of UN sanction. Therefore, the law in question is clearly international law, which is the one that deals with sovereignty over a territory, where the legal consequences or lack thereof rest. And where those kinds of UN resolutions matter.
The problem is that Senator Fernandez and Minister Timerman used the word "illegal", which rather means forbidden by law, despite them offering that other explanation, which is better represented by the word "illegitimate". Therefore, you may wonder if polling people in Argentina is forbidden by law, if the islanders will be prosecuted or something of the sort. That would position the word "illegal" as one referred to domestic law. But no such odd comments have been made. The context clearly indicates that what they were saying is that the referendum was not done in accordance to the law that deals with matters of territorial sovereignty (i.e., international law). That is why I would prefer using "illegitimate", "having no legal value" or "invalid under international law", etc. But I can accept using "illegal" for the sake of moving forward. However, I would advise against saying that "they have no such right".
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Gaba advocating the use of the word "illegal" because the other options were quickly rejected? In other words, using an exact verbatim because options that implied some reflection were discarded by other editors who indiscriminately claimed WP:OR? How is this useful to the article? BTW, as I commented about a month ago in my statement in the RFC, let's leave further details to be discussed after adding some basic info! I agree with Gaba on that. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrés, no my point is not that “it could mean Argentine domestic law;” it is not up to me – or you – to guess which law was meant by claiming the referendum was “illegal.” I don’t actually know if it would or would not have been illegal under Argentine law if that law were applicable on the Islands (which it is not).
Even if your inference of the supposed relevant law from the context was faultless, it would be just your reasoning that the reader may or may not share.
As a matter of fact, your inference is questionable. Indeed, International Law deals with sovereignty only when independent countries are involved. That law becomes relevant at a later stage, after a sovereignty referendum is held to result in opting for independence, and when independence is proclaimed. As a rule, sovereignty referendums are mandated by domestic law. UN involvement is not a valid criterion, as the UN was involved in some sovereignty referendums (for instance the 1993 Eritrean referendum, the 1999 East Timor referendum or the 2011 South Sudanese referendum) and not involved in others (for instance the 1977 Aruba referendum, the 1987 New Caledonian referendum, the 1980 and 1995 Quebec referendums, the 1995 Bermudan referendum, or the 1967, 1993, 1998 and 2012 Puerto Rican referendums). I don’t expect the UN to be involved in the next year Scottish referendum or Catalan referendum either.
So the use of “illegal” would be confusing for the reader, and its possible replacement by “illegitimate” wouldn’t help as it remains equally unclear and confusing – illegitimate under which law?
As for your suggestion to “leave further details to be discussed after adding some basic info,” the basic info that “Argentina dismissed Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum” is already there, and I believe that possible further details should be agreed first, preferably as a part of the comprehensive approach suggested by Kahastok. Apcbg (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apcbg, when there is a referendum followed by a secession, domestic laws may regulate the referendum but, in the end, what matters is that the "mother" state concedes to the secession through some kind of treaty, followed by recognition by other states. In other words, the issue is elevated to the sphere of international law, because that is the law that matters for territorial sovereignty.
If the Argentine statements had been, for example, that the referendum did not comply to the stipulations of the Argentine Constitution regarding referendums, or something of the sort, then we could say that the alleged illegitimacy followed from arguments of domestic law. But they were referring to instances where the UN refused to accept the proposal that the islanders decide on sovereignty regardless of the will of Argentina, therefore referring to the sphere of international law. I am not guessing, but trying to make an inferential comprehension of the text in which I don't find me including any subjective assumptions of my own (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Now, let's imagine that Senator Aníbal Fernandez comes and tells us "Guys, when I said 'illegal' I was considering international law, as per my explanation, but I was also referring to the lack of formalities stipulated by the Argentine Constitution. I simply did not elaborate on that other part." Then, what would be the problem with saying that he said "illegal" or that he meant that it had no legal consequences? Why is it so necessary to get into his head (an impossible feat, even though it's large) and find out if he was thinking of domestic law too? The opinion of a lack of legal consequences is still meaningful.
I would love to be detailed about the Argentine explanations, but I very much doubt that we will reach an agreement, at least not anytime soon. Correct me if I'm wrong but, when we tried, some were arguing about not mentioning the UN at all, which sounds very much arbitrary to me. So let's add some more info, namely, that Argentina's position is that the referendum was ineffective, using "illegal", "illegitimate" or some of the phrases given above. Without that, a reader may wonder if Argentina's point was that the referendum was badly done, or if its authorities gave no explanation, etc. Then we'll see about offering more detail. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: “when there is a referendum followed by a secession, domestic laws may regulate the referendum but, in the end, what matters is that the "mother" state concedes to the secession through some kind of treaty, followed by recognition by other states. In other words, the issue is elevated to the sphere of international law.”
This is pretty much what I wrote: “International Law deals with sovereignty only when independent countries are involved. That law becomes relevant at a later stage, after a sovereignty referendum is held to result in opting for independence, and when independence is proclaimed.”
This does not happen (and thus the issue is not elevated to the sphere of International Law) when a referendum results not in independence but in some of the other possible options (such as integration or association with some country) or in preservation of the status quo.
Which was the case of the 2013 Falklands referendum. Apcbg (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry I was redundant on that point.) If the domestic referendum process determines that no change of sovereignty is necessary, then the matter is obviously not elevated to the sphere of international law, because the are no consequences of that kind to advance. Domestic law may be important to the process, but it is international law that deals with its legal consequences or lack thereof. When the Argentine voices explained that they meant an absence of consequences, as well as the lack of UN approval to that kind of solution to the dispute, it was evident that the illegitimacy was in regards to international law, and not about stipulations in British law regulating the referendum. Moreover, the latter would have been a very odd statement coming from Argentine officers. Even if a reader contemplates such an odd interpretation, saying that "there were no legal consequences" would have the intended meaning. We can later (try to) detail the reasons for that argument, to make it clear to them that the Argentinians were not saying that the ballots were not handled as stipulated by British law and those sorts of things, but gave international-law arguments instead. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: “Domestic law may be important to the process, but it is international law that deals with its legal consequences or lack thereof.” No it does not deal with the possible legal consequences or lack thereof of referendums devoid of the option of independence. The 2013 Falklands referendum did not iclude that option, so International Law is not implied, not even hypothetically. Therefore, “there were no legal consequences” would not have the meaning you believe it would (and which, as we have seen, is questionable).
Furthermore, saying that “there were no legal consequences” would be confusing too, as it would suggest that someone (HMG? FIG?) is claiming there were such consequences. I am not aware of anyone having made any such claims. The referendum is not part of the Falklands legislative process, it is a political instrument that has political not legal consequences – not even indirectly as, for all I know, no adopted or pending legislation has been prompted by the referendum results. Apcbg (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apcbg, I concede that "there were no legal consequences" would kind of suggest that there could have been immediate legal consequences. The referendum was sometimes presented in a way that may imply that it had consequences on the sovereignty dispute, so I don't think it's useless to comment that it didn't (and if you want to add that it was a publicity stunt, or something of the sort that was said, that's good imo). But I realize that "there were no legal consequences" is not quite the same as saying that it wasn't in accordance with (international) law.
As a side note, let me point out that independence was not out of the question, because (in theory) the referendum could have had a different result, indicating that the islanders did not want to remain British. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say that it was binding, but that a matter of independence was also on the table. Any referendum where a issue of territorial sovereignty is consulted is directed towards (possible) final consequences at the international-law level, because it is a that level where territorial sovereignty is dealt with. Of course there are domestic legal consequences as well (e.g., intermediate ones such as the creation or not of parliamentary commissions, and final ones such as redistribution of representation). But when these Argentine voices refer to a lack of legal consequences, they are evidently referring to final consequences in regards to the sovereignty question. It's the same argument I used before for "illegitimate"—it is implicit that the term was not used in regards to British law. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andrés, what you are actually suggesting is that the statement “there were no legal consequences” should be interpreted as meaning that the 2013 Falklands referendum did not result in a prevailing ‘No’ vote that might have had a certain political consequence (holding a second referendum won by the pro-independence faction) that would have had another political consequence (declaration of independence) that would have had both legal (adoption of a new constitution etc.) and political (recognition or non-recognition of the Falklands independence by various countries) consequences that eventually would have elevated the issue – to borrow your wording – to the sphere of International Law.
Well, I doubt if this line of reasoning might be usable, let alone sourceable.
If we return to the Argentine dismissal of the referendum, the explanation of ‘Why’ is rather more straightforward and reasonable. Namely, the referendum is dismissed by Argentina because it is an act of self-determination, and Buenos Aires does not recognize that Falklander right (the latter needing no further elaboration here as it is explained and sourced elsewhere in the article). Apcbg (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apcbg, it would be more objective and in-place to summarize the Argentine responses than to present our own elaboration of their motives. The quid of the responses was that the referendum did not follow from a proper legal framework, thus it did not have legal effects, being largely a publicity ("political"?) exercise. The lack of UN sanction, repeated by those voices, is indispensable to their argument. When I gave the last remarks above, it was not to present a detailed argument, but to demonstrate that it wasn't a problem that the voices were not explicit about which law was "legal" being referred to. The response was not deemed meaningless, because it was obviously not referred to British domestic law, and it was not important if it was intended in regards to Argentine domestic law too, besides its evident and more-important reference to international law. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me correct you, Gaba has always advocated the use of the word "illegal" and rejected other options out of hand. We're only at an impasse as he has insisted upon it. Langus' wording for example may be one way forward. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct you Wee Curry Monster on my advocation of the word "illegal". I proposed this more than a month ago:

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

which of course was immediately rejected by you. It is you who has systematically opposed any mention of Argentina's reasoning. The only other options you have favored are: a complete removal of this information or the edit Moriori removed. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba that suggestion was just semantics, "no legal value" is simply a synonym for illegal. Playing semantics is simply symptomatic of a poor argument and its a poor argument because your edits do not explain or help our readers understanding. Your constant personal attacks and pointing fingers blaming everyone but yourself shows where the problem lies. Discuss content not editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wee Curry Monster: I'm simply pointing out that your assertion that I have "always advocated the use of the word "illegal" and rejected other options out of hand" is simply untrue. Not surprising though, as I and others have commented on your constant misrepresentations of other editors comments. Pointing out that it was in fact you who immediately opposed it is hardly an attack. It's a fact.
The issue is simple: we have a highly sourced piece of information of complete relevance to the article that you have been attempting to obscure since day 1 (that's 40 days and counting). That's a fact. Several editors added that information and you systematically removed it. That's another fact. You have not presented a single source that backs the edit you introduced into the article and Moriori removed (precisely because the source did not back the edit). Thats one more fact.
Your reasoning for censoring the proposed edit is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The wording proposed is present in at least 14 3rd party reliable sources (just the ones I quickly found), is 100% verifiable and in complete accordance with weight as it only requires the addition of 2 words (ie: as illegal) It's becoming increasingly clear that your only objective is to deter any form of consensus by refusing to get the point. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No you're simply indulging in semantics and really its becoming arguing for arguings sake. I have set out my reasons for rejecting your edit and it has nothing to do with the motives you suggest in your blatant demonstration of bad faith. That a consensus has proved elusive is purely down to your refusal to compromise and insist it must be your edit and your edit only. I see no point in continuing this discussion, my only interest is to discuss content not editors and my comment to Andres was to simply to correct a misunderstanding on his part. You are welcome to the WP:LASTWORD as is your habit. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@WCM, when I said "the other options", I meant the ones given right before, "having no legal value" being one. I was arguing that "illegal" is not the same thing. Please read more carefully before responding, this happens much too often. I suggest we collapse the block from your 11:50, 23 April comment to this one of mine, because it serves no purpose to the debate, being just this misapprehension and Gaba's rectification. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any other editor here would apologize. Not Curry Monster's style. --Langus (t) 21:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to apologise for. But Langus when I have I do [50], [51], [52]. And btw yes, Andres, it is the same thing. Note I have only responded because of further personal attacks to defend myself. Funnily enough all of these discussions now dissolve into 3 editors attacking anyone who disagrees with them and insisting everyone else is wrong. Yes this serves no purpose, none whatsoever. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wee Curry Monster: "3 editors insisting everyone else is wrong"? That is funny because if I remember correctly it was you who unilaterally removed the edit from the article after 6 editors agreed to it in the talk page, insisting that everybody else was wrong. It's even funnier because there are right now 6 editors who have expressed that they are in favor of adding the edit and 2 editors (you and Kahastok) keep repeating they are all wrong and blocking said edit. Perhaps a reality check is in order? Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WCM: So I must conclude that a robbery has no legal consequences and whistling is illegal? Did you even read my argument before answering? Even if you believe "illegal" to be equal to "has no legal consequences", your "correction" regarding Gaba was out of place. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Noting the number of editors who have spoken in favor of adding this thoroughly sourced piece of very minimal information into the article is quite larger than the number of editors who vehemently oppose any mention of such, I move to re-instate the edit as it was before Wee Curry Monster unilaterally removed it from the article (added after being agreed by 6 editors). There's no reason why, after the issue has been heavily discussed, the position of a minority should have more weight than the position of the majority of editors who have commented.

Since the RfC I opened on the issue about a month ago was successfully hijacked by Wee Curry Monster I'm inviting him (or Kahastok) to open a new one or ask an un-involved editor to do so. I asked Scjessey but he has no desire of getting involved, which I surely understand. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, your obsession with having the WP:LASTWORD meant the RFC went nowhere. That you got no comment is because from an outside observer it looked like a disruptive editor who couldn't let it go. You got plenty of useful advice you chose to ignore.
WP:CONSENSUS is not a WP:MAJORITY and its about strength of argument. It is not the case that I and other Kahastok alone have opposed your edit, multiple editors have for the simple reason it isn't neutral and its not about informing readers its about inserting what is little more than propaganda statements into wikipedia. You have no argument other than falsely claiming only two editors oppose it and claiming other editors support it. I would oppose such a proposal based as it is on a blatant demonstration of bad faith and a complete misrepresentation of the discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a comment actually by editor RightowLeftCoast who said the statement should be attributed respecting weight and balance. The edit proposed is clearly attributed to Argentina, weight is respected since it's only a minor mention and the sources are plentiful and balance can be achieved by also commenting on what the UK said. Of course you'll surely find this comment backs your position of censoring this information from the article somehow.
My arguments have been stated over and over again: this is a thoroughly sourced, minimal and clearly relevant piece of information. The fact that the majority of editors back the inclusion of that edit is indisputable, which of course you are fully aware of.
What you propose is that whenever a disputed edit is opposed by a minority of editors after it was heavily discussed, the minority's position should prevail. Why is this? Would you apply this same standard to other edits/articles? Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEIGHT requires that all significant views in the literature are reflected in wikipedia's articles. Your edit doesn't do that, it picks one of many political statements that are nothing but rhetoric and seeks to state in wikipedia's voice a politically motivated opinion as fact. You don't seek to explain to our readers, you wish to use wikipedia to make a political statement. This is why your edit is opposed by a number of editors. You repeatedly claim to have a majority of editors backing you, you don't as it happens, but even if you did a simply majority is not a consensus. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've presented 14 sources all sating exactly the same: that Argentina rejected the referendum as illegal. You have presented not one single source stating otherwise. What other views are you talking about??
Are you saying that you consider the official document by Argentina's Senate on the referendum labeling it as illegal one of many political statements that are nothing but rhetoric? You do understand this is the official position of the entire political body of a country, don't you?
There's no statement of a fact, the wording is clearly assigned to Argentina, what are you talking about??
There is a clear majority of editors backing this edit which you are very well aware of. Furthermore, as per WP:NOCONSENSUS: "..a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit..". That would be your bold (and unilateral) edit removing information that was agreed in the talk page by no less than 6 editors. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just read that again. Difficult to believe, but you really did just claim that a text that lasted on the article was a stable standing consensus after lasting on the article for less than fifteen minutes. It is difficult to accept in good faith, given that you have been on Wikipedia as long as you have, that you don't know that fifteen minutes is nowhere close to long enough establish consensus (you're out by several orders of magnitude), and this looks a lot like an attempt to game the system. Kahastok talk 18:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is exclusively an answer to Kahastok's comment above. I didn't intent on commenting here but such a bad faith accusation can't go without a reply. Kahastok: the text lasted in the article for three days after being agreed by 6 editors in the talk page [53] until Wee Curry Monster decided to unilaterally remove it [54]. That marked the fourth time Wee Curry Monster deleted that information from the article [55][56][57][58] by the way. So yes, I definitely call that broad consensus. Are we still assuming good faith? Kakastok, I've pledged not to comment here anymore so I'd ask you to please restrict your comments on content so I'm not forced to reply to your false accusations anymore. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are we still assuming good faith? Well I'm trying, though as I noted it is difficult when you try and make the claim you are making. But I don't think there can be any question in your case. I hope that the irony of your accusing me of not assuming good faith, while at the same time repeatedly, directly and unambiguously accusing me of bad faith, is not lost on you.
Three days on the article, even if the point were not subject to ongoing discussion on talk (and it was), even if there was not an RFC that proved inconclusive (and there was), still would not in any reasonable sense constitute a prior stable consensus. In fact, even if we accept - for the sake of argument - the accuracy of all your factual claims, your conclusion there was a consensus for your version still does not hold. If it did work as you claim, there would be continual edit warring on every article subject to dispute as editors would feel compelled to ensure that no text that they opposed remained on the article for even a short time.
If you think that your personal attacks are going to persuade me to support your position on the content dispute, you are very much mistaken. My objections and proposals as previously detailed remain in full. Kahastok talk 22:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So no apologies for your false accusation? You want me to WP:AGF after this behaviour of yours Kahastok? The point was not the subject of ongoing discussion. As anybody can check in the talk page the consensus was reached on the 19th and the discussion was revived on the 23rd by Wee Curry Monster after he unilaterally removed the information the 22nd [59]. There was also no "inconclusive RfC" at the time of Wee Curry Monster's unilateral removal of the information. My factual claims can all be checked in the archives Kahastok, can you say the same about yours? After such an obvious false accusation I was expecting at least a minor apology from you, instead you're trying to hide that fact accusing me of personal attacks. You'll excuse me if this makes it pretty difficult for me to assume good faith. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this respect you are both as bad as each other. It might be useful if you both walked away for a week or two.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem in stepping aside as I've proposed to Wee Curry Monster on other occasions. If he's willing to, I'd say we both excuse ourselves from the discussion and let other editors handle it as a sign of good faith. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then simply step aside, I am quite happy to simply state my piece and let others comment. I've already done it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well Wee Curry Monster, I'm taking you up on your word. You don't comment on this thread any more and neither shall I. We can let other editors sort it out. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9908453/Argentina-wont-back-down-over-Falklands-despite-illegal-referendum.html
  2. ^ "Falkland Islands: respect overwhelming 'yes' vote, Cameron tells Argentina". The Guardian. 12 March 2013. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
  3. ^ Falklands referendum: Voters choose to remain UK territory, BBC UK, 12 March 2013
  4. ^ http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130201/argentina-rejects-falklands-referendum-illegal

Cakwell & British protection

WCM, thanks for indicating a source for the following sentence:


I would appreciate it if you could quote the passage for us, to verify if the sentence is a proper summary. Thanks. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The passage says:


Its pretty clear that it fully supports that text. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in the article suggests that, according to Vernet, it was Britain's right to form a permanent presence on the islands if it chose to. The sentence you are quoting says "in the event of the British returning", which puts that option in the same level as a cession or a high-handed act. I think we should use those words or something similar. And please bear in mind that the sentence is not the same as asking for permission, much less doing it formally. As a side note, it would be interesting to study a bit more on this issue, like looking at the primary sources or other secondary sources. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, whilst I won't object to the change you made as it was one down purely to personal preference, the text that was in the article was equally acceptable. That was change for changes sake and was not a material improvement in the article; really it was pure WP:POINT but I can't be bothered to argue about it. And for information Vernet's correspondence is in the archive at Kew, I have a friend who has been studying this for some time. If you're in Buenos Aires a trip to the National Archives to look at Vernet's correspondence, which was donated by his family will be very illuminating about Vernet's dealings with the British. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say about trading a visit to the archives at Kew with a visit to the ones at Buenos Aires? Do you live near the latter? We could photograph some specific documents and trade the photos. I haven't used the BA archive but I think it is available for non-accredited visitors as long as the physical support is not in bad condition. There are some docs I want to consult from Kew, not really controversial points (actually, it would be a rather pro-British argument) but it may be expensive to request them by email. I'm waiting for a quotation but my worries are that, after reading the pages requested first, I will want to see other ones, and so forth. Ah, your friend doesn't happen to be Peter Pepper, right? BTW, these days I am trying, with some private collectors that my mother knows, to find an 1882 Latzina map. As you may know, there are discrepancies with pictures on the internet. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Latzina map is relatively easy to track down. But which Latzina map, the original from 1882 or the "reprint" from 1889? [60]. If you know someone who has access to the Library of Congress, there is an original there that is in the public domain. I am in Glasgow and just about as far away from Kew as it is possible to get without getting wet. Not that it is any of your business but no it is not Peter Pepper or Graham Pascoe and I will not be revealing any personal information based on previous bad experiences of doing so. An email request for a scan costs £25 for information. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the 1882 map. The Library of Congress doesn't seem to have one, the National Library does, but I would prefer to visit a private collector if I can. Too bad that Kew is not closer to Glasgow. If your non-PP friend is closer and interested, he or she can contact me (I'm using my real name thus I'm easy to find). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find the Library of Congress has a copy listed in their catalogue. See [61] for the search engine. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I interject? I don't know whether my thought will help you. A simple concept arrived at by pure logic. There was no "Argentine" settlement on the Falkland Islands in 1832/3. Vernet was "granted" land on East Falkland in 1823 by the United Provinces of the River Plate. This had no validity as the territory had British sovereignty as of 1765. The Argentine claim that it "inherited" its claim to the Falklands from the Spanish is clearly ludicrous. There are various methods under international law for acquiring sovereignty over territory. "Inheritance" is not, and never has been, one of them. So we start with an illegal land grant. But this might be considered to be "corrected" by the British permission granted in 1826. However, on the logical basis that a "settlement" takes on the character of its leader, it should be noted that when Vernet was appointed "Political and Military Commander" on 13th June, 1829, that decree was issued by the Republic of Buenos Aires. Reference to the section 35 of the Argentine Constitution shows that the "Republic of Buenos Aires" is not a recognised "denomination". Therefore, any action by the "Republic of Buenos Aires" is not "Argentine". By the process of logic, the settlement was, in fact, British. The United Provinces garrison was, however, a foreign trespasser. And therefore could be "quite properly" expelled. With regard to the Argentine "claim", can I point out that the principle of uti possidetis juris put forward by Argentina is a solely Latin American interpretation. However, there is a reasonable legal principle. uti possidetis". The simple principle that what you possess at the end of an armed conflict is yours. uti possidetis" comes into play in 1982. At the end of the Falklands War, Britain was in possession of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Therefore, all Argentine claims are negated. Agent0060 14:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talkcontribs)
@Agent0060: there are several omissions in your reasoning. First of all, regarding the issues of inheritance and the "Buenos Aires" denomination, you are disregarding the concept of state succession, which can be consulted in general literature about international law. External uti possidetis juris (meaning the one affecting boundaries which were already international before the advent of the new states) was not just a domestic doctrine, because it was a practice commonly respected by foreign nations (customary practice being the utmost source of international law, see e.g. Oppenheimer) and, more importantly, because it was an instance of a generally-accepted law of state succession (see comments on uti possidetis juris in the ICJ's full judgement of the Burkina Faso–Mali frontier dispute).
On the other hand, it is doubtful that Britain had established sovereignty in 1765 of Port Egmont and absurd to argue that it had for the eastern portion of the archipelago. Moreover, its claim was affected by decades of abandonment and acquiescence to Spanish control. For authoritative sources that explain this you can consult, e.g., Reisman, Hope or Gustafson. With respect to sovereignty in 1833, their arguments, as well as other sources's, are summarized in these blog posts: [62] [63]. In the first of those posts I elaborate on the western vs. eastern-half distinction, which is not frequently treated.
Regarding your comments on uti possidetis, it is correct to say that status quo post belli (as in uti possidetis) was a typical mode of termination of a war, but so was status quo ante belli. An often-mentioned example of the latter was the conclusion of the Anglo–American war of 1812. Sometimes a mix was chosen, when details about which territories remain under the sovereignty of each state were given in a peace treaty. What uti possidetis actually established was that status quo post belli was the option "by default", meaning that any territory gained during the war would remain under the occupants unless the peace treaty gave contrary stipulations.
Regarding the applicability of the principle to the 1982 conflict, bear in mind, also, that doctrines related to "rights of conquest" have changed significantly since the advent of supranational organizations like the UN, and to a large extent they were suppressed. Those few cases in which the doctrine was revived included elements such as the losing state tacitly accepting to cede the occupied territory or an ample recognition from the international community (thus there being arguably any right from conquest by itself). Activity at the UN during and after the 1982 conflict, such as British arguments, Argentina's statements and votes by the international community, disavow the conjecture of uti possidetis. In particular, a UN resolution passed after the conflict, where it was stipulated that the events would not change the sovereignty question.
To finalize, please check the authority of your sources regarding the alleged 1826 permission. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Utis possidetis juris is not an universally accepted norm in International Law, and in the Burkina Faso–Mali frontier dispute both sides elected to adopt the principle. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that I am referring to general remarks about the principle that were made in that judgement, not to any particulars of that case. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]