Talk:Self-determination/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Resolution to Problems?

I have spent quite a bit of time on this page, adding the theoretical principle and editing some of the previous text to make it appropriate only to geographically binding political groups, avoiding some of the problems highlighted bleow re. ethinc minority groups. I am unwilling to attempt to remove or rewrite the exisitng work re. Woodrow Wilson as I think this provides an interesting aside to the argument, furthermore the articulation of the theoretical principle, apart from its more recent political usage, adds a greater degree of balance to this article. Following these changes is the neutraility of the article still disputed? If so could people please highlight which sections and or references which are disputed? Muppet317 11:59, 05/12/2005

---

This isn't true.....

The UN Charter has been invoked to help resolve a myriad of conflicts from Kosovo to East Timor and in cases of ethnic strife or genocide, the oppressed are usually granted a reprieve from the oppressors and the right for self-determination out weighs the right to national integrity.

No.....

Despite the intervention, Kosovo is still nominally part of Yugoslavia and this legal situation exists precisely because because self-determination does *not* overrule the right to territorial integrity. The fact that Yugoslavia *still* is considered the sovereign power over Kosovo despite having absolutely no administrative control over it illustrates how seriously people take territorial integrity.

In the case of East Timor, the UN was involved only after Indonesia consented to a plebiscite on East Timorese independence, and again it illustrates how the right to territorial integrity outweighs self-determination.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but East Timor was never part of Indonesia in the first place. It's annexation was never internationally recognized, and thus East Timor was never seen internationally as a question of territorial integrity vs. self-determination. Same as with Western Sahara. Arre 23:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You can also list a whole bunch of other cases, Somaliland, Northern Cyprus, the Kurdish areas of Iraq, North Ossetia, etc. etc. etc.

oops..my bad...but I'd say territorial integrity oughtweighs self determination when the government claiming integrity is the acting authority of the region in question.

---

Self-determination is an absolute and inalienable right. The principle of territorial integrity can only apply to prevent the cessation of integral parts of a state, e.g. to stop Liverpool from declaring independence from UK. It has no application in any other circumstance, but it is often used by "bully governments" to try and annex smaller neighbours.

---

Quebec hasn't been denied a request to have a plebiscite, there have been three referenda on some form of independence already and they've all failed. There are some interested issues regarding self-determination which the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled on.

An interesting example of an ethnic and cultural minority denied the right to self-determination is the French Canadians of Quebec. Quebec has repeatedly requested a plebiscite on independence, but has been denied. The law is in Canada's favor as Quebec currently, and has historically been subordinate to the government of Canada.

No -- Quebec has held two plebiscites on independence, and rejected the idea on both occasions. The contrary assertion is curious.

Independence?

The article currently says, "In most cases there is an ethnic or religious minority seeking independence from a majority to escape prejudice or persecution." I do not think this is accurate. Ethnic and religious minorities seek varying degrees of autonomy, and they often seek some kind of recognized status, but they do not necessarily seek independence. For example, the Roma seek (and in many cases have received) recognition in most Eastern European countries, but I am unaware of any movement to form an independent Roma state; many, perhaps most, Catalans prefer cutural autonomy within Spain to Catalan independence; Native American nations living within the U.S. are all concerned with sovereignty and recognition, but very few seek complete independence from the U.S. federal government. I'm sure I could pile on the examples, if needed, but my point is simply that self-determination is not necessarily about independence, it's about democratic choice and recognized status as a people. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree, there is a very strong Catalan independence movement. I have heard of moves to start a Romany state (kind of Romany Zionism), but none of them are really notable, their S-D is of a different kind. --MacRusgail 21:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As a Catalan myself I find this argument by Jmabel totally out of scope. The issue that Catalans, as a majority prefer one thing over another is precisely the issue of self-determination. What is the current political status? Illegalization of self-determination. Only the preference of cutural autonomy is legally accepted, while Catalan independence is illegall, albeit political parties whose goal is independence are legal. Enric 20 February 2006.

A bit of a hash

This article seems to me to be a bit of a hash: more like notes for an article than an actual article. I get the sense of two (or more) subtly warring points of view and not much actual research. This would be a good one for someone with serious scholarly skills and some time on their hands to revisit. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Now its less of a hash, but it's still uncited, quirky, and wrong on quite a few points.

Just to point to one of the most obvious problems: "Borne in the wake of World War II…": "Borne" makes no sense here: borne by whom? Perhaps "born"? But then that is simply wrong: the concept developed gradually, and if there is any one time when it can said to have been "born" it would presumably be in the wake of WWI, not WWII, in that it was the principle invoked in splitting up the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.

I really have no great desire to work on this article, but it is still very problematic. - Jmabel | Talk 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fourteen Points

Why are the Fourteen Points given so much prominence in this article? Reading through the points [4] I do not see self-determination or any conteporary equivalent mentioned once. I see three instances of territorial integrity, (a conflicting aim) and a requirement for Serbia to be accorded free and secure access to the sea.

Autonomous development is mentioned twice. This is a very different concept from self-determination. Over all the declaration sounds more like something produced by the Congress of Vienna, with the Great Powers deciding the fate of small peoples. -- Petri Krohn 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

THis needs disambiguation

This is not the only meaning of self-determination, there is the right of the individual to self determination or political freedom.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrdthree (talk • contribs) 25 July 2006.

In order for more neutrality, and to make the article more complete, this article should also contain the point of view of groups or persons that believe in right-wing politics, or from persons of minority (right-wing) groups. White (European) minority groups may fall in this group. There is often severe attack on any right wing points of view from the left-wing (political opposite to right wing). There should also be notice made of Minority groups (e.g. minority white groups) that want self-determination, but whom experience genocide. Left-wing groups may call such (right-wing)groups racists, ultra right, etc. whilst in reality they practice genocide against them. The genocide can occur in a democracy where the whites is a minority, but have to little voting power (by numbers) to form an effective opposition to the ruling party. The following is therefore included: "Ultra left-wing movements or individuals may be against self-determination of certain groups in an attempt to promote genocide of a specific group, or for own political gain or power. This is especially important when right wing groups request self-determination.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackes (talk • contribs) 19 August 2006.

Before Muppet317 hijacked the article, it was a serious article about the legal and international relations term "self-determination". No one is disputing that Muppet317 can talk about a million concepts from personal-determination to self-genocide. But that does not mean that he should rewrite the Genocide or Self-determination articles to list his thoughts on alternate uses of the article's title.

I also ask that you do NOT use revert before discussing the issue, although you may be lazy and wish to implement your snap decision with the flick of a revert button. You might FIRST consider the efforts of others and that people with expert knowledge who have their spent time adding to the article had a reason for editing out disrelated subjects that should have been put in a separate article such as Self-determination philosophy. Also, if you took the time to read John Mill's "On Liberty" you will find he dose NOT use the term self-determination and that Muppet317 had taken an insulting liberty against the earlier editors of the article.211.30.222.139 15:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Media-Citing of this article would refer to this [Self-determination] article edited on 21/Mar/2005. The article was created in December 2001 about the vital legal principle of Self-determination and after 39 edits by a host of people was cited in the media. It is a vital part of the Decolonization process around which the UN Charter and subsequent UN resolutions are based. / After being cited in the Media as a reliable reference on this subject, on 5/April/2005 somebody began vandalising and trying to delete the article. A few months later User:Muppet317 rewrote the introduction and rest of article in a manner that confused the reader and discredited the solid legal basis of the process.

It is a sadfact that most people wish to be apathetic and a lack of previous knowledge provides an excuse to leave obscure subjects to the bigots or other problem makers of the world.211.30.222.139 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As useless as such comments as these are, it would be interesting if you 1) chose a pseudoname rather than just your IP, 2) explain in specific terms who you are calling "bigots or other problem makers of the world." We develop articles as best we can by consensus, not by reliance on previous versions, but on how to explain the concept based on the facts and on the context - in this case historical context. The only bigotry involved would be to claim that some high principle somehow implicitly favored one people over another. Because of its subjectiveness, this concept has been shown to be somewhat antiquated to a less globally integrated period. -Ste|vertigo 21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Argumentation and counterfactuality

"Despite this, there had not been any Palestinian rebellion, intifada, or jihad waged against these countries." Sure reads like soapboxing to me. - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Undercited

There is quite a bit in this article that is weasel-worded and/or undercited. - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Puerto Rican Inter-nationalist group"

With reference to the Young Lords, "Puerto Rican Inter-nationalist group" is certainly clever (as a substitution for "Puerto Rican nationalist group") and has some basis in their ideology, but it seems to me that their Puerto Rican nationalism that defined them at least as much as any commitment to international struggle. - Jmabel | Talk 00:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo

There is a radical SELF-DETERMINATION! Movement in Kosovo (bearing exactly than name) which fights against the UN protectors of Kosovo and the Serbians, demanding that the Self-determination of the Albanian majority in the territory be accepted (independence from Serbia). --PaxEquilibrium 12:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Restructured article

I moved sub-sections to a more logical order, to keep the historical sections together, and place the currently active examples (US, Australia, Israel-Palestine) together. I removed the section on Wilson's southern heritage, if there is a serious source for this it can go back in the article. More work needs to be done to make the text coherent, and remove duplications. I removed this weaselish passage, until it can be clarified...

Given the rise of global transculturism and its effect on the concepts of nationality and nationhood, attempts have been made to reinterpret the "self-determination principle" in terms which do not rely on subjective or nationalistic definitions — typically reformulating the principle as an extension of Right to liberty, wherein a people ought not be subject to coercion, via the will of a non-representative form of government.

This seems to be the 'separatism invalid in liberal democracies' argument, if so, then it should say that clearly.Paul111 11:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-determination in Transnistria

Transnistria is a region in Moldova seeking independence, applying the principle of self-determination. This is further clarified on this page: Four Pillars of Transnistria. This should be added as soon as possible because it is a very significant example of present day self-determination. For info, see the official website of Transnistria (officially called Pridnestrovie): [[5]] Musicguy444 23:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A balanced and thorough article

This article seems to be to be a balanced discussion of the various tensions in international law and international relations. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's not required to be. I'll remove the bias tag on the main article. DSuser 12:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan and Somaliland

How can this article have completely neglected both Taiwan and Somaliland? ludahai 魯大海 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the Somaliland one. Does anyone object to me adding a section about Taiwan? ludahai 魯大海 16:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Israel and Palestine section

This section could do a better job of describing the desire by many Palestinians for a self-determination. It should describe the desire for a autonomous Palestinian state comprised of the West Bank and Gaza strip that many Palestinians endorse and what they believe that should entail (i.e. rights to airspace, water, their own military, etc.). Many pro-Palestinian groups do not believe current Israeli proposals for self-determination of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip allow for true self-determination. --Cab88 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, just include your sources. Don't forget right of return issue. Also note that this COULD be interpreted as decolonization, not only of west bank and gaza but all lands seized from 1948 on by mostly european people.

Carol Moore 04:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

This section as it currently stands gives way too much prominence to the extremist accusations of Israel as a colonial outpost. The discussion of Israeli/Jewish self-determination is bizarrely framed around criticism of the views of certain Westerners that Israel should be a sort of colonial outpost. This view of Israel by individual Brits is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. It is about self-determination, not about post-colonial British hopes about what Israel might serve for them. It wrongly casts the British Mandate as being all about this supposed conspiracy. I am removing these portions of the article. Gni 20:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've removed the factually incorrect assertion that Hamas "has dropped the call for the destruction of Israel from its charter in its quest for Palestinian self-determination." In fact, their charter remains unchanged, and continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Hamas leaders repeatedly emphasize that point. The link provided pointed to a Guardian article that did not substantiate the position -- that article only noted that the Hamas platform in the most recent elections did not specifically refer to the destruction of Israel, but rather was "ambiguous." It did not refer to the Hamas CHARTER. Gni 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

---

---

I don't have time to deal with this right now, but Self-determination under Intl law is supposed to apply to lands legitimately owned by individuals and groups who have been on them for years, and in recent history. It's not supposed to apply to mostly recent immigrants who use 2000 year old history, the crimes of other nations, and international financial and political manipulations to get large powers to agree to give one people a large expanse of territory as well as control over a bare minority of indigenous people who do NOT want to be under the authority of the (mostly) new comers' religious/ethnic state. This isn't extremism, just a reality which some keep trying to suppress.

There may have been a true, non-manipulated International Law case for a very small Jewish state before 1948, and even a larger one today. However, the problem remains that Zionism from its conception has intended to grab the whole territory and drive out the indigenous population. (See Pro-Ethnic Cleansing Quotes from Zionists Through History at WhatWouldGandhiDo.Net.) This is the definition of colonialism NOT self-determination.

Of course as a libertarian I don't have a problem with people immigrating, buying land or homesteading, setting up their own states and seceding. Like LaRaza wants to do in the US; and 5 -6 million US Muslims might want to do 10-20 years down the road. And a few hundred million Chinese, Latinos and Africans probably will do if the US govt. is destroyed in nuclear war. Just as long as they respect property rights and don't try to impose their will through force and fraud.

But something tells me that under international law that's NOT the definition of self determination. If it is, let me start a section in this wiki article on FUTURE SELF-DETERMINATION MOVEMENTS. (joking ;-)

Anyway, the point of this dissertation has been to encourage NEUTRAL wiki editors to read up, make the section more NPOV and ADD SOME REFERENCES besides wiki links. At some point I'll do it my self, in my planned efforts to clean up secession, separatism and like articles.

Carol Moore 03:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Chechnya

The section is a partisan diatribe. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be reduced to the same size as Kosovo section Serg3d2 15:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it!

User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc —Preceding comment was added at 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Section: Sri Lanka

This section needs to make mention of the role of self-determination in the conflict. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

As the last two editors to post to this page point out, there are major issues with multiple subsections of the Controversy section. There are 10 or 12 valid points to pull out, and that can probably be reliably sourced. After identifying them, it would make a lot of sense to merge those points into the article proper as examples of the main subjects. As it stands, the entire section reads like WP:SYNTHESIS, bordering on WP:OR, and its tone and topic are a fair bit off topic at times. There's still a ton of cruft that can be cut and a ton of info that can be pulled out and put to more productive use in the article-proper, and doing so would result in a far stronger article. MrZaius^talk 05:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

New Intro Needs Clarification/sounds POV

The way it is written it sounds like wiki editor is expressing anti-self-determination views and throwing in two references that seem to agree so that it sounds like the general viewpoint...at least of those vs. self-determination and secession. Specifically a fuller context of and a link to Quebec Decision and UN General Assembly statement helpful. Something tells me contrary views for balance by the hundreds of groups - and their lawyers - advocating self-determination also can be found.

While the right to self-determination is embodied in several treaties and is held to form part of customary international law, it is difficult to deduce practical applications of the theory not only in itself, but weighed against other principles such as the territorial integrity of sovereign states. This prevents self-determination being considered as a right to authorise or encourage "any action that would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory" As such, the right rarely allows for secession, although is often confused as such.

Carol Moore 17:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Chechnya section - has this section been translated?

The section on Chechnya reads to me as if it has been translated, as the English is quite confusingly written. I would go ahead and just amend, but I don't want to alter the sense of what it is trying to say and it isn't always clear. Is there anyone with a bit more knowledge of this topic who could tidy it up so the meaning is clearer? Thanks. 86.155.0.169 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably better to clarify what can be understood than to let it stand as a lot of gobbledygook. --Breadandcheese (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Existentialism?

The first paragraph includes the sentence "It also has influenced existentialism." This makes no sense and is probably someone's idea of humour. I've asked for a source, but it might be better to remove the whole sentence.

It could be that someone means it. If so, it should be moved down, given its own section and given some explanation.--GwydionM (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

UN resolution 1723

Here is an excerpt (bolded emphasis is mine) from the UN resolution 1723:

The General Assembly ((...)) Solemnly renews its calls for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination

Isn't the Tibet case pertinent in this article? Natmaka (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's 1961, nearly half a century ago. Is there anything more recent?--GwydionM (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Tibet: Human Rights and the Rule of Law", International Commission of Jurists (1997) Natmaka (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV on Vietnam

"These nations became willing to support authoritarian governments as long as they remained anti-communist and began to suspect all self-determinations movements of being communist-inspired or controlled. Thus the United States entered into a 10 year war in Vietnam, taking over from French colonialists, and supported Portugal in its attempts to hold on to Angola. "

I checked the reference and was unable to find support for the contention that western nations "began to suspect all self-determinations movements of being communist-inspired or controlled". Nor did I see evidence that this suspicion caused U.S. entry into Vietnam because in fact the Vietcong were not pushing communist. However the reference is very long and I might have missed something. Even if the reference does say it, the reference is expressing a POV. Readin (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The following is a statement about the general rules of Wikipedia, not this particular source, which I haven't read: it is entirely permissible to cite a source that has a particular viewpoint. Wikipedia's NPOV policy basically means two things:

1. Where there are differing opinions on a matter, the article should attempt to reflect the balance of critical or scholarly opinion. Fringe views should get (at most) minimal space. Where there is a diversity of mainstream views, we should try to reflect the spectrum of these views. All opinionated statements should be clearly attributed as to whose opinion is being reflected and there should be a citation to back up that claim.
2. The article itself should be written in neutral language. For example, it should not disparage one opinion by introducing a countering view with a phrase like "but in fact" or "but true experts say", etc.

In sum: it is entirely OK to introduce well-cited and clearly attributed statements of opinion. If this falls short of that standard, it should be fixed, but your last statement "Even if the reference does say it, the reference is expressing a POV" sounds like you are missing the point. - Jmabel | Talk 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

the article should attempt to reflect the balance of critical or scholarly opinionReadin (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Better late than never found relevant ref from a book and put it in and removed tag. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV on UN Charter??

If you are going to put in NPOV tag you have to explain what the problem is so that it can be fixed. Otherwise it is irrelevant. I personally don't know all the different debates etc that would lead to POV claim. Please explain. Carol Moore 02:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

See "NPOV on Vietname" above. The setences I quote as having problems are in the "NPOV on UN Charter" section of the article. Readin (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, got confused on Vietnam. Give me a couple days and I'll straighten it out since I did read it a couple times in my research, but may have ended up failing to ref or writing a summary that was not accurate. A ref'd source POV not necessarily bad, if you identify the person who has the view and make it clear it is not necessarily held by everyone. Carol Moore 17:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Auto-Determination

It's slightly worrying that the word auto-determination is not in the dictionary. This is the closest I could find. There's no mention of it on the wikipedia and Google's define and many other dictionaries don't have a definition for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.112.228 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

History not US centric

While it mentions the US a few times, it is hardly US centric per {worldview|section|United States of America} tag. If there is some place it can be made less US centric - like who else supported Wilson's views on self-determination - do tell. Looks like poorly thought out drive by comment by anon IP not explained sufficiently in edit summary or on this talk page.CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ETA is terrorist organization

And so do say the USA, Eu, Britain, Canada... I changed in the article the word "paramilitar", wich hardly deescribes it for the most appropiate (exact) "terrorist". Just check both Wikipedia articles on Paramilitar and Terrorist and search in one of both it is mentioned. --88.11.120.252 (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition problems

Ummm...why is there a desire to define "peoples"? There is no need, as there are two definitions already out there concerning "Self Determination"; Nation, and State. And why are you defining persons, when people is plural, legally? NATION - is a group of people with something in common. STATE - is a nation, with the power to enact and inforce laws, up to and including capital punishment. A nation cannot The definitions of nation and state come from "The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States", 1933-12-26 76.170.118.125 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2009-10-21 14:48 Z-7

It is quite possible for a state to contain many nations within its territory. Older examples would be such states as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and currently the United Kingdom. -- PBS (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced changes

One or more AnonIPs have been making changes without putting in references or adding information in front of references that is not referenced by that reference. While some of the changes are fine, it still makes it necessary for others to check your work and delete anything questionable. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and edit within wikipedia rules. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And, yes, I may go through and delete half of it - especially when it's snuck in under an existing reference - just in case you are paying attention :-) Heads up! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Another (or more likely the same) Anon IP is at it again. Reminding me that I'm likely to revert most of it back in the next week or so if the author(s) don't go through and reference new and questionable/controversial material. In the past all material was carefully referenced. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

History section

I was looking at the history on the section on history, some things that were added recently probably should be streamlined and worded better, but then another person chopped out big parts that is generally very PRC-centered perspective and seems to imply an older version is biased.

I think this "history" section shouldn't give a detailed political run-down of EVERYTHING that has happened, but certainly things pertinent to the concept of self-determination. If there is more and more detail, I think that should occur inside the part of the bottom page where each territory/place is discussed. When it comes to Chinese history, there is an awful lot of controversy (of course every subject is controversial) but recent changes definitely look much more "china biased".Jiajun1 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Tuva, Mongolia, Tibet

I found the previous mention (but now cut out) about Tuva's independence interesting, and Mongolia's struggle for independence is little known. If you do some more research, Tuva and Chechnya are apparently hotbeds for self-determination in the current Russian Federation, so a mention about Tuva's independence from the Qing Empire would seem important. Especially the fact it was quietly absorbed during WW2 like other states in Eastern Europe. Mongolia's independence was previously described in some way, but now it seems portrayed as having accepted being the sovereign land of China (which is just wrong, this should be corrected) it might have acceded to China's suzerainty or protectorate-status, but not "sovereign". One treaty is quoted, but there were multiple treaties involved, and I think the fact that Mongolia was striving for self-determination is lost, and now it only appears that China lost it.

The part about Tibet also seems to make less sense, some mention about the McMahon Line really doesn't relate very directly to self-determination, it's more about a boundary dispute and probably shouldn't be talked about here. Also, a huge section was added and the reference is from a book by A Tom Grunfeld. Grunfeld is not a very credible source of information, although useful to read, i think anybody that studies Tibet history knows his modern knowledge of Tibetan history is not even based on primary research among Tibetans or in Tibet. I would suggest that use of his material be careful.

I think the PRC is currently facing a huge issue with the concept of self-determination, which is supplemented by suppression of debating alternate POV of history in public. So perhaps some people might feel a "self determination" perspective is wrong, but it is the purpose of this article. It shouldn't be deleted because China doesn't accept the ideas.Jiajun1 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

tributary system of pre-twentieth century china versus modern day sovereignty

Also, inside China, the current atmosphere in academia is very revisionist, and it's borderline illegal to suggest anything other than anything claimed by China today was always its sovereign territory. Look at the so-called Northeast Project which claims ancient NE countries were actually somehow "part of China" even though China didn't exist at the time, or had no contact/relationship with them.

China had tributaries, which really doesn't fit into the modern idea of sovereignty. I think this is some highly disputed point among political historians, and it was axed out to simply show "Republican China succeeded the Qing Dynasty." I think that's too simplistic. In rough parallel, Turkey succeeded the Ottoman Empire, but in the spirit of "self determination" the point is that Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and other countries don't automatically belong to Turkey because they were claimed as part of a past empire. By the same token, I think there is significant debate about the ROC being able to claim they get everything from the Qing Dynasty, that's mostly the reason Mongolia and Tibet declared they were independent. There was also previously a mention of China's loss of tributary status over Korea and Vietnam, but the same person cut it out completely. This seems to be aligning with the current-day Chinese government perspective, but not a very critical analysis of history. Any responses to that? Jiajun1 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Reply to user Jiajun1 above Yangtze r (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC) (and sorry if my English is not perfect)

Jiajun:When it comes to Chinese history, there is an awful lot of controversy (of course every subject is controversial) but recent changes definitely look much more "china biased"

There is no controversy at all, although you think that this article should be about China.

Jiajun:I found the previous mention (but now cut out) about Tuva's independence interesting, and Mongolia's struggle for independence is little known.

Then please read this

Jiajun:If you do some more research, Tuva and Chechnya are apparently hotbeds for self-determination in the current Russian Federation, so a mention about Tuva's independence from the Qing Empire would seem important

If you do some more research, you will see that today there is over 500 separatist movements, so we should mention them all?

Jiajun:I think the PRC is currently facing a huge issue with the concept of self-determination,

Great. But did you even read this article? Most sovereign states do not recognize the right to self-determination through secession in their constitutions. Many expressly forbid it.

Jiajun:I think this is some highly disputed point among political historians, and it was axed out to simply show "Republican China succeeded the Qing Dynasty." I think that's too simplistic.

You think? On February 12, 1912, after being persuaded and pressured by Yuan Shikai and other ministers, Emperor Xuantong Puyi and Empress Longyu accepted the terms for the Imperial family's abdication, issuing an imperial edict announcing the abdication of Xuantong. Yuan Shikai was authorized by the Qing court to arrange a provisional republican government.From this point on, the Republic of China officially began and replaced the Qing Dynasty, which had reigned over China for 268 years.

Jiajun:I think that's too simplistic. In rough parallel, Turkey succeeded the Ottoman Empire, but in the spirit of "self determination" the point is that Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and other countries don't automatically belong to Turkey because they were claimed as part of a past empire

There is no such thing as the spirit of "self determination"! Most sovereign states do not recognize the right to self-determination through secession in their constitutions. Many expressly forbid it. And Ottoman Empire was defeated in 1918 and the helpless sultan was forced in 1920 to sign the Treaty of Sèvres, by which the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire was finalized.Your comparison is ridiculous. The Qing dynasty and the Republic of China never signed anything like that, and they were never totally defeated by another sovereign state. Also read Treaty of Brest-Litovsk witch affirmed the independence of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, and Lithuania. Austria–Hungarian Empire was also defeated. Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) declared that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was to be dissolved and recognized the independence of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. All that is mentioned in this article in the section Europe and the Middle East, however that section doesn't mention numerous other separatist movements in Europe that were unsuccessful because this article would be huge.

About Tibet and Outer Mongolia. In 1911 Outer Mongolia declared independence, however that was not accepted by the government of China, and in 1915 Treaty of Kyakhta China recognized Outer Mongolia's autonomy and Mongolia recognized China's sovereignty. Tibet also declared independence(or autonomy?), later in 1914 there was Simla Accord (1914) witch was signed by Tibet and It is understood by the High Contracting Parties that Tibet forms part of Chinese territory. China rejects the Simla Accord, contending that the Tibetan government was not sovereign and therefore did not have the power to conclude treaties. In 1945 China recognized Outer Mongolia's independence. This is map of China in 1947 [6] and in this article you have UN map from 1945.

And you are writing a strange history of China, and what the hell is this: In 1912, when the last Manchurian emperor? There is no such thing as Manchurian emperor, please read Qing treaties such as this Whereas His Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His Majesty the Emperor of China...

Jiajun:the Qing declared Xinjiang to be its province in 1884, although it had often been a hotbed of ethnic conflict and resistance

---

Yes, there was resistance and they were conquered. And? The French kings conquered Occitania, Russians Siberia, US annexed present day southwestern United States, white people Southern and Northern America and I could go on and on, Almost every region on Earth was annexed by someone at some point, maybe because of that there is so many separatist movements, but it seems that you are obsessed with China. Yangtze r (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

First, please put in appropriate indentation and sign at the bottom of your section to avoid later confusion by others. See Wikipedia:Talk_page#Indentation. I've put in lines to separate your section right now.

Second, this article is about self-determination, something most states are against for their various minorities. Nevertheless these movements exist, act and sometimes succeed and therefore are encyclopedic. As I've said before, this whole section in general was re-written with a lot of personal opinions and few references - AKA WP:Original research - a month or so ago by someone as I complained at the time. I probably should just have reverted it back to an imperfect but at least shorter and more neutral form. So the problem is more too much detail which allows too many differences of opinions to slip in here, ones that should be detailed in the relevant articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know how to respond to the above comments. But in general, the points I think should be made are these:

I think there shouldn't be lots of minute detail that would better be included in the lower areas where somebody is describing the conflict in each area. That just makes sense.

I'm not actually seeing discussion here about the points raised. Regardless of how something is written, this should be the talk section where people could "talk" about this. I don't think there is necessarily an obsession with China, but it was, at one time, perhaps the most wealthy and perhaps powerful empire in the world in its time, it is also easily neglected while people discuss Western movements. If anything happened in the eastern half of the globe for centuries, it was probably somehow related to what happened in the place we call "china". But with that said, we can't academically shrug-off self-determination movements in Asia or China or East Asia because supposedly the Qing Empire was not defeated by a foreign power. One of the main points a previous writer had was one written about by many political scientists. The idea of a "tributary empire" had a difficult time in a competing "balance of power" world system. The Qing Empire had to contend with many defeats and losses of territory, or losses of vassals, losses of rights. So it certainly fits in the context of other empires like the Ottomans and Austrians. The Ottoman Empire essentially remade itself into modern Turkey. The Qing Empire ended, and Han Chinese tried to remake it into the Republic of China. But was the ROC the equivalent to the Qing Empire? And how did the concept of being something like a vassal differ from the changes that occurred during the late 1800s and the 1900s? This is a debate among historians, which I think is the point of wikipedia to present (where appropriate). The competition of empires across the world in the 1800s and early 1900s created the history of modern "self determination" movements.

I definitely support a fair and balanced viewpoint in the appropriate places (however that is decided), but we shouldn't just delete such idea/points because China doesn't accept them (this article is about self-determination, not merely how to describe an errancy of self-determination because a state doesn't like it) Jiajun1 (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am for being inclusionary - and on China/Tuva/Mongolia just like on US or Russia. Obviously history should mention past self-determination movements in China but not for a lot of minute detail on what is included. If it's really important, write an article or a section of existing article with all the blow by blow details. I do have a problem with unsourced material, especially if there isn't even a wikilink to lead you to more info. (Wikilinks are not references, but better than nothing when the facts are fairly well known to your daily newspaper reader of 50 years like me :-) I see one unsourced sentence on PRC/Taiwan. Don't know if there was any source or wikilink on the dispute sentence (or more?) deleted. Helps if diffs are provided.

Also, under current movements, should there be a China section (like there is a US section) mentioning various movements or each movement have own section. The first would seem to make more sense. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There is already similar article here:[7]. Yangtze r (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And no it certainly doesn't fits in the context of other empires like the Ottomans and Austrians, they were defeated and destroyed. Republican China succeeded the Qing Dynasty. Yuan Shikai was authorized by the Qing court to arrange a provisional republican government. Also, according to this article Russia has restored control over Chechnya, but China invaded Tibet(government of Afghanistan recognized independent Chechnya, but Tibet newer even received foreign diplomatic recognition). And see this article:[8], most countries had and have separatist movements, this article doesn't mention them all. And do you know that Jiajun is a town in the Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. Yangtze r (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there can be overlap when one section talks about history and another about current events. I'm not supporting how China sections are written now, just talking about general principles.

Obviously, non-neutral language should be neutralized and feel free to do so.

I don't know enough about the historical or current separatist movements in China off hand to now how to organize either of the large sections, but if I took a couple hours I could figure it out and probably should. :-)

I don't know enough about Chinese language to know if Jiajun is also a common Chinese word or name, so if you are alleging WP:COI you'd have to present more evidence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Catalonia

I think this article needs a section about the self-determination opinions in Catalonia, because if the Spain governament respects this right, probably would exist a votation and 50 percent vots would go to th Freedom.--Ssola (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but self determination right is not granted to territories such as Catalonia or Basque Country, since they are not territories to be decolonized or oppressed people. (FGP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.244.33.36 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ssola. There are movements inside and outside Catalonia (2 Months ago there were movements in Brussels (about 5000-10000 people were there walking across the city)) for the independence. There are few ILP advocating the independence that, right now, are appearing and going to the Catalan Parliament to discuss the topic. Plus in 2014 is thought to create a referendum.

So, I think that Catalonia must be included. I don't know the Basque cause, but I could contribute with the catalan one here (adding references and weblinks).--Layonard (Let's talk) 18:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not about to be included but splitted from the Spain section. Since this list is organized according to territories where there a self-determination discussion or proclamation is/can occur. For instance: Kurdistan. It does not exist as a State.

Further more its statement should be simplified. There is no need to keep repeating that Catalonia is a Autonomous Comunity in every page and paragraph Catalonia appears in wikipedia. That only makes the text tedious. Is enough to define it as a territory in NE of Spain. (To avoid bitter debates).

Hence we should include a Basque section as well. May be I can find someone with more information than me... --Civit cardona (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's ok that you point out catalanist movements that seek independence, but please try to be neutral, in valencia the support for the idea of being a catalan country is very small, in aragon catalan was never spoken, and the only region that should be mentioned is Catalonia, not the catalan countries, althought catalonia has a support of around 30% for this idea, the only party that wants to make a referendum (ERC) has got around 10% of the votes, and the spanish constitution was aproved with 95% of the votes in the catalan comunityEnriquegoni (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Spanish constitution[9](Preliminaly title - Section 2) :The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all. Daveddd123 (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Broken links

The link (11) (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm) to the Text of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is broken. The correct link is http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

Likewise, the current link (12) (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm) to the Text of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is broken. The correct link is http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrelevy (talk • contribs) 14:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR in History section

As I commented in talk last year here, some anonymous IPs added a bunch of WP:OR, sometimes using existing references (and I wrote a lot of it so recognized the new WP:OR). So that section really needs to be cleaned up. On my list, someday. but FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Does Self-determination really differ from Right to exist ?

At the moment that article claims it to be a different concept. Should it be merged? 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Only if you can find sources that say so, which is unlikely. See WP:Original research. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

On applying the self-determination principle

I've changed a sentence that was very biased and biasing, for a sentence that I think is more balanced:

"Hence, self-determination has been held to be an example of an advancement of the fundamental political rights of politically bounded 'peoples' at work, but also as an example of an abstract theory that has been implemented in contexts with sometimes severe political and national conflict."

The previuos version indicated that "sometimes" applying the self-determination principle was *causing* the conflict; may be the conflict included a party claiming the right of self-determination, but clearly this is not true in *applying* it as a possible solution for the conflict. My new sentence focuses on the issue that is shared in *all* situations, namely that the application of the self-determination principle is very often in contexts where conflict *exists*. Analysing whether applying the self-determination principle solves the conflict or keeps the conflict is a matter of historical study, not of personal opinion as could be interpreted from the previous version. Enric

...Arrived at this talk page after interest of section (Current issues), at 3rd paragraphical venture stated title as Self-determination versus territorial integrity. Point taken at _*_ The realist theory of international relations insists that territorial sovereignty is more important than national self-determination. This policy was pursued by the major powers during the Cold War. "I did finish reading the article". Here is my response; Search, David George DeLancey for President of the United States of America. 12:27 P.M. E.S.T. 10-23-2011David George DeLancey (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Abkhazia and south ossetia must be seperated.

They have two different views on self determination as well as different reasons and history (unlike India and Pakistan). Also their motive to use that right differs greatly, Abkhaz arguments for independence are based on historic atrocities and oppression by Georgians (Banning Abkhazian church, forcing Georgian in church and schools, ethnic cleansing and colonisiation), while Ossetian arguments are centered on reunification with Alania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.69.47 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If these facts/distinctions are true, and they sound likely, they should be added to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with a WP:Reliable source referencing the fact. Since there is just one article about them, the best thing is to have one or two sentences in this article expressing the difference with the best reference from that article. CarolMooreDC 19:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Falklands / Malvinas Isl.

The incorporation of these islands in the article about the self-determination seems to me to be incorrect. First: the United Nations already have been sent on the topic clarifying in that it is necessary to to proceed to a process of decolonization of the same ones. Second: there are no doubts that the population of the same ones is well-established. Third: The mention to the comment of the Prime minister David Cameron, this one clearly out of place, not only is insulting for the intelligence of the readers of the article, since clearly it is a discredit argument, almost a joke of evil taste would say, since not only he ignores the history of his own country but he invents the history of other one. It is enough to see the articles about both countries and to consult his history and they will understand my point of view. Fourth: From the point of view of the article, any group of citizens implanted by different reasons in another territory (political, economic, etc), it would ha right to claim the self-determination, for example pakistani citizens in England, moroccans in Spain, up to th:e German citizens in checoslovaquia, polonia, during the third reich, explain clearly my point? --Hernan1483 (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong, and wikipedia is not censored to satisfy nationalist arguments of whatever persuasion. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He forgives, but I do not believe that you have understood me or is clearly well-read my comment. Precisely I refer to it, the article clearly presents nationalistic arguments, but the same one should not be present inside the self-determination, considering the Resolution 2065 of the year 1965: "The General Assembly, Having examined the question of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands), Having in it counts the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee entrusted to examine the situation with regard to the application of the Declaration on the concession of the independence to the countries and colonial peoples relating to the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) and especially the conclusions and recommendations approved by the same one relative to the above mentioned Territory, Thinking that his resolution 1514 (XV), of December 14, 1960, inspired by the longed intention of putting end to the colonialism everywhere and in all his forms, in one of which there is fitted the case of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands), 1. It invites the Governments of the Argentina and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue without delay the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee entrusted to examine the situation with regard to the application of the Declaration on the concession of the independence to the countries and colonial peoples in order to find a pacific solution to the problem, having due in it counts the dispositions and the aims of the Letter of the Close Nations and of the resolution 1514 (XV) of the General Assembly, as well as the interests of the population of the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands); 2.He asks both Governments to report to the Special Committee and to the General Assembly, in the twenty-first period of meetings, on the result of the negotiations. 1398a. Plenary session, on December 16, 1965."

Clearly the United Nations consider the situation of this archipelago as colonial. Then, to incorporate it into the article of self-determination, it is basically a political decision. For example, in the article Falklands Islands sovereignty disputes, the resolution of United Nations is mentioned only in 2 lines: "bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)."

He forgives, you do not think that the above mentioned omission answers to a nationalistic argument?--Hernan1483 (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Anything more than a couples sentences is WP:Undue. People should largely be referred to Falkland_Islands#Sovereignty_dispute. CarolMooreDC 03:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think any reference to a particular country is off-topic as self-determination, from a regional political ownership stand point, is an opinion and would therefore not be suitable for this particular wikipedia article unless all relevant political points of view were referenced in a balanced statement. Also in reference to the Falklands, an area that has a history of political despute, it should be made clear that the population themselves are not the ones publishing counter political claims. In this respect the political arguments have little to do with self-determination and much more to do with claims of ownership from parties that are outside of the region thus the term "self" would not be directly applicable to this region. 82.108.73.231 (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Again

[10] I'll repeat what I said at WP:NPOVN. The article is about self-determination, the obsessive demand that we include the Argentine POV that an event in 1833 is viewed as an invasion is completely misplaced. The article should be a brief precis about the role of self-determination in relation to the Falkland Islands Dispute. That particular comment is completely and utterly irrelevant. Langus has reverted to a poorly written text that repeats the phrase "Argentine POV" no less than THREE times, TWICE in one paragaph. I'd edited the article to reframe the debate, describing the differing POV from a neutral perspective, based on academic sources. Instead we have a reversion to version of text spitting out the political POV of the Argentine Government repeatedly. We don't achieve NPOV by stating the POV of either the Argentine or British Governments, we achieve it by describing the debate from a neutral perspective. The WP:BATTLE mentality that is so obsessive about inserting the Argentine POV into each and every article has to stop and I'm getting mightily fed up with all of my edits being reverted by Langus and him following me from article to article as that is clearly hounding, it stops now or I'm going to take this to WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

Folks, this is getting out of hand. The current dispute is now very long-winded, turning into an edit war and starting to descend into ad hominem remarks. With any luck a few other page watchers may be tempted out to provide some perspective during this short respite. Ben MacDui 15:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Ben, Gaba has been following Wee from article and article and repeatedly reverting all of his edits. He is wp:stalking and wp:edit-warring He will not listen to any advice given by volunteers. He is extremely rude and disruptive and does not respect Wikipedia editors or Wikipedia rules. He has discouraged many good faith editors who are afraid to edit due to his aggressive behavior and language and his complete disregard for the rules and rulings. I really believe he needs to be blocked and I hope you will consider it. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Page watchers will wish to know that I have reported the current goings-on at WP:ANI#Self-determination. Ben MacDui 12:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

While I agree this is getting out of hands, you all need to take into account WCM's behavior: if you open a request for help at DRN and you don't submit yourself to mediator's guidance; if you ignore knowledgeable editors telling you you're incurring in original research... I know firsthand how frustrating this is.

@Mugginsx: those are serious accusations... do you have the evidence to back them? User:Langus-TxT (talk | contribs) unsigned remark.

They are self evident and seem to have been resolved by the administrator and have nothing to do with you. - I signed your post for you so no one would think that your remark was a continuation of the administrator's comments. Mugginsx (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Well you have to be ready to back your claims, otherwise you are just adding noise and involving yourself in the problem. It has to do with me, because I suffer the same problems with WCM and I am involved in this particular dispute. Also, if Gaba p is going to be blocked for issues much less serious than WCM's attitudes, not only it would be very unfair but it could also compromise my permanence here. Cheers. --Langus (t) 14:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact, since you are talking about backing ones claims, I see by your edits and talk page comments that you have been instrumental in helping Gaba against Wee and also that you have a previous history with Wee again as shown by your talk page and contributions. So, please consider the clean-hands doctrine in your comments. We are not newbies here. Mugginsx (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I suffer the same problem... --Langus (t) 16:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I fear you are not so clever as you might think. In fact, to me, and anyone who checks your many recent edits, your motives are glaringly obvious. As I said, this discussion did not concern you and still does not. It has been resolved by an administrator and your assistance as Gabas protagonist or Wee's antagonist is neither needed nor approprate here.Mugginsx (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And your assistance as Gabas' antagonist and Wee's protagonist is needed and appropriate because... ? --Langus (t) 18:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is what you think you do so well and truly you do not. If you wish, perhaps we can call the administrator back and ask him why you seem to be second-guessing his decision about a topic you were not involved in? Mugginsx (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to call anyone back - I am still watching the page. Now that the issue has been reported at ANI, I imagine others are too. It is clear that this dispute has been simmering for quite some time but that does not absolve any of us from assuming good faith. There are serious accusations being made - if further action is requested my advice is to provide ANI with suitable diffs where neutral third parties can comment as need be rather than repeating them here. Ben MacDui 19:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The puppy is sad, see post for why

Please, the next time anyone responding to another editor's posts on this page is tempted to put their response inside someone else's threaded comments without signing each 'paragraph'?!?...please don't. Seriously, from simply reading the page (and without physically going into the edit history) it is incredibly difficult for anyone to figure out who posted what and what the actual issues are. If you want to break into someone else's post with individual replies of your own, please singly sign each of your individual responses. I just went through the "Intro" section of the Bias/Edit Warring and added the now-missing sigs so each editor's positions are clear, "The Challenge" section seems to be facing somewhat similar issues... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, it was very WP:BEANS of me to do it the first time. Lesson learnt. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

completely unproductive bickering thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sigh... I see you waste no chance to attack me Wee. I have to say I'm sadly used to it by now. Just wanted to point out that it was in fact Wee who started the inserting of his own comments into mine and I just followed in his steps. I agree that it is disruptive and makes it very hard for other editors to understand afterwards. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Gaba, would your please tell me and everyone else how someone taking full responsibilities for one's actions and not mentioning yours or anyone elses's name here in the above edit constitutes an attack on you? There are many administrators watching and I would advise as a fellow and veteran editor that you are playing games here that could get you blocked. Just some friendly advice. Mugginsx (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Muggins really man, Wee is more than capable of fighting his own fights and he knows perfectly well when he is laying a low punch. The WP:BEANS mention is directed at me in the sense of "don't give 'em any ideas". He started doing it and I just followed suit, when such behavior is discouraged by other editors he, instead of simply apologizing, takes the opportunity of treating me as a disruptive editor (once again) to whom no ideas on how to be disruptive should be given. As the article says: "In other words, don't give examples of how to cause disruption (e.g., don't click on this link or you will crash Wikipedia) because this may will actually tempt people to do it.". I believe all this I just explained to you, is simple enough to be evident to any editor here. Friendly word of advice Muggins: I understand you can be very fond of Wee but I would restrain my desire of helping him a little bit. You are starting to be disruptive and distracting in this arbitration process and even more, I truly believe that if you continue down this path you'll just end up hurting his case even more. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Who do you think you are talking to? Fond of Wee. What are you trying to imply? Your sexist remark is inappropriate and insulting. If fact it is inappropriate in so many ways I cannot begin to count them. If you do not wipe those remarks off of this page or strike through them, I swear I am going to call in as many administrators as you ever dreamed of and put you in your place. That is not a threat it is a promise. Mugginsx (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Gaba, your habit of Projection bias is really going to catch you out one day. My mea culpa was an acknowledgement of error, nothing more. You are welcome to the last word as usual. Have a nice day now. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC) I have reported you Gaba. Wikipedia:Civility You are sleezy and have gone too far now. Sexist or sexual implicit remarks are not allowed or tolerated here. Mugginsx (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC) What???? Where in god's name do you find a sexual remark in what I said??? Sexist remark??? Sleezy??? Seriously man, you need to read my comment again because your accusations are so far out there it's almost as if you were making a joke. Wee you can play the victim all you like, your low punch and continuous attacks will still be evident to any editor reading this. And to make it even clearer, here's another jab at me using the same WP:BEANS attack made by you not 24 hours ago: "Unfortunately an editor at RSN forgot WP:BEANS and has given User:Gaba p another idea for disruptive and tendentious editing.".[11] It's almost as if you thought people had no way of checking what you say in other WP articles... Gaba p (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I haz a sad.

Oh dear, people. You've done it now. Not only is the puppy sad, now you've saddened the kitten too. Really, this escalation of personal bickering was completely uncalled-for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Kittens are delicious, fried and served on toast with chilli sauce but do not serve with Fava beans apparently. Text is not the greatest of medium for conveying nuance, so too often editors readily readily read into text meaning that isn't actually there. If Gaba wishes to continue with a perception that bears no relation to reality, there is nothing I can do to stop him. When Gaba has the last word don't bring out the bunny...I have a great recipe for Rabbit Pie. Oh and for the avoidance of doubt, the references to small mammals was intended to be humorous, no small animals were harmed in the creation of this message. Thank you and good night, the Monster has left the building. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this kitty should go on the Jimbo Wales Talk page. I'll bet he loves kitties too. Mugginsx (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Jimbo Wales would love a kitty. But can we be sure the kitty would love Jimbo Wales? I think we should grant it some self-determination here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Introducution of Bias by Edit Warring

See Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 7 also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Do we have to report a false claim as true from a certain POV for the background. Gaba p is once again trying to claim that an Argentine claim that is demonstrably false should be treated as equal to verifiable historical fact as it is "true" from the Argentine POV. Again no, that isn't NPOV, we present the facts from a neutral perspective. His edit ignores that the historical record (both Argentine and British) contradicts this information. Its an old argument he lost a long time ago, I would ask another editor to revert him as I don't wish to risk a block correcting an obviously false claim - btw he already broke 3RR. I won't be reverting again but rather obviously I would risk a block reporting him for edit warring. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh? I'm not using the talk page just as much as you are my friend. It's so amazingly funny how you assert that the source I'm referencing is a "false claim from a certain POV" but you didn't have a problem with that same source being used three lines belowby Moxy (go check) Wee, your continued claims that that British claim is a "verifiable historical fact" and the Argentinian claim is, well, a "claim" is nothing but an indicator of your clear bias (stand by for Wee's accusation of Projection bias) There is nothing neutral about you deciding which sources constitute facts and which ones merely a POV claim. Funny how you also accuse me of breaking the 3RR (which actually is a demonstrable lie) while it's you who reverted and edit-warred me in the first place and did so at least 3 times today. I agree with the neutrality template though. I think it would be better if details were left to the relevant section (Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute) rather than introducing this issue also here.

One more time Wee: just because you agree with those sources does not automatically make them facts, ok? Gaba p (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Do not paste comments as if they were my contributions, that is clearly attempting to create a false impression.

2. As you well know its WP:BRD, the onus is on YOU once reverted to take this to the talk page. You didn't, I did. You are edit warring to force your material into the article.

3. You've raised this ad nauseum, couldn't get a consensus and you're back trying to force it into the article again. This is the very definition of tendentious editing.

4. The only demonstrable lie is Argentina's false claim for political reasons of pursuing a modern sovereignty claim . This is not my personal opinion, I haven't decided what the sources say, its what the historical record shows. Allowing a false claim to be presented without commenting that it differs from what the historical record shows, demoting the historical record to be a British claim is introducing bias to favour a false claim.

5. It is a complete and utter falsehood to present this as a British claim, given that the historical record in Argentina and Britain is in agreement.

6. You are presenting a political claim as historical fact, that is demonstrably counter to our policy of presenting the facts from a NPOV.

7. The only person selecting sources they happen to agree with is yourself. Your edit is based on one source you happen to agree with and you're using it to make the article biased. Rather than reflecting the range of opinion in the literature. Just because you agree with that source doesn't make it a fact, nor does adding a source to a biased comment make it bullet proof as far as wikipedia is concerned. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

1- I pasted your comment which you addressed at me and then you removed (you do know people can go into the History section and check this for themselves, right?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 September 2012

You have no right to paste my comment here and yes people can do that. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

But you have the right to edit your comments into mine, right? I wasn't aware of this "Wee can do it but you can't" new WP policy...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 September 2012

2- You use this guideline as an excuse to maintain (your) the status quo every time. I've tried talking things to the talk page before editing (anybody can check the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute history where I'm the one raising issues before changing anything) but stopped after realizing that you never use the talk page before editing, only once you are forced to by someone who refuses to agree with your ludicrous statements (like what's happening right now)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 September 2012

Accusations of bad faith don't help you. Multiple editors reverted you, because your edit was contrary to NPOV as it is now. Again the record is here, I initiated the talk page discussion twice, the onus was on you to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just like what is happening now in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, one of your dear friends spared you from reverting again by undoing my edits. He didn't even bother to give a reason by the way, although I would've accepted "because Wee says so" which is pretty much why he reverted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 September 2012

3- No, I raised it once before in another article and you successfully managed to maintain the status quo in that one. That doesn't make you right, it's just a way to prove how you incur in WP:OWN time after time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 September 2012

There is a link posted above to that dicussion, it had nothing to do with maintaining the status quo. You argued endlessly but failed to convince multiple editors, your repeated resort to accusation of bad faith don't help you one iota. Nor does the 3rd party opinion at WP:NPOVN which is against your edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The opinions at WP:NPOV were clearly supporting the position that you don't get to decide which sources present facts, rather you present sources period. You can keep saying those editors agreed with you but you can't change the written record Wee— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 September 2012.

4- You don't get to decide what are lies and what are facts, no matter how much you might dislike Argentina and it's position on the matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 September 2012

No I don't, the sources do. What you're trying to do is force the article in a biased direction. And I don't dislike any particular nationality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs) 08:43, 12 September 2012

Except the source you want to remove states that it is a fact that the population was expelled and does so by quoting contemporary evidence. You not liking this fact is just another proof of where you stand on this issue (hint: you're nowhere near neutral my friend)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 September 2012

5- I added a source that stated evidence for a given claim, yet apparently you think you are in the position to decide that your sources (pro-British of course) are the ones presenting the facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 September 2012

No you didn't you cherry picked a source to support your edit and claiming Laurio H. Destefani is "Pro-British" is ridiculous. Claiming a biased source like Laver, presenting his opinion as fact, is not presenting the facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs) 08:43, 12 September 2012

No I didn't cherry pick anything, that source was added by Moxy I just used it again. But you didn't contest Moxy's use of it, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 September 2012

6- No, I'm adding a source which happens to be a source you did not contest when another editor used it first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 September 2012

The material is already sourced, its the biased edit that is the problem not the source. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The material is sourced with only the sources you want to show. My edit intends to reflect this conflict with sources. Your edit intends to vanish one source as a lie and leave only those sources you agree with as facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 September 2012

7- Funny how you say this when I'm the one trying to include a source and you are the one edit-warring to remove it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 September 2012

See WP:DICK as in don't be one, trying to provoke other editors is deeply childish. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Insulting me gets you nowhere Wee. One more time, see WP:OWN and read it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 September 2012

Again Wee: you don't get to decide which things are facts and which are lies. That's what sources are for, we reference them from a NPOV and nothing more. Your constant attempts at presenting the sources you agree with (pro-British sources) as the ones presenting facts and dismissing those stating anything else is a clear indicative of your position on the matter. I just don't know how else to say this so that you will understand it: it's not up to you to decide what is a fact and what is not. It cannot be that hard to comprehend. Gaba p (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

But what it seems impossible for you to understand, is that NPOV requires us to present ALL of the relevant facts in the literature, presented from a neutral perspective. You wish to present a demonstrably untrue statement as fact, a statement made for political rather than historic reasons. You're trying to demote historical facts to be a British claim, when as I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, the academic historical sources are in agreement. Your edit is a deliberate falsehood, the facts are the same on both sides. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to present ALL of the relevant facts in the literature, presented from a neutral perspective, how can you say this and at the same time be fighting to keep a reference out?? The reference is indisputable, that's agreed, so you must have other reasons to want to remove it. What would those reasons be Wee?(— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaba p (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 September 2012)

demonstrably untrue statement, you keep saying this. How is it demonstrable untrue? Do you have a time machine we can use to travel back in time and check for ourselves? What we do is rely on sources. What you don't seem to grasp is that simply because you agree with some sources that does not make other sources conflicting with those untrue. We present the facts that we obtain from the sources, if the facts conflict we inform this. We do not get to decide which set of sources state demonstrable facts and which ones demonstrable lies. We present all sources, ok? Now, again, what is your motive to attempt to remove a source other than you not agreeing with what it says? I'm guessing you have none, otherwise you'd have expressed it already. So please stop trying to maintain your version of the (any) article just because you feel entitled to (see WP:OWN) The source is perfectly valid and conflicting facts must be presented as such. Gaba p (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to ignore further personal attacks. Dealing with the only matter relevant to wikipedia. It is demonstrably untrue because the British, American and Argentine sources, indeed sources from all nationalities not that nationality is relevant, from the period show that Vernet's settlement was not expelled see Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 7 for an extensive demonstration of this supported by sources of all nationalities. In addition, referring to Laver p.20, I see nothing that supports your claim that he asserts as fact that the British expelled the settlement. Even were that the case, we don't have to report an untrue claim in one source as fact see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Do we have to report a false claim as true from a certain POV. Again to repeat, we achieve a NPOV by presenting facts from a neutral perspective not based on any particularly nationality.

The historical record is in agreement here, the settlement was not expelled; the only people to leave was the mutinous garrison from a penal colony that existed less than 3 months. Further again your assertion it is a British claim is untrue as again sources from all nationalities reflect the same material. That edit is completelty unsustainable from the perspective of verifiability never mind WP:NPOV and you know it. I note you simply claim it is a British POV and repeatedly ignore the fact that the sources are in agreement here. Your edit isn't sourced.

Now your edit has been challenged, you can't satisfy WP:V never mind WP:NPOV it should be self-reverted immediately. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Time for Wikipedia:Requests for comment?Moxy (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely any edit needs to be WP:V? This one isn't and at this point its been edit warred into the article. Happy for an RFC, especially given the comments the last time this went to WP:NPOVN, but the article needs to be at the last stable consensus surely? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree - stable version till talk is over. As for the contested statements - is the info found in multiple sources - or just in one place?Moxy (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a confusion. The historical record is in agreement ie there is no controversy there. Like I said, I'm happy for this to go to an RFC, as I can demonstrate it conclusively. I don't actually refer to any nationality but Gaba p's edit is totally misleading for the simple reason he is presenting this as a solely British claim. It isn't. For information, I quote Destefani, 127,000 copies of this book were printed in 1982 and distributed free to schools and universities throughout the world. It was intended to give the historical basis for Argentina's claim, whilst its bias is obvious to any reader, it does show this claim to be FALSE. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently only the historical record you agree with is in agreement and the historical record presented by me is not verifiable. Leaving aside the fact that you are now trying to wikilawyer a source out (and that you attempted to WP:TAGTEAM by leaving a message to one of your editor friends) I'll just copy/paste comments from the NPOV board:

"contemporary historical record" from 1833 needs to be interpreted, even if it is argentine records. So when you state that contemporary historical record shows the claim to be true you are leaving out the question of who it is that is stating that this is the case. Presumably current pro-Argentinian experts makes no such claim? The fact that we are reporting is "...Argentine population that Argentina claims was expelled after the re-establishment of British rule in 1833". Which is an uncontested, and easily sourced, fact, ie. nobody is claiming that Argentina is not claiming this. NPOV requires us to report all significant views, and the Argentine view is certainly germane to this discussion, so we can not leave it out. Taemyr (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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

(emphasis added)

Now I'm not sure how Wee can interpret these comments as favorable to his position (I'm sure he doesn't, he just throws lies around hoping nobody will actually take the time and effort to go check) Both comments clearly say that it is not our place to interpret neither sources nor contemporary documents. We present all sources and facts and do not decide which ones are true facts and which ones are not, that is called original research and it's what Wee is doing here.

It is demonstrably untrue because the British, American and Argentine sources ... from the period show that Vernet's settlement was not expelled <-- Prime example of Wee's OR. You are coming to that conclusion after examining the sources you choose to assign the status of true. If those sources say population was not expelled, then we present that fact. But we don't hide other sources which present different facts just because you don't like them. That's dishonest. If you say this fact is not a British claim then we can agree that the opposite fact (stated in the source I proposed) is also not an Argentinian claim. You can't have it both ways, they are bot either contradicting facts or they are both claims. Your British bias in the Falklands dispute is not a compelling factor to give more weight to one source over another.

referring to Laver p.20, why would you refer to Laver when I referencing Oliveri López?

I'm happy for this to go to an RFC, as I can demonstrate it conclusively, I've told you already you should write a book with all this conclusions and facts and then reference that book. Until then it constitutes WP:OR and it is not acceptable.

I quote Destefani ... it does show this claim to be FALSE, could you please copy/paste where in the book it states that the population was not expelled from the island? I've asked you for this before but you never did.

I agree with RFC. Gaba p (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It was me who provided relevant quotes by Destéfani and others, in Origins of Falkland Islanders#Early settlers. No need to repeat that time and again. Apcbg (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Apcbg that article has some issues, thanks for bringing it to my attention. This particular sentence is problematic: On 5 January 1833, at the moment when the remaining Argentine military abandoned the islands,[7] 27 of the original Vernet settlers and 2 temporary residents remained in Port Louis.[8]. According to sources like the one I presented here, the population didn't abandon the islands, they were actually expelled. The choice of words in that article is quite biased towards the British position and should be fixed. Also reference [8] is a dead link.

The source [21] used here as a supposed source for the 27 members of Vernet's colony [that] were still in residence in the islands in July 1833 actually says absolutely nothing about that (but you and Wee reverted my edit that fixed this nonetheless) and even more it states: ..on 2 January 1833 they [the British] arrived at Port Louis ... Captain Onslow of 'Clio' gave Don Pinedo written notice that he should remove the Argentine flag and depart immediately, as the next day the British would be exercising their rights and raising the British flag. Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands. So here's another source for the expulsion.

I'm not sure what's your point, but Destéfani is used in that article to reference the statement: in 1838 the then single settlement of Port Louis had a population of 40-45 residents including some gauchos and women from among Luis Vernet’s settlers. What does this have to do with the 1833 incident? Does Destéfani state anywhere that in 1833 the population was not actually expelled? Gaba p (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh here we go again. Huge reams of argumentative text making accusations and quibbling about sources. Again I re-iterate, something that you're wilfully ignoring to misrepresent my position, I am not interpreting the historical record I am reporting what the sources say. This is NOT my opinion, I reflect what the sources say.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs) 21:40, 12 September 2012

Yes you are interpreting the historical record. Reporting what the sources say means exactly that: reporting what the sources say. You are unilaterally deciding which sources represent facts and which do not. That is WP:OR. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There were 2 resident populations in the Falkland Islands in January 1833.

1) The settlement established in 1828 by Luis Vernet, somewhat depleted after most of the population took the opportunity to leave as a result of the Lexington raid in 1831.

2) The garrison and prisoners of the penal colony that arrived in 1832. The garrison had mutinied, killing their commander and released the prisoners. This had been in the islands for less than 3 months.

The Argentine claim is that the entire population was expelled and replaced by Britons, which is then used to justify its modern sovereignty claim i.e. Argentina claims that both the garrison, prisoners and the settlement was expelled.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs) 21:40, 12 September 2012

It is no more an Argentinian claim than the settlers not being expelled is a British claim. Again see WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You'll be doing us all a favor giving it a good read. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No again, the historical record of all nationalities corroborates the account that the population was not expelled by the British. NPOV does not require that we explicitly state the Argentine claim verbatim as if it were the truth. We report on matters from a neutral perspective, in this case the secondary sources states the Argentine claim is incorrect, this is corroborated by the historical record. You repeatedly assert this is a British claim but provide no cite to corroborate that. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is untrue. No one disputes that Onslow requested that the Argentine garrison was requested to leave and they did so. However, the settlement was not expelled, it was encouraged to remain. That this was the case is in Pinedo's report, the captain of the ARA Sarandi, corroborated by Thomas Helsby (Vernet's clerk), Onslow's orders, Onslow's report, the log of HMS Clio, the accounts of Darwin and Fitzroy, the census records in the Falkland Islands. Interpreting primary sources, secondary sources document this claim to be false.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs) 21:40, 12 September 2012

Here you go, from the López source: "Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...". This is called a source for a fact, just like your sources for your facts. It can't be made any more clear than that. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that is a cite for the Argentine claim. Your edit is that the British claim is they weren't expelled. There is no such British claim, the historical record of all nationalities is the same. You haven't provided a cite at all. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are deliberately misrepresenting what the sources say to provide a biased account. You're trying to obfuscate the situation by referring to the request for the garrison to leave, as the expulsion of the resident population.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs) 21:40, 12 September 2012

Read comment above. You are cherry-picking sources (those that go better with your pro-British claim). Not me. I'm trying to keep all the sources for both claims, you on the other hand, are trying to have a source you don't like removed. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, the preference in writing for a NPOV is to rely on neutral academic sources, rather than political tomes. In this case, the academic sources saying no expulsion of all nationalities are corroborated by the contemporary historical record. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant Lopez not Laver but I would guess you knew that. (No I did not, why should I?) Pray how does Lopez support your assertion this is a British claim rather than documented history? (It does not, it's a source for the expulsion of the settlers which makes the British fact a claim just like your sources make the Argentinian fact a claim.) And btw Lopez was an Argentine ambassador, not a historian. (Wee desperate = Wikilawyering = irrelevant = yawn) Wee Curry Monster talk 21:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that I've not supplied any reference to Destefani, I refer to my post of the 27 May 2012 in Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 7. The problem is that wikipedia maintains a written record, so when you try and promulgate a falsehood the written record is readily at hand to prove you wrong. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed WP keeps a written record which allows me to bring back what you wrote for everyone to see. This is what you quoted from Destéfani at the time: "Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos.". Care to explain how is that a source for Britain not expelling the settlers? Because I cannot find the relevance. Gaba p (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, you can't see it. How can Pinedo leave someone in charge if everyone was expelled? That statement is a historical record that supports the secondary source which states the Argentine claim is untrue. I'll repeat that, the historical record supports the secondary sources that say the settlement was NOT EXPELLED. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"The settlement was not expelled, it was encouraged to remain". Yes, it was encouraged but not all of them accepted the "offer". The fact is that the settlement was partially expelled, and the armed garrison, fully expelled.

(Related question to ask yourselves: are there any descendants of the settlers that choose to stay living today on the islands?)

I would also like to ask everyone to actually check Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Do_we_have_to_report_a_false_claim_as_true_from_a_certain_POV. You will see that suggestions given there is against the way WCM likes to write about this (and as he is doing it here, once again).

@WCM: please tell me how this doesn't constitute WP:CANVASSING... --Langus (t) 01:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, listen to yourself, you acknowledge the settlement was encouraged to remain but in the next sentence claim they were expelled; you don't expel someone you ask to stay. That is a classic example of a non sequitur, what is remarkable is the Doublethink involved where you will actually make two utterly contradictory statements but cannot see it for yourself. As I stated above I'm ignoring the unfounded accusations of misconduct, please stop it. I simply point out asking someone with relevant knowledge to comment is not canvassing.

Could you also explain the rationale for this tag [12], since the claims is quite explicit that it refers to 1833 [13] see

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

Its not as if this isn't common knowledge in Argentina. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is related to this discussion. I've been referred to this page from the following website: http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/26/spain-s-rich-catalonia-region-calls-snap-election-demanding-self-determination Anyone reading the comment section on the bottom of that page and on other pages on that website can clearly see the heated debate and disagreements between various parts about the issue of the Malvinas/Falklands. The vast majority are well organised anti-Argentinian groups.92.4.151.194 (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Challenge

Admin note: can somebody please refactor this section in such a way that it becomes possible to figure out who wrote what? I find this section completely unreadable. I suspect somebody has been interjecting his own comments in between those of somebody else. Please don't do that. Thank you, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes Fut.Perf., one of my replies to Wee (the first one in this section) is written inside Wee's comments. This is something Wee did first in a comment of mine (see the fourth comment in the section Introducution of Bias by Edit Warring above) so I took to doing it myself to save time. I'll re-edit that comment so that it doesn't sit inside Wee's comment. Gaba p (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Step by step

1. You repeatedly assert this is a British claim. Please provide a cite, with supporting quote to show that this is a British claim as opposed to historical fact. If you can't you can't write that in the article as it is not verifiable.

2. If (1.) is provided, then you can of course provide evidence from the contemporary historical record to corroborate the cite. This will enable us to demonstrate that the contemporary records are contradictory.

3. Regarding the neutral statement this is an Argentine claim. Neutral academic source:

“ Argentina likes to stress that Argentine settlers were ousted and replaced. This is incorrect. Those settlers who wished to leave were allowed to go. The rest continued at the now renamed Port Louis. It is significant that only a proportion of people at Vernet's settlement were in fact from Argentina. A large number came from Banda Oriental ”

Hence, equivalent to (1.) above the notion this is an Argentine claim can be supported.

4. Further to (3.) above, I can already confirm that the contemporary record backs this up.

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

“ “you are not to disturb them in their agricultural or other inoffensive employments.” ”

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

“ I had great trouble to pursuade 12 of the Gauchos to remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments to the shipping must have ceased. ”

“ I regretted to observe a bad spirit existed amongst the Gauchos, they appeared dissatisfied with their wages… The whole of the inhabitants requested me to move the government in their favour for grants of land. ”

Pinedo (An Argentine source) corroborates this:

“ … those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain and both they and their property would be respected as before… ”

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

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

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

5. It should be noted that we are regarding the claim that the settlement was expelled in 1833 and not the garrison, so please try not to obfuscate matters again eh.

OK the gauntlet is thrown, please address the above without personal attacks, if you can't I will restoring the content to the article and removing the unverifiable material. For the record I am asking you to address (1.) and (2.) only, if you wish to criticise (3.) and (4.) we can do so later. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(Edited my own comment out of Wee's comment)

1- What makes something a claim in a dispute is the two parties involved presenting conflicting evidence from different sources. The pro-British like to stress some sources as if they presented facts (pro-British of course) and dismiss other sources (pro-Argentine) as if they presented mere claims or simply lies. Same goes the other way around. That said, here's your quote:

"Britain argues its case on its long-term administration of the islands and on the principle of self-determination for the residents. It says the islands have been continuously, peacefully and effectively inhabited and administered by Britain since 1833."

(emphasis added)

This excerpt is taken from the Britain's view of the Falklands here.

2- Once again: it is not our place to analyze and draw conclusions from the historical record. We present what the sources say, we do not engage in WP:OR. That said (which of course you already know), here's once again the sources for the population being expelled:

"Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...".

Taken from here. And the're also this:

"..However, upon decolonisation and under the principle of uti possidetis, sovereignty should have been transferred to Argentina, which declared independence in 1816. In 1833, Britain expelled the islands' inhabitants."

Taken from here.

And this:

"..Don Pinedo refused to comply, and on the following day the Argentine flag was removed by the British and handed to him. He and his men were forced to withdraw from the Islands."

Taken from here.

And this:

"In 1832 Britain reasserts its claim to the Falklands (hardly as yet exercised outside Saunders Island). A year later a British force arrives to evict the Argentinians. And at last British settlement begins."

Taken from here.

3- Agreed, that the population was expelled is an Argentinian claim just as the statement that they were not expelled is a British claim.

4- WP:OR. If you can get sources for the British claim from this, we can use them.

5- I think the sources are pretty clear on this, eh?

Two more things:

1- "How can Pinedo leave someone in charge if everyone was expelled?", the reference says verbatim: "Before Pinedo sailed from the Malvinas he appointed Political and Military Commander of the Islands, a Frenchman name Juan Simon who had been Vernet's trusted foreman in charge of his gauchos". Where does it say that the population was not expelled?? That is a conclusion you are drawing from a quite vague statement and it's called WP:OR.

2- Let me quote several sentences from Wee at the time of the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute/Archive_7:

Can you either of you produce a source with evidence backing up the claim it makes? Or do you simply wish to present an untrue statement as fact?

Gaba p, have you a reliable secondary source stating that? Answer no.

We didn't decide what is true, the sources do

We let the reader make their own mind up by providing all of the information

Bare in mind this person asking for sources and explaining how we present all the information and let the reader decide is the same person who is now edit-warring to try to keep a source out just because he doesn't like the facts it presents and the same person who intends to obtain conclusions from cherry-picked sources and present said conclusions here as if they were documented facts when in reality they are nothing but his own WP:OR. Gaba p (talk)

A few thoughts:

1. You're assuming the role of a writer. You're challenging him to step above the role of a Wikipedia editor. Again, WP:NPOVFAQ and ask to a friend or relative to interpret for you the comments at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Do_we_have_to_report_a_false_claim_as_true_from_a_certain_POV.

2. Mary Cakwell is not a strictly "neutral academic source". It is a reliable academic source tho, that favors British point of view.

Cheers. --Langus (t) 12:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I note you've both declined to respond. I also note the personal attacks, that I'm the only editor to support their edit with sources and contrary to my request you're still confusing settlement and garrison to muddy the waters. You keep referring to POV from national perspectives, wikipedia present a NPOV.

So to summarise:

1. You have no source to show this is a British claim rather the historical record. This is thus your synthesis and original research (though I note you muddy the waters by trying to accuse othes of WP:OR). This is unsustainable as an edit.

2. A source exists to show this an Argentine claim, corroborated by contemporary historical records. It conforms to WP:V and WP:RS and to WP:NPOV as it based on an academic source not a political source. See WP:NPOVN#What is a NPOV?.

To re-iterate the edit I made was based on what the sources say, I have made the point repeatedly but you ignore it to make unfounded and unsustainable accusations of misconduct. I will shortly be removing the comments edit warred into the article as they are not a sustainable edit. If you wish them to remain you have to source them appropriately. If you plan on WP:TAG to edit war them into the article I will take this to WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. I answered all your points with sources backing up the statements yet you choose to ignore everything I wrote. You continue to act as if this (and other) articles belonged to you and the rest of the editors had to convince you somehow so their edits will be accepted. You are not the owner of the article, there's two editors who agree with an edit yet you keep acting as if yours were the final word. YOU DON'T OWN THE ARTICLE WEE. You don't get to decide unilaterally what's a fact and what is not, you know this. I think at this point your pro-British bias is so great it won't even let you see things from a neutral POV anymore. You just can't. Seriously, you'd be doing WP a favor by excusing yourself from editing Falkland related articles for a while until you can at least make peace with your bias and accept that believing you are correct does not make it true.

Of course I'll be undoing your last rv and if you feels this needs to escalate, so be it.

Also: you have the nerve of accusing us of WP:TAG when it was you who called Apcbg to help you edit-war the article (which thankfully he did not)??? You truly have no shame. Gaba p (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yawn, ever seen Apcbg tag teaming? I asked for input, knowing he wouldn't. In addition, you haven't answered any points just plenty of personal attacks.

Your edit is unsourced, nowhere in any source does it state that it is a British claim the settlement wasn't expelled. I've asked you to provide it and you haven't. As to the rest - see WP:ANI. Please do, if you're accusing me of misconduct and violating NPOV, I look forward to it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaba p, you have conveniently 'overlooked' Destéfani's evidence that Argentines used to thrive on the Falklands decades post 1833. Apcbg (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't WP:BAIT on that one and I'm not willing to assume the role of a secondary source, which I am not (and neither are you, BTW).

May I suggest taking the section out (or revert it to before August 24th) and work on it in a sandbox? --Langus (t) 01:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Apcbg I have overlooked nothing. It is not my position nor is it yours (or any other WP editor) to analyze evidence. If there are sources that based on Destefani's work state that there were Argentine citizens decades after the 1833 incident and, from this analysis, draw the conclusion that there was no expulsion at the time, then we can present them as saying that much. We do not present and analyze historical evidence because we do not engage in WP:OR. What we do is present sources, period. Gaba p (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes you have overlooked something, if you look at (3.) above there is a source that looks at the historical evidence and concludes there was no expulsion. A source that backs this up explicitly. I take it you will no withdraw your challenge to my edit in that respect.

Furthermore, whilst you are correct it is not our place to analyse historical evidence and present this in articles. That is indeed original research. However, there is nothing to stop us referring to historical evidence in evaluating a source as to whether to use it in an article. This is very much part of the WP:CONSENSUS building process. This is why we are not compelled to repeat a statement made in a source, if we know it to be untrue.

However, you have no source which looks at the contemporary records with the conclusion that it is a British claim there was no expulsion. Your edit is not sourced and your use of cites is in fact citation fraud - the source does not verify the edit. The British do not make such a claim, this is what the contemporary historical record states. I have given you more than ample opportunity to support your edit.

Finally, in explaining the role of self-determination in the FI dispute NPOV does require us to state what the Argentine position is and its justification. However, if we have evidence that part of that statement is based on a claim contradicted by contemporary historical evidence, stated in a source and after evaluating the claim made in that source we conclude the author is correct, then we should also make that statement as NPOV requires us to do so.

I am unwilling to revert to an edit prior to 24 August, restoring to a version of the text that an independent editor desrcibed as "POV crap". I will however attempt to fix my edit by attributing the opinion expressed to an author. Which should more that suffice. If you edit again to introduce text attributing the contemporary records falsely to be a British claim, I will be taking your WP:TE to WP:ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaba p, Destéfani is a secondary source presenting historical evidence by Commodore Augusto Lasserre. Apcbg (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The current section looks much better but some things need to be corrected. To prevent an edit war, I propose we do it here. This is the current version:

This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833 during which Argentina states the existing population living in the islands was expelled. Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination. Historian Mary Cawkell considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain, that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841.

And this are the changes I propose:

This refers to the re-establishment of British rule in the year 1833 during which Argentina states the existing population living in the islands was expelled. Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination. Historian Mary Cawkell considers that contemporary historical records indicate the population was encouraged to remain, while author Marjory Harper states that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841. On the other hand, author Olivieri López analyzes British sources to conclude that the population was expelled in 1833 by the British.

1. Moved 1st citation to a better position.
2. Added where Olivieri's book was. We need an official Argentinian government source to reference that statement.
3. I moved Mary Cawkell's source to a more correct position and eliminated The Telegraph and Destefani because they don't actually belong if we're talking about what Cawkell said.
4. contemporary records historical --> contemporary historical records
5. Corrected statement attributed to Cawkell when the source points to Harper.
6. Added statement by Olivieri attributed to him.

Edit my comment to correct anything that you think should be changed. Gaba p (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Lopez makes no such analysis or statement, he simply makes a bald statement that the British expelled the population. Lopez is not a historian, he is a political appointee, stating the Argentine Government position. Given the weight of evidence backing Cawkell's statement, to add in that statement knowing there is nothing to support it would be seriously misleading. If you can produce contemporary records to back Lopez thats different. And again don't confuse garrison and settlement.

There is no need to refer to Harper, as the material is already cited. In addition, the {{cn}} wouldn't have been needed if you hadn't removed the official Argentinian government source to replace it with Lopez.

The whole purpose of editing that section was to reduce it in size, commensurate with the relation to the subject matter. It needs to be pruned to whats relevant. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Lopez makes no such analysis or statement, he simply makes a bald statement that the British expelled the population". Lopez does make an analysis based on British sources, the expelled population is taken from a memorandum, he's not making that claim out of thin air. You can't dismiss this source unless you have a valid reason to do so. Do you?
• "Lopez is not a historian", you know this is irrelevant.
• "stating the Argentine Government position", no he is not. He investigated British sources, analyzed them and wrote a book with the conclusions he reached. He is no more stating the Argentinian position than Cawkell is stating the British position.
• "Given the weight of evidence backing Cawkell's statement, to add in that statement knowing there is nothing to support it would be seriously misleading", this is again WP:OR. We do not report on the available evidence, we report on the sources that analyzed such evidence. Cawkell did and so did Lopez so we present both unless you are calling Lopez book a fringe theory
• "If you can produce contemporary records to back Lopez thats different", I need to do no such thing because it is not our position to investigate evidence and come up with conclusions. I can't believe you don't see the difference between reporting what a source says and reporting personal conclusions based on evidence. We do not analyze evidence.
• "don't confuse garrison and settlement.", I don't see where you think I'm making this confusion. Lopez book says: "Returning to Akehurst's memorandum, Goebel states: Argentina established a settlement in the East Falkland in the 1820s, and this settlement remained until the settlers were evicted by the UK in 1833...". It can't be made any more clearer.
• "There is no need to refer to Harper, as the material is already cited.", the current version of the section says: "Historian Mary Cawkell[74] considers that contemporary records historical indicate the population was encouraged to remain[75][76], that only the garrison was requested to leave and that no attempt to colonise the islands was made till 1841.[77]" The sentence after reference [76] is grammatically being attributed to Cawkell when it corresponds to Harper. What is not clear about this?
• the {{cn}} wouldn't have been needed if you hadn't removed the official Argentinian government source to replace it with Lopez. I don't understand what you mean. If there's an official source by the Argentinian government stating that then lets add it. Lopez is not an official source any more than Cawkell is to the UK.

The current state of the section needs to be improved and I would like to have an agreement before doing so, but if you refuse to answer the points I'm raising as I answered yours, then I'll be moving along with the edit without your consent as I will understand you simply intend to be the WP:WINNER no matter what. Gaba p (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaba, Wee, I would like to state my disagreement with your disregard of Destéfani who is a renowned Argentine military historian and his primary source Augusto Lasserre spent quite some time on the Islands. Apcbg (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder at what point you will realise that being confrontational will get you nowhere. See WP:NPOVN#What is a NPOV? and the comment made by TFD, Lopez's agenda is very much relevant to evaluating whether we use a claim made in a source; as is whether his claim is corrobarated by other sources. The source does not base his conclusion on British sources as you claim. To claim it does is citation fraud. All you've done is A. state he makes a claim and B. state he bases his document on British sources, therefore A + B = C he makes his conclusion based on British sources. Classic WP:SYN. Take it to WP:NPOVN if as usual you won't take my word for it.

Apcbg I didn't disregard Destéfani, though I do consider it a biased source given the circumstances of its publication. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee, the name of Lopez book is Key to an Enigma: British Sources Disprove British Claims to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Where, could you please tell me, am I making a WP:SYN (or citation fraud?? ô_O) by stating that he makes his conclusion based on British sources? You seem to be wikilawyering to try to keep a source out and it is not acceptable.

You haven't answered my points Wee. Every time you raise concerns about some edit I take the time to answer all your questions as thoroughly as I can and I would appreciate the same treatment from you. It's apparent that you won't give an inch even on obvious corrections as 1, 4 and 5. Seriously, you'd rather have a section contain gibberish like contemporary records historical than agreeing with me on any edit? I'll correct the section now because it needs to be done. Gaba p (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have replied, it is synthesis to make that conclusion, the suggestion is to take this to NPOVN and get a 3rd opinion. I will revert any change you make as you clearly don't have consensus and are forcing material into this article that is your WP:OR and WP:SYN. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Harper states nothing about the garrison leaving, its purely about the establishment of the settlement. Your edit is now vandalism attributing the wrong statement to the wrong source. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee, I cannot see how the circumstances of Destéfani's book could affect the significance of his primary source, Augusto Lasserre's report Descripción de un viaje a las Malvinas published in El Río de la Plata Newspaper, Buenos Aires, 19–21 November 1869.

As for that Lopez book, I take it that either his assertion could be sourced in the original source he cites, or otherwise Lopez is a primary source and hence unsuitable for the purpose. Apcbg (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Lopez refers to Akehurst, who is referring to Goebel, p.456 and Goebel refers to the expulsion of the garrison - I checked. All of Gaba p's edits are deliberately confusing the garrison with the settlement. As to Destéfani, I don't dispute his primary source, I simply use the book with caution due to the manner in which it was published. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Goebel could be a secondary source if his assertion is based on a primary source, but he cannot be a reliable primary source himself as he wrote nearly one century after 1833. If he has no reliable primary sources, then the reference to him by Akehurst, Lopez etc. hardly makes them reliable secondary sources. Apcbg (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Wee, I remind you that you've been advised before by an admin to be careful with your wild accusations of vandalism. --Langus (t) 15:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply: WP:HOUND - stop now. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If you could only see the irony in that response... --Langus (t) 19:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So you checked uh? Tell me Wee, you checking sources and deciding that what is verbatim expressed in one of those is not true, how is that not WP:OR and WP:SYN? You can't WP:WIN this by continuing to edit-war me, you need actual valid reasons. The Lopez book is just as valid as a source as Cawkell's book is. It is not an official Argentinian statement (this is more than obvious) and it verbatim refers to settlers being expelled from their settlement, there is no confusion whatsoever when referencing that source. This will be reflected in the article because you not liking what it implies is not a valid reason not to. Trying to wikilawyer the source out (as you and Apcbg are trying to do) will not work either.

You reverted to a version that contains a clear grammatical error and not even bothered to fixed it. I guess it shows how interested you are in the quality of the article versus the message you can have it display. I see Harper is just a source for the 1841 colonization attempts but the way it is presented is beyond confusing. The source from The Telegraph and Destefani do not belong there at all. As for your accusations: meh.Gaba p (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYN applies to articles - how difficult is that to understand? Where a source contains an error, we are not compelled to repeat it. And again, yes I can check sources. Lopez is not a valid source, since unlike Cawkell it fails verification. Goebel doesn't state that see [14]. Have a nice day now. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This is related to this discussion. I've been referred to this page from the following website: http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/26/spain-s-rich-catalonia-region-calls-snap-election-demanding-self-determination Anyone reading the comment section on the bottom of that page and on other pages on that website can clearly see the heated debate and disagreements between various parts about the issue of the Malvinas/Falklands. The vast majority are well organised anti-Argentinian groups.92.4.151.194 (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

I see a {{cn}} tage was added. Just to check, are you suggesting that in your opinion this material was inadequately cited and that you don't have a replacement? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Section World War II

According to this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program , the National Socialist party prior to World War II invoked this right of nations on their first point (out of 25) of their political programme. I suggest mentioning it on the World War II section of the article, as I think the idea is involved in the burst of that war. I will write it on the article right now but if any editor or reader finds it wrong I encourage improving it or changing it. I suggest not to delete it once is written on the article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.42.67 (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)