Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

The guy changing citizenship

[1] I think this is noteworthy in the context of the sovereignty dispute. Argentino (talk/cont.) 13:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This article covers all aspects of the Falkland Islands. Ideally no Wikipedia article should exceed 60,000 bytes and once it gets to the length that this article is, excess material has got to be moved to subsidiary articles. The Falkland Islands Team has been working through this article - the one section that is still being worked on is the section on the Sovereignty Dispute. I split the section into two - one that discusses the dispute before the war of 1982 and one afterwards. I reduced the pre-1982 subsection to a manageable length, but have yet to reduced the post-1982 section. IMO James Peck's citizenship is a minor incident that might possibly warrant a mention in a more detailed article, but certainly not here. Martinvl (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Martin per WP:NOTNEWS, this is not encylcopedic content. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree; in any case the article would be Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute. News can be of encyclopedic interest tho -- see WP:NEWSEVENT. -- Langus (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can be but this doesn't meet the criteria set out there. Its little more than a publicity stunt, nothing more. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Publicity Stunt" care to give a citation? What exactly do you base this on? The man is married to an Argentine woman, it might very well be a personal choice for family reasons. I agree with Langus, news can be of encyclopaedic interest.Alex79818 (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The word 'although'

It reads right now: "Although Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store". Alex, Michael and myself have expressed that it would be best to remove it on the grounds of NPOV, as described in the 'Word to watch' guideline. My proposal, backed by Alex, is simply using a semicolon between the statements. Wee Curry Monster disagrees on the grounds that now it's sweeter, which I believe doesn't stand to an official Wikipedia guideline about bias. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I observe that you don't wish to take up my offer to go through things one thing at a time. Morevoever I note, you have chosen to misrepresent my position and not for the first time. The comments on sweetness refer to my desire not to add a great deal of extraneous and unnecessary detail. I have specifically requested that you don't do this.

You assert there is a euphemism in the sentence "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831." This alleged euphemism is to soften the Argentine POV. Where is this alleged euphemism please?

You also changed claimed to stated, the current text doesn't say that at all. This is something you suggested but it isn't in the article yet. Just for the record.

And the alleged violation of the MoS by the use of the word "although" as a conjunction. Read the guideline again, this isn't a word to be avoided as you allege. It is suggested that care should be taken in its use as "although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second."

So taking the above. Is there a relationship between the two statements, yes there is so its use as a conjunction is perfectly valid.

Is the statement intended to undermine the first or give undue precadence to the credibility of the second? No it doesn't, moreover as written it gives more weight to Vernet's claims over a primary source, namely the log of the USS Lexington. And if you read the History of the Falkland Islands, where I expanded it, I go further by giving the testament of Brisbane who did witness these events.

As to claim v stated. One the source didn't say stated, it said claimed, a reasonable approach given that Vernet never witnessed the exents of 1831 he could not be considered a primary eye witness source giving a statement.

So once again, I offer to discuss things in a reasonable manner with you. But again I request you stop raising multiple side issues and stop misrepresenting what I say to you. We can start with you identifying the alleged euphemism you find so objectionable. Please. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I won't be dragged into the mud again, as I said before. If someone else picks up on your misrepresentations, then I will answer them. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

These edits speak by themselves: [2] [3] If you want to keep the questionable 'although' structure, and the order doesn't affect the meaning/implications of the phrase, then why don't we leave it like your first edit? -- Langus (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do don't they, they demonstrate the premise that the order doesn't affect the meaning/implications of the phrase most effectively. That is why I did it. As to why I left it as it was, that was how it was when it had consensus - the written record is here. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It would prove that you really think that if you'd leave it in reverse order. By reverting it immediately, it's only a statement. I remind you (for the second time) that consensus can change. In fact, as far as I know you're the only one who wants to keep that phrase unchanged, while three editors are actively looking for an alternative. So I'd say you're the key to reach consensus on this matter. Regards. -- Langus (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: USS Lexington paragraph

There are concerns about impartial tone when describing a military raid in the Falkland Islands (1831). More details inside. -- Langus (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph in dispute currently reads: "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. Although Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo." My concerns are at the beggining and the end of it:

1. That the phrase starts with an WP:EUPHEMISM, not fully mentioning the actions that led to the raid. The decision of striking the settlement was made after discovering that the schooner Harriet was captured and brought to Buenos Aires ^[1]. Duncan learned about Vernet in Montevideo ^[2], and chose to attack the settlement in Buenos Aires ^[1]. Also, and this is a matter of readibility, because it doesn't mention the incident readers end up a bit confused as to what happened to Vernet (he traveled with the Harriet ^[3] and never returned to the Falkands);
2. That saying "arrested for piracy" and nothing further, is asserting exclusively the US POV, sharply in contrast with the phrase "a dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in..." for the reasons I exposed in point No. 1. Moreover, it doesn't address the fact that they were never put on trial ^{[4a] [4b]} and were treated with reservations in favor of the government of Buenos Aires. ^[5]

For this, I think that there is unbalance in the fact that actions and accusations of the US Government against Vernet & Brisbane are included in the text, but Argentina's actions and accusations against the Harriet are not there.

I believe that a possible solution would be reducing the pro-US POV by removing "for piracy", or else to elaborate the expression "a dispute over fishing and hunting rights" so it mentions the Harriet incident and Argentina's POV. I believe this last one would be the best course, to avoid any risk of euphemisms.

Also, there is concern about whether or not the use of the word 'although' when presenting the two opposite accounts can lead the reader in favor of one argument or another, as described in Wikipedia:Words_to_watch#Editorializing. For that, it has been proposed to eliminate it.

References:

[1] Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960, by Harold F. Peterson. Page 105, title "The Lexington Retaliates" [4].

[2] Gold braid and foreign relations: diplomatic activities of U.S. naval Officers 1798-1883, by David Foster Long. Page 152. [5].

[3] Gold braid and foreign relations: diplomatic activities of U.S. naval Officers 1798-1883, by David Foster Long. [6] Page 152.

[4a] http://www.ussduncan.org/silas_page13.htm

[4b] Gold braid and foreign relations: diplomatic activities of U.S. naval Officers 1798-1883, by David Foster Long. [7]Page 152.

[5] Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960, by Harold F. Peterson. Page 106 [8]

-- Langus (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Three proposals:

• "Fishing and hunting rights disputes arose between governments of the United States and Argentina. In 1831 Vernet seized a US schooner and arrested her to the port of Buenos Aires, which resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington. Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed; the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested and taken to Montevideo charged with piracy." <presents both POV but it's possibly too long for an overview>
• "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed; the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. The seven senior members of the settlement were arrested and taken to Montevideo." <more neutral & short>
• "Vernet's seizure of US sealing vessels resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831. Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed; the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. The seven senior members of the settlement were arrested and taken to Montevideo." <more neutral & short>

-- Langus (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I ask again, if you could actually point to this euphemism that you allege is there?

And again, all sources, even the Argentine ones acknowledge that the 7 senior members were arrested on charges of piracy. You allege it is POV to mention a documented historical fact, yet have given no reason in policy as to why you wish to remove it. Cherry picking from sources that quite clearly contradict the point you make doesn't augur well for a neutral proposal. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Langus. Now, to the mutton:

1. "Euphemism" - WCM, for the millionth time, the euphemism referred to is the phrase "A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid". This is neither neutral nor accurate. It is presumptuous because of the qualifier "a dispute of over fishing and hunting rights".

---

> *****The euphemism is the word "dispute", as used.**** <------

According to bilateral sources, the Argentine position was that Vernet prohibited seal hunting, while the US position was that the islands were free of government such that Vernet's actions lacked force of law. A "dispute" would take place if one party maintained the position that a certain law was applicable while the other party maintained the position that said law was not applicable.

Rather, in this case, according to all sources, was not that the US said Vernet's law wasn't applicable - for the US simply maintained Vernet had no jurisdiction to enforce any law at all. That is more than a mere "dispute over fishing and hunting rights". If you want to have the word "dispute" there, say what the dispute was really about: a dispute over sovereignty and jurisdictional authority, without which Vernet's actions would rightly have been deemed piracy.

2. "Piracy" - Again the issue here is not with the content, but with the wording. A documented historical fact can indeed be worded so as to present or imply a POV, and that is exactly what is going on here. "..the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo"......AND THEN??????

Were they tried? Were they found guilty??? Did they hang?? Were they set free??? Were they given a state dinner and made kings for a day??? Who knows. But the WORDING leaves the reader with the taste of PIRACY in his/her mouth. It suggests, very subtly, the conclusion that they were arrested for piracy so they must have been pirates. Not exactly NPOV.

3. "Although" - above and beyond what Langus said, I object to this wording. Consider this sentence structure:

"Although the defendant stated his house was burned down, the police report indicates only his car was on fire."

That doesn't mean the house wasn't on fire too - but sure makes it look like the defendant is a liar. There are two narrators, one is apparently being accused of a crime, the other is an officer of the law - the effect is one of suggesting bias that discredits one source and credits another. By the same token, the sentence...

"Although Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store."

...also specifically creates in readers the image that Lexington's report is more accurate than Vernet's, when coupled with the accusation of Piracy. The effect is cumulative, the text as is fails to meet NPOV in any conceivable way, and therefore must be changed.

I propose the following text:

"A dispute over jurisdictional authority arose between governments of the United States and Argentina. In 1831 Vernet seized three US schooners for illegal seal hunting, releasing two and arresting the crew of the third and sending them to Buenos Aires for trial. The US Consul, George Slacum, did not recognize Vernet's authority or Argentina's sovereignty claims. A diplomatic row ensued, resulting in a raid on Vernet's settlement by the US warship USS Lexington. Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed; the Lexington only reports destruction of arms and a powder store. Following the raid, the Captain of the USS Lexington declared the Islands were free from all government, and in turn arrested the seven senior members of Vernet's settlement on charges of piracy."

I would also be willing to add statements as to the legal disposition of BOTH parties of accused.Alex79818 (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And that says exactly what the current article says but with 3 times as many words on extraneous details. This is an overview, the details are in a linked article. You're both constructing a mountain out of a molehill. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I accept that change would be beneficial here, but I'm not convinced by the suggestions made. Alex's is far too long and too detailed for an overview article. Langus' first is also too long, and I do not accept the accuracy of the claim that there was any significant dispute between the government of Argentina (independently of Vernet) and government the United States prior to the Lexington Raid, as both imply. I fail to see how Langus' second resolves his objection. His third, and the status quo, are the basis for the below. On the "although", I do not see the basis for the objection here, and I feel that the sentence structure needs some joining word. But I'm happy to consider alternatives since I do not see that specific word as essential.

This would be better worded, IMO, as:

Following Vernet's seizure of three US sealing vessels, the USS Lexington raided Puerto Luis in 1831. While Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed, the Lexington reported destruction only of arms and a powder store. The Islands were declared free from all government, and seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy, taken to Montevideo and released.

This is only marginally longer than the status quo, and contains all of the same information (I think), plus some useful extra details. I do rather think it would be an improvement to mention that they were released in Montevideo even if there is no other change. Pfainuk talk 17:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe you're labouring under the impression that the dispute followed the Lexington raid but this is not the case. The US consul had disputed the pronouncement of fishing/hunting restrictions in the Falklands as did the British consul, and the US had re-inforced the Brazil squadron as a result; ostensibly to protect American commericial interests. The presence of the Lexington was propitious as a result of the pre-exisiting dispute; the US consul and Argentine authorities had been exchanging notes for some time. Hence, I venture the current text is more accurate. The details of the ships that were captured and Vernet's return to Buenos Aires are tangential and as such not necessary for an overview.

The central allegation that there is a "euphemism" and the text is "POV" is not sustainable.

I have no objection to adding they were released in Montevideo but I would just draw your attention to the fact that I did add this to the article only to have Langus, the originator of the RFC, revert my addition almost immediately. I believe that simple addition would have resolved any neutrality issues with the current text. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again we see a consideration of the facts solely from the perspective of every entity but Argentina's. I ask, in the above reasoning, is there any consideration of the fact that, from Buenos Aires' viewpoint, the matter had been settled when no objection was filed in Buenos Aires, from either Great Britian or the United States, regarding the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, its taking control of former Spanish dominions in SA under "uti", and the widespread international publications of the same in 1821 followed by recognition? Is there any consideration given to the fact that Buenos Aires received no British objections to the matter of the Islands passing into UP's hands later in 1825 when Britain and the United Provinces signed the treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation? Where were the objections then?? Where was the frenzy of British and American notes denouncing the United Provinces' intentions as to the islands and assertion of sovereingty insofar as dispatching Jewett??

Sources, please - otherwise it's WP:OR.

Also, to say that the US decision to reinforce the Brazil squadron was prompted by a need to secure US interests in or near the islands completely ignores the fact there was a shooting war between Argentina and Brazil. Again - where are the sources?

Whether or not the current text is accurate is not what is in contention here. What is in contention is whether or not the WORDING, NOT THE CONTENT, BUT THE LANGUAGE, suggests the suppression of the Argentine position. The details that are "tangential" seem to be the ones on which the Argentine position is based. Suppressing them violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR unless you cite sources that also qualify such events as "tangential".

Again...tangential? Ok - sources, please. Says who? You? WP:OR says unless you've got sources, it doesn't matter whether you think any pertinent events are tangential, conic, parabolic, or any geometric shape you want to assign as an adjective. It happened, one party believes its important, and if you suppress it you violate WP:NPOV.

As far as the central allegation being "sustainable" or not, well, let's see if the same holds true when the sentence structure you support applies to you:

"Although User:WCM claims to be an impartial editor, several editors commented in the recent ARBCOM request that he regularly violates WP:NPOV".

Do you really believe the above sentence is just as neutral as, for example,

"User: WCM calims to be an impartial editor; several other editors commented in a recent ARBCOM page that he regularly violates WP:NPOV".

Of course you wouldn't. Why the need for "although"? Why the comparison? Just state what one party alleged, then state what the other party alleged. In fact, I'll propose a compromise: since you believe the sentence structure to be neutral given the accuracy of the context, which you apparently believe holds primacy over all other aspects, I therefore suggest the following change - that you KEEP the sentence structure EXACTLY AS IT IS, just REVERSE the order of the subjects, to:

"While Lexington reported destruction only of arms and a powder store, Vernet stated that the entire settlement was destroyed."

After all, we both agree the content is ACCURATE and the content is UNCHANGED and you seem to think there is no euphemism and the

selection of words used doesn't matter one way or the other. So change it to what I just posted, unless you object, although I do wonder why you would.Alex79818 (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't read that. Perhaps a little less shouting and little less verbiage, please?

Uninvolved editor input

I'd be happy to provide some input. But to do so, I'll need some quotes from secondary sources on this topic. Can some editor familiar with the topic provide some quotes (ideally 3 to 6 sources)? That would help me provide some feedback on the issue. You can either put the quotes right here, or in a sub-page of this Talk page. Just type-in the paragraph(s) from each source that discuss the topic. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

... also, I see that History_of_the_Falkland_Islands#USS_Lexington_raid has some text on this topic, but it has no citations. --Noleander (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Noleander, thank you for your interest. As a start you can read the quotes I provided in a green collapsible textbox above, "References for the Lexington paragraph". It's in the Talk:Falkland_Islands#Arbitrary_break section. Regards. -- Langus (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Langus' quotes above is that they don't tell the full picture. Even when the source quoted contradicts his edit, he simply ignores it. I would suggest Peterson for background reading on the matter, [9], p.104 Peterson notes the first diplomatic exchange on the matter pre-dates both the Lexington raid and the seizure of the Harriet, Breakwater and Superior and that the Lexington was present as it was sent to re-inforce the Brazil squadron to protect American commerce. Good Luck. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've already replied about that two times.[10][11] -- Langus (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Langus' behavior is a bit unsettling and reverting cited edits without rationale certainly does not create an atmosphere where an RFC can function properly. I'm not privy to Falkland disputes and don't have a vested interest in the topic but reading through Curry's edits it seems his contributions are fair and meticulously sorted. Informal mediation is probably a better route to solve this dispute because an RFC will get you nowhere at this point IMO. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, my last revertion was because we were still proposing changes for that paragraph when he went on and introduced them. I thought it wasn't ok to modify it when we had finally got a third opinion. Bear in mind that if I want to change a semicolon (literally) I have to give pages and pages of explanations, with three editors of the same opinion not being enough.

I know WCM has contributed a lot and he's been here a long time. But that shouldn't automatically lead you to think he's right. And because I'm new, that I'm wrong (or a troll, or a socket puppeteer).

I'll take into account the advice about informal mediation. Regards. -- Langus (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said I don't have a vested interest in this topic. I did not mean to infer your actions were unlawful, but based on my quick assessment I see WCM as more right than wrong. The sensitivity of the Falkland's is quite intense so I encourage a request for informal mediation. You guys seem to have a genuine interest in moving the article forward. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree - yet arbcom seems to want to see a more thorough attempt at editors working things out before resorting to additional steps. Their first encouragement was that of RFQ and this is what's happening now. I will also note this article has been to mediation before and mediators ended up being no-shows. As for all editors, length of contribution by any editor means nothing if their contributions seem to consistently violate NPOV, albeit subtly. This is an attempt to put that aside and discuss the facts, please let's not steer the conversation back to editor's actions and instead focus on the facts. There are many, many issues to review and this is only the first.Alex79818 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Curry Monster above says "The problem with Langus' quotes above is that they don't tell the full picture. Even when the source quoted contradicts his edit, he simply ignores it." well I do remember quite recently when Curry Monster wrote that "the acts in seizing American ships were piracy have never been repudiated. This position is actually in a state of the union address". Hey WCM I'm still waiting for your citation. I've read through every single one of Jackson's SOTU addresses and he has said NOTHING OF THE SORT. So unless you're sourcing a book from a parallel dimension, I'd say your assertion of Langus is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. May I remind you based on the last ARBCOM proceeding that numerous editors have dirt on you mate. If this discussion page is again going to devolve into "who did what" then I can assure everyone the road ahead will be much longer and harder than if we choose to discuss the FACTS - yes, perhaps with spirited discussion sometimes, but maintaining the focus on the facts instead of accusing each other.Alex79818 (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Reset

At this stage, I think it might be a good idea to drag this back on to content matters.

Controversial points, based on the above:

• Whether the words "dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid" are sufficient and appropriate to describe the events in the build-up to the Lexington Raid in an overview article, and if not, what they should be replaced with.
• Whether "although" introduces bias in discussing the two contradictory statements as to the result of the Lexington Raid, and if so, how it should be mitigated while maintaining a reasonable sentence structure.
• Whether the fact that it was piracy that Brisbane et al were arrested for is relevant.

I believe that it is generally accepted that we should mention that Brisbane et al were released in Montevideo, though if someone objects to that then that can be a fourth bullet point as well. Pfainuk talk 10:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I have altered the phonetic rendering in the first para. ˈfɔːlklənd is never heard, ˈfɔːklənd is most common, but ˈfɔlklənd is also heard.

Boynamedsue (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations in lede

I have removed the citation in the lede in accordance with WP:LEDECITE. A few months ago, as part of improving this article, all citations were removed from the lede into the body of the article. Once the overhaul of the article is compelete, it is proposed to rewrite the lede. Please do not reinstate this citations (which is repeated anyway) unless consensus is obtained. Martinvl (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. --Langus (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Claimed vs. stated

Guys, could we stop with the edit warring and discuss this here on talk, please? Pfainuk talk 11:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Vernet's description of the situation arose from a claim that he made against the US for damages, so the word "claimed" is the corrected word. Martinvl (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely why it is used, thank you Martin. I've made this point before and the edit warring to remove a word combined with the accusations of bias are irritating. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The use of the verb 'claimed' is clearly discouraged in WP guidelines, it astonish me how much resistance I find to this change. If there's no bias of your part (all of you) then why in God's name won't you let me change this??? Honestly, it looks like you're constantly looking for excuses. When I first came here it said "Argentina claimed that...". Then WCM wrote the current version. Then WCM applied a ref tag to the sentence, asking himself for sources. Then the tag was reverted but I committed myself to improve/correct the expression, so I found Brisbane and other islanders statements collected by Fitzroy and put that here. It was reverted, because WCM finally remembered what was the source for this. Ok, no problem, but the word 'claimed' is clearly problematic and needs to be corrected, as well as the Although structure (and I'm not the only one who had expressed these concerns). These are minor changes, yet it seems I need to find Jimmy Wales and bring him down here for you to accept them. What's the big issue with using another verb? What's the big problem of using a semicolon? I remind you I'm trying to achieve a NEUTRAL text, so if in doubt, you shouldn't deny those minor changes in the name of "good prose" or the alike, which is (according to WP) far less important. --Langus (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the Concise Oxford Disctionary, the most relevant meaning of the word "claim" is "demand recognition of the fact that; contend; assert". This definition probably explains why the WP guidelines discourages the use of the word "claimed". In this instance, it is entirely appropriate to use the word. Martinvl (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I remind you that only we talking here know about the claim that Vernet did against the US, but the casual reader only knows what we show to him. As that is the most relevant meaning, that is what they'll understand, if no clarification is made. --Langus (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a wikilink there to explain it, your "minor" changes are always to detract from the quality of the article. You remove terms that reflect what the source says, or introduce changes and they do not improve neutrailty. You are the only person to express this concern, you started an RFC and the comment you got was your edits and conduct were problematic, whilst my edits were well sourced (i think the correct phrase was impeccably sourced). Whether this is a language confusion or not I don't know. But there isn't a problem with the way its phrased and it is neutral. You're constantly alleging problems that do no exist and accusing other editors of misconduct. You are the one creating problems and conflict here and its completely unnecessary. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about "problematic behavior" take a look at your talk page history (since you revert every complaint about your behavior). I am not the only person that has expressed concern about this. This kind of false premises you state is one of the reasons why people gets so mad at you.

Getting back to the point, I repeat: it is just a minor edit and the article could become more neutral, by eliminating the possibility of misunderstandings about WP taking a stance on the version disagreement. --Langus (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To "claim" can easily imply that the author is doubts the accuracy of the claim. Contrasting "Vernet claimed" with "the Lexington... reports" would seem asymmetric, in that it uses a wording that could be taken to cast question on the accuracy Vernet's point but not the Lexington's. While I'm not arguing that the sentence is biased, I can see how others might come to that conclusion.

While I do not think that "stated" is necessarily a good word to use (it sounds clunky to me), I do not have any particular objection to a rewording of the sentence to remove the potential for bias that I can see being read into the existing sentence.

As to Martin's argument, I don't entirely agree. When we refer to Vernet's claim in the context you describe, it's a claim for compensation for the damage to his settlement. The point being made here relates to the arguments made by Vernet in support of this claim, not the claim itself. These arguments may separately be described as "claims" themselves, but the two kinds of claim are slightly different things. A fine distinction, maybe, but I think it's one that's worth drawing.

Finally, could I ask, without aiming this at any particular editor, that we all take care to avoid any kind of personal remarks and discussion of past conduct, except where it clearly relates to the current dispute and where such comments are in full compliance with behavioural guidelines such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 21:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Routinely house cleaning my talk page is not a problem. See WP:UP#CMT, if you infer otherwise, that is entirely YOUR problem Langus. Pfainuk I disagree, claim is used because it is related to Vernet's claim, report is used because the Captain of the Lexington reported. It isn't a minor edit when it changes the meaning compared with what the source says. I will listen to a reasoned argument but when the premise is to accuse anyone who disagrees as promoting a POV edit, when an RFC has stated the contrary, then no. WP:AGF does not sit well with accusations of POV editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

"The extent of damage is not clear: Vernet declared that the settlement was destroyed, while the Lexington only reported destruction of arms and a powder store."

Feel free to propose modifications. Thank you. --Langus (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree --Langus (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• AgreeAlex79818 (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree Wee Curry Monster talk 07:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Better to put into chronological order and not to give false testimony; Vernet made a claim as a result of this action.

"The extent of damage is not clear: the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, Vernet later claimed the settlement was destroyed."

• Agree Wee Curry Monster talk 07:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree. It uses again the verb 'to claim' which could be misunderstood. I also prefer to just connect the ideas with a 'while': it's 100% even. --Langus (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Did Vernet lodge a claim against the US? Do you dispute this fact? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. Read the talk above. --Langus (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In which case, claimed is appropriate is it not. QED Wee Curry Monster talk 12:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, because the reader doesn't know about such claim and may get a wrong message. Really, it's discussed above. --Langus (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You really don't have a sustainable objection here, it was a claim, claimed is appopriate and there is a wikilink anyway. You've wasted months over a word that does not have the meaning you attribute to it and diverted people away from creating content. Not only that but made a whole lot of unfounded accusations of bias that never existed and eroded good faith in your intentions. Walk away from the deceased equine and drop the stick. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You sure know how to put horses to death, don't you? Right now you are filibustering this decision. Lets take Pfainuk's advice and leave accusations and personal attacks aside, ok? --Langus (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Accusations and personal attacks? Do you mean like accusing anyone who disagrees with you as biased and any edit you don't like as POV? Like just now accusing me of filibustering? Yes please do stop the personal attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. WCM, you don't seem to understand the reason why WP frowns on the use of the word "claim" as a verb. When saying an historical figure "claimed" that such and such took place, the use of that verb inherently indicates the possibility that the statement is false. Further, when you connect the two ideas with a "while", and the second idea is contrary to what said individual "claimed" in the first idea, it gives the impression that the latter is a more accurate version of events - thus further discrediting the individual who "claimed" otherwise in the former.

The obejction here is therefore not a factual objection. The objection raised is that of an WP:NPOV violation, albeit a subtle one, in that the specific wording of a phrase gives the impression to the reader that Vernet's claims are false. The verb "claim" is not appropriate, WP believes it should not be used, and Vernet's statement could just as accurately be conveyed in saying he "declared" or "reported". I also favor the removal of "while" in favor of a more distinct grammatical separator, such as a period or semicolon.

However if none of my objections above carry weight, I certainly do agree with your comment about chronological accuracy, and to that end if there is no consensus to the objections raised here, I propose:

"The extent of damage is not clear: the Lexington claimed only the destruction of arms and a powder store, while Vernet later reported the settlement was destroyed."

I'm certain, since in your opinion there is nothing wrong with use of "claimed" as a verb or the use of "while" to separate ideas, that you will be in full agreement with the above.Alex79818 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I don't think that 'while' is problematic. 'Although' and 'but' are another matter... --Langus (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced Opinion Tags

MartinVL reverted my unbalanced opinion tags saying no explanation had been given for them. So here's my explanation for them, that each of the statements I tagged represent only one interpretation of historical events - the British interpretation - and does not give equal weight to the Argentine interpretation. The British POV is presented to the reader as fact without any counterbalance from Argentine POV, as follows:

-"Spanish name is offensive" tag: this is unbalanced because only the viewpoint of the islanders are represented. Argentines find the "Falkland" name offensive just as much as islanders find the name "Malvinas" offensive, yet this is not represented at all.

-The assertion that Buenos Aires learned of Jewett's declaration is only indicative of the British POV and ignores Argentine viewpoint that such a proclamation was pronounced and published in Buenos Aires prior to Jewett's departure. The characterization of Heroina as a privateer vessel is correct, but Jewett should be identified by his proper rank of Colonel. The text currently gives readers the impression that Jewett was also a privateer during the 1820 mission, and not a commissioned officer. Therefore the text is unbalanced.

-The assertion that Argentina's establishments were "abortive attempts" only represents the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The wording of the "Although Vernet.." sentence is already being discussed however I will restate this is unbalanced insofar as its wording is concerned, which seems to present Vernet as a liar.

-The sentence following asserts the senior members were arrested for piracy and mentions nothing about them being freed at Montevideo, this is supportive of the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The characterization of Mestevier being an "interim commander" represents only the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The characterization that Mestevier's only duty was to found a penal settlement represents only the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The characterization that British forces "requested" the Argentine garrison leave represents only the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

-The characterization that Rivero's actions were criminal and not resistive of British leadership represents only the British POV and is therefore unbalanced.

Please leave the tags in place, or rewrite.

Also, regarding the opener:

Why was the sentence about the islands being on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories almost a paragraph behind the end of the first paragraph which states the islands are a self-govening BOT? That location makes no sense as that sentence becomes somewhat "orphaned" down there. It seems to me the subjects should be adjacent to each other given the close proximity of the subjects they address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.36.57.10 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alex. Let's not pretend that we don't know it's you.

Per my edit summary, neutrality does not mean and has never meant that we have to "counterbalance" neutral fact taken from reliable sources with the POV of either side in a modern dispute. We do not censor neutral fact if some people don't like them. That goes regardless of what the POVs are and how well they are sourced as being the POVs - but in this case I note a total lack of sourcing, and that in most of those cases where you actually bother to raise an objection, the position you say should be given directly contradicts reliable sources.

I would finally add that tagging things like this does nothing to aid the ongoing discussion above and are thus totally pointless. Pfainuk talk 17:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind your stating "neutral" facts taken from reliable sources. Of course, this is not what you are doing, because there are reliable academic and historical sources from both sides, and you ignore one side and only present the other. So you are not answering what I said.

What I said is that you are taking non-neutral facts and presenting them as if there was only one interpretation, the one you find in sources that you pick and choose that you think are "reliable". Your response above blows the whistle on you, because it seems you think there are no reliable sources from Argentine academics. Is this why you ignore them? Because if so, then the decision you make to include a source or not has nothing to do with them being reliable or not, is have to do with them having an Argentinian interpretation of events or not.

This shows you think the only reliable sources are the ones which support your POV, and that these sources are the only neutral ones. Why don't you for once put aside your bias and let's see if we can come up with sources we both agree with, and failing that, at least acknowledge the fact that there are reliable sources on both sides that come to different conclusions? But no, you're not interested in debate, or compromise, and anyone reading the talk history knows this. Because that history shows, if I or someone else present sources that go against the statements I cited above, wouldn't you dismiss them outright because you think they're not "neutral"? Or "reliable"? Of course you will.

So instead of honest discussion, you want to play the name game, once again. You know, a while back WCM accused me of being a number of possible users and it seems you're willing engage in similar accusations. Must be something at stake that makes you guys so paranoid, and for good reason.

So, tell me, are u talking about the "ongoing discussion" where you and other pro-British POV editors accuse any editor with an opposing viewpoint of the very things you are doing?

Or instead are you talking about the "ongoing discussion" in which you simply collude with other pro-British POV editors to shut down any dissenting voice, taking turns on your attacks and reverts to prevent a 3RR violation?

Guess what, I came here this time to discuss and not vandalize and you instead make accusations, fine. I don't say a position should be given, I say there are reliable sources that come to conclusion A and there are other reliable sources that come to conclusion B and you can't ignore one and always put the other, which we both know is what you do and always done. I don't know how long you think you can continue this little game you're playing, but I do know what the outcome will be. Case in point is the discussion above, you are well aware the use of the word "claim" as a verb is strongly discouraged yet you say nothing. You are not impartial and you don't care about WP guidelines.

Understand - every objection raised by us is raised about WP:NPOV violations, not only do ask for honest debate and reform, but also given your history, to specifically intended to document your side's unwillingess to play by the rules. We are documenting, everything you say, on every issue, and the more you break the rules, the more ammo you give us to eventually go back to arbcom. Based on your attitude this seems to be inevitable, and we're just going through the motions. I wish you'd change your mind, but it looks like you wont. Too bad for you when the hammer falls.

But for now the situation is this. If you want this match to play out let it play out. I've stated my reasons and you don't want to discuss because only the British and Islander sources are "neutral" and "reliable", and not the Argentinian ones. You say potatoe, I say potato. I put the tags back. Do not take them out again unless you're willing to cite and reference to other neutral and reliable sources that maybe don't jive with your POV. We get admins involved, they can read this talk page, and the whole shebang can start again.

Or, for once, you can discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.36.57.10 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's why I put the tags: the insinuation that any source, even if reputable, should automatically be considered "propaganda" simply because it doesn't agree with Pfainuk's understanding of how historical events should be interpreted, is against WP:NPOV. Any text based on excluding an entire set of reputable sources, because a user considers them "propaganda" when their conclusions contradict the editor's views, is text that denotes an unbalanced opinion, and merits the tag I put on. Without additional text that represents conclusions of all major reputable sources, instead of one particular conclusion, the tags are merited. I am posting this to comply with WP:BRD, per Chipmunkdavis, and I am still waiting for a response or objections to what I said. If none are posted then I'll revert and restore the tags, which should stay in place until changes to the text are agreed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.36.57.10 (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to say I concur with many of the points raised above, even tho I don't think they're done on purpose. I understand the feeling, specially seeing how the "ongoing discussion" about the verb 'claimed' has fallen into oblivion (Pfainuk and Martin seem to have moved on). It's not the first time this happens: an editor would understand my concerns about a particular word or expression, but then when it comes to voting or coming to a conclusion in any way, they'd remain silent. If you want to show you're committed to be neutral, you don't have to put so many force against changes, and you have to support any of them which could improve it in that way. Even if you're not 100% sure about it but you can see that the change is not detrimental the other way around. --Langus (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, why do you resort to personal accusations? So much for WP:AGF. I believe the best way to ensure people will not play games with you is to not play games yourself. You above all should know that I am not the only editor whom this anti-NPOV cabal of your has run afoul of. Now you and I might be free to post whatever personal opinions you want to in other discussion sites - but here, there most certainly are rules. If you will not abide by them or attempt to game the system then don't expect other editors to be silent about it. I fully support the placement of the tag in every single one of the stated text locations and I wholeheartedly agree with the reasons given for them. I am yet to see any objection to the tags. I am willing to wait a few more days, after which I encourage 209.36.57.10 to restore the changes if there are still no objections. If other users engage in EWing I will escalate the issue accordingly.Alex79818 (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Editors may wish to note that this discussion has been taken to WP:ANI here. Pfainuk talk 20:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

when in any doubt

Use "said" instead of "claimed" or "reported" or the like. When dealing with history, use the terminology found in the references cited when writing in the language of the reference used. When quoting, do not alter any words or spelling. [12] The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion, is least likely to be correct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, noting that in this particular case the reference refers to a "formal claim" against a Government. This is taken out of context here, and as Martinvl noted, the most usual meaning for the verb 'to claim' is "to assert in the face of possible contradiction"[13]. And since this is not a quote, it shouldn't be a problem to re-phrase it, just to be sure. Yet it seems impossible. Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, and note that the cited source (Tatham) is not a treatise nor a historical textbook but rather a collection of essays by various authors. Therefore, a more specific citation is required, one that discloses both the author of the essay used as well as the specific verbiage as stated in that source.Alex79818 (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal claim backed up by a wikilink to relevant text that explains it further. Claimed is perfectly neutral in this instance, since it refers to Vernet's claim against the US Government, a claim that is still extant. Changing to a different verb such as "stated" for example distorts what the original source is saying. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of "Claimed" with regard to destruction of something is not a formal "claim" against a government or "claim" of territory or the like - it refers to a statement, and it appears consensus is that "said" is quite sufficient. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Vernet did make a formal claim for damages against the US for this incident for which there is documented historical evidence. Hence, I consider claimed is more accurate since it reflects the source. As regards your claim of consensus, respectfully I disagree, if you look above the consensus was to stay with the existing wording, though that is hidden with reams of tendentious and argumentative text. I am quite prepared to listen to a reasoned argument but I refuse to submit to reams of personal abuse and personal accusations of POV editing. Further giving in to editors who resort to disruptive editing when they fail to get their own way will only encourage them to continue in the same vein. When this blew up there was a concerted effort to take this article to GA status, now that is forgotten. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is regard to him "claiming" the settlement was destroyed, and not to "Vernet filing a formal claim" against a government. Simple English - and the consensus here is that the simple English version works. If you added "Vernet filed a formal claim against the US governemnt" or the like, that would use a different meaning of "claim" than was present in the sentence which I emended. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC) As a result, I strongly suggest you re-revert yourself, and, if you wish, add a specific sentence using the correct usage of "claim." Else any other editor here is quite free to edit in accord with consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, Vernet claims the settlement was destroyed, which was expanded by wikilink for the curious. Can I ask which source you were basing your wording on? I am amenable to changing the wording, provided its accurate, reflects the source, results from consensus and is not imposed by disruptive editing. Please stop encouraging disruptive editing, your last comment is an invitation to impose new text by edit warring. Is that your intention? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And the usage you cite is a synonym for "said". I fear you conflate "Claim" as in "making a legal demand" with "Claim" meaning "say." The difference is substantial - and the way the sentence is phrased admits of no interpretation that it was a "legal calim" rather than a "statement" that the settlement was destroyed. As for accusing me of encouraging "disruptive editing" -- kindly apprise yourself of WP:NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Appending: I can not confirm any cite from Tatham - it is not available online in any form, and is not found in any local libraries at all. [14] shows copies in Cape Town and in Germany (total of 2). Nor can I find any use of it in Google Scholar (as in zero cites by others). In point of fact - the entire book is "self-published" and fails WP:RS to boot! Cheers - I think all of Tatham goes. Collect (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No the source from memory states that Vernet claimed the settlement was destroyed, my edit merely reflects the source. Again I ask you what sources you're basing your edit on? The relevant phrase in the guideline is when in doubt, I'm not in doubt as to any problems with the wording and your own edit seems based on a presumption of my understanding. Its a guideline not an absolute and in this case I feel it is not appropriate. With respect if your conduct either directly or inadvertently encourages disruptive editing, then to point this out is not a personal attack. As regards WP:NPA, I refer you to your own comments on your talk page and remind you of WP:DTTR.

Secondly Tatham is not self-published, I even include a google books link in the cite so your research is rather obviously not that thorough. It is a [WP:RS]] and it stays but quite brilliantly you've opened another avenue for further disruptive editing. Cheers for that. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not self-published?? Note: Publisher D. Tatham, 2008 Who is "D. Tatham" then if not both publisher and editor? Another "D. Tatham" is around to be a different person? Sorry -- the book is self-published, and all claims based on it should be deleted if others at WP:RSN agree with that "claim. Meanwhile note that I have not "templated" you at any point - I think a cup of tea is quite called for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh grow up, you're not being at all helpful the book is not self-published take it to WP:RSN, I would relish it and am not in the least bit intimidated by the empty threat. Tatham is the editor, the books has a myriad of contributors and resulted from a project to create a definitive biography of the Falkland Islands. So tell me what source do you use for your edit? You're trying to denigrate mine but won't reveal yours. Or is it the case you don't have a source? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It was published by the author http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6136120 So its not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, you're both wrong it does not meet the criteria by which it should be removed. I have commented already at WP:RSN and will revert your edit presently. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

David Tatham is the chair of the editorial board of that book not its author. The book is a reliable source, reviewed by the Polar Record Journal as linked above. Apcbg (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

He is the publisher and editor of the book, and the "board" only exists for the book. The review, in fact, makes it clear that most of the book is autobiographies not fact-checked otherwise, and "embellished" in some cases. Tatham has the credential of having been appointed by QE II as Governor - which does not make him an "historian" of great repute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No he is the chairman of the editing board, and I did list his credentials at the WP:RSN#Falkland Islands thread you started, which I will also note you didn't have the courtesy to inform other editors about. Tatham is an Oxford graduate who read history at Wadham College and has written a number of articles on Falklands History published by third party sources. He also holds positions on a number of bodies including being Chairman of the Shackleton Scholarship fund. As I understand it, your edit was based on Webster a dictionary and not on any reliable source for the history of the Falkland Islands. So thus far your days work seems to be a dedication to win a sematic argument on the use of the word claimed, backing two disruptive editors and trying to rubbish a source to win this semantic argument when you have no basis or reliable source for the edit you made. Have I got it about right? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but none of those(with the possible, can we have more information) establish him as RS. He needs to be a recognised and published expert on history. Can you actually provide some evidence (such as example of articles he has written. I have found one http://www.historytoday.com/author/david-tatham, one article would not be sufficient to my mind to establish any level of expertise.Slatersteven (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)}

That sole article is just about how he wrote the book <g>. Not much of a "history" article for sure, and gives zero notability to Tatham as an historian of any repute. Collect (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(od)(ec) Being an "Oxford graduate" does not confer notability as an historian. Being Chairman of a scholarship fund does not make one a recognized historian. Your accusation about me is absurdly off-base, and is not proper in any article talk page. Your desire to make this a claim that I am seeking disruption is also improper on an article talk page. My goal is that each article conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. One of which says we should not use self-published sources. [15] does not appear to show Tatham as much of an author as far as the historical community is concerned. The sole review you rely on states that people wrote their own entries and that where there was "undue modesty" he asked others to "embellish them." Tatham prepared fifty of the 476 entries (thus he is definitely an author and not just editor of the book). So we remain with a non-notable historian self-publishing a book. The Magic 8 ball says "try again." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No there is more to his qualifications than that, there are more reviews, there is a great deal more to the qualifications of the authors how contributed to the book than you allege. This is not a SPS in the accepted meaning of the term, Tatham is the simply the editor of an editing board - you just have to look at the list of the contributing authors to see that. A moderately different search [16] turns up a great deal more use of Tathams work than the search you crafted. And this is very much a niche topic so you would not expect huge numbers of hits. And that magic 8 ball and your unnecessary use of sarcasm clearly shows this is more about you winning an argument than improving the article. This is not about following wikipedia's policies, if it were your first action would have been to justify your edits from a reliable source. You've still failed to produce a reliable source and are expending prodigious efforts to rubbish a source in order to win a semantic argument.

So far you claimed the book was not readily available. Untrue, it is available on Amazon.

You claimed you had to go to Germany or South Africe to get it. Untrue, it is in the British Library and freely available from any public library on request.

You claimed it wasn't widely cited on the basis of an ill formed google scholar request. Anyone with an academic background would know not to use the first name in a search, as papers usually use initials in citations. A first year undergraduate knows better. A properly formed search provides much better results. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And the array you get shows not a single outside place using his work as a cite. Some simply state his title, or that he wrote a book, but nothing else. Almost all of them, however, have absolutely nothing to do with the author at hand. Such "cites" weaken the case for the book being RS enormously - they do your argument no favours at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What complete and utter nonsense, having the book cited as a reference by 3rd party publications is a cast iron case for WP:RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you two need more opinions or a third person to come in on this, as it currently stands a 1v1 discussion, which is bordering on an argument now, is not very productive. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Only one other person defended the self-published source while three here did not, and another two on RS/N found the source to be not usable. Seems to me the consensus on this is now five to two. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not true, you're over stating your case. One editor made a comment it appeared not to be usable based on the information you gave, information it has to be said that was misleading. Another commented that SPS did not always apply when it was an acknowledged expert. You're also claiming two disruptive editors as supporting you as well. And consensus is not a vote, its about strength of argument and as I've shown above, each and every one of your claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Who are these disruptive editors?Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect he's referring to me once again, or the number of other IP's I'm supposed to be. This is once again devolving into personal accusations. I agree with Slatersteven and Collect, Tatham fails WP:RS and should go. Proposal on both the use of "claim" and Tatham are forthcoming.Alex79818 (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And I'm the other one, of course.

(I hope you get to realize which behavior is really the disruptive one).

Regards. --Langus (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

1. Removal of Vernet's "claim" for plain English "said" and re-arrangement to correct chronological order of events (feel free to propose modifications).

"The extent of damage is not clear. The Lexington reported destruction of arms and a powder store, while Vernet said that the settlement was destroyed."

• AgreeAlex79818 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• MOOT Already removed genius. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree And note that the "Already removed genius" is a clear personal attack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No a sign of frustration, borne of seeing good work undermined by you backing a disruptive editor who has plagued this page for months. Thanks for that. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Change it if you wish, although "claimed" is better than "said" as far as my knowledge of English goes. He did make a claim before certain authorities. Otherwise, "said" to whom? To his nextdoor neighbour? At a public lecture? Apcbg (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment totally and the energy expended by some in having it changed and the lengths they have chosen to go to, including having trying to have a valuable reference work banned is beyond belief. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• The article does not currently say that Vernet "claimed" that the settlement was destroyed, so this is a moot point. Is there a cite for the specific point that the extent of the damage is not clear, or is this an original interpretation based on the fact that we have apparently (though not necessarily) contradictory evidence? Pfainuk talk 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the second point, there isn't a cite for that at all. It is essentially WP:OR, not an unreasonable conclusion but WP:OR nontheless and in a controversial subject area WP:OR is always to be avoided however trivial. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Very well, thank you. Nevertheless, WCM, the second point is YOURS, where in the first proposal above you stated:

"Better to put into chronological order and not to give false testimony; Vernet made a claim as a result of this action."

Are you saying your own suggestion was WP:OR?? Given that this is your claim the responsibility for sourcing it is on you - although if you no longer wish to, I'd be more than happy to oblige. Are you now disagreeing with your own previous position? If so, I see no impediment and will proceed to change the order of events forthwith.Alex79818 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The second point in this case being that it is OR to suggest that the extent of the damage is not clear unless there is a source to back that point up. Your comment does not appear to make sense in this context. Pfainuk talk 20:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Chronological order would be better but thats nothing to do with the discussion on OR. I'll change it myself if it bothers you that much. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Tatham to be removed altogether for failing to meet WP:RS. All content with this citation to be removed.

• AgreeAlex79818 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• No Despite Collect's lobbying the discussion at WP:RSN concluded that it was a reliable source. And if you remove that material you'll remove Argentina's claims. Didn't think that one through did you? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree The claim that RSN consensus was that it is RS is not true. The source is SPS and thus can, at best, only be used by citing it as the opinion of the author, not as fact. The author is not a recognized historian, and the claim that the Polar Review "republished:" the work is errant. As the review states that the material is deliberately "embellished" it is clear that it is not a proper source for anything remotely approaching a contentious claim. Cheers. Also note te PA of "Collect's lobbying" which is now apporaching WQA territory, abnd from which I expect you to desist forthwith. Ask Elen if you think such posts are proper on an article talk page. Again Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again I find you misrepresenting the conversation, as to why you have such a hard on for having such a valuable worked banned as the use of a source I have no idea. Backing an editor who has been disrupting this page for years tells me you have poor judgement on this matter. What you repeatedly and misleadingly describe as "embellishment" consisted of asking an expert to expand upon the information provided by an individual. After I have wasted my time explaining it to you, I have to ask are you calling me a liar? Why are you resorting to tactics such as providing misleading comment. And I will take this issue to WP:WQA if you continue to hound me I am getting very fed up with it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WCM, there is no need to take the issue to WP:WQA. Since you seem to think it's ok to continue your veiled references to my contributions as 'disruptive', I've already taken the issue there for you. I've also RFC'd on this point.Alex79818 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree, with reservations RSN seems to have made some points that this might be RS for invididaul authors vies, and not for any contovershal facts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note it is not used for any controversial points and in many cases it is the only source for a number of points. Individual articles most definitely are and I have taken those comments on board. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. Tatham is surely a RS. Apcbg (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose consensus at WP:RSN does not support such a position. Pfainuk talk 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that WP:RSN does not support such a position, the majority of editors at that discussion clearly oppose the use of this source, either conditionally or not.Alex79818 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A point that would not, of course, suggest that what I said is in any way inaccurate. Pfainuk talk 20:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is about strength of argument not a count of editors. The consensus leans toward it being a WP:RS but not for contentious issues that reflect the author's opinion. Something I wouldn't have a problem with as I long ago learned not to present an author's opinion as a fact. Something you clearly cannot separate. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Which author? I remind you this book is a collection of essays and autobiographies put together by the editor/author/publisher of the book. Who wrote the text you're referring to? Furthermore, given the discussion history on this page regarding how this source has been used to guide the article's text, it seems the issue is very much contentious and I certainly view it as such. I believe other editors do as well and would welcome their opinions on the subject.Alex79818 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I amended the cite to name the author more than 12 hours ago and no it isn't contentious in the least. WP:BEANS someone has given you another avenue to be disruptive that is all. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again you are failing to WP:AGF, I do not need your permission to agree with other editors who've made good points.Alex79818 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of Tatham as a source

RFC on whether use of this source, Tatham, violates WP:RS in and of itself and also as used in the Falkland Islands article and related articles.

The book is a self-published collection of biographical essays and editor-solicited autobiographies. The author of the essay used as reference is not given by proponents for this citation. The author of the book is also its publisher. It is not peer-reviewed, it is not referenced by outside citations, and it has never been reprinted (although it has been reviewed).

By itself that's bad enough, but it's being used to support a contentious characterization of a historical event in which two parties reported two different interpretations - highlighting the difference between the two versions, with a subtext of lending credibility to one source and discrediting the other within the framework of the ongoing Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.

Both the article's talk page [17] as well as in WP:RSN have devolved into personal accusations. This talk page comes fresh off WP:ANI in which this forum was suggested. Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Falkland Islands where this is being discussed and please note the comments above in the thread entitled "Claimed vs. stated" regarding the claim that it is being used to support anything contentious - it clearly isn't the facts are not disputed. Summary at WP:RSN, suitable as a source for non-contentious, individuals authors should be named and opinions attached. RFC is being used for disruptive purposes ie pursuing multiple forms of dipute resolution when in reality there is no dispute. There is nothing to see here folks. What was disputed and, it really was ridiculous, was whether the text "Vernet claimed the settlement was destroyed" was POV and instead the demand was to substitute "Vernet stated the settlement was destroyed". Wee Curry Monster talk 20:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818 checking the IP contributions here will be most illuminating. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Pfainuk talk 20:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is not the facts which are in dispute, but the characterization of the facts, which lends a subtext of credibility to one report and not to the other, which is what the citation is being used for. Not to mention all of the factors that cast doubt on the source's credibility irrespective of how it's used. As for the personal attacks, I've already referred the issue to WP:WQA.Alex79818 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that I should be informed of any WQA thread but you didn't, just commented there after I saw this. Surprised I am not. There is nothing wrong with the source either and the facts are neither contentious nor controversial and cited. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my late notice, I was temporarily distracted. If you check your talk page you'll find it there.Alex79818 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny that, you forgetting just as you forgot to inform Pfainuk of the thread at WP:ANI. Eating fish is good for improving memory. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right - unfortunately my taste is limited to blue whiting, and supply is rather on the decline unfortunately.Alex79818 (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe Tatham to be a WP:SPS and hence not utile for anything remotely contentious. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree.Alex79818 (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI to all that this discussion page has once again come up at WP:ANI given the tone of discussion on this page recently.Alex79818 (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

In making a change to improve poor flow in the lead section, I somehow completely overlooked the fact that there seems to be a fairly blatant contradiction here. On the one hand it says the islands are "a self-governing British Overseas Territory", on the other hand they are "currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories". There may be some way to reconcile these two things, but it's not clear how, so probably a few extra words of explanation are in order so that it doesn't just look like a mistake. 86.176.214.217 (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, my change was reverted by Wee Curry Monster "per notice at the top of the page regarding lede", but the relevant notice says:

"The first sentence has been established as a compromise consensus between many editors in a long and difficult discussion (see talk page). Trying to change the sentence will be reverted on sight without discussion by many of the editors part of the discussion."

I saw that notice, but my change did not affect the first sentence, so should not have been automatically reverted on that pretext. (As it happens, my change made the above-mentioned contradiction even more glaring, so was potentially problematic on other grounds anyway...) There may be some perception/misunderstanding that the notice is intended to apply to the first paragraph, or perhaps even the whole lead section, but that's not what it says. Also, note that the second sentence of the notice is broken. I am not going to try to fix it myself because I do not intend to make any further changes to the lead section, even cosmetic. 86.176.214.217 (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction, a large majority of the territories on the UN list are in actuality self-governing. The BOTs never left the list as the UK government has the power to intervent in domestic affairs, as they did in the Turks and Caicos. It's doubtful they'll get off now due to Argentina and Spain. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

QE II has the "power" to intervene in Australian affairs. That does not appear to make Australia not "self-governing" on any list I found. [18] seems clear enough. We should list Australia as not self-governing if that is the standard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

QE II has this power as the Queen of Australia, not the Queen of the United Kingdom. In addition, QE II is not synonymous with the UK government. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

While the Queen of Australia has the power to intervene in Australian affairs, the Monarchy of the United Kingdom relinquished that power with the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster 1931. The government of the Turks and Caicos Islands was suspended by order of the Queen-in-Council of the United Kingdom. Such an order would have no legal validity in Australia. TFD (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. The list maintained by the C24 has nothing to do with whether the Falklands are self-governing. The criteria for the C24 is whether a territory is:

• A sovereign state
• An integral part of a sovereign state
• A state in free association with a sovereign state

ie the nom-de-plume bears no relation to whether a territory is self-governing or not. The criteria for delisting is:

• Independence
• Integration with the parent state
• Free Association with devolved Government

Under its current constitution the FI are self-governing with the UK retaining responsibility for defence and foreign relations. Neither statement contradicts the other, both are accurate.

I trust that settles the matter?

Most commentators would note that under the Free Association criteria the Falklands should be delisted. It remains on the list as the C24 panel due to the political influence of Argentina and Spain.

Incidentally its an election year in Argentina, based on past experience you can expect a number of IP editors trying to remove BOT and replace it with colony. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless the article states both and doesn't explain the difference. To a reader who is not familiar with the background, this would appear to be a contradiction given that the two statements are devoid of explanation. A little while ago an editor proposed putting each status (UN and UK) in the same sentence, something to the effect that "they are a BOT and are listed as a NSGT by the UN" or something like that, which would be more clear in explaining that there's one status as relates to the UK and another status as relates to the UN. The elections in Argentina have nothing to do with it, the issue is not one of fact, but one of clarity.Alex79818 (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I do see the point here, the lead could do with some expansion anyway. How about changing the end of the first paragraph to "The archipelago consists of East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 lesser islands. The capital, Stanley, is on East Falkland. It is internally self-governing, with the United Kingdom responsible for defence and foreign affairs."? There's currently not much in the article that we can add to expand on the UN listing. I actually question whether the UN listing should be in the lead; every inhabited BOT is on that list, it's nothing special. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. That awkwardness results from the UN listing's inclusion in the lede, which is less than justified and should probably be removed. The last thing the article needs is an expanding of the lede with an explanation of the multiple semantics of "self-governance" in UN and common usage. Apcbg (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with removing it from the lede and would have no problem with the suggestion from Chipmunk. I'd suggest the correct place for dealing with the UN list is the politics section. Its better to explain the difference rather than have the endless POV warriors here trying to remove an objective description of the Government of the Falkland Islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a fair compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested text:

“ Since the 1960s and the decolonisation era, the policy of the British Government has been to devolve self-government onto its overseas territories to the maximum extent and to grant independence upon request. However, mindful of the sensitivities of the sovereignty dispute with Argentina the British Government had only provided limited self-government in the Falkland Islands before the Falklands War. Since the war, the British Government has increasingly devolved responsibility for governance of the Falkland Islands onto the islands themselves. Under the latest constitution the Falkland Islands Government is internally self-governing with the UK retaining responsibility for foreign relations and defence. The Falkland Islands Government represents itself at the UN Decolonisation Committee, as the UK Government does not usually attend. The Falkland Islands remain on the list of the UN None Self-Governing territories maintained by the C24. It was originally listed by the UK in 1947 as a colony and remains on the list as the UN criteria for listing is that the territory is not a sovereign state, nor an integral part of a sovereign state or a state in free association with a sovereign state. To be delisted the Falkland Islands must either become independent or integrate with another state or alternatively enter into free association with another state. It is been argued that the Falkland Islands should be delisted as with its devolved Government it meets the free association criteria, whilst the UK argues that the delisting criteria is outdated and does not recognise either its modernisation of its relationship with its overseas territories or the wishes of the people of the overseas territories. Argentina does not recognise the Falkland Islands Government and continues to describe the Falklands as a colony. ”

Needs some work but I think the basics are there. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that approach, the listing of both the UK and UN status should remain in the lead, which does not by definition entail entering into any semantics whatsoever. The purpose of this section was to address the apparent contradiction of the two statements being contained in the lead. Eliminating one of them altogether does not solve the issue; the text still fails WP:NPOV as it excludes all other interpretations except for the UK's. Insofar as the text above, "It is been argued" is inappropriate. WP is interested in verifiable facts, not conjecture.Alex79818 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The UN listing isn't an "interpretation", it's simply a list of territories that are a) not independent, b) not an integral part of a sovereign state, and c) not in a state of free association. Nowhere in that criteria does it say the Falklands are not self-governing, and if the title of the UN list is that misleading to you, then to me that's a strong indicator it doesn't belong anywhere without qualification. For what its worth, the designation of self-governing isn't an "interpretation" either, it's a description. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Plainly you have not understood the proposal as there is no intention to eliminate either, instead it is proposed to explain the apparent contradiction in a section and to simplify the lede. The position of the FIG in arguing the free association criteria should be included and this is a draft, the wording has not been finalised. Note also that it does meet NPOV in that it does include Argentina's opinion. That is not a sustainable objection, you're not even objecting to the current proposal. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead arguably serves to introduce the legal jurisdictional status of the territory being described. I believe it's helpful to mention the UN's description, such as it is. The particular wording being criticized is not a strong indicator that it should be removed from the lead per se. In this case it is oversimplification which was the cause of the possible confusion, in that the UK's status and the UN description are separated by four sentences that have nothing to do with a jurisdictional description of the territory. This fails WP:NPOV in that it seeks to eliminate all possible legal descriptions of the territory in the lead, except for its UK status. Eliminating the UN's description from the lead and relegating it to the subsequent text has the potential to give the reader a certain impression regarding the islands insofar as it homogenizes the legal description of the territory to that of the UK. I don't mind further text that qualifies this, but it's too important a fact to leave out of the lead altogether. Hence, I am very much objecting to the current proposal, which went from being a lack of clarity, to a relocation of a basic fact to a less prominent position in the article. And I still believe the phrase "It is been argued" is inappropriate.Alex79818 (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead does indeed introduce everything in the territory. The problem, which you pointed out, is that we haven't included the UN description, but the name of a UN list. The UN does not itself dispute the UK's sovereignty. Indeed, by placing it on the C24 list the UN declares the UK as the controlling power. The C24 isn't as you assert, a "legal description[s] of the territory", it's just a list. What exactly is the important fact that must be in the lead? I invite everyone to read the UN report on the latest C24 discussion on the Falklands, which is probably one of the best sources for all the different viewpoints. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To add to the above, the C24 is an advisory committee, it makes recommendations to the IV Committee, which has not accepted any recommendation from the C24 regarding the Falklands since the late 1980s. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the lead - as is - does introduce everything in the territory, including the name of the UN list. What you are proposing is to remove that information and relegate it to a less prominent position in the article. Who said anything about sovereignty? Who said anything about the C24? The islands being named on the list is a descriptor of the islands - as you said, this is a description by the UN. I therefore believe we are in agreement on that. What we are not in agreement over is that this is a minor fact, I believe it is a major fact which merits inclusion in the lead just as it does right now. And, in order to avoid confusion, the point I am making is that there shouldn't be a separation of four sentences between descriptors, as opposed to eliminating that fact from the lead altogether.

As for the latest C24 discussion, its function as an advisory committee, and whether or not the IV committee has accepted any recommendations, I can't see how any of that is relevant to this particular discussion.Alex79818 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I support Curry Monster's proposed change.

I see no reason in neutrality why the UN list has to be mentioned. Neutrality requires, it seems to me, that we give a proper balance between British and Argentine positions. Both are appropriately covered by the lede, and this proposal does not seek to change this. The UN position is not, as has been noted, a statement on the Falklands' level of self-governance, and the fact that it is misleadingly named suggests that it needs to be qualified. The best place to qualify it is not the lede but the article body.

I would note as a general point that the lede's role is to introduce the article topic, summarising the most important points in the article. We need to be aware that the article stands as a whole and thus avoid lede fixation. This point does not appear to be as useful in this role as the sorts of basic facts that make up the rest of the lede.

Finally, as a general point, I would note that the UN is a fundamentally political organisation and that as such, inclusion or exclusion in the list is a political decision. The criteria are worded sufficiently vaguely that they can be and are freely interpreted according to the whim of those governments making the decision, occasionally leading to results that appear to have more to do with politics than with a reasonable measure of an entity's integration into a sovereign state, free association status, or sovereignty. We ought to be careful about using it even as a measure of its stated criteria. Pfainuk talk 22:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Alex's comments are incorrect. The C24 is an advisory body, unless their recommendations pass through the IV Committee to be endorsed by the UN GA or the UN SC it does not reflect the UN position. This is why it is important to differentiate the difference between an advisory body and a body that formulates policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality also requires, in contentious cases such as these, that texts not present homogenous information that favor or give the impression to favor one party of the dispute over another or a third involved party, such as the UN.

Furthermore, the UN's inclusion on the list is very much a statement regarding the islands' level of self-governance - hence the name:

"non-self-govening",

which is the name of the list (and, Pfainuk, the reverse has not been noted by anyone, and if it has please point it out and the citation that would prevent it being WP:OR).

The reality is that simply excluding mention of the islands' inclusion in the UN list of non-self-governing territories by definition serves, in the mind of the uninformed reader, to homogenize the UK's governance position as the only position besides Argentina's. Establishing homogeneity of the UK's governance position is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Even if inclusion or exclusion is a political decision, this can have no bearing on the decision to either include or exclude, as all WP:NPOV requires an equal representation even on political viewpoints. WP is not concerned with the criteria, WP is concerned with the fact that the UN lists the islands as a non-self-governing territory. Again I point to the fact that I made no comments regarding the C24, this is the second time in which my post has been responded to as if I had made such a comment.

However if WCM and other editors believe this is the case with all the UN-listed non-self-governing territories, then I will be more than happy to bring up the point in other discussions as it relates to the NSGT article itself as well as every single WP article of every single territory so listed, such that the encyclopaedia community can reach a consensus on whether or not inclusion in the list constitutes the reflection of the UN position, or not. As it stands, no citation is being offered by anyone to support the viewpoint that inclusion on the list is not a reflection of the UN, and as such this is WP:OR.

Thus, removing the fact that the islands are so listed from the lead and relegating that most basic introductory fact to a less prominent position in the article constitutes a homogenous representation of the UK's governance position, and therefore fails WP:NPOV.Alex79818 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your insistence that the lists name implies some statement on how much a territory governs itself shows a great lack of understanding in what the list actually is. The list was basically created as a list of colonies, areas which were under the control of a country which they were not part of. By non self-governing, the UN really means not sovereign. As for the UN's actual position, it is (as noted in the link I posted above) that the issue of the Falklands is a bilateral issue that should be solved by negotiations between the UK and Argentina. They have no official position on the islands status. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, you are mixing in two distinct positions. There is a UN position insofar as whether or not the islands constitute a sovereign, or self-governing, territory. That is very much a statement, and you are indeed correct in that it is a statement that the islands are not self-governing, or as you say, "not sovereign". The second, and completely separate issue that has nothing to do with the first, or this discussion, is the UN's position on whether the UK or Argentina have the best territorial claim, on which you again are correct in that the UN states this is a bilateral issue that should be solved by negotiations. On both points we are in total agreement, but where you are incorrect is in mixing these two issues and treating them as one.

These are two, distinctly separate, issues, or determinations if you will, 1. whether or not the UN says the islands are non-self-governing, and 2. whether or not the UN says the islands belong to country A or country B.

In this particular discussion, we're only talking about the former, not the latter. Granted, they form part of a larger question, but the issue at hand here is whether or not it is appropriate to remove the UN's NSGT listing of the islands from the article's lead. I content that it is not, and that doing so constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV in that the remaining lead text will have only a homogenous representation of the islands' governance status, one that only reflects the UK's internal designation as a counterpoint to the Argentine claim, and is devoid of the designation given to the islands by the international community in its inclusion on that list. It is improper to relegate that fact to a more obscure part of the text, it is a fundamental jurisdictional description of the islands insofar as international bodies are concerned, it merits inclusion in the lead.Alex79818 (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You're conflating sovereign with self-governing, they're different. The UN's status and the UK's status actually agree with each other. All the UN status says is that the islands are not sovereign. The UK also agrees they are not sovereign, as no doubt do the Falkland Islanders. I don't see how two points of view which agree with each other somehow balance each other out. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I do believe that removing the UN list of NSGT from the lede weakens the Argentine POV. After all, as noted above, it indicates in some way that the UN recognizes the existence of a conflict regarding these islands, and that this dispute is not settled. If you feel that is too confusing to have it that short in the lede, I would agree to most of the proposed text by WCM above if the text "which is rejected by the islanders" (i.e. Argentina's claim) is also brought down to the body of the article (tho I think it's already addressed there). That way we would maintain a balance between both POVs. Regards. --Langus (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Both the Falkland Island Government and the Foreign Office use the phrase "a large degree of internal self government" rather than "internal self-government". In practice, the islands make their own rules, but in addition to looking after defence, security and foreign policy, the UK guarantees "good governance" and has control over the issuing of currency. I think that the phrase used by both the Falkland Island Government and by the Foreign Office should be used in the lede rather than the current phrase. We can then shorten the text by removing the bit about foreign affairs and defence.Martinvl (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

@Langus: I don't see the UN list as supporting or going against either the UK or the Argentinian POV about rightful sovereignty. In fact, it could be seen as going against the Argentinian POV, as being on that list means the territory is not an integral part of any state, which Argentina claims it is.

@Martinvl: I wouldn't mind adding in "a large degree" and the note of "good governance", even without shortening the text otherwise. The addition sounds like an improvement. Hopefully it'll also appear more neutral. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what I think at least, and that's how's seen from down here. Current president CFK's position is to solve the issue peacefully. To do so, in the face of how neither the UK or the Falkland Islanders think there's something to resolve, the support of the UN to enter negotiations becomes very important.

Another idea: since the problem is the potential confusion caused by name of the list ("Non-Self-Governing Territories"), why don't we replace the sentence which something like "Since then, the UN has called for negotiations between both countries on the sovereignty dispute". [19]

Regards. --Langus (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but then again we would be getting into another situation where two separate facts, which I think should be noted separarely, are presented as if they were one. Fact 1 is that the UN includes the islands on the list of non-self-governing territories. Fact 2 is that the UN also passed resolution 2065 (XX) calling for negotiations. Two separate facts, although in truth both of them merit being mentioned in the lead. Sovereign and self-government denote states of jurisdictional authority. I'm not conflating the two because no sovereign state is also not self-governing, while a self-governed territory may or may not be sovereign. I never said the two point balanced each other out. I only said the UN's NSGT listing should remain on the lede and be moved to immediately follow the statement about the UK's four sentences before it, for the sake of clarity. No good reason has been put forward to remove the UN's NSGT listing from the lead. And the four sentences between the UK's governance position and the UN's inclusion on the list, as is now, can create undue confusion in readers.Alex79818 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Langus, you raise a good idea in regards to the UN. That sounds like it may merit mention on the lead. As for Alex, you yourself brought forth the reason that having that information in the lead was confusing, due to its title. What good reason is there to mention it is on this list? Every inhabited BOT is on this list, it's nothing special. By mentioning the list, we say that "the UN believes that the Falklands are not sovereign, not an integral part of another state, and not an associated state". How does this help the reader exactly? Why don't we just tell the reader what it is, a BOT with a high degree of internal self-governance? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunk's point in the preceeding post and I would also agree that Martin and Langus' suggestions have merit. However, I would also venture to suggest that using either the British Governments preferred wording or the FIG's preferred wording is going to lead to accusations of POV that will tie discussion up for months. Hence, I used the BBC description [20] The islands are self-governing, although foreign affairs and defence matters are handled by the British government. A third party source I would suggest is better but I'm open to being persuaded as to another. Thoughts? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To add Langus is wrong when he claims "it indicates in some way that the UN recognizes the existence of a conflict regarding these islands". The list has nothing to do with Argentina's claim at all. It simply lists territories that were originally listed by European Empires and the US as colonies. There are other none self-governing territories, eg Tibet, that were never listed. It also has nothing to do with UN resolutions calling for negotiations and I would add the claim the UK and FIG refuse to negotiate is rather disingenuous. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

FIrst, I had originalyl said this change should be done, not to delete from the lead but to put it right next to the UK's statement, so to move it up. I never said the information in the lead was confusing, I said the WAY the information was structured in the lead was confusing. The "confusing" part was that the sentences weren't next to each other, which makes it look like the UK's view is presented, then some historical text, then the UN view is presented, and the two just look like the contradict each other so I put the sentences right next to each other to clarify that the UK had a view and the UN had a view and nothing in between to demonstrate they were different from each other:

"It is an internally self-governing British Overseas Territory, with the United Kingdom responsible for defence and foreign affairs. It is currently on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories."

The confusion is becayuse there's text about history in between the two sentences. My edit clarifies this grouping together the views and then having that followed with the history part and Argentine claim (which should be in present tense, not past, another NPOV violation).209.36.57.10 (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Second using the british goverment's wording won't create a pov conflict, as long as the wording used to report their wording reflects it as being the british claim and not outright fact, and as long as Argentina's preferred wording is also used so as tyo balance it out. Third I think langus is right like he said "it indicates in some way that the UN recognizes the existence of a conflict regarding these islands" becauser there's no need for the UN to specifically say there's a conflict with argentina, just that there is a conflict, it says "this islands don't govern themselves" but aer governed by someone else, not a free associated state, and that by itself is conflict with self determination. So the UN, like langus says, "recognizes the existence of a conflict regarding these islands".209.36.57.10 (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The FIG and the Foreign Office, both of whom are closer to the scene than the BBC use the phrase "... have a large degree of internal self government" which is a watered down version of the BBC's text and which, in my view , more accurately describes the situation - the BBC ignores the facts that the British Government is the guarantor of "good governance" and that the Falkland Islands cannot establish their own central bank. On a more practical note, there is no "A" Level college in the Falklands, let alone a university. They rely on the outside world for most of their professional people (judges, administrators etc) - it is worth remembering that their population is little more than the population of a British village and certainly less than most English market towns.

IMO, the UN list of non self-governing territories is a red herring - it had a use when it was set up before decolonisation, but the Falklands are not viable as an independent state - the world's smallest independent state in terms of population (other than the Vatican) has a population three times as large as the Falklands. For that reason, I think that references to it should be removed from the lede, hinted at in the article and put into perspective in the article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, taking care of course not to commit WP:SYN.Martinvl (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite, the Falklands do have their own judiciary system (fairly redundant as crime is virtually non-existent - apart from vegetable theft :-) some will get the joke), the only time it is imported as you put it is at the court of appeal but remember several Caribbean nations still use the House of Lords. You might also care to look at the professional people in the Falklands again, there is a move toward greater use of their own human resources.

I don't consider the BBC's text is watered down as you suggest, the BBC's text is a reasonable summary and as a WP:SECONDARY source would be preferred to a WP:PRIMARY source. IMHO

I would of course support the proposal you make but I doubt you'll see agreement for it elsewhere. IT is the better way to treat it IMHO. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) My view is that, including the UN list in the lede, it seems to me, is lede fixation, which should be avoided. Instead, it should go in its proper context in the article. This obviously does not exclude my looking at other proposals on their merits. I can see the point of your proposal, but feel that a mention in the politics section is not unwarranted.

I think at this stage it's worth reminding everyone that this is not an article on the dispute but an article on the Falklands. We ought to be careful to consider not relevance to the dispute but relevance to the Falklands. While the dispute is itself relevant to the Falklands, we should be careful not to let it take over the article.

My understanding is that BOTs do have the right to establish their own currencies, but that in practice all rely on an outside currency in some way. (The Cayman Islands peg their dollar to the USD; St Helena uses its own version of the GBP; Pitcairn uses the NZD and so on - this is not uncommon for small countries and territories). This may, however, depend on constitutional detail as plainly it does not extend to uninhabited (and therefore truly non-self-governing) BOTs. Pfainuk talk 18:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The right of the Falkland Islands to issue its own banknotes is controlled from the UK. Her is an extraxct from the Constitution:

The Governor shall not, without having previously obtained instructions through a Secretary of State, assent to any Bill within any of the following classes, unless such Bill contains a clause suspending its operation until the signification of Her Majesty’s pleasure on the Bill, that is to say—

(a) any Bill whereby any grant of land or money, or other donation or gratuity may be made to the Governor;

(b) any Bill affecting the currency of the Falkland Islands or relating to the issue of banknotes;

c) any Bill establishing any banking association or altering the constitution, rights or duties of any such association;

Elsewhere I have read that the Islands must deposit 110% of the face value of any coins or notes that they commission with a reputable bank. The FIG can make a bit of money out of this by striking a £1 coin, issuing it and then redeeming it say 20 years later and pocketing the interest from the bank concerned. In the case of commemorative coins which are never redeemed, the FIG gets the interest in perpeturity. However the FIG cannot establish its own central bank without auithority from the UK.

I stand by my assertion that the BBC watered down (or rather dumbed down) the level of autonomy that the FIG has.

I would also draw to attention that the Chief Justice is a part-time post and that if an appeal is to be heard, then the Governor assembles as appeal court as he sees fit. I understand that if he does this, he will nominate judges from the Commonwealth and/or Ireland.

These show that a number of important points relating to internal self-government are controlled by the UK Government, not the FIG. I therefore assert that the BBC dumbed things down when the wrote that the islands enjoy internal self-government. Martinvl (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

While I do see WCM's point that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, I think in this case it should be fine to use the official sources. The level of self-governance is an official issue, and if both the UK government and the Falklands government have an agreed wording then that it probably the best to use. It isn't like the secondary source contradicts the primary, such as secondary sources questioning China's autonomous regions. I would not mind the BBC being used to cite the official description as well as official sources. Currently the statement is cited to the actual constitution (the most primary of primary sources) and mercopress, which does not explicitly state it. Can we just add the sources in? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The lede should not have any references in it - everything stated in it should also be in the article proper. Martinvl (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, apologies for not being clear. I was saying we should better source the first line of the current politics section, "The islands are a British Overseas Territory which, under the 2009 Constitution, enjoys a large degree of internal self government with the United Kingdom guaranteeing good government and taking responsibility for defence and foreign affairs." Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No violent objection from me but I tend to go with the secondary source. You need to distinguish betwen how the islands are governed and the Government per se. The judiciary are independent of the FIG and police are run by the Police Authority for example. Overall the BBC description is quite apt. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, the three "great offices of state" are the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the case of the Falklands, the Foreign Secretary's role is handled by the UK, the UK has the final say in anything that the Chancellor does and the UK's influence in the Home Secretary's role is large - notably the appointment of the Chief Justice. Since the functions of the great offices of state are effectively controlled by the UK, one cannot say that the Islands have internal self-government, especially if they cannot establish their own central bank. I think that in this instance the BBC has dumbed things done to such an extent that they have introduced a serious inaccuracy into their summary. Martinvl (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's what your text says. You've not demonstrated that the islands are not able to pass a budget without UK say-so - only that they need permission to change the currency, which is a different affair entirely. Nor have you demonstrated any significant legal impediment on the FIG to govern the Falklands' internal affairs.

On the other hand, the UK government in practice bows to the wish of the islanders on most practical matters that affect the islands. You seem to be basing your argument at least in part on your interpretation of British legal theory, which may be WP:OR - but more to the point I find it difficult to see why British legal theory is that much more relevant than Argentine legal theory or Polish legal theory in this case. What goes on in practice is the most important thing here, and it seems to me that the BBC description gets that right.

I can see an issue with preferring UK or FI government sources because of the inevitable argument that they are biased. For long-term stability, I think a reliable secondary source is better for this kind of detail. Pfainuk talk 20:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Pfainuk is right here. While theoretically the UK no doubt holds the power to intervene in the domestic affairs of the Falklands, whether they actually do is another matter entirely. I very much doubt they would in the case of the Falklands; no doubt it would be seized upon by Argentina. I still don't see why we can't add both sources, would that satisfy everyone? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that Pfainuk is correct, the UK Government plays no part in the day-to-day running of the FIG. Your comments Martin are very much OR in nature. The only time the UK Government would intervene would be in the case of abject corruption as happened in the Turks and Caicos Islands - and even then it was very reluctant to act. The officially stated policy is to devolve Government onto local institutions to the greatest extent possible - and as Chipmunk notes any interference with the FIG would be seized upon by Argentina and I would add be protested vociferously by the Falkland Islanders mindful of past FO interference in their affairs. As noted above a secondary source is preferrable as it avoids the argument that the sources we're using are "biased". I'm intrigued to hear what Chipmunk has in mind by both sources - bear in mind I proposed a text above and would suggest we start working on an edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Break

So this conversation has led to a number of different issues. Can we clarify views on the following issues, and are there any others?

• Should the C24 list be included int he lead, and if so how?
• Are there any problems with WCM's proposed paragraph for politics? (assuming of course that it's sourced)
• What it the best way to describe the Falklands level of self-governance in the lead?

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

On these points, in my view:

• Including the C24: not in my view. It's a detail that we don't really need there and it requires a bit more clarification to be properly understood.
• Curry Monster's text: I think my answer to this depends on a few things. I think if added to the article without other bits being removed it is probably a bit much and there's a certain amount that's redundant. It could perhaps do with shortening even if other bits are removed.
• Description of self-governace I'm happy with the status quo, or to discuss further to find a more suitable description. Pfainuk talk 17:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

My views as requested:

• No. The lede should comprise fundamental, characteristic facts that are most important for the subject i.e. the Falkland Islands. Which the C24 list is not. The Islands’ C24 listing or non-listing is quite immaterial, with virtually (or absolutely) no impact on their government, economy, culture or way of life.
• That text is okay with me.
• The best way is that used in most other BOT articles; it is not common to have the degree of self-government described in the lede, and I believe that should better be left for the article's main body. In the Falklands case the lede would look like this:

The Falkland Islands (/ˈfɔːklənd/; Spanish: Islas Malvinas) is a British overseas territory and overseas territory of the European Union in the South Atlantic Ocean, located 250 nautical miles (290 mi; 460 km) from mainland South America, 719 nautical miles (827 mi; 1,332 km) from South Georgia Islands, and 615 nautical miles (708 mi; 1,139 km) from mainland Antarctica.

The territory is an archipelago extending 163 miles (262 km) in east-west direction and 120 miles (190 km) in north-south direction, and comprising East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 lesser islands. The capital, Stanley, is on East Falkland. The total land area of the islands is 12,173 km² (4,700 sq mi) with a population of approximately 3,140 (2009 estimate).

The islands are claimed by Argentina, which invaded and briefly occupied them in 1982. The ensuing Falklands War resulted in the defeat and withdrawal of the Argentine forces. Since the war, there has been strong economic growth in both fisheries and tourism.

Best, Apcbg (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would say the C24 list is the kind of detail that should not be in the lede. IMHO it belongs in the politics section. Apcbg's text would be a good start.
• That paragraph I wrote was intended as a starter for 10, with input from all sides. I think there could be redundancy with the existing text. It still needs work and it can all be sourced. We should mention the C24 in the politics section and provide an explanation to avoid the usual problems.
• Per WP:SECONDARY I would use the BBC's description rather than the UKG or FIG texts. Bear in mind that the BBC's description describes governance rather than the responsibilities of the FIG. The two are not quite the same. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Apcbg's suggestion seems good, but I'd add to the lede that the islands are "an internally self-governing British Overseas Territory, with the United Kingdom responsible for defence and foreign affairs." Given the dispute (and not every BOT is so disputed), this seems to be one of those fundamental, characteristic facts that are most important for the subject. The C24 list and all other argument on the point should definitely be left for a Politics section. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

While your suggested addition of "an internally self-governing etc." is not objectionable per se, I can see no special relevance of self-government in this case; indeed, the degree of internal self-government is equally important for all BOTs regardless of their being claimed or not. Apcbg (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Upon reading all the comments and doing a little research, I have to say that while I see the potential confusion between the NSGT list and the "internally self-governing BOT", I can't see the reason why to target only the C24 list and not the description used. The issue this contradiction has arisen seems to be "which is the best way to describe the relationship between FIG and UKG?" I feel there's an attachment for the "internally self-governing" expression but, to me, the UN list of NSGT is more authoritative. First, the UN and the Committee of 24 is more of an independent source than the FIG, the UK or the BBC. And "an expert" on the matter. Second, the meaning of that list, even if complicated, is clearly defined in the Resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960, while the "internally-self governing" is an expression open for interpretations. "A large degree of self-governing" looks less obscure, and I don't see it as an issue that it is an expression from primary sources (FIG and Foreign Office). Mostly because these primary sources have common AND opposing interests, yet they both agree on the description. The BBC, being a British news corp, is not a completely independent source on this matter, even if it isn't primarily involved.

So, after that preamble:

• I vote for keeping the list of NSGT, at least until a more clear description of the level of dependence/independence is used in the lede;
• WCM text looks fair if properly sourced, tho Martinvl's points on economy and other issues seem to be at odds with some of it. And again, "internally self-governing" seems problematic. The Falklands meeting the free association criteria also sounds problematic to me after reading it. "Argentina does not recognise the Falkland Islands Government" seems too harsh and at odds with latest approaches, but I could be wrong.
• Probably "a large degree of self-governing" is the simplest and correct way to put it. Using this description the C24 list could be lowered to the Politics section.

Please don't take my comments wrong, it is my honest view.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the C24 is not independent or "more authorative", it is packed with countries that are allied to Argentina or minded to side against the UK. Like all political bodies it is driven by political considerations; its remit is supposed to be to represent the people of NSGT, when did it ever act do so in recent meetings? Furthermore, what the C24 considers a NSGT bears no relation to whether a territory governs itself but a definition that is unrelated to actual governance. Furthermore, it is a WP:PRIMARY source.

The BBC is world renowned for independence and objectivity, just because it is British does not mean it is POV.

If you can point me to a source that says the Argentine Government recognises the FIG in any way, then fine we can soften it.

And I can provide sources for Free Association. Further, again its a draft ie needs work, it was never intended to be the definitive text. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand it is a draft and I think it's a good start, I just wanted to speak aloud these concerns to give an idea of what I think, because it's being proposed for inclusion by Chipmunkdavis.

Regarding the BBC, my reasoning is that a newspaper will depict reality in a way that is appealing for their customers, and, if it affects its own corporate interests, in the way that is more beneficial to them. This is true for the BBC, Al Jazeera, Fox, Clarin, etc. They are companies, they exist to make money, and bringing you the news is only their means to it. The UN, in theory, is another kind of institution. Although yes, I also think that politics do play a role. I'm not quite convinced that the C24 is what you describe, and to my view, after reading the Resolution 1541 (of 1960!), it clearly bears relation to the level of governance (it requires FULL self-governance to be removed). Furthermore the fact that the General Assembly has pronounced last year on the Falklands issue indicates that this is a view not only sustained by those (mostly poor?) countries but also by the UN as whole. This is what we'd drop from the lede if we just take out the reference to that list, and as I said, I think it would be detrimental to non-British POV. Regards. --Langus (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am of course quite happy for the draft to be discussed and refined, which is why I separated this issue. The associated status is indeed the most questionable assertion there. As for the BBC, it is renowned for its neutrality, and its readers expect that neutrality. It is not a company meant to make money, it is a publicly funded service (much to the disdain of the British politicians it has criticised). Historically, changes in the C24 list were brought on by legal changes, and as Martinvl has pointed out theoretically the Falklands could still be interfered with. This is different than whether it actually governs itself or not. The General Assembly called for peace and dialogue, which is the default no action and no war call the UN makes. How about replacing note on the C24 by stating that Argentina has taken the issue to the UN, which called for dialogue? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I was about to rewrite the lede as part of the effort to bring the article up to GA status. Now things are quieting down again I would think about restarting that effort. Any objections? At this stage there is a lot of contemplation but no writing is getting done. I find its better to work with a text proposal and refine it as a group. Thoughts? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's go for it. Pfainuk talk 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be welcome. The present lede seems less than well justified, and I for one would support a rewrite based on the more conventional approach exemplified by my lede draft proposed above. Apcbg (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Apcbg's approach could be a good way of avoiding conflict.

@Chipmunkdavis: I'd say that would be ok, but noting that 'internally self-governing' still looks misleading IMO. To me, saying that the FI are self-governing despite that the UK could interfere, is like saying that a prisoner is free within the walls of its prison. Using the word 'free' in this context is misleading, as using 'self-governing' in the Falklands case. I hope you see my point. Regards. --Langus (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It ia sbout as "self-governing" as Australia if that is your criterion -- note the ref [21]where the Australian Governor-General dismissed a Prime Minister. Australia is a prisoner? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the analogy Langus, that's very helpful. If I were to extend it however, I'd say the Falklands rather enjoys their cell, and stays even though the gate to the cell has been left unlocked. Official UK policy is to support whatever the wish of the Falkland islanders is. It's not equivalent to Australia, as in that case it was the Australian head of states representative interfering. In the case of the Falklands, it would be the UK interfering.

@WCM, I'd be happy to discuss the lead. Be nice if we could finish the body sometime too though! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)