Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

References sections (slightly meta)

Just for future reference, if people want to add reference sections, could you add them at the third level (i.e. ===References===) instead of the second (==References==)? At the second level, the archivebot separates the references section from the main section that we're trying to reference, which isn't particularly helpful for anyone looking through the archive and leaves us with references sections gathering at the top of this page (because the archivebot only works on things with datestamps). Putting them add the third level means everything gets archived together. Thanks, Kahastok talk 08:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems a very practical advice; perhaps it should be included in some relevant WP guidelines if not already there. Apcbg (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Good advice. --Langus (t) 22:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Republica - help wanted

Can someone please help with the mentioning of "República Argentina" in 1982, in the timeline of de facto control? --213.10.72.88 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you identify your issue more explicitly please? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In 1831 it was the (then) "Argentine Confederation" (see timeline), so in 1982 it should be the "Argentine Republic". During it history, Argentina changed its official name several times: the Confederación Argentina (Argentine Confederation) was founded in 1832. Later the name was changed to Nación Argentina and in 1860 to República Argentina. See also Name of Argentina.--213.10.72.88 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In 1833, the UK was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in 1982, it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. States do change their name and evolve over time, which is why the table references pre-cursor states of Argentina (I say pre-cursor states as the borders in 1833 were very different from what they are now). However, there are wiklinks to the articles on the individual and pre-cursor states, which allow the reader to follow the development of República Argentina, which please note redirects to Argentina. Wiki guidelines, which I accept are not rules, suggest we don't refer to redirects but the main article itself. The table as compiled conforms to the guidelines we use to develop articles and I hope that satisfies your concerns.

BTW purely for information, the proclamations of 1829 were issued in the name of the Republic of Buenos Aires rather than the nation state. Sometimes we simply use a short hand reference. Not always a satisfactory response for those concern with absolute precision but I hope you see what I mean. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary sources

I am not going to waste time on an edit-war.

The primary source (the Peace and Friendship Treaty of Utrecht between Spain and Great Britain) I made a reference to, is neither an analysis, nor an interpretation of an event, nor an account written by people who are directly involved, any sort of original research, nor anything similar. It is the event itself and no secondary source can be better than that.

Read WP:PRIMARY carefully: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

The event itself, the treaty, [[1]] has been reliably published in wikisource and removing it reduces the quality of the article. Feel free to add a less reliable secondary source next to the real thing. John.St (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Whats the edit that is disputed? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The contested statement is that "the treaty only promised to restore the territories in the Americas held prior to the War of the Spanish Succession (but) The Falkland Islands was not held at the time". Indeed, primary sources are not forbidden per se, but that statement constitutes an analysis of the applicability of the treaty to the Falklands' dispute. The Treaty of Utrecht defined the boundaries of the Spanish Empire, and by a quick look at it you can see that it says much more than just a promise "to restore the territories in the Americas". Therefore, we need a secondary source for that conclusion. --Langus (t) 03:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A fundamental problem is that sovereignity over the Falklands is hotly disputed and very complex. (At least) two secondary sources are needed, one Argentine + one British, as almost all Argentine and some British secondary sources will claim that the islands were inherited by Argentina in accordance to the principle 'uti posseditis', while a considerable number of British and a smal number of Argentine secondary sources will claim the opposite. A reference (i.e. link) to the treaty itself will enable the reader to compare it to the secondary sources and form her/his own opinion. John.St (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the wikilink on "Treaty of Utrecht" is already pointing to the Wikisource text... and I'm thinking that it may be more appropriate to link it to its own article in Wikipedia, which in turn has a link to Wikisource.

As for the need for sources, you can always put a {{cn}} tag at the end of something that seems questionable. --Langus (t) 21:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary sources

I am not going to waste time on an edit-war.

The primary source (the Peace and Friendship Treaty of Utrecht between Spain and Great Britain) I made a reference to, is neither an analysis, nor an interpretation of an event, nor an account written by people who are directly involved, any sort of original research, nor anything similar. It is the event itself and no secondary source can be better than that.

Read WP:PRIMARY carefully: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

The event itself, the treaty, [[2]] has been reliably published in wikisource and removing it reduces the quality of the article. Feel free to add a less reliable secondary source next to the real thing. John.St (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Whats the edit that is disputed? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The contested statement is that "the treaty only promised to restore the territories in the Americas held prior to the War of the Spanish Succession (but) The Falkland Islands was not held at the time". Indeed, primary sources are not forbidden per se, but that statement constitutes an analysis of the applicability of the treaty to the Falklands' dispute. The Treaty of Utrecht defined the boundaries of the Spanish Empire, and by a quick look at it you can see that it says much more than just a promise "to restore the territories in the Americas". Therefore, we need a secondary source for that conclusion. --Langus (t) 03:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A fundamental problem is that sovereignity over the Falklands is hotly disputed and very complex. (At least) two secondary sources are needed, one Argentine + one British, as almost all Argentine and some British secondary sources will claim that the islands were inherited by Argentina in accordance to the principle 'uti posseditis', while a considerable number of British and a smal number of Argentine secondary sources will claim the opposite. A reference (i.e. link) to the treaty itself will enable the reader to compare it to the secondary sources and form her/his own opinion. John.St (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the wikilink on "Treaty of Utrecht" is already pointing to the Wikisource text... and I'm thinking that it may be more appropriate to link it to its own article in Wikipedia, which in turn has a link to Wikisource.

As for the need for sources, you can always put a {{cn}} tag at the end of something that seems questionable. --Langus (t) 21:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of de facto control & Port Egmont

In 1765 Lord Byron planted a flag and a vegetable garden on Port Egmont. He reported about the Falkland Islands to the Admiralty, and then a second expedition was commissioned. Captain John McBride arrived a year later (January 1766), built the fort and settled a garrison there.

If Lord Byron's de jure actions are enough to say that the UK had de facto control over the islands, then the Argentine "de facto" control should start in 1820, with David Jewett's possession.

To me, "de facto" means having a real presence on the islands, so neither 1765 or 1820 are appropriate. --Langus (t) 20:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The sufficient level of actual presence for the purposes of effective control depends on the level of other nations' presence. There was no such other presence on the West Falkland and the adjacent smaller islands in 1765-66. However, there was an established, long term and numerous British and American presence on the Falklands in 1820, with no Argentine presence let alone control. Apcbg (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The name of the article is Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, therefore Timeline of de facto control refers to the Falkland Islands. Why are you considering only "the West Falkland and the adjacent smaller islands"?

In any case, there was a French settlement in the islands by 1765, and none by 1820. --Langus (t) 03:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverts

WP:BRD usually requires that if you are reverted you initiate a talk page discussion. Reverting again spouting WP:BURDEN when the material is cited and you have provided nothing to indicate what you feel is a problem is not helpful behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The cite included in the text is right after "A storm had severely damaged the Heroína and had sunk a Portuguese ship pirated by Jewett called the Carlota", something which I do not contest (except for the word pirated --we've already been there). What I have strong feelings to be incorrect is what follows: "forcing the Heroina to put into Puerto Soledad for repairs".

I've read plenty of secondary sources stating she was purposely sent to the Falklands, that's why a 'citation needed' tag is not enough. I could throw in a 'dubious' tag... but in the end someone has to prove me wrong with an appropriate citation.

I draw your attention to the fact that the source included at the begining is a primary source ("Translation of the report of the Portuguese Auditor General of Marine, Manuel José de Figueredo, dated 30 April 1822").

Do you know of any reliable, secondary source that supports the idea that the storm forced the ship to anchor at the Falklands, opposed to the idea that the ship was heading to the Falklands and encountered a storm on his way there? --Langus (t) 23:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The material is cited to a reliable source, you're simply trying to quibble about the source, because you assert the source is a WP:PRIMARY source. Simply because it is a WP:PRIMARY source does not preclude its use; more importantly it is a neutral independent source written before the dispute arose. You dispute the source, simply because it doesn't reflect a modern claim that doesn't reflect what neutral historians observe.

Please explain as to which of the 24 Governments in Argentina that year formulated orders to send Jewitt? Yes Argentina does claim it sent Jewitt but there is no evidence to back up that claim. His Letters of Marque in the archive in Buenos Aires national archive make no mention of it.

Jewett was actually en route to Buenos Aires at the time with the Carlota as a prize.

No this is not WP:OR, no this is not WP:SYN its a reflection of what neutral sources say.

So do I take it this is yet another attempt by yourself to force what Argentina claims happened as opposed to what neutral independent sources say? OK feel free to indulge in your usual personal attacks, claims of persecution, assumption of bad faith et al and to try discredit any source that doesn't correspond with the official Argentine version of events. As usual. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"its a reflection of what neutral sources say" are you serious? Are you referring to WP:PRIMARY sources?

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Please provide a secondary source for your claims. You keep talking about neutral historians, but to this point you haven't put forward even one. Wouldn't that be easier than endless argumentative walls of text?

For the record, I've read the primary source you're talking about (Portuguese Auditor General of Marine Manuel José de Figueredo, April 1822) and it doesn't support that "Jewett was actually en route to Buenos Aires at the time with the Carlota as a prize." --Langus (t) 17:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.

I have done no interpretative claims, analyses or synthetic claims. You're simply trying to wikilawyer material out of the article. My comments about Jewett are not in the article, whether they are in that source is of course immaterial, were I to add them to the article I will provide a source. OK continue with the wikilawyering walls of text, whilst accusing me of the same, that's always good for progressing a discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wee, you're trying to keep them in the article. This whole conversation is unbelievable! Ignoring your typical mud slinging ("You're simply trying to wikilawyer material out of the article"; "yet another attempt by yourself to force what Argentina claims happened"), I'll just note that you haven't provided a single secondary source to back the idea that the storm forced the ship to anchor at the Falklands, opposed to the idea that the ship was heading to the Falklands and encountered a storm on his way there. And that idea is not even in the primary source mentioned above, that was my point.

To everyone else: if you do have a secondary, reliable source for this idea, please put it forward. Thank you. --Langus (t) 22:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Really, you don't dispute the source verifies the statement, you merely seek to exclude it. You're wikilawyering; again. Oh and for the benefit of anyone following this conversation, this is a reprise of previous behaviour. Rather than considering content on its merits, Langus repeatedly tries to have sources excluded to use exclusively Argentine sources to reflect Argentina's modern sovereignty claim. Playing the martyr and claiming I am "mud slinging", when in fact its something you can easily see from his contribution history. And by the way his reference to a comment I made but isn't actually in the article is simply there to confuse mattersa. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Overlap of de facto control

I'm prepared to be educated, but I don't see how two parties can have "de facto control" of the islands at the same time. Surely at any given time either one party has control, or nobody does? Khendon (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Two parties had established settlements on the Falklands at the same time, they both in "de facto control" of their respective areas and both claimed the entire archipeligo. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've asked myself the same question Khendon, and I also find it problematic, as the article refers to the Falkland Islands as a whole. Perhaps "Timeline of official presence" or something similar would make more sense? --Langus (t) 18:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

When all claimed the archipelago what is the problem exactly. IF you wish to make it an official presence you'll reduce the Argentine presence to a mere 4 days in 1832. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's more a question of the description than the construction of the timeline, really. I'm not sure what to suggest that isn't clumsy and I'm not going to fight anybody for it; but I think it is a little misleading Khendon (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

And I agree. But Wee won't collaborate, and I concur that this isn't worth the pain. That is why I never raised the question. --Langus (t) 02:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion Khendon, people will be happy to consider it? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy between this History of the Falkland Islands

Is all the historical detail in this article necessary? It seems the detailed information should be in History of the Falkland Islands, with a short summary in this article. Khendon (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea is that the two have similar but not identical goals. Whereas History of the Falkland Islands gives the history of the islands, this article gives the history of the dispute. There is certainly going to be a fair amount of overlap, but the emphasis should be different and there may be different decisions in terms of content (things that may be relevant to the islands' history but that had no effect on the dispute, or vice versa). Kahastok talk 13:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of important summit by Wee and Kahastok

Will you explain the reasoning behind removing the mention the very important "Cumbre de la unidad de América Latina y el Caribe" summit were representatives of 33 countries expressed their support for the Argentinian position please? Wee says "we don't report every summit". Who exactly is "we" and why do "they" feel "they" can decide not to report this summit? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Argentina raises the issue at every summit it attends, once even claiming at a summit on venereal disease to be responsible for VD in the Falkland Islands (apologies for the easily shocked but that still amuses me most childishly). As noted previously [3] a discussion in which Gaba p participated it is not necessary to give a long list of summits etc at which Argentina has raised the issue. There was nothing new or different at this summit and we describe the usual measures given. You're raising a dead issue, already resolved. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree we don't need or want a list of summits, but I think it is worth recording that those 33 countries have declared their support of Argentina. I've edited to The members of the Rio Group of South American states have jointly declared their support to the Argentine position, and a number of their members including Peru, Brazil, Chile and Mexico have also individually declared their support and voiced that support within international organisations - an improvement? Khendon (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It has the major problem that several of those countries are not staunch supporters of Argentina but rather have tended to sign up to whatever statement is put in front of them. Here, for example, is Caricom supporting the British position - and Caricom's membership includes several states that were at the Rio Group in 2010. In some cases, countries have accepted mutually contradictory statements within weeks of one another. Kahastok italk 18:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, and the contradictions worth a mention in the article I'd say Khendon (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To add to what Kahatosk said earlier, Argentina issued a press release claiming support from certain Commonwealth countries (CARICOM), they later issued a statement denying that they supported Argentina's position. They're not always contradictory, in some cases it is claimed they supported a motion they didn't. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"once even claiming at a summit on venereal disease to be responsible for VD in the Falkland Islands" I believe you're wrong on this one, that you have mistranslated a book in Spanish. What source are you basing on? --Langus (t) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The declaration is clear: it downright supports the Argentinian position. The position is neither neutral nor "calling for negotiations" and it is not an Argentinian press release either. In any case I'm content with the current state of the section, I've onle added the word "large" (as not to mention "33 countries"), "Caribbean" next to Latin American and moved the ref to this section since, as I mentioned, it is supportive of Agentina, not neutral. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In the circumstances - given that we're referring to a group of countries that have signed statements supporting both sides - I cannot accept a statement claiming that the Caribbean supports Argentina, which is what your version says. Such a statement is inaccurate and biased. Kahastok talk 20:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok Kahastok, could you please indicte which Caribbean coutries signed the declaration supporting the British claim please? That way we could even sort them out and mention them explicitely. I will reinstate my edit but removing "Caribbean" until we can sort this out. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, that isn't what we should be doing, as that is original research by looking at primary sources and making a judgement call on the position of individual countries. Simply because a country supported a resolution calling for negotiations does not mean they support either. We need a reliable and neutral 3rd party source to do that. Neither should we be listing summits, rather generalising and ideally based on what neutral 3rd party sources say. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. And I also object to the use of the word "large", which creates an quantitative claim as to the number of countries that is not supported by the sources without original interpretation. IOW it interprets, without sources to back it up, that those that we have unequivocal evidence for constitute "a large number of Latin American states" (emphasis mine).

I'd also dispute the word's neutrality as it emphasises support for Argentina, which is something we shouldn't be doing. Kahastok talk 23:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree on the word "large" but I didn't revert it on the basis it was so childish to have inserted it in the first place. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I've added information regarding the UNASUR so as to remove ambiguity by the use of the word "large".

Wee: I don't understand to what are you referring as WP:OR. I asked for a source that stated which Caribbean countries backed the UK in that reunion so we could mention that information in the article. What exactly do you find wrong with this? Do either you or Kahastok actually have such information or not?. If so, could you please present it?. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok: please do not remove important information regarding Latin American states and Spain. It's not a list of anything and there has never been anyhing even remotely similar to a consensus in this talk page to not include such relevant information. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Given my opposition to this idea going into masses of detail about the position taken by each individual country, I see no need to provide any more sources than I have already provided, which refers clearly to the nations of Caricom. If you wish to make a proposal to change the article in this direction, it is your job to source that proposal (including both British and Argentine POVs as appropriate), not mine. I also oppose the addition of UNASUR (this is not a list of Latin American summits attended by Argentina, and in any case there is overlap with Caricom) and Spain. This is too much detail here.

Your claim that there has never been explicit consensus not to include, even if true, is irrelevant because the current consensus does not include it. If you wish to make the change, you need consensus for it. Not the other way around. Kahastok talk 19:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted for a 3rd time, clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN as the editor has inferred their own conclusions from sources. Clear POV edit in elevating support for Argentina and deprecating that for Britain; this should be guided as how neutral sources describe it. Reverted hence for failing to conform to WP:NPOV. And also use of WP:WEASEL words. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you one more time to please stop making this blanket reverts without reasons. I'm currently making four edits:

1. France and its current vs its old position during the war. I have found no new sources stating that France supports the UK in its claim.
2. Added UNASUR which includes all Latin American states without the need to list each one separately. This informition is vital since it reflects clearly that the totality of Latin America backs the Argentinian position.
3. Added position of Spain which is involved in an identical issue regarding Gibraltar. How could this country's position not be relevant enough to be included in the article?
4. Expand on the result of the Ibero American summit. What exactly do you find wrong with this?

Your accusations that my edit are POV are childish. I'm reflecting almost verbatim what the sources say and what different countries state about the issue. Once again: this is an encyclopedia and we are supposed to make it better with more sourced and relevant information. Your constant attempts at obscuring relevant sourced information are baffling. Please do not incur in more blanket reverts. If you have an issue with any of my edits then address them here one by one. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course Wee has now jumped the blanket revert wagon too. Fine, I'll await here your comments about each point and why you think that information should not be added into the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok and Wee please address each point and why you have removed it from the article please.

1. France and its current vs its old position during the war. I have found no new sources stating that France supports the UK in its claim.
2. Added UNASUR which includes all Latin American states without the need to list each one separately. This informition is vital since it reflects clearly that the totality of Latin America backs the Argentinian position.
3. Added position of Spain which is involved in an identical issue regarding Gibraltar. How could this country's position not be relevant enough to be included in the article?
4. Expand on the result of the Ibero American summit. What exactly do you find wrong with this?

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely all that is needed is a source that shows that generally Anglo-phone and European countries support the Islanders and a source shows that that unsuprisingly Spanish speaking countries and Argentina's neighbours support Argentina. It is not as though they have suddenly changed policy. As side issue, whilst Gibraltar is similar in someways it is not an identical situation, the main similarity being that the residents want to continue their relationship with the UK. Bevo74 (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevo74 agreed. That is why I added a single source which included all Latin American countries without the need to mention each one (edit number 2) This was deleted by Wee and Kahastok.

Agree again with your 2nd point. That's why my edit said that Spain and the UK where involved in a "similar" issue regarding Gibraltar (edit number 3) This was also deleted by Wee and Kahastok.

I will not be reverting their reverts since they are tag-teaming and I do not want to breach the 3RR. If you agree with any (or all) of the edits, I'd ask you te please re-instate it/them.

I'm still waiting to hear the reasons for the removal of each point by Wee and Kahastok. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The only attitude we need to know about Spain is regarding the Falklands, Gibraltar is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with Gibraltar being irrelevant (it's the other highly disputed former British colony and by Spain nonetheless which is heavily involved in the discussion about the origins of the islands sovereignty) but if such is the consensus then only the first part of edit number 3 can be re-added.

Still waiting to hear reasons for deleting all 4 points by Wee and Kahastok. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevo74 and Slatersteven: could I ask you to comment on all 4 of the edits and tell me if you find some reason as to why they should not be included please? You'll find them sequentially in the last diff revert by Wee. Thanks a lot. Gaba p (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the sources do not say that they support Argentinian claims to the Falklands, they support a call for negotiations (thus you have placed then in the wrong section.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I added it there because of the title "Apoyo de España por Malvinas" and the quoted statement. How would you state that Spain supports a call for negotiations based on that article? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Because we use the text of an article for what it says, not the attention grabbing head line

"The Government of Spain yesterday confirmed its commitment to the claims of Argentina for Britain to support negotiations on sovereignty in the Falkland Islands."

is what the first paragraph says (my translation may not be that accurate, but is I suspect close enough).Slatersteven (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Believe it or not, Gaba, not all of us spend all of our time in front of a computer waiting for you to edit. You demanded responses five times in the space of an hour. That's not helpful. It doesn't make me likely to respond to you any faster. It doesn't increase your chances of persuading me to agree with you. Sometimes you just have to be patient.

As it happens, I've already told you why I oppose this edit. You say that it's "childish" to call it POV. That isn't going to persuade me to agree with you either. And it's also false. When the effect of your edit is to systematically emphasise the support for the Argentine POV and de-emphasise support for the British POV, then your edit is POV. It doesn't matter whether you are quoting your sources verbatim or not - quoting a biased source verbatim does not make that source neutral. And that's even ignoring the fact that your edits suggest that all these countries are clear supporters of Argentina when I have already demonstrated that this is inaccurate.

I oppose the notion that we should be trawling through countries looking for whatever they might have said about the Falklands in the past. We used to have a map that did something like this: it was removed because of complicated situations such as the Caribbean states, because divining opinion often required significant OR, and because it placed far too much undue weight on the platitudes of states who in all likelihood don't care either way, or whose opinions are of little significance in terms of the dispute. All of these points remain. A list of countries and their platitudes could easily take up the entire article, would constitute severe OR and for the most part would be totally beside the point. That's not to say that we shouldn't be listing any other individual countries - but only the major players, such as the remaining members of the P5. The rest should be put in general terms.

I also oppose the notion that we should be listing every regional summit that has voiced any kind of support for Argentina, let alone go through them all in detail as you propose. Ignoring the basic POV points here - you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain, and suggest a clear-cut position in cases where the evidence is nuanced - Argentina raises the point at every regional summit or organisation it attends. The suggestion inherent is there is somehow a significant difference between one summit where a few South American countries supported Argentina, and another summit under a different name where the same few South American countries supported Argentina, and then a third summit under a different name where the same few South American countries supported Argentina. This suggestion is illogical and significantly overemphasises the level of support - you're basically trying to count them several times over. Kahastok talk 21:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that neatly and succinctly summarises my position also. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Slatersteven: as I said, I based my edit on what the minister said. In any case if you think this part would be better suited for the following section I have no problem in moving it. Would you agree with that?

No you said you based the edit on the headline.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee and Kahastok: First of all I note how you avoided mentioning what you problem was point for point but instead presented only vague statements. I expected this since you clearly can't find anything wrong with each edit in particular and chose to do this to distract from that fact.

1. "quoting a biased source verbatim does not make that source neutral". Please explain which source is not neutral.
2. "your edits suggest that all these countries are clear supporters of Argentina when I have already demonstrated that this is inaccurate". The Caribbean states are not mentioned in my edits. I have no idea why you bring that up here. The edit mentions Latin America not the Caribbean. I presume you are aware of the difference between the two so I'll have to ask you: which countries are you talking about?
3. "I oppose the notion that we should be trawling through countries looking for whatever they might have said about the Falklands in the past". That is why I added the UNASUR statement which allows us to group all Latin American countries in one single source. Your reason for the removal of this sentence doesn't even make sense.
4. "I also oppose the notion that we should be listing every regional summit that has voiced any kind of support for Argentina, let alone go through them all in detail as you propose". There are currently two summits mentioned the OAS and the Ibero-American summit. If you want to get rid of one then the OAS is far more suited than the UNASUR since it is almost 7 years old while the UNASUR statement is from last year an clearly states the full support of all Latin American states to the Argentinian position, not just a call for negotiations. This is simply an attempt to obscure the position of countries backing the Argentinian claim and it is borderline WP:VANDALISM. As for the "detail" I propose, I believe a sentence as short as "The totality of the South American states (with the exception of the French Guiana, an overseas region of France), through the UNASUR, have stated their support towards the Argentinian position regarding the issue" surely can't be an issue.
5. "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain" <-- When did I propose not to list pro-British position? I'll ask you to provide a link or take back your words.
6. "you're basically trying to count them several times over". As I said, if the issue is the number of summits (currently two) I'll go ahead and remove the OAS mention being much more relevant and current the UNASUR mention. I note also that the Ibero-American summit mention already mentions the OAS so there's no need to mention it again.

I'll re-instate the edits one by one (except the Spain mention which Slatersteven and I are working out, something you don't seem willing to do). If you have an issue with one of them I'll ask you to revert it if you want and address the reason one by one. Abstain from blanket reverts and vague statements and instead discuss each edit in particular. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A basic principle here is that we don't add new information unless it gets consensus. The accusations and personal attacks in your messages above are deeply unhelpful to your position in this regard. Your attempts to edit war the text into the article show a disappointing disregard for Wikipedia policy in this matter. It's WP:BRD, not BRDRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

It is obvious that a declaration by a group of states explicitly supporting one side in a dispute, or that a government statement putting the government's position on a particular matter, is not a neutral source. And where we are discussing neutral reporting of such statements, quoting them verbatim would still not necessarily be neutral, if the choice of statements isn't neutral. Given that your proposals choose only to describe statements that support Argentina, and you propose only to downplay statements supporting Britain, this appears to be a fair description of what you are doing. (You want a diff? Here. Please point out where you propose mentioning any statement supporting the UK in the same detail as you propose for every statement supporting Argentina.)

It is your responsibility as an editor to ensure that the article is neutral. That means you have to research both sides. You have to write for your opponent as well as for those you support. Picking the pro-Argentine points and expecting others to find the pro-British ones is not good enough.

You repeat claims about "Latin America" but also suggest that Latin America is fully represented by UNASUR. I suggest you look at Latin America, and note the varying definitions in use. One definition of "Latin America" does include all members of Caricom. Your definition, which appears to be based on UNASUR, also includes two members of Caricom: even if we only take UNASUR, the claim you propose we make a great play of - of a monolithic support for Argentina - is not borne out by the sources. And Caricom aside, you claim support for Argentina from "totality of the South American states" - even explicitly excepting French Guiana. If French Guiana counts, the presumably the Falklands do as well: please provide a source that demonstrates that the Falkland Islands government supports Argentina in this dispute.

I remain opposed to your edits because I do not feel that my previously expressed concerns, which covered your proposal fully, have been adequately addressed. Please also note WP:FILIBUSTERS. Kahastok talk 18:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And once again another blanket revert by Kahastok and once again a refusal to address the points one by one and instead produce only vague statements of POV.

First of all let me warn you: "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain", this is what you said about me. This is a lie. I never proposed such a thing and everyone here knows it. The fact that I'm trying to bring some balance to a heavily pro-British section does not mean in any way that I "propose" to not expand on the British claim and the countries that support it as well. You have not taken back your words and you have even chosen to accuse me once again. Fair enough. This is the last time you get to do so. Next time I'll take you to ANI.

• Your statement that because a group of countries support the Argentinian claim then the mention of a declaration put forward by them is not neutral is beyond ridiculous. Even if that were the case the statement is also sourced by Mercopress. Is that a non-neutral source too?
• I "repeat claims about Latin America"??? Have you actually taken the time to read my edit before you blanket-reverted them? I do not mention Latin America at all. The only mention to Latin America was there before I started editing. This is either a bad faith claim by you or a terribly careless one.
• "If French Guiana counts, the presumably the Falklands do as well: please provide a source that demonstrates that the Falkland Islands government supports Argentina in this dispute". What? Are you proposing we add the Falklands to the "states" that do not support the Argentinian claim? Noting that this is just a childish way of trying to trash a perfectly valid edit, if you seriously think this will improve the article then I have no problem including the Falklands in the statement.

So here we are, back to an old biased version of the section after several blanket reverts by you. That's ok, let's then go ahead and review each edit one by one.

1. France was supportive of the British position during the 1982 war.
2. The totality of the South American states (with the exception of the French Guiana, an overseas region of France), through the UNASUR, have stated their support towards the Argentinian position regarding the issue.
3. The Secretary of State for International Cooperation and Latin America of Spain, stated in early 2012 that "Spain shares with Argentina its position over the Falklands. It has done so for a long time and this is expressed in the framework of the Ibero-American summits, the OEA and the United Nations". Spain is currently involved in a similar issue with the UK over another former British colony Gibraltar.
4. The Ibero-American Summit has called for negotiations "within the framework of the resolutions of the UN and the OAS, and the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations, including the principle of territorial integrity". The countries members of this summit have repeatedly backed Argentina in its calls to restore negotiations while asking the UK to refrain "from taking unilateral decisions involving changes in the situation of the Falkland Islands in accordance with Resolution 31/49 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which do not contribute to a final settlement of the territorial dispute."

This are the edits I propose. Please indicate the problem with each of them and/or how you would re-phrase them. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the link I referred to above, the current version of the article represents a neutral summary and a consensus position that user:Gaba p agreed with. To tag it, is purely disruptive at this point, in fact its simply WP:POINT. As noted, the edit he attempted to force into the article is not neutral. I will simply note this pattern of disruptive behaviour seems to be creating a battleground for no benefit to the project. There is no attempt to discuss its simply filibustering .Wee Curry Monster talk 21:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Kahastok talk 22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agreed with nothing, the fact that I didn't put the tag before does not mean I believe the section to be neutral. In fact I do not. I can't believe you and Kahastok are telling me what I believe. This is just amazing. First you deleted all four edits with no particular reason. Then you refuse to discuss them after I asked you to several times. Finally you remove my tag of NPOV telling me what I actually believe.

Kahastok: your message at my talk page is laughable since I reverted only 2 times and one of them simply to reinstate the NPOV tags when I could have just edited them in. Want to try your luck? Please report me.

Wee saying "there is not attempt to discuss" after he refused to discuss the matter commenting nothing about any of the four edits is... well it's just Wee behavior.

So to re-cap: you have commented absolutely nothing about any of the four edits or why you feel its inclusion to be inappropriate. You have deleted all edits with vague statements of "OR" or "POV". And you have removed the tags of NPOV I added refusing to discuss the matter here. I think at this point it's either DRN or ANI. Would you like to choose one or should I? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee and Kahastok: once again, before taking this to DRN, I'll politely ask you to please comment on the mentioned edits separately and why you have reverted them please. Note that the edit regarding Spain is being discussed in the section below. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For my part, given that just about every comment I have made on the subject (including the detailed objections that I have already provided) seems to have been met first with a flurry of personal attacks and accusations and second with a total denial that any comment was made, I struggle to see what benefit to the encyclopædia is likely to be attained by continuing this discussion. Kahastok talk 20:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Spain

The material about Spanish support for Argentina should be re-worded and moves to the calls for negotiation section. The material on Gibraltar seems superfluous.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I will gladly move it to the mentioned sub-section. Would you like to propose a re-worded version of the edit or point me to which part specifically you think needs to be re-worded so I can do it? Regarding the mention of Gibraltar I still think it is an important piece of information to show given the involvement of Spain in the beginning of the issue and the similarity with this former British colony, but if a majority of editors think Gibraltar should not be mentioned then I'll remove it. Regards and thank you for responding. Gaba p (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Something like

The Spanish government has supported Argentina's call for negotiations over sovereignty.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven, though I'm worried about so many short sentences in that section... Maybe we could copy-edit a bit? --Langus (t) 15:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How about something like: "The Spanish government has supported Argentina's call for negotiations over sovereignty and has expressed so in the framework of the Ibero-American summits, the OEA and the United Nations". (removed Gibraltar mention as advised by Slatersteven and expanded as advised by Langus) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I remain opposed for reasons expressed earlier, and note in this context that Spain ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, formally recognising the islands as British, so the best we can say for Argentina is that they are another that swings both ways. Kahastok talk 20:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What "reasons expressed earlier"? Could you be more specific please? The treaty of Lisbon is already mentioned in the article, so of course this needs to be mentioned too. I'd ask that you please 1- express specifically why do you oppose the addition of this information and 2- propose a form for this edit if you so wish too. I remind you that the current consensus is to locate Spain in the "Neutral" section, this is not being presented as supporting Argentina. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know why I oppose this, I suggest you go to the beginning of this section and start reading. It's all there. And I don't accept your assertion that there is any consensus such as you describe - I see none in this section, and there is no previous consensus that would back such a claim. Kahastok talk 12:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that's "there" are your vague statements of POV. If you want to oppose this edit you need to state here why exactly do you oppose it. Do you believe this to be an unreasonable request? Because I think it's pretty simple: three editors are involved in working on an edit for the article and you simply "oppose" refusing to state why. Once again let me ask you to please expose your reasons as to why the position of Spain should not be added to the article. If you've already written the reason then it can't be that hard to copy/paste the same reason here, right?

If Slatersteven agrees with my proposed edit I'll go ahead and add it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you do not like my arguments does not mean that they were not made. Given that every time I have made a point you have immediately started issuing personal attacks and unwarranted accusations - and totally ignored the substance of the point made - I see little reason to believe that continually repeating them will be of benefit to the encyclopædia. Kahastok talk 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

France

We need evidence of renewed French support, or else we should note that France was supportive to the British position during the Falklands War. I looked for news but I found none. --Langus (t) 15:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I could not find any current mention of France's position either, that's why I proposed the edit. Can any other editor produce a reference where France supports the British claim in present days (or a couple of years old)? If not the sentence needs to be re-phrased so as to not mislead the reader. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would note that trying to apply the same standards to a country whose interested is in having support for its position being affirmed at every opportunity and a country whose interest is in the thing getting as little publicity as possible is fairly obviously unreasonable. It should be expected in this context that support for Britain will be more subtly expressed. In this case, France ratified the Treaty of Lisbon and has never argued the Argentine position. Unlike countries like Spain, this is an example of a country - and major player, member of the P5 - whose viewpoint we can pin down as consistent. Kahastok talk 20:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We are not applying any standards here. France is mentioned as currently supporting the British position with no source to back the statement. This needs to be fixed by either re-phrasing the sentence or adding a source, simple. If you believe we can pin down France's view as "consistent" then please provide a source so we can do so.

I note the use of the word "particularly" in the current statement which is a clear WP:PEACOCK term. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not accept your claim that you are applying a standard - you're applying a standard that suggests that support for the British position will be expressed in the same way as support for the Argentine position. This is not a reasonable assumption. Kahastok talk 12:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Kahastok's view that ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon and not contesting Argentina's claim is enough to say that a country "has been particularly supportive of the British position". I note also that the two references included in that expression refer to the Falkands War, so I'm applying a 'failed verification' tag. Kahastok, is in your hands now to bring a secondary source backing your opinion. --Langus (t) 17:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please justify the reason for that tag, as on p.166 of Gustafson, Gustafson states that "France has been particularly vocal in its support for Britain", I'm paraphrasing rather than quoting directly. And could you explain why we need "renewed evidence", since we have reliable sources stating that France has supported the UK and as you advocate that we're not allowed to question reliable sources by our own original research. Speculating that French support of a close ally has changed is of course your original research and demanding we prove a negative is of course impossible. Equally, you appear to apply a double standard in that countries that have been equivocal in supporting any one country you appear to insist we state as unconditionally supporting Argentina based on one source, whilst ignoring others which indicate the oppposite. I would be grateful if you could outline your logic in selecting which source to use in that respect. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For info see [4] Wee Curry Monster talk 22:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok this is an encyclopedia. What we do is write articles with relevant and properly sourced information. If a vast number of countries choose to be more vocal about their support for the Argentinian position, it is not our position to apply some "standard" and obscure mentions of this support just because other countries are not doing the same for the UK claim.

As this source clearly states [5] the EU remains neutral about the Falklands/Malvinas issue and the fact that the islands are included in the Lisbon treaty is "merely descriptive" and even more "This does not imply acknowledgement of UK sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas by EU members. This must be defined bilaterally between the UK and Argentina". Seeing that the Lisbon treaty does not imply support for the UK position, the mention of France as stated in the article is currently 100% wrong. The edit proposed here is much more accurate and I've yet to see a reason by Kahastok as to why it shouldn't be added. I'll await some reason or else simply make the edit. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@WCM: Leaving aside the original paraphrasing, you should note that Gustafson's book is dated 1988. It's been 25 years since. "Has been" implies continuity up to today: see present perfect continuous. When Gustafson uses the expression, you should read "Up to 1988, France has been...".

You said: "since we have reliable sources stating that France has supported the UK". We agree on that: we do have RS stating that France has supported the UK. But we don't have RS stating that France has been supportive to the UK (remember: present perfect continuous + January 2013 --although a source dated 2003 would still be acceptable). Per WP:BURDEN, it's not up to me to bring secondary sources saying that now things have change.

May I suggest switching the past tense as shown above? I think that would settle it. --Langus (t) 19:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out Britain doesn't demand a statement in support every week, so why would there be regular and continuous statements of support? It doesn't matter that a book is dated 1988, its been regularly reprinted and the author has seen no need to revise it. You are conducting original research through speculation that things might have changed and demanding a different burden of proof should apply. The statement should reflect the source, that is all, we should not be interpreting it as you wish to do. If we go back to a previous example, I questioned the use of Lopez as a cite, noting that Lopez claimed Goebel supported his hypothesis. I simply pointed out that Goebel did not and questioned your insistence on the use of Lopez, at which point you were adamant I could not use WP:COMMON but had to knowingly repeat a false claim verbatim. On that occasion you were absolutely adamant I couldn't question a source but here again you're using your own speculation as sufficient reason. I'm struggling to see the logic, consistency of approach or the justification for the tag you applied, since the source verifies the statement and you've given no sustainable reason for adding it. If you cannot, then I request you remove it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence implies current support when the sources do not. The book is 25 years old and the article talks about support during the 1982 war (31 years have passed). I've changed the tag to one I believe to be more precise, please tell me if I'm mistaken. Once again: we either come up with a current source stating France's support or we re-phrase the statement. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

UNASUR mention

I propose to change the mention of a list of south american countries currently in the article (Peru, Brazil, etc..) by the sentence:

• In November 2012 the UNASUR issued a communique signed by its member states, which included all of South American countries with the exception of the French Guiana (an overseas region of France) and Paraguay (suspended at the time following the ouster of the country's former president). In this declaration they stated their support towards Argentina regarding the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute, while at the same time rejecting the possible outcome of the referendum that will take place on 2013 on the Falkland Islands. The member states also urged the UK to resume negotiations with Argentina, in conformity with the declarations of the UN and the OAS.
  

• Through a communique issued by the UNASUR on November 2012, the totality of the South American states (with the exception of the French Guiana, an overseas region of France and Paraguay which was suspended as a member following the ouster of the country's former president, Fernando Lugo, and thus not present at the meeting), have stated their support towards Argentina regarding the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute, while at the same time rejecting the possible outcome of the referendum that will take place on 2013 on the Falkland Islands. The member states also urged the UK to resume negotiations with Argentina, in conformity with the declarations of the UN and the OAS.
  

This has the benefit that it does not list countries (something Wee and Kahastok oppose) and its far simpler to source. If no one opposes in the next days, I'll make the edit. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Again I note that it's a call for negotiations, not Argentinians sovereignty claims. Slatersteven (talk)

I remain opposed for reasons already expressed. Kahastok talk 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Slatersteven: If you check the declaration (last paragraph) you'll see it is not just a call for negotiations but rather a full support for the Argentinian position. This is what it says (I can help translate it if you want to):

• Los Estados miembros de UNASUR reiteran su firme respaldo a los legítimos derechos de la República Argentina en la disputa de soberanía con el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte sobre las Islas Malvinas, Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur y los espacios marítimos circundantes y ratifican el permanente interés regional en que el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte se avenga a reanudar las negociaciones con la República Argentina a fin de encontrar -a la mayor brevedad posible- una solución pacífica y definitiva a esa disputa, de conformidad con los lineamientos de la comunidad internacional y las resoluciones y declaraciones pertinentes de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) y de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA).

(bolded by me) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"and ratifying the permanent regional interest in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should agree to resume negotiations with Argentina in order to find, as soon as possible, a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute," Seems to me it backs neither side but says that both sides claims need to be addresses and that Argentinians as a legitimate right to demand negotiations, I see nothing here that says they support Argentinians sovereignty (As long as British interest are also taken into account). In fact what it seems to be talking about is the issue of the referendum and right of self determination, not sovereignty.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me correct your translation a bit: "and ratify the permanent regional interest in that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland resume negotiations with Argentina..." It is both a full support for Argentina and a call to the UK to resume negotiations (noting that they back the Argentinian position). The first part leaves no room for doubting the support: "The UNASUR member states reiterated their strong support for the legitimate rights of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas" (bolded by me). It states verbatim a "strong support" for the Argentinian position on the issue and later on asks the UK to resume negotiations. The Mercopress source used in my proposed edit refers to the previous UNASUR meeting, I just noticed (the last one took place on Nov 2012 in Lima). These sources make the support stated in the last meeting more clear [6][7][8]. I also note that since Paraguay was suspended from UNASUR its support for the Argentinian position should not be added since it was not present in that meeting. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You are cherry picking, the statement refers to the issue of the islanders right of self determination and unilateral action, not sovereignty. It is Argentina's position on those that the statement supports. I suggest we take this to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears we are not finding a common ground here so yes, perhaps the best is to request external opinion. Should I open the ticket or do you want to do it? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You should, it's your source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've amended the proposed edit a bit. Please tell me what you think of it and if you still think we should request help at RSN. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ibero-American summit

The current mention of this summit is quite short simply stating "The Ibero-American Summit has called for negotiations." I propose to change this sentence to:

• The Ibero-American Summit has called for negotiations "within the framework of the resolutions of the UN and the OAS, and the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations, including the principle of territorial integrity". The countries members of this summit have repeatedly backed Argentina in its calls to restore negotiations while asking the UK to refrain "from taking unilateral decisions involving changes in the situation of the Falkland Islands in accordance with Resolution 31/49 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which do not contribute to a final settlement of the territorial dispute."

which adds more information about the outcome of the summit. This edit also allows us to remove the mention to the OAS so as to not repeat the same countries in each summit. Please discuss this change here. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree is too short, but I also think that the proposal is too long... one longer sentence would be optimal IMO. --Langus (t) 21:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I remain opposed for reasons already expressed. Kahastok talk 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How about:

• The Ibero-American Summit has backed Argentina in its calls to restore negotiations "within the framework of the resolutions of the UN and the OAS, and the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations, including the principle of territorial integrity", while asking the UK to refrain from taking unilateral decisions involving changes in the situation of the islands.

I think its more concise this way. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Convention of Settlement - Secondary sources

[9] Our History, Our people

A more than adequate cite that the British considered the matter settled in 1850

Anticipating the usual objections....

A number of historians have commented on the relation of the Convention of Settlement to the Falklands dispute. The Mexican diplomat and historian Carlos Pereyra considers that General Rosas gave up the claim to the Falklands in order end Britain's involvement in the River Plate. Pereyra adds that the effect of the Convention was as if it had had an unwritten article stating that “Britain retained the Falkland Islands.” Pereyra’s book was reprinted in Buenos Aires in 1944, with the same statements.

The impact of the treaty was also raised in a 1950 debate on Argentina's claim to the Falklands by a member of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, Absalón Rojas. Rojas complained that the treaty restoring “perfect friendship” between Britain and Argentina without any reference to the Falklands was a serious omission and a weak point of the Argentine claim. As a result Rojas blamed General Rosas for the loss of the Falklands.

Other Argentine historians have indicated that the Convention of Settlement has a negative impact upon Argentina's modern sovereignty claim. These include historian Ernesto Fitte and Alfredo R. Burnet-Merlín. Both indicate that the omission of any mention of the Falklands in the treaty was a “a concession to Britain or a culpable oversight”. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be blunt: do you own any of these books, or are you just trusting in a flawed source like Pascoe & Pepper's Getting it Right? --Langus (t) 23:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Pereyra, Burnet-Merlin and Fitte I got from the British Library collection on loan, there is a system in British libraries that allows you to borrow books from the collection. The Diario de Sesiones de la Cámara de Diputados was harder, had to get a friend in Den Haag to do some photocopying. So no I don't own them but I have done my own research. Thank you for your concern.

Equally i don't consider Pepper and Pascoe flawed, they always check out when i verify their claims for myself. Unlike Lopez for example or several other sources you like to quote. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll get Fitte's Cronicas soon. In the meanwhile, would you mind to quote Fitte on how exactly the Convention of Settlement had a negative impact upon Argentine claim? To be honest, I have the impression that Pascoe & Pepper tend to cite authors that actually don't support their thesis.

BTW regarding congressman Absalon Rojas, you'll find enlightening the rebuttal by his peer John William Cooke (Cooke was a Peronist and Rojas from the opposing party). Here you can read it online (page 390). --Langus (t) 04:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Really that is just breathtaking hypocrisy. You lambasted me relentlessly for pointing out that Lopez was misrepresenting Goebel, you force an edit into self-determination by misrepresenting sources and then airily dismiss sources by criticism through speculation. I do hope you will apologise when you find you're wrong. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And the quote? You could prove me wrong right now. I don't understand why would you think I'd owe you an apology for being wary of P&P... evidently you're taking this too personally. If I'm wrong I'll have no problem in recognizing so. We're humans after all. --Langus (t) 16:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No I was referring to your comments at WP:DRN and other places accusing me of OR and SYN for simply having the temerity to point out that Goebel did not make the statement attributed to him by Lopez. You were adamant I could not question a source I knew to be wrong, as opposed to a source you simply speculate is wrong.

Oh and btw you demanded a source, its been more than adequately sourced, so do I take it you'll stop removing it from the article?

I will get you a quote as soon as I get the scans from archive, patience. You are of course aware that I don't have to and for once doing some of your own research might do you some good. If nothing else it would allow you to appreciate the effort others put into neutral writing.

You could of course help, what does Cresto have to say in Historia de las Islas Malvinas, 2011? I believe he was quite critical of Rosas. You can hardly accuse him of being pro-British. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to get Cresto too. And I'll be waiting for that quote. Cheers. --Langus (t) 21:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013

This should probably be mentioned, or at least linked, somewhere in the article. Peter James (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to add a content suggestion, I have thought the same myself but have avoided doing so for my own reasons. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It was rejected when first news appeared in the papers because there were no details about it. I think we have more info now and it can be mentioned. In a neutral way, of course. --Langus (t) 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I note that editor Wee Curry Monster has seen appropriate to add a NPOV tag[10] after I made two edits to the article:

1. Added position of Spain as worked in the section Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Spain [11]
2. Merged the OAS and Ibero-American summit mentions into one[12]

He called these edits "POV edit, stressing a personal opinion". The only edit that made an actual change to the section (adding Spain) is perfectly sourced. His intention by blindingly accusing the edit of POV is clearly to be disruptive. I won't be removing the tag so as to avoid more accusations from him. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As I note above, you state you intend to prove there is greater support for Argentina, your edit isn't as you describe, its to emphasise support for Argentina. I call it a POV edit, as it biased and reflects your own stated opinion. It was plain given the discussion above you were just being rather silly. Not cool. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"you intend to prove there is greater support for Argentina", one more untrue statement by Wee. I've seriously lost count by now.

The edits as I stated were two:

1. Added position of Spain as worked in the section Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Spain [13]
2. Merged the OAS and Ibero-American summit mentions into one[14]

This is how you should be addressing these edits instead of making random and blanket POV accusations:

1. Spain should not be added to the article because...
2. I object to the merge of the OAS and the Ibero-American summit mentions because...

Care to fill on the rest? You are being once again utterly disruptive with your edits (just like at Self-determination) and should really consider stopping. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You state it above, plainly, denying you did is just, well, very silly indeed. Please stop trying to wind people up, I have explained why I've tagged it. I tagged it to bring it to the attention of other editors. Now let's let the wiki community at large decide eh? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I did uh? Well could you present the quote where I said that I "intend to prove there is greater support for Argentina"? Until you do I must point out that yes Wee, you are once again making an untrue statement. This habit of yours is highly disruptive and I'd seriously advice you to stop. Your constant attempts at gaming discussions by purposely misrepresenting other editors is borderline WP:VANDALISM.

I note that once again you refuse to give reasons as to why you consider a breach of WP:NPOV the following edits:

1. Added position of Spain as worked in the section Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Spain [15]
2. Merged the OAS and Ibero-American summit mentions into one[16]

This strategy of blanket random accusations of POV will only last you for so long Wee. I must recommend you to please reconsider your behaviour. Just think how would this tagging of yours look if presented at WP:ANI or WP:RfC/U? Do you seriously believe you can defend these actions?

Anyway, I'll welcome other editors' input on whether they thing those two edits constitute a breach of WP:NPOV. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, the tagging would look perfectly acceptable, given I explain why I've added it, and as you edit war to force your edit into the article and rather than indulging you in an edit war I tag your disruption. Editors won't comment if you insist on bludgeoning them into submission when they disagree with you. Seriously you look incredibly immature with the constant accusations of lying, particularly when you deny you've made a statement and its right above you. Let the wiki community actually comment please. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, what are the sources that back these two original cites? My Spanish is non- existent, a major handicap.Irondome (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

@Wee, you look like a disruptive editor when you accuse me of saying things I did not say (I note you have failed to provide either a link or a quote) something that is sadly turning into a habit for you and I'd recommend you stop before it makes a negative impact regarding your position as an editor in WP.

And once again a refusal to answer two simple questions. Really, how hard could it be to answer two questions separately so as to explain your motives? Do you really believe this over-tagging of yours followed by a refusal to comment on your motives is of any benefit to the article or WP?

@Irondome, the sources are right there, do you need me to translate some of them? I can't promise to translate the whole thing, but I can definitely help out. I'm actually having a discussion with another editor about the source for Spain over here, feel free to jump in I'm sure Slatersteven won't mind. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already told you, repeatedly, that I oppose this edit on the grounds that it is POV, among other things, and detailed why I take that view. The fact that you decided to respond only with abuse and then to pretend that I had made no statement doesn't mean that I didn't oppose it.

The fact that you continue to accuse people of lying, despite having been roundly criticised for it barely a couple of weeks ago at ANI, would probably reflect very badly on you if you were to take this back there. And before you say it, doing a straight replace of "making an untrue statement" in place of "lying" does not make it OK. Kahastok talk 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If you claim an edit is POV you should also explain why. Could I ask you to comment on why you believe this two edits are POV?

1. Added position of Spain as worked in the section Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Spain [17]
2. Merged the OAS and Ibero-American summit mentions into one[18]

A simple and direct answer would be great. Just go like this: 1- blah blah, 2- blah blah. It's not that hard now, is it?

Kahastok: if you believe my pointing to Wee that he is misrepresenting the written record and hiding behind rhetoric when asked to simply present evidence (a link? a quote? I could do with either one) is in any way reprehensible then I'd ask you to take the matter to ANI so we can present our case and let other editors decide. Until then I'll keep pointing out the cases where you or Wee misrepresent what I say with clear intentions of being disruptive. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comments, and sadly note you appear determined to deter outside comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Your intentions of being simply WP:DISRUPTIVE are noted Wee. How sad that an old editor would behave like you do. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Both sides are going to have to compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which bit of 'compromise' do you not understand?

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

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

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

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

Test case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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