Wikipedia

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 17

< Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Wee Curry Monster in topic Cakwell & British protection
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

RfC: On reason for Falkland referendum dismissal by Argentina

Latest comment: 11 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

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

The RFC comment is not neutral and does not present the issue at all.
In various political statements, Argentine politicians have dismissed the refererendum as "illegal" or being invalid as the Falklanders do not exist, or because they are "squatters". Such political statements have no place in a wikipedia article presenting a NPOV.
The reason Argentina dismissed the referendum is it refuses to recognise that the Islanders have a say in the sovereignty dispute. The edit proposed by Gaba P obscures this, he takes a comment made by political leaders out of context as the "reason", which is misleading. The current article is a neutral summary of the situation. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
(Dismissing usual "not neutral" accusations)
The issue is quite simple really. We have endless sources stating that Argentina dismissed the referendum as "illegal". This is the reason for Argentina's dismissal of the referendum as can be easily gathered from the huge number of sources presented [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. The German news media Deutsche Welle says explicitly: "The Argentine government considers the referendum illegal and does not recognize it, based on the fact that it was not convened by the United Nations, does not have its approval nor was it supervised by the organization."[12] To make it even more clear, the official declaration put forward by the Argentinian Senate regarding the referendum states (emphasis added):


This is as official and as clear as it can get to support the statement "Argentina dismissed the referendum as having no legal value" (which means adding at most 5 words to the article). Incidentally, editor Wee Curry Monster has removed that information from the article 5 times in the last 12 days [13][14][15][16][17].
The edit was discussed above where it can be seen that 6 editors agreed to its inclusion, immediately removed by Wee Curry Monster. The edit furthermore does not propose to "obscure" information as Wee Curry Monster claims, quite the contrary: it aims at adding properly sourced, relevant and factual information to the article, which is being blocked by him and Kahastok. They keep referring to the edit as a "comment made by political leaders" when it's a fact that this is the official position of the country, as clearly proven by the official declaration approved by Argentina's Senate presented above. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The simple way to demonstrate this is a political statement - ask which law is being broken and the silence is deafening. QED
The simple facts, Argentina rejected the referendum as it doesn't recognise the people of the Falklands had the right to hold it. Everything else is just headline grabbing nonsense. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Wee Curry Mosnter: "ask which law is being broken and the silence is deafening". German news media Deutsche Welle: "based on the fact that it was not convened by the United Nations, does not have its approval nor was it supervised by the organization"[18]. Furthermore, leaving out the reason, as stated by the country itself (an indisputable fact), because you believe "no law was broken" is a gross violation of WP:OR as you are well aware.
The simple facts we should add are those we can source: Argentina dismissed it as illegal as all the sources presented above clearly state. Also, calling "headline grabbing nonsense" to the official position of a country as put forward by its Senate is rather offensive. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect, Deutsche Welle, reported comments from Argentina. And btw the comment was which law was broken, neither of those comments relate to International Law. My comments about "headline grabbing nonsense" relate to comments by politicians, the attempt to spin this as being offensive is a rather naked attempt to shut down comment. BTW as I've previously pointed out, your obsession with the WP:LASTWORD will more than likely deter outside comment, since the RFC you raised will be perceived as a disruptive editor lobbying to have his version imposed. Just as you've effectively disrupted previous RFC you will cause your own to be still born. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"Deutsche Welle, reported comments from Argentina", that's precisely what I'm saying. "the comment was which law was broken", this is more of your usual WP:OR Wee Curry Monster. Not commenting on usual WP:PAs once again. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I realise English is not your first language, so I will simply point out that none of those comments actually relate to International Law. I could however modify my comment that "ask which law is being broken and the silence is deafening" would be better replace by "ask which law is being broken and all that is received in response is loud shouting about something completely unrelated"
Honest advice as to how to avoid disrupting your own RFC is not a Personal Attack. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My objections:

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

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

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

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

Kahastok: about your first paragraph, no one is proposing that. I'm not even sure what you are talking about. The proposed edit is to simply add 5 words to the article (at most).
Second paragraph: that's WP:OR. It's not our concern how do international laws apply. Argentina has stated this as its reason for the dismissal of the referendum (this is indisputable) and we should mention it as such.
Third paragraph: Wee Curry Monster's statement can stay in its entirety. Again, no one is talking about removing information here, except you and him.
Fourth paragraph: please read the comments where I said I'd open an RfC and see it they agree with Kahastok's accusations: [19][20]. Your bad faith representation of my comments is just astonishing Kahastok. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a reason why have been repeatedly warned and blocked for accusing editors of bad faith, Gaba. WP:AGF is not just a rule for the sake of having a rule.
There is absolutely nothing in policy, including WP:NOR, that prevents my from objecting to the edit concerned on precisely the grounds I raised in my second paragraph.
I raise those points in my first paragraph because nobody else is raising them. And I don't see how I can make it any clearer. But I will try once more.
If we need to put these points, then we need to think about why we need them. The underlying point here - the disagreement as to whether self-determination applies - is one of the most basic points of difference between the two sides. Of all the points that this article makes, this is one of the most important for the reader's understanding of the dispute. If this key point is so non-obvious to the reader that we need any explanation beyond that covered by Moriori's point 1, it is because the article as a whole is failing to give it due prominence. We should fix this failure in the article as a whole, rather than trying explain a vital point as an aside at an apparently arbitrary point half way down the article. Kahastok talk 22:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment; if some content regarding the view of X Y or Z regarding their opinion of the Falkland Islands' referendum it should be attributed as the opinion of whomever or what organization says whatever. The weight of the content should be equal to the weight of the notability of the individual in relation to the subject. Furthermore, if X says they are against B, than for balance, I can see also including Y says they are for B.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
On attribution: the statement is attributed to Argentina, in no way is it stated in WP's authoritative voice. On weight: the "individual" making the statement is Argentina as a country so notability is a given. On balance: the statement already includes the UK's view on the referendum, precisely for this reason. Just to make it clear, this is the edit being proposed. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Brought back RfC archived by bot. Gaba (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Kind of a waste of time, the RFC was effectively still born at getting outside comment by your obsession with the WP:LASTWORD. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Several discussions have been archived today. Three discussions still open can be archived since they are (I believe) finished: Utis Possidetis Juris, NPOV problem with the detailed Spanish map and Large number of concurrent discussions.
That would leave only 4 discussions open (not counting this one): the two RfCs, the one about the re-factoring of the Argentine claims and the one about the Treaty of Madrid. The RfCs should be left open until they are closed and the other two could perhaps be postponed? Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Gaba, I agree with your proposal. There is another open discussion, about a revert of some edits of mine, which automatically went to Archive 15 (under "We have a good base..."). I had repeated my reasons for part of those edits and was waiting for a counter-argument or a rv. Further details on the reasons for the remainder edits were waiting, as I didn't want to write it all at once. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Regarding the Falklands/Malvinas articles and our editing process

Latest comment: 11 years ago87 comments10 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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


Apcbg: I find it ironic that you would say you rather discuss topics when you didn't help with a single comma to the discussion you involved yourself with by reverting two times [21][22] a properly sourced edit. I'm still waiting for your explanation of these rvs other the the "no consensus" summary you gave (please see WP:DRNC). Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

If the source isn't there, zap the text, but say why in talk or edit summary. If he comes up with a text later, then OK, restore the info then. Moriori (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The material is in the text, I made a comment on 29 March 2013 above showing a relevant extract from the source, he then queried another word and I pointed to another source. This was simply dismissed as WP:OR and WP:SYN as the source used the word native not aboriginal. Are you aware of WP:BEANS by any chance, because as an admin you've just instructed that editor to go ahead and remove sourced material based on an unsustainable accusation of citation fraud; which on past performance he will act upon. I note you still haven't answered as to why you haven't commented on unhelpful accusations. Not to mention you yourself have simply removed material easily sourced rather than challenging what you disagreed with [23]. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
(1) Your statement that I have instructed anyone to "remove sourced material based on an unsustainable accusation of citation fraud" is insulting and reveals a lack of comprehension skills. (2) BEANS is exponentially less important to me than Wikipedia Policy which says "material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed.....The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (4). Re your claim that I "have simply removed material easily sourced rather than challenging what you (I) disagreed with", I think my removal of unsourced material, per policy, is a crystal clear hint that I sure did challenge it. If someone produces suitable references I will support inclusion of the information in the article. Until then, no. Moriori (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
A lack of comprehension skills? Well this may be partly explained by the fact you failed to comprehend that Gaba p is raising a separate issue here, which you then told him to go ahead and remove.
Pardon me but I did provide a source above and I can't see why you're saying it is unsupported by the additional sources provided. Wee Curry Monster talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kahastok: 1- Not having the written approval by Wee Curry Monster and/or you does not equal not having consensus. Really, have you read WP:OWN?
2- I have not excluded "other text" from the article, it was Moriori who removed a bit not supported by the sources, not me (it's easier to attack me, I know).
3- The text was backed by 6 editors when it was first discussed only challenged by Wee Curry Monster and yourself. I'd say that is broad consensus. It's worth noticing that by the time Wee Curry Monster removed this sourced text from the article (agreed by 6 editors in the discussion mentioned) he had already done the same 4 times in the previous week [24][25][26][27].
4- You have once again not provided a single source to back either your comment above or your removal of sourced content from the article.
5- Of course objections were raised: by you and Wee Curry Monster. But the thing is you need sources besides your word Kahastok. This is Wikipedia, not your personal blog.
6- What makes consensus nigh-on impossible here is the clear sense of ownership and the constant WP:OR and WP:SYN by Wee Curry Monster (specially) and yourself.
Moriori: here are some [28][29][30][31]. If these are alright to you, would you do me the favor of picking on you like and adding the statement back to the article? If I do it I will simply be accused of edit-warring (to say the least) by either Wee Curry Monster or Kahastok or both. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I said I agreed it should be mentioned. Argentina has said it was illegal, and I see no reason why we cannot say that Argentina claims it was illegal (as long as that is what Argentina has said). I note that in fact the sources do not say it was illegal, just not being legally recognised (or having any legal authority).Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
You lost me there Slatersteven. What I see in those sources is the word illegal being used verbatim. What do you mean by "the sources do not say it was illegal"? Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry one of the sources does not say that Argentina has claimed it was illegal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Which one Slatersteven? I see that all of them mention that. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This one http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/01/uk-disappointed-argentina-talks-falklands, also we at this time have only one (in effect) source for this (it's the same newspaper).Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
That article is not in the list of articles I proposed as a source Slatersteven. The four articles I proposed above all state verbatim that Argentina dismissed the referendum as illegal. What am I missing? Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact that it is the article being used as an inline source for the wikipedia article we are discussing. Why is a source being used that does not support the claim?Slatersteven (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I really have no idea what that article is supposed to be doing there. I believe Apcbg added it at some point. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


How about

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

In my opinion Wee Curry Monster’s wording is acceptable, while Gaba's and Scjessey's are not due to the confusing use of the word “illegal.” The reader would be puzzled – illegal according to which law? Surely not under British and Falklands law. Nor could it be illegal under Argentine law, which is not applicable on the Islands. And not according to International Law either, as the referendum’s subject (relationship between UK citizens and the UK government) is an internal affair. Furthermore, whether something is legal or illegal is ruled by the court of justice; it is not obvious which court might have the relevant jurisdiction in this case. In any case, the suggested use of “illegal” would be confusing. While political statements might – intentionally or otherwise – be confusing, encyclopedic articles should not. All this could be clarified within Kahastok’s proposed more comprehensive approach to the article. Apcbg (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I would agree that "illegal" is pretty much a standard part of Argentina's rhetoric over the Falkland Islands, in fact that is why I suggest it isn't included as we end up repeating the same thing over and over. Were it something new, I would perhaps have a different view about its inclusion here. Apcbg also makes a strong case why we should include that WP:WEASEL word at this time.
I simply don't see that arbitrarily picking one of a number of head lining grabbing statements (long on rhetoric but short on fact) has any place in an encyclopedia. All of these statements are great for headlines but not relevant content for an encyclopedia. We've already stated Argentina's view, why do we need to state it again and again. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Kahastok: if you want to expand the article later on, that's fantastic and do count on my help to do it. There's no replacing anything here, just the addition of an irrefutably sourced piece of information correctly attributed to Argentina. My "attempts to rebut the point" are quite simple: this is a properly sourced and relevant piece of information. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons are not enough to keep it out.
Apcbg: by "Wee Curry Monster's wording" you of course mean completely obscuring this information. If you are concerned about why Argentina dismissed it as illegal then we can add that information too. It's right there in the German news media Deutsche Welle article I've presented a number of times now. It says explicitly: "The Argentine government considers the referendum illegal and does not recognize it, based on the fact that it was not convened by the United Nations, does not have its approval nor was it supervised by the organization."[32] So I take it you want to include something along these lines into the article, right?
Wee Curry Monster: you can keep repeating this is just a "head grabbing statements", it does not make it true. It's the official position of Argentina as stated by its entire body of government . As the 14 sources I've presented state, it is the reason for the dismissal/rejection of the referendum by that country and as such worthy of at least a single mention.
Let me note that in the previous discussion there were 6 editors in favor of making this edit (which Wee Curry Monster removed from the article). Now 2 more editors have said they too agree (Scjessey and Petercarney) which makes it 8 editors for the addition of this information and only 3 against (that's counting Apcbg but I believe he would have no reason to disagree with including the edit and expanding it as I've proposed above). Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok have made it quite clear that they will not give their consensus and have effectively been blocking the inclusion of this information pretty much since the referendum was held more than 40 days ago[33]. At which point do we apply broad consensus and make the edit? Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Please don't assume that my suggested compromise text implies that I approve of the inclusion. I was just throwing it up there. In fact, I lean toward exclusion for all the reasons stated by Kahastok. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Kahastok said "This is describing the words in which Argentina rejected the referendum, but entirely fails to explain the reasoning, which the reader will have to work out for themselves from first principles. We have the choice to explain Argentina's reasoning and I see no benefit to the reader in replacing it with a soundbite."
I wonder how would he oppose to the concise explanation that "Argentina dismissed the Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum, arguing that they have no such right". --Langus (t) 21:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Scjessey, Kahastok's proposal in no way implies that we should exclude this information. As I've stated above I'm all for expanding the article explaining Argentina's and the UK's reasoning regarding self-determination in more detail as he proposes, but this does not mean we must leave this information out. I can't see why anyone would think these two edits are mutually exclusive. This is what Argentina had to say about the referendum, its the official position of one of the parties in the dispute, it takes no more than 3 words to state it clearly and it can be humongously sourced. What am I missing here? Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Gaba, your quote (“... based on the fact that it was not convened by the United Nations, does not have its approval nor was it supervised by the organization.”) does not say — illegal under which law? Apcbg (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
@Apcbg, your point is that it could mean Argentine domestic law? To answer that, we have to consider the context. In all of the explanations they are referring to (1) the lack of legal consequences and (2) the lack of UN sanction. Therefore, the law in question is clearly international law, which is the one that deals with sovereignty over a territory, where the legal consequences or lack thereof rest. And where those kinds of UN resolutions matter.
The problem is that Senator Fernandez and Minister Timerman used the word "illegal", which rather means forbidden by law, despite them offering that other explanation, which is better represented by the word "illegitimate". Therefore, you may wonder if polling people in Argentina is forbidden by law, if the islanders will be prosecuted or something of the sort. That would position the word "illegal" as one referred to domestic law. But no such odd comments have been made. The context clearly indicates that what they were saying is that the referendum was not done in accordance to the law that deals with matters of territorial sovereignty (i.e., international law). That is why I would prefer using "illegitimate", "having no legal value" or "invalid under international law", etc. But I can accept using "illegal" for the sake of moving forward. However, I would advise against saying that "they have no such right".
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Gaba advocating the use of the word "illegal" because the other options were quickly rejected? In other words, using an exact verbatim because options that implied some reflection were discarded by other editors who indiscriminately claimed WP:OR? How is this useful to the article? BTW, as I commented about a month ago in my statement in the RFC, let's leave further details to be discussed after adding some basic info! I agree with Gaba on that. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Andrés, no my point is not that “it could mean Argentine domestic law;” it is not up to me – or you – to guess which law was meant by claiming the referendum was “illegal.” I don’t actually know if it would or would not have been illegal under Argentine law if that law were applicable on the Islands (which it is not).
Even if your inference of the supposed relevant law from the context was faultless, it would be just your reasoning that the reader may or may not share.
As a matter of fact, your inference is questionable. Indeed, International Law deals with sovereignty only when independent countries are involved. That law becomes relevant at a later stage, after a sovereignty referendum is held to result in opting for independence, and when independence is proclaimed. As a rule, sovereignty referendums are mandated by domestic law. UN involvement is not a valid criterion, as the UN was involved in some sovereignty referendums (for instance the 1993 Eritrean referendum, the 1999 East Timor referendum or the 2011 South Sudanese referendum) and not involved in others (for instance the 1977 Aruba referendum, the 1987 New Caledonian referendum, the 1980 and 1995 Quebec referendums, the 1995 Bermudan referendum, or the 1967, 1993, 1998 and 2012 Puerto Rican referendums). I don’t expect the UN to be involved in the next year Scottish referendum or Catalan referendum either.
So the use of “illegal” would be confusing for the reader, and its possible replacement by “illegitimate” wouldn’t help as it remains equally unclear and confusing – illegitimate under which law?
As for your suggestion to “leave further details to be discussed after adding some basic info,” the basic info that “Argentina dismissed Falkland Islands' sovereignty referendum” is already there, and I believe that possible further details should be agreed first, preferably as a part of the comprehensive approach suggested by Kahastok. Apcbg (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Apcbg, when there is a referendum followed by a secession, domestic laws may regulate the referendum but, in the end, what matters is that the "mother" state concedes to the secession through some kind of treaty, followed by recognition by other states. In other words, the issue is elevated to the sphere of international law, because that is the law that matters for territorial sovereignty.
If the Argentine statements had been, for example, that the referendum did not comply to the stipulations of the Argentine Constitution regarding referendums, or something of the sort, then we could say that the alleged illegitimacy followed from arguments of domestic law. But they were referring to instances where the UN refused to accept the proposal that the islanders decide on sovereignty regardless of the will of Argentina, therefore referring to the sphere of international law. I am not guessing, but trying to make an inferential comprehension of the text in which I don't find me including any subjective assumptions of my own (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Now, let's imagine that Senator Aníbal Fernandez comes and tells us "Guys, when I said 'illegal' I was considering international law, as per my explanation, but I was also referring to the lack of formalities stipulated by the Argentine Constitution. I simply did not elaborate on that other part." Then, what would be the problem with saying that he said "illegal" or that he meant that it had no legal consequences? Why is it so necessary to get into his head (an impossible feat, even though it's large) and find out if he was thinking of domestic law too? The opinion of a lack of legal consequences is still meaningful.
I would love to be detailed about the Argentine explanations, but I very much doubt that we will reach an agreement, at least not anytime soon. Correct me if I'm wrong but, when we tried, some were arguing about not mentioning the UN at all, which sounds very much arbitrary to me. So let's add some more info, namely, that Argentina's position is that the referendum was ineffective, using "illegal", "illegitimate" or some of the phrases given above. Without that, a reader may wonder if Argentina's point was that the referendum was badly done, or if its authorities gave no explanation, etc. Then we'll see about offering more detail. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You wrote: “when there is a referendum followed by a secession, domestic laws may regulate the referendum but, in the end, what matters is that the "mother" state concedes to the secession through some kind of treaty, followed by recognition by other states. In other words, the issue is elevated to the sphere of international law.”
This is pretty much what I wrote: “International Law deals with sovereignty only when independent countries are involved. That law becomes relevant at a later stage, after a sovereignty referendum is held to result in opting for independence, and when independence is proclaimed.”
This does not happen (and thus the issue is not elevated to the sphere of International Law) when a referendum results not in independence but in some of the other possible options (such as integration or association with some country) or in preservation of the status quo.
Which was the case of the 2013 Falklands referendum. Apcbg (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
(Sorry I was redundant on that point.) If the domestic referendum process determines that no change of sovereignty is necessary, then the matter is obviously not elevated to the sphere of international law, because the are no consequences of that kind to advance. Domestic law may be important to the process, but it is international law that deals with its legal consequences or lack thereof. When the Argentine voices explained that they meant an absence of consequences, as well as the lack of UN approval to that kind of solution to the dispute, it was evident that the illegitimacy was in regards to international law, and not about stipulations in British law regulating the referendum. Moreover, the latter would have been a very odd statement coming from Argentine officers. Even if a reader contemplates such an odd interpretation, saying that "there were no legal consequences" would have the intended meaning. We can later (try to) detail the reasons for that argument, to make it clear to them that the Argentinians were not saying that the ballots were not handled as stipulated by British law and those sorts of things, but gave international-law arguments instead. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You wrote: “Domestic law may be important to the process, but it is international law that deals with its legal consequences or lack thereof.” No it does not deal with the possible legal consequences or lack thereof of referendums devoid of the option of independence. The 2013 Falklands referendum did not iclude that option, so International Law is not implied, not even hypothetically. Therefore, “there were no legal consequences” would not have the meaning you believe it would (and which, as we have seen, is questionable).
Furthermore, saying that “there were no legal consequences” would be confusing too, as it would suggest that someone (HMG? FIG?) is claiming there were such consequences. I am not aware of anyone having made any such claims. The referendum is not part of the Falklands legislative process, it is a political instrument that has political not legal consequences – not even indirectly as, for all I know, no adopted or pending legislation has been prompted by the referendum results. Apcbg (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Apcbg, I concede that "there were no legal consequences" would kind of suggest that there could have been immediate legal consequences. The referendum was sometimes presented in a way that may imply that it had consequences on the sovereignty dispute, so I don't think it's useless to comment that it didn't (and if you want to add that it was a publicity stunt, or something of the sort that was said, that's good imo). But I realize that "there were no legal consequences" is not quite the same as saying that it wasn't in accordance with (international) law.
As a side note, let me point out that independence was not out of the question, because (in theory) the referendum could have had a different result, indicating that the islanders did not want to remain British. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say that it was binding, but that a matter of independence was also on the table. Any referendum where a issue of territorial sovereignty is consulted is directed towards (possible) final consequences at the international-law level, because it is a that level where territorial sovereignty is dealt with. Of course there are domestic legal consequences as well (e.g., intermediate ones such as the creation or not of parliamentary commissions, and final ones such as redistribution of representation). But when these Argentine voices refer to a lack of legal consequences, they are evidently referring to final consequences in regards to the sovereignty question. It's the same argument I used before for "illegitimate"—it is implicit that the term was not used in regards to British law. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Andrés, what you are actually suggesting is that the statement “there were no legal consequences” should be interpreted as meaning that the 2013 Falklands referendum did not result in a prevailing ‘No’ vote that might have had a certain political consequence (holding a second referendum won by the pro-independence faction) that would have had another political consequence (declaration of independence) that would have had both legal (adoption of a new constitution etc.) and political (recognition or non-recognition of the Falklands independence by various countries) consequences that eventually would have elevated the issue – to borrow your wording – to the sphere of International Law.
Well, I doubt if this line of reasoning might be usable, let alone sourceable.
If we return to the Argentine dismissal of the referendum, the explanation of ‘Why’ is rather more straightforward and reasonable. Namely, the referendum is dismissed by Argentina because it is an act of self-determination, and Buenos Aires does not recognize that Falklander right (the latter needing no further elaboration here as it is explained and sourced elsewhere in the article). Apcbg (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Apcbg, it would be more objective and in-place to summarize the Argentine responses than to present our own elaboration of their motives. The quid of the responses was that the referendum did not follow from a proper legal framework, thus it did not have legal effects, being largely a publicity ("political"?) exercise. The lack of UN sanction, repeated by those voices, is indispensable to their argument. When I gave the last remarks above, it was not to present a detailed argument, but to demonstrate that it wasn't a problem that the voices were not explicit about which law was "legal" being referred to. The response was not deemed meaningless, because it was obviously not referred to British domestic law, and it was not important if it was intended in regards to Argentine domestic law too, besides its evident and more-important reference to international law. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me correct you, Gaba has always advocated the use of the word "illegal" and rejected other options out of hand. We're only at an impasse as he has insisted upon it. Langus' wording for example may be one way forward. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Gaba that suggestion was just semantics, "no legal value" is simply a synonym for illegal. Playing semantics is simply symptomatic of a poor argument and its a poor argument because your edits do not explain or help our readers understanding. Your constant personal attacks and pointing fingers blaming everyone but yourself shows where the problem lies. Discuss content not editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster: I'm simply pointing out that your assertion that I have "always advocated the use of the word "illegal" and rejected other options out of hand" is simply untrue. Not surprising though, as I and others have commented on your constant misrepresentations of other editors comments. Pointing out that it was in fact you who immediately opposed it is hardly an attack. It's a fact.
The issue is simple: we have a highly sourced piece of information of complete relevance to the article that you have been attempting to obscure since day 1 (that's 40 days and counting). That's a fact. Several editors added that information and you systematically removed it. That's another fact. You have not presented a single source that backs the edit you introduced into the article and Moriori removed (precisely because the source did not back the edit). Thats one more fact.
Your reasoning for censoring the proposed edit is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The wording proposed is present in at least 14 3rd party reliable sources (just the ones I quickly found), is 100% verifiable and in complete accordance with weight as it only requires the addition of 2 words (ie: as illegal) It's becoming increasingly clear that your only objective is to deter any form of consensus by refusing to get the point. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
No you're simply indulging in semantics and really its becoming arguing for arguings sake. I have set out my reasons for rejecting your edit and it has nothing to do with the motives you suggest in your blatant demonstration of bad faith. That a consensus has proved elusive is purely down to your refusal to compromise and insist it must be your edit and your edit only. I see no point in continuing this discussion, my only interest is to discuss content not editors and my comment to Andres was to simply to correct a misunderstanding on his part. You are welcome to the WP:LASTWORD as is your habit. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
@WCM, when I said "the other options", I meant the ones given right before, "having no legal value" being one. I was arguing that "illegal" is not the same thing. Please read more carefully before responding, this happens much too often. I suggest we collapse the block from your 11:50, 23 April comment to this one of mine, because it serves no purpose to the debate, being just this misapprehension and Gaba's rectification. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Any other editor here would apologize. Not Curry Monster's style. --Langus (t) 21:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I have nothing to apologise for. But Langus when I have I do [34], [35], [36]. And btw yes, Andres, it is the same thing. Note I have only responded because of further personal attacks to defend myself. Funnily enough all of these discussions now dissolve into 3 editors attacking anyone who disagrees with them and insisting everyone else is wrong. Yes this serves no purpose, none whatsoever. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster: "3 editors insisting everyone else is wrong"? That is funny because if I remember correctly it was you who unilaterally removed the edit from the article after 6 editors agreed to it in the talk page, insisting that everybody else was wrong. It's even funnier because there are right now 6 editors who have expressed that they are in favor of adding the edit and 2 editors (you and Kahastok) keep repeating they are all wrong and blocking said edit. Perhaps a reality check is in order? Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Cakwell & British protection

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

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


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

The passage says:


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

The sentence in the article suggests that, according to Vernet, it was Britain's right to form a permanent presence on the islands if it chose to. The sentence you are quoting says "in the event of the British returning", which puts that option in the same level as a cession or a high-handed act. I think we should use those words or something similar. And please bear in mind that the sentence is not the same as asking for permission, much less doing it formally. As a side note, it would be interesting to study a bit more on this issue, like looking at the primary sources or other secondary sources. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
No it does not, whilst I won't object to the change you made as it was one down purely to personal preference, the text that was in the article was equally acceptable. That was change for changes sake and was not a material improvement in the article; really it was pure WP:POINT but I can't be bothered to argue about it. And for information Vernet's correspondence is in the archive at Kew, I have a friend who has been studying this for some time. If you're in Buenos Aires a trip to the National Archives to look at Vernet's correspondence, which was donated by his family will be very illuminating about Vernet's dealings with the British. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
What would you say about trading a visit to the archives at Kew with a visit to the ones at Buenos Aires? Do you live near the latter? We could photograph some specific documents and trade the photos. I haven't used the BA archive but I think it is available for non-accredited visitors as long as the physical support is not in bad condition. There are some docs I want to consult from Kew, not really controversial points (actually, it would be a rather pro-British argument) but it may be expensive to request them by email. I'm waiting for a quotation but my worries are that, after reading the pages requested first, I will want to see other ones, and so forth. Ah, your friend doesn't happen to be Peter Pepper, right? BTW, these days I am trying, with some private collectors that my mother knows, to find an 1882 Latzina map. As you may know, there are discrepancies with pictures on the internet. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The Latzina map is relatively easy to track down. But which Latzina map, the original from 1882 or the "reprint" from 1889? [37]. If you know someone who has access to the Library of Congress, there is an original there that is in the public domain. I am in Glasgow and just about as far away from Kew as it is possible to get without getting wet. Not that it is any of your business but no it is not Peter Pepper or Graham Pascoe and I will not be revealing any personal information based on previous bad experiences of doing so. An email request for a scan costs £25 for information. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to the 1882 map. The Library of Congress doesn't seem to have one, the National Library does, but I would prefer to visit a private collector if I can. Too bad that Kew is not closer to Glasgow. If your non-PP friend is closer and interested, he or she can contact me (I'm using my real name thus I'm easy to find). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you'll find the Library of Congress has a copy listed in their catalogue. See [38] for the search engine. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Can I interject? I don't know whether my thought will help you. A simple concept arrived at by pure logic. There was no "Argentine" settlement on the Falkland Islands in 1832/3. Vernet was "granted" land on East Falkland in 1823 by the United Provinces of the River Plate. This had no validity as the territory had British sovereignty as of 1765. The Argentine claim that it "inherited" its claim to the Falklands from the Spanish is clearly ludicrous. There are various methods under international law for acquiring sovereignty over territory. "Inheritance" is not, and never has been, one of them. So we start with an illegal land grant. But this might be considered to be "corrected" by the British permission granted in 1826. However, on the logical basis that a "settlement" takes on the character of its leader, it should be noted that when Vernet was appointed "Political and Military Commander" on 13th June, 1829, that decree was issued by the Republic of Buenos Aires. Reference to the section 35 of the Argentine Constitution shows that the "Republic of Buenos Aires" is not a recognised "denomination". Therefore, any action by the "Republic of Buenos Aires" is not "Argentine". By the process of logic, the settlement was, in fact, British. The United Provinces garrison was, however, a foreign trespasser. And therefore could be "quite properly" expelled. With regard to the Argentine "claim", can I point out that the principle of uti possidetis juris put forward by Argentina is a solely Latin American interpretation. However, there is a reasonable legal principle. uti possidetis". The simple principle that what you possess at the end of an armed conflict is yours. uti possidetis" comes into play in 1982. At the end of the Falklands War, Britain was in possession of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Therefore, all Argentine claims are negated. Agent0060 14:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)
@Agent0060: there are several omissions in your reasoning. First of all, regarding the issues of inheritance and the "Buenos Aires" denomination, you are disregarding the concept of state succession, which can be consulted in general literature about international law. External uti possidetis juris (meaning the one affecting boundaries which were already international before the advent of the new states) was not just a domestic doctrine, because it was a practice commonly respected by foreign nations (customary practice being the utmost source of international law, see e.g. Oppenheimer) and, more importantly, because it was an instance of a generally-accepted law of state succession (see comments on uti possidetis juris in the ICJ's full judgement of the Burkina Faso–Mali frontier dispute).
On the other hand, it is doubtful that Britain had established sovereignty in 1765 of Port Egmont and absurd to argue that it had for the eastern portion of the archipelago. Moreover, its claim was affected by decades of abandonment and acquiescence to Spanish control. For authoritative sources that explain this you can consult, e.g., Reisman, Hope or Gustafson. With respect to sovereignty in 1833, their arguments, as well as other sources's, are summarized in these blog posts: [39] [40]. In the first of those posts I elaborate on the western vs. eastern-half distinction, which is not frequently treated.
Regarding your comments on uti possidetis, it is correct to say that status quo post belli (as in uti possidetis) was a typical mode of termination of a war, but so was status quo ante belli. An often-mentioned example of the latter was the conclusion of the Anglo–American war of 1812. Sometimes a mix was chosen, when details about which territories remain under the sovereignty of each state were given in a peace treaty. What uti possidetis actually established was that status quo post belli was the option "by default", meaning that any territory gained during the war would remain under the occupants unless the peace treaty gave contrary stipulations.
Regarding the applicability of the principle to the 1982 conflict, bear in mind, also, that doctrines related to "rights of conquest" have changed significantly since the advent of supranational organizations like the UN, and to a large extent they were suppressed. Those few cases in which the doctrine was revived included elements such as the losing state tacitly accepting to cede the occupied territory or an ample recognition from the international community (thus there being arguably any right from conquest by itself). Activity at the UN during and after the 1982 conflict, such as British arguments, Argentina's statements and votes by the international community, disavow the conjecture of uti possidetis. In particular, a UN resolution passed after the conflict, where it was stipulated that the events would not change the sovereignty question.
To finalize, please check the authority of your sources regarding the alleged 1826 permission. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Utis possidetis juris is not an universally accepted norm in International Law, and in the Burkina Faso–Mali frontier dispute both sides elected to adopt the principle. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Please notice that I am referring to general remarks about the principle that were made in that judgement, not to any particulars of that case. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9908453/Argentina-wont-back-down-over-Falklands-despite-illegal-referendum.html
  2. ^ "Falkland Islands: respect overwhelming 'yes' vote, Cameron tells Argentina". The Guardian. 12 March 2013. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
  3. ^ Falklands referendum: Voters choose to remain UK territory, BBC UK, 12 March 2013
  4. ^ http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130201/argentina-rejects-falklands-referendum-illegal
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute/Archive_17&oldid=1051985872"