Wikipedia

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 12

< Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Langus-TxT in topic International position
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

International position - Compromise

Latest comment: 11 years ago48 comments8 people in discussion

Ok, if this is going to move forward at all we need to start being specific about precisely what edits would allow us to reach a compromise. I note Wee and Kahastok have been complaining about POV and WP:WEIGHT in the section throughout this discussion, but have done so without pointing to any specific problem. Could I ask them what precise changes do they feel would have to be made to the section so it would not have those issues anymore? Because until now all they have proposed is "remove the section entirely" and not much else. For the record, I disagree with the section having those issues, but am willing to agree to a sensible compromise. Please be as specific as possible with the proposed changes and the reasons for them. Something like this would be ideal:

  • Original statement --> Proposed edit. Reason for the change.

Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask you, Gaba, how you would resolve this problem. Because the UK has de facto control of the islands, expressions of support for the British position are somewhat unnecessary and pointless. On the other hand Argentina wants sovereignty over the islands and therefore often brings up the subject at international meetings. The recorded statements of support are therefore likely to be biased towards the Argentine position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Well the expression of support being "unnecessary and pointless" is debatable, Argentina is obviously doing it hoping to put some pressure on the UK to sit down and negotiate. We could of course mention this in the section,l as best sourced as possible, and say something along the lines of what you just said. I think I can get a source for a very similar statement (that Argentina has something to gain from raising the issue and the UhihuK does not, hence it doesn't do it and hence the imbalance in the international opinions being voiced). Give me a couple of days to find it.
I believe a way to compromise could be to adhere to a strict "two reliable sources" rule. That way we would only add to the section positions we could source with at least two reliable sources and leave everything else out. What do you think about this? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
renaming the section "Continuing (Argentinian) diplomatic pressure" may take some of the issues away. It honestly reflects the theme of actual events. Positions, is tto vague, allows for POV misunderstandings.Irondome (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd definitely support the change in title, since most of the content being added is not about the International Position. Its about listing summits where Argentina has demanded a statement of support. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually Irondome, that title would be a clear violation of WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:NPOV and 100% unacceptable. I'd advise you to take a look at those guidelines if you haven't done so yet. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It also happens to be the reality of the situation Gaba Irondome (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself: if we can source that "Because the UK has de facto control of the islands, expressions of support for the British position are somewhat unnecessary and pointless" we could include it in the article, in lieu of WP:NPOV. That should clear things up, and leave everyone happy, right? --Langus (t) 01:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Then you can add.."Despite that, Argentina has continued to mount an aggressive international diplomatic campaign reasserting its FI claims, attempting to garner support from uninvolved countries both in the region and further afield..." Bet we could source that from the Uk media. Irondome (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@Irondome, everything we could add to the article must be properly and reliably sourced so we should focus on getting sources. Our own opinion regarding the reality of a situation couldn't have less weight in WP.

There are already two compromises being proposed here: adding a properly sourced opening paragraph commenting on the imbalance on voiced positions with regards to what each country has to gain from them and adhere to a "two reliable sources" rule to asses the inclusion or not of a country/group of countries position. Could I get opinions on these proposed compromises? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds like a plan. There are many UK media and think tank sources out there that have been saying that, I would wager. It would only balance the Argentine material anyway. It would be good for all sides.Irondome (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether the section remains is still a moot point, whilst I have indicated a willingness to compromise this is not carte blanche to recommence the effort to politicise the section to present the viewpoints of the editors concerned. Per NPOV, we should not be describing either position, other than from how neutral sources see it. Yes Irondome, we can easily source that comment from the UK media (equally from foreign media) but should we? If the section is to remain, then it must be in line with WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Sourcing that Argentina has embarked on an aggressive campaign to try and elicit support is OK but then sourcing out every summit where Argentina raises the issue isn't.

And I would like to see how Gaba p and Langus propose to demonstrate how the material they propose merits inclusion per WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Repeating the mantra that newspapers are reliable secondary sources and anything we can source must be included is not an acceptable answer. I expect a properly formulated logical argument. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested sources for weight:

Lawrence Freedman; Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse (1991). Signals of War: The Falklands Conflict of 1982. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-02344-1. Retrieved 28 January 2013.

Lowell S. Gustafson (1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 28 January 2013.

Please feel free to add. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wee you do not WP:OWN this or any other article. We don't have to get your permission to edit and improve it. Sometimes you seem to forget where you are. Look around, this isn't you personal blog see?
I find it amusing that Wee keeps referring to violations of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE but refuses to quote precisely which part of these guidelines is being violated. I think this speaks for itself.
Please read the comments in full Wee. I stated above I propose adhering to a "two reliable source" rule as a guideline to add a country's (or a group of countries) position to the article. Try to keep up.
And as I've proved quite a number of times and with several illustrating examples already, your position of "let's base everything we do on books" is beyond absurd. It'd be wise to drop it already and get on board with the rest of the editors here to try and get a compromise to improve the section. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Gaba, this has already been explained to you. The weight and due model is how the best reliable sources deal with the issue, this is standard wikipedia practice. Do you have any other high quality reliable sources about the sovereignty dispute to add? Something reported in a couple of newspapers doesn't suddenly make it relevant. (Hohum @) 15:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hohum, I've already explained that: 1- established newspaper are "reliable sources", 2-the standard that every topic in an article should be guided by extension found in books is not reasonable, virtually half of WP would absolutely not pass this test and hence would have to be removed, 3- relevance in WP is measured by its mention in reliable sources, not only in books.
"Something reported in a couple of newspapers doesn't suddenly make it relevant", this statement of yours, if applied indiscriminately all over WP, would be devastating. Please, check the Falklands Islands article and try to apply the standard of "extension measured by what books say" to sections like "Climate", "Biodiversity", "Demographics", "Infrastructure". All this sections would have to be removed according to that standard. This is not to mention entire articles like Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 and virtually any article regarding the Israel-Palestine dispute (just to name a few). I just can't stress it enough: it is not a reasonable standard.
I've proposed a standard to apply that lies in between "only what books say" and "everything found in reliable sources": we add only what we can source with two different reliable sources. I think this is a sensible standard to use. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Newspapers are lower quality sources than sources only about this sovereignty conflict or sovereignty conflicts in general. As already explained. Newspapers also don't help to determine what weight should be given to the subject. As already explained. Articles on the Earth do not have flat earth sections because the best reliable sources also don't include it. This is normal wikipedia practice. I have also repeatedly said that we shouldn't limit ourselves to the *content* of the sources as they may be out of date - but they are a good guide to weight and style. How many times does this have to be said until you hear it? (Hohum @) 16:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Look Gaba I have made a suggestion as to how to establish weight, its pretty much a standard for wikipedia. Hohum has patiently explained exactly the same thing to you. This is not about sourcing, its about weight and the continual references to your own strawman merely suggests you do not have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit here. Your suggestion to establish weight is not an acceptable one, anyone can find two separate newspaper reports, it offers no difference from your anything I can source must go in approach. Raised at WP:NPOVN here Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
(Wee: your personal attacks are getting old and tired. Seriously now: just drop it.)
Hohum: and as I've said already (a number of times actually), I completely agree that the ideal situation would be to have several published books exclusively about the international position on sovereignty disputes issue to use as a guide to weight. The issue is what to do when such ideal sources are not present and all we have to guide ourselves are reliable secondary sources such as newspapers.
I see you haven't answered my question as to how would this proposed standard apply to other articles (like the ones I mentioned)? Do you see yourself backing the deletion of several sections in Falklands Islands or the entire Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013? What would your position be if somebody decided to apply this same standard to other articles in WP? This is a serious question, what you are proposing is not "normal wikipedia practice" as can be immediately seen by searching through similar articles. I'm interested in your answer because so far all I've heard are repeated "strawman" accusations by Wee. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There aren't any sources? Nonsense [1], notice which one is first by the way. There are plenty, the trouble is the ones I've identified place little weight on the subject. So again, what you would propose to identify weight.
Again I've already answered you, it would have no effect whatsoever. We're suggesting a means of establishing weight and due NOT sourcing. I have repeatedly pointed this out, so frankly raising the same strawman is simply boring.
There is a willingness to compromise if you can establish weight and due, if you continue in the same vein, I will presume you're continuing to filibuster and I will implement the consensus to remove this section. This farce has dragged on long enough. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I am unsure if this is an acceptable source. Its from the Geopolitical Monitor, 16/07/12. Chris Ljungquist. Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?-Geopolitical Monitor http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/falklands-2012-war-or-diplomacy-4701
"Most analysts merely count two players in this dispute, namely the UK and Argentina, and rightfully so, since they are the actors whose relationship will ultimately decide the legal fate of the Islands" My point is that there appears to be no academic consensus of the relevance of the position of third parties. On that basis Gaba, I would say remove the section, until, or if, new viewpoints are published. Articles, however respectable as sources, merely reporting Argetinian initiatives, cannot compensate for this lack. Irondome (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Read again Wee: "the ideal situation would be to have several published books exclusively about the international position on sovereignty disputes issue to use as a guide to weight". Seriously, do you read the comments before you decide to go and repeat yet again the same argument? I've already stated my proposed standard for weighting measure like 4 times, but here it goes once again: we establish weight and due mentioning only what we can source by at least two reliable secondary sources. The extent of such mention can either be dictated by those same sources or we can simply agree to keep it short (which I think would be better).

Of course you have no consensus to remove the section and simply repeating the same threat over and over again makes you look a bit desperate. I'd suggest stopping. You've raised the matter at NPOV noticeboard now so let's see what other editors say over there.
Oh and by the way, I wasn't talking to you, I was asking Hohum to please answer those questions so I don't see why you felt the need give any kind of "answer". Ciao and regards.
@Irondome: that is a very interesting source you found. I note section "All Politics is International? The Tide of Multilateral Pressure" of that article where MERCOSUR, Latin America, Chile, Brazil and Spain's position are mentioned in the international context of the dispute. That article is definitely giving weight to the international position on the issue. The quote you mention refers to the non-inclusion of the islanders in the dispute Irondome, not the rest of the world. Good job finding this, it's a pretty good source to establish some WP:WEIGHT to the international position. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats not how I read it G. But there is some good stuff in there, especially the reality behind some national positions re this dispute.Irondome (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Would you be happy to use this as the primary source for a MUCH REDUCED section? I also strongly suggest the section be completely renamed. (See suggestions upthread I made on titles and opening sentence(s)). Lets see what the others think about this source first though, and its strength or otherwise. It seems quite neutral. Regards Irondome (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I would definitely be willing to use this as a guide to WP:WEIGHT and what countries to mention, but I have to point that no country backing the UK is mentioned which would leave the section looking a bit partisan. I'd say we should nonetheless try to source the statement mentioned above the Argentina has something to gain from raising the issue and the UK does not, which would explain the imbalance in opinions being voiced. As for the reduction of the section I note that much of it is being taken by the mentions of the UN and the USA which could easily be trimmed down. The re-naming of the section I disagree with, at least with the proposed one which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. But this can be of course discussed.
I also present this article by the same source which mentions the positions of a lot more countries regarding the dispute, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia and China. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Suggest "Continued Argentinian diplomatic efforts" Also this might be the place to insert the raison d etre of the Argentine diplomatic pressure of the FI dispute in terms of domestic imperatives. Irondome (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this an WP:SPS? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It doesnt look like it Irondome (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to deciding which countries to mention, there is already a Wikipedia mechanism in place to help. What we are looking for is a preponderance. If a country's position on the matter receives significant coverage in high-quality secondary sourcing (mainstream media and scholarly works), it is worth inclusion. If it fails to meet this standard, it should be excluded. It would also be useful to distinguish between the historical position of nations (signatories to treaties and whatnot) and the recent position of nations (particularly where that conflicts with the historical position). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@WCM: here's the logical argument by an uninvolved commentator of why international position is relevant: One of the four notions of sovereignty is "formal recognition by other sovereign states". Please remember it this time. --Langus (t) 23:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Gaba, I strongly feel we should move away from the listing countries according to their percieved attitudes re the dispute, and move towards a much more cogent overview of Argentinas actions and motivations, domestic and regionally, using this source and potentially other material from this site. Its Canadian, and would thus be an acceptably NPOV source. The listing of who loves who weakened the credibility of the section in the first place. The new source is a good summnation of events since the 90s. Its ideal to reinvent the section. It would make it a more intelligent and cogent section. The main issue now is to get a consensus and opinions as to whether the new source satisfies WP source reqs. Irondome (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Scjessey: "If a country's position on the matter receives significant coverage in high-quality secondary sourcing (mainstream media and scholarly works), it is worth inclusion". It's basically the standard for WP:WEIGHT I've been proposing for a while now (except that I offered to adhere to a more strict "two reliable sources" rule). I note that what Langus points out is also of relevance to establish the importance of such a section being present in the article.
@Irondome: the source you presented is a good one to give an idea of the weight assigned to the international position on the issue, it doesn't mean we should base the entire section on that article or only articles from that source (in fact: we should not, the more articles from reliable sources the better). The problem with attempting to come up with a summary like you propose is that it would be very difficult to come to an agreement. In this case, short mentions of individual (or grouped, as to avoid listing) positions could prove to be less prone to attract never-ending discussions.
This is what I suggest (all in one single section with separated paragraphs):
  • International position (title)
  • Opening paragraph about the disparity in pro-Argentinian and pro-British positions being voiced (properly sourced and neutral)
  • UN resolutions (briefly, mainly: "The UN does not recognize the islanders as having a right to self-determination hence Britain continually rejects the repeated UN's calls for resolving the issue through dialog with Argentina")
  • Mention of the US and EU neutral positions (the "Monroe Doctrine" should be moved to another part of the article as to not extend the US position too much) as major international players. The fact that the islands are listed as a British OCT by the EU and the Commonwealth should be mentioned too.
  • Mention of the majority of Latin American states backing Argentina (as per article presented by Irondome, the article presented by me and this article accessible here, section 3.1). China should be added here too being another major international player.
  • Finally Spain's position could be mentioned (this is debatable)
That's my proposal and I am of course open to hear comments and/or corrections. It should end up being quite shorter than the current section and easier to source too. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Significant coverage is, of course, open to interpretation. Normally, we are talking about a selection of references in high-quality examples of national and international press. The number of references is not as important as their quality. On a separate not and without wishing to belittle certain nations, I think it is also important to consider that the views of some nations (such as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council) are more significant than the views of some random island in the middle of the Pacific. Also, I cannot see why the status of Gibraltar is relevant to this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed about the coverage. What nations members of the United Nations Security Council are you referring to specifically? And what islands in the Pacific? My proposed edit mentions no islands in the pacific (at least not separately) and if positions of countries members of the United Nations Security Council can be sourced, then I'd be open to include them. I actually have no issue with the length of the section and the inclusion of other countries' positions, other editors do. My proposed edit aimed at trimming it down a bit to compromise with their view.
Noted about Gibraltar, apparently I'm the only one who thinks it has any relevance. I'll remove any mention of it from my proposed edit above. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I meant the entire UNSC, but I had no particular island nation in mind (hence the use of the word "random"). I was just making a point that the views of highly influential nations are perhaps more important than the views of nations with very little influence on the world stage. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it's worth starting out by pointing out that this is a blog entry and thus not a reliable source. It is also not a neutral source - the blogger concerned sets his bias out very clearly. So even if it were not a blog I would be inclined to give it a very low priority.
I would suggest that it is clear that routine news coverage of the routine statements made by routine summits - which is what Gaba's proposals have been primarily based on - do not constitute appropriate sourcing for the weight to be given to this section in an article on the dispute as a whole. That's not to say they shouldn't ever be used to source facts, only that they aren't suitable for judging weight.
And that does not mean that more general news articles about the dispute as a whole are in the same category - these can take their place along with the books that Curry Monster has already cited, based on the quality of the sourcing. That said, it isn't simply a matter of, one article, and it belongs in all its gory detail. It doesn't mean we should be in the business of listing any country we can source to a given standard as Gaba has proposed. Rather, we should judge the weight in all the sources can have on the subject of the dispute and use the position as a whole to judge the weight in the article.
It may be that a single neutral sentence is appropriate. But I don't see any evidence to maintain anything like the detail the previous section has, let alone the increase that Gaba has proposed. Kahastok talk 22:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The site is in no way a "blog". WCM has expressed his support for its usage, and I will continue to press for it. I suggest you go and read my argument for its usage at RS. Title is Geopoliticalmonitor usage in FI dispute. Yes i was concerned a bit by the tone of the second article, but it aint no blog. Its a Canadian think tank, with considerably weighty content. That site should be used. Not necessarily that article however, as it does appear biased, re the very title.Irondome (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
To be fair I expressed my own doubts about the site and I entertain some doubts that its use shouldn't require some caution by editors. It does appear to offer the opportunity for self-published commentary, rather like the the UK publication the Spectator. I anticipate some coverage may well be biased, so a site to be used with caution - please note the article in question could be used to support the position I suggest and yet I am suggesting its use be qualified. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The site is not a blog. But the post is a repost of this blog post. So, the source in that case is a blog. That doesn't invalidate the entire site, but it does mean that we shouldn't be using the post, and we should probably be cautious with the rest of the site - without dismissing it out of hand. Kahastok talk 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I was not advocating the usage of that article per se. Gaba dug it up. I propose to use the more neutral and up to date article that I originally identified and brought to editorial attention. See above. Regards Irondome (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
This does illustrate the problem, whilst some articles are clearly neutral, others are effectively WP:SPS. Some are appropriate for wikipedia, some not, it requires some value judgement with each case on its merits. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Some of the contributors appear to be "staff", including the author of the piece I originally identified. Others appear not to be, as is the case with Gabas choice. Indeed caution must be applied. But its still better than a mess of media sources I would contend. Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We find ourselves in agreement, if I may venture to suggest whilst caution and common sense may be appropriate where editors are prepared to cooperate and evaluate sources objectively, when they wish to advocate a particular POV, that goes out of the window. I rather suspect we may find ourselves having anything on the site declared reliable or face an accusation of double standards. Leaping from the frying pan springs to mind... Wee Curry Monster talk 23:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a potential pitfall. As a workaround for now, I would suggest only using the authors who are listed in "people" on the site. Their biogs and qualifications are listed. Their material appears better, in all senses.Irondome (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the principle you suggest and in future any contentious material should be referred to RSN. How does that sound? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. That way we can iron out any issues before sources are deployed. Will cut the grief dead that way. Excellent Irondome (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Ljungquist's article is suitable, and to adhere strictly to contributors listed in the "People" section. --Langus (t) 02:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
That's helpful. Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove International position section

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

I have often wondered on the value of having the "International position" section for a number of reasons.

1. The position of individual countries depends not on the merits of either claim, rather they are fixed by narrow national self-interest.
2. In most cases, individual countries do not have a strong opinion either way.
3. Its a waste of valuable editing time, resulting in numerous edit wars as Argentina raises the issue at every regional summit, at every session of the UN, at every session of the UN C24 and produces a press statement for every international visit or diplomatic mission. Every occasion is a vital statement of support that simply must be mentioned.

I note that once again, the talk page is paralysed by demands to emphasise the International support for Argentina, whilst at the same time trying to minimise that for Britain. I think the time has come to simply consider removing it altogether as it does not add materially to the article. Referring to other articles concerning sovereignty dispute, none feel the need to state International positions.

Spratly Islands dispute, Senkaku Islands dispute, Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain, Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute, Sino-Indian border dispute

Why should this article have a separate section that doesn't materially add to the article, results in numerous unnecessary edit wars and in many cases is simply a vehicle for claiming support for Argentina, when in most cases such support is equivocal at best. I realise this will de-emphasise the support that the UK has but I don't think it has a material effect for WP:NPOV. I am therefore proposing to remove this section. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

[2] introduced by now banned user User:Astrotrain see [3] Wee Curry Monster talk 17:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I support this change. I think it's fair to say that the whole section causes significantly more trouble than it is worth, and deletion would be of net benefit to the encyclopædia. Kahastok talk 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I also support this change. As Kahastok and also most countries views are weak on the matter, they'll agree at conferences but not follow up as it is of little interest to most. Which is probably why it hards to source anything. Additional unless a third party promised support in a war it would make little difference anyway. Bevo74 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm against this change. I think the information is useful and undoubtedly adds to the article. It worries me to think that article content could be being removed just to satisfy a POV, as it already happened to the Argentina's position on islanders citizenship section.
Also, note that the editor who introduced this section did so in the context of a major article expansion: see before and after. --Langus (t) 19:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I support the change, too, per Kahastok's reasoning. Apcbg (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
As a way of dealing with a lot of dubiously-notable individual items which together might amount to something definitely-notable, what about a comment along the lines of "Various expressions of support have been made for the Argentine position (refs), for the British position (refs), and for a negotiated settlement (refs)? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I support this move. Although I have not particiapted, I have watched it and it is little more than a "My daddy is bigger than your daddy" type battle. Martinvl (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is really hard to believe. The section apparently was perfectly alright (specially according to editors Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok who defended its state time after time) until not long ago, but after I start bringing in sourced and current information that demonstrates that the section is terribly pro-British biased, then the section has to go. The section is of vital value since it shows the position of the rest of the world regarding the issue, it amazes me that its removal is being proposed. I of course oppose 100% and I note that editors Wee and Kahastok have blanket reverted my edits giving as reasons only vague statements of POV and "not consensus". Kahastok: your continuous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude saying "I've already said why" when everyone here knows that you did not, has not go unnoticed.
If the reason for wanting to remove this section is that it introduces a lot of work to the article, then I propose moving it to its own article: International position regarding the Falkland Islands. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that User:Gaba p opposes move but also that his comments relate only to editors not content below. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have restored this section from the archive because it relates to a current discussion. Kahastok talk 18:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Separate section for comments on individual editors

I would be grateful if editors could confine comments on editors to this section. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I've never been happy this was appropriate and that content fork is not appropriate. Please note the comments on content. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I have again moved the rambling personal attack to a separate section, simply because such rambling personal attacks have become a ruse for long tendentious discussions that have no relation to content and a means of blocking progress in any discussion. Feel free to report this to WP:ANI but I feel this is definitely in accordance with WP:IAR, I have not modified your comment in any way shape or form and I'm not refactoring the discussion. If of course you do go to WP:ANI your aggressive personal attacks will be scrutinised so watch out for that WP:BOOMERANG. If you have a comment on content rather than editors you are welcome to contribute to the content discussion above. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad sourcing

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I removed two sources that did not verify Chinese support for Argentine sovereignty. The first simply reported on what the Argentine president said, not what the Chinese government did. The second was from "Finance Online", which is not a reliable source. Two new references put in by another editor are acceptable. On a matter like this, sourcing must be impeccable. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have restored this section from the archive because it relates to a current discussion. Kahastok talk 18:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gabas proposed sources. Lets rebuild the section here.

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
Gaba, im sorry for my intemperate tone. Born out of a very bad day, chaos here and a too fast reading of a large amount of new material. Your propsal is more subtle than a mere list of countries. I thought you had returned to some default position initally and I apologise. Lets just use this section as a discussion ground for your propsals re the structure of the section. Thanks and regards Irondome (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I would agree to Gaba's proposed structure above.[4] In case we couldn't source the introductory paragraph, the current one could be used. --Langus (t) 03:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I would oppose it because the weight provided by the sources we have on the subject of the dispute (taken as a whole) would not justify such a large section. If we are to include something, I believe we should be aiming for something no longer than a sentence or two, dealing in generalities.
Could I suggest we keep further discussion to this section please? The above mix of sections on the same thing is confusing. Kahastok talk 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The proposal was to delete the current content to be replaced by a short and concise section, the weight of its contents based on academic sources. That I can support, a large section I agree is unwarranted. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with that. The article is actually fine as it is, all the major recent develpments appear effectively covered and cited. It would have to be short. We had a section that was of excessive length, covering not a lot of critical substance really. Irondome (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC).
Ok, I have my doubts but let's move forward. Have you formed an idea of what its content should be? --Langus (t) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Langus obviously has issues with my presence here. Having been invited to come here, I appear to be percieved by some as a second class Wikicitizen. Therefore I will leave you all to it.Thanks for the kind words and valuable experience that many have given me, on both sides of the debate, especially Wee and Gaba. Cheers.Irondome (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I remain willing to work toward a concensus text, reflecting weight in the literature and written neutrally. I don't consider your second class Irondome. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would echo that. I would add that I don't find the whole WP:CANVASS accusation at all convincing given that Curry Monster's post was neutrally written and given that none of us had any knowledge of your viewpoint (or even if you had one). Shoot, given the case of mistaken identity, even if Curry Monster had been trying to WP:CANVASS inappropriately he would have failed! Kahastok talk 19:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I hadnt thought of it like that. LOL Irondome (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Applied section as proposed and agreed here. It's much shorter and heavily sourced. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That section is not agreed, it contains some seriously misleading and untrue claims. The UN at no point states that is does not recognise the islanders right to self-determination. The whole section is seriously POV. I would suggest this is reverted immediately. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It was never agreed, certainly never had consensus. Its bias as written is extreme and it totally and entirely fails follow the weight provided by the reliable sources (including those that don't give any significant weight), both in the amount of coverage it gives to the topic and the amount of coverage it gives to each point within it. Notably, whereas the source we have has numerous caveats that point out that the support referred to is very nuanced, no such nuance is presented in the proposal. Notably several of the points it makes are plain false, either in fact or in implication. I don't think there's a thing in there that I can support. Kahastok talk 21:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Irondome, you have provided valuable help in moving forward this disagreement. However, I do have issues with the way you were called in. You state that you had "no contact in any meaningful way with WCM"[5], yet he said to you "As you're aware, I value your ability to provide a neutral summary of debates in closing RFC."[6] What gives?

Update: I've just seen the explanation here. I apologize to you. And I warn WCM that I (and most editors) will never accept a RFC he started being closed by an editor he called in. He should know better...

Anyhow, I apologize if my concerns offend you, but I'm sure you'll understand I have nothing against you as an editor, on the contrary. --Langus (t) 00:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

UN

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

My apologies if this has been covered before. Can someone show me the source that specifically supports "[t]he UN does not recognize the islanders as having a right to self-determination" in the article? I was unable to find it in the references given. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The UN does not make any such statement. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's an article [7] but I'm sure a better source can be found. The sentence can also be re-phrased to something like:


Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you really just source this to Hector Timerman, the Argentine Foreign Minister? Frankly, the notion that anyone could think that neutral is breathtaking. Kahastok talk 21:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No I did not. I used the 'Buenos Aires Herald' as a source and as I've stated above, the sentence can easily be re-phrased. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
And the Buenos Aires Herald directly attributed the point to Timerman. So, yes, you did.
The sentence does not belong unless reliable sources on the subject of the dispute suggest that such weight belongs on the article. I have yet to see any such evidence: the sources I have seen do not suggest that it belongs at all. Kahastok talk 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look below Kahastok. The sentence has been reformulated. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So the answer to my question was, quite simply, that the references did not support the statement at all. Thanks to Wee Curry Monster for a straight answer. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Self determination

It is my understanding that the General Assembly of the United Nations said in Resolution 1514 that all people have a right to self-determination. On that basis, surely the UN effectively supports the position of the UK? This differs quite significantly from some of the proposed text below, some of which seems to infer the exact opposite. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scjessey, it's not quite so simple. Let me point you to this article by the UK Parliament which I believe summarizes the dispute rather well: Argentina and the Falklands. You'll see in it a section called 3.3 The Falklands at the United Nations which should give you a broad idea of the issue.
Basically (as I see it) since the UN has not made any mention to the self-determination principle regarding the Falklands/Malvinas dispute in its resolutions calling for negotiations, it is not clear whether it supports it being applied to this particular case. Argentina says it does not apply, the UK says it does. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
But the Decolonization Committee (that made the "resolutions") is not the United Nations. It is simply a small faction within the UN that consists primarily of former colonies - not at all representative of the General Assembly. The UN as a whole appears to support the UK position that the people of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
That's correct, it's a committee, not the same as the UN General Assembly. Whether the UN as a whole supports or not the islanders right to self-determination is part of the issue. To the best of my knowledge they have never issued a resolution (or note or anything) that states this much. Meanwhile the C24 (as a committee of the UN) has stated several resolutions calling the UK to resume negotiations with Argentina and the islanders have not been mentioned. Thus the issue of the ambiguity, the UK says these resolutions are "flawed" (because there's no mention of the islanders) and Argentina takes this "no mention" as an implicit agreement that they in fact do not have such support. The UK says the UN upholds the right to self-determination but Argentina says the UN's resolution does not apply in this case being the islanders an implanted population.
It would be great if we had something to source about the position of the UN's General Assembly on the issue but I believe there is nothing (WCM noted the last resolution passed in 1988).
Sorry if this response went a little forumy. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I am confused. Resolution 1514 is the position of the UN General Assembly. That covers all people, and by extension, the people of the Falkland Islands. It would seem the C24 is a toothless committee comprising nations with an axe to grind. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The above comment by Gaba p is inaqccurate, it doesn't represent the role of the UN and misrepresents the role of the C24. The UN as a body has two forums for expressing a collective opinion, these are the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly. The C24 is a sub-committee of the IV committee and its role is to pass recommendations to the IV Committee not to express an opinion of the UN as a body. Its motions are annually adopted without a vote. The C24 as a body is not qualified to comment on any right to self-determination and the only UN body that is, is the International Court of Justice.

The UN does uphold the right to self-determination, an Argentine sponsored attempt to limit that right in cases of a sovereignty dispute was convincingly defeated in the UN General Assembly.

It is accurate and neutral to note that Argentina misrepresents C24 resolutions as UN resolutions, when they are not, and C24 statements as the UN qualifying the right to self-determination, when they do not. It is also accurate to note that C24 recommendations to the IV Committee on the matter have simply been ignored and the General Assembly has not debated the issue as a result. The fact it doesn't make it into the GA indicates a lack of International will to intervene further in the dispute. (And before there is mention of the UK's position as a permanent SC member, this has no bearing on GA resolutions).

It is also accurate and neutral to note the UK (and the US) has criticised the C24 as flawed and anachronistic body for not considering the views of the people of overseas territories. In Bermuda for example, the C24 has twice pushed referenda on full independence but on both occasions that was rejected by the electorate. By any criteria specified by the UN, British and American overseas territories should have been delisted years ago. Neither Government supports the C24 anymore, for years the UK did not attend, the US refuses to. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Anything we might say about this in the article needs to be sourced. Our personal opinions mater quite little. If you look at the next section my proposed edit is fully sourced and makes no inaccuracies whatsoever. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, this is what was in place (before Wee and Kahastok deleted it) about the UN in the article[8]:


In 1946 the UK included the Falkland Islands on the UN list of non-self-governing territories under Chapter XI of the UN charter.[3] However, the General Assembly of the United Nations did not explicitly address the issue of the Falkland Islands until 1965, which Resolution 2065 noted[4]:

the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over [said] Islands

inviting those governments to:

proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly UN Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

and requested:

the two Governments to report to the Special Committee and to the General Assembly at its twenty-first session on the results of the negotiations.

The UN General Assembly and the UN Decolonization Committee have repeated this call for the resumption of negotiations since then[5][1] given that Britain refuses to negotiate the sovereignty of the islands, stating that the resolutions are "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future."[6] The Falkland Islands Government has requested that the UN Decolonization Committee send a fact finding mission to the islands.[7] To date, that request has not been answered (the committee has never visited the islands). Following the visit by the chairman of the C24 to Argentina, the FIG called for a reciprocal visit to the islands.[8]


I believe this (although flawed in some respects) was a lot more informative/encyclopedic than the minimal version that they (Wee and Kahastok) are asking for now. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

My comment simply gave facts about the way the UN operates, nothing more. The comments preceding it are misleading, nothing more. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

International position

Latest comment: 11 years ago68 comments9 people in discussion

The position of third countries or international organizations on the sovereignty of the islands is varied. Whilst some countries consider it a bilateral issue, others maintain neutrality but call on both countries to resolve the dispute through peaceful means or to begin dialogue. Some countries support outright either the British or the Argentine claim.[9][10][11]

The UN has issued several resolutions calling the UK to resolve the dispute through dialog with Argentina.[1] Britain rejects this calls claiming the resolutions are "flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future"[12]

Both the USA and the EU maintain a neutral position encouraging both parties to resolve differences through normal diplomatic channels[13][14]. The Commonwealth of nations and the EU list the islands as a British overseas country or territory.[15][16].

The majority of Latin American states back Argentina in its claim for sovereignty [17][18][19][20][21][22] and have repeatedly endorsed Argentine proposals calling the United Kingdom to restart the negotiations.[23][24][25][26]. China has also repeatedly endorsed the Argentinian claim over the islands.[27][28]

The Spanish government has supported Argentina's call for negotiations over sovereignty and has expressed so in the framework of the Ibero-American summit, the UN and the OAS.[29]

I this is the starting point, then I propose that we drop it and start from scratch. I don't think there's a single point in there that is acceptable to me on the basis of the sources I have seen about the dispute. Kahastok talk 21:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of proposing to once again drop the section, why not address the issues you have with it separately? The section is factored in blocks as to be able to address them one by one. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say we should drop the section, I said we should drop this as a starting point for discussion. It's far too long. It does not in any sense follow the WP:WEIGHT provided by those reliable sources on the subject that address the point. It gives too much WP:WEIGHT to the section as a whole. I don't believe the section contains a single point that meets even adequate standards of neutrality - from the failure to include the nuances and limits in Latin American positions (those nuances are pretty much the most important points based on this source) to the UN's "several resolutions" that turn out not to have anything to do with what most readers are going to understand by a United Nations "resolution" (that would be the General Assembly or Security Council). As I say, I really don't think there's a thing in there that I can support.
And as such I really don't think it's somewhere we should be starting. Our best option would be to drop this completely and find a better place to start. Kahastok talk 22:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that as a useful starting point either, it certainly doesn't correspond with the paper identified by Irondome. What is needed is a brief, neutral and concise proposal giving weight due to the literature. I don't believe this fits the bill at all. I don't think it needs much more than:


Even the above I think is lending more weight to the subject than the literature would tend to suggest. I would suggest it needs to be more concise - the above can be cited to the source suggested by Irondome in the main. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


Lets get back to basics, to coin a phrase.
  • What is the purpose of the section?
  • What is the most we can say, covering all noteworthy events, in the least possible space?

I would suggest we use the Lindgquist article as a basic structural frame. For now. Irondome (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the above paragraph. This is all we need really I would argue. Just a short, roundoff section. It really isnt that controversial.Irondome (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Gaba do we need no less than 10 seperate cites to state that the SA nations support As stance? Its serious overkill.Irondome (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
We are making good progress here. Gabas proposal in terms of length is a reasonable opening bid. Now if we can merge the best of both Wee and Gabas drafts, and cut the cites, to my mind OTT numbers, we would be in business. Irondome (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Irondome no we don't need that much sources, we can just pick a few. About Wee's proposal:

  1. First paragraph (present in my proposal too): it mainly makes a number of vague WP:OR statements not supported by the sources in place and takes up space. I say we loose it.
  2. "in part due to its own domestic political situation", this implies that all Argentina is after is a distraction from economic problems and it's an attempt to downplay the claim.
  3. "the region is generally lukewarm to appeals from Argentina", this "lukewarm" thing could only be sourced by that article and it's again an attempt to downplay the Latin American support that can be sourced to countless summits (OAS, Ibero-American, UNASUR, RIO Summit, etc..) Furthermore the article refers to the 6th Summit of the Americas, were a joint statement regarding the backing of the Argentinian position was hindered by the US and Canada (2 out of 34 countries present)[9][10] We can't mention the first without mentioning the second so I say we re-phrase it.
  4. The mention of Spain and that "its support has cooled" is dubious, but largely acceptable.
  5. "The British Commonwealth supports the British position", can you source this? All I've found (currently present in the article) is a primary source from the Commonwealth's site that says nothing about "supporting", it merely lists it as an OCT.[11] So basically: source needed.
  6. "EU recognises the islands as a British Overseas Territory", again the same thing. The EU doesn't "recognize" them as British territory, they "list" them as such because the UK added them to the Lisbon Treaty. The neutral position of the EU can be sourced which would make this sentence quite deceptive.
  7. Why is there no mention of the UN?

Given this caveats, I propose this compromise:


I believe this to be a reasonable middle ground and it's even shorter than the previous proposed edit. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to it: I had some of the concerns you addressed above. I would agree to the above version, noting only that EU's official policy of neutrality needs referencing. --Langus (t) 01:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
There's two sources for that that I've found so far: [10][31]. Pretty sure more can be found. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


Actually, I don't see that as a reasonable middle ground in its current form. The UN C24 is a a sub-committee of the UN IV Committee. Typically the sub-committe issues a annual statement, without a vote, and not one has been adopted by the IV Committee in years. The IV Committee itself only issues recommendations to the UN GA. The C24 itself is dominated by Latin American countries, so in effect the notional support of Latin America is being counted twice. The UN itself has not issued a GA resolution since 1988 (will check that date but it has been a while). Several Argentine attempts to have GA resolutions passed have failed miserably. And finally, Argentina typically misrepresents UN C24 statemensts as "UN resolutions", which they are not.
In addition, the UK has not rejected UN resolutions, it rejects the C24 statements as flawed. Neither does it refuse to negotiate, it has stated it will only negotiate with Argentina with the consent of the islanders. Argentina claims to want to talk to the UK but only on its terms, only today after demanding talks with the UK, and the UK having acceded to that request did Argentina rebuff the offer when it found FIG representatives would be present.
So the statements attributed to the UN situation are inaccurate. The situation is nowhere as simple as that edit portrays.
Neutral commentators do mention that Argentina's diplomatic agenda is driven by internal political considerations. It in no way downplays the claim but it explains in part the reason for it. I see no reason to not mention it.
Also Latin America expresses support and not a lot else, we have a neutral academic source that comments on this, why not mention it. After all we would wish to overstate the support enjoyed for reasons of neutrality; you could hardly claim I over exaggerated the British support, though I note you've attempted to downplay it and yes it can be cited.
I have to note with some regret that the process agreed to in formulating this section is not being followed. If we're going to cut it down might I suggest in response:


I'm suggesting again a change in title, as it is the section is not about the position of other nations. I feel this is a much better fit. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I do like International Dimension. I think we should cut the UN C24 stuff a bit. Why havent they visited the FI if they are balanced? I propose that can be explored further slightly. Any sources to explain this that you have G? Im afraid I wont be able to give any more coherent responses tonight as im discussing things with mr Strongbow (cider) and im still concerned about my 88year old mothers health, which I may have alluded to. I seem to have slipped into the role of carer unawares. It doesnt help my rather frayed nerves which I have been battling with for 5 years. (Long story)
Bottom line is im a bit mentally tired. But lets keep going. "All shall come right" on this, to quote Jan Smuts. Good night lads. Irondome (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to argue that the UN committee for decolonization isn't relevant regarding the sovereignty dispute of a former colony listed as a "Non-Self-Governing Territories"[12]. Wee if you feel some countries are being counted twice then this can be addressed. Your own feelings about Argentina misrepresenting anything are irrelevant. We are not misrepresenting anything here, the committee is being mentioned, not the UN as a whole.
@Irondome: do you want to cut or expand on the UN C24? The fact that they haven't visited the islands can be mentioned but this would only expand that paragraph.
Again, this "in part due to its own domestic political situation" is a POV push and is not acceptable due to it being an obvious attempt at downplaying the Argentinian position. Let's do this: you bring in the "neutral" commentators that say this and we discuss it.
Care to present your sources for the Commonwealth and the EU "recognizing" the islands as British territory? As I've noted, there is a huge difference between "recognizing" and merely "listing. You know as well as I do that the EU's neutral position can be easily sourced and that it only lists the islands because the UK put them there. This is just silly arguing.
International "dimension" sounds like we are purposely trying to make the section vague. There's nothing wrong with "position" since we are actually mentioning positions.
Following Wee's new proposed edition, here's a new compromise:


Again, this is a much shorter version than the original one and one that presents only the most relevant positions, largely based on Irondome's source as suggested. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Can we suggest that there is an inbuilt bias to the C24 stance? Your wording intimates it, so I would be realitively comfortable with that. In some ways it reminds me of the automatic majority of the O.I.C. members in the UN GA re: I/P. I am not suggesting for a sec the motivations or intentions are in any way similar, but there are parallels. But thats for our own reflections, not the section. I would suggest "maintains" to substitute "claims" re the UK position on the C24 declarations. The C24 stance does seem to be ignoring the inherent right of self determination. There does seem to be an element of double standards in their approach. I would suggest reducing the number of C24 cites to maybe 2-3 max. Again, a bit of overkill would seem to be present to an uninitiated reader. Yeah I would try to precis the C24 stuff down a bit further. Cheers. Irondome (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously going to stay out of the content arguments so as to remain neutral. However I did want to say that it is pleasing to see the different sides here working collaboratively towards a compromise. It seems there has already been agreement from the main parties that a section is justified even if significantly shorter than before which seems to be a huge improvement from the time of the RfC. This back and forth with concrete proposals and commenting only on the issue at hand rather than the editors themselves is the way forward and probably has the best chance of reaching a compromise. If a compromise can't be reached then at least there should be better defined questions for an RfC. If it is felt necessary to start another RfC to break a deadlock can I suggest that interested parties try to reach agreement on the RfC statement before posting it as this will be more likely to lead to a solution that everyone accepts even if it's not the one they desire. I'd like to suggest that editors refrain from commenting on other editors and accept that they have different views. If a compromise can't be reached on an issue I would suggest that the way forward may best be for the sides to admit this before temperatures get too hot and to leave that question for a later RfC once a full list of disagreements had been reached. I'm in no way dictating this way forward and if the parties agree to a different way forward that will likely be better still. I'm just trying to suggest ways to avoid what happened before. Dpmuk (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A mentioned of the UN was requested, not the C24, and I've indicated why I don't think the reference to the C24 should receive quite such prominence. The C24 is not a body that has any real power, it exists to make recommendations to the IV committee, which has ignored it for years. Its also a body that has been widely criticised as no longer fit for purpose; as many commentators observe the devolved Government of BOT should have led to their delisting some time ago. As noted above the C24 also has an inbuilt bias. Your edit isn't representing a middle ground or a neutral viewpoint, its presenting facts selectively.
You also use a provocative term describing my comment on Argentine domestic politics as a "POV push". You also assert this is an attempt to downplay Argentine reasons for doing so. Please note that this derives from the source Irondome suggested, it isn't a personal viewpoint and its a common observation by commentators. Mention of this reflects the WP:WEIGHT of opinion in the literature. There is a compelling reason for including it, it explains why Argentina pursues the course it does. And noting my next point, I give a good policy based reason for the inclusion of such a comment, if it isn't to be mentioned give a reason that is not a veiled personal attack on the original author please.
In addition, I did not express a personal opinion, I stated a fact. Argentina makes a great deal of fuss about wanting talks, the truth is rather different. Note also I was commenting on your edit, which does not present a NPOV, its misleading and does not paint an accurate picture. Can we please move away from the constant reiteration of the same position if you wish to achieve a consensus.


Again please note my comments on the edit, not the editor. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

{{cquote| International dimension

Why are will still trying to claim that calling for negotiations is supporting Argentinians claims to the islands?Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Good point.


How is that better? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


@Slatersteven: The position of most Latin American countries is of clear support for the Argentinian sovereignty claim. I see you are still not convinced about this, so let me present another source, this one from the UK Parliament's site itself: Argentina and the Falklands

  • Latin American countries generally, and all those in MERCOSUR (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, with associate members Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Peru) support Argentina’s claims in the sovereignty dispute (although Guatemala also supports the principle of self-determination), along with China, Syria, Tunisia, Congo and Russia.
  • On 23 February 2010 Latin America and Caribbean leaders in the Rio Group of 32 countries concluded a two-day summit in Mexico by showing solidarity with Argentina over the Falklands, reaffirming what they called the "legitimate rights of the republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain".
  • Mercosur’s support for the Argentinean claim goes back to 25 June 1996, when Mercosur Member States, plus Bolivia and Chile, expressed in the Declaration of Potrero de los Funes their full support for Argentina’s "legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute related to the Question of the Malvinas Islands".
  • The launch of another Latin–American grouping, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which has voiced its support for the Argentinean sovereignty claim, has added to the growing number of South American countries and organisations which support the Argentinean position.
  • At the Rio Group meeting at which CELAC was agreed, it was very clear that the new grouping intended to press for a resumption of UK-Argentina talks about sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, and that CELAC firmly supported the latter’s claim.

@Wee: once again I note that you refuse to leave the EU position as neutral and keep using the word "recognizes" for it and the Commonwealth. This is inaccurate to say the least. Present sources please.
The committee for decolonization needs to be mentioned in an article about the dispute for a former colony, it's of complete relevance. What you think personally about the committee and its usefulness is frankly irrelevant. Please see "3.3 The Falklands at the United Nations" of Argentina and the Falklands, the mention of this committee is even given its own section.

The comment about "Argentina's domestic politics" is inflammatory and directly aimed at downplaying their claim. Argentina upholds its own constitution, let me quote the UK parliament again (Argentina and the Falklands):

  • This Note looks briefly at the government in Argentina under Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who has pursued the Argentinean claim to sovereignty of the Falkland Islands as a constitutional mandate.

(emphasis added)

Furthermore, comments on Argentina's political/economical "interests" in the dispute would obviously have to be met with comment's on British "interests" in the dispute (ie: oil) which would only make the section bigger. In any case, please present your sources so we can take a look at them.

I'll present the version proposed fully sourced which I see as the shorter compromise possible. I note in the article I presented here (Argentina and the Falklands) the section International and regional views (incidentally a very good and sourced title, what do you think?) which gives quite a bit of relevance to Mercosur, UNASUR and CELAC. It can hardly be argued to be a pro-Argentinian source and it clearly points to an indisputable support for the Argentinian position by Latin American countries, so it could be also used as a source for such.


Not all sources need to be used in the final version of course. Finally: Wee please present a version fully sourced if you wish to make any amendments. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

On the basis of your own opinion, you assert it is inflammatory to link Argentina's domestic politics to its pursuit of its sovereignty claim. This is not an acceptable route to decide content, we decide content on the weight and range of opinions expressed in the literature. That you have identified a secondary reason is not sufficient to suppress another.
You also allege, that it is downplaying Argentina's claim. I simply don't see this in the slightest. You need to find a good reason to not include it, simply repeating the same reason over and again is simply an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, ignoring a policy based argument an example of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.
I have given a good policy based argument for not following the description you ascribe to the C24, namely it is presenting a one sided and misleading view. You keep repeating the same text and ignoring the point made. This isn't helpful either, note I compromised to accommodate a point you made, you're not bending in the slightest.
I deliberately did not ascribe a policy of neutrality to the EU, as whilst certain individuals may claim it, I cannot find an official declaration passed as a motion by the EU Parliament. Perhaps you are aware of one, I am not. Hence, the WP:OPINION of individuals does not make it a WP:FACT. I don't think WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is appropriate here, as we are declaring a position held by a body.
May I also observe that whilst I can source any comment I make, we're discussing content here to represent the weight of opinion in the literature. And we're trying to reflect the weight in a source and you agreed to this approach. I note that you are still using numerous sources as a means to add additional content and I believe this to be counter to the proposal for a concise and neutral text. Hence,


I'm keeping it compact, I include the reference to the C24 and the 1994 constitution. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


No Wee, you are clearly engaging in WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I commented on each of the issues you presented. Here they go again, one by one this time:
  • If you wish to make a mention to Argentina's political/economic "reasons" for the claim please present what neutral sources say this. This is the third time I ask for this.
  • Any mention of Argentina's political/economic "reasons", as per WP:NPOV, will have to be met with a mention of British own political/economic "reasons" (ie: oil) If you think this is the right path then: please present your sources and we move forward from there on.
  • Your mention of the C24 is so biased it's of no use. Things like "lobbies", "dominated", "allies", etc.. have to be perfectly sourced to even begin considering adding them to the article. You know this is a very sensitive issue, those words are inflammatory and bound to raise issues. My mention of the C24 is perfectly sourced (yours is not) and completely NPOV (yours is not).
  • You just keep using the word "recognizes" for the EU and the Commonwealth. Again do you have sources for this? It can't be that hard to realize there's a clear WP:OR going on here. The correct word is "list" and there's a big difference between the two in a sovereignty dispute (as you of course know very well).
  • The neutral position of the EU is perfectly sourced. If you wish to contest those sources we can open a ticket at RSN. Should we do that?
  • The title you propose is vague. The title I propose is accurate and can even be sourced.
I note you did not make any mention to the article I presented (Argentina and the Falklands) where the international position is covered and summits like Mercosur, UNASUR, CELAC, etc are given considerable WP:WEIGHT. Should we add mentions of these in the section? If not: why not?
I present a lot of sources so editors can see where a statement is coming from, that does not mean we have to use all of them in the final version (third time I say this?) Your version with absolutely no sources is of no use, you know we have to source everything we say and even more so in a delicate issue like this one. Could you please present a fully sourced version so editors can take a look at the sources you propose?
As to not repeat the same edit, I refer readers to the last version I proposed as the most suitable for the reasons presented here. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusing each other of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is unhelpful and inflammatory. If you read that page you'll notice that it says it applies when someone ignores the consensus or the community. Here it seems clear to me that we have no consensus and instead we have two people disagreeing and this is not a case of IDONTHEARTHAT. Likewise accusing each other of WP:NPOV violations is also not helpful as it seems clear to me that both sides believe their view is NPOV. I suggest both of you accept that you're never going to get the other person to agree with you about the underlying principles and instead work on a compromise. You both obviously have strongly held views but that shouldn't stop you accepting that other people have valid, and different, views.

I also note that both of you have used language that is likely to inflame. A comment like "You keep repeating the same text and ignoring the point made. This isn't helpful either, note I compromised to accommodate a point you made, you're not bending in the slightest." is unhelpful as it is accusatory. Instead of saying that you could have asked for them to explain why they disagree with you on that point and left it at that. You may think your statement is truthful but regardless of whether it is or not it's not going to help reach a solution. Likewise "Your mention of the C24 is so biased it's of no use. ... My mention of the C24 is perfectly sourced (yours is not) and completely NPOV (yours is not)." is also unhelpful for somewhat similar reasons. I would suggest not presenting your opinion as fact (e.g. say I think mine is perfectly sourced and NPOV whereas I don't think yours is) as you obviously disagree on these issue and to point out specific issues you have. Just saying it's not NPOV is not helpful. That's simply one example from each of you - I could have chosen several more. Please try to stay cool here, accept you have differences of opinion and use wording that reflects this.

I notice that both your drafts have some similarities. Why don't you agree what bits you are both OK with and then agree on the bits you disagree with each other over. Once that is done you could move on to an agreed upon RfC or some other way of getting more input. Dpmuk (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, let's keep things cool. I for one apologize for implying bias and POV in Wee's edit, that's certainly not helpful ever.
I've tried to be specific with the bits I disagree with on Wee's version. Primarily, his version needs sources. After he presents them we can move forward to try and find a consensus. Regards and thanks for the suggestions Dpmuk. Gaba p (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Lets just carry on. Lots of new material to digest, few bits to do, so gimmie a while. Its actually looking ok. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding sources:


You'll note I hope I found a cite for the EU position. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

See below, I've proposed a few sidebar discussions. If anyone considers me mistaken please say so. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the phrase "lobbies" a loaded term? I don't consider it is and I will WP:AGF that this is down to a language confusion.

See Lobbying and [13] and [14].

Looking for outside feedback Gaba, hopefully you might believe someone else. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a loaded term, or at least you believe it is: when you are involved in a dispute with other editors and you comment on the behavior of those editors, you systematically use the verb "lobbied" to describe their actions. See examples. It is absolutely unacceptable. --Langus (t) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Really Langus such childish behaviour isn't helping, it seems calculated to try and raise the tension nothing more. And in none of those examples is lobbied used as a loaded term. Please try and comment on content rather than turning every discussion into a point scoring pissing contest. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I am talking about content. That word is unacceptable. --Langus (t) 15:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"Lobbies" is actually the most appropriate word to use. I have no idea why you think this is unacceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It has possible negative implications, although I reckon not necessarily. But don't you think we must be extra careful in articles like this?
That WCM uses it when argumenting against other editors (and in no other situations) proves my point. I won't accept such word. If we'd have reliable sources about this whole "cause-effect" idea we wouldn't be discussing the word "lobbying" in the first place... --Langus (t) 16:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
How WCM uses the word is irrelevant. It is absolutely the correct word. No similar word or synonym would make any sense. Any negative connotations you perceive are unfortunate, but don't change the fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Now its "possible negative implications" but what are these negative implications? I keep asking and the personal attacks aren't helpful. "I won't accept such word." Well doesn't that demonstrate a lack of willingness to compromise. I'm left bewildered by this assertion that somehow this is something I've invented, given the presence of Argentina at the Decolonization committee is heralded as one of Argentina's great diplomatic triumphs. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
What are those negative implications? You tell me, you are the one who uses it against other people.
Here's an idea: show me a source that uses precisely this word to describe Argentina's actions in the C24 and we'll work from there. --Langus (t)
Langus, that comment could well be described as trolling, seriously stop it, you're making yourself look stupid. A source, [15], presumably you consider that when I refer to the Falkland Islands Lobby in the UK Parliament I'm being negative too - just for consistency. Really why is every non-issue transformed into such a drama fest? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The answer is that there is no negative connotation that I can see - unless the act of lobbying in a given situation is perceived negatively. And if the act is perceived negatively, then that perception will be there regardless of how we describe it. Kahastok talk 17:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The "source" is Cameron himself[16]. After my use of a source quoting Foreign Minister Timerman was dismissed as "POV" and "non neutral" attempting this is just silly. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
That's a gross misinterpretation of the source. Here's the paragraph:
"His comments came on the 30th anniversary of the end of the 1982 Falklands War and shortly after Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner lobbied a United Nations' decolonisation committee to arrange talks over sovereignty of the islands."
Those words are from Defence Management, and not from Cameron. Although Cameron is quoted in the previous paragraph of that article, "lobbied" is a word chosen by the author of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Other sources: "Mrs Kirchner lobbied", "Kirchner lobbies", "Canada confirms Falklands self determination despite lobbying from companies operating in Argentina" - any variation of "lobby" is appropriate here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I read the article quickly and missed that. Thanks Scjessey for providing those sources, all of them appear to give "lobby" quite a neutral meaning. I'd only object the last one since its the companies making the lobbying there, in any case it's enough with the rest. Regards Gaba p (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Is mentioning Argentine domestic politics in any way denigrating or diluting the claims. It is simply noted as a motivation. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the source, it is a common oversimplification. We would be better off avoiding it altogether.
"It is almost universally held that the junta invaded the islands in order to divert attention from their mismanagement of the economy, but this is an oversimplification. [...] Now, after some 30 years of democratic governance, it is easy to repeat the simplification and apply it to the Kirchner administration."[17] --Langus (t) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Again is it denigrating or diluting the claims? It is noted as an almost universally held opinion. QED for inclusion per WP:WEIGHT. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It is a common oversimplification i.e. erroneous opinion, you are advocating for Wikipedia spreading misinformation. Do you really feel we need to be discussing this in an overhaul of the "international position" section? Do you really think this is critical to this section? Speculation about motives (Argentines or British) should be left aside. We'll never reach consensus otherwise. --Langus (t) 15:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Oversimplification does not imply an erroneous opinion, it simply indicates there other other factors. Its not misinformation or speculation as you attempt to portray. And yes I do think it should be included as the majority of commentators make the link and so per weight we should too. I would imagine our readers would like to know why Argentina is pressing the claim when it has so many pressing issues affecting it. I don't think the criteria for NPOV or weight mentions obstruction of editors. If you don't wish for it to be included, then you have to present a logical argument - then we can reach a consensus. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I have done it, you didn't hear it. It seems you have no intention of getting around this issue, it's your way or no way, and further on tangentially related content. --Langus (t) 16:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Wait, are you really arguing that not including this side comment would be against WP:NPOV?? --Langus (t) 16:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The pantomime "Oh yes I have, Oh no you haven't" impression doesn't help. I have every intention of discussing this reasonably. Shall I present a number of sources also saying exactly the same thing, with a look at the size of my sources comment? I've suggested in a reasonable manner why I believe its reasonable to include it, its been dismissed on the false premise of denigrating Argentine claims and now you're throwing up your hands asserting I'm being unreasonable. Inclusion of the section of iteslef represents a major concession and compromise on my part, I've also compromised on what can be included, I don't think the C24 should be mentioned. This I think should be, simply because just about every source comments on it. Now if you think its only telling half the story, help us tell the full story. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The C24 comments because Argentine lobbies for it to comment. It doesn't examine the issue for any other reason. I suggest cause and effect should be mentioned. Simply stating it issues a resolution is not explaining the matter to our readers. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to ask for a source, otherwise the "cause and effect" would be WP:OR. Personally, I find it hard to believe that Argentina has so much power over the C24 or its members as to be the cause of its resolutions. --Langus (t) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you really feel that is a helpful comment? If Argentina didn't lobby there would be no comment. Its utter nonsense to suggest this is WP:OR. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It sort of doesn't matter how much power Argentina has over the C24, because the C24 is a meaningless talking shop that just burps up the same tired nonsense every so often. The C24 doesn't speak for the UN as a whole, and their "resolutions" carry little weight. It is important that any text in the article doesn't misrepresent comments from the C24 as being from the UN itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
@Wee: but I do, and yes I think it's helpful. WP:BURDEN is on you. --Langus (t) 15:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
[18] I presume the Argentine Government is an acceptable source? The c24 covers the Falklands dispute because Argentina insisted on it. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Failed verification: no cause-effect implied. Or at least I couldn't find it. It says:
"En los años posteriores la Asamblea aprobó Resoluciones similares: la 41/40 en 1986, 42/19 en 1987 y la 43/25 en 1988. En adelante, el Comité Especial de Descolonización, con la posterior aprobación de la Asamblea General ha venido adoptando anualmente hasta el presente las Resoluciones sobre la Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas, en las que se reitera el llamado a las partes a reanudar las negociaciones a fin de encontrar una solución pacífica a la controversia de soberanía". Emphasis mine. --Langus (t) 16:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Langus, that source from the Argentine Government doesn't state that the words "case and effect". Playing semantic games really is not in the least bit helpful. It states that it lobbied the UN Decolonization Committee to state its case. The source supports the argument its considered at the UN C24 because Argentina lobbied for it. Please stop being so childish. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't mean the exact words but the idea. You are proposing that "the C24 comments because Argentine lobbies for it to comment". I.e. that the C24 comments are the product of a lobby (which would be far more than to just state a case) from Argentina.
Can't you just point me in the right direction??? Copy-paste the paragraph that supports this idea.
I note that you have called me childish, troll and stupid.[19] STOP, you're insulting me. Thank you. --Langus (t) 19:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
OK which part of the bilingual statement from the Argentine Government about its successful lobbying to have its case heard at the C24 are you having a problem understanding? Is it the Spanish version or the English version? I apologise for speaking directly but likewise ask that you respect cultural diffences and refrain from being facetious that may result in you being so labelled. It never goes down well in Glasgow. I suggest you drop by and try it for yourself sometime. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been at least two years that you're using the Glasgowian excuse. I don't know if it's ok in Glasgow for people to call stupid each other, but here it is not. You need to try to accommodate to the rest of the world, not the other way around.
I have switched to the English I can't find it either.
"In the following years the Assembly adopted similar Resolutions: 41/40 in 1986, 42/19 in 1987 and 43/25 in 1988. Subsequently, the Special Committee on Decolonisation, with the corresponding approval by the General Assembly, has annually adopted Resolutions on the Malvinas Islands Question, in which the parties are again urged to resume negotiations in order to find a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute".
I'll be ignoring and rejecting this as a source for cause-effect until you copy-paste the relevant text. --Langus (t) 03:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Do the British have economic interests eg oil? Oil revenue goes to the FIG not the British Government. I know Argentina claims this but its not correct. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the interests are strategic, not economic. The islands were once "the key to the Pacific" and they are now both an strategic military station in Latin America as well as the cornerstone on which the British claim to Antarctica rests.
This being said, I think we would be better off leaving these considerations (Argentine and British reasons) out of this section (international position) --Langus (t) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


Ok, some issues:
  • Sources [51][52][53][54] all point to the same article. This article does not support claims sourced in [51] and [54]. Statement sourced in [53] is misleading (there is full support, not just calls for negotiations)
  • Please indicate how [50] sources the statement? This is a highly controversial statement aimed at downplaying/minimizing the whole Argentinian claim (that has been going on for almost two centuries now) to a simple "domestic problem". If this were to be mentioned it would definitely need more than one reliable source (currently has none), it would be have to be assigned to whoever is saying that (ie: no authoritative voice) and would necessarily lead to a mention of British interests (ie: oil) Because of this I say this statement has no place in the section.
  • The C24 mention has no sources and still has the same issues I presented above (mainly the inflammatory words). My version is fully sourced and has no such issues.
  • The word "recognize" is still being used, this is not accurate nor acceptable. The Commonwealth and the EU both "list" the islands. There is a big difference.
  • Title is still unnecessary vague. My proposed title is more accurate and sourced.
Here's a version with some compromises made (some of them need to be sourced) and as I've said, we can pick which sources are left in the final version:


I won't be able to comment any more until monday, so I'll pick it up again then. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Could I simply ask someone independent to look at my sources and consider whether I need to do some further work. I consider it adequately sourced, the source criticised for being used more than once is the source we agreed to use.
I have worded my content on the C24 very carefully. The C24 only issues calls for negotiations, as Argentina lobbies on an annual basis for it to do so, it doesn't decide of its own bat to look into the matter as the above edit implies. I can't accept Gaba's wording for that reason so I'm going to look for other independent editors to comment.
Could I also ask people to look at the sidebars above and comment please. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I have commented on your sidebars above.
Some further observations on both proposals:
  • "The Decolonization Committee of the UN, half of which is composed by Latin American countries,..." -- is it? And most importantly: why is it relevant?
  • "The British Commonwealth and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory." -- They do. But why is this relevant?
  • "The C24, which is dominated by its Latin American allies,..." --is it? Who are exactly Argentina's Latin American allies? Source? --Langus (t) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I have a question. What does, 'This committee has been criticized by the UK and the US for failing to listen to their overseas territories.' mean? You cannot listen to territories, it is the people who live there that you must listen to. Martin Hogbin (talk)
It refers primarily to the populations and governments of the territories. IIRC the governments of the UK territories (which between them make up a majority of the remaining territories on the list) asked to be removed en masse last year arguing that their status is effectively free association, which is of the three statuses demanded by the committee (independence, free association or integration into a state). But inclusion on the list has always owed more to the politics of the 24 than to an objective assessment of the statuses of the territories concerned.
On the general point, I think we've lost the caveats in the Latin American positions, which is a very important part of the Geopolitical Monitor source, and I think both of them put too much weight on the C24, a minor committee that is routinely ignored. Gaba's is particularly bad in this regard, and I object to it on the same basis as Curry Monster. Kahastok talk 17:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree also. Gaba has not addressed the concerns of some editors that I mentioned earlier. To explain again, Britain supports the status quo and thus does not need to exert pressure or create publicity to achieve its objectives. Argentina, on the other hand, wants to change things and therefore needs to exert diplomatic pressure on other countries and organisations to try to achieve its objectives. As a result of this there are many more sources stating Argentina's position than Britain's position. Just putting what we can find in sources, therefore, does not present a neutral view of the dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e f g 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, Special Committee on Decolonization. General Assembly. UN.org. June 2002-2012
  2. ^ Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory) March 2012
  3. ^ Laucirica, Jorge O. (Summer/fall 2000). "Lessons from Failure: The Falklands/Malvinas Conflict" (PDF). Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations. Retrieved 6 November 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) In 1946, upon the founding of the UN, Great Britain had included the Falkland Islands among the nonautonomous territories subject to its administration, under Chapter XI of the UN charter. From then on, it regularly submitted annual reports on the social, economic, and educational conditions of the islands, according to Chapter XI, Article 73e of the charter.
  4. ^ Resolution 2065 (XX), UN Resolutions 1965
  5. ^ "Falkland Islands Information Portal. ''U.N. Resolutions involving the Falkland Islands''". Falklands.info. Retrieved 15 March 2010.
  6. ^ Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory) March 2012
  7. ^ Brock, J. (22 June 2010). "Falklands' Public Meeting Report 06.22.10". Falkland Islands News Network. Retrieved 29 June 2010.
  8. ^ "Falklands invites C-24 president to "balance" recent visit to Argentina". Merocpress. 10.12.10. Retrieved 1 January 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ BBC article EU rejects Falklands claim fears on 3 May 2005, retrieved on 13 February 2012
  10. ^ a b c d United Press International article EU stays clear of Falkland Islands oil dispute on 5 April 2010, retrieved on 20 February 2012
  11. ^ Article El Gobierno suma datos a su denuncia por la militarización in Argentine newspaper La Nación on 16 February 2012, retrieved on 20 February 2012
  12. ^ Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory) March 2012
  13. ^ "U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands". U.S. State Department. 19 January 2012. PRN: 2012/087. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
  14. ^ "Malvinas dispute a bilateral issue which is not included in the EU agenda". MercoPress. Retrieved January 13, 2013.
  15. ^ Commonwealth United Kingdom - Falkland Islands, retrieved on 13 February 2012
  16. ^ Article in newspaper The Telegraph Argentina protests at Falklands link to EU, on 30 April 2005, retrieved on 13 February 2012
  17. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  18. ^ The Falkland Islands and the UK v Argentina Oil Dispute: Which Legal Regime, Alice Ruzza, 2011, Goettingen J. Int'l L. 71.
  19. ^ DECLARACION ESPECIAL SOBRE LA CUESTION DE LAS ISLAS MALVINAS, UNASUR communique, Nov 2012
  20. ^ Malvinas: nuevo apoyo de la Unasur, La Nacion, Dec 2012
  21. ^ Boudou: "Hubo rechazo explicito de UNASUR a referéndum de Malvinas", agepeba, Nov 2012
  22. ^ Unasur summit rejects Falklands' referendum and wants to limit 'vulture funds', agepeba, Dec 2012
  23. ^ OAS Declarations: Up to 2005, 2008, 2009 (in Spanish)
    Press (2006): "Unánime apoyo de la OEA al reclamo de la Argentina por las Malvinas". Infobae.com. 6 May 2002. Retrieved 15 March 2010.
    http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-041/12
  24. ^ a b c "XX Ibero American Summit: What happened". momento24.com. 4 December 2010. Retrieved 29 December 2010.
  25. ^ (in Spanish)Special Communiqué on the Falkland Islands Question – [segib.org SEGIB]
  26. ^ Declaration on "The issue of the Malvinas Islands"
  27. ^ BBC News, Q&A: Argentina's diplomatic offensive on Falklands, June 2012
  28. ^ http://en.mercopress.com/2011/12/26/china-and-argentina-ratify-crossed-support-for-taiwan-and-falklands-claims
  29. ^ Apoyo de España por Malvinas; sobre Repsol, sólo entrelíneas. Ámbito Financiero, 23 Feb 2012
  30. ^ Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory) March 2012
  31. ^ "Malvinas dispute a bilateral issue which is not included in the EU agenda". MercoPress. Retrieved January 13, 2013.
  32. ^ Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory) March 2012
  33. ^ Falkland Islands (British Overseas Territory) March 2012
  34. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  35. ^ Argentina and the Falklands, Jan 2012, UK Parliament.
  36. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  37. ^ The Falkland Islands and the UK v Argentina Oil Dispute: Which Legal Regime, Alice Ruzza, 2011, Goettingen J. Int'l L. 71.
  38. ^ DECLARACION ESPECIAL SOBRE LA CUESTION DE LAS ISLAS MALVINAS, UNASUR communique, Nov 2012
  39. ^ Malvinas: nuevo apoyo de la Unasur, La Nacion, Dec 2012
  40. ^ Boudou: "Hubo rechazo explicito de UNASUR a referéndum de Malvinas", agepeba, Nov 2012
  41. ^ Unasur summit rejects Falklands' referendum and wants to limit 'vulture funds', agepeba, Dec 2012
  42. ^ OAS Declarations: Up to 2005, 2008, 2009 (in Spanish)
    Press (2006): "Unánime apoyo de la OEA al reclamo de la Argentina por las Malvinas". Infobae.com. 6 May 2002. Retrieved 15 March 2010.
    http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-041/12
  43. ^ (in Spanish)Special Communiqué on the Falkland Islands Question – [segib.org SEGIB]
  44. ^ Declaration on "The issue of the Malvinas Islands"
  45. ^ Apoyo de España por Malvinas; sobre Repsol, sólo entrelíneas. Ámbito Financiero, 23 Feb 2012
  46. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  47. ^ "U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands". U.S. State Department. 19 January 2012. PRN: 2012/087. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
  48. ^ "Malvinas dispute a bilateral issue which is not included in the EU agenda". MercoPress. Retrieved January 13, 2013.
  49. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  50. ^ {UK Parliament}
  51. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  52. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  53. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  54. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  55. ^ http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/UN/UN-LIST.HTM
  56. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18424768
  57. ^ "U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands". U.S. State Department. 19 January 2012. PRN: 2012/087. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
  58. ^ http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/UN/UN-LIST.HTM
  59. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  60. ^ {UK Parliament}
  61. ^ Argentina and the Falklands, Jan 2012, UK Parliament.
  62. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  63. ^ The Falkland Islands and the UK v Argentina Oil Dispute: Which Legal Regime, Alice Ruzza, 2011, Goettingen J. Int'l L. 71.
  64. ^ DECLARACION ESPECIAL SOBRE LA CUESTION DE LAS ISLAS MALVINAS, UNASUR communique, Nov 2012
  65. ^ Malvinas: nuevo apoyo de la Unasur, La Nacion, Dec 2012
  66. ^ Boudou: "Hubo rechazo explicito de UNASUR a referéndum de Malvinas", agepeba, Nov 2012
  67. ^ Unasur summit rejects Falklands' referendum and wants to limit 'vulture funds', agepeba, Dec 2012
  68. ^ OAS Declarations: Up to 2005, 2008, 2009 (in Spanish)
    Press (2006): "Unánime apoyo de la OEA al reclamo de la Argentina por las Malvinas". Infobae.com. 6 May 2002. Retrieved 15 March 2010.
    http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-041/12
  69. ^ (in Spanish)Special Communiqué on the Falkland Islands Question – [segib.org SEGIB]
  70. ^ Declaration on "The issue of the Malvinas Islands"
  71. ^ Apoyo de España por Malvinas; sobre Repsol, sólo entrelíneas. Ámbito Financiero, 23 Feb 2012
  72. ^ Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  73. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18424768
  74. ^ "Malvinas dispute a bilateral issue which is not included in the EU agenda". MercoPress. Retrieved January 13, 2013.
  75. ^ "U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands". U.S. State Department. 19 January 2012. PRN: 2012/087. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute/Archive_12&oldid=1136718034"