Wikipedia

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 14

< Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Gaba p in topic Let's get on with it, folks!
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Gabas Draft. Comment area

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
Gabas area Irondome (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Why would we need to add the Monroe doctrine as the US has not disputed the UK's right on the Islands, and thus not enforced the Monroe doctrine in this instance?Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe it to be more informative than simply stating "in the 19th Century sided with Britain due to its own disputes with Argentina over rights in the islands" which really gives no information at all. Which "disputes"? How exactly did it "sided"? The fact that the US chose not to enforce the Monroe Doctrine (and thus not dispute UK's sovereignty) gives more information than saying "sided with the UK" and has the same end result. Regards.Gaba p (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
We could also just remove it and go back to the previous version before Wee added stuff to obscure the US and EU neutral position. I note his draft doesn't even mention the EU position of neutrality which can be very easily sourced [1][2]. Regards. Gaba p (talk)


My thoughts, just those that immediately strike me. I'm afraid it's a bit long, but I hope you will take them into account.

  • You say "As stated by House of Commons Library analyst Vaughn Miller", as if you were trying to puffing the point significantly, particularly given the contrast with "[a]ccording to some analysts", which seems to be downplaying the point.
  • I see no reason to put "lip-service" in italics.
  • I have yet to see justification for mention of China per WP:WEIGHT.
  • The point "[a]ccording to some analysts this support does not go far beyond lip-service" appears to be being applied to China, but I believe it is actually applied to Latin America.
  • I have yet to see justification per WP:WEIGHT for mention of Venezuela or the announcement of a bar on Falklands-flagged ships from certain ports. I note that these are cited as examples of support "beyond lip service", but it is not obvious why we should assume that these are not also lip service since they refer to statements and not actions.
  • I have yet to see justification per WP:WEIGHT of "with the presentation of the Ruda statement". I see no reason why we care.
  • I have seen no justification per WP:WEIGHT that the name "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" in particular is of relevance. The argument before was that it included the Spanish name? I don't see why that matters - the Spanish name is already featured prominently in the article.
  • The sentence "The UK refuses to negotiate the sovereignty of the islands until that is the wish of the Islanders themselves." is not dealing with the international position. The UK position is already included in the article, and we have to assume that readers will have read the rest of the article.
  • I've noted my objections to claiming that the EU maintains "an official policy of neutrality on the issue" in both other sections. I don't believe that - the British would have vetoed any such policy - and it isn't supported by the sources. I do note your responses elsewhere but also note that the result has not been applied to your proposal.
  • The arguments on the US apply similarly - I have yet to see a source justifying "neutral on the issue since the 1940s", which is not the same thing as described here. Since it's a primary source, interpreting that as official neutrality violates WP:PSTS.
  • I struggle to see the relevance of the Munroe Doctrine and have not seen justification per WP:WEIGHT.

I've referred repeatedly to "justification per WP:WEIGHT". This means weight per reliable sources on the subject at hand. Those can be news articles (though per WP:RS other sources are preferred) provided that they are actually about the subject at hand. Sources of any calibre focussed on specific events or statements cannot reasonably be used - nor can sources focussed on other aspects of the subject or on other subjects (related or unrelated). I note with respect to the NPOVN that you have been citing, that one single-sentence response is not exactly a glowing endorsement of your position, and I note that the response does not dispute the point that weight cannot be judged from sources not on the subject at hand. Kahastok talk 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Addressing Kahastoks concerns:
  • This is done because there is more than one analyst bought by Wee to support the lip-service statement. We could of course pick just one and mention his name just like with Miller's name. Would that be better?
  • lip-service is in italics as being a quoted statement. I can remove the italics and use instead "lip-service".
  • China is mentioned both in the BBC article's section about the international position and in the UK Parliament's analysis of the international position. Countless sources can be produced from established newspapers to source it, which is a clear indication of the weight of this country's position.
  • That's correct, I'll amend this.
  • Fair enough, Venezuela can be taken out.
  • The Ruda statement is the reason we can say "Since 1964 Argentina lobbies". Furthermore this statement has a major influence in the following UN GA resolution which makes it a notable piece of information.
  • It's of relevance because the UN is recognizing the Spanish name. It doesn't matter that this particular article already displays it, we are talking about the UN here.
  • The UK refusal to negotiate is buried in the article. In this section we mention at least 3 times "call for negotiations" but do not say why so many calls and no actual negotiations. This merely explains that, otherwise the section is quite hard to follow.
  • The EU position can be amended as Scjessey did to avoid this issue.
  • There are countless sources stating the US position of neutrality [3][4][5][6] I don't think this is an issue.
  • The Monroe Doctrine was put there simply to give more information. The statement produced by Wee said pretty much nothing (and has exactly the same weight I might add)
Hopefully this answers your questions. Now let me ask you a question Kahastok. As per WP:WEIGHT, how exactly do you justify the mentions of Rodriguez Yebra and the British Commonwealth in Wee's version? I'll make the same question over at his section so we don't disrupt the flow. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of these remain. The notion that "countless sources" can be produced is irrelevant to judgement of WP:WEIGHT unless those sources are actually written on the subject at hand. I'm sure that I can provide countless sources to the effect that rabbits eat grass or that Swiss cheese has holes in it - but we wouldn't put either point in the article because you would be unlikely to find either point in a discussion about the Falklands sovereignty dispute, or the positions of third parties in the Falklands sovereignty dispute.

In several cases - "Ruda Statement" and "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", you totally fail to address the point. Even if your points are entirely accurate, and I'm not convinced, it does not matter because they still don't belong in the article. In both cases you seem to be drawing large-scale and far-reaching conclusions for the article from scant evidence. For example, in the case of the "UN is recognizing the Spanish name", you seem to be trying to draw the conclusion that the UN supports Argentina from the fact that it uses "Malvinas" as well as "Falkland". Do you conclude that the UN supports Britain given that the Spanish version of the resolution (Spanish being an official language of the United Nations) was on the Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas (Falkland)? It doesn't - it's just a matter of diplomatic language. Even Security Council Resolution 502 - adopted unamended from a British proposal during the 1982 war - referred to the "Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)" in English.

I note that you say that [t]he UK refusal to negotiate is buried in the article. Where do you think this section is going in the article? Once the reader has got to this bit, we can reasonably assume that they've read about the British position. And even if they haven't, it's not exactly difficult to find.

I finally note that WP:WEIGHT is just part of WP:NPOV, and that we have to ensure that we deal with this subject properly neutrally. That does not mean pretending that the British have no support, not matter what Héctor Timerman might think. Kahastok talk 20:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kahastok, I'm not letting you off the hook that easily. Both you and Wee have been arguing for weeks that everything we might include in the article must comply with WP:WEIGHT in reliable secondary sources or in your own words: weight per reliable sources on the subject at hand. So no, the poor excuse for an "explanation" you give comes nowhere near to addressing the two clear questions I made you and Wee. Please stop by Wee's draft area above and kindly answer my two very simple, very short and very clear questions on your (I want to believe) apparent amazing double standards. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Given your recent actions elsewhere, I am surprised that you see fit to make an accusation such as in your message.
I am interested that you make no attempt to address any of my points in the message preceding this. Can I assume that you accept that these points in your draft are inappropriate?
My view that this section does not actually merit any WP:WEIGHT at all is unchanged. But if we are to have a section, it has to be neutral. WP:WEIGHT is a means of attaining neutrality, and particularly appropriate when dealing with puffery of an already-substantial point with irrelevant points not mentioned by the sources. But we equally cannot use any rule to defeat its purpose. WP:WEIGHT is a means to end, the end being neutrality, so trying to apply it so as to create a non-neutral section is inappropriate. It is not neutral to suggest, as you propose, that the British have no support internationally. Kahastok talk 18:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope, your concerns have all of them been address point for point you are simply engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right now, which is silly. I do note however that you once again refused to answer the two very simple, short and clear questions I made above in Wee's area. The "neutrality" claim you are now waving (moving the goal post) does not answer how exactly your own particular assessment of it and WP:WEIGHT allows you to dismiss the inclusion of a country thoroughly sourced (China, at least 7 sources presented) but back the inclusion of a group of countries for which no source has been presented (Commonwealth, 0 sources presented). So once again, would you be so kind as to direct your attention to Wee's area and please address the questions I make? Thank you.
Oh and I do not propose the British have no international support, I've clearly stated that a much larger group of countries have voiced its support for Argentina (this is a fact, not an opinion). This is just you following Wee's path (as usual) accusing me of something I never said. In any case, we're all used to you following and backing Wee around so it's not really a surprise. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Where do I start? I find nothing in this draft to recommend it. Let me start with the weasel words "The UK refuses to negotiate", which could almost have been written by Hector Timmerman himself. The UK does not refuse to negotiate, as we saw recently the only people who refused to engage in dialogue was Argentina. Further, Argentina is not prepared to negotiate, it fixed the end game in its own constitution in 1994; it leaves no room for negotiation. I'm also bemused why there is a need to mention it, given we're supposed to be discussing the International dimension and its already in the article but written in a neutral manner.
It makes no mention of the islanders themselves, though UN resolutions provide for this explicitly, and I simply note that any mention of anyone who supports Britain has been removed. Its clearly non-neutral and is intended to imply a lack of support for Britain, which is a conclusion i arrived at all by myself and it reflects what Hector Timmerman was claiming last week. It also makes no mention that support for Argentina is nothing more than lip service. Again the personal attacks aren't really helpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Wee, your late attempts at comparing me with Timmerman have me puzzled. I don't know if I should laugh at your silliness or laugh at what they seem to imply. In any case I laugh, so I thank you.
Yes, the UK does refuse to negotiate until it is the wishes of the islanders themselves. Look it up Wee, this are almost verbatim Cameron's words (but of course you know this already) Resolution 43/25 (1988) makes no mention of the islanders (again: you know this). Since that is the resolution we are mentioning, I simply try to be as to be as faithful as possible to the original wording. If you go below you'll see how I've mentioned to Scjessey that we could mention what is stated in resolution 2065 (1965) where the population of the Falklands/Malvinas is mentioned.
I removed the mention of the Commonwealth as per no sources. The minute you present a source for it, I add it back.
The lip-service thing was removed to reduce the section. It is an opinion (not a fact) and it should be accompanied by mentions of Mercosur banning ships flying the FI flag (not present in your version by the way), which only adds more details to the section which I believe to be less relevant than others that do merit its inclusion (like China's position for example) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope Cameron does not state that he refuses to negotiate, he said he will only negotiate with the consent of the islanders. Sorry but I would not be so cruel as to compare anyone with Timmerman, I simply pointed out your edits were clearly POV reflecting verbatim what he'd said.
And although I've already mentioned this point, I will repeat it - AGAIN. Your so-called proposal for "balance" of opinion is not what is required. You need to source opinion stating that the support from Latin America has achieved something if one exists. The so-called flag incident is another example of paying lip-service, since in practise it had no effect whatsoever, they simply switched to the Red Duster and it was business as usual. Again you're trying to over state what Latin American support has achieved, ie diddly squat. Your beliefs are immaterial to deciding what content to include. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's really anything in your above comment that requires an answer of any kind, given that it's pretty much just you laying down your POV (making your bias in the issue rather clear I might add) So... regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wees draft. Comments area

Latest comment: 11 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion
For WCMs draft comments Irondome (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I would be prepared to support the compromise version proposed by WCM, subject to the “listed” and “neutral” misrepresentations’ getting fixed. Apcbg (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you suggest needs fixing? Happy to consider it. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The EU is not neutral, and that fact is acknowledged by the Argentine source I cited above. Particular sovereignty disputes might be left to the relevant member states to resolve and not part of the EU common foreign policy, but the Falklands like all EU overseas territories (inhabited by EU citizens, too) are subject to EU internal policies including EU legislation, special EU institutions responsible for the EU remote and overseas territories, programmes etc. Terming that as ‘listed’ and ‘neutral’ is uninformative and misleading. As for the USA, as a party with vested interests in the islands in the early 19th century, that country explicitly rejected the Argentine sovereignty claim when that mattered (without objecting to the British one at the same time), and I am not aware of any subsequent renunciation of that rejection. Therefore, the use of ‘neutral’ in this case blurs an important international dimension of the sovereignty dispute. Apcbg (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Amended draft for you to comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
“... and the EU both list the islands as a British Overseas Territory” is less than adequate in explaining the EU affiliation of the Falklands which is important and, like I wrote, should come first in an ‘International position’ section. Incorporation in the EU constitutional treaties entails a particular status (EU overseas territory) with legal, political and economic implications rather than mere listing for bibliographic purposes. Apcbg (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Amended the draft again for you to consider. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
As a possible compromise, I would be prepared to support your present draft. Best, Apcbg (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest that the text The European Union classes the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas, and eligible for some European funding initiatives be replaced by The European Union classes the islands as a UK overseas country or territory, and has associated them with the Union. Argentina objects to that association and demands the removal of the Falklands from the relevant EU Treaties, which demand has been dismissed by EU. The status of association in question is established by Article 182 of the EU Treaty: “The Member States agree to associate with the Community the non-European countries and territories which have special relations with Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.” Reliable secondary sources on the association status and the relevant exchanges between Argentina and EU are given below in my responses to Langus. Apcbg (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is tolerable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not an acceptable version and this is very disappointing. Wee refused to add even tiny bits of information when I proposed it but apparently has no problems doing so when the information added serves to refute Argentina's support (like the comment by an obscure analyst vs the analysis by a House of Commons writer or the mention of China or the couple of words to mention the Ruda statement). Do you really think your intentions are not transparent Wee?
Outstanding issues:
  1. If analyst Yerba is to be mentioned, then we should add other writers/analysts too. Why only this one? What exactly makes this one so important as to be the only one mentioned?
  2. The EU and US mentions have both been expanded with the sole purpose to obscure their positions. They are neutral and this can be perfectly sourced. Apcbg: the EU lists the islands because the UK added them to the treaty, please read [7], it can't be made any more clear than that. The current state of the section is viciously misleading. If we are to expand on the US position, the Monroe doctrine should be mentioned too.
  3. The 1988 resolution does not mention the islanders, the wording is misleading. The Ruda statement and the name of the resolution should be included as relevant information.
Let me direct the attention of editors here to the outcome of the WP:NPOVN ticket Wee himself opened and is now disregarding (because it did not turn out in his favor) Reliable newspapers can be used for weight and thus more information can be certainly added to the section based on them. Noting this concerns, I'll be adding my proposed version here too expecting to hear comments on these issues by those editors commenting here. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Suffice it to say that I doubt very much that the EU is officially neutral as the UK has a veto. Neither source actually makes the claim per se. I have made this point in more detail below. Kahastok talk 18:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A factual correction: it's formally referred to as the "Commonwealth of Nations". It used to be the "British Commonwealth", but they changed it (I believe in the 1940s). Kahastok talk 19:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've responded below to the EU's position issue raised. The mention of the Commonwealth should be amended with ", although it has issued no official position on the matter". That is unless you can produce a source that states the Commonwealth supports the UK claim. Just mentioning that it lists the islands as a British OCT (because the UK put it there of course) is a deceiving attempt to imply support. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe it is "a deceiving attempt to imply support", and I suggest that you reconsider your language because that comes very close to accusing Curry Monster of lying again.
Other than the name of the organisation at hand, the point is factually accurate. Given that you see such an implication, do you have any evidence that it is inaccurate? Can you source "although it has issued no official position on the matter" with respect to the Commonwealth? Kahastok talk 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me ask you 2 questions Kahastok (and Wee):
1- As per WP:WEIGHT, how exactly do you justify the mention of the British Commonwealth in this version?
2- How are you proposing we source this mention? Because I've yet to see a source for it. Surely it's not a primary source, right?
I'll await your answers. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The reason I included the Commonwealth in my proposed text is because I thought it provided a sensible balance to the mention of the support of Latin American countries per WP:NPOV. I assume the same is the case for this version. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with you very much on that reasoning Scjessey. But you see, Wee and Kahastok have been pounding arguing for weeks now that any mention in the section needs to be weighted by its mention in a reliable source on the issue. Since the Commonwealth is not mentioned in any source that has been presented here, much less in the source they chose as the source for some reason, the questions spring to mind:
1- As per WP:WEIGHT, how exactly do you justify the mention of the British Commonwealth in this version?
2- How are you proposing we source this mention? Because I've yet to see a source for it. Surely it's not a primary source, right?
I will eagerly await your answers. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be much appreciated by one and all if you could resist the temptation to indulge in personal attacks.
1. Why do I justify mention of the British Commonwealth? Well the Falkland Islands take part in a number of Commonwealth activities. only this week hosting an event in the islands themselves [8]. With over 4 x 10^6 hits on google, it seems rather obvious it should be mentioned. And I would agree with Scjessey's reasoning.
2. Your second point is nothing but continuing to be needlessly confrontational. I don't see any need to provide a response but do note that I saw it as you will usually claim I haven't addressed some irrelevant point you claim is vital.
I have already commented why I don't feel what you assert to be essential is not included. Pretty much that it is fluff, unneeded and is actually duplicating material already in the article.
As to your point about the EU, I simply respond so what. The Falkland Islands were only ever noted as a Non-self-governing Territory as the UK listed them. On that basis should we be removing them from mention by any UN resolution?
In addition, the usual assertion if I mention one commentator you must be allowed to mention others is not helpful. This is the usual pretext for filling the article with reams of tendentious argument, whereby you claim simply because something is sourced it must be included. The comment chosen is to represent the opinion expressed in a number of sources that whilst Argentina noisily demands support, all the comments are little more than lip service. If you wish to source a similar opinion of a commentator that expresses the converse, please bring it here for us to consider. However, after considering the weight of opinion expressed in the literature I simply note that i have not found a similar expression that such support is advantageous to Argentina. This is what you need to find, conducting your own research and placing a load of quotes taken out of context.
Similarly, your (and I have to say not unexpected) accusation that this is an attempt to downplay Argentine support is not helpful. No, its sourced, the comment reflects the weight of opinion expressed in the the literature. In fact, what we see is the converse, you're seeking to suppress material to overstate the support enjoyed by Argentina and I note that your comments reflect almost verbatim Argentine Government statements on the matter. Your writing is clearly non-neutral and is following the same agenda expressed by the Argentine Government. You will of course note that I am reflecting neutral commentators and you can hardly claim an editorial in La Nacion is pushing a British agenda.
As regards the semantic argument vis a vis the 1988 and the earlier resolution. The text of the 1988 resolution explicitly mentions the Charter of the United Nations, the earlier resolution did not as it had yet to be adopted. The 1988 resolution thus can be argued to include the right to self-determination and please note Article 103. The resolution also refers to including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Are you claiming that the UN explicitly excludes the islanders, as that is clearly incorrect? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, you don't get to weasel out that easily Wee.

1- How do you justify the mention of the Commonwealth adhering to the same WP:WEIGHT arguments you and Kahastok have been waiving around for weeks? You apparently forgot to take into account that particular bit in my question. Bare in mind that the standard that you are now adhering to (ie: relevance of appearance in news media) is exactly the same one you and Kahastok have been dismissing as not valid for weeks now. You seriously think people here don't notice these kind of things?
Incidentally: you know as well as I do that the "google hits" thing is a well known fallacy in WP. Let me refresh your memory: WP:GNUM.

2- Funny how you completely chose to disregard this question. Here it goes again: how are you proposing we source this mention? SOURCES WEE. Please present your sources for this statement.

I'm not an unreasonable person Wee, I'm very willing to compromise to reach an agreement. But when you and Kahastok oppose the inclusion of any information citing WP:WEIGHT and claiming only sources "on the subject at hand" can be used to asses it, and then turn around and without blushing say that the Commonwealth should be added even though you have no sources to back its mention much less any mention of it in a source "on the subject at hand", you'll understand how I must point that you and Kahastok are applying a clear double standard.
Taking into account your behavior I'm not really expecting to hear from you (or Kahastok) an acknowledgment of being wrong or even a direct answer to any of those two very simple questions. Nonetheless I'm giving you both one more chance to give a reasonable response. Next step it's DRN, which would be great if we could just avoid. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Your constant habit of claiming I haven't done something, when I have and it can be easily checked is rather childish. Your charge of double standards being a case in point, I have frequently suggested a source to judge weight eg

Lowell S. Gustafson Assistant Professor of Political Science Villanova University (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-536472-9. Retrieved 10 February 2013.

Shall we go through the archive and count how many times it has been suggested?
DRN should not be used as a threat as you appear to think. Now if only you could stop being so confrontational it would help tremendously. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't a threat at all Wee, it was a real request for you to please address the questions I had done so we could avoid such an instance. You have not answered my questions, you have simply attempted to weasel out of the first one and directly refused to present your sources for the second one. I have no idea what you think you are answering with the above comment, seriously. I really hope you are not making the assumption that editors here can't see right through your actions Wee, because they are quite transparent. I'll go ahead an ask for outside opinions at DRN. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
You were asking a question I'd already answered repeatedly. I will be commenting at DRN you are abusing DR to filibuster the discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
No Wee, you have not answered my two simple questions in spite repeated requests of mine to please do so. I have to tell you, your above comment looks quite a bit like a threat to scare me out of requesting outside opinions. I hope I'm mistaken. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be appreciated by one and all if you simply stopped claiming you haven't had an answer, when you have - repeatedly. Your threat to abuse the DR process has been noted, you may take my comments as a statement of intent to prevent such abuse. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I would bring to everyone's attention that User:Gaba p has started a case at WP:DRN but hasn't notified all participants. See WP:DRN#Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously Wee? I gave notice in this talk page 5 hours ago[9] right after I notified you[10] and Kahastok[11], the only editors arguing that as per WP:WEIGHT we should dismiss China (thoroughly sourced) but include the Commonwealth (not sourced at all), which is why I only included you two in the DR/N report. If any other editor here wishes to give his input over there (or add himself as an involved user), I would really welcome it. That's why I left the message here 5 hours ago Wee. Seriously... Gaba p (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I really don't see why dispute resolution is necessary. I thought we are doing quite well coming up with a proposed text, with only a couple of minor points to resolve. I've only been around for a week or two but it seems to me we have come a long way in a short time, with only just a little bit further to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I opened a report asking for assistance after both Wee and Kahastok repeatedly refused to address their apparent double standard when assessing what information should be included in the article and why. A matter as simple as mentioning China's position (heavily sourced with secondary sources) is being dismissed by them, but at the same time they argue for the inclusion of the Commonwealth for which they have only a primary source and nothing else. Relaxing the conditions when the information favors one side and hardening them when it favors the other is definitely not WP:NPOV.
I'd really appreciate your comments on this issue either here or over at the DR/N report so we can move forward as soon as possible and finally have the section up. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I have already commented on this issue above. My feeling is that China should not be in the section because (a) it appears to be a half-hearted move of political quid pro quo designed to get support over Taiwan, and (b) China is not geographically or geopolitically significant in this dispute. With that said, I am also leaning toward dropping any mention of the British Commonwealth from the section. While there are plenty of primary sources to support what is in my proposed text, I can find precisely zero secondary sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I would not be prepared to support a text that didn't mention the Commonwealth. I have provided a secondary source above that does mention it. Of course Gaba will be able to provide a diff showing where I refused to include China, oh no he won't as there isn't one. I agree the DRN ticket is not needed, perhaps you would comment there please. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
If you two are going to keep behaving like children fighting over a cuddly toy, I have no interest in participating in any discussion whatsoever. The sensible thing is for us to put in a proposed text that includes what we all currently agree on (I think my most recent proposal satisfies that criteria) and then have continued discussion on what additional stuff can be added to enhance it still further. But the petty bickering needs to end. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah you're right, I've struck through it. However, my comment on the Commonwealth of Nations is still appropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It is exactly because of the reason stated, " China is not geographically or geopolitically significant in this dispute"....that I am interested in seeing exactly what China has to say or do with all of this (as a reader). Apparently there has been some progress in working-on a solution, such-as the suggestion at the DRN that another template or way of presenting additional countries positions in the matter. I hope that you can expand on this24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
What are we doing back here? Come on now, lets get back to where the real work was being done. I leave you lot for a couple of days and chaos. ( Im being semi-serious). But seriously, I have got you from an all out edit war barely amonth ago to some basically mututually agreed rather good final drafts. We ARE NEARLY THERE. The details are to be finalised and anyway, other drafts may still be proposed. Lets just all go back to the drawing board. Withdraw the Commonwealth and China. We will be having Iran next eh? Lets just get back to the page and close this down. Irondome (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
DRN is appropriate if one party thinks the talk page discussion is going in circles, or if they think a consensus is virtually impossible. If GabaP wants to cancel the DRN and resume the discussion here on the talk page, that is fine. But if GabaP (and we assume good faith) feels that the talk page discussion is going in circles, or is otherwise stalled, then DRN is a good forum to get fresh input. --Noleander (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The proposed drafts area

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Lets stick them in here then. Irondome (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Text - Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

My proposal for a straw poll. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Text - Gaba p (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Text - Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Text - Scjessey (talk) -- REVISED: 22:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Text - Gaba p (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC) -- REVISED: 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Text - Wee Curry Monster talk 12:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added strike through of the comment on Kosovo as it wasn't part of my DRN proposal. Though I do suggest it may be of relevance Wee Curry Monster talk 18:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Scjessey's draft. Comment area

Latest comment: 11 years ago50 comments7 people in discussion
for Simon's draft comments Irondome (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
One minor correction. The mention of what was presented in the 1988 resolution ("The most recent was in 1988, asking both countries to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514") is not correct. Here's the original 43/25 (1988) resolution where no mention of the islanders or of resolution 1514 is made. This is the 2065 (1965) resolution which states verbatim:


It is actually this one where the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and the 1514 (1960) resolution are mentioned. So this is a mixed up situation where we mention the 1988 resolution but quote from the 1965 resolution.
Given how extremely delicate the interpretation of this resolutions is (Argentina and the UK both have their own interpretations based on what those documents do say and what they do not say) I'd propose not incurring in WP:SYN trying to merge all resolutions into one and instead try to adhere as precisely as possible to the exact wording present in the 1988 resolution, which is the one we mention.
Other than that I can see this version as a reasonable middle ground. Regards and thanks for the input Scjesseys. Gaba p (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The claim that the EU has "an official policy of neutrality" raises not so much red flags as large red bedsheets. These matters are decided by unanimity in the EU, and Britain would have had the opportunity a veto any such proposed policy. I cannot conceive that the British would not have used that veto. I further note that neither of the sources raised in support of this makes refers to the position as "neutral" or "neutrality", and neither source refers clearly to it an official position according to European law. Kahastok talk 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources presented could not be any more clear on the issue, you are playing a semantics game Kahastok. The BBC article presented by Wee himself to source EU's position says verbatim: "The European Union and the US say they recognize the "de facto UK administration of the Falklands/Malvinas", but take no position regarding the issue of sovereignty, which they say must be settled by the UK and Argentina." (emphasis added). There's also this Mercopress article quoting the EU ambassador himself which leaves absolutely no other way to interpret EU's position. How exactly would you proposed the EU's position be mentioned according to what is presented in these sources? What wording are you proposing exactly? Regards Gaba p (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
After examining the sources, I have made changes that I think more fairly reflect what they are saying. I agree with Gaba's comment about the 1965/1988 issue, but disagree over the EU neutrality issue. Those sources really do not support the neutrality position. The BBC piece does not use the word "neutrality" and I think the EU ambassador is playing with semantics. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Scjesseys if the issue is with the word "neutral" and/or "official" then I'd suggest: "The European Union classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas, but take no position regarding the issue of sovereignty." This is verbatim taken from the BBC article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've read some additional sources on the matter and tweaked the wording of the second paragraph. I've also removed the UK position, since that is not what the section is meant to be about. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Quick question: China's position is clear and easy to be sourced. Being one of the most important nations in the world, wouldn't you say this merits a mention in the section? On a more general line of argumentation: what standard would you propose we use to asses if a given country merits being mentioned or not in the section? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure about China. It is indeed one of the most important nations in the world, but the standard for inclusion has little to do with that and more to do with how often it appears in reliable sources. And that really answers the second question as well, doesn't it? If something appears in a preponderance of reliable sources, it should be considered for inclusion - pretty much the standard for all articles on Wikipedia. Of course, the reality is a little more complicated than that. One has to consider other factors like WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:CONSENSUS et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes indeed, that's my position as well. In this particular case I believe China is very relevant and its appearance on reliable sources grants its inclusion. I'll present the sources here for you to asses: UK Parliament's article, China's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs (point 5, in Spanish), BBC UK, Mercopress, and three of the biggest Argentinian news media outlets Infobae, La Nación and Clarin (many many more less known sources can be mentioned) In my proposed version the mention of this country takes up exactly 10 words (China has also stated its support for Argentina's sovereignty claim) I think that amount of coverage warrants at least that. What do you think? regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

All in all, this one seems as the only proposal with chances of being accepted (without much enthusiasm) by everyone. I'd say we go with it, or that we use it as a base for a diff-based approach of collaborative editing as we did here. I prefer the former, honestly... It's already been more than a month. --Langus (t) 00:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the mention of the UNGA should mention that the 1988 resolution is also the most recent one. The text currently fails to indicate that the resolutions dried up 25 years ago and have never restarted, which I think is an important point here.

China is a significant economic power, but it is not so powerful politically that its POV is necessarily significant in all cases regardless of circumstances - even in a dispute half way around the world, where China has no clear current or historical stake. And indeed one of the sources strongly implies that for China this as a quid pro quo - China wants Argentine support over Taiwan and regards supporting Argentina over the Falklands to be the price of that support.

I find the case that Gaba makes for China to be near-identical to the cases he has previously made for several others, and it seems to me that the answer is no different. I see it as the thin end of the wedge - the thick end being the full-blown list of countries that is widely opposed here. Per policy, only reliable secondary sources on the subject at hand are appropriate for judging weight, and I note that several of the sources that Gaba claims as evidence are primary sources, and/or are not on the subject at hand but are specifically on the subject of individual summits or statements. I'm sure we can find a lot of sources about the Argentina-England football match in the 1986 World Cup - but that doesn't provide evidence that we should be giving a match report in this article. For the same reason, I see no policy-based reason for China to be mentioned in this article. Kahastok talk 20:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could create your own proposed text that incorporates your concerns? I think we are very close to something now. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I will have a look at it. Kahastok talk 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I can largely support this as a draft text. A couple of points I think need to be addressed. I changed my draft to reflect Apcbg's comments on the EU. I would suggest you look at them. We're supposedly looking at the International dimension and the fact that the Falklands are eligible for EU funding should be mentioned. Similarly by not including the fact that whilst expressing support, many countries pay no more than lip service to supporting Argentina, is over emphasising it. I note that even commentators in Argentina make this comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I think "expressed support" is relatively muted language that does not imply a ringing endorsement. My inclination is to exclude any mention of EU funding because its existence can be, to a degree, be implied by the fact the islands are partly subject to EU law; however, I am open to persuasion. If these are the only issues you have, I would suggest updating the article with what exists and then opening a new discussion concerning these specifics. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Up to a point I'd agree, however, I'm not convinced muted language would suffice. Do you not think it persuasive that commentators in Argentina make this point? I do think the EU position important enough to mention, as it has been mentioned during talks between the EU and MERCOSUR but I'm more willing to compromise there. I didn't include it in my first draft and only added as Apcbg commented. Whilst I would be happy to proceed with adding your proposal, I don't think I'm the one you'll have to convince. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Scjessey, what do you think about China's position and the sources presented? Let me note that there has been no source presented yet to back the mention of the Commonwealth and that Wee and Kahastok oppose any mention of China (7 sources presented) but lobby for the inclusion of the Commonwealth (0 sources presented) I see this simply as a clear double standard and I'm inclined to open a ticket at DRN to get outside opinions. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Question: why is it relevant that the Falklands are eligible for EU funding? Does it carry an implication of support to the British position? If so, PLEASE SOURCE IT. No argumentative walls of text needed (nor desired). Thank you. --Langus (t) 00:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
“International position” is far from being confined to formal declarations in support of British sovereignty or the Argentine sovereignty claim. The EU dimension comprises the Falklands status of association according to Part IV of the EU Constitutional Treaty (cf. European Union: Consolidated Versions of the Treaty On European Union and of the Treaty Establishing The European Community.) involving actual legal, political and economic links (including EU funding too, unlike the imaginary legal association with the Argentine Tierra del Fuego province), a progressing comprehensive special relationship with the Union. (cf. Green Paper: Future relations between the EU and the overseas countries and territories. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 25 June 2008.; Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Green Paper.) For this reason, EU should come first in the proposed section. Apcbg (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I changed my draft in line with your comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Just letting everybody here know I've opened a request for outside help regarding the China/Commonwealth inclusion issue at DRN. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Apcbg, do you realize you have answered me with an argument of your own? I need a link to a secondary source presenting that same argument. Yours or Wee's is not enough, that's WP:OR. We already have a reliable source stating that the mere listing of a self governing territory DOES NOT IMPLY support to the administering power's position: Malvinas dispute a ‘bilateral issue’ which is not included in the EU agenda
So, that means that a) being listed as an overseas territories in then EU constitution doesn't mean a thing in this context (and I am not the one saying this, it's the UE ambassador Diez Torres, which ABSOLUTELY DEMOLISHES any argument that we -mere WP editors- can present); and b) you need a reliable source for the logical leap you are proposing. You can't "convince" us; here on Wikipedia you need a source.
Note that all your links talk about "overseas territories" and note the implications that this would have over Gibraltar, given the fact that Spain also signed those documents. --Langus (t) 16:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Langus, those comments don't actually relate to the proposed edit, which refers to what the status of the Falkland Islands in regards to the EU. No one said anything about EU support for the British position. I suggest you look at and read what is actually proposed before launching personal attacks like that, as to be honest you look decidedly foolish at this point. You're in high dudgeon about an edit that isn't even proposed. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, Gibraltar is not one of the EU overseas territories at all, as it is not listed in the relevant Annex to the cited Treaty. By virtue of Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome Gibraltar is a proper part of the Union instead. Apcbg (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
@WCM: and why is "the status of the Falkland Islands in regards to the EU" important to this article? Is this article about the EU? No, it is about the FI sovereignty dispute (not the FI either), and, more specifically, this section is about international views on the subject. If you mention the status of the islands in regards to EU, then you're asserting that this status is in fact a view on the subject, which is what you need to source with a reliable source, your reasoning is not enough.
Finally, note that you have no means to point to a personal attack in my last comment because I haven't done so, while I could complain that "you look decidedly foolish" is a (not exactly flattering) comment about me, not content.
@Apcbg: you're still presenting arguments of your own, product of the analysis of primary sources. --Langus (t) 14:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Langus, here are some reliable secondary sources on the status of association with the EU of the relevant overseas countries and territories including the Falklands:
1. Paul Joan George Kapteyn. The Law of the European Union and the European Communities: With Reference to Changes to be Made by the Lisbon Treaty. Kluwer Law International, 2008. 1406 pp. ISBN 9789041128164
2. Timothy Bainbridge, Anthony Teasdale. The Penguin companion to European Union. Penguin Books, 1995. 502 pp. ISBN 9780140165104
3. Dimitry Kochenov. European Union Law of the Overseas. European Monographs Vol. 77. Kluwer Law International, 2011. 492 pp. ISBN 9789041134455
4. Rebecca Adler-Nissen and Ulrik Gad, Eds. European Integration and Postcolonial Sovereignty Games: The EU Overseas Countries and Territories. Routledge, 2012. 252 pp. ISBN 9780415657273
Hope this helps. Apcbg (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not questioning the status of association, but the fact that this status has any meaning in the context of the sovereignty dispute. I'll repeat: this section is about international views on the subject. If you mention the status of association, then you're asserting that this status is in fact a view on the subject, which is what you need to source with a reliable source. --Langus (t) 00:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that further clarification might be appropriate for the readers’ benefit. We could add some text like: “Argentina objects to the Falklands’ association status with EU and demands their removal from the relevant EU Treaties, which demand has been dismissed by the Union.” Sources: Argentina protests inclusion of Falklands/Malvinas in EU constitution. Mercopress, 27 April 2005; Argentina's protest receives no EU presidency response. Mercopress, 29 April 2005; Outrage at Falklands definition. BBC News, 29 April 2005; Malvinas in EU Constitution, “unfortunately affect us”. Mercopress, 2 May 2005; 2010 Ibero-American Summit to Address Malvinas Sovereignty. Mercopress, 3 December 2009; Falklands/Malvinas bilateral issue, but Islands are covered by EU as British OT. Mercopress, 20 January 2012; Malvinas dispute a ‘bilateral issue’ which is not included in the EU agenda. Mercopress, 31 January 2012; Argentinean Legislators Reaffirm Sovereignty over Malvinas Islands. Xinhua – Radio Havana Cuba, 27 February 2012. Apcbg (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright! That seems acceptable and certainly not OR: Argentina protests its inclusion and the EU dismisses this protest. However, we still need to clarify why they dismiss it, so the reader won't think that it is because of strong support for the British position or something along those lines. --Langus (t) 10:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if we could duly source our possible explanation, without which it would be our OR I’m afraid. Mind it, the Falklands dispute is nothing extraordinary for the European Union; a number of other European possessions around the world are subject to various claims, too. We have also the British Antarctic islands of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands claimed by Argentina; the British Indian Ocean archipelago of Chagos claimed both by Mauritius and Seychelles; the French Indian Ocean islands of Bassas da India, Europa, Glorioso and Juan da Nova claimed by Madagascar, Tromelin claimed by Mauritius, and Mayotte claimed by Comoros; the French New Caledonia islands of Matthew and Hunter claimed by Vanuatu; the Spanish African enclaves of Ceuta, Melilla and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera, and islands of Peñón de Alhucemas, Islas Chafarinas and Isla Perejil claimed by Morocco; and the Danish Greenland's Hans Island claimed by Canada. Most likely, because of EU members’ solidarity as well as an obvious common European interest in having preferential access to those most valuable territories (inhabited by EU citizens by the way) and their resources (enormous EEZs and exceptional biodiversity if nothing else), the European Union has no good reason to question the sovereignty exercised by its member states over their outlying possessions – even the British and French Antarctic claims which are effectively under Antarctic Treaty governance. Apcbg (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we can: "The EU ambassador explained that there is certain confusion regarding the Lisbon treaty since the fact that the Falklands/Malvinas are included is “merely descriptive”. Member states enumerate their overseas territories and in this case “it’s an article from previous treaties”". --Langus (t) 18:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The quoted statement does not answer your question, “we still need to clarify why they dismiss it.” If the Falklands inclusion was “merely descriptive,” why not remove it? If it was “an article from previous treaties” in 2012, then it was not an article from previous treaties in 1973, when first included by consensus in the EU consitutional treaty and Argentina’s protest was dismissed – why? (Sourced: “El Tratado de Roma, en su Anexo 4, contiene disposiciones especiales para los territorios de ultramar (PTU). Al suscribirse en 1973 el Tratado de Adhesión entre el Reino Unido y la Comunidad Europea quedaron incorporadas, como territorio de ultramar británico, las Islas Malvinas (Falklands para los ingleses), sus dependencias (Georgias del Sur y Sandwichs del Sur) y el denominado territorio Antártico Británico. Argentina protestó esta medida ante cada uno de los Estados signatarios.”) Apcbg (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Because there's no need to do so! And it would be extremely complicated, if not impossible: the UK would oppose and unanimity is required. Here you have his full answer, in Spanish as it was originally given:


Source: Díez Torres: "El tema de las Malvinas no entra en la política exterior europea"

And it makes sense: this annex has formerly contained territories that are now independent countries, such as: Vietnam, Morocco, Cameroon, Rwanda, Suriname, Bahamas, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Brunei, etc.

Gibraltar is covered under Article 355(3), which applies to "the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible". Declaration 55 of the Treaty ("Declaration by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland") says that "The Treaties apply to Gibraltar as a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. This shall not imply changes in the respective positions of the Member States concerned". That is, sovereignty issue is avoided.

Argentina is forced to protest its inclusion, "to safeguard the Argentine position regarding Islas Malvinas". Not doing so could be alleged as an act of sovereignty by the UK not protested by anyone. --Langus (t) 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense to amend the Lisbon Treaty provisions on the Falklands, says Díez Torres. That may well make no sense for the EU (Amb. Díez Torres is EU), yet it apparently does make sense for Argentina which after Díez Torres’ statement continues to demand the removal of the Islands from the EU constitutional treaty.
As EU members, Spain and Britain have equal saying on the EU policies on Gibraltar, while – unlike Britain – the non-member Argentina has no such saying on the EU policies on the Falklands. Furthermore, while the Spanish position is safeguarded by the British declaration on Gibraltar that you quote, there is no such British declaration on the Falklands to safeguard the Argentine position. Apcbg (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't support the revised draft, the Commonwealth of Nations plays a significant role in the Falkland Islands and to simply not mention it is illogical and doesn't reflect the weight attached in sources. I have provided secondary sources, I've been doing so for some time, so I can't understand why you say there are none. I was prepared to compromise to accept the previous draft in order to get an agreement, this draft I cannot simply because it is pushing an agenda favouring Argentine claims by what it omits. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee: the key issue here are sources. You and Kahastok have been arguing for weeks that we should not only have reliable secondary sources for each statement but that we should adhere to an ad-hoc standard (invented by you two) that only information in secondary sources "on the subject at hand" could be used to asses WP:WEIGHT. You have been rejecting all kinds of information on the basis of that "standard" while supporting the mention of the Commonwealth which violates both those standards. You can't use a different set of rules for information you like and information you dislike. It isn't WP:NPOV and it's a clear "double standard".
Scjessey, regarding the inclusion of China: this presents a broader discussion about which information should be added into the article. Your comments are valid but, wouldn't this way of deciding what goes in and what doesn't (ie: using our own geo-political criteria/analysis) be a reach of WP:OR? In any case I agree with you, let's put up a version and continue the discussion on what information should be added within the article. I can support your draft version to be edited in as is. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Gaba claims again I have not provided a source as a basis for judging weight - some previous diffs [12],[13],[14]. I have repeatedly provided a basis for establishing weight most recently [15] and first on 20 January 2013 [16]. Apologies if other editors find these childish games as boring as I do.
As regards mention of China, a suitable source for establishing the quid pro quo, prior to this China maintained an official policy of neutrality. Taiwan's position also is of interest to the broader discussion. I'm sure we should also mention Iran, Syria or other states motivated by their anti-Western views.
I do not agree with adding the revised draft for the previously stated reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • @Gaba - WP:OR only applies to something you are adding to the article, rather than something you are not. I think the "China question" should be discussed after we have put an updated section into the article.
  • @Wee - I am somewhat sympathetic to your position; however, the "Commonwealth question" is something that can be discussed after we have updated the section.
  • @All - I think we should proceed with putting in the "revised" version of my proposal and then immediately begin two separate and fresh discussions about inserting language pertaining to China and the Commonwealth. These appear to be the only things holding us up, and I think it is silly to not have a halfway decent international section just because we have two little issues that need resolving. What say you? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think a section that ignores any form of support for Britain can possibly be neutral.
And I'd put another point that I don't think people have considered yet. In my view, it is not at all appropriate for a section intended to be of this length to go under a (== Level 2 ==) heading - that's just asking for the section to be re-expanded and this whole process will not be a lasting improvement. Better to go for a (=== Level 3 ===) heading, probably under the "Current claims" section, which would be renamed "Current situation" or "Current position". The current third-level headings "Argentina" and "United Kingdom" would change to "Argentine claims" and "British claims". Kahastok talk 21:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. Please make a proposal of your own, Kahastok. So far, I have only seen you pick holes in the proposals of others. Put something up so I can get a sense of what you are looking for. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I've already compromised so much and now your text has diverted from presenting a NPOV. Its no longer a case of compromising, every item I suggest should be included per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV has been removed so that the resulting text is no longer neutral but pretty much states what Argentina claims by default. I cannot in good conscience agree to adding it in the form you suggest. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Whining about neutrality? See: Malvinas dispute a ‘bilateral issue’ which is not included in the EU agenda. The listing means nothing to this dispute, according to the only reliable source that we have right now on the subject.
I suggest that at least we properly weight its meaning by adding something along the lines of "However, EU ambassador in Buenos Aires, Alfonso Diez Torres, downplayed the meaning of its inclusion, noting that Spain signed the treaty despite Gibraltar being listed as British territory".
Although, obviously, the non-WP:OR way to go would be to just leave it out. --Langus (t) 00:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Except that Gibraltar is listed as British territory nowhere in that Treaty.
The Argentine observers and statesmen are well aware of the sovereignty implications of the Falklands association status with EU, see for instance Malvinas in EU Constitution, “unfortunately affect us”. Mercopress, 2 May 2005; Malvinas, el colonialismo y la soberanía Clarín, 30 de abril 2005; Para la UE, las islas Malvinas son británicas. La Nación, 14 de diciembre 2007 (“For the EU, the Falklands are British” ... “"El Gobierno rechazó, ante las instituciones y los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea, la pretensión de incluir a partes del territorio nacional argentino en la lista de países y territorios a los que se aplica el régimen de Asociación de los Países y Territorios de Ultramar del Tratado de Lisboa", dijo la Cancillería, en un comunicado oficial.”); Reclaman a Europa por las islas Malvinas La Nacion, 07 de noviembre de 2006 (“Las islas figuran en esa lista, por lo que eso significaría reconocerles la soberanía británica.” – “The islands are on this list, so that would mean recognizing their British sovereignty.”).
They remain unconvinced by Amb. Diez Torres’ placating words seeking to sweeten Brussel’s negative answer (EU will not consider amending its Treaty), and keep on demanding that the Islands be removed from the EU Constitutional Treaty, see Argentinean Legislators Reaffirm Sovereignty over Malvinas Islands. Xinhua – Radio Havana Cuba, 27 February 2012. (“Meanwhile, the lawmakers called on the European Union to exclude the islands from European overseas territories in the EU Constitution Treaty.”).
The EU financial aid for the Falklands is also regarded as relevant to the sovereignty dispute, with Argentina protesting against that aid too, see Nueva protesta por la ayuda de la Unión Europea a Malvinas. Clarín, 15 de agosto 2006. Apcbg (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Apcbg, I've answered you above. Looks good to me. --Langus (t) 10:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

@Wee: if you want to include the Commonwealth you need sources that mention the Commonwealth's position on the issue. I know you understand this and thus I see your constant beating around the bush as simply an acknowledgement that you have no such sources.

@Langus: I agree that the way the EU is being mentioned right now is biased towards implying a "support" of some sort towards the British position and that a sentence like the one you propose is needed to put the inclusion of the islands in EU's constitution into proper context. @Scjessey: I agree that your current version is the most suitable for its inclusion. I would only make a minor change at this moment, this "interests of the Falkland Islanders" for this "interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". The last phrasing is verbatim taken from the 1965 resolution and I believe it to be more neutral. In any case this can also be talked about later on, after your version is added into the article.
@All: I would like to draw the attention of other editors here to the noticeboards where Wee and I have raised this issue: NPOVN and DRN. In both noticeboards un-involved editors have commented that reliable secondary sources such as newspapers are perfectly valid to establish weight and asses the merit of a given country's inclusion; a point they refuse to take. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Spanish word for the Falkland Islands is included in the beginning of the article. It does not need to be used again unless it is part of a direct quote. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It is a direct quote, the statement "interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" is a verbatim quote from the 1965 resolution. That's why I say we should stick as close as possible to the original wording as to avoid problems down the road. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
We are not using that direct quote, so there is no need to use the Spanish language version. I can't imagine what "problems down the road" you anticipate. Besides, this is the English language version of Wikipedia and the use of the Spanish in the lede is quite sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Having seen endless discussions over single words in articles related to this issue my recommendation is to adhere to the original wording as much as possible. That said, I'd have no problems endorsing your last version for its inclusion in the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's get on with it, folks!

Latest comment: 11 years ago30 comments6 people in discussion

This reversion by Kahastok is unnecessary. I believe the section as added represents a reasonable compromise of all positions. It includes the Commonwealth stuff desired by Wee, and also the China stuff desired by Gaba. Both have been modified to make them palatable to both "sides". I would like to see Kahastok self-revert, or at least consent to it being restored. There is no reason why we cannot continue to modify the section afterward, but I think this represents a reasonable base section from which to move forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree both with Kahastok's edit and his points made at the DRN discussion; furthermore, the proposed texts still fail to reflect adequately the EU aspect as discussed here. Apcbg (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd also agree with it, please don't assume my support would extend to over riding a quite reasonable position of another editor. For info, I would reword the section on China as it changed from a neutral position. I have been away and I see passions seem to have cooled. I would hope a consensus is easier now. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The current version is a tremendous compromise on my part. It includes the Commonwealth (poorly if not directly un-sourced), mentions Canada (which, if we were to adhere to W&K's original "standard for inclusion" shouldn't be mentioned at all) and mentions China the way Wee wanted to (now moving the goal posts). Wee and Kahastok keep opposing though. I agree with Scjessey, there is no reason we can not continue improving the section afterward. The discussion has been going on here and at DRN for well over a month and W&K's continued opposing is getting ridiculous. I echo Scjessey's call for Kahastok to self-rv as soon as possible. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on content not editors. You will note my comment on China was a purely minor tweak, easily achieved. Note also I did not oppose but stated quite explicitly my support for a particular aspect of the text did not justify over-ruling another editor whilst there was a move to achieving a consensus. I have offered a text proposal including material I believed to be important, which has been repeatedly removed from text proposals. I've added some germane material about Kosovo and attempted to address the concerns expressed by Apcbg - I believe they are broadly in line with previous discussions on the matter, Wee Curry Monster talk 12:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Translation: you are still opposing.
All this stuff you talk about can easily be discussed after the section is included in the article. As both you and Kahastok are well aware, the section we include will not remain unchanged forever (this is Wikipedia remember?) so this apparent request that we wait until a definitive version that suits 100% all parties in every minor detail can be drafted is both ridiculous and inane. As I've said, this version includes your demand that the Commonwealth and Canada be mentioned and it even mentions China the way you wanted. To continue opposing its inclusion is just gaming WP. Once again I urge Kahastok to self-rv or Wee to restore the section. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I can understand and sympathise with any reluctance to implement a consensus text until there is agreement. The problem with discussing anything after implementation is the track record of filibustering to frustrate consensus. What continues to be frustrating is, despite your asseertion I'd agreed to something, it didn't address China in the way I thought appropriate, you simply implemented it without giving me a chance to comment. And here we are again, I am defending myself against your attacks rather than discussing content. If you could resist the urge to drag the dicussion down to childish levels it owuld be appreciated by all. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Your new proposed text seems to contain an awful lot about Argentina's position, rather than the position of the international community. It's also surprisingly long. And frankly, it is your "return" from brief absence that has ratcheted up the personal rhetoric, if anything. I feel very strongly that the compromise text worked out between me and Gaba represents a solid foundation from which to move forward. It should not be seen as a "final version" or anything like that, but something that we can build on. I'd like you to read it once again and compare it to your earlier proposals, which were very similar. The article is being harmed by having nothing at all, so we need to put something in very soon. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have made no remarks about other editors so frankly your comments blaming me for personal rhetoric are complete and utter bollocks. Actually that comment is a pretty effective way of making things worse by encouraging it to continue and increasing the tension by targeting those still urging restraint. I would oppose putting in the compromise text you and Gaba worked out, because it clearly doesn't include elements I considered important based on what I read in the source material. And whilst I don't see it as needing much work, I wouldn't agree with adding it till there was agreement, as having been implemented there would be filibustering to prevent a consensus emerging on including anything else. Please feel free to further increase tension by accusing me of assuming bad faith but it would still be me being a realist borne out of long and bitter experience of trying to do anything with those two if it doesn't promote the Argentine POV.
The argument that the article is being harmed is frankly hyperbolic nonsense. We have no need to put in "something" soon. As to the claim of the article being harmed? Actually no its not, we've not had one single edit war demanding we mention the latest super important summit that Argentina has announced supported it. Yet within hours of that piece going in, you had some anonymous IP editor doing precisely that. It is all the more compelling reasons for getting things right from the outset.
I have offered a text in good faith, I remain willing to compromise and once again ask editors to comment on content not each other. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster asked me to provide some input. After reading the above discussion, I continue to believe that Wee Curry Monster's proposal from the DRN case is a good middle ground, that is consistent with WP policies. That proposal was:

1. Argentine motivations (a) Domestic politics (b) 1994 Constitution

2. Argentine diplomatic offensive to constantly raise the issue
3. Latin American support noting that commentators observe it is little more than "lip service"
4. US official policy of neutrality but noting that previously it supported the UK due to its own dispute over the Falklands
5. Commonwealth of Nations support for the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination
6. EU dimension
7. China's previous ambivalent position changing to support due to a quid pro quo with Argentina in return for support on Taiwan.

I also think that the recent text that was in the article is fine:

Argentina has pursued an aggressive diplomatic agenda, regularly raising the issue and seeking international support. Most Latin American countries have expressed support for the Argentine position and called for negotiations to restart at regional summits. China has backed Argentina's sovereignty claim, reciprocating Argentina's support of the Chinese claim to Taiwan. Since 1964, Argentina has lobbied its case at the Decolonization Committee of the UN, which annually recommends dialogue to resolve the dispute. The UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions on the issue. In 1988, the General Assembly reiterated a 1965 request that both countries negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute and respect the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the principles of UN GA resolution 1514. The United States and the European Union recognize the de facto administration of the Falkland Islands and take no position over their sovereignty; however, the EU classifies the islands as an overseas country or territory of the UK, subject to EU law in some areas. The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory. At the 2012 OAS summit Canada stated its support for the islanders right to self-determination.

I also think that keeping all text out of the article until a final agreement is reached in the Talk page is not best for WP readers. That could lead to 1 editor filibustering and preventing any text from being inserted. Best is to insert some middle-ground text; then identify the 2 or 3 issues with the text; then to have RfCs on the specific issues. But that could take 2 or 3 months, and leaving the text out for the duration is not ideal. --Noleander (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the step of re-inserting the above text into the article, so WP readers can get some information. I think the next step is to create an RfC on the specific remaining issues. --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that that material does not include any citations (footnotes), so I've self-reverted and removed the text. The material should be in the article, but it needs citations, of course. An editor familiar with the material should supply citations, and I would support inserting it if the citations were included. --Noleander (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I think I did propose a good middle ground. However, the reason for proposing agreement in talk before implementing is all too apparent in previous discussions. I don't agree with the above text for one minor reason - China changed position from neutral to supporting Argentina as part of a Quid pro quo over Taiwan. You would think this is a minor fix but although I've kept a low profile for a week, instead we had two editors resorting to personal remarks when it was simple to resolve and I would probably have agreed for now.
Secondly take point 3. I can source several political commentators referring to Argentine support being little more than lip service. Any attempt to put in informed comment is denounced as being there to "water down the support Argentina enjoys". There will be an insistence if I include it that numerous quotes by Chavez, for example, are included as "balance". At no point has there been sourced comment that demonstrates those comments do not reflect the weight of opinion in the literature. Your reference to filibustering is most appropriate, there would be filibustering to prevent comments of that nature being inserted into the text and I have to observe the reasons for excluding it are based in narrow nationalism not wikipedia's policy on neutrality.
So I have to observe the imperative for achieving agreement on all points is that there will be no incentive not to filibuster without it. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Noleander: I've added citations to the nearly consensual version above. Please tell me if there's anything else you need before adding the section into the article.

The problem with Wee's version you mention above is that it has failed to get consensus (for many reasons not worth getting into again). You'll see that all the proposed versions are quite similar except the last one proposed by Wee which is the largest (even though he and Kahastok argued the section needed to be small) and the one that introduces the most disputable statements (which is why it's not even close to being a middle ground). My last version on the other hand, which is really Scjessey's version to which I made minor additions to accommodate Wee and Kahastok's requests, is the closest one to full consensus. I'd appreciate it if you could add it back into the article because if I do so either Wee or Kahastok will immediately remove it. Regards Gaba p (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
(PS: this "water down the support Argentina enjoys" is a completely made up statement.)

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 12 Where you'll find numerous comments by User:Gaba p that material should not be included as it is variously "downplaying" or "diluting" Argentine support. Yes he never said verbatim "water down the support Argentina enjoys" but semantics aside, I was correct in my description and this is not a valid reason for censoring content on wikipedia. Its being excluded for reasons of narrow nationalism not grounds relevant to wikipedia. My text proposals have had support and the first comment at DRN by a purely neutral editor was it represented a good middle ground.
Similarly as I've previously indicated, sourcing as done by Gaba P seems more about listing as more C24 sessions as possible in the guise of sourcing rather than providing a reliable source for a single fact. Its introducing bias in the guise of citations not providing a suitable base for sourcing. You need a simple source from a reliable reference, not this sledge hammer approach.
I oppose the proposed text - it doesn't address key aspects and its simply the thin end of the wedge as far as I can see it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think everyone needs to go and look "compromise" up in a dictionary. Right now we are at the "I'm willing to compromise as long as we start with my version" point, which is not compromise at all. We were this close to working something out, and then all of a sudden we are back to square one. DRN was no help at all and has just left us with two separate discussions with editors talking past each other. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry no, I supported your text right up to the point where I'd compromised so much it became unacceptable. And we were at a point where a minor tweak would have addressed my concerns but rather than compromising yourself you chose to join in personalising the dispute rather than urging a focus on content. We were close to working something out and no I am not so fucking precious as to demand we start with my version. I am happy to start with yours if it helps your ego, providing it addresses the content suggested by sources and content is not excluded for illegitimate reasons. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

Scjessey: I'm not really responding to Wee anymore because what he proposes, as you correctly point out, is basically that we start from square one discussing yet another version (or another group of additions) by him. As you know, this is not reasonable. The version I proposed is your version with three edits to accommodate Wee's requests: the Commonwealth, Canada and China mentioned the way he wanted to. Even though I compromised to all his requests he's still opposing.
The discussion at DRN is closed so there are really no separate discussions, just this one. I find it rather amusing how Wee now accuses me of "censoring content on wikipedia" when it was him and Kahastok who completely deleted the old version of the section. Oh, the irony.
Noleander: you'll see that I present several sources for the "Latin America" sentence. Wee believes this is "bias in the guise of citations" (does such a thing exist?) so feel free to select the ones you feel are more relevant or ask here if you want me to trim those sources down to just a few. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

When you can stop being childish and insulting me in the guise of talking to another editor, come back with your content proposal that addresses the very minor point I made that needs to be addressed. I remain unconvinced there is a need for this section at all, since the WP:WEIGHT attached to it in sources on the sovereignty dispute is none existent. Even being prepared to suggest suitable content is quite a compromise on my part. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sigh... let's try this again: Wee are you talking about the mention of China "changing its position from neutral"? If this is the only thing preventing you from lifting your block then for the love of god present the source that states this so we can move on. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the text with references. If we could start a new section to discuss it from here on, that would be great.
Wee, if you have a source for "changing its position from neutral" I won't oppose this inclusion. --Langus (t) 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring that section. That is a real benefit to readers. I think that from now on it would be best to just address incremental changes, one at a time, treating the text that Langus just restored as a baseline or starting point. The WP:RFC process can be used if there is a specific issue that cannot be resolved here in the talk page. --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Initially, I reverted it, thought about it some more and self-reverted. I would like to thank Langus for sourcing it the correct manner, as I indicated the way it was being done was problematic. I will look at sourcing my comment again but if I find any change I suggest is simply reverted I suggest we will go back to having nothing again. All the personal abuse and rhetoric leads me to conlude that any change I suggest is going to be opposed by certain parties simply because I made it. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Wee, but you don't get to say "we do things my way or I delete the whole thing". That's not how it works. I agree with Noleander that we should now treat each incremental change one at a time. So, in that spirit: Wee would you please give me one good reason I shouldn't revert this edit you made? You changed "reciprocating" for "in return for" when the source used says verbatim reciprocating[17]. Understand that this has nothing to do with you making the edit, it's just an edit we can not support with our sources. So either present a source for the edit you just made or please self-rv until you have one. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
This is getting simply ridiculous. The edit summary indicated why I changed it, we do not have to use the same exact words as the source. Your comments merely re-inforce my point you'll oppose a change simply because of who made it, not whether it materially improved the article or not. You seem determined to create conflict with me for no good reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
No Wee, this is Wikipedia. We use sources. You can not presume to make changes to an article with no sources to support them. You have no real reason to change the wording (improve English and grammar flow?) and it did not improve the article in any way, so I'll revert it to the wording used in the source. I also noticed you took the liberty to add quite a bit of text to the section. Fair enough, I'll do the same myself so we can have a more complete section. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
If you can source a commentary from a suitable reliable source then that is fine but if we're going to see further disruptive insertion of a load of crass comments by Chavez as "balance" as you've done previously I will revert back to where we were. People have better things to do than play your childish games, it really is about time you grew up and stop being a WP:DICK. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all: your personal attacks and aggressiveness are not helpful. Second: everything I ever add to the article is 100% sourced by reliable sources. Third: your mention of Chavez's crass comments is borderline racist. Fourth: I really do not appreciate you insulting me so please let that be the last time. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

[18] And this is exactly what I meant. This is not an example of commentators commenting about the practical levels of support that results from Argentina's aggressive diplomatic campaign. It is:
a) a reference to a summit where Latin American states agreed to a token gesture of banning Falklands flagged vessels. None of which visted Latin American ports, which would be welcomed anyway if they switched to the Red duster. Its an example of precisely the token action referred to as "Lip service" by commentators.
b) Chavez spouting off that he will defend Argentina if it faces "imperialist aggession". A comment simply chosen for its rhetorical content, it has no meaning whatsoever.
Notably, nothing of relevance, added purely disruptively, sourced but violating WP:WEIGHT.
I treat the attempt to paint me a racist with the utter contempt it deserves. You think I'm a racist, take it to WP:ANI. If you don't, then aplogise now or I will take it to ANI. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Wee, you can't expect an article to only include the information you regard as important and disregard everything else. The two "commentators" you added to the article are pretty much nobody yet you somehow see fit to assign them enough WP:WEIGHT to warrant their opinions inclusion in the section. I disagree with that but I still I left them there. Now you can't at the same time disregard related and properly sourced information because you feel "it has no meaning whatsoever". I've already commented on your WP:OWN attitude regarding Falkland related articles Wee and this is yet another example of it. I urge you to please self-rv the section back into place.
I do believe referring to the official statements by the president of a Latin American nation as crass comments is borderline racist, as I believe referring to the actions of a female president as a "hissy fit" (as you did not long ago) is borderline misogynistic (and I told you that much at the time). I'd suggest striking that part of your comment. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Falklands 2012: War or Diplomacy?, July 2012, Geopolitical Monitor.
  2. ^ Argentina and the Falkland Islands UK Parliament - House of Commons, Jan 2012
  3. ^ The Falkland Islands and the UK v Argentina Oil Dispute: Which Legal Regime, Alice Ruzza, 2011, Goettingen J. Int'l L. 71.
  4. ^ Malvinas: nuevo apoyo de la Unasur, La Nacion, Dec 2012
  5. ^ 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
  6. ^ "XX Ibero American Summit: What happened". momento24.com. 4 December 2010. Retrieved 29 December 2010.
  7. ^ (in Spanish)Special Communiqué on the Falkland Islands Question – [segib.org SEGIB]
  8. ^ Declaration on "The issue of the Malvinas Islands"
  9. ^ BBC News, Q&A: Argentina's diplomatic offensive on Falklands, June 2012
  10. ^ http://en.mercopress.com/2011/12/26/china-and-argentina-ratify-crossed-support-for-taiwan-and-falklands-claims
  11. ^ 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, Special Committee on Decolonization. General Assembly. UN.org. June 2002-2012
  12. ^ United Nations Documents on the Falklands-Malvinas Conflict, South Atlantic Council
  13. ^ UN General Assembly Resolution 43/25, Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), 1988
  14. ^ "U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands". U.S. State Department. 19 January 2012. PRN: 2012/087. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
  15. ^ "Malvinas dispute a bilateral issue which is not included in the EU agenda". MercoPress. Retrieved January 13, 2013.
  16. ^ Commonwealth United Kingdom - Falkland Islands, retrieved on 13 February 2012
  17. ^ OAS backs Argentina Falklands claim, Express, June 2012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute/Archive_14&oldid=954521666"